I find myself disagreeing with Ars Technica on a very similar matter to one of my previous disagreements. Today, Ars is all upset that the Federal Communications Commission is considering changing the classification of DSL from a “telecommunications service” to being an “information service.”[1] Ars, or at least Mr. Bangeman, disbelieves claims that the requirement that they lease lines out has discouraged phone companies from upgrading their infrastructure. He might even be right, I do not know. I do think it some what significant that Joe, even as a very junior person at Verizon, thinks that this claim might well be true. Joe’s a very bright guy, and I do not think he would blindly accept such a claim. Returning to matters of fact though, it IS clear and undeniable that residential customers got a poor deal when MCI successfully used anti-trust law to break up AT&T. Residential phone service went up in price, and down in quality. Really, the only people who benefited from the breakup were those who wished to compete with AT&T. Interestingly enough, as things have been de-regulated, customer service has largely improved. Previously, I gave the rise of FedEx and UPS as an example.[2] I do not know if AT&T would again be a benevolent monopoly or not. I do not know if the local phone companies will be benevolent in their monopolies on DSL or not. If I had to guess, I would say some will and some will not. But to be blindly afraid of a monopoly, simply because a monopoly can be abused, but only has been abused in some of the cases available to us, does not a good argument make. I would like to see on what basis he would assert that the phone companies will necessarily all give bad service after this (effective) grant.

[1] Bangeman, Eric. “FCC likely to deregulate DSL” Ars Technica 2005-08-04. http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20050804-5168.html
[2] Schierer, Luke. “Public-Private partnerships” Random Unfinished Thoughts. 2005-03-25. http://www.schierer.org/~luke/log/20050325-2059/20050325-2059

Fr. William P. Saunders, in his regular column in the Arlington Catholic Herald, has taken on the question of women’s ordination, and done so very well.[1] He rightly frames this issue firmly in the theological rather than the political or sociological. He clearly states the Biblical support for the Church’s decision, support oh so important when answering protestant and evangelical questions, as well as the support of the Church Fathers. He leaves no room for those who would frame this in relativistic terms, who would say that Jesus acted relative to his society, by pointing out the willingness of Christ to contradict and disobey the norms of Jewish culture. And Fr. Saunders accurately points out that in this decision Jesus was following firmly in the Jewish tradition of being counter-cultural, that is in distinct opposition to the societies surrounding (and ruling) them. Female ordination was certainly the norm outside of Jewry, and Jesus equally clearly had no qualms saying the Jews were wrong.

One of the things that has stuck in my mind most clearly though is his statement that many people do see this question in a political light rather than a sociological light. A view that seems confirmed by the statements made by a Hispanic band from Argentina, Rescate.[2] They go so far as to state that the Pope’s authority is “more political than spiritual,” and that he is not the necessarily head of the Church on Earth. (I can only hope they are un-invited from the World Youth Day and replaced by a more Catholic band.)

Pulling myself back on target, this view, shared to one extent or another, by, I suspect, a significant number of those who call themselves “Catholic,” frames the question of women’s ordination in a light in which the answer is just as obvious as, but completely opposite from, the the theological light from which the Church addresses the question. The thought then occurs to me: is it even possible for the Church to communicate the why of its refusal to people asking the question from a political framework? The answers given will, lacking the proper mental grounding, seem meaningless, unimportant, merely excuses of an inertially bound institution. Similarly, once you grant the concept that the Pope has no overriding authority on theological matters, it follows that no statement by the Pope can be final or authoritative, and that room must always exist for the next Pope to “change the Church’s stance.”

It is this wrong approach then that must, eventually, be addressed and overcome before symptoms, such as the push for women’s ordination, can be eliminated. It is a push that makes all the more crucial the efforts to combat relativism, and brings a greater sense of urgency to Pope Benedict’s repeated condemnations of it. We must re-establish in the minds of men and society the concept of theology as the study of fact, of philosophy as the study of what is real. We must re-introduce people to the concept of the absolute. And we must defeat the materialism of positivist and/or atheist scientists.

[1] Saunders, Fr. William P. “Women’s Ordination (Part 1)” Straight Answers, Arlington Catholic Herald (online). 2005-08-04. http://www.catholicherald.com/saunders/05ws/ws050804.htm
[2] Catholic News Agency. “Spanish rock band invited to perform at World Youth Day slams Pope Benedict” 2005-08-04. http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=4565

No clue how long this will be up, but for now Mr. Matt Drudge has up a piece from the UK Daily Mail that neatly summarizes some of the ideas that have been running through my head, especially has I have been reading The Cube and the Cathedral.[1] While I think she over-simplifies, it is certainly true that Europe is ceasing to be recognizably the same as what we have called Europe throughout most of the last two thousand years of history. It is safe to say that a “Muslim Europe” will not, in any meaningful sense, be the same as the Europe that launched the Crusades or liberated Spain in the Middle Ages.

Her argument that a civilization’s concept of civility, respect and manners is a reflection of its overall health is an interesting one. It does however bear further clarification as well. For it is important to emphasize that the whole picture be looked at. Else you could see the civility among people of the same class in France before its revolution as a measure of strong health, when the incivility between classes caused that society to crash into revolt, anarchy, and the tyranny of the masses. Which is not to imply that the French revolution was not justified, simply that it chose as its methods, and achieved in its results, horrors no less than those which it fought to replace.

Still, overall, I think this short article a worth-while read, and worthy of extended thought, more than I am giving it here.

[1] Collins, Joan. “BRITAIN DESTROYING ITSELF FROM WITHIN” Drudge Report, 2005-08-04. http://www.drudgereport.com/flash3.htm

A recent report makes “news” of the fact that women are in general, and consistently, capable of less exercise than men. Both the Washington Post[1], and the New York Times[2] report on this story, though interestingly, the Post devotes nearly three times as much space to it. The difference they have found is not huge, a 50 year old woman reaching 8.2 “metabolic equivalents” (METs), and a 50 year old man reaching 9.2 METs, but apparently this difference grows with age. Just a little more proof that men and women are not, as we are told, interchangeable.

[1] Nano, Stephanie. “Exercise Guidelines for Women Established” Washington Post (online) 2005-08-03. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/03/AR2005080301635_pf.html
[2] The Associated Press. “Study Shows Value of Women’s Fitness” New York Times (online) 2005-08-04. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/04/health/04exercise.html?pagewanted=print