Month: March 2010

E.D. Kain has an incredibly wrong-headed and simplistic defense of the Pope:

I think it is entirely an aesthetic obsession which motivates Benedicts fiercest critics. Let’s face it, unlike the charismatic John Paul II, Benedict has a somewhat sinister look about him. He has aged in such a way as to make him look less the cuddly grandpa and more the evil

villain; he bears an uncanny resemblance to Emperor Palpatine.

Good God. Many of us concerned with Ratzinger's theology have been closely following his rise for years and have really had nothing to do with aesthetics – apart from occasional amusement at his obsession with various hats, Prada slippers, and very starched lace. Actually, I love the way Benedict has helped resuscitate some of the rituals, pageantry and liturgy of the past. If only he had not simultaneously tried to undo the Second Council. Here are two articles I wrote from around the time he was elected – an event that ended my pathetic attempt to quit blogging five years ago. Money quote from one:

Reading Benedict for a struggling gay Catholic like me is like reading a completely circular, self-enclosed system that is as beautiful at times as it is maddeningly immune to reasoned query. The dogmatism is astonishing. If your conscience demands that you dissent from some teachings, then it is not really your conscience. It is sin. And if all this circular dogmatism forces many to leave the church they once thought of as home? So be it.

Benedict once wrote of the 18th century church, roiled by the Enlightenment, that it "was a church reduced in size and diminished in social prestige, yet become fruitful from a new interior power, a power that released new formative forces for the individual and for society." That is his vision. If the church withers to a mere shadow of its former self, then that is not failure. It is success. And even in a short papacy, Benedict might just manage it.

I became obsessed with Ratzinger and what he meant for the future of Catholicism as long ago as 1988. I wrote a review-essay on him for The New Republic back in July of 1988. Sadly it isn't available online. But here is part of the conclusion:

The metamorphosis of Joseph Ratzinger from Augustinian theologian to Augustinian policeman, and finally to policeman, may in part be due to the metamorphosis of the Church itself. The forces of change have been so great in the Church during the past two decades that some form of simple assertion of authority may have a prudential justification. John Paul II, however, has balanced Ratzinger's zeal with a more humane approach. Together, they have played a "good cop, bad cop" routine with recalcitrant faithful.  Ratzinger's great gift to a Church all too easily distracted by the world is to call the faithful back to the fundamentals. But it is difficult not to feel dismayed by the way in which his earlier inspiration has ceded to the dictates of coercion, and his theological distrust of fallen man has translated  so easily into disdain for Christians trying to live obediently in modernity. The man who might have guided the Church through reason has resorted to governing by force.

June Thomas asks:

So many of the news stories focus on priests taking advantage of their position to rape and otherwise sexually traumatize boys and young men. Now, I have no way of knowing this for sure, but I’ll bet that thousands of girls the world over were similarly abused. Is anyone else wondering if young women have been left out of this story, and if there’s some agenda that’s driving that absence?

Chait hopes Romney pulls it out:

[A]t that point, the difference between regular Republican-bad like Romney — which, don't get me wrong, is pretty bad — and Sarah Palin-bad is pretty significant. Accepting that risk in return for a somewhat higher chance of Obama getting reelected is a risk the administration would happily take, but I wouldn't.

We all live in that fear, Jon.

Italian Bishop Francesco Nolè insists that "'irregulars' such as criminals and homosexuals should not be given communions or funerals":

This, he said, is not to be seen as discrimination, but rather as ‘healthy medicine’ for those close to the person:

“Our behaviour, which could be perceived as mean or cruel, in the long-run often heals and evangelises.” He added: “We must have the courage and tact, perhaps first informing the individual, or the families if he has passed, that it’s not possible to administer a communion or funeral. We would perhaps pray for his soul, which must be done.”

One wonders what Nolè would say about Father Murphy. Well, of course, one wonders not. Homosexuals may not take communion, but known child molesters sure can consecrate the host.

This thread keeps getting creepier. A reader writes:

There is good evidence that Toxoplasma gondii — the parasite often found in cat feces that poses a risk to human fetuses — spreads by affecting the behavior of its rodent hosts. Infected rodents show decreased fear-responses to cats, which is thought to increase the likelihood that the cats will then eat the rodents, allowing the protozoa to complete the next phase of their reproductive cycle in a feline host.

Your reader wrote, "Can you image something like that in humans?  Scary."  There is a growing body of evidence, which is somewhat controversial, that toxoplasmosis may induce behavioral alterations in infected humans as well.

Specifically, increases in risk-taking behaviors appear to be correlated with infection. Wikipedia has a good summary of the evidence, and relevant caveats. Carl Zimmer's book "Parasite Rex" is a great introduction to the weird and wonderful realm of parasites, and their incredible adaptations and ability to co-opt their host's biology.

Another writes:

On his blog, Zimmer reviews recent research that suggests the microbes in our gut may influence what we eat (and how big we get): "Mice with a genetic make-up that alters the diversity of their gut microbes get hungry, and that hunger makes them eat more. They get obese and suffer lots of other symptoms. Get rid of that particular set of microbes, and the mice lose their hunger and start to recover."

Another reader sends an APA article that examines a link between T. gondi and schizophrenia. Another writes:

Yet another reason to chose dogs over cats!

"Fox lifted an interview I gave in 2008 to someone else & are misrepresenting to the public in order to promote Sarah Palins show. WOW," – LL Cool J.

A reader writes:

The gist of that reader response, as I understand it, is that while women have a socially acceptable outlet (and a political movement) in which to express their displeasure with the wage gap, the glass ceiling, and the various sacrifices women must make in order to have a family and succeed at work, men have nowhere to turn when they must suffer the "emotional toll" taken out on them by the "unexpected focus on their career."

But men do have somewhere to turn when they feel that they are unfairly expected to sacrifice all in pursuit of a career: feminism.

For example, feminism has been behind the push for parental, rather than maternal leave, because feminists believe that both parents share responsibility for their child, and should have a chance to enjoy close personal and familial bonds. Both men and women must make the choice whether to focus on career or family, and whether to focus on only one. Men are expected to choose their careers, women are expected to choose motherhood. Neither expectation is fair.

Feminism is attempting to change that, and if your reader is really upset about what is an actual injustice toward men, I would recommend that he become involved with a local feminist organization that works on the issue. Because in an ideal feminist world, both men and women would be able to make independent, informed decisions about what their career-life and/or family life would look like, without any societal pressure, just independent self-determination.

Another writes:

Your commenter feels inadequate for not having casual sex?  Well, sounds like he’s being ridden by traditional male stereotypes that survive from the more unambiguously-patriarchal past.  That’s who he can officially blame, if he dares.

Another:

Apologies if this email is not as coherent as I’d like it to be, but I am writing quickly from my own 70-hour-a-week finance job to respond to the reader who so ineloquently attempted to defend the persistent wage gap in this country. I won’t take the obvious bait from his first line on “call me a misogynist asshole,” but this reader is very much missing the point.

Having recently graduated from a top undergraduate program, I can assure you that the same pressures to “earn lots of money” exist for young women. Young professionals of both genders are equally compelled to get their footing in their careers early and ascend the corporate ladder as rapidly as possible. The difference is that young women have to overcome “mommy track” expectations almost immediately. It is still immediately assumed that we will one day check out to raise kids, or that if we marry and stay at work we’ll still be the second earner in the household, the one who misses meetings when the kids get sick, etc.

The alternative is to be the “stereotypical female executive – no kids, no husband, singlemindedly focused on her career. Contrary to his assertion that women treat the workplace as separate from life, I think many women of my generation already see that the two are fully intertwined, and it is nearly impossible to optimize for happiness, or even more “success” by any traditional definition, in both.

Young women aren’t asking for sympathy; we’re asking for the opportunity to pick any one of these paths without being at a wage disadvantage from the start. This reader still has every chance to be a high powered Hollywood executive and eventually find another girlfriend, marry and have kids. Or he could choose an entirely different lifestyle and be a successful male professional. Why should he earn 25% more than I do for having those same alternatives?

Another:

Wait. This guy was born in the mid 80s? He's like 25 and all "I gave up blah blah for a career!" Come back in ten years, then you can whine about it.