Weekend Update: Many Planes

The update from Wichita: this past weekend was definitely air themed. I took a flying lesson with Dad and a flight instructor in a Cessna 172, which was incredibly fun and simultaneously frustrating. I am really terrible at taxiing (rolling to the proper runway to take off); you control the plane completely with the rudder pedals with your feet and by increasing or decreasing the throttle. Not using your hands at all for a very car-like idea was a totally foreign concept, and I was really quite bad at it. It was a heady experience to make my own radio calls, which went something like, 'Jabara control, Skyhawk 2-7-0-9-Bravo taxiing 1-8. Jabara.' Jabara is the small airport close to home, and, since there are so many airports nearby, one must clarify to which you are speaking multiple times. Runway 1-8 and runway 3-5 are the same strip of concrete, but the numbers tell the tower which direction you are entering the runway from (you always take off into the wind, so that ultimately dictates which way you turn into the runway). Short minutes later, I was airborne, after pulling the throttle back to the stops, holding slightly right on the control yoke, and using the rudders to maintain the middle of the runway as best I could. We flew around for about 40 minutes, doing a series of right hand turns at about 115 mph (100 knots - for some reason, airplanes and ships use the silly nautical miles system, much to my constant disbelief, but hey, at least the nautical mile has 6000 ft rather than 5280, right?).

The pictures are up on facebook, and a good time was had by all. Sunday, the next day, the family and I went to McConnell Air Force Base to see the static displays of a variety of planes on the ground (B-1B, B-52, RAF Tornado, KC-135, and some F-16s), and to watch the highlight of the show: the Blue Angels, the US Navy's premier aviation team. They fly 6 F/A-18Es, and they fly them to perfection. Tight maneuvering at high speed close to the ground, all of which was very impressive to anyone out there, and was something like Nirvana to plane aficionadoes like Dad and myself. It was absolutely awesome, and ridiculously hot (about 95 in Wichita, and on the baked concrete of the base, about 110). Margaret put on SPF 70 sunscreen, and I swear that she actually got paler during the course of the day. It was totally awesome. Not the paler thing, but the airshow in general.

A rather unneccesary dialogue

Every Friday, Margaret and I play tennis with our neighbors and then meet Mom and Dad for dinner. Tonight, en route to dinner, Mr. Blackwell (our neighbor) was giving us a ride and found the parking lot full. He stops in front of the restaurant and lets us out. As I open the door, a horn blows, and I notice an elderly driver with a handicapped placard also stopped in front of the restaurant, apparently waiting to pick someone up at the curb. Behind him, a Mercedes CLK honks again. I open my hands in front of me in a 'give the dude a break' gesture, thinking that the elderly handicapped gentleman deserves a little more patience than that being exhibited by the Mercedes driver. (As an aside, this is ironic to an extent, considering I am not a very patient person myself, but I think I can at least wait for a handicapped dude to pick his wife up from in front of the restaurant.)

This is, apparently, the wrong thing to do. Three hand gestures from the Mercedes later, I'm holding the door open for Judith (our neighbor), Margaret, and the group coming out into the parking lot. I discover that it is the wrong thing to do when the Mercedes rolls down his window and shouts, 'get in the restaurant.' My mind blank, unable to think of a response, I somehow come up with 'that was rather unneccesary, sir.' It is at this point that I discover that neither 'give the dude a break' hand gestures or polite responses are in line with the Mercedes' philosophy. 'Get in the restaurant, you little f*&^ing faggot,' I hear as the window begins to roll up. I have no idea where the responses are coming from for me tonight, but it's seemingly somewhere that's a lot more polite than I actually feel, since 'have a nice night, sir,' is what I say. All in all, a disappointing series of comebacks, if you ask me. Although the most amusing part of the exchange was the expression of the 60-ish lady who I was holding the door for, as I say 'that's rather unneccesary, sir' and she hears his oh-so-clever rebuttal. Must've seemed like a tragic misunderstanding or something.

Those incidents, for some reason, always make me lose faith in humanity. I don't know why, as that's in no way reflective of the people I know or the manner in which Wichitans act, but I can never understand why he couldn't have waited 30 seconds for the old guy's wife to walk to the car, or why he felt it necessary to shout at me (or anyone else, for that matter). Dad put it best as he was walking in behind me: 'You just feel sorry for someone who goes through life like that.'

Vatican: Non-Catholics are not Christians

A discussion of the above (poorly-titled) article from CNN from the perspectives of a priest, a professor, and myself. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts as well...

Priest:    
        Pope Benedict has made three important decisions in the past few weeks:  1) to change the rules for Papal elections so that more than a simple majority of votes is required to elect a Pope, which was the case before Pope John Paul II changed the rules a few years ago, 2) to allow priests to celebrate the "Mass of Blessed John XXIII" with fewer restrictions, 3) to reaffirm that the fullness of the Christian faith subsists only in the Catholic Church.
        The first two decisions are intended to promote greater unity within the Catholic Church.  It is likely that Pope Benedict may not have been elected with the return to the need for more than a simple majority of votes to elect a Pope.  He recognizes that when a Pope is elected by a small majority, there is a greater likelihood for division within the Church.  Allowing more widespread use of the old form of the Mass (this has to do with a lot more than what language is used) is a gesture to those who have felt alienated by changes in the liturgy after the Second Vatican Council.  The ordinary form of the Mass will not change, but there will be two rather different ways the Mass can be celebrated in the Latin Rite of our Church.
        Before Pope Benedict was Pope, he served as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.  In that role, he issued a controversial document a few years ago titled "Dominus Jesus".  He did so with the approval of Pope John Paul II.  The new document that states the Catholic Church is the "true" Christian Church basically restates what "Dominus Jesus" said.  "Dominus Jesus" caused a stir because it took some unpopular positions regarding other Christian traditions and regarding the Catholic Church's relationship to non-Christian faith traditions.  
        I think it is important to realize that neither Dominus Jesus nor the new document change what has been the consistent teaching of the Catholic Church on these matters.  Both documents simply clarify and reaffirm what the Church has always taught--that the fullness of the Christian tradition subsists in the Roman Catholic Church.  
        The CNN headline is inflammatory and not really accurate.  The Pope is not saying Protestants are not "true Christians".  He is stating, rather, that the fullness of Christian tradition subsists only in the Catholic Church.  He is not judging the quality of individual persons, but taking the position that other Christian traditions lack some important components of the full Christian faith--such as a continuous link with the Apostles, incomplete access to Sacraments, etc.  He did not actually issue this document personally.  Like "Dominus Jesus" it was issued with his approval by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.  I think the purpose of the document is to affirm Catholic belief that all churches are not equal, that the Christian tradition is one--not many.  It has to do with our belief in objective truth, that all positions--no matter how well intended or sincere--are not equally true.
        One of the distinguishing marks of the Catholic Church is that people know our Church stands for something and that there is a standard that holds us accountable to the authority (Magisterium) of the Church, which transcends any Pope or any one period in history.  The Church is claiming authority, which was given to it by Jesus and preserved and guided by the Holy Spirit.  Some other Christian traditions do not recognize such authority as valid.  Mainline Protestant Churches in the US have been losing members.  Some think one of the reasons is that these churches don't stand for anything--they make up the rules as they go and are not accountable to tradition.  Everyone knows that doctrine is an important part of Catholicism and that local churches or individuals do not determine the teachings of the Church.  Some find that difficult to accept in a democratic culture, but others find it comforting--to be grounded in a truth that comes from someplace other than people's opinions and political discussion.
        I think it is important to understand that Pope Benedict nor the Catholic Church does not believe that Catholics are better than other people, or that Catholics are the only people saved by God's grace.  Jesus claimed to be "the way, the truth and the life".  Our Church is saying that if we want to know Jesus' way, Jesus' truth, we need to be accountable to the Church that Jesus established--which is one Church, not many churches.  We are called not to put down those who are not Catholic, but to be light and salt--inviting them to share with us the fullness of what has been given to us by Jesus in the Holy Spirit.  We weaken that invitation when we assume that all churches are the same, that it makes no difference whether one is Catholic or something else.  We're not saying that we are better, but we are saying that the Holy Spirit offers more through the Catholic Church than through other faith traditions.  And we are called to evangelize--to invite others to the fullness of what has been offered by Christ for all.  
        The Chief Rabbi of London, Rabbi Jonathan Sachs, was at Duke last year.  The main point of his teaching is that we are called to be "particular"--to stand for something.  Our goal should not be to blend in or become alike; our goal should be to embrace who we are, what we believe and to live that faithfully--not in competition with others, but according to God's plan.  
        All of this is very complex--and very counter-cultural.  I don't think our Church has found the best way to express the underlying truth.  I have trouble with the language myself.  But I think it is important to assert that there is such a thing as ultimate truth and that we don't find that through our own experience alone or through finding people who agree with us.  Christianity believes there is a God and that God has revealed truth to us in Jesus Christ.  The question is:  How do we access that truth?  Does the Holy Spirit guide the Catholic Church, or not?  
        I hope this is helpful.  I realize it does not adequately address the question.  I think it's good for all of us to struggle with this.

Professor: I have to say I had problems with Dominus Iesus
too, alas... I think part of it is not seeing the humility of the Roman
Catholic Church when it comes to its own past actions - or even present
actions. This part, for instance: "The Catholic faithful are required to
profess that there is an historical continuity — rooted in the apostolic
succession — between the Church founded by Christ and the Catholic
Church: “This is the single Church of Christ... which our Saviour, after
his resurrection, entrusted to Peter's pastoral care (cf. Jn 21:17),
commissioning him and the other Apostles to extend and rule her (cf. Mt
28:18ff.), erected for all ages as ‘the pillar and mainstay of the
truth' (1 Tim 3:15). " without any explanation, discussion, or
renunciation of crimes carried out in the name of The Church...takes
greater faith than I have an the institution to swallow whole.

Beyond that, the temperament and tone of those in the College of
Cardinals who are most closely aligned with Pope Benedict are, to me, in
stark contrast to the temperament and tone of Jesus Christ, with the
possible exception of "Bazaar Day" at the temple :) I have a sense that
Benedict is restoring the *aristocracy* of the church - should he ever
make a statement about recommissioning the triregnum I'll consider
myself proven right on that mark - and also that he doesn't have people
as skilled in communication as Pope John Paul II did (perhaps given that
John Paul II was excellent with linguistics and with theater)...

My response to the Professor's comments:

I can't remember what the sun looks like...

A quick dive into the deep end...

It's been a pretty good day here - work was impressively busy, and I think that I earned my first post-grad hour of overtime (normally, if it's up to 45 min of being there past time, I brush it under the rug due to the culture of the workplace, something I will surely discuss later). Anyway, companies around the world now have cause to fear me, as I have started down the road allowing me to host teleconferences with unsuspecting airline partners to determine what they're doing, how they do it, and how we can benefit, all within the guidelines of sharing information from one project partner to another, of course. Should be a good time, but I'm actually kinda nervous about it. The nice thing is that most of my co-workers seem be genuinely surprised that I would convene a teleconference to discuss project-wide concerns, apparently thinking that the domain of managers. Seems to me that if you need something done, might as well try to do it yourself the first time, right? Of course, this is not to say that it's a solo effort. Mike, the totally amazing K-State grad who absolutely made last summer amazing, helps on an hourly basis to not only make work interesting and exciting, but to help out when I make it a little too exciting. And David Gayle, who's so unbelievably intelligent that he's probably one of the best intuitive engineers I've ever met. He hears something, throws out a probable cause in seconds that others quickly refute, then spend the next several months proving right. I can see why that drives him crazy at times, but it is such sweet justice to see him proven right again and again. You think they'd learn, but it's a big company, and those who doubt him usually do not have the chutzpah to do so later.

Anyway, it's days like today that make me realize, in part, why people immerse themselves in the corporate world at times, and I feel that a part of the answer is not the seductive lure of making things happen within a business, but rather a desire to forget the outside world. It might be a reason I find Kansas so appealing. No matter what happens outside of it, people here complain bitterly about it, and life seems to continue in much the same way. I find myself reading articles like this and really wonder what, if anything, we are learning from all of our mistakes of the past years. Will we simply repeat it endlessly, forgetting that we cannot always change things to suit us, or that our actions carry the same repercussions today that have faced the other superpowers of history in Rome, Moscow, Washington, Peiking, Kyoto, Delhi, Babylon, Thebes, and so many others? How can people pledge that they are safer due to one party or the other, when both continue to throw such inane drivel at the general public in the form of 'issues' that should split the voting populace sharply along specific lines? Why are people not concered with eroding democratic liberties in Russia or the economic issues we've got going but will turn out in the thousands to sit in the streets in the hopes that half of the nation will change their minds after years of embittered dispute? Don't get me wrong; I truly believe in the sanctity of life, but I utterly deride those for whom abortion is the issue on which to vote. I feel that people know their own circumstances much better than others do, and if they are in the position to adopt or encourage and care for others in the grips of an unexpected pregnancy, they should be allowed to do so. I feel that people should be free to choose their path, whichever direction that takes them. To say more would be beyond the reasonable extent of my opinion; what I think on this matter ultimately should not be heard in the same way as those for whom the issue is more of a possibility.

It's ironic. I just finished reading over this post and saw the second paragraph as a rejection of the first's lasseiz-faire-to-the-world/concentrated-on-my-nuclear-surroundings attitudes and a call to action that the first shied away from. I thought about changing it, but I think that it's a better reflection of my own divisions. To what extent should I, as a recent college grad, get out there and seek to change the world? Conversely, how much of my effort should go into thinking more in my immediate setting, trying to improve my career, focus more on bettering myself, and thinking into the (much more) distant future about families and the like? As with most things, when confronted with two choices, each with their own merits and pitfalls, I think that my personal happiness lies somewhere in the middle. Maybe that's all we can hope to figure out - ourselves, and try to help as many others as possible to figure out themselves as well. This turned down a much different road than I had planned, but I think it's worth saying.