The shifting meaning of 'progressive'; also, air and angels

[tree_and_leaf]

Various people have pointed out that one of the difficulties of the new Trek film is that things have changed so much that what looked progressive back in the day (the status of women in Star Fleet and presence of minorities or non-Americans in the crew) now looks positively bastion-of-male-white-American-privilege.

Sometimes, though, it's weird little details that bring back how much things have changed. I was flicking through the production notes on Memory Alpha for "Balance of Terror" (a very good episode indeed, with Romulans, Enterprise crew-members being bigoted and Kirk calling them on it, and a very non black-and-white enemy - and Mark Lenard, who is always good value even when not playing Spock's dad). The episode, though, starts with a wedding (apparently, and I'd forgotten this, the "Enterprise" has a chapel), at which Kirk officiates (which also makes me wonder, as a Patrick O'Brian fan, if the Enterprise ever has services which mostly consist of Kirk reading The Articles of War Star Fleet regulations, and if there is a (suitably space themed, and naturally inter-religious and non-specific) version of the Naval Prayer. Unlikely, I suppose, given the apparent American dominance of Star Fleet, but one can speculate.

Anyway: what caught my eye was that the episode notes draw attention to the fact that the bride genuflects to the altar in the chapel, and that this is noteworthy as a positive-without-making-a-very-special-episode-of-it depiction of Roman Catholic practice on 1960s television (also worth noting in that apparently, not every human member of Star Fleet is an atheist or a vague sort-of-deist after all). Was it really that noteworthy? One would hope that this is special pleading on the note-writers (who also note that some Anglicans genuflect - though their deduction from this, that it's not a markedly Catholic practice, is a bit shakier than they think!), but - I do not know. Any thoughts from older Americans - was this really progressive in the early sixties? Kennedy was Catholic, after all....

On a totally unrelated but extremely cool note, I have found a glossary of Naval Slang. It is quite fascinating (did you know that 'angel' is a unit measuring 1000ft of height?) Or that 'rabbits' is used to designate anything taken ashore from a Navy ship, especially if smuggled?

Heigh ho - back to work!

Comments

[legionseagle]

Can I point out that when the threat was levied at Kerry in 2004 by the Vatican that he would be excommunicated if he did not disassociate himself from "pro-choice" elements that I went 'Um - ah - oh shit"? Because that was quite clearly the Catholic church choosing to apply exactly the sort of pressure on a political candidate that people such as me had been saying all along was no justification for ruling out particular candidates for being exposed to.

[Bad username or unknown identity: twistedchick"] Your views?

[twistedchick]

The major difference between 1960-63 and 2004 is the nature of the Pope. In 1960-63 we had John XXIII, who was as close to a saint as we are likely to see in our lifetimes, and the Second Vatican Conference, during which John did his best to make people open up the windows, air out the dusty musty preconceptions, look critically at what they were doing, and extend a hand to Protestants as fellow believers -- which was not done before. This continued through the papal reign of Paul VI, but ended when John Paul II took over. JPII gradually closed down the open windows, pushed hard to bring back the restrictions that had been pushed aside before.

And the current pope, Benedict, was JPII's enforcer, so to speak. He has less contact with ordinary people, and a greater adherence to pre-Vatican II legalistic thinking. His view seems to be that the one universal Church needs to be a little more picky and less universal, and that only the people he considers worthy should be allowed in. Benedict is what should be the last gasp of the legalism that the Roman Catholic Church has been subject to from 1854 or so until Vatican II -- I can date that fairly precisely, because the First Vatican Conference in the 1850s was interrupted by war in Italy, and so the conferees only had time to finish their first section of talks, concerning canon law. Everything else was pushed aside as they ran away to get out of range of various armies. So canon law became primary, spirituality took a secondary place, and anything that did not follow whatever was thought proper in 1854 was pushed out the window.

This is what John XXIII was trying to get away from. This is also why the majority of observant Episcopalians I have met are ex-Catholics (as well as many neoPagans, Wiccans, and not a few convincedQuakers.)

Then again, what can one say of a Pope who never actually renounced his time in the Hitler Youth and other Nazi groups?

[legionseagle]

I think that's where I get left. Started as quite observant C of E with exprience of Quaker and no example of anyone having the courage of their convictions. When writing, I trying to acknowledge my faith, ut they ll sneeer.

[twistedchick]

There are a lot of Catholics who still have the courage of their convictions; however, the pressure from Rome has made some of them move to denominations where they can follow their leadings (in Quaker terms) without being silenced by the Pope. I am thinking of such teachers as Charles Curran (silenced, ordered not to teach) and Matthew Fox (Dominican, silenced, left to become Episcopalian.) There are also hundreds, perhaps thousands, of women who are nuns, who have completed all the theological studies and other requirements to be ordained as priests, who were in hope that the study that Paul VI requested would result in women's ordination. The study was completed, but was presented to John Paul II, who dismissed it out of hand because he didn't believe women were theologically competent to be priests.

In New Zealand, the Anglican Church ordains women to serve as the modern equivalent of 'circuit-riding' priests that we had in the US 200 years ago, and it's not a big deal there.

Having faith is difficult these days; I try to keep it for God, rather than having faith in fallible people most of the time. I trust people to behave as well as they've shown they will behave -- which varies.