A Brilliant Idea That Isn't

Some folks at the U.N. have an idea that they seem to regard as brilliant. The idea is that the U.S., which built the Internet and grew it into the stunning, civilization-changing success that it is today, should cede control of the Internet to . . .  (are you read?) . . . (drumroll, please) . . . a U.N. committee.

This is indeed a brilliant idea.

Except for the fact that it isn’t.

Fortunately, the fact that it isn’t a brilliant idea has occurred to others. Sen. Norm Coleman of Minnesota, for example.

"My probe of the U.N. as Chairman of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations revealed management that was at best, incompetent, and at worst corrupt," said Coleman. "The first priority for the United Nations must be fundamental reform of its management and operations rather than any expansion of its authority and responsibilities. The Internet has flourished under U.S. supervision, oversight, and private sector involvement. This growth did not happen because of increased government involvement, but rather, from the opening on the Internet to commerce and private sector innovation. Subjecting the Internet and its security to the politicized control of the UN bureaucracy would be a giant and foolhardy step backwards."

"Recently, I introduced UN reform legislation with the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations, Senator Dick Lugar (R-IN), known as the Coleman-Lugar UN Reform Bill, to help put an end to a culture of corruption that was exposed by the Oil for Food scandal, peacekeeping sexual abuse scandals, and other instances of organizational failures at U.N.," Coleman said. "Putting the U.N. in charge of one of the world’s most important technological wonders and economic engines is out of the question. This proposal would leave the United States with no more say over the future of the Internet than Cuba or China-countries that have little or no commitment to the free flow of information."

Yeah, that’s what we really need: Giving China U.N. Security Council-level veto power over decisions affecting the Internet. That’ll be really good for the free flow of information and ideas.

Perhaps if China and other countries are not satisfied with the U.S. controlling the Internet that it built and organized then maybe they should build their own Internet.

Heck, do a better job with a second Internet and I’m sure Americans will be trying to book time on it, instead.

That’s the nice thing about competition.

In the meantime,

GET THE STORY.

A Brilliant Idea That Isn’t

Some folks at the U.N. have an idea that they seem to regard as brilliant. The idea is that the U.S., which built the Internet and grew it into the stunning, civilization-changing success that it is today, should cede control of the Internet to . . .  (are you read?) . . . (drumroll, please) . . . a U.N. committee.

This is indeed a brilliant idea.

Except for the fact that it isn’t.

Fortunately, the fact that it isn’t a brilliant idea has occurred to others. Sen. Norm Coleman of Minnesota, for example.

"My probe of the U.N. as Chairman of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations revealed management that was at best, incompetent, and at worst corrupt," said Coleman. "The first priority for the United Nations must be fundamental reform of its management and operations rather than any expansion of its authority and responsibilities. The Internet has flourished under U.S. supervision, oversight, and private sector involvement. This growth did not happen because of increased government involvement, but rather, from the opening on the Internet to commerce and private sector innovation. Subjecting the Internet and its security to the politicized control of the UN bureaucracy would be a giant and foolhardy step backwards."

"Recently, I introduced UN reform legislation with the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations, Senator Dick Lugar (R-IN), known as the Coleman-Lugar UN Reform Bill, to help put an end to a culture of corruption that was exposed by the Oil for Food scandal, peacekeeping sexual abuse scandals, and other instances of organizational failures at U.N.," Coleman said. "Putting the U.N. in charge of one of the world’s most important technological wonders and economic engines is out of the question. This proposal would leave the United States with no more say over the future of the Internet than Cuba or China-countries that have little or no commitment to the free flow of information."

Yeah, that’s what we really need: Giving China U.N. Security Council-level veto power over decisions affecting the Internet. That’ll be really good for the free flow of information and ideas.

Perhaps if China and other countries are not satisfied with the U.S. controlling the Internet that it built and organized then maybe they should build their own Internet.

Heck, do a better job with a second Internet and I’m sure Americans will be trying to book time on it, instead.

That’s the nice thing about competition.

In the meantime,

GET THE STORY.

Scripture Translations At Mass

A reader writes:

Prof. Dr. Jimmy:

If you’ve addressed this before, then my profuse apologies.

Question, Short Form:  Is the NAB the only Bible from which readings at Mass may be used?

Answer, Short Form: Technically, no, but you’re not going to have much of a chance of getting another used, at least in the U.S.

Question, Longer Form:  As we all (that is, we being, well, we) recognize, the NAB is, to put it nicely, just somewhat lacking when it comes to translational accuracy; or, as Butthead once said, "This sucks more than anything that has ever sucked before."  Given either premise, is substitution allowed?  Specifically for the Torah, I have in mind Everett Fox’s ‘The Schocken Bible, Vol. I.’  While I am aware that it, too, has some problems, at least it seems to attempt to adhere to the poetic nature and intent of the early Hebrew writers.

Answer, Longer Form: Technically, the lectionary promoted by the USCCB is not simply based on the NAB. Parts of it are based on the NAB, but parts are based on an edited form of the Revised NAB, so what we have is a kind of patchwork lectioary composed from different sources. As has been pointed out, you cannot buy a Bible that has in it what the lectionary has in it. This is because of the unique redactional history of the current lectionary.

That being said, I would agree that the lectionary leaves much to be desired in the translational accuracy department and in the literary style department. Though the phrase is cute, I wouldn’t go so far as to agree with the literary character you mention who described it as "sucking more than anything has sucked before." I would apply that term to the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ New World "Translation," which is truly skin-peelingly bad.

Years ago there were permissions given for lectionaries based on other Scripture translations–the Jerusalem Bible and the Revised Standard Version (not the NRSV), as I recall correctly–and it was suggested that when the current lectionary came out that these permissions would get yanked, but as far as I know, they haven’t been, and so these lectionaries would technically still be permitted. There’s also a Lectionary for Masses with Children based on the Contemporary English Version.

The Shocken Bible’s version of the Torah, however, was never one of those approved versions.

The odds of getting an approved lectionary that isn’t the standard one used in a typical parish setting in the U.S. are very, very low. The current Lectionary for Mass published by the USCCB is the only one being promoted and the only approved one likely to be used.

If you’re interested in seeing how other English-speaking countries do things in this regard

LOOK HERE.

Four Of A Kine

From our Believe It Or Don’t Files, we bring you news of a cow who gave birth to quadruplets.

"It wasn’t that one of his cows had delivered twins that gave Paul Soucie pause when he checked his pasture. Eleven sets of twins had already been delivered this year on the farmstead near Deweese that Soucie runs with his wife, Janet. But what raised his curiosity on the morning of July 12 was that this particular cow still appeared pregnant.

"’I said, "She sure looks full for having already had twins. I wouldn’t be surprised if she has another calf,"’ Soucie said.

"He was right.

"The cow did indeed deliver another calf. Then another one.

"When the Soucies checked their pasture on July 13, they discovered that the cow had given birth to four offspring without human assistance."

GET THE STORY.

Just Imagine . . .

Yesterday I posted a query asking why we should fill up our imaginations with fiction: visions of ways God didn’t make the world.

Earlier today I posted a note that Jesus himself used fictions, therefore they must (in at least some circumstances) be okay to use.

Having established that, I’d like to go into the speculative basis of why they are okay to use.

Because fiction is such a part of our lives, many folks might pass quickly over the question of why we should do fiction at all and not register the full force of the question. For that reason, I tried to phrase the question as strongly as I could, even using prejudicial language and talking about "filling up our imaginations" with how "God didn’t make the world."

The first of these phrases makes it sound as if we’re cramming our minds full of fiction so that there’s no room left for anything else. In some cases, that may be true. Some people live in fantasy worlds, either in the sense of spending an unhealthy amount of time on fiction (like the Star Trek fans satirized in William Shatner’s famous "Get A Life!" sketch on SNL) or in the sense of being literally unable to distinguish fantasy from reality (in which case the person is clinically psychotic).

Those conditions represent the abuse of the imagination (in the case of obsessive fandom) or an outright mental illness (as in the case of psychotics). But just because a faculty can be disordered doesn’t mean that the faculty itself should not be part of human life.

In point of fact, it seems that coming up with fiction is something that is part of human nature. If it wasn’t for Jesus’ use of fiction, one could always say "Well, that’s just because of the Fall," but the phenomenon of storytelling is a true human universal. Every society has fiction, and that’s a pretty good clue that it’s something built into human nature.

The ostensible opposition between our imaginations and how God didn’t make the world is also prejudicial language.

After all: What does one suppose our imaginations are for, anyway? The whole point of an imagination is being able to envision how the world might be but isn’t–at least at present.

It’s true that we can use our imaginations to try to reconstruct the way that the world was or the way it might be right now in areas out of our sight, but one of its principal functions–and very likely its main function–is to enable us to model how the future might go. This allows us to plan, to envision how we’d like the world to be and then determine what’s the best way to move the world in that direction.

What will happen if I ask my boss for a raise? What arguments will be most effective in getting me one? Will this girl agree to marry me? How can I increase my chances of getting her to say yes? How can I get the baby to stop screaming at the top of his lungs? How can I get Fr. to end this liturgical abuse? Etc., etc., etc.

All of these are questions that involve envisioning the world a way it isn’t now. We may be using our imaginations in these cases to figure out how to change the world, but the point is that our imagination is still bound up, part and parcel, with the idea of fiction. Trying out fictions of how the world might be is what the imagination is for.

A person without the ability to engage the faculty of fiction has a broken imagination, and that’s all there is to it.

That’s only one reason why fiction is important, though.

More to come.

What Is Truth?

"For they have set out for his sake and have accepted nothing from the heathen. So we ought to support such men, that we may be fellow workers in the truth" (3 John 7-8).

Since the elevation of Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger to the papacy as Pope Benedict XVI, I have been reading several biographies of him. Among them are The Rise of Benedict XVI by John L. Allen Jr., the Vatican correspondent for the National Catholic Reporter, Pope Benedict XVI: His Life and Mission by non-Catholic Christian historian Stephen Mansfield; and Pope Benedict XVI: A Personal Portrait by Heinz-Joachim Fischer.

One thing that struck me in the various accounts of our new Holy Father is that although his passion for objective truth is like a golden thread woven throughout his life pattern, those who tell his life story remark that he is one of the kindest, gentlest people you could ever hope to meet. He has been known to publicly debate non-Catholics, even atheists, and yet he is acclaimed for acceding to the good points they make. For example, in one such debate, recounted by Allen, before Ratzinger’s election to the papacy, an atheist challenged Cardinal Ratzinger, saying that there was a difference between a "life" and a "person." Yes, Ratzinger acknowledged, that is true and conceded the point by commenting that even a plant is a "life" and that there should be careful distinction between the two terms.

Contrast this generous and humble attitude with that of certain non-Catholic Christians and even some Catholics who appear to be just as passionately concerned for the purity of objective truth, even to the extreme of fashioning faddish "No Compromise" bracelets, but who cannot concede that anyone but they could be right in every detail. A person must either agree with them on everything they declare to be The Essentials, or, quite literally, be facing damnation.

My question then is how passion for objective truth can place one person on the road to sanctity and others on the road to sanctimony.

Perhaps the answer is that there is a difference between a love of truth and a love of being right.

A love of truth can allow a man to be one of the staunchest defenders of Catholic orthodoxy of modern times and yet also allow for him to be personal friends with those who sharply disagree with him. Dr. Fischer, for example, recounts how Cardinal Ratzinger confided in him before the opening of the conclave that he hoped that the new pontiff, whom Ratzinger in no way thought would be he, might choose Ratzinger’s favorite papal name, "Benedict"; yet, at the same time, Dr. Fischer counsels supporters of women’s ordination that they may yet have hope of succeeding in the generations to come. In other words, Cardinal Ratzinger could both be a defender of Catholic orthodoxy and a personal friend of someone whose own views on certain issues apparently are quite heterodox.

On the other hand, a love of being right can allow non-Catholic Christian apologists to bicker viciously among themselves over whether Roman Catholics are Christians and all but excommunicate those they perceive to be Dancing With Roman Wolves. It can also allow certain Catholics to bicker among themselves over whose interpretation of Vatican II is Right and to dismiss as lost in the quicksands of "modernism" any who, for example, attend the standard rite of the Mass or who think Vatican II was a Good Thing.

Perhaps the key to choosing the road to sanctity rather than the road to sanctimony is to understand that we must be servants of the Truth — fellow-workers in the Truth, so to speak — rather than masters of Truth who keep Truth as our personal possession.

Truth is Someone, an infinite Someone (cf. John 14:6), and that means that it is outside ourselves and cannot be packed fully into our finite minds. We can have access to the Truth, like the householder who inventories his storeroom and continually finds treasure both new and old (cf. Matt. 13:52). It also means that we may not have the access to Truth that others have. The Church is the depository of all Truth and will be guided into all Truth, but individuals may not see some facets of the Truth that other individuals do. It is for us to accept those facets, "baptize" them where necessary, and discern how they fit into the larger Truth entrusted to the Church. It is not for us to dismiss others, even those of different religions or of no religion, as know-nothings. They may not know it all, but then neither do we.

In short, to be at the service of the Truth is to admit the possibility of being wrong. Without an ability to acknowledge when we are in error — or that it is even possible that we might err — we will never grow in Truth. We’ll have only that Truth about which we are sure that we’re right and no more.

A Knock-Down Blow

Let me give you what I consider to be a knock-down blow for the hypothesis we considered earlier that we shouldn’t be filling up our imaginations with fiction–imaginings of the way the world ain’t. I’ll offer additional arguments tomorrow (and I’m sure others will or by the time you read this already have offered them in the comboxes), but this one I consider a clincher:

Jesus used fiction.

If you think about it, that’s what his parables are: They’re short fictions.

When he starts talking about a man who went away on a journey and entrusted his property to his servants, it would be a mistake for someone in his audience to yell out "What was his name?!"

Someone actually does do that in Monty Python’s The Life Of Brian when Brian tries to tell a parable, but it’s missing the point. It’s a mistake.

It would be even more of a mistake to try to find out when and where the guy lived in history. When Jesus says things like this, he doesn’t have particular historical individuals in mind (so far as we know).

As a result, his parables are fictions. They may teach truths about the world, but the contain elements that aren’t the way the world is (or was or will be).

And if Jesus can use fiction . . . then so can we.