Some Random Thoughts On The Death Of The Holy Father

Guestblogger <Rule 15b>Sal</Rule15b> writes:

When I went up to go to confession Saturday, someone had placed a picture of the Pope on an easel in the narthex and draped it in black. The picture was “the red and gold” photo – one of the earliest official portraits. When I looked closer, I saw that the face and body were in bas relief: the picture was made of pressed plastic. And it was in one of those frames that aren’t even real wood, but wood-grained contact paper over pressboard. It had probably been hanging in the church office for twenty years., or someone brought it from home. Which is one of the things I love about the Church – we can be tacky and magnificent at the same time.

Sunday morning, my oldest daughter – the one I was expecting when John Paul II was elected- came over with our granddaughter to pick up some moving boxes.

“You know what we did last night? “ she asked. “ We just lay in bed and watched the coverage of the Pope’s life for hours. Jake said ‘Why are we doing this?’ but we couldn’t turn it off. It was so fascinating.”

Now you need to understand that our son-in-law is completely unchurched and innocent of any religious background at all. He’s not hostile towards religion – just doesn’t know anything about it. For him to watch hours of cable news about a man who didn’t even touch the periphery of his experience means something.

“You just can’t help but like him, “he said.

I didn’t convert until 1985, six years into this papacy. I credit the Pope’s unwavering stand on the things that actually matter with reassuring me that the Church really was indefectible, that rough patches could be overcome, and that God does provide- in this case, the right man for the job. And that in spite of the surrounding seeming chaos, it was still perfectly possible to be a good Catholic. At the time, my friends cautioned: “Oh, he’s okay – but what about the next guy? Huh?” After twenty years in the Church, I’m sure the “next guy” will do just fine.

Light Echo

P0502ab_2 Just when you think you have nature pretty well figgered out, it throws you a nifty curve. It’s one of the reasons that I prefer to paint from real life rather than my own imagination. Like, didja know that light can echo? That’s how the folks at the Hubble Heritage Project explain what is happening in the series of images from which the one shown was taken. While it appears that the cloud of dust and gas surrounding the red star is expanding, in reality it is not. The effect (seen better viewing the whole series) is caused by "light echo". The red giant gave off a sudden burst of intense light about three years ago, and as this light travels outward it illuminates material further and further from the star. Neat, huh?

The Hubble Heritage site is great for those times when you want to see some of the hidden beauty of God’s creation and just feel humbly grateful to live in this magical place.

Some of my favorites: Galaxy NGC 253, Thackeray’s Globules in IC 2944, and the Reflection Nebula in the Pleiades. I have been very fortunate in using my own paltry telescope and have actually viewed some nebulae, planets and star clusters with my own eyes, but you can’t beat Hubble. For one thing, the lense never fogs and you can have a nice cup-a-joe while you poke around intergalactic space. Enjoy.

Visit the HUBBLE HERITAGE Project.

A "Mystery" Solved?

So the other day I’m sitting around watching a Stargate SG-1 episode, and they’re going through this wormhole. Looks like this:

And I’m thinking: Why does it look like that? Why does it look like anything? The event horizon of the Stargate wormholes is supposed to disintegrate you into your component molecules and transmit them thorugh the wormhole. If you were totally discombobulated, you shouldn’t see anything.

But then we have evidence on the script-level of folks experiencing things in the wormhole, talking about what a "wild ride" they are and such.

So I think: Maybe when the wormhole disintegrates you, it doesn’t totally de-pattern you, it simply restructures your body in such a way that it can travel through the wormhole, but all the while you and your consciousness are still functioning. Your body’s been re-arranged, but it’s all still operational.

So then I thought: Hey, there’s evidence of the same thing on Star Trek. In that there Realm of Fear episode of Next Gen, Lt. BroccoliBarclay has some unusual experiences in the transporter beam (which he’s deathly afraid of [left]).

He even gets into a tussle with some critters that are up to no good in the transporter beam, though they later turn out to be something other than they appear (right).

The thing is: He’s conscious during all of this. So on Star Trek, like on Stargate, we have evidence of people remaining conscious and in some sense "together" during a period of de-materialization.

Now that may shed light on a long standing "mystery" in Star Trek: Namely, why you don’t simply die and get cloned each time you enter the transporter.

They recently referred to this problem in the episode of Enterprise where they had the inventor of the transporter guest star. During one scene they referred to all the "metaphysical" worries of folks about whether the transporter killed you and made a copy, at which point Trip looked around the dinner table and noted that, if that were true, "We’re all copies here."

Well, despite the fact I once saw a very neat cartoon on PBS exploring this premise (an animated character made a transporter transmitter and receiver out of two refrigerators then transported herself and pondered the moral implications of having done so, only to discover that despite the fact she died in the transmitter, she is now a "guiltless clone"), it would seem that Trek (and SG-1) ahve both provided evidence that this is not the case.

It seems to me that if your consciousness remains functional through the experience of being de-materialized then that’s at least presumptive evidence that it’s still you on the other end.

So the transporter and the Stargates are not killer+cloner devices.

Of course, since consciousness can exist independently of physical form, this leaves open the question of whether they are killer+resurrecter devices or just "repackaged for easy transport" devices.

A “Mystery” Solved?

So the other day I’m sitting around watching a Stargate SG-1 episode, and they’re going through this wormhole. Looks like this:

Wormhole

And I’m thinking: Why does it look like that? Why does it look like anything? The event horizon of the Stargate wormholes is supposed to disintegrate you into your component molecules and transmit them thorugh the wormhole. If you were totally discombobulated, you shouldn’t see anything.

But then we have evidence on the script-level of folks experiencing things in the wormhole, talking about what a "wild ride" they are and such.

So I think: Maybe when the wormhole disintegrates you, it doesn’t totally de-pattern you, it simply restructures your body in such a way that it can travel through the wormhole, but all the while you and your consciousness are still functioning. Your body’s been re-arranged, but it’s all still operational.

Barclay1 So then I thought: Hey, there’s evidence of the same thing on Star Trek. In that there Realm of Fear episode of Next Gen, Lt. BroccoliBarclay has some unusual experiences in the transporter beam (which he’s deathly afraid of [left]).

He even gets into a tussle with some critters that are up to no good in the transporter beam, though they later turn out to be something other than they appear (right).

The thing is: He’s conscious during all of this. So on Barclay2 Star Trek, like on Stargate, we have evidence of people remaining conscious and in some sense "together" during a period of de-materialization.

Now that may shed light on a long standing "mystery" in Star Trek: Namely, why you don’t simply die and get cloned each time you enter the transporter.

They recently referred to this problem in the episode of Enterprise where they had the inventor of the transporter guest star. During one scene they referred to all the "metaphysical" worries of folks about whether the transporter killed you and made a copy, at which point Trip looked around the dinner table and noted that, if that were true, "We’re all copies here."

Well, despite the fact I once saw a very neat cartoon on PBS exploring this premise (an animated character made a transporter transmitter and receiver out of two refrigerators then transported herself and pondered the moral implications of having done so, only to discover that despite the fact she died in the transmitter, she is now a "guiltless clone"), it would seem that Trek (and SG-1) ahve both provided evidence that this is not the case.

It seems to me that if your consciousness remains functional through the experience of being de-materialized then that’s at least presumptive evidence that it’s still you on the other end.

So the transporter and the Stargates are not killer+cloner devices.

Of course, since consciousness can exist independently of physical form, this leaves open the question of whether they are killer+resurrecter devices or just "repackaged for easy transport" devices.

Media Appearance

FYI, I’m about to be on Hugh Hewitt. (Imminently.)Was just on Hugh Hewitt. Talked about the Lefebvrists and whether they’re in schism. The following is supporting documentation:

LINK TO ECCLESIA DEI.

EXCERPTS (John Paul II writing):

  • "Hence such disobedience [i.e., that committed by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre]- which implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy – constitutes a schismatic act" (section 3).

  • "To all those Catholic faithful who feel attached to some previous liturgical and disciplinary forms of the Latin tradition I wish to manifest my will to facilitate their ecclesial communion by means of the necessary measures to guarantee respect for their rightful aspirations. In this matter I ask for the support of the bishops and of all those engaged in the pastoral ministry in the Church" (section 5c).

For My Fathers: R.I.P.

I have not been blogging for the past few days, and may not resume for a few days more for reasons that will become apparent momentarily, but I did want to join the rest of St. Blog’s Parish in commenting — if briefly — on the passing of John Paul II.  Co-blogger, Tim Jones, recently posted asking commenters Where Were You? [when you heard of the Pope’s passing].  My answer:

I had just called a friend to inform her that my father had died about a half-hour previously after a long illness.  She exclaimed, "He and the Pope together?"  That’s when I found out that John Paul had died.  Later, I would learn that my dad had preceded the Pope by about twenty minutes.

In the months before my father’s death, from an illness which we had known for some time would be terminal, I found myself thinking it would be lovely that — when the time came — he might pass into eternity on a Carmelite feast day.  I have an interest in Carmelite spirituality, a love for St. Therese of Lisieux, and my mother passed away this past December on the feast of St. John of the Cross.  It did not look likely, though, since I could think of no upcoming Carmelite feasts and it appeared that my father would die soon.

Unsurprisingly, I underestimated God.  With the passing of John Paul II, God created a Carmelite feast for the day of my dad’s birth into eternity.  John Paul II was a third-order Carmelite who wrote a doctoral thesis on the spirituality of St. John of the Cross.  It is a great grace and comfort that both of my fathers, natural and spiritual, entered the next life together.

Dad, Holy Father: Requiescat In Pace.

Note:  For more on the incredible circumstances surrounding the date of John Paul’s death, please see this piece by Mark Shea.

What Are The Odds?

An Irish betting firm called "Paddy Power" is offering odds on both who will be the next pope will be and what name he will choose.

Among the odds offered on different candidates:

  • Tettamanzi (Italy) . . . 11-4.
  • Arinze (Nigeria) . . . 11-4.
  • Ratzinger (Germany) . . . 7-1.
  • Hummes (Brazil) . . . 9-1.
  • Schoenborn (Austria) . . . 14-1.

GET THE FULL LIST.

Among the odds on names:

  • John Paul . . . 2-1.
  • John . . . 3-1.
  • Paul . . . 5-1.
  • Pius . . . 10-1.
  • Peter . . . 50-1.

GET THE FULL LIST.

(Cowboy hat tip to the reader who e-mailed!)

Embalming & The Pope

I’m getting a number of requests for information regarding whether or not the pope is embalmed after his death.

Fortunately, a kindly reader provides the following:

Here is an interesting article stating that John Paul II was not embalmed — don’t know if you’ve read this yet.

http://www.freep.com/news/latestnews/pm3603_20050405.htm

And here is another article that was in the same paper earlier in the day about the same subject, but a different angle.

http://www.freep.com/news/religion/embalm5e_20050405.htm

Embalming & The Pope

I’m getting a number of requests for information regarding whether or not the pope is embalmed after his death.

Fortunately, a kindly reader provides the following:

Here is an interesting article stating that John Paul II was not embalmed — don’t know if you’ve read this yet.


http://www.freep.com/news/latestnews/pm3603_20050405.htm

And here is another article that was in the same paper earlier in the day about the same subject, but a different angle.


http://www.freep.com/news/religion/embalm5e_20050405.htm