Bishops Bag Technology for Lent

"Roman Catholic bishops in Italy are urging the faithful to go on a high-tech fast for Lent, switching off modern appliances from cars to iPods and abstaining from surfing the Web or text messaging until Easter."

Traditionally Lent is about self-sacrifice -- giving up the things we enjoy -- in order to commiserate with Jesus, who spent 40 days fasting. These new trends in Lent also have a more overtly political message.

For example, the Modena diocese "seeks to draw attention to years of conflict in Congo fueled in part by the struggle for control of coltan mines. The mineral is an essential material in cell phones," the AP reports. I'm not familiar with that conflict, but clearly turning off one's cell phone won't make any difference. What is needed is a defense of property rights and the rule of just law, not some anti-technology stunt.

Other aspects of the new Lent have a distinctly environmentalist twist, such as taking mass transit or recycling. So now Christians are supposed to sacrifice, not only for God, but for the environmentalist agenda. This is another indicator of the convergence of religion and environmentalism. Self-sacrifice is a key element of both movements, so theirs is a natural alliance.

The only thing I'm giving up for Lent is self-sacrifice.

Pope: No Birth Control, Artificial Procreation

I wonder what fraction of Catholics routinely violate official doctrine that prohibits the use of birth control, then feel guilty about it. The Associated Press reports (via Fox):

...[Pope] Benedict [XVI] reiterated the Church's ban against artificial birth control as well as more recent teaching against using artificial procreation methods.

Pope Paul VI's 1968 "Humanae vitae" ("On Human Life") encyclical prohibits Catholics from using artificial birth control. ...

"What was true yesterday remains true even today. 'The truth expressed in 'Humane vitae' doesn't change; on the contrary, in the light of new scientific discoveries it is ever more up to date," the pope added.

Shortly after the encyclical came out, Ayn Rand criticized it at Ford Hall Forum, on December 8, 1968. Her speech is reproduced in The Voice of Reason.

Rand argues that the church's antipathy toward sex is rooted in the "doctrine that man's sexual capacity belongs to a lower or animal part of his nature," a doctrine that Rand utterly rejects. Rand then points out the great harm that comes from a prohibition of birth control: romantic couples who do not want to have children -- and in many times and places cannot afford to feed them -- face a "silent terror hanging... over every moment of love."

The encyclical claims that birth control violates the will of God; Rand explains at length what this doctrine entails and why it is harmful to human life and happiness. The 18-page essay is well worth reviewing in light of the new Pope's comments. Selections of Rand's talk are provided by the Ayn Rand Lexicon under the topics of love, sex, and birth control.

New 'Sins'

An article by the Associated Press alerted me to comments by Bishop Gianfranco Girotti regarding "new sins." Yet I found an article by Catholic News Service to provide a better overview:

In today's globalized culture, the social effects of sin are greater than ever before and deserve the church's urgent attention, a Vatican official said. ...

Bishop Girotti is an official of the Apostolic Penitentiary, an office that deals with questions relating to penance and indulgences. He made the comments in an interview March 8 with the Vatican newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano. ...

Among the "new sins" that have emerged in recent times, he pointed to genetic experiments and manipulation that violate fundamental human rights and produce effects difficult to foresee and control.

He said other areas where sin has a social impact include drug abuse, which affects many young people; economic injustice, which has left the poor even poorer and the rich richer; and environmental irresponsibility.

In typical Catholic fashion, Girotti offers a grab-bag of real misdeeds and make-believe "sins."

It's not very big news that abusing drugs is bad for you; nor is this a new problem.

But, within the broader context of individual rights, genetic science does not "violate fundamental human rights;" it instead promises to alleviate human suffering. The violation of rights is to squash scientific investigation based on religious dogma.

Economic injustice is not properly defined by differences in wealth; on the contrary, in a free society differences of wealth reflect the just distribution of wealth based on individual production and voluntary association. Actual economic injustice arises when governments and criminals violate people's rights, including their rights to control their own income and property. Such violations of rights often impoverish some people and unjustly enrich others. But the Catholic Church is more concerned with encouraging political force in the economy, which violates economic justice.

Finally, "environmental irresponsibility," properly understood, means polluting somebody's particular property, a problem properly handled through the legal system. Responsibility does not mean buying into environmentalist hysteria, feeling guilty about producing and consuming life-enhancing goods and services, or pushing politicians to violate people's rights for environmentalist causes. It makes sense, though, for environmentalists and Christians to find common cause, for both movements thrive on people's guilt.