What is a Research?

Newspapers in Rome have been full of news about the recent protest of a limited number of professors and students at the La Sapienza against the visit of Pope Benedict XVI. This protest centered around the argument that the Pope (and perhaps the Roman Catholic Church) is opposed to a spirit of free inquiry and research. It became clear this past Sunday, or perhaps even before, that the majority of Roman students do not hold this view. The Pope met thousands of students at the Sunday Angelus, thanking them for their support and recognition that the Catholic faith was in support a spirit of free inquiry in pursuit of the truth.
Were the protestors against the Church? Or was all of this merely a misunderstanding? Regardless, the protest seemed to have backfired as it gave the Pope and the Church a chance to publicly express their views about research and education. This debate has raged for centuries, but the supposed distinction between science/research and religion has been especially heated since the advent of research universities in the last century. Suddenly, as these protesters imply, one seems forced to choose between revealed truth and free research. Even supposedly Catholic universities feel the need to emphasize that they are a university primarily, but happen to be one that is Catholic.
Cardinal Newman defines the university in a way which renders this distinction between faith and research invalid. He suggests that the very definition of a university demonstrates that a university is supportive of catholicity and research alike. He says that a university is naturally oriented towards pursuit of the truth, all studies and research lead to a discovery of the truth. If that Catholic faith is the truth, then any truth which university research would uncover would be compatiable. In this way, it is possible that free research is enlighted by faith and directed towards it. One wonders whether these students and professors accept the existence of objective truth, or if their insistence of this facsimile of 'free research' is based on contemporary philosophy wallowing in relativism.

Gender: More Than Just a State of Mind

Fox News reported today that a Catholic hospital refused to perform a breast augmentation on a person who was born a male. The patient, Charlene Hastings, had undergone a transgender surgery and was rejected for surgery, because the hospital deemed it inappropriate to perform surgery on someone they considered a man.
Hastings filed a suit for discrimination citing that the hospital staff told her that this surgery was not part of God's plan for her. She disagrees and believes God desires her to have this breast augmentation surgery. After all, for Hastings gender is subjective (Hastings received a transgender surgery because he felt that he was actually a female). If gender is subjective why shouldn't the will of God be the same?
Let me present this situation in another way- there is no reason to get into the Divine Will or gender theory in this case. Why? Because transgender surgery does not actually change the gender of the patient. Instead, transgender surgery accomplishes a mutilation of genitalia and replaces it with a non-functioning facsmile of the other sex. In other words, 'Charlene' Hastings is not a woman because she was born a man and can not function as a woman physically or emotionally. Therefore, this is not just another woman seeking plastic surgery, but a man who has already had one surgery that was extremely damaging to his body.

Religious Politics

President George W. Bush has been under criticism for his recent inclusion of religion in his diplomatic addresses. His visits to the Middle East have been of a sensitive nature, not only politically, but also religiously. He is noted as saying that monotheism is the basis for freedom, and subsequently democratic ideals. An article in the International Herald Tribune noted that many scholars would disagree with President Bush that actually, monarchy was much more in line with Christian ideals. He received criticism, because it was deemed inappropriate to talk about religion in these visits, but I think he also highlights the debate over the relationship between religion and politics for individuals.
This article reminded me of the importance of questioning the alliance of politics with religion. In the United States many religions tend to sympathize with one party or another, almost all Christian religions in the U.S.A support democracy and capitalism. Truly, the United States was founded on Christian principles, but particularly those of a deist nature which claimed that God created the world, but has little active presence in it. Upon further reflection, it is clear that capitalism has advantages, but exclusive support of a system that has its flaws could be detrimental.
In a similar way, the trend of orthodox Catholics to vote on the Republican ticket without any reflection is also dangerous. Certainly, the Republican platform is prolife, which is also an essential teaching of the Catholic Church. However, there are many different platforms of both parties, which individuals must discern whether these are in line with his or her own beliefs. Catholic moral teachings demonstrate that man as a rational individual, must act according to his conscience and his Truth. There is nothing in Catholic moral teaching that suggests that the Republican party is the "Catholic Party." It might serve many Catholics to also consider not only whether the party is prolife, but whether political canidates have personally shown that they will fight for the prolife cause. It is possible that there will be a Democratic canidate who will not actively support abortion, but will fight for other positive things and that he would be a better than a weak Republican canidate who won't do anything to support life.
President Bush may or may not have applied religion correctly in his diplomatic visits, but he brings up an important point of discussion. Can we divorce our personal beliefs from our politics? Will politicians ever act only from their platforms instead of their religion, or lack thereof? Whenever a person acts, they are acting from their individual background, experience, and beliefs. If they were not to do so, they would be mere automatons. At least Bush is admitting that he is not a puppet of his party, but a man who sees the world from a particular framework. In the upcoming canidates, perhaps both canidates and voters alike should consider not only the party platforms, but the men and women who are running for office.

Fiction: True or False?

“The Golden Compass” has caused a considerable amount of controversy concerning the negative view of Christianity and the obvious pagan elements in the film. The film recounts the story of a young girl who goes to a parallel universe, controlled by ‘the Magisterium’ and has the responsibility to open the world to the truth, as revealed by a golden compass.
Certainly, the film is full of pagan elements. Every person has a familiar, which the trailer bluntly calls a demon. The North of this universe is controlled by witches, whose prophecies call the main little girl into another world. On another note, the film is technically fantastic. The animation of animals, the camera shots, and the score are breathtaking. In this way, it is absolutely a cinematographic success.
A film that has made such a splash was sure to arouse controversy. However, as usual, I think that people has missed the point. Many who defend the film say that Christians are being extremists and that there is nothing wrong with fantasy. In fact, I agree that fantasy can be a wonderful form of fiction.
The real problem lies in whether or not this form of fiction adheres to the nature of reality. It is quite possible to have a story that has elements of fantasy, but adheres to the objective nature in reality. In other words, emphasizes that there is an objective morality, with an order to the universe, and a clear line between good and evil. The question that occurs to me is whether the Golden Compass attempts to deceive its audience by blurring the line between good and evil and luring them into a world where true order does not exist. It is important to challenge fiction by realizing that fiction, like nonfiction, can be false or true.

A Matter of Death or Sickness

The developing treatment of AIDS in the 1990s was all the rage, and rightly so since it saved so many lives. Now the International Herald Tribune reports that these medicated AIDS patients are experiencing all sorts of illnesses, some related directly to the disease and others not. In fact, the thrust of this article is the exploration of how these illnesses and pre-mature aging affects are related to the very medicine that was used to treat AIDS. Is it melodramatic to ask, is there a fate worse than death?
Polling and research suggests that the number of people successfully treated for AIDS has increased, as has the number of people experiencing painful side effects. Now researchers are focusing on discovering the roots of their pain: natural aging, AIDS, or the medication themselves. The article ends with the question: how are we going to help recovering AIDS patients through the suffering that has resulted from their treatment?
The question that comes to my mind, which was not addressed in the article, is whether it would be ethical not to treat AIDS patients. Obviously, if the person is unable to make a decision it seems that the doctors’ first responsibility is to choose life. Yet, the drugs used result in the pre-mature aging with side affects from heart disease to vascular necrosis. Essentially, research shows that the medicine might not only save lives, but also endanger them in other areas.
So what is the solution to this quandary?
To my mind, as is often the case, the best solution is the truth and education. In other words: to discover as much as possible about the side-affects of medicine and to inform the patient. If the patient is a rational adult they have a decision to make: to receive medicine or to die a natural death. For now, the health professionals can offer true facts about the side effects of the medicine and let each person weigh their options.

Truth Passing By

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…

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?