bearing blog

bear – ing n 1 the manner in which one comports oneself; 2 the act, power, or time of bringing forth offspring or fruit; 3 a machine part in which another part turns [a journal ~]; 4 pl comprehension of one’s position, environment, or situation; 5 the act of moving while supporting the weight of something [the ~ of the cross].

I know me some famous people.

Mark says that his high school buddy Tim Dixon will be the featured guest on NPR affiliate WITF-FM’s Desert Island Discs this Saturday at noon Eastern time, 11 AM central. On this program,

guests share the music they can’t live without. Every Saturday at noon, different "castaways" reveal what’s really important to them through their musical selections and discussions with host Ellen Hughes.

Wow! He must be some kind of local celebrity. After all,

Past castaways… have included Tom Ridge, Bob Edwards, "Auntie Anne" Beiler and Lorna Edmundson, president of Wilson College.

Bob Edwards! You da man, Tim.

Some suggestions. How about this? Or this? Or this?

(Listen online to WITF-FM here.)

Oct 19, 2005

—

|

No comments on I know me some famous people.
Extrinsic and intrinsic religious feeling.

Amy Welborn pointed last week to a concept, reported on in the Guardian, that I had never encountered before. Apparently, though, it’s been around for three decades. This is the distinction between extrinsic and intrinsic religiosity.

Here’s what Amy excerpted:

A Harvard psychologist named Gordon Allport did some key research in the 1950s on various kinds of human prejudice and came up with a definition of religiosity that is still in use today. He suggested that there were two types of religious commitment – extrinsic and intrinsic. Extrinsic religiosity he defined as religious self-centredness. Such a person goes to church or synagogue as a means to an end – for what they can get out of it. They might go to church to be seen, because it is the social norm in their society, conferring respectability or social advancement. Going to church (or synagogue) becomes a social convention.

Allport thought that intrinsic religiosity was different. He identified a group of people who were intrinsically religious, seeing their religion as an end in itself. They tended to be more deeply committed; religion became the organising principle of their lives, a central and personal experience. In support of his research, Allport found that prejudice was more common in those individuals who scored highly for extrinsic religion.

The evidence generally is that intrinsic religiosity seems to be associated with lower levels of anxiety and stress, freedom from guilt, better adjustment in society and less depression. On the other hand, extrinsic religious feelings – where religion is used as a way to belong to and prosper within a group – seem to be associated with increased tendencies to guilt, worry and anxiety.

So it seems that researchers who attempt to correlate other measures to religiosity properly should distinguish between its extrinsic and intrinsic forms.

Apparently, this distinction is not a spectrum:

Consistent with Allport’s view of mature religiosity, extrinsic but not intrinsic religiosity typically correlates with more dysfunctional psychological constructs. Many psychometric critiques and modifications of the scales have been published. The only consensus is that extrinsic and intrinsic must be treated as independent scales, not as a continuum as initially conceived.

I couldn’t find an example of the scale online (not surprising — it’s probably copyrighted), but apparently it is contained in this volume: Hill PC & Hood RW (1999). Measures of religiosity. Birmingham, Ala. : Religious Education Press.

The list of instruments in the book is very enticing! I’d like to see it. The "Scriptural Literalism" scale… the "What I Believe" scale… the "Rejection of Christianity" scale… doesn’t it sound fun? Too bad there’s no Quizilla form.

It makes me wonder whether other philosophies, community-joining, and behaviors may be called "extrinsic" or "intrinsic" depending on the reasons to adopt them. Attachment parenting, for example? Do you do it because everyone else in your circle does, because it makes you feel superior, or… because you believe in its ability to help you form a strong bond with your children, and that’s a good thing?

UPDATE. Ooo! The book is in the reference section of the local university library! And tonight’s my free night…

Oct 19, 2005

—

|

No comments on Extrinsic and intrinsic religious feeling.
Watch this space.

This used to be our side yard, with a lovely white picket fence. Now the fence panels lean to one side, and the posts stand alone.

..

..

..

Here’s a crooked view of the lot from the street. Off to the left you can see our existing duplex. To the right is a tree with leaves turning yellow…

..

..

..

It’s the river birch. I like to put my hand on its smooth, cool, translucent bark.

Sadly, it’s not long for this world. That’s because it is growing in my future dining room.

..

..

Oscar and Milo don’t mind. They like the wooden stakes with pink flags that the surveyors put in.

..

..

..

When you get your land surveyed, you sometimes learn interesting things about your neighbor’s houses. This fence is actually a couple of feet inside our property line. The addition to the neighbor’s house, a little bit wider than the red door that enters it, goes right up to our property line. Not only do we own their sidewalk, we own the grime on their siding.

It’s not the neighbors’ fault. They bought the house with the addition already there. Mark talked to them yesterday and they struck a deal where we would let them keep a strip wide enough to get from front yard to back yard, and they would let us cut down one of the trees.

Sorry about the placeholding dots. I’m still trying to figure this out.

Oct 18, 2005

—

|

No comments on Watch this space.
Go see…

…what’s up at the 52nd Catholic Carnival, hosted this week by Our Word and Welcome To It, another great Minneapolis blog.

I volunteered to host the Carnival in a couple of weeks. Will let you know!

Oct 18, 2005

—

|

No comments on Go see…
Dressing, for dinner.

We had a rare date on Saturday, since the grandparents were visiting; they took the kids. I put on a dress I’d been saving for an occasion that didn’t require breastfeeding. Hurray, a night out.

Mark said to me over dinner that when we get around to electing a female president, he won’t be able to stand reading all the media reports that gush on and on about what she’s wearing.

Something occurred to me. "You know, I always thought that the press’s obsession with prominent women’s clothes only showed how shallow they are, and how they don’t take women seriously, but maybe there’s more to it."

"What do you mean? There’s no point in going on and on about what the President’s wife is wearing. It’s annoying."

"The president’s wife maybe, because she’s not the politician we’re interested in. But clothes are used to send messages, and those messages might be important."

"Oh, come on. They can’t be worth all the space they’ll be given. And why would it be different with men?"

"Well, men’s clothes aren’t as variable. The suit is a sort of uniform. You can only paint with a very broad brush. Like, for instance, don’t the press always mention when at some public appearance, say in an auto factory, the President takes off his jacket, rolls up his sleeves? Isn’t he trying to send a message with that, and don’t they report it?"

"Well, sure, but it probably just says in shirt sleeves. You don’t have to go on and on about it."

"Right, because there’s not much to describe. But it makes a point. And that’s not the only thing," I went on. "Remember back when that one country had a popular revolution, and their banners were orange — "

"The Ukraine."

"Right, the Ukraine. Well, there was a bit of a buzz once when Bush was thought to be wearing an orange tie, in some speech or something, around then. And then later Cheney did. That was an obvious message."

"Well, sure."

"And don’t you remember Condi and the boots?"

"What? Was this something only the blogs cared about?"

"No, no, everybody wrote about it. Condoleeza Rice, right after she was named Secretary of State, appeared somewhere — some other country, I forget why — in this amazing, sexy, unexpected ensemble. Black skirt, a trench coat sort of thing, showed a lot of leg. But the main thing that everyone noticed was the boots. Tall black leather boots, spike heels."

"Um, that seems unusual."

"Yeah, that was the thing. We’re so used to women politicians trying hard to appear understated. This was an outfit that was calculated to get attention and to get the media talking about it. Everybody compared it to The Matrix. It said a lot."

"Like, what did it say?"

"Well, to me it said I am going to kick some serious ass. It might also have been saying, I am not going to be your run-of-the-mill Secretary of State. Anyway, my point is that the press spent a lot of time discussing it, and I think that was justified, because that outfit was meant to send a substantial message. Or rather, it was what she wanted them to do. She exploited them perfectly."

"Okay."

"And my point is that if we do have a woman president, what she wears will probably be very, very carefully considered, for that reason. There are a lot more messages that can be sent with women’s clothes than with men’s. And an evening gown is a bigger banner than a tie."

"Well, I still contend that the press will probably expend a lot more energy reporting on a female president’s clothes than the message warrants."

"Undoubtedly. I’m thinking of having the panna cotta. How about you?"

"Mmm. Flourless chocolate torte."

Oct 17, 2005

—

|

No comments on Dressing, for dinner.
Can I do this? Photoblogging?

Testing, testing.

Milo, trying to grab the new itsy-bitsy, cheap digital camera I bought just for this kind of thing.

What do you think? Still blurry, I know, I know.

Oct 17, 2005

—

|

No comments on Can I do this? Photoblogging?
In God’s time.

An amazing post, not so much on death and dying, as on a death, a dying.

Oct 15, 2005

—

|

No comments on In God’s time.
“An interesting contrast.”

Alicia at Fructus Ventris links to a sad story of a boy who died of brain infection that spread from a toothache. The toothache went untreated because, when he showed up for the root canal, he was an unaccompanied minor. She makes a point that I otherwise would have missed:

The minor child is this story essentially died because he did not get an urgent surgical procedure because he did not have a parent present. No one thought it important to take him across state lines to a state with more lenient laws on parental consent. No one thought that he needed an attorney or a judge to protect his right to have this (in this case) life-saving procedure performed. The legal requirement for parental consent (and payment?) was met. And due to the delay, a relatively minor condition festered until it became fatal.

Do you suppose people will be clamoring for the repeal of laws requiring parental consent for dental work?

Oct 15, 2005

—

|

No comments on “An interesting contrast.”
Decline in vocations — does it parallel the decline in marriages?

According to that same NYT article I linked in the last post,

In 25 years, the number of priests in the United States has declined 26 percent, to 42,500, as the number of Roman Catholics rose 29 percent, to 65 million.

Priesthood is not a job: it is a vocation, comparable to marriage. So how has marriage been doing?

Since 1960, the decline of those married among all persons age 15 and older has been twelve percentage points—and over 23 points among black females. It should be noted that these data include both people who have never married and those who have married and then divorced.

…In order partially to control for a decline in married adults simply due to delayed first marriages, we have looked at changes in the percentage of persons age 35 through 44 who were married. Since 1960, there has been a drop of almost 19 percentage points for married men and over 16 points for married women. A slight increase in the percentage of married people in this age group occurred beginning in 1999, for unknown reasons, but this increase now appears to have ended.

The number of marriages, or rather the proportion of marriageable people who are married, has declined too.

I wonder if the root cause is a general fear, not of the priesthood, but of commitment?

Of course, the proper comparison, to evaluate the relative effect on priesthood and on marriage, is this: (decline in number of married men/number of adult men) compared to (decline in number of Roman Catholic priests/number of adult Roman Catholic men).

You could also look at the decline in vocations compared to the decline in marriages. From the marriage article:

Americans have become less likely to marry. This is reflected in a decline of more than 40 percent, from 1970 to 2002, in the annual number of marriages per 1000 unmarried adult women.

A claim (unverified, sorry) quoted in this article says that vocations have declined 60 percent since 1975.

That’s not all that far off. If vocations to marriage AND vocations to the celibate life are both declining sharply, perhaps the decline in vocations to the celibate life is not entirely due to dissatisfaction with the idea of celibacy.

Admittedly, the decline in American marriages is not quite as sharp as the decline in American religious vocations. But the difference is small enough that we should consider them in relation to one another, and not necessarily as independent.

Oct 15, 2005

—

|

No comments on Decline in vocations — does it parallel the decline in marriages?
Ninety percent of priests are happy in the priesthood and show no regrets.

According to the NYT, U. S. bishops are beginning a program to encourage priests to recommend the priesthood to young men. Only one in three priests, the article reports, actively encourage young men to enter the priesthood.

Father Burns[, executive director of the bishops’ Secretariat for Vocations and Priestly Formation, ]said polls showed that 90 percent of priests were happy in the priesthood and had no regrets.

But many priests believe that "morale is low for everyone else," he said, so they hesitate to encourage others to join.

Now where would they have gotten that idea?

(Incidentally: How many Americans in general say they are happy with their jobs? Fifty percent and falling. The priesthood is looking pretty good.

But wait, you say. The priesthood is a vocation, not a job. OK: How many Americans are happy with their marriages? Certainly less than 90 percent. And that’s just the currently married, speaking of their current marriages.)

Oct 15, 2005

—

|

No comments on Ninety percent of priests are happy in the priesthood and show no regrets.
SOTHW blogs Caviezel.

Matthew at Shrine of the Holy Whapping blogs about Jim Caviezel’s somewhat-impromptu speaking engagement at the University of Notre Dame. Not your average celebrity-blogging, it’s a surprisingly moving post. Click here and scroll down to the post entitled "Watch This Space."

Caviezel, you may remember, played Christ in Gibson’s Passion:

He dislocated his shoulder, he accidentally tasted two lashes of the whip that left foot-long scars on his back and knocked him to the ground, he got sick, he hung up there, blue with cold, half-naked in the cold November air for weeks as they filmed and re-filmed Christ giving up His spirit to the Father. (I doubt he could have done it if he hadn’t gone to Communion every day–he did this for God, not his career). It’s terrifying enough to think of an ordinary man in this comfy day and age being whipped, even accidentally, or having to feign a crucifixion. It’s terrifying, and frightening. Now multiply that by five thousand percent–and add real nails.

I sometimes think the reason Christ suffered in this world in 33 AD was it was only then that human ingenuity could devise a torture so awful as to make the depth of His Redemption evident.

Great post from one of my favorite, usually funny, Catholic blogs.

Oct 15, 2005

—

|

No comments on SOTHW blogs Caviezel.
What to say to Christian friends when they ask you whether your unborn baby is a girl or a boy, if you don’t do ultrasounds or prenatal testing.

Isaiah 45:10 saith:

Woe to him who asks a father, "What are you begetting?" or a woman, "What are you giving birth to?"

(A repost.)

Oct 15, 2005

—

|

No comments on What to say to Christian friends when they ask you whether your unborn baby is a girl or a boy, if you don’t do ultrasounds or prenatal testing.