iPhone vs Droid

Before we get into the topic for today, our heartiest congratulations to six Boston priests ordained yesterday: Fathers Michael J. Farrell, Sean P. Hurley, FPO, Mark W. Murphy, John A. D’Arpino, Carlos D. Suarez, and Andrew Kwang Lee!

Longtime readers might look at the subject of this post and initially wonder what kind of incense BCI has been sniffing lately.  Bear with us for just one minute, as events of recent weeks brought BCI to think about Apple vs Google and the smartphone battle of the iPhone vs the Droid.  There are two reasons for our bringing this up.

First, and most importantly, as many people know, Apple and Google have competing agendas–the most obvious of those is that the iPhone from Apple competes against the Droid (whose Android operating system comes from Google). For several years, when Apple and Google did not yet have competing agendas, Dr. Eric Schmidt, CEO of Google, served on the Apple Board of Directors.  In 2009, when it became obvious that Google and Apple were competing in smartphones and operating systems, Schmidt resigned from the Board.  Here is an excerpt from the August 3 2009 resignation announcement from Apple:

Eric has been an excellent Board member for Apple, investing his valuable time, talent, passion and wisdom to help make Apple successful,” said Steve Jobs, Apple’s CEO. “Unfortunately, as Google enters more of Apple’s core businesses, with Android and now Chrome OS, Eric’s effectiveness as an Apple Board member will be significantly diminished, since he will have to recuse himself from even larger portions of our meetings due to potential conflicts of interest. Therefore, we have mutually decided that now is the right time for Eric to resign his position on Apple’s Board.”

Let us now bring this matter of competing agendas back to the Catholic Church and the Archdiocese of Boston.  In carrying on the saving ministry of Jesus Christ, the Catholic Church has part of her agenda the defense of life, the poor, and the most vulnerable in society.  See this excerpt from a piece by the USCCB entitled, “The Catholic Church is a Pro-Life Church.”:

All persons, not just Catholics, can know from the scientific and medical evidence that what grows in a mother’s womb is a new, distinct human being. All persons can understand that each human being — without discrimination — merits respect. At the very least, respecting human life excludes the deliberate and direct destruction of life — and that is exactly what abortion is.

Catholics are also pro-life because our Christian tradition is pro-life. As Pope John Paul II says, Christians believe that “all human life is sacred, for it is created in the image and likeness of God.” Aborting an unborn child destroys a unique creation which God has called specially into existence.

Christian teaching also obliges us to follow in the footsteps of Jesus Christ, who spoke and acted strongly and compassionately in favor of the most despised and vulnerable persons in society. Jesus touched lepers, spoke with prostitutes, and showed special mercy and tenderness to the sick, the poor, and children. Our society today has many vulnerable persons — including women in crisis pregnancies as well as unborn children whose lives may be legally ended at any time during pregnancy and for any reason. In the tradition of Jesus Christ, Catholics have a responsibility to speak and act in defense of these persons. This is part of our “preferential option” for the poor and powerless.

Given the above, if a member of a key canonically-required council of the Archdiocese of Boston is himself actively advancing an agenda opposed to that of the Catholic Church’s defense of the unborn, is that not an unreconcilable conflict of interest?  Would the National Rifle Association find it permissible to keep on their Board of Directors someone working to advance political candidates who favor stronger gun-control laws? One might reasonably ask, how could someone who supports stronger gun-control laws even productively contribute to advancing the agenda of the NRA as a Board memer?  Would Planned Parenthood find it acceptable to keep on their Board of Directors someone fundraising to advance pro-life political candidates?  How could the two agendas possibly co-exist?

When Apple found that the outside agenda of a Board member had evolved to one where there were conflicts and competition with the agenda Apple had, they found a way to recognize the prior good work of the Board member and have him resign on good terms. Since Jack Connors obviously has an agenda of raising funds for political candidates who support abortion, such as President Obama, and that pro-abortion agenda is in conflict with that of the Catholic Church, BCI believes that unless Jack Connors experiences a change of heart, there is no other outcome other than one like Apple and former board member, Eric Schmidt, came to.

Secondly, BCI is in the market for a smartphone.  We are considering the iPhone vs the Droid, both via Verizon.  Cost factors aside, we are curious as to what BCI readers think of one vs the other.  We care primarily about email, web browsing, and the ability to type easily.  (Some here at BCI are fast touch-typists, used to the agility of a computer keyboard or smartphone with actual keys).  Do you use a smartphone?  If so, please take a few seconds to indicate which one in the poll below:

Feel free to comment on the ongoing Jack Connors conundrum in comments.  And if you have an Iphone, Droid, or other smartphone that you are passionabe about, you can also let us know what you think of them in the comments.

19 Responses to iPhone vs Droid

  1. Pension Pete says:

    Smart phones are for dumb people. The lack of comon courtesy exhibited by those using such devices is all the proof I need. Not even BCI is so important as to need instant access 24/7. Cell phones are to make outgoing calls. If you must have one don’t leave it turned on.

    • Carolyn says:

      Dear Pension Pete,

      Phones aren’t rude, people are. 😉

      If you have teenagers, frail parents, or work sales or other “on the road” jobs, you really can benefit from the use of a smart phone. You just have to remember that it is not an automatic permission to interrupt your interactions with humans… and it is never OK to use it while driving.

      An unadvertised feature of all smartphones is seen at the Pastoral Center, where Blackberries and iPhones give key Cabinet members something to do during meetings as they neither understand nor care about the content of the meeting.

  2. bitsnbytes says:

    Google’s Android system is built on the open-source Linux project, in which the system software is published, and problems are rapidly disclosed and fixed with the help of volunteers. In Apple’s system, you have to “jailbreak” your phone to do anything the strictly controlling Apple authorities don’t approve. Getting approval from Apple requires paying up.

    Which of these fits BCI’s way of functioning? Draw your own conclusions.

  3. john scanlon says:

    Droid take it.

  4. Gabriel Austin says:

    You continue to rush past the Church’s chief concern in the matter of abortion. It is not the death of the child. God will see to the child as He sees to many thousands who die in floods and earthquakes and wars.

    The Church’s chief concern is the souls of the abortionist and accomplices. “Better” said Socrates “to suffer injustice than to commit it”. That is the heart and crux of the matter. The souls of the aborters are enchained by Satan.

    • Carolyn says:

      Dear Gabriel Austin,

      You are not incorrect that to perform or procure an abortion, or assist in same, puts one squarely into Satan’s camp. Like drug dealers, those who perform abortions lose the opportunity to cooperate in that evil every time we take the end user’s need away.

      If we work very hard to take care of the women who otherwise would seek abortions, and the unborn children entrusted to them, we snatch the opportunity from Satan to ensnare on that occasion. And any time we can disappoint the Evil One, we are moving in the right direction.

      To the point raised by BCI, can Jack Connors, who certainly endorses abortion by making it available and failing to offer a real alternative, as well as by unfailingly supporting those who continue to legislate it as “safe and legal,” wrap himself in the mantle of promotion and protection by the Cardinal Archbishop of Boston? Is Sean O’Malley morally bound, both by his Baptism and by his vows, to have the guiding councils of the Archdiocese free of those who actively support abortion as the answer for women and their children?

      The answer is, the cardinal cannot morally or within the prescripts of his vows, foster and promote Jack Connors. But he does it anyway.

      The answer is, quite seriously, for Sean to witness an abortion, and accompany the remains (or “specimen” as the clinics call what’s left of the child) to the pathology lab bench where all tissue removed from a human during surgery must go for scrutiny. Let the cardinal ask the pathologist about the tiny feet, and tiny skull, and the heart so large it takes up most of the body. Then send him straight to some dinner where he will present Jack Connors, who presides over any dealings of RCAB to do with financial or managerial weight, with an award for being a wonderful person, nevermind Catholic.

      Jack Connors got the real estate he needed for BC by sitting on the finance council while heading the BC board of trustees. He got the Caritas hospitals a bit lower hanging on the branch (via Cerberus) for Partners to cherry pick in the not-to-distant future by returning to the finance council. And he has thereby, in my opinion, compromised the ordinary to the point of risking his salvation. This has not to do only with abortion, and the failure to provide a real alternative. This has to do with scores of matters large and small, civil and ecclesial, where Sean has cooperated in the fraud crafted by Connors and his henchmen, to avoid the messier work of doing the right thing.

      To bring the thought full circle, those six newly ordained men deserve an ordinary who can lead by example. It’s the least they are owed in exchange for giving their lives over to the salvation of souls.

      Pray for Sean Patrick Cardinal O’Malley, Jack Connors, Bryan Hehir and their many minions. They are in desperate need of our prayers.

    • Mack says:

      Gabriel, I appreciate your concern for the souls of the abortionists and their promoters. The precise reason they’re endangering their souls is that they are taking the lives of the innocent. So I don’t think we should speak as if those deaths don’t matter. They matter a great deal! How many aborted children would have been great saints if they had been permitted to live? What about all the spiritual good that is going undone, because those who were supposed to do it were killed? Yes, God will take care of them, but that doesn’t mean that their lives are inconsequential here on earth.

      • broken hearted Catholic says:

        Ditto to Mack’s comments. We cannot ignore the unborn and say their deaths are of no consequence. They had a role and purpose for their lives designed by God and that has been forever destroyed.

  5. Rosemary says:

    I have a pay-as-you-go cell phone and an iPod touch with Line2 added – unlimited wi-fi calling, unlimited texts, no contract, and it’s own number (could even be an 800 number.) this same Line2 is on my iPad and on our computer – all for $15/month.

  6. Jack O'Malley says:

    I abhor anything to do with Apple (except their stock price, whose inflation I have benefited from for years.)

    Apple is a secretive society obsessed with preserving their own proprietary dogmatic culture. If you are not a company man you will be excommunicated. Sound familiar?

    Steve Jobs is the pontifex maximus of Apple. And we all know what he is, don’t we? Or do we?

    Maybe he’d be interested in taking over the arse-diocese of Boston from Cardinal Connors. He couldn’t do any worse. And he knows how to sell a product.

    Maybe he could turn Pat O’Malley into an app.

    BTW, can BCE investigate whether my sources are correct that Jack Connors dresses up in O’Malley’s ferraiolo when Peripatetic Pat is on the road? A layman can still be made a cardinal when I last checked. Ominous. Very ominous.

    Hope everyone enjoyed the Rapture. Meself, I levitated briefly for a moment or two and then thudded back onto my barstool. Scared the bejasus out of the lads. At least I now know where I stand. O’Malley is still on terra firma as well, I hear.

    • Little Red Hen says:

      Mr. O’Malley, I thank you for making me aware of the term “arse-diocese”. I’m sure it will prove useful in the future.

    • Jack O'Malley says:

      Little Red Hen,

      It was a most unfortunate typo. NOT! 😉

      I first used the term back in the reign of Bernie Law because he and his henchmen were anally fixated on the privileges and pathological self-preservation of their own clerical class. Well, that was one reason for the term at any rate.

      Now it’s still useful to designate an archdiocese that is a rump of its former self. Though I can think of one other reason the term is à propos but I restrain myself from ad hominem’s.

  7. Rosemary says:

    “Its own number” – my iPad wanted it the other way and I didn’t catch it.

  8. Gabriel Austin says:

    You miss my point. Thousands of children – babies – die in natural catastrophes. Perhaps some of them also might have made great contributions.

    That does not address the moral issue, which is murder; and murderers. Satan has no power over the babies. He has great power over the murderers.

    Our Lord was quite specific: even wanting to commit a sin is the equivalent of committing it.

    • Mack says:

      Gabriel, you have an interesting viewpoint, and I fully concur with your concern for the souls of those who commit the sin of abortion.
      Yet, why is an action a sin in the first place? Because the act itself goes against a fundamental human good, the right to life. You seem to be saying that the act and its consequences don’t matter so much, just the fact that somebody is committing a sin. This seems to me to come close to relativism. Sound Catholic moral theology holds that certain acts are intrinsically evil and can never be done. Please consider the reasons why an act like abortion is a sin. Otherwise, you seem to fall into the false view that morality is not rooted in real acts and their consequences. You are confusing moral evil with physical evil. They are not the same thing.

      • Mack says:

        The Catholic Catechism says, “The fifth commandment forbids direct and intentional killing as gravely sinful. The murderer and those who cooperate voluntarily in murder commit a sin that cries out to heaven for vengeance” (n. 2268). Doesn’t the “crying out for vengeance” imply that God is concerned about the persons whose lives have been unjustly taken?
        And “Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense.The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life.” That’s quite clear that the Church considers the crime of taking a life to be of grave consequence.
        And to get back to the subject of the BCI post, cooperation in supporting a politician like Obama who promotes abortion is also a grave scandal and evil. It is a disgrace that the Cardinal tolerates Connors’ conflict of interest. It was no less a disgrace when he meekly stood around at the Kennedy funeral with no word about the serious evil Kennedy had done by supporting abortion for decades in the Senate.

  9. Gabriel Austin says:

    I seem to be failing in making my point clear. As a physical act the killing of a baby [“unborn child” is one of those mealy mouthed efforts to avoid clarity] is not different from the death of a baby in a natural catastrophe or in an accident.

    The moral evil lies in the soul of those deliberately committing the act. We must pray against it as we would pray against the infection of a plague. It is Satan who is whispering in the ears of the aborters. We shall never reduce the baby killing until we recognize its source.

  10. Gabriel Austin says:

    As a coda to this interesting discussion – trying to clarify the issue of abortion – I recount an anecdote. At a Jewish wedding [Jews do certainly know how to celebrate a wedding!], I was speaking to a rabbi. I opined that I knew the reason for the yarmulka – the skull cap [also worn by our bishops]. In the synagogue, the women are seated in a balcony above the men. They undoubtedly grew tired of seeing all the bald spots below and God took pity on them; thus commanding the yarmulka. The rabbi laughed. {Serious religious people always have a good sense of humor]. But he went on to give the real and full reason – because God commanded it. No ifs ands or buts.
    It is Satan who whispers the exceptions, as he did in the Garden of Eden.

  11. […] political candidates and b)  the inaction by the Cardinal in this grave matter. Here is an excerpt from the comment: To the point raised by BCI, can Jack Connors, who certainly endorses abortion by making it […]

%d bloggers like this: