At yesterday’s Mass for university students at the Holy See, Pope Benedict XVI made an appearance after the liturgy. As is expected on these occasions, chairs were tossed aside and the throngs of people pushed alongside the aisle, hoping to touch the Holy Father, or at least get in range for a good photo.
Much to the disappointment of the crowd, the Pope gave an address to the students, but did not pass through the main part of St. Peter’s Basilica. It took a bit of time for people to realize that Benedict had left the building and they all slowly trailed out of St. Peter’s to continue their evening. Unfortunately, many did not bother to listen to the Holy Father’s words, because they were busy jostling for a position where he might pass by.
The Holy Father spoke about his encyclical released this past week on hope, and talked about its applications for students. He spoke simply, but profoundly, on the need for students to pursue their spiritual lives and their studies with a sense of hope. It was certainly an apt message for Advent as students prepare for Christmas, but also to take a break from classes before the New Year.
The irony that many missed the Pope’s words, because they were busy trying to come into closer contact with him, seems an appropriate metaphor for the pursuit of truth in an event or even in the news. We are so busy hoping to find something in particular and, when we miss that, we also miss the true significance of the event. For those who came to this Papal Event open to the Holy Father’s words as well as his presence, they walked away fulfilled. Others left, disconsolate, because they did not find what they were looking for.
Just one more reminder to approach things for what they are and listen with a ready and receptive mind…
venerdì 14 dicembre 2007
lunedì 3 dicembre 2007
A Victory for Common Sense
I have been following with interest the prominent story of a British school teacher who allowed her seven year old students in the Sudan to name their class teddy bear ¨Mohammed.¨ While certainly not the most respectful of names for an inanimate object, Westerners would certainly call her prison sentence unreasonable at the very least. In fact Prime Minister Gordon Brown called her release from prison, ¨a victory for common sense.¨
Many Muslims, however, not only feel that she should not have been let off, but think that she should have been executed. Sudanese spokespersons already regret the incident because of the bad PR that is sure to hurt Sudan´s already tenuous position with the British over the situation in Darfur. It seems to me, however, that they are catering to their desire to foster relations with the West, not necessarily the sentiments or beliefs of the Islamic people.
I´m curious whether there is a common definition for this ´common sense´that the British Prime Minister believes has prevailed in these circumstances. The current Wikipedia definition (certainly only to be considered in a non-academic way) defines common sense as ¨that which they "sense" in common as their common natural understanding.¨ This definition does not necessarily account for there to being one truth entailed in common sense which all must adhere to. It is clear to me that what people in England believe to be ´commonly sensible´is not necessarily the same in the Sudan. Therefore, this victory of common sense, is a victory for the common perspective of the English people, not all people. I say this only to clarify.
The different persepectives on common sense which exist hit on deeper waters than a teddy bear. With the Islam-Christian conflict that is wracking our world it seems that there must be a common ground. If we can blatantly assume that common sense is the same in all areas of the world, it does not seem as if there can be reconciliation---only more misunderstandings. Perhaps a good start to resolving conflict would be defining things correctly?
Many Muslims, however, not only feel that she should not have been let off, but think that she should have been executed. Sudanese spokespersons already regret the incident because of the bad PR that is sure to hurt Sudan´s already tenuous position with the British over the situation in Darfur. It seems to me, however, that they are catering to their desire to foster relations with the West, not necessarily the sentiments or beliefs of the Islamic people.
I´m curious whether there is a common definition for this ´common sense´that the British Prime Minister believes has prevailed in these circumstances. The current Wikipedia definition (certainly only to be considered in a non-academic way) defines common sense as ¨that which they "sense" in common as their common natural understanding.¨ This definition does not necessarily account for there to being one truth entailed in common sense which all must adhere to. It is clear to me that what people in England believe to be ´commonly sensible´is not necessarily the same in the Sudan. Therefore, this victory of common sense, is a victory for the common perspective of the English people, not all people. I say this only to clarify.
The different persepectives on common sense which exist hit on deeper waters than a teddy bear. With the Islam-Christian conflict that is wracking our world it seems that there must be a common ground. If we can blatantly assume that common sense is the same in all areas of the world, it does not seem as if there can be reconciliation---only more misunderstandings. Perhaps a good start to resolving conflict would be defining things correctly?
mercoledì 28 novembre 2007
A Russian Jigsaw Puzzle
Nine bodies of the infamous Romanov family, murdered by the Bolshevisks, were found in 1991. Two bodies, however, remained missing. For years professionals have searched for the two missing members of the Russian royal family. The Bolsheviks explained their strategy for burying the two seperately: they hoped to throw the Russians off the trail of the remains so that the people could not use the bodies as a rallying point against the Bolshevik regime. In this, they succeeded.
Years later, however, the bodies of the Romanovs remained missing and the legends of their reign had grown to gargantuan proportions. Thus, the search continued. Finally, it seems that the mystery was solved by amateur sleuths who found bodies (presumed to be the Romanovs: Alexsei and Maria) only 210 feet away from the other burial site. Why did everyone miss what was right under their noses?
I applaud these amatuers´ability to change approaches and look at the puzzle in a new way. They realized, astonishingly enough, that the killers themselves (proud of their accomplishment) wrote that the two bodies were buried nearby. So they just started to search in the area. They found them. After all of the crazy in-depth investigations, the amateurs won the prize. Why? Because they stepped back and looked at the available facts.
I personally think we could all take a page out of their book.
Years later, however, the bodies of the Romanovs remained missing and the legends of their reign had grown to gargantuan proportions. Thus, the search continued. Finally, it seems that the mystery was solved by amateur sleuths who found bodies (presumed to be the Romanovs: Alexsei and Maria) only 210 feet away from the other burial site. Why did everyone miss what was right under their noses?
I applaud these amatuers´ability to change approaches and look at the puzzle in a new way. They realized, astonishingly enough, that the killers themselves (proud of their accomplishment) wrote that the two bodies were buried nearby. So they just started to search in the area. They found them. After all of the crazy in-depth investigations, the amateurs won the prize. Why? Because they stepped back and looked at the available facts.
I personally think we could all take a page out of their book.
mercoledì 21 novembre 2007
Thanksgiving Feast: American Style
With Thanksgiving quickly approaching, Americans are looseinging their belts and preparing to stuff their faces. Tables laden with turkeys, stuffing, potatoes, and cranberries immediately come to mind when the 3rd Thursday of November is mentioned.
As its name implies, this dayis designated for giving thanks. What is interesting is that Americans choose to express their thanks by overeating. America is often referred to (by Americans at least) as the land of plenty, but there is a time when appreciating the land´s bounty turns to excess anbd enjoyments turns to indulgence.
The American clture of eating is a bit of a dichotomy. On the one hand, Americans are known around the world for being diet-concious. On the other, we have one of the fastest growing rates of obesity.
It seems that over-indulgence on Thanksgiving is just one sign of American´s unhealthy attitude towards food. Very few people find a blance with food that they incorporate into their lives. Instead food has become an obsession. We live in a fast food cutlure, but also of eating disorders. Americans indulge in tfood when they are upset (nachos, beer, pizza, french fries etc...) yet American women are always upset about how much weight they ´need´to lose.
What is the solution? Obviously a lifestyle overhaul is in order. It is a huge problem, but instead of getting upset about it.....I think I´ll run out to McDonald´s and forget about it.
As its name implies, this dayis designated for giving thanks. What is interesting is that Americans choose to express their thanks by overeating. America is often referred to (by Americans at least) as the land of plenty, but there is a time when appreciating the land´s bounty turns to excess anbd enjoyments turns to indulgence.
The American clture of eating is a bit of a dichotomy. On the one hand, Americans are known around the world for being diet-concious. On the other, we have one of the fastest growing rates of obesity.
It seems that over-indulgence on Thanksgiving is just one sign of American´s unhealthy attitude towards food. Very few people find a blance with food that they incorporate into their lives. Instead food has become an obsession. We live in a fast food cutlure, but also of eating disorders. Americans indulge in tfood when they are upset (nachos, beer, pizza, french fries etc...) yet American women are always upset about how much weight they ´need´to lose.
What is the solution? Obviously a lifestyle overhaul is in order. It is a huge problem, but instead of getting upset about it.....I think I´ll run out to McDonald´s and forget about it.
mercoledì 14 novembre 2007
Art as Catharsis
¨Designs for Fragile Personalities in Anxious Times¨This startling title of the newest exhibit at Geneva´s Center for contemporary art is aimed at exploring the blurred line between design and art. The trio who worked on this show are testing whether design is necessarily only function or if it can also be considered art. In this case, the exhibitors have created designs that attempt to answer or worst fears: atomic bombs, spiders, aliens etc...
If this exhibit fufilled its purpose, the designs would work as a catharsis. Rub worry beads shaped like atomic bombs and forget your fears. Sit in a chair shaped like an alien and forget being abducted by them. The designers claim that this goal moves their creation into the field of art. The underlying assumption is that catharsis can be one facet of art.
This view of art has been expressed in different ways throughout the centuries. In Baroque times, an artist would hope to inspire the viewer towards meditation or even ascension to God. In contemporary art, many pieces are suppossed to be experiential. The artist wishes to invoke images or elicit feelings from his viewers. In this case it seems that the designers could be using their art to promote feelings of security in the face of strong fears. However, these designers see design as functional and art as something else. Yet this art is still primarily functional - to elicit feelings is also a practical function. It is my theory that perhaps the line between design and art is even fuzzier than imagined.
If this exhibit fufilled its purpose, the designs would work as a catharsis. Rub worry beads shaped like atomic bombs and forget your fears. Sit in a chair shaped like an alien and forget being abducted by them. The designers claim that this goal moves their creation into the field of art. The underlying assumption is that catharsis can be one facet of art.
This view of art has been expressed in different ways throughout the centuries. In Baroque times, an artist would hope to inspire the viewer towards meditation or even ascension to God. In contemporary art, many pieces are suppossed to be experiential. The artist wishes to invoke images or elicit feelings from his viewers. In this case it seems that the designers could be using their art to promote feelings of security in the face of strong fears. However, these designers see design as functional and art as something else. Yet this art is still primarily functional - to elicit feelings is also a practical function. It is my theory that perhaps the line between design and art is even fuzzier than imagined.
martedì 6 novembre 2007
Hogwart's Margin Notes
The press is buzzing about JK Rowling's recent revelation that high profile character Albus Dumbledore is homosexual. While this is never stated or even strongly implied in the book, Rowling insists that this sexual orientation was always the intention for his character.
From glancing at the coverage of this 'out of the closet' media moment, both CNN and BBC quote the Rowling's many supporters over this character choice. It is no suprise that these major news outlets do not coverage the many negative reactions, except for to say “Not everyone likes her work, Rowling said, likely referring to Christian groups that have alleged the books promote witchcraft.” While casually discounting a Christian standpoint, journalists sensationalize Rowling's choice to expose new fundamental elements of her characters.
Although Rowling created Harry Potter and the characters who compose it, is the real Dumbledore gay? This might seem like an odd question, but my implication is merely this: Are books a world unto themselves or are marginal notes legitimate additions to the already completed literature? In other words, from the Harry Potter series there is no way of knowing Dumbledore's orientation. People could make guesses, but there is not even an undeniable hint that he might be homosexual. If the reader is left to his own conclusion, then can we take Rowling's statement as an appendage to the books or merely another suggestion?
Literature is a form of art. A piece of art is often complete in itself. Some of the world's most beautiful works of art leave the viewer to discover the meaning of the painting for themselves. Just look at the Mona Lisa- generations have been pondering and guessing this mysterious woman's secret. Personally, JK Rowling's 'admission' that Dumbledore is homosexual takes away from an already complete work of art. It seems a cheap ploy for more publicity instead of a revelation that will enrich readers' experience.
From glancing at the coverage of this 'out of the closet' media moment, both CNN and BBC quote the Rowling's many supporters over this character choice. It is no suprise that these major news outlets do not coverage the many negative reactions, except for to say “Not everyone likes her work, Rowling said, likely referring to Christian groups that have alleged the books promote witchcraft.” While casually discounting a Christian standpoint, journalists sensationalize Rowling's choice to expose new fundamental elements of her characters.
Although Rowling created Harry Potter and the characters who compose it, is the real Dumbledore gay? This might seem like an odd question, but my implication is merely this: Are books a world unto themselves or are marginal notes legitimate additions to the already completed literature? In other words, from the Harry Potter series there is no way of knowing Dumbledore's orientation. People could make guesses, but there is not even an undeniable hint that he might be homosexual. If the reader is left to his own conclusion, then can we take Rowling's statement as an appendage to the books or merely another suggestion?
Literature is a form of art. A piece of art is often complete in itself. Some of the world's most beautiful works of art leave the viewer to discover the meaning of the painting for themselves. Just look at the Mona Lisa- generations have been pondering and guessing this mysterious woman's secret. Personally, JK Rowling's 'admission' that Dumbledore is homosexual takes away from an already complete work of art. It seems a cheap ploy for more publicity instead of a revelation that will enrich readers' experience.
mercoledì 31 ottobre 2007
The Poltical Arm of the Pontiff
This past Sunday, Pope Benedict XVI beatified 498 “victims of religious persecution” during the Spanish Civil War. Controversy has exploded over this supposedly blatant support of Franco's regime. Critics claim that the Vatican is overstepping its boundaries and condemning the Socialists who opposed Franco's dictatorship. Others comment that these beatifications are of 'convienient timing', especially in consideration of a new bill scheduled to pass through Spanish parliament that offers amends to the victims of Franco's regime.
Implicit in many of these comments and articles is the criticism that the Pontiff should not be involved with politics. Many are outraged that the Pope would even consider politics in scheduling these beatifications. My question is not whether this was the Pope's agenda, but whether or not it would be a problem if that was so.
Many people do not realize that the Pope has been involved in poltical affairs as long as the papacy has existed. Popes throughout the ages have attempted to take a hand in world affairs, risking the fine line between heaven and earth. Historians and politicians alike have critized the Pope's involvements in the crusades, the crowning of kings, and the support of specific political regimes. Perhaps it is time to move beyond trying to figure out the Pope's agenda and question whether the seat of Peter has a legitimate role to play in poltical affairs.
How far should the Holy Father's arm extend? If his concern is pastoral care of the world, do those concerns extend into politics? Is the papacy a two edged sword of morality and politics? The homily at the beatification implied that if a government is acting against the dignity of human life it is the role of Catholics to oppose it. Yet where should we draw the line in order to render unto God what is God's and Caesar what is Caesar's?
Implicit in many of these comments and articles is the criticism that the Pontiff should not be involved with politics. Many are outraged that the Pope would even consider politics in scheduling these beatifications. My question is not whether this was the Pope's agenda, but whether or not it would be a problem if that was so.
Many people do not realize that the Pope has been involved in poltical affairs as long as the papacy has existed. Popes throughout the ages have attempted to take a hand in world affairs, risking the fine line between heaven and earth. Historians and politicians alike have critized the Pope's involvements in the crusades, the crowning of kings, and the support of specific political regimes. Perhaps it is time to move beyond trying to figure out the Pope's agenda and question whether the seat of Peter has a legitimate role to play in poltical affairs.
How far should the Holy Father's arm extend? If his concern is pastoral care of the world, do those concerns extend into politics? Is the papacy a two edged sword of morality and politics? The homily at the beatification implied that if a government is acting against the dignity of human life it is the role of Catholics to oppose it. Yet where should we draw the line in order to render unto God what is God's and Caesar what is Caesar's?
lunedì 22 ottobre 2007
Twin Pot Stirrers put Poland in a Stew
The Wall Street Journal's recent expose ¨Double Trouble: Twin Politicians Shake Up Poland- and the EU¨ on the Kaczynskis,- and the EU the current twins acting as Polish president and prime minister, is almost unbiased. The article reads like a riveting plot of an action film- recounting the tale of two twins who were child movie stars, young leaders of the Solidarity movement against Communism, and now the leaders of Poland, a recent initiate (2004) into the European Union.
The question raised subtly throughout the article is over whether or not the Kaczynskis are heroic representatives of a democratic Poland or new dictators in the making. This charge is quite serious, considering the oppressive history of Poland under various regimes. Certainly, the twins are conservatives and their strong actions are extremely controversial. The Wall Street Journals admits the strong support for the twins by citing several people who believe that the Kaczynskis are fighting for their country and are correct in their complaints about the EU.
By the end of the article, however, the Kaczynskis are subtly being compared to political tyrants. The one inset in the article reads in bold type, “The Kaczynskis won't accept partners, they only have people who serve as tools for realizing their plans, said one early Kaczynski appointee who lost his job for being too independent.”
With a flourish the last paragraph warns of the twins slogan for “a Stronger State” as indicative of something sinister that would never be accepted in Western Europe. While the Wall Street Journal might be right to question the actions of these politicians, we must also question their bias and willingness to discount their popularity and clear record of actions fighting for Poland's national identity and people.
The question raised subtly throughout the article is over whether or not the Kaczynskis are heroic representatives of a democratic Poland or new dictators in the making. This charge is quite serious, considering the oppressive history of Poland under various regimes. Certainly, the twins are conservatives and their strong actions are extremely controversial. The Wall Street Journals admits the strong support for the twins by citing several people who believe that the Kaczynskis are fighting for their country and are correct in their complaints about the EU.
By the end of the article, however, the Kaczynskis are subtly being compared to political tyrants. The one inset in the article reads in bold type, “The Kaczynskis won't accept partners, they only have people who serve as tools for realizing their plans, said one early Kaczynski appointee who lost his job for being too independent.”
With a flourish the last paragraph warns of the twins slogan for “a Stronger State” as indicative of something sinister that would never be accepted in Western Europe. While the Wall Street Journal might be right to question the actions of these politicians, we must also question their bias and willingness to discount their popularity and clear record of actions fighting for Poland's national identity and people.
Iscriviti a:
Post (Atom)