While taking a little time off from blogging for the Thanksgiving holiday, it dawned on me that I still had a few “atheists questions of doom” to get around to addressing. So, what does a little seen low budget space opera have to do with incredulous atheists? Come back in a day or two to find out.
Good evening Mr. & Mrs. Catholic, and all you other Christians at sea. Welcome back to the Newsreel, brought to you once again by the fine folks at Acts of the Apostasy, home of the 3 1/2 Time-Outs Tuesday. This week we take yet another look into what scientists are spending all of our tax funded research dollars on. Money well spent? You be the judge. Now off to press.
I
A new study published in the Journal of Sex Research entitled “Pornography Actresses: An Assessment of the Damaged Goods Hypothesis” reports some shocking conclusions. According to the researchers, “In terms of psychological characteristics, porn actresses had higher levels of self-esteem, positive feelings, social support, sexual satisfaction, and spirituality compared to the matched group,” all of this despite the fact that “women working in porn tried more drugs, had their first sexual experience at a younger age and had more sexual partners than those in the sample group.” Right. The flaw in the study, obviously, is that the positive results are based on the secular understanding of “self-esteem”, or as we like to refer to it around here, that relativistic self-centered state of mind that judges every situation on whether or not it hurts your feelings, and one which often leads to the development of narcissism and a sense of self-entitlement. And because secularized self-esteem is based on nothing but feelings, it is by nature transient and subject to change on a moment’s notice. Ask these same women the same questions five years from now when the money has dried up, the drugs have taken their toll, and the silicone has started to leak, and it’s quite possible the results will be startlingly different. Better to stick with the Christian version of self-esteem. As Msgr. Cormac Burke writes, “The Christian's self-esteem, his or her sense of self-worth, is both simple and extraordinary, inasmuch as it combines two very contrasting extremes. On the one hand I, as a Christian, know that I am a son of God; on the other, I know that I am a sinner in need of redemption. There is no greater sense of dignity and worth, and no greater sense of misery and danger. If I die loving God and others, I am saved. If I die loving just myself, I am lost. Christian education and formation — lifetime tasks — are fundamentally aimed at helping me take stock of my dignity, to grow in it with God's help and at the same time to fight against all inbuilt tendencies such as vanity, envy, greed or lust that turn me in on myself.”
II
Maybe the modern problem of not being able to distinguish between false self-esteem and true self worth lies in the fact that people are just getting dumber. At least that’s what a paper published in the journal Trends in Genetics by Stanford University researcher Gerald Crabtree suggests. According to Prof. Crabtree, “The development of our intellectual abilities and the optimization of thousands of intelligence genes probably occurred in relatively non-verbal, dispersed groups of peoples before our ancestors emerged from Africa.” Since then, it’s been a slow downward spiral of intelligence as advancements in technology have removed our need to think creatively in order to survive. A number of scientists have immediately disagreed with Crabtree’s conclusions because, well, nobody likes being called stupid, yet Crabtree stands by his hypothesis. But even if he is right, Crabtree says not to worry because by the time we’re in danger of living in a world full of morons science should be able to “magically correct” the problem through genetic manipulation. Because as we’ve learned from movies like Scanners, nothing could possibly go wrong with that idea. But an even more immediate problem than the threat of telepathic mutants is the fact that Crabtree’s time calculations may be off a decimal or two. In case the good professor didn’t notice, even though our country just went through a four year decline in which the poor became poorer and religious freedom came under serious prolonged attack, the American people just voted back in almost every Democrat and Republican who helped exacerbate the mess to begin with. You know, those geneticists might want to get to work really quick.
III
If all of the wacky scientific studies we’ve shared over the past few months haven’t been enough to make you cover your ears to shut them out, then this next one is sure to do the trick. In a study published in the Journal of Neuroscience, “Newcastle University scientists reveal the interaction between the region of the brain that processes sound, the auditory cortex, and the amygdala, which is active in the processing of negative emotions when we hear unpleasant sounds. Brain imaging has shown that when we hear an unpleasant noise the amygdala modulates the response of the auditory cortex heightening activity and provoking our negative reaction.” The fact that our brains actually heighten unpleasant sounds suggests to Dr Sukhbinder Kumar that our strong adverse reactions to certain noises might be a sort of primitive distress signal. This idea appears to be backed up by the top ten sounds identified by test subjects as the most unpleasant to the human ear. The list includes: 1. Knife on a bottle 2. Fork on a glass 3. Chalk on a blackboard 4. Ruler on a bottle 5. Nails on a blackboard 6. Female scream 7. Angle Grinder 8. Brakes on a cycle squealing 9. Baby crying 10. Electric drill. Since the responsorial Psalm set to a Cha Cha Cha melody which was heard at our local parish a few weeks ago mysteriously did not appear on the list, we can only assume it came in at number eleven.
III 1/2
And in closing, we share with you this story of a deer who assaulted two men and then jumped inside their truck and stole their cigarettes. Police eventually arrived and tased the animal, but not before it finished eating the smokes. There’s probably a moral in there somewhere, but we’re still looking for it.
And on that note, we sign off the Newsreel for this week, as is our custom, with the immortal words of the great Les Nessman. Good evening, and may the good news be yours.
Good evening Mr. & Mrs. Catholic, and all you other Christians at sea. Welcome back to the Newsreel, brought to you once again by the fine folks at Acts of the Apostasy, home of the 3 1/2 Time-Outs Tuesday. Scoentists have been keeping busy producing more studies, and we’ve been busy reading them. Now off to press.
II
That unavoidable aroma of scented pinecones in the air can only mean that Thanksgiving and Christmas are rapidly approaching. And with them comes the inevitable worries of packing on a few extra pounds due to all those holiday meals. It’s not that being overweight is not considered a sin in and of itself, but some particular reasons for the condition, like say gluttony or laziness, can be, so this causes some Christians a bit of concern. Well, regular readers of this blog need not worry as researchers from the University of Westminster in the UK have determined that watching horror movies can help you lose weight. One specialist involved in the study explains that this is a result of the “release of fast acting adrenaline, produced during short bursts of intense stress (or in this case, brought on by fear), which is known to lower the appetite, increase the Basal Metabolic Rate and ultimately burn a higher level of calories.” So which films are your best bets for shedding a few inches? According to the study, the following flicks are are the top ten fat burners: 1. The Shining - 184 calories 2. Jaws - 161 calories 3. The Exorcist - 158 calories 4. Alien - 152 calories 5. Saw - 133 calories 6. A Nightmare on Elm Street - 118 calories 7. Paranormal Activity - 111 calories 8. The Blair Witch Project - 105 calories 9. The Texas Chain Saw Massacre - 107 calories 10. [Rec] - 101 calories. So there you go. The next time someone questions why you’re going to watch Jack Nicholson chase his son around the snow with an axe for the umpteenth dozen time, just assure that person that you’re following the teachings of the Catechism by taking reasonable care of the precious gift of physical health entrusted to you by God by burning off some excess calories.
II
Speaking of aromas, do you or someone you know have a poor sense of smell. Well, according to a study out of Macquarie University in Australia, there’s a good chance one or both of you could be a psychopath. “Researchers found that those individuals who scored highly on psychopathic traits were more likely to struggle to both identify smells and tell the difference between smells, even though they knew they were smelling something. These results show that brain areas controlling olfactory processes are less efficient in individuals with psychopathic tendencies… Olfactory measures represent a potentially interesting marker for psychopathic traits, because performance expectancies are unclear in odor tests and may therefore be less susceptible to attempts to fake good or bad responses.” So the next time you’re at a parish that actually still uses incense as part of the proper veneration of the Word of God and you feel the urge to complain about it bothering your nose, at least be thankful you can actually smell it. It’s at least one sign you aren’t a lunatic.
III
But just because your nose is working properly doesn’t necessarily mean your mentally healthy. Other sensory issues could indicate a problem as well. Livescience, taking note of an article in the journal the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, reports that if you feel the urge to scratch after seeing someone else do it, you could possibly be a neurotic. “Merely seeing someone else scratch activates brain centers involved in the itch response, suggesting the observation makes one itchy… [however] those study participants who were more neurotic (a tendency toward negative emotions) were more likely to experience itch contagion.” Now, this notion of compulsive itching as a sign of neurosis should come as no surprise to readers of the Bible. 2 Timothy 4:3 (RSV) tells us “For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings.” The itching ears in this case represents the impulse people feel to avoid uncomfortable truths by seeking out messages more agreeable to their existing desires. Which if you put it all together probably makes the creeping tide of Secularism the biggest itch contagion going around right now.
III 1/2
And finally there’s this…
…coming straight to DVD and the SyFY Channel sometime in 2013. Enough said indeed?
And with that, we now sign off the Newsreel, as is our custom, with the immortal words of the great Les Nessman. Good evening, and may the good news be yours.
You might remember that the last time we brought up reading through the Catechism in one year as a part of the Year of Faith, we tossed around the idea that while we Catholics use a number of formulas in our worship, it is the deeper realities those formulas express which are important. And that’s why we should get the words used during mass as correct as possible, so that those realities are represented properly. But getting the words right is only the first part of the equation. The second part comes up in the reading for Day 28 in paragraph 197 which states, “As on the day of our Baptism, when our whole life was entrusted to the "standard of teaching", let us embrace the Creed of our life-giving faith. To say the Credo with faith is to enter into communion with God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and also with the whole Church which transmits the faith to us and in whose midst we believe.”
So what’s the Catechism getting at? Well, it’s pretty simple really. It’s the same thing old one-eyed Ragetti tries to get across to Captain Barbosa in this scene from Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End. (Sorry, the only copy I could find was from some guy who pointed his camera at his TV screen, but it’s clear enough to make the point.)
You see, what even the scruffiest of scallywags realizes is that you can recite the words of a formula as correctly as you want, but if you don’t mean them… they’re useless. It’s only if we say our Credos with faith that they allow us to enter into communion with our God. It’s an obvious truth, but probably one that it wouldn’t hurt to recall during those times at mass when we’re tempted to just roll off the responses by rote.
We’re well into the fourth week of our undertaking to read through the Catechism in one year as a part of the Year of Faith, and FINALLY there’s an opportunity for an Army Of Darkness reference (I mean, seriously, how can you run a respectable B-movie blog without the occasional Army Of Darkness reference?). To be specific, we’re talking about the scene in which our hero Ash is being questioned by the village wise man as to whether or not he properly performed the ritual necessary to safely retrieve the dreaded Necronomicon. The exchange went something like this…
Wiseman: When you removed the book from the cradle, did you speak the words?
Ash: Yeah, basically.
Wiseman: Did you speak the exact words?
Ash: Look, maybe I didn't say every single little tiny syllable, no. But basically I said them, yeah.
Of course, we viewers know better, don’t we? But just in case there are (inexplicably) some of you out there who still haven’t seen Army of Darkness, here’s what actually occurred…
Let’s face it, some words you just want to get right. Take the 3rd edition of the Roman Missal released in 2011, for example. The 1969 and 1980 translations were fine and served us well at mass for decades, but the 1st & 2nd edition translators had used the dynamic equivalent approach (meaning for meaning) rather the formal equivalence method (word for word), so even before 1980 Church scholars were already pointing out possible concerns with the phrasing. And you want to get the wording of the mass as correct as possible because, as the Day 24 reading of the Catechism points out, “We do not believe in formulas, but in those realities they express, which faith allows us to touch. "The believer's act [of faith] does not terminate in the propositions, but in the realities [which they express]." All the same, we do approach these realities with the help of formulations of the faith which permit us to express the faith and to hand it on, to celebrate it in community, to assimilate and live on it more and more.” So, while some of the new phrasings in the 3rd edition are admittedly clunky to modern ears (yes, I’m looking at you “consubstantial”), they’re preferable because they get closer to the ultimate realities the mass is trying to convey.
And besides, as Army of Darkness taught us, if we get the words wrong… the mass will explode.
Okay, that may not be true. But still, you want to get the words as right as possible.
“God can’t save you, the Church can’t save you… you think science can stop them?” – doomed detective Tom Lopez“Do not fear: I am with you; do not be anxious: I am your God. I will strengthen you, I will help you, I will uphold you with my victorious right hand.” – Isaiah 41:10
