As the Obamas know, the Common Core test questions are outsourced to companies like APass, who pay "consultants" piece meal rates to produce questions, generally between $5 and $15 per question, with the low-end going to multiple choice and the high end for essay questions. Projects generally run a week or two, and speed is of the essence. There are only a set number of questions associated with each project. The more questions you can write, the more money you get out of that project (and the less the other writers assigned to that project get). The questions themselves are often edited and approved by a different group of piece-meal workers under the same conditions.
Now, the questions have to include all kinds of "competencies" from various competency lists (if they don't pass the "internal standards", you don't get paid for the question), so the test question writers and editors are essentially being given a test of their own when they write - how many buzz words from the competency list can you fit into a question in the shortest amount of time so that you can maximize your income?
So, the test questions aren't about what 7th graders can do. The test questions are all about how much piecemeal test creators can earn. Nobody really cares if the questions are appropriate or adequate. All that matters is that each question match the checklist that is required to get paid. The idea is to crank out as many of the damn things as you can in the shortest amount of time.
The people doing this generally have to have a minimum of a graduate degree, so it's adjunct professors all the way down. It is a timed test with a check at the other end. But we aren't testing public school students. We are testing adjunct professors' "speed writing" competencies. Can they produce enough copy to pay their mortgage? That is what is being tested.
You know the old saying: "There are three aspects to any job: good, fast and cheap. Pick any two." The government picked "fast" and "cheap." They got it. Why is everyone complaining?
"And I've often wondered, are they better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things, or are they better off under government subsidy? They didn't get no more freedom. They got less freedom."
"[B]y age 16.5 American male slaves were taller than factory workers and laboring classes in England, the poor of Italy, students in Habsburg military schools, the middle class of Stuttgart, German peasants, and factory workers in Russia. As adults they also exceeded the aristocrats of Stuttgart, Moscow middle school pupils, and were about one-half inch below the Swedish schoolchildren, and less than one inch below the nonlaboring classes in England. At age 17.5 American female slaves exceeded Boston women of American or Irish parents, factory workers in England or Russia, and the upper class in Italy and were slightly more than one inch below the tallest group (schoolchildren in Sweden)."
This interpretation for average height has led to their use in studying the health of slaves, health inequality, living standards during industrialization, and trends in mortality. The first important results in the “new anthropometric history” dealt with the nutrition and health of Americans slaves as determined from stature recorded for identification purposes on slave manifests required in the coastwise slave trade. The subject of slave health has been a contentious issue among historians, in part because vital statistics and nutrition information were never systematically collected for slaves (or for the vast majority of the American population in the mid-nineteenth century, for that matter). Yet, the height data showed that children were astonishingly small and malnourished while working slaves were remarkably well fed. Adolescent slaves grew rapidly as teenagers and were reasonably well off in nutritional aspects of health.
Table 5: Life Expectancy at Birth by Country and Year
Country
1820
1900
1950
1999
France
37
47
65
78
Germany
41
47
67
77
Italy
30
43
66
78
Netherlands
32
52
72
78
Spain
28
35
62
78
Sweden
39
56
70
79
United Kingdom
40
50
69
77
United States
39
47
68
77
Japan
34
44
61
81
Russia
28
32
65
67
Brazil
27
36
45
67
Mexico
n.a.
33
50
72
China
n.a.
24
41
71
India
21
24
32
60
Africa
23
24
38
52
World
26
31
49
66
In terms of another kind of growth, population growth, it is the case that both slave and free populations in 19th century America grew at twice the rate of any European country. In fact, the American slave population grew by a factor of four between 1810 and 1860, an increase which was entirely due to reproduction, since importation was illegal by 1808. That kind of population growth is impossible without high fertility and relatively low mortality rates. High fertility, in turn, is not possible on an inadequate diet or in inadequate living conditions. In America, both slave and free infants were being conceived, born and were thriving at rates higher than that of every European population of the time. This fact was not lost on slave owners. Many American slave-owners made an argument in support of slavery based exactly on these facts: life as an American slave might not be ideal, but it was superior to life as a free "savage" in Africa, and even superior to the lives of many poor white men in both America and Europe. And, if we consider only nutritional and life expectancy data (as liberals generally do), the argument is quite strong. Of course, there is more to living in a just society than simply good food and long life. There is freedom to consider. But that is precisely the question Clive Bundy raises - can living on government welfare be considered "freedom"? When one considers that WIC and food stamps restrict what you are permitted to eat, government housing restricts where you are permitted to live, government schools restrict where you are permitted to be educated, government Medicare, Medicaid and Obamacare dictate what doctors you are permitted to see and what conditions they are permitted to treat, given that government subsidies allow the government to dictate so many aspects of the recipients' lives, what is the precise difference between the old slave owner and modern government? That is the question Clive Bundy asked. By calling him a racist, that is the question the government and the media avoid answering. Clive Bundy feeds his cattle on land the government took via eminent domain, but he refuses to live according to the rules the government wishes to impose on him as a consequence of "allowing" him to use the land which his family owned before the government seized it.
Slavemasters used to strip and publicly whip uppity slaves. Mr. Bundy's family has been stripped of their land, and, as Alan Keyes has pointed out, they are now being whipped in the media. Despite the passage of two centuries, not much has changed.
Pope's making history again - washing the feet of a woman and a Muslim. What does this signify? The washing of feet is an optional rite that is rooted in two different traditions: a) the “Mandatum Pauperam,” or washing of the feet
of poor people, and
b) the “Mandatum Fratrum,” the washing of the feet of “the
brothers.” (e.g., the woman who washes Jesus' feet with her tears) When the rite was folded into the Mass in 1955, women weren't
allowed in the sanctuary, so the rite of foot washing took on a
third meaning: Jesus' washing of apostle's feet at the Last Supper.
That is, it was now associated with the ordination of priests. Pope Francis is dispensing with the new, third meaning and
emphasizing the first two. For Christians, a brother or sister is a baptized person, so when he
washes a Christian's feet, his washing the feet of a brother or
sister. But in Christian theology, the poorest of the poor is the person who
hasn't heard or accepted the Gospel. Muslims aren't baptized, that is, they haven't accepted the Gospel. So, when he washes the feet of a Muslim, he's washing the feet of
the poorest persons. Muslims might respond in one of two ways: a) Some Muslims see this in terms of a Christian serving a Muslim.
Since Muslims consider non-Muslims second-class citizens, a
Christian who acts like a servant towards a Muslim is acting in a perfectly
appropriate way. He is acting like a dhimmi, as he should. b) Other Muslims see Christian acts of physical charity as a serious threat. When a Christian feeds, clothes, or otherwise physically
cares for a Muslim, this "perturbs the mentality of a good Muslim"
because it tends to make the Muslim think that Christianity may be
true. Physical acts of charity lead the Muslim away from Islam. Christian charity is such a serious threat that in 2010 there was a “fatwa promulgated by 7,300
Moroccan Muslim doctors who recently declared that Christian
charity ought to be considered religious terrorism.” What Christians call charity, Muslims call terrorism. Worse, not only is this an act of physical charity, some Muslims may be aware that this act can be seen as denigrating Muslims, casting them as the theologically poorest of the poor, unfamiliar with the ways of God. Even though it is intended as an act of service, it could be taken as a theological insult. In fact, given that Muslim nurses find the simple act of washing hands to be an offense against modesty, it could be taken as an insult in more than one way The Pope is certainly aware of this element.
By returning to the traditional meaning of the washing of the feet,
what Francis is doing is very seriously engaging the Muslim world,
and he's taking a significant risk to do so.
Some Catholics like to practice a Seder meal at some point prior to or during Holy Week. The Seder meal is only a pale shadow of the richness of the Catholic Mass. While it is understandable that the study of the Seder meal can bring a greater appreciation of the Mass, it is kind of silly.
First, how do you decide which traditional Jewish seder you want to look at? They aren't the same. For instance, the Ashkenazi have lamb at their Seders, the Sephardic and Mizrhaic Jews do not. Why the difference? Because the Ashkenazi say the lack of the Temple does not limit their ability to sacrifice the Passover lamb, while the other sects insist that no Passover lamb can be properly sacrificed anywhere but at the non-existent Temple.
Even if you decide on the tradition you want, what Seder ritual should you use? This is no small argument. I once had a discussion with a parish employee who insisted that the parish only use a Seder ritual which was acceptable to a(n Ashkenazi) rabbi. When I pointed out the absurdity of having a Jew tell a Catholic what kind of ritual could be carried out on parish property, she replied, "Well, how would you like it if someone did a parody of the Catholic Mass?"
I replied, "That happens every day. It's called Anglicanism."
The question of the Temple is important in another respect. Most parish Seder aficionados insist on having the Ashkenazi lamb at their Seder. Yet, even though they want the Seder and the lamb, the same people almost never also insist on ritually killing the lamb by slitting its throat in front of an observant audience. Why not? If you're going to do the Seder, why not do the whole thing?
Bring the kids in, especially the young ones! We like teaching them about the Eucharist by handing out Hawaiian bread and grape juice, why not help them gain an appreciation for Christ's sacrifice by slitting a lamb's throat and skinning it right in front of them as well? I promise they would never forget the lesson.
And if we're going to sacrifice lambs for the Seder, why stop there? Why not perform ritual animal holocausts on a regular basis at the parish church to commemorate the major Jewish feast days? So many Catholic feast days are built on the foundation of Jewish feasts that we should not overlook the opportunities the liturgical calendar affords.
Bring cows, sheep, lamb, doves! Wring doves' necks, slice throats, let the blood flow freely! Let them see what Temple Judaism really looked like! Then everyone will have a greater appreciation for the crucifixion.
Performing a Seder meal in order to appreciate the Mass is a lot like buying and playing with a Matchbox Hotwheels car so that you can better drive and appreciate a 2014 Toyota Camry. It just makes sense, right?
So, while you're sharpening your knives for the parish Seder, think on these things.
Many people argue that there are human persons in hell, or that some subset of human persons MUST end up in hell. Part of their argument invariably involves an invocation of private revelation.
"What about the vision of Fatima!?!?" is a common wail.
Well, let's think about Fatima for a moment.
On July 13, 1919, the Blessed Virgin Mary herself taught the three visionaries this prayer:
O my Jesus, forgive us our sins, save us from the fire of hell, *lead all souls to heaven,* especially those who are in most need of Thy mercy.
Now, think about that. Is prayer ever useless? Obviously not. Would Mary ever insist we pray for something that is useless? Again, obviously not. God doesn't have us do useless things. So, if human souls were in hell, why would Mary ask us to pray in 1917 that all souls be led to heaven? There is no way to get out of hell - that's de fide. Yet we are asked to pray that all souls be led to heaven. Now, prayer is a timeless act. It's effects can ripple backward in time as well as forward in time. Therefore, it must be possible for us to have theological hope, rooted in God's own divine mercy, that all human persons be saved. Hell would still exist, and would still be occupied by the fallen angels. It would not be empty. There would simply be no human persons in it. If we didn't have the theological right to hope for this - indeed, the duty to hope for this - then Mary would never have taught us this prayer and asked us to pray it. And this hope cannot just be a natural hope, for no one can have a natural hope for heaven. If our entire basis to hope for heaven lay only in our human nature, then we are all doomed to hell. The only way we can attain heaven is through God's own gift of supernatural grace. That is why our hope for heaven, whether it be for ourselves or someone else, must always be a supernatural hope, for only God's supernatural grace can accomplish this end. To say we can only pray this prayer with a natural hope is to say that Catholics are allowed to be Pelagians, which is absurd. So, Fatima has a certain tension within it. On one hand, we have the visionaries seeing people falling towards hell, on the other, we have Mary teaching them to pray that all souls end up in heaven. ConclusionThe only conclusion we can reach is this: the souls the visionaries saw moving towards hell, even at the moment of their death. even those who died in the past, can be saved for heaven at the moment of their death by our (future) prayers and sacrifices before God's throne. The timeless nature of prayer is also about the only thing that would explain why none of the nasty events Mary described at Fatima actually happened: Russia would eventually be properly consecrated at some future point, so none of the described disasters actually took place. If anyone wishes to stand on Fatima in order to demonstrate that not all human beings are saved, s/he stands on a very weak reed indeed, for in the very same visionary event, the Blessed Virgin Mary commands us to pray a prayer that assumes all human beings can, in fact, be saved. Since Mary did teach this prayer and command we pray it, we can correctly conclude no human being is yet in hell, and we can also conclude that it is our duty to hope every human being attains heaven. UPDATE: The papal preacher apparently agrees with this view.
As I was researching for a class lecture, I ran into the map below. It shows the amount of "homophobia" in the world, according to Gallup's international survey from 2012:
The color scheme is switched around (red is always bad, of course, while green is good), but as you can see, the map is pretty close to identical. Wherever the national debt is high, homosexual activity is very much encouraged. Wherever national debt is low, homosexuality is very much discouraged.
In fact, I even ran a scatterplot to check the correlation, using the same trick the Atlantic article used, doing a log of the currency values in order to increase the r-squared value. Lo! and behold! The r-squared value came in at a very respectable 50.3% correlation.
As you can see, while the match in America isn't perfect, there's quite a bit of overlap. Generally speaking, where debt is high, homosexual "rights" are powerful. Where debt is low, homosexual "rights" tends not to be powerful.
Homosexual "rights" seems to be, quite literally, a bankrupt philosophy, or rather, the philosophy of the bankrupt.
Rudyard Kipling wrote a series of stories for children about animals - how the leopard got its spots, how the elephant got a long trunk, etc. - that he titled "Just So Stories". The little volume became so popular that the title became a byword. If you create a "just so" story, you create a story that matches many of the known facts but is, in all other aspects, completely fabricated. It just sounds so nice that it must be true.
Le Gros Clark knew that genuine fossil discoveries ignite brighter sparks of controversy than any cranial con job ever could. given limited evidence about long-gone populations of our predecessors, researchers devise competing evolutionary scenarios that are often difficult to disprove and that can easily accommodate whatever ancient bones turn up next. (Science News, Fossil Sparks, Nov 3, 2007, Vol. 172, p 280, 1st column).
Science News is not a hotbed of Intelligent Design theory or of Creationism. It is very much wedded to evolutionary theory. But, among friends, it explicitly admits the facts: evolution is not a theory, but a bunch of contradictory theories, each one hard to distinguish from a "just so" story.
I'm not a fan of creationism, but it is admissions like this which make it hard for me to get enthusiastic about macro-evolution.
The boys (12, 10 and 8) and I saw the second part of Peter Jackson's Hobbit series. My sons were mystified by what they considered a major plot flaw: what could Thorin Oakenshield possibly have used as a boat on the river of molten gold?
After all, it would have to have a lower specific gravity than gold (to float), a higher melting point (to avoid disintegration) and a low heat transfer rate (so Thorin wouldn't be grilled like a hotdog while riding it).
After much research, the eldest discovered the answer.
According to Peter Jackson, Tolkien's dwarves not only discovered mithril, they also discovered how to make aerogels.
Scorcese proved it with The Last Temptation of Christ. Dan Brown proved it with The Da Vinci Code. Now the producers of Noah have demonstrated it.
If you want to make a LOT of money on a story, write something that is so outrageously provocative, so incredibly over-the-top in its anti-Christian themes that Christians can't help themselves. The Christian community knee-jerks and express outrage against it, thus giving you reams and reams of free publicity.
Everyone will go to see what the issue is.
You walk to the bank and deposit your winnings.
It's a very safe bet.
Sure, you can make money with family-friendly, Christian-friendly movies, but it isn't nearly as much fun.
There are some interesting factoids from the world of science that may have some bearing on why people so happily embrace homosexuality, contraception and abortion.
Why would a sterile male cricket mate with an infertile female? On the surface, this behaviour makes no sense: sex takes energy and effort, and there’s nothing in it for either of these partners. Neither one can foster the next generation.
Shelley Adamo from Dalhousie University has the answer. Her team have shown that one particular insect virus can sterilise crickets, but also change their behaviour so they continue to mate with each other. By doing so, they pass the virus on to uninfected hosts.
One of the best-known segregation distorters is the so-called t gene in mice. When a mouse has two t genes it either dies young or is sterile. t is therefore said to be 'lethal' in the homozygous state. If a male mouse has only one t gene it will be a normal, healthy mouse except in one remarkable respect. If you examine such a male's sperms you will find that up to 95% of them contain the t gene, only 5% the normal allele. This is obviously a gross distortion of the 50% ratio we expect. Whenever, in a wild population, a t allele happens to arise by mutation, it immediately spreads like a brushfire... before long the whole local population is likely to be driven extinct. There is some evidence that wild populations of mice have, in the past, gone extinct through epidemics of t genes.
Also, we have the explanation of the Bruce effect from the same tome - male mice secrete a chemical whose smell can cause female mice to abort her current pregnancy so the new male mouse can successfully mate with her. There is also the reverse Whitten effect: female mice synchronize menstrual cycles based on olfactory cues.
We already know that people infected with Toxoplasmosis gondii display measurably different mental behaviour compared to those who do not. T. gondii victims have six times the rate of automobile accidents as non-infected people. Given the love women traditionally have for cats, this may explain why women are stereotypically described as worse drivers than men. Men infected with the organism tend to engage in more risk-taking behaviour. Schizophrenics are twice as likely to be infected as the general population.
So, is it possible that some gene, bacteria or virus or combination is part of the reason so many people seem to have gone insane and begun embracing homosexuality, contraception and abortion in the last century?
I am certain no one has investigated possible links.
There could be a medical discovery waiting to be made!
The TLM readings for today are restricted just to Gal 4:22 (the two sons, representing the two covenants) and John 9 (Jesus feeds the 5000). But the Novus Ordo! Ahhh!! If I have called the Novus Ordo a child's Mass, it is with regard to the consecration prayers, but with regard to the Scripture readings, there is simply no contest - the Novus Ordo has a depth and breadth the TLM can never match.
Today's example is a superb case in point. It revolves around the theme of "sight".
It begins with the Samuel anointing David king of Israel. This story is a classic demonstration of the four senses of Scripture. "Bethlehem" means "house of bread". Samuel does not go of his own accord, rather, he is sent by God to anoint the king, he is a prophet, an apostle of God. When Samuel first arrives, he sees a son of Jesse and moves to anoint him. God says "No! Don't see as men see, see what God sees." Samuel does not know who the king is. It is only when David arrives that God opens Samuel's eyes, it is only with the arrival of the 8th son that Samuel finally recognizes and anoints the king. Immediately upon being anointed, the "Spirit rushes upon him (David)."
Read according to the four senses, it is the story of God in the Eucharist. When you go to find God in the House of Bread, don't see with the eyes of men ("it's only bread!") see with the eyes of God ("This is the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ, the God-man"). Only then will you see the son of the Resurrection, who raised Himself up on the 8th day (crucified on Friday, resting in the tomb on the 7th day, rose on the 8th day). It is through the power of the Spirit that we are able to see the King of Kings in the House of Bread.
The Psalm Response is Psalm 23: "the Lord is my Shepherd, I shall not want." This Psalm is used several times throughout this liturgical year, but it has a special poignancy here.
You spread the table before me in the sight of my foes; you anoint my head with oil; my cup overflows.
Not only does baptism anoint me king as Samuel anointed David king, baptism also allows me to participate in the Eucharistic feast, within sight of my enemies. The second reading, taken from Ephesians 5, continues on this theme, considering exactly who those enemies are:
You were once darkness, but now you are light in the Lord...Take no part in the fruitless works of darkness; rather expose them, for it is shameful even to mention the things done by them in secret; but everything exposed by the light becomes visible, for everything that becomes visible is light.
I was once one of the enemies. Now, through my baptism, God has enlightened me. All shameful deeds, even my own, are exposed to the light and become visible.
And this theme of darkness to light, blindness to sight, is crowned with the Gospel reading: Jesus healing the blind man. Jesus uses His own saliva - for Jesus is the source of living water - along with the dust from which we are formed to make a paste which He uses to anoint the blind man's eyes. Water and dust combine to give sight, just as baptismal water and a living human being combine to give us sight into Him who is divine. Samuel anointed David's forehead, empowering his mind to understand God's ways, Jesus anoints the blind man's eyes, empowering him to see Divinity Himself.
But the paste by itself is not sufficient. Jesus sends the man to Siloam, which means "one who is sent", to wash the paste off. Another word for "one who is sent" is "apostle." Mary is often called the Apostle to the apostles, because she is sent by God to bring Jesus, the first Apostle, into the world and give Him to the Twelve. This blind man is also sent by God, he is also an apostle, but he is sent to Siloam, sent to the Apostles, so that he can soak in their teachings; through their teachings, they will give Christ to him.
Baptism begins the work, but only after we wash in the teachings of the apostles can we truly begin to see. Once the man has been washed in this teaching, he is able to successfully argue with the scribes of the Temple about who the Christ really is.
Elsewhere, Christ says "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat, so do what they say...". Christ requires us to possess a certain amount of respect for those who do not believe. Yet, in this passage, the formerly blind man actively mocks the Pharisees, pointing out to them the failures in their logic, the gaps in their understanding. They have not been anointed, they have not accepted the teaching of Him who the Father sent, Jesus: the first Apostle. The Pharisees and scribes have not the grace, the power to understand. They are blind.
Only after the man is thrown out of the synagogue does Jesus seek him out and reveal Himself to the man. Yet, even at this point, the man is unsure of Christ's identity: "Who is he, Sir, that I may believe in Him?" He cannot identify Christ.
He may wonder who anointed his eyes with mud, he may speculate about why he was sent to this pool of Siloam and not some other pool, he may think himself ill-used by the Pharisees, he may be uncertain of many things, but of one thing he is unshakably certain. He knows God healed him.
It is at this point that Christ fully reveals Himself. The man does not know Jesus after baptism, or after soaking in the apostolic teachings, or even after defending his new Faith to the point of persecution. It is only after all these things, only because of all of these things, he can see. God has given the man the tools he needs so that when Christ reveals Himself, the man with sight can now see Him. Now the Spirit of God rushes upon the man and he falls down and he worships the King of Kings.
And here we see the glory of the Novus Ordo. It is on THIS day that the candidates for Easter baptism are subjected to their third and final scrutiny. It is on THIS day that the Church wears rose vestments, a lightening of the penance, for on THIS day, the baptismal candidates begin to fully see what their baptism will entail. Now they finally begin to be enlightened.
They may be uncertain of many things. They may wonder, question, speculate. But even though they do not fully understand, now they begin to see the need for baptism, the need for apostolic teaching, the need to defend the Faith despite persecution. They begin to understand more fully their desperate desire for the light of Christ. They are given firm hope, grounded in God's own word, that Jesus will reveal Himself to them when all these things have come to pass.
Their loads will be lightened because the sacraments, the apostolic teaching, the persecutions, their steadfast defense of the Faith, will enlighten them. Through these, they will become intimate followers of Jesus Christ, God.
In this regard, compared to the Novus Ordo, the liturgical readings of the TLM are weak and empty by comparison. The power of the Novus Ordo readings for this day are found not just in the readings, but in the way the Novus Ordo Mass intertwines the liturgy into the lives of those about to enter into Christ's body through baptism. There is simply no comparison. On this, the fourth Sunday of Lent, the Novus Ordo's Liturgy of the Word is incredibly superior to the TLM's Mass of the Catechumens.
If we could combine the enormous beauty of the TLM's consecration prayers with the power of the Novus Ordo reading cycle and RCIA liturgy, what a Mass we would have!
The nun’s data is accurate.
According to the National Institutes for Health, father-son estrangement is linked to homosexuality:
“The consistent pattern of results obtained from these three studies suggests that the emotionally distant relationships of fathers and androphilic sons relate to the sons’ atypical childhood gender identity (or observable gender role behavior) rather than to the sons’ erotic preference for male partners per se.”
However, less time shared between father and young son was an important factor. In the first year of life, the fathers tended to spend somewhat less time with their effeminate sons than did the fathers of masculine boys. During the next four years, however, the differences increased. By the time the boys were 3 to 5 years old, fathers of feminine boys were spending significantly less time with their sons than were fathers of the masculine boys....
Rather than attributing homosexuality to cultural, parental or genetic factors, Dr. Green sees an interaction of the three, as evidenced in particular by a pair of identical twins in his study. One boy was clearly feminine and the other twin typically masculine. The feminine boy was sick a lot and had little to do with his father, whereas the masculine twin had a more typical relationship with his father. As adults, both boys were bisexual, but the feminine twin was far more homosexual than his brother.
28% of homosexual men had more than 1000 partners: “Bell and Weinberg reported evidence of widespread sexual compulsion among homosexual men. 83% of the homosexual men surveyed estimated they had had sex with 50 or more partners in their lifetime, 43% estimated they had sex with 500 or more partners; 28% with 1,000 or more partners. Bell and Weinberg p 308.” (exodusglobalalliance.org/ishomosexualityhealthyp60.php)
Modal range for homosexual sex partners 101-500: “In their study of the sexual profiles of 2,583 older homosexuals published in Journal of Sex Research, Paul Van de Ven et al. found that “the modal range for number of sexual partners ever [of homosexuals] was 101–500.” In addition, 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent had between 501 and 1000 partners. A further 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent reported having had more than 1000 lifetime sexual partners. Paul Van de Ven et al., “A Comparative Demographic and Sexual Profile of Older Homosexually Active Men,” Journal of Sex Research 34 (1997): 354.”
As for the masturbation-homosexuality link, there is this story to contend with:
In turning to a dedicated study of sex practices, the Hewletts formally confirmed that the campfire stories were no mere fish tales. Married Aka and Ngandu men and women consistently reported having sex multiple times in a single night. But in the process of verifying this, the Hewletts also incidentally found that homosexuality and masturbation appeared to be foreign to both groups.
For those who are angry because they think she was being inaccurate, she wasn't.
As you can see, total Catholic school populations are nearly identical to a century ago - the current school population should match or drop below by next year. America's population has tripled, America's Catholic population has quadrupled, but America's Catholic schools have shrunk to almost exactly the same size they were a century ago.
The Catholic Grade Schools
But the news isn't even that good. The 2013 numbers have been pumped up by non-Catholic children. Yes, fully 16.4% of the 1.974 million children currently enrolled in Catholic schools are non-Catholic. If we took them out of the equation, the total Catholic student population in Catholic schools would actually be closer to 1.65 million. The Catholic student population has actually shrunk below the 1919-20 level as the nation has grown.
In 1920, almost no one went to high school, so nearly 1.8 million of the 1.9 million children enrolled were in grade school. The grade schools grew faster than the high schools. Today, the grade schools are shrinking faster than the high schools. Only 1.39 million children are in grade school. That 1.39 million includes the 14.6% of grade school students who are non-Catholics.
If we take out the non-Catholics in the grade school system, you're looking at 1.19 million Catholic grade school children. So, today's Catholic grade school population is actually 33% smaller than it was in 1920. That is, the nation tripled in size, but Catholic grade school populations shrank by one-third. Even so, 60% of the children who attend Catholic grade school never see the inside of a Catholic high school.
The Catholic High Schools
There are currently 582,785 Catholic high school students, but fully 20% of those high school students are not Catholic. That means we have only 462,000 Catholic students in Catholic high schools - quite a bit less than half a million. High school populations are not collapsing as fast as grade schools' primarily because today's parents want their kids in good colleges. They hope a private high school will help. Even so, both the number of high school students and high schools have been dropping for years. The current enrollment is 583,000: the high school population hasn't been this low in the last sixty years. The number of high schools is 1195: the number has not been this low in the last century.
In 1920, 64% of the population, or about 67.8 million children, were under the age of 18 (p. xv, Table E). About 11.6 million (16.6%) of those children were Catholic. Today, America has about 74 million children under the age of 18. About 16 million (22%), are Catholic. This means that both in 1920 and today, about 58 million children are non-Catholic. These figures assume Catholic children make up the same proportion of the population as Catholic adults.
So, while the proportion of Catholic children in the general population may continue to increase, there is no indication this will increase the number of Catholic students in Catholic schools. In fact, the trend has been very much in the opposite direction. Bishops who insist that the Catholic schools are the key to passing on the Catholic Faith are ignoring the last 40 years of evidence to the contrary.
Non-Catholic Students
Non-Catholic students will not save the day. The last year the Catholic school system saw growth was 2000-01. In that year, 365,328 (13.8% ) of the school population was non-Catholic. By 2012, this number had dropped to only 318,277 (15.9%). While 2013 has seen that total rise to 323,542 (16.4%) non-Catholic students, the raw total is still over 10% off the Catholic school mini-boom of 2000-01.
Right now, Catholic schools can't seem to attract either Catholic or non-Catholic students.
Even if Catholic schools succeed in attracting the same number of non-Catholics each year, given the shrinking number of Catholic students participating, the schools won't be able to sustain themselves on non-Catholic populations alone. Over the course of the last twelve months, even with Catholic school gains of over 5000 non-Catholic students, they still lost over 27,000 total students. In both percentage and raw terms, this was actually the lowest loss rate (-1.36%) since 2001-02 (-1.17%). It is not a recipe for success.
Recently, the head of Planned Parenthood, Cecile Richards, said that the discussion of when life begins was not really relevant. She said her children's lives began at birth. Many people were horrified. They shouldn't be.
We are shocked by Cecile Richards response because we are Christians and we aren't used to hearing the Jewish viewpoint. But all she did was enunciate what nearly all Jews believe. On this subject, the Jewish viewpoint is indistinguishable from the secular viewpoint. Christians believe a human person begins at conception, Hindus and Buddhists argue that human beings pre-exist conception, Muslims define the beginning as a certain number of days after conception (depending on whether the child is male or female). There is a fairly wide range of opinion on the subject within the Jewish community, but Reform Judaism is the largest bloc in the United States; they generally argue that life begins at first breath. Unless you understand other people's arguments better than they do, you won't succeed in changing their minds.
People who argue abortion often make little headway because they compare apples and oranges. Here's a scorecard to help you keep track of what the subject is. Arguments about abortion generally revolve around three areas:
1) being alive vs
2) being a human person vs
3) the rights inherent to a human person.
1) Being Alive
When people say "We don't know when life begins", they aren't making a statement about evolution.
The sperm is alive, the egg is alive, the fertilized egg is alive. the embryo alive. All of it is alive. When we discuss abortion, we aren't discussing when "life" begins. What people really mean to say is "We don't know when the human person's life begins."
But, since you DO know when the human person's life begin, and they claim not to know, they actually mean, "We can't agree on when the human person's life begins." Correct them immediately and verify that this is what they meant. Definitions matter. This is why:
2a) Personhood: Biological tests
In almost every case, they will then insist on some biological test to establish personhood. Some popular biological tests are listed below.
These are all external tests. None of them really demonstrates personhood; at best, they are all merely proxies for personhood. After all, if external tests were sufficient to know a person, then the most efficient way to get to know someone would be to meet them, and then immediately vivisect them: slice open their chest, examine their stomach contents, crack open the skull and verify brain structures, etc. Every biological test - stethoscopes, EEGs, MRIs, etc. - are all forms of painless or virtual vivisection by which we verify the integrity of various bodily structures.
Yet, for some odd reason, people rarely take their first dates to an MRI scanner or have their EEGs checked. If these tests were really efficient tests for determining the quality of personhood, everyone would subject each other to these tests all the time. If you want to know what a person is, consider whether there can be such a thing as a person who has absolutely no brain. Such persons do exist.
2b) Personhood: Communication tests
Most people don't even realize that they require a communication test for personhood. They think they are demanding some inherent quality of being, such as:
Self-Awareness
Social capability: can embryo make decisions?
Rationality vs. non-rationality
Sense of morals and/or ethics
Presence of Ego/soul
Sense of humanity
Unfortunately, it is impossible to demonstrate any of these attributes unless the entity is capable of communicating. Someone who possesses one or more "inherent" attributes but cannot communicate them to the outside world will be judged a "non-person". Many people who were thought to be in comas turned out not to be - they simply were unable to move the muscle systems necessary to establish communications with others, and so were misdiagnosed.
Persons can only be known by self-revelation. You can't know if I like Snickers bars simply be examining my stomach. You might see that I have eaten one, but you don't know if I like it until I tell you. I have to reveal myself to you.
One of the reasons the Romans considered everyone else to be barbarians is that no one else spoke Latin. They couldn't communicate with them, therefore they considered them subhuman. This was a common conceit in early history - most peoples considered themselves human and everyone else subhuman barbarians for the same reason. Modern people make exactly the same judgement: if you can't communicate, you aren't a person.
The triumph of Christianity was exactly the realization that communication doesn't matter - others are fully human even when we can't communicate with them. What matters is the presence of the human soul, which is comprised of the human intellect and human will. Whether the soul can successfully use the tool of the human body to communicate is irrelevant. Non-Christians don't understand reality well enough to accept this understanding, so they revert to a variation of the pagan view: "If you can't talk to me, then you aren't human."
In fact, this is arguably why the "biological test" for personhood is so popular. The culture would like to retain the Christian insight (communication doesn't matter), so it uses tests that do not require the subject to communicate (EKG, EEG, etc). Unfortunately, by treating the subject as an object, those tests throw away one central aspect of personhood: self-revelation.
However, this raises another problem. What if the entity can talk to you, but it isn't a human person?
Within a few years, we will have a different kind of misdiagnosis: the Turing test. Machines may soon be able to communicate in ways that make them hard to distinguish from persons. If a machine does communicate in this way, is it a person or the illusion of a person? We can create auditory, visual and tactile illusions. Would this be a kind of logical illusion? After all, the machine is really just following a program written by a real person or group of persons. So are we communicating with the machine? Or are we communicating with a group of persons, some who may even be dead? Is a computer that passes the Turing test really just an interactive book, a cell phone conversation once removed, or is it something more?
And given the fact that the machine is created by a group of persons, will it be a walking, talking example of a corporation, the "legal person" idea dreamed up by lawyers and judges in the late 1800s? To Christians, it is obvious that computers which pass the Turing test are really just rather complicated phone calls to recording machines. But others won't see it that way.
3) Personhood: Rights
Even if you can agree on how to define the existence of a person, what rights does a person have? Are rights inherent to the individual (e.g., granted by God or ontology), or are rights granted by society?
Does society grants rights?
Can we kill it if its existence would make us feel guilty:
for refusing to care for it as we should (it would suffer)
for not being able to care for it as we should (it would suffer)
if someone else could care for it as we should have (e.g., abort rather than adopt)
That is, do others have a right to make us feel guilty by volunteering to care for it?
Can we replace it?
We have already granted society the right to take away other people's lives (death penalty).
Arguments about death penalty vs. abortion are merely arguments about whether society's right to take human life is limited (to the guilty) or unlimited (government can kill whoever it chooses). For instance, the Chinese agree that women are persons, but deny that women have the right to choose the number of children they bear. The government does. Belgian doctors agree you are a person, but you don’t choose when your life ends. They do.
So, Planned Parenthood doesn't really care about biological tests nor communications tests. By their lights, personhood is granted by society through society's delegate: the woman who gives birth. If society (the woman) denies you personhood, then you are a non-person, subject to whatever future society (the woman) deems appropriate.
Analysis
If one person mentions brainwaves while the other insists on a woman's right to choose, the two people are talking past each other. One wants to know what constitutes a person, the other wants to know what rights a person has. Point this out. Ask them to settle on one discussion or the other, and then stick to that discussion.
If you are trying to define when personhood begins, then don't discuss personal rights until the definition is agreed upon. If you want to discuss personal rights, there is no point bringing in a discussion of when personhood begins. They don't care when personhood begins - they just care what rights a person has.
"When I search more thoroughly... I find that it is rather a kind of fashion [in Czech: 'móda']. And if it is a fashion, therefore it is a matter that does not need that much attention. It is just necessary to show some patience and kindness to people who are addicted to a certain fashion. But I consider greatly important to go deep into things, because if we do not go deep, no liturgical form, this or that one, can save us." ~ Pope Francis, 14 Feb 2014
While speaking to the Czech section of Vatican Radio, Pope Francis pointed out that liturgy doesn't save us.
He's right. It doesn't. Only the sacraments save us. Liturgy is wrapped around sacrament, but liturgy - by itself - has no saving power.
A lot of people think older liturgies are more beautiful and protect people from heresy. Maybe they do, but there isn't any particular proof for the proposition. Take, for instance, the East-West schism.
Here is a list of all the bishops of Constantinople who presented or advocated heresies:
Eastern schisms and the Councils that responded to them:
Eusebius of Nicomedia: Arian archbishop of Constantinople, reigned 338 AD, answered by Nicaea (325)
Nestorius: 2-person Christ, archbishop of Constantinople, reigned 428-432, answered by Ephesus (431)
Acacius: Monophysite Patriarch of Constantinople, reigned 471-479, answered by Chalcedon (451)
Anthimus: Monophysite Patriarch of Contantinople, reigned 535-36, answered by Chalcedon (451)
Sergius: Monothelite Patriarch of Constantinople, reigned 610-638, answered by 3rd Constantinople (681)
Pyrrhus: Monothelite Patriarch of Constantinople, reigned 639-641, answered by 3rd Constantinople (681)
Paul: Monothelite Patriarch of Constantinople, reigned 641-648, answered by 3rd Constantinople (681)
Photius: Patriarch of Constantinople, reigned 858-867 and again 878-886. No heresy: just schism, answered by 4th Constantinople (869-870). Notice that 4th Constantinople expressly ordered that Photius never hold episcopal office again, much less the see of Constantinople. Notice also the Pope completely ignored the ruling of 4th Constantinople that the papal throne had fully accepted just ten years before, and allowed Photius back into the episcopal chair at Constantinople. Councils don't mean anything if the Pope doesn't enforce them. Remember that when you wail about "what Vatican II did." It did nothing. The Popes did it all.
No more Ecumenical Councils in the East.
Now, all these men celebrated beautiful liturgies, in many cases, liturgies that had been developed by Doctors and/or Fathers of the Church. Liturgy doesn't get better than that. You can make a strong argument that the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom or St. Cyril is much more beautiful than the liturgy put in place following the Council of Trent, a council that had no Fathers or Doctors upon its roll.
Despite their great liturgies, all these bishops of Constantinople fell into heresy, as did hundreds of their brother priests and bishops.
The liturgy does not save.
The Tridentine Mass is nice. It doesn't save. Don't get hung up on it.
_0.png)