Pazdziernik II

Facebook Nation: Press Release Communications

Technology changes so many things for good or for ill — or more likely a combination of both. Facebook is one such technology. For good, Facebook can certainly allow us to keep in touch with distant friends and relatives but, for ill, it can also distance us from a real encounter with another human being.

Any technology that can be used to dehumanize the human person or human relationships should be approached with caution.  Alexandra Petri's article in today's Washington Post, Facebook Nation, facial recognition and our portable lives is edifying and worth an excerpt here because she raises this caution by identifying Facebook as "reduc[ing] most human communication to the level of the press release."

Facebook is a country founded on the fear that undergirds all modern life: the suspicion that everyone you like is off somewhere else having more fun than you are, that you will turn around and miss it. And as it turns out, this is true, because you are spending all your time on Facebook.

The funny thing about Facebook is that it is turning our real friends into virtual Friends. Did I go to your birthday party? No, but I wrote a nice note on Facebook saying that I approved of it! Did you come to my shower? No, but you said “maybe attending.” Did you call me to see how I was? No, but you liked my status update!

That story of the woman who tattooed her facebook friends on her arm may be false, but it’s true — Facebook is making us wear more and more of our lives on our sleeves.

It reduces most human communication to the level of the press release. It is actively making us less capable of interaction. We are training ourselves not to comprehend the rich symphony of non-verbal cues that used to comprise human interaction. “He’s smiling at me,” we type. “What can it mean?”

“Maybe someone linked to an article that can help you make sense of it!” our friends comment.

“I wish there were a like button in real life,” we scream.

Have we already forgotten?

Ms. Petri also explains that

Tuesday night [June 7, 2011] they slipped in a new program, a facial recognition software that suggests tagging pictures of yourself that had previously slipped below the radar.

N.B.: The procedure explaining how to disable Facebook's new facial recognition feature can be found here.

Respect, Dialogue and Friendship

With Facebook (have account), Twitter (will never have account) and other on-line services in addition to television and other AV media, many people are at risk of loosing contact with others, their neighbor and God. Our use of the media and on our relationships with others are always good material for a "conscience examination".

"But we must not be victims of the fascination with the extraordinary technological successes, we must continue to distinguish possibilities and limits, and at the same time continue to seek in profundity that solid soil of the vital relationship with God and others, [a place] to really build a culture of respect, of dialogue and of friendship."— Federico Lombardi, S.J., Director of the Vatican Press Office ( Zenit.org )

Tags: Federico Lombardi, Zenit

Growth of Love (in our "hook up" culture)

 

Given the modern-day chaos and confusion regarding marriage, gender, human sexuality, family, children, and the value of human life itself, I was not surprised to read Charles M. Blow’s The Demise of Dating [Registration may be required] recently in the N.Y. Times (December 13, 2008).

Under the old model, you dated a few times and, if you really liked the person, you might consider having sex. Under the new model, you hook up a few times and, if you really like the person, you might consider going on a date. … 

It used to be that “you were trained your whole life to date,” said [La Salle University professor] Ms. [Kathleen] Bogle. “Now we’ve lost that ability — the ability to just ask someone out and get to know them.” 

Now that’s sad.

Sad indeed! 

Dios mios! … "lost the ability to get to know someone"! 

Confusions in marriage and family and the like certainly stem from deep-seated confusions that really begin during the dating period or more generally when a couple encounters each other. Such encounters can be disquieting. As a counter to the “hook up” culture — as expressed in Mr. Blow’s article — the Church certainly has much to offer couples wanting to know each other. 

Yesterday the Church celebrated The Third Sunday of Advent or Gaudette Sunday. Gaudette means “rejoice”. Among the many things we, as Christians, have to rejoice about is the Church’s teaching on marriage and family life because the Church desires the authentic happiness of men and women. Only the Church supports authentic and complete sexual education since she is an expert in humanity. 

This expertise is not in “mechanics” or in biology but in love. 

Love needs to be first found and than allowed to mature. In particular, it needs to mature in the face of differences: differences between men and women per se and differences in temperaments and personalities, etc. Part of the “hook up” culture I estimate may stem from a fear of differences between men and women. In particular, such a culture is a misguided effort to avoid the struggles and troubles that is part of authentic love. 

I found Monsignor Cormac Burke’s (lives in Kenya) recent feature — and most excellent— article in Ignatius Insight, Marital and Family Commitment: A Personalist View, to be a good primer in beginning to understand the differences and compatibility between couples in forming an authentic relationship with an eye toward the commitment and happiness of marriage. I present some excerpts here.

Early on in the century a feeling began to emerge that this understanding [the purpose of marriage as first “procreation” and then, as secondary, “mutual help and remedy for concupiscence”] was too exclusively centered on the procreative function of the marital relationship, while it neglected "personalist" aspects or values also characterizing this relationship, and of which modern times have become more aware: love between man and woman as the main motive for marrying, the promise of personal happiness or fulfillment that marriage seems to offer, the human values felt to underlie physical sexuality. … 

Some commentators reduce the "bonum coniugum" to what they call the "integration" of the spouses on the psychic, affective, physical or sexual levels. This seems inadequate from a Christian standpoint, not only because it fails to look at the spouses' "good" supernaturally, but also because it tends to resolve it into a question of natural "compatibility." One can then be easily led into holding that apparent incompatibility is an enemy of the good of the spouses, whereas pastoral experience shows that many highly "integrated" marriages are of couples whose characters are extremely diverse, and who could well have ended up "incompatible' unless they had resolved (in an evidently maturing effort) not to do so. 

Similarly, to make the "good of the spouses" consist in the achieving of a comfortable or untroubled life is scarcely in harmony with a Christian understanding of the real good of the human person. In fact, any idea of the "bonum coniugum" which identifies it with some form of easy or gratifying reciprocal relationship between them is fundamentally flawed. Only passing and superficial personal contacts can be smooth and without any strains. Difficulties always make their appearance in every close interpersonal relation that is extended over a period of time. Since marriage involves man and woman in a unique relationship and commitment to be maintained over the whole of their lifetime, it is bound to be marked by difficulties between them, sometimes of a serious nature. Many happy married unions are between two persons of quite different characters who have clearly had to struggle hard to get on. One can rightly say that these marriages are the most "successful," for they have matured the spouses most. 

… 

Of course it is not easy for two people to live together for life, in a faithful and fruitful union. It is "easier" for each to live apart, or to unite casually or for a short time, or to avoid having children. It is easier, but not happier; nor does it contribute to their growth as persons. "Non est bonum homini esse solus," says the Book of Genesis: it is not good for a man or woman to live alone, or in temporary successive associations that tend to leave him or her more and more trapped in selfish isolation. Married commitment is not an easy endeavor; but, apart from normally being a happy one, it is one that matures. There is no true married personalism which ignores or fails to stress the goodness-for the spouses, and not just for the children-of the conjugal commitment. 

Pope John Paul II in the Apostolic Exhortation on the Family—Familiaris Consortio—spoke of indissolubility in terms of something joyful that Christians should announce to the world: "It is necessary," he says "to reconfirm the good news of the definitive nature of conjugal love." If this statement sounds so surprising today, surely we should read there a sign of how contemporary society has lost its understanding of the divine plan for man's authentic good. One of the special missions facing Christians today, in the work of reevangelizing the modern world, is to spread the news that married love is too sacred and too important—also for human happiness—to be broken. 

… 

A deep ailment troubling the modern world is its failure to recognize the personalist character of conjugal procreativity. To speak disparagingly about "biologism," whenever stress is laid on the procreative aspect of marriage, betrays a fundamental lack of understanding of married personalism. Nothing can so uniquely express the marital relationship and the desire for marital union, as conjugal intercourse—when it is open to its procreative potential. True union between free persons always involves donation. It is the absolutely unique nature of what is mutually donated in the conjugal act-the gift of complementary procreativity-that makes marital intercourse so unitive. Hence derives the intrinsic inseparability of the unitive and the procreative aspects of the act. The fundamentally anti-personalist nature of contraceptive intercourse appears here: inasmuch as it deliberately destroys that unique aspect of the conjugal act which renders it truly unitive, it marks a rejection of the marital sexuality of the other, a refusal therefore to accept him or her integrally as husband or wife.

“Personalism” or “hook up”? Choose well. I know my choice.  

The full text of Monsignor Burke's most excellent article can be found here.

Photo: Couple at Great Salt Lake ©Renee Lee 

Tags: Catholic Church, Charles M. Blow, JHoly Matrimony, relationships, personalism, Cormac Burke

Cohabitation Consequences

 

July 25, 2008 was the 40th anniversary of Ven. Pope Paul VI’s encyclical letter Humanae Vitae (July 25, 1968) on the transmission of human life. Through it he taught authoritatively on God’s plan for human sexuality, in particular on the sine quibus non (sine quo non: without which not) unitive and pro-creative natures of the marital act. Pope Paul VI, his predecessors, and his successors have affirmed this Catholic teaching which has remained unchanged from the first century of Christianity. 

All Christian communities remained united in their understanding of this solid teaching of God’s plan until the 1930 Lambeth Conference when the Anglican Communion allowed for contraception for married couples. The widespread acceptance and practice of contraception among married and unmarried, Christians and others, quickly followed. The bitter fruits and havoc that have resulted are for all to see. The roots of much of the contemporary psychological, physical, and spiritual problems in family, personal and societal spheres can be safely traced to the contraceptive mentality. 

Pope Paul VI in Humanae Vitae , a beautiful encyclical on married love, presented four consequences that he foresaw would result from an acceptance of contraception: 

1. Marital infidelity 

2. General lowering of moral standards 

3. Reverence of women disregarded 

4. Abuse by public authorities

Unfortunately, his warnings were not acted upon — either ignored or not understood. His predictions came to pass in absolute clarity. In fact, the corrosive consequences were much worse than he predicted. (From what I understand, in 1968, many dismissed the Pope’s warnings as “fantasy” and the like). Forty years after Humanae Vitae, both inside and outside the Church, many men and women are finding the root of problems and linking them to contraception. 

As the acceptance of contraception is as common as the air we breathe, so is the popularity of dismissing, ignoring, or willfully refusing to understand Humanae Vitae. One such consequence, I came upon recently was “inbreeding”. It was in the form of a letter to The National Catholic Register by Hugh McGrath Jr., MD (August 31, 2008): Cohabitation Consequences. This letter deserves a recording here.

I’d like to add a thought to Father John Flynn’s article, “Recent Studies Reveal Perils of Cohabitation” (July 20). 

There may be a new “inbreeding,” and it is relevant to the divorce rate in couples who cohabitate before marriage. There is, in all of us, a group of genes designated the MHC (major histocompatability complex). The MHC is the control center of our immune system and also appears to play a major role in the release of pheromones, subtle odors that differ in every person.

 In a 1995 study conducted by Swiss biologist Claus Wedekind, a group of female college students smelled T-shirts that had been worn by male students for two nights without deodorant, cologne or scented soap. Overwhelmingly, the women preferred the odors of men with MHCs dissimilar to their own. But there was a significant exception: Women taking oral contraceptives chose MHCs that were like their own. Studies by P.S. Santos in 2005 and Christine Garver-Apgar in 2006 showed similar results. 

The attraction of women, via olfaction, to men with different MHCs, has different survival benefits. The more diverse the MHC of parents, the broader and stronger will be the immune system of the offspring. 

In today’s society, when couples meet and cohabitate, the women are generally taking oral contraceptives. If a couple marries, the woman will generally discontinue her contraceptives to become pregnant. It is then that she may come to awareness, consciously or unconsciously, that something is wrong. A diminishment in the pheromone-based attraction to her husband may even bring estrangement and possibly divorce. Meanwhile, the children, who have inbred MHCs, may have increased susceptibility to infection and perhaps other disorders from a constricted MHC. 

The fallout from MHC “inbreeding” is considerable and merits more research. Herd immunity can be lost by a narrowing of the MHC, making whole populations prone to epidemics. There is even a remote possibility that the narrowed MHC contributes to autism, a disorder that has grown apace with our cohabitation and oral contraceptive culture. The MHC, besides ordering our immune system, provides a “signature,” an identity on all our cells, which is important for their interactions. This signature will be less varied in children of parents with closely related MHCs. As the major deficit in autism is in social interaction, it is tempting to connect the diminished capacity of the child’s cells to interact to the diminished capacity of the child to interact. 

More research is needed to determine more clearly the effects of cohabitation combined with the suppression of a woman’s fertility. 

Hugh McGrath Jr., MD 

Metairie, Louisiana

Wow, I would definitely be interested in looking at further studies in this area. It certainly "merits more research."

Related post: Humanae Vitae (37th Anniversary) 

Photo: © Isaac Koval 

Tags: Humanae Vitae,, Paul VI, contraception, cohabitation, inbreeding

Not Even Wrong (part 2)

When I tell others of a possible Russia trip to visit and help orphans, they most often say "wow, are you going just for the experience?" "Do you like to travel?" and nothing different. No just wrong. "Not even wrong"...

Contradiction may not be evident in such an undertaking...

"Our task consists in continuing to invite Christians and people of good will to break away from daily routine and start their journey."

"In a world that places sickness and weakness on the outskirts of society, in order to exalt beauty and physical perfection, you directors of pilgrimage and rectors of sanctuaries offer a witness to the fact that the Church goes out to meet the forgotten and marginalized.

"You must remember that the heart of God is mercy, which is reflected in man created in the image of God." — Cardinal Renato Martino, September 11, 2007, Lourdes, France [Cardinal Has Message for Beauty-obsessed World ZENIT Sept. 12, 2007]

Neither is the gratuitousness of such an offer deeply considered...

"To say 'yes' to volunteering to help others is a decision which is liberating; it opens our hearts to the needs of others, to the requirements of justice, to the defense of life and the protection of creation. Volunteer work is really about the heart of the Christian image of God and man: love of God and love of neighbor."

Volunteer work is characterized by its "gratuitousness" said the Pope, affirming that "a readiness to be at the service of others is something which surpasses calculations of outlay and return: it shatters the rules of market economy. The value of human beings cannot be judged by purely economic criteria."

"In the gaze of others, and particularly of the person who needs our help, we experience the concrete demands of Christian love. Jesus Christ does not teach us a spirituality 'of closed eyes,' but one of 'alertness,' one which entails an absolute duty to take notice of the needs of others." — Pope Benedict XVI, September 9, 2007, Vienna, Austria [Volunteer Work Is a Valuable Service to Mankind ZENIT Sept. 9, 2007]

I don't intend to be self-serving here. But rather, to present the standard in which to measure such an undertaking — as an internal examination or otherwise. Plus these are some great quotes which need to see more of the light of day.

Related post: "Not Even Wrong."

Problem or fact?

Well, here’s an interesting quote from the former Prime Minister of Israel, current President of Israel, and 1994 Nobel Peace Prize recipient, Shimon Peres (b. 1923 Wolozyn, Poland). It was part of a “motivational quotation” poster that I came across.

"If a problem has no solution, it may not be a problem, but a fact — not to be solved, but to be coped with over time."

Because of perspective sometimes a "problem" is not, in fact, an actual objective problem! Nevertheless, resignation should never be the default position in the face of difficulties. I suspect that this quotation would be easier to mis-apply rather than to actually "motivate". Context is always needed when approaching a seemingly "great" quotation.

Image: Shimon Peres (answers.com)
Tags: Shimon Peres

The Greatest Social Fallacy Ever

Singles and others listen up! Communication is commonly thought of as a principle —or THE principle — to good relationships of whatever form. I certainly can not disagree with the importance of good communication which is not simply "expressing feelings". However, J. Michael Paul’s The Greatest Social Fallacy Ever reveals a deeper foundation: one that is either often overlooked or taken for granted or not articulated as nicely as Mr. Paul presents it. It is being available. Being available is certainly a foundational key to encountering God’s will, God in others, and God Himself. Married, single (in a relationship or not) or consecrated: here’s an “examination of conscience” of sorts that needs to be made.

---

It happened in the late 1990s. I would witness God crush one of the greatest social fallacies that has ever existed. He did this between two people. This falsehood pollutes the minds of believers everywhere, hinders growth in Christ, and interferes with the work of the Holy Spirit. However, this time, in Charlotte, North Carolina, God had His way.

So, what is this social fallacy or myth?

“I don’t know you, therefore I don’t need you.”

Two billion of us call ourselves Christians. That means that we have confessed that we are sinners and that Jesus Christ is our Savior. It also means that the Kingdom of God is inside of us. If the Kingdom is within us, then logic determines that this all-powerful and all-knowing God would influence us. In fact, Jesus promised us that (John 14: 23 & John 16: 13).

I am convinced that some singles actually practice and rehearse this falsehood. They are so focused on their goals and on what they believe is good for everyone else that they really don’t want strangers coming along in their lives. A portion of them are blessed to already live a life of contentment with family and friends. If only God would make things even easier for them and provide a “ready-made” spouse. Then, their lives would be complete. So they think.

All they want is “marriage material”. If you don’t represent the possibility of marriage to them, then there is no point of striking up a conversation. You are dismissed even before you take one step toward such people. Never mind that God may have called you to be that person’s good neighbor or even a friend.

Never mind that they may have a need that God sees and that you are gradually being called to recognize the need and to fill it. Nope, they want marriage material and marriage material alone. No room for anyone else in their hearts.

How good it was for me that I didn’t make that mistake in September 1995.

A woman named Ann dialed my home phone number. “Hi, J. Michael, you don’t know me. We saw each other only briefly at a conference a month ago. A friend gave me your number. I know this may sound odd, but I contacted you because I felt led by God to do it.”

One doesn’t need to live on this planet very long to know that history has given us plenty of crazy people who did crazy things because “God told them so”. Yet, there was something about Ann that made me want to give her a chance. Many would say: “Why would a 29-year old male want to strike up a friendship with a 48-year old woman?”

This 29-year old male was a ticking bomb when it came to his health. He had already been diagnosed with advanced Graves Disease four years earlier. But, he had the surprise of his life coming in 1998.

Ann kept saying, “Tell your mother that things are okay now. You have a motherly woman looking after you.”

I was thinking, “Why is Ann saying these things? I am eleven hours from my home town and have embarked on a new life. The freedom is good and she is talking about my need for a mother to watch over me.”

We became friends and spent an abundance of prayer and social time together. She married a friend that we both knew through the Church. Ann provided me with high quality literature on developing my life with Christ.

Then I became the prophet. On January 1, 1998, I called Ann and said, “I think this may sound strange, but I believe that I am supposed to live in your home.”

Ann (now married one year to our mutual friend Bob) said, “That doesn’t sound strange at all.”

Bob said, “Whatever Ann wants, that is fine with me.”

Two weeks later, I was standing in my kitchen and had what seemed like a stroke. I instantaneously felt like I was a very old man. Astonishing weakness and dizziness overcame me. My right ring finger turned purple. Half of my face fell within minutes. The doctor said that it was not a stroke. It was a brutal, brutal form of Bells Palsy.

Mama Ann was there to pick up the pieces. I moved in and began the long process of recovery. Today, my right eyebrow still refuses to express astonishment. Other than that, the facial paralysis has pretty much faded away.

Thank you to Ann and to Bob for listening to the Holy Spirit. Praise God!!

---

Credit: This article is property of J. Michael Paul (2007) Mesa, Arizona. It may be freely copied and distributed as long as the original title "The Greatest Social Fallacy Ever" and the author's name appears with the piece.

Photo: Wall of Light Summer by Sean Scully (2005) Hood Museum of Art

Meet The World

Icaro Doria, 25, a Brazilian living in Lisbon, Portugal, and others are leading an interesting "Meet the World" campaign. This campaign basically gathers information —we hope accurate—and communicates it through presenting proportions, not of a regular "pie chart"-type or the like, but through the colors of a nations flag (Like above).

We started to research relevant, global, and current facts and, thus, came up with the idea to put new meanings to the colours of the flags. We used real data taken from the websites of Amnesty International and the UNO.

The campaign has been running in Portugal since January 2005. There are eight flags that portray very current topics like the division of opinions about the war in Iraq in the United States, the violence against women in Africa, the social inequality in Brazil, the drug trafficking in Columbia, Aids and malaria in Angola, etc. (Icaro Doria translated by Isabell Erdmann)

The current list of "Meet the World" flags can be found at brazilianartists.net I have my own thoughts on a "United Nations" flag but I will keep it to myself for now. I like their idea of communication information effectively and in a novel way.

Citation: brazilianartists.net
Tags: Icaro Doria

"It Shines for All"

"It Shines for All" is the motto of The New York Sun. With $20 million from investors, The New York Sun debuted in April 2002 as a general interest newspaper. I recently discovered it as a refreshing news source featuring national and international news, the arts, and most obviously, non-mainstream editorials. It seems to be focused on "higher-end readers" and as such does not have a "serious sports section" although some of the sports stories have had a surprisingly good depth.

Time to Hang it up Sammy By Tim Marchman from January 31, 2007 on former slugger Sammy Sosa is a near "must read" for baseball fans.

Of course, here we have other interests besides sports. Seth Lipsky, The Sun's president and editor described its editorial page as championing "limited government, individual liberty, constitutional fundamentals, equality under the law, economic growth ... standards in literature and culture, education." (Salon.com April 25, 2002 )

Here's a sampling from the Opinion section from Amy De Rosa: Campus Polarization February 15, 2007. It's something surely one would not find in the New York Times any time soon.

Today, a small group of alumnae including myself and a student group are sponsoring a pro-life event at Barnard [College], featuring Serrin Foster of Feminists for Life who will speak on "The Feminist Case Against Abortion."

With this event, we hope to find that "diversity" on a college campus can mean more than differences of race, socio-economic level, and gender and that academic freedom is alive and well at Barnard. For it seems that when it is ideas that diverge from the prevailing liberal mind-set on so many college campuses, diversity goes out the window.

...

Creating an open campus environment for discussing difficult issues doesn't require a grant from the Ford Foundation. It requires reversing a trend that academia has brought on itself. Colleges and universities founded on religious principles with the mission to educate in the classical tradition of the liberal arts have drifted from their moorings. Today's academic freedom usually means that self-identified liberal professors are free to direct curriculums and course content to follow political and cultural trends —multiculturalism and diversity — rather than to educate for the purpose of refining the intellect and discovering the good and the true. Dialogue is difficult when the keepers of the prevailing liberal ideology are reluctant to engage in reasoned debate and are quick to label opposing views as intolerant, narrow-minded, and judgmental. The "political polarization" and the "silence and distancing" that [Barnard] President [Judith] Shapiro wrote about in my alumnae magazine are familiar phenomena to those of us who may have religious beliefs or political views not endorsed by the shapers of campus curriculums steeped in cultural relativism.

The New York Sun seems to be a paper and internet news source that fairly reports events while at the same time loves America. How refreshing indeed. Give The Sun a look for yourself and see if it shines for you.

Tags: New York Sun, Amy De Rosa

Words of Wisdom on “Information”

Of historian David McCullough’s many works, I only have read The Great Bridge (1972) on the building of the Brooklyn Bridge. He won the Pulitzer Prize for both Truman (1993) and John Adams (2001). His current best seller is 1776 (2005).

David McCullough, 73, in a commencement address at the University of Connecticut in May 1999, provided some real words of wisdom to the new graduates and a perspective on “information”, that —it is safe to say— many will have already forgotten or failed to take to heart at the time. Seven plus years have passed since his address at Uconn but his words and thoughts are certainly as relevant today as back then and are worth repeating here (for our edification, of course).

“Information has become an industry, a commodity to be packaged, promoted and marketed incessantly. The tools for ‘accessing’ data grow ever more wondrous and ubiquitous and essential if we’re to keep in step, we’ve come to believe. All hail the Web, the Internet, the Information Highway. We’re being sold the idea that information is learning, and we’re being sold a bill of goods. Information isn’t learning. It isn’t common sense necessarily. It isn’t kindness. Or trustworthiness. Or good judgment. Or imagination. Or a sense of humor. Or courage. It doesn’t tell us right from wrong.” (May 15, 1999)

The full text of his Uconn address, in which McCullough also encourages the graduates to continue their education through reading, is well worth a look. His commencement advice was to "Read, read, read." I encourage you to read it here. Hmmm… this might be a kind of “circular” thing.

Photo: David McCullough by William B. McCullough
Tags: David McCullough,Information,Internet