Apple and the Church

I was greatly saddened this week, as many people were, by the death of Steve Jobs.  He made possible many of the innovations that we take for granted, even though we didn't know that we needed them (or that they could exist) just a few years ago.

In listening to the news coverage, I was struck by how they kept coming back to the early days of Apple and how it has grown over the years.  The thought occurred to me that this is something (very vaguely) like the Church itself, and its growth through history.

Catholic traditions and practices are often objected to by people claiming that they take their instruction straight from the Bible.  The mantra that I often hear on it is that the early Church didn't meet in lavish buildings, or use incense, or wear special robes or use candles, or whatever.  "These are traditions of men," they call, "and they were denounced by Christ!  The Catholic Church has corrupted traditional worship by adding in all of these things."

The first thing to ask is: How do you know that they didn't use these things?

The second takes us back to Apple.  In the early days of the company, Jobs and his friends worked out of a garage, begged equipment and did whatever else they needed to do in order to get things going.  There was a lot to overcome and certain things, like comfort or new clothes, had to take a backseat for the moment.  No doubt, they would have liked these things at the time, but keeping the dream of Apple alive was more important, and they could get them later when their company was a success.

Apple was a success, and it didn't stay in a garage.  If one had only the original records of the company and a snapshot of what Apple is today, they would likely balk at the improbability of it all.  It moved through its infant stages and now has a complex network of stores and retail alliances, coordinated through the company headquarters.  In addition, they have a large hold on the public attention.  When a new product is released, even those who don't like Apple sit up and take notice.  Like it or hate it, Apple is hard to ignore.

Likewise, the Church began small.  It started in a single room one morning, where a dozen or so people had gathered to pray.  From that humble beginning, the Apostles went forward and proclaimed the good news.  It was uncomfortable, paid nothing and the odds were entirely against their mission succeeding, except for one thing: God was with them.  For nearly three centuries, they and their successors struggled to share their enthusiasm with others, sacrificing everything to ensure their mission would bear fruit.

It did.  The result was that, when the Church could get things like proper vestments, candles and incense, they incorporated them, to worship God how they had always wanted to in the first place, but (often) had to forgo at the time.  It would have been the height of folly to remain confined to the Catecombs.  The Church needed to grow, and it grew.

Today, as with Apple, one would hardly suspect these humble beginnings by looking at the Church now.  There are tens of thousands of parishes that are largely self-sufficient, but are coordinated by their Bishop and of course the Vatican.  When the Pope visits another country, or releases an official statement, people take notice; some to rejoice, others to mock and ridicule.  But they are not able to ignore the Church and her influence on the world.

The Tent

Having a thought today about survival.

Let us imagine a tent.  It is a research station in the Antarctic, visited only twice a year for supplies.  Living in this tent are five men.  Four are old friends, but the fifth is a recent arrival.  The other four are not fond of him.  He disrupts their work with questions, has a different sense of humor that bothers them and his habits are foreign to them.  They had mentioned at the last delivery that they were willing to take on another man here, but they had never expected someone like this.


One night, one of the group, the eldest, decides that he has had enough.  The newcomer has got to go.  He consults with his companions and they agree that they are not happy with their new acquaintance either.  One suggests that they could wait until the next supply run, but the eldest man will not hear of it.  "He's ruined several of my plans with his interruptions," he complains.  "The mere thought of him is upsetting!  He must go now."

The second in the group agrees: "He snores so loud I can't get any sleep.  He took three bites out of the sandwich I'd left in the fridge and I was the one who lost lab space to his stupid projects."

The other two are a bit taken aback.  They don't like the newcomer, but this is a bit extreme.  "It's fifty below out there. He'll die if we throw him out!" one protests.  "We have plenty of food and space, why not just wait until the next supply run?  We can make arrangements to get him shipped out of here by then."  They argue for a while, but they can't hide that their frustration with their companion.  He has disrupted things. Within a few hours, the third is swayed by the promise that everything will return to normal and nobody need ever know.  The fourth, fearful of damaging their friendship, consents as well.

After the newcomer goes to sleep, the four men pick up his bunk and place it outside.  "It's not murder," says the eldest, seeing the fourth man is still very uncomfortable.  "It will be peaceful.  He'll freeze, but he won't wake up while it's happening.  This way, he won't have to deal with us and the insult of not being wanted here and we don't have to deal with him."

Is what these men did wrong?  They didn't hurt the newcomer, aside from removed him from an environment where he could survive.  They constituted a majority in a place that could be considered sovereign.  They felt they eliminated all acceptable options and the only one left, though it was one they did not particularly like, was the one that they did.  He wasn't wanted.  So what, if anything, was wrong?  Just a question...

Why Notre Dame is Important

There has been a lot of angry sentiments lately over the invitation of President Obama to speak at Notre Dame's commencement and receive an honorary doctorate. Pro-life individuals are upset because President Obama stands in direct and unapologetic opposition to Church teaching. Pro-choice people are upset because they can't understand what the big deal is and think that it is just to attack the president. If I may, I would like to offer a thought to those who feel that President Obama should be allowed to speak at commencement.

Imagine, if you will, that a local chapter of PETA is having their yearly banquet. It will be a time to recognize the work that has been accomplished recently and get excited about what is on the horizon. The banquet will have a keynote speaker and dedicate about one-third of their time to that speaker. The speaker is chosen purely at the discrestion of the chair of the banquet committee.

As the banquet nears, the keynote speaker is announced. It is a famous businessman, who is very popular and influential in the local area. His charismatic ways will get everyone excited and ready to do their best for next year. However, it is also well-known that he owns several food plants in the state, keeping animals in small pens and butchering them.

Naturally, several members of the PETA chapter, as well as some in the wider world of PETA, are upset about the choice of keynote speaker. They send notices to the committe chair that they don't like the selection because his views conflict with their own. The committee chair is unapologetic. He is very proud to have such a distinguished individual at their banquet and refuses to find someone else. Besides, this will be the perfect chance to show people that PETA is willing to have a dialog with people of differing viewpoints. He does not mention that no one else will be allowed to speak while the businessman is present.

Undeterred, the upset members put together a petition to show the committe chair that a lot of other people are angry about the selection too. Members of the national board voice their opinion too, but stop short of throwing out an otherwise very useful PETA organizer. Other people get angry at the first group because they think that it is an attempt to smear the popular businessman, who is even now saying that he wants more ethical treatment of animals. He hasn't done anything to change his operation, of course.

Now, back to the point. If this dispute seems ridiculous, that is only because of the double-standard with which we have learned to ignore. It is okay for people to demand that their view is respected. It is laudable to state your opinion clearly and often, even to the extent that someone is embarrassed or loses their job. That is, unless, your view is somehow connected to your faith. Then, you are marginalized and demonized for being "close-minded."

A few thoughts on acceptable behavior:

• It is perfectly acceptable for an individual, or group, to express their dissatisfaction on any subject, provided they remain respectful.
• It is perfectly acceptable to state that someone should not be given a platform to speak at an organization that has differences with that individual.
• It is acceptable to declare that you are distancing yourself from an organization that is unable to determine whether it is more important to be popular or steadfast.
• It is acceptable to boycott the event to demonstrate your displeasure.
• It is NOT acceptable to stage demonstrations at the event itself. The person might stand against you in everything, but they are still due respect.

I hope that clears things up a bit. I recognize the analogy is not perfect, but if you wish to leave comments on it, please do. Also note that I am neither for or against the many aims of PETA.