Newspaper Page Text
PAGE 5—January 17,1974
The Uses of Science and Technology
BY RUSSELL SHAW
Science and technology -- curse or blessing?
The question is a real one for many people. Some, viewing
such offshoots of science and technology as the hydrogen
bomb, take a Dr. Frankenstein view of the matter and conclude
that science and technology are threats to human dignity and
human life.
Others conclude that science and technology are
unquestionably beneficial. For them the steady march of
technological progress certifies the forward progress of
humanity.
Neither viewpoint is Christian. Both stand in the way of clear
understanding. There is no moral imperative to view science and
technology with fear and suspicion. But neither is there any
reason to believe that whatever is technologically possible is
therefore also good and desirable.
By definition, science is knowledge, and technology is the
practical application of that knowledge. Knowledge -- any
knowledge -- can be put to good uses and bad ones. This is
dramatically apparent in an age which has seen the creation of
new weapons of mass destruction on the one hand and
life-saving wonder drugs on the other.
Modern science and technology have in startling ways
expanded man’s capacity for acting. Because of science and
technology, men today can do things which were beyond the
powers of men in former times.
We can communicate instantaneously with people on the
other side of the globe. We can travel to the moon. We can kill
hundreds of thousands of human beings in a matter of minutes.
We can cure diseases which, 25 years ago, were invariably fatal.
To say that men can do more, however, is not at all the same
as saying he will do more good. He may just as well do more
evil. Thanks to science and technology, the moral responsibility
for the right use of human freedom is greater in our day than in
the past.
The fact that we can do more good creates for us an increased
obligation to do it. But the fact that we can do more evil also
creates a greater obligation to avoid it. Scientific and
technological progress do not, unfortunately, carry with them
any guarantee that we will make better choices - only that the
choice will have greater consequences.
This makes it essential that correct moral values underlie
society’s approach to science and technology today. The
alternative - one seen far too often already - is for these
marvelous achievements of human genius to be abused by being
put to evil uses.
Basically, the challenge now facing Christians is to make
certain that science and technology function as man’s servants
rather than as his masters - that these instruments of human
intelligence foster human dignity instead of degrading it. It is
tempting to respond passively to the awesome scientific
achievements of our times, as if matters had now gotten beyond
control and science and technology were in the driver’s seat.
On the contrary, what is needed now is a reassertion of man’s
control over science and technology. Not control directed
toward choking off continued scientific and technological
progress, but aimed instead at insuring that the fruits of human
genius contribute to man’s greater humanization rather than his
dehumanization.
The Scope of Creation
BY FATHER CARL J. PFEIFER, S.J.
Recently I stopped in a book store and paged through a
beautiful (and expensive) book of photographs by a famous
photographer, Ernst Haas, entitled “The Creation.” Haas takes
his inspiration from the biblical account of creation in the book
of Genesis. His photos are striking - images of desert sand
dunes, mountains, flowers, fields, -- all in beautiful color.
I put Haas’ book down and picked up another lovely (and far
less expensive) book by a less known photographer, Joan Sauro.
In her “Things Lost in Need of Finding,” Sauro complements
sensitive black and white photos with brief poetic insights into
life’s more profound dimensions. She explores the creative
presence of the infinite within the myriad shapes and forms of
the world. Unlike Haas’ book, Joan Sauro’s is filled - in
addition to images of natural things like trees and clouds - with
rocking chairs, mail boxes, bams, telephone poles, and homes.
As I left the store, I could not help reflecting upon the
simularity and difference between the two books. Both set out
to explore “creation” with a vision of reality that includes the
creative presence of a Power greater than the world of sight and
touch. Haas’ image of creation embraced only nature. Sauro’s
much richer view included man’s creativity as well. She found
signs of God’s creative power in the works of man as well as in
the wonders of nature.
Perhaps for most of us, Haas’ view of creation is the more
familiar. It reflects the biblical story of God creating the sun
and moon, the fish and animals, the mountains and rivers, and
finally man. No doubt most of us at one time or other have
experienced a sense of wonder as we watched a marvelous
sunset, stood at the foot of a towering mountain, or felt the
heartbeat of a living being. The Psalms express this deep
experience of the mysteries of nature so well.
In a world filled with the human creations of science and
technology, it is possible to have a similar experience of wonder
at the works of man -- a wonder that recognizes in man’s
creations the creative power of God. Walls of steel and glass
rising hundreds of feet above a concrete street can inspire awe as
can a mountain - the marvels of electric lighting can suggest
divine creativity as can a star - a soaring jet is hardly less
awesome than a sailing seagull.
It would seem in our world of computers, cosmonauts, and
communications media that Christians need to learn how to
appreciate God’s creation in human creativity as well as in
nature. The fact that man’s scientific technology can be used -
as can natural resources - for destructive as well as creative
purposes only heightens the need for Christians to appreciate
and respect man’s creative technological potential as a channel
of God’s creative power. Perhaps no one has brought this home
to modern man more clearly than the priest-scientist, Teilhard
de Chardin.
Chardin saw his own scientific research as closely related to
God’s creative action, as sharing in divine creativity. His insights
are reflected in some of the documents of Vatican Council II,
particularly the Constitution on the Church in the Modem
World. There it is taught clearly that the creative Spirit of God
works through human creativity, including modem science and
technology. In trying to build a better world, using minds and
hands to shape natural resources for man’s good, scientists and
technicians share in God’s creation.
A parent recently wrote me some practical ways parents
might help foster the type of awareness of God’s ongoing
creation through human creativity described by the Council and
Chardin.
“Parents help their youngsters when they lead them to an
attitude of openness to new ideas, when they encourage
imagination and confidence so the youngsters are equipped to
carry on their share in an ongoing creation. Parents need an
awareness of the necessity of forming attitudes in their children
which will support scientific research into the problems of
suffering, pollution, and nutrition. This involves attitudes of
respect for the development of the technology needed to
alleviate some of these problems.”
Parents can do much. So too can catechists. Photographers
and writers can assist as well. I guess I would have been happier
if Ernst Haas had found a place in “Creation” for computers,
bridges, and operating rooms. Joan Sauro’s fuller Christian view
of creation happily embraced the works of God in city streets as
well as woods and meadows.
MODERN SCIENCE and technology have expanded
man’s capacity for acting in startling ways.. . We can
communicate instantaneously with people on the other
side of the globe. We can travel to the moon.” Apollo
17 Astronaut Harrison Schmitt stands beside a split
lunar boulder during a walk on the moon. (NC Photo
from NASA)
(AH Articles On This Page Copyrighted 1974 by N.C. News Service)
Persepolis—A Ceremonial City
BY STEVE LANDREGAN
Although Persepolis is separated from early Jericho by 6,500
years and 1,000 miles, culturally the distance is even greater.
Jericho represented man’s first attempt to accumulate wealth by
trade and testifies mutely to the fact that this first real town
was little more than a fortress-storehouse.
In contrast, Persepolis is a symbol of one of the greatest
empires and cultures in the history of the world. It was the
product of a monarchy that is still reigning. It was not a city to
be lived in, certainly not a storehouse or a fortress .. .it was a
city built for celebration.
It was the great city’s purely ceremonial role that caused it to
confound historians and archeologists for centuries. The city
was never deserted and lost to the world, but it faded from
European view and its rediscovery some 500 years ago created a
stir because of its size and opulence.
Its magnificence marked it as one of the great cities of the
Ancient East but scholars could find no reference to it as a
capital city or even a city of significance.
Its only mention in the Bible (2 Macc. 9:2) relates an
unsuccessful campaign against the city by Antiochus Epiphanes
shortly before the death of the Selucid monarch.
The ancient Persian capitals were referred to in historical
records as Babylon, Ekbatana (modem Hamadan) and Shushan
or Susa. Yet here was city to rival any monument of the
Ancient Near East.
Nearby were found the tombs of seven kings of the
Achaemenian Dynasty founded by Cyrus the Great in 538. He
was the same Cyrus who ended the Exile, financed the
rebuilding of the Temple of Jerusalem and was referred to by
Second Isaiah as the “anointed of Yahweh” (Is. 45:1).
When Cyrus died in 529 he was buried at Pasargadas, the first
capital of the Empire. His son Darius I, together with Xerxes I,
Ataxerxes I and Darius II are buried in four of the seven tombs.
The other three, some distance from the first four, are felt to be
those of Ataxerxes II and Ataxerxes III, and probably Darius
III. These are not all the Achaemenian Kings, but are the most
significant ones.
Adding to the mystery of Persepolis is the fact that its
porticos, residences, audience halls and other buildings show no
indications or daily wear. Steps and walks are not worn smooth,
there are no signs of regular occupancy.
It is now felt that Persepolis was founded by Darius I in
about 518 B.C., as a dynastic shrine, a momument to the
Achaemenian Dynasty. It was occupied only on great occasions
of national importance. It was a ceremonial city.
An Iranian government publication explains that: “the real
character of Persepolis was a setting for an invocation by the
whole nation, led by the divinely invested King, from the sacred
spot where the Achaemenids, by the grace of the Great God
Ahura-Mazda, overcame all enemies and established a world
empire which was planned to bring peace, order and prosperity
into a chaotic world.”
Its absence in history may be accounted for by the fact that
it was never a political capital, It was nothing more than a
sacred national shrine. Indications are that it was used primarily
for the celebration of the spring festival, “Now Ruz,” in which
the gods were implored to grant fertility and abundance.
“PERSEPOLIS IS a symbol of one of the greatest
empires and cultures in the history of the world.” The
magnificence of the ancient Persian city of Persepolis
puzzled archeologists and historians until they
discovered that it was a purely ceremonial city,
occupied only on great feasts. (NC Photo courtesy
Iranian Tourist Office)
Evening Prayer
BY FATHER JOSEPH M. CHAMPLIN
When the Chicago Liturgical Commission undertakes a task, it
normally pursues the project thoroughly and handles it well.
Those of us familiar with these top-flight people were not
surprised, then, when their first liturgical conference last
September drew 2,000 participants, many of whom came from
states far from Illinois.
After a keynote address, the huge turnout assembled in
Quigley South Seminary’s massive chapel for “Evensong.” This
creative paraliturgical ceremony employed some new, yet
basically old elements which deserve consideration for use in
parish or community worship services.
* The entrance procession and opening portion formed a light
service in the darkened church with the celebrant solemnly
bearing a Christ candle to the sanctuary. He placed this on a
candelabra and then companion tapers were lighted by servers.
* In addition to antiphonal singing by choir and
congregation, several instrumentalists played hand bells of
different tones to accompany the processional music. These
emitted clear, but unique sounds which helped establish a
measured, reflective atmosphere highly conducive for prayer.
* A second section, “Purification,” featured Psalm 141, an
evening prayer for forgiveness and protection. While cantor and
community sang (“My prayers rise like incense; my hands like
the evening offering”), a server with smoking censer incensed
the candle and the congregation.
In the post-Vatican II simplification of our liturgies, many,
probably most parishes, dropped the use of incense except for
funerals and an occasional Benediction ritual. I am not sure this
was a totally positive development and think it might be wise to
restore that symbolic action more frequently at major Sunday
Masses and other special services.
However, if we do incorporate ihcense within a rite, the
symbol should be employed properly and fully. That means: a
piece of charcoal lighted at the right moment and burning fully
when needed; incense which produces easily seen clouds of
smoke and gives off a pungent odor that gradually permeates
the surrounding area; a dignified stroke of the censer and an
audible clash of chain and receptacle.
* Part III of Evensong centered on the “Word.” Mrs. Claire
Desch proclaimed well Christ’s prayer for unity (John
17:20-24). I liked her careful enunciation of the standard
conclusion: “This . .is the Word .. .of the Lord.”
* Composer, choir director Robert Battistini from the G.I.A.
Publications fulfilled the role of cantor that night. While some
parishes already have such leaders of song, we can expect more
churches in the future to engage on a paid as well as a volunteer
basis, competent musicians for that task. Among other
responsibilities they would sing verses of the responsorial psalm,
lead the congregation, and chant intentions for the general
intercessions or prayer of the faithful.
* A fourth part, “Intercessions,” followed the Byzantine
litany form in which cantor sings petitions while choir hums in
the background. Everyone responded to his concluding “In
peace let us pray to the Lord” by a harmonized “Lord, hear our
prayer.” The effect with such a large congregation can be
smissal rite ada$ite<l the
multiple benedictions of our revised Sacramentary to this
evening prayer service. They were sung, as was our strong
“Amen.”
* A concluding blessing and