Motherhood & Trust

The old maxim, “the hand that rocks the cradle rules the world” is no sophism. It is a subtle recognition of the importance of motherhood for society and the great influence that mothers, collectively and individually, have over the health of society. One of the most fundamental aspects of this influence is in their teaching their children and so the rest of society the ability to trust. Trust is essential for the health of society and for faith itself. We are born trusting and only eventually learn to distrust. Without trust a child could not learn, a society could not function, and a man cannot be saved. John Paul the Great identifies this crucial aspect of the feminine genius—that is motherhood and trust:

The moral and spiritual strength of a woman is joined to her awareness that God entrusts the human being to her in a special way. Of course, God entrusts every human being to each and every other human being. But this entrusting concerns women in a special way - precisely by reason of their femininity - and this in a particular way determines their vocation. The moral force of women, which draws strength from this awareness and this entrusting, expresses itself in a great number of figures of the Old Testament, of the time of Christ, and of later ages right up to our own day. A woman is strong because of her awareness of this entrusting, strong because of the fact that God “entrusts the human being to her”, always and in every way, even in the situations of social discrimination in which she may find herself. This awareness and this fundamental vocation speak to women of the dignity which they receive from God himself, and this makes them “strong” and strengthens their vocation (Mulieris dignitatem, 30).

The scandal of our current culture is that it is teaching women that motherhood is at most, something some women seek for personal fulfillment, at worst an impediment to their real success as a person. Both are lies. Motherhood like fatherhood and all aspects of life are only ultimately fulfilling when they are giving rather than taking. Motherhood is much more than biological but when it is understood primarily in a way that limits it to its biological function, the children suffer and so does society. The blame lies, I think in JP the Great’s view, first with men who have been responsible for establishing the basic structures of society which tend to demean the value of motherhood and family. Motherhood again needs to be extolled and structures need to be found whereby, women can return/enter the work place and social leadership in positions of influence taking into account their experiences as mothers, without requiring them to have sacrificed their nurturing of their children. We need to regain the understanding that motherhood rocks!

Men, Beer, & Sex

This is normally a recipe for moral disaster. However, in this case our own John Lalley was on the scene to take care of things. No, this wasn’t his bachelor party. John recently spoke at a session of Theology on Tap in Dayton, OH on John Paul II’s Theology of the Body, which he entitled “The Man Show.” He made some of the same important points that we have been discussing here. One insightful observation that he made is the paradoxical other side of the coin in what is happening to our sexual identities in our egalitarian (i.e. equality equals sameness) culture. I have mentioned that women have been masculinized to a great degree in our society. In other words, all too many are rejecting their femininity as a precondition of moving into (and rightfully so) areas of society traditionally adopted by men. For example, vulgar language and interpersonal aggressiveness are fallen masculine traits. Sadly, this is extending into sexual sinfulness as well. While they are both equally sinful, these fallen behaviors are even more damaging to the feminine person then they are to males because they distort her very feminine identity. As John Paul the Great says in Mulieris dignitatem:

even the rightful opposition of women to what is expressed in the biblical words "He shall rule over you" (Gen 3:16) must not under any condition lead to the "masculinization" of women. In the name of liberation from male "domination", women must not appropriate to themselves male characteristics contrary to their own feminine "originality". There is a well-founded fear that if they take this path, women will not "reach fulfillment", but instead will deform and lose what constitutes their essential richness (10).

The flip side of the coin is the push to move men toward femininity. There is now a general sense that men should adopt feminine modes of behavior, especially in interpersonal relations with women. Men certainly have a more of a task to become “civilized,” in general, than do women. However, even though they have much to learn from women, adopting their feminine traits is not one of them. The same is true of men. Men must not feel pressured to be feminized in order to be more like women, whose natural gifts do tend to make them more “civilized” on average. Rather, our interpersonal relations, by disinterestedly giving ourselves to others, expecting nothing in return, will enable us to become more authentic men. It is in fact better to give than receive or perhaps one could also so, it is in giving that we truly receive. When we give ourselves we receive our more authentic, fulfilled, holy selves in return.

Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah

Tricia and I spent the evening with a great group of young adults this evening. The local FOCUS group invited us over for dinner and discussions afterward. They are inspiring to me because of their abandonment to God’s will. They have all recently completed college and donated a couple of years of their lives (at least) to help with the new evangelization. They are helping kids on campuses around the country to recognize and more fully live their Catholic faith. One young lady actually gave up a medical school slot to do this. She is applying again to go when she finishes her mission "tour." Any way, I guess that I have not taught any sort of class in a while, unusual for me. Not unusual is my taking it out on these poor people. I went into lecture mode, kind of, and what else, shared my dissertation on John Paul the Great's theology of Fatherhood. This “teaching” together with something another person said about their missionary work as spiritual replication, brought to mind a significant point John Paul makes. I have mentioned previously the constitutiveness of our sex for our personhood. John Paul says that, fundamentally, all men are created to be fathers and women to be mothers. Our vocation in this regard is also our uniqueness, in the end. Even if we do not become biological parents, we still are called to be fruitful and multiply others as spiritual children in Christ. Teachers do this by begetting spiritual children in an intellectual manner. But they and everyone else are called to live a life of holy witness such that others see and live the truth because of their example. We are charged with giving others less spiritually mature than we the benefit of our journey and acquired wisdom (even if we do not particularly see ourselves has having much of the latter). Spiritual parenthood is not optional. It is something that everyone is called to. It is an important way that we give ourselves to others which in return completes and fulfills us. God will judge us individually, but he saves us together. That is the reason He created a Church. We are called to grow in love and holiness as a family. One need not go on like I often do, Blah, Blah, Blah Blah, Blah. . . but spiritual parturition is still an essential part of authentic, mature, personhood. Whether God has blessed you with biological children or not, perhaps it is time to start looking for the opportunities God is putting before you to be the medium by which someone else will be saved and sanctified.

More Sad Evidence

LifeSiteNews is reporting on a Canadian law which pro-family groups point out falls short of adequately protecting children from pornographic exploitation but is being challenged by several homosexual "rights" groups. The latter complain that, among other things, homosexual artists will be unfairly restricted and that children will be denied their “right to choose” sex and “discover” their sexual identities. This is more sad evidence of the confusion associated with those who suffer from same sex attraction disorder. Call me a curmudgeon, but it seems to me that there are reasons that children are restricted from drinking, driving, voting, holding public office, and, in sane societies, from engaging in sexual relationships. It is called immaturity and innocence. There is so much evidence that children exposed to sexual contact damages them for the rest of their lives that other than ideologues, very few would require being pointed to the vast body of studies which demonstrate this. Nevertheless, "chicken hawks" are so much part of the "gay" subculture that ephebophelia is accepted as normal by a large percentage. This disordered subculture makes disorder appear to be natural and that is what they want to convince the rest of society of. I am sure that there are those who could better explain to me what the homosexual response to this law is not as obscene as it appears?

Moral Truth: Usually Hard, Always Right

It often seems that taking the morally correct choice often demands a considerable amount of moral courage and a considerable bit of moral strength. I suppose that this is because we live east of Eden. Living outside of the Garden, we are not only faced with our own concupiscent desires, we are also pressured, cajoled, threatened, persecuted, even killed by those who seem to require our assent to their submission to their concupiscent desires. Sometimes the assaults come from those who bring with them “science” and “common sense” to support their ideological agendas of making the world free from those who would oppose libertine orthodoxy. One such example is the assault by many, some well meaning—most not, against the Church for Her stand against using condoms for any purpose, even to stop the spread of AIDS. The canards that have been slung are astounding, including those critics who try to place the AIDS epidemic at the feet of John Paul the Great. There are many unstated and unproved presuppositions which go with these criticisms proceeding from the presumptuous to the absurd. For example, many assume that condoms are effective, theoretically and practically, in stopping the spread of AIDS. Zenit published an article over the weekend which shows that those who make this assumption do so without data to support their view. In fact, the data points in the exact opposite direction. The rates of AIDS infection in African countries which push condom use ranges from 37-43%. However, in Uganda which pushes abstinence only and has the highest percentage of Catholics, is down near 4%. So much for ideological ignorance. As for the absurd, is one actually supposed to believe that Catholics, or anyone else, will listen to the Church’s opposition to condoms and so not use them when they would disregard Her teaching against sex out of wedlock—the primary cause in spreading of the AIDS epidemic? As it turns out with a host of other issues, including embryonic stem cells, the morally correct choice is also the best—even more, it usually seems to be the most pragmatically correct choice as well.

Sex, sex, sex, sex, sex, sex . . .

I suppose that it should have occurred to me that with a blog title like ours we would eventually start getting hits from people trolling the internet for pornography . . . but it did not. For some reason it took quite a while but recently we started getting a good percentage of our hits from people searching on the term “sex.” With the Model of purity staring them in the kisser when they get to our page, the majority do not stay long, though a few do. This got me to thinking about the fixation our culture has with sex. Most television and movies that one might turn on seem to treat sex in a reductionist manner, portraying it as a biological function whose primary purpose is pleasure. Many of them act as if one cannot live a healthy life without it. Archbishop Sheen once said that if he were looking for the Church that Christ established, he would focus his attention first on the Church which the world spent most of its time attacking. After all, this would be Satan’s the biggest threat. It seems to me that this could analogously be applied to sex. What I mean is the fixation that we have with sex indicates that there is something about it which is beyond ourselves. It is sought in ways that ordinary pleasurable experiences are not. This seems to suggest the recognition of a transcendence (i.e. a going out of and beyond ourselves) associated with the act. Sexual intercourse draws us in ways other experiences do not. The fact that it is perverted in ways that are not found with most other pleasurable experiences also suggests that there is something unique about it. It is unique in such a way that Satan seems to have most of his success with it. John Paul the Great’s theology of the Body, I believe, provides some important insights which can help to explain this. The Epistle to the Hebrews says “let the marriage bed be undefiled” (13:4). Well you cannot defile what is not holy. Why is marital intercourse holy? Well look at Ephesians 5. Here St. Paul shows us that God wants to marry us. Jesus is the Bridegroom, who totally gives Himself for His Bride, the Church. Of course, this is not a biological union but it is much more intimate and intense a union than marital intercourse. In fact, marital intercourse is a foretaste of the intimate, intense, complete union of which eye has not seen and ear has not heard. God has created us to be His spouse in this sense. Marriage and family life is the training ground for us to prepare for this ultimate union with our Bridegroom. Is it any wonder that it is Satan’s primary and most effective means for distorting and perverting us and who we are? So why is pornography one of the worst scourges we have today? Why is the sex industry one of the most prolific and prosperous, especially on the internet? Sometimes blogger, John Lalley recently reminded me of G.K. Chesterton’s quote in which he said that the man knocking at the door of the bordello is, unbeknownst to him, searching for God. Sex draws us out of ourselves toward another person. However, if we violate the grammar of our body-persons, we destroy the beauty of the act and we end up in a sterile, inward turned action which leaves us unfulfilled and when it is a grave violation, quite damaged. Sex is glorious, it is holy; but like Uzzah found with the Ark of the Covenant (2 Sam 6:6), when we defile it we are the ones who will get burned.

The Mind of Christ

No, I am not so bold as to propose that I personally know the mind of Christ. However, in the second reading for tomorrow’s Mass (Phil 2:1-11), St. Paul gives us the mind of Christ in a very important way. I think that this text reveals in a very profound way what John Paul the Great has called the “Law of the Gift.” This law is the fundamental orientation of Christ’s mind. St. Paul writes (I am using the RSV instead of the NAB which most U.S. Catholics will hear in Mass because it is a generally better translation and I do not want to incur the wrath of the USCCB lawyers):

So if there is any encouragement in Christ, any incentive of love, any participation in the Spirit, any affection and sympathy, complete my joy by being of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind. Do nothing from selfishness or conceit, but in humility count others better than yourselves. Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others. Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

We must have one mind with Christ. The sense of the Greek is that this oneness is more than intellectual but a complete agreement of the entire person. In order to share Christ’s mind, we must recognize that we cannot be inward turned but we must be oriented as was Christ, to give ourselves to others. This self gift is what we were created for. Christ, though He was God, emptied Himself to become Man and then humbled Himself even further in order to serve us by emptying Himself completely on the Cross; sparing not even the last drop of His most Precious Blood. In this He revealed Trinitarian Love; the total emptying of the Father by giving Himself completely to the Son. The Son then received the Father and returned Himself completely to the Father. The result of this total Self-Gift of Father to Son and Son to Father, the Love that binds Them, is fruitful. It is a Third Person—the Holy Spirit. Because we are made in the image of a Trinitarian God, we are made to give ourselves totally to God and to others. Jesus demonstrated this truth, par excellence, on the Cross. St. Paul puts this in terms which we often cringe from—obedience. We are obedient when we act in a manner for which we were created. We are disobedient, we rebel against our natures and therefore against God by choosing to act in a contrary manner. This very act is the cause of our separation from God; whether explicitly or not, it is what we choose. When this act is grave, we completely cut ourselves off from divine life. We must recognize this . . . and it should be frightening—though fear should not be our primary motivation for giving ourselves or loving God. After all, we have complete freedom, which is a necessary precondition for a total gift of self. This freedom means that God wants us to choose but He will not force us. It is God’s will that all men be saved; but there is one way that we are stronger, in a sense, than God. That is, He will not force unity with Him upon us if we choose to live for ourselves and not for Him. By our very wills, disordered though this may be, we can thwart His will for our salvation. However, when we see that this total obedience, this total gift of self is the mind of Christ, and the love with which He manifests it, how can we choose anything else?

Sexual Difference and the Law of the Gift

The “law of the gift” is a phrase which comes via John Paul the Great and it means that we really only fulfill ourselves when we give ourselves unselfishly to others. This truth is found, par excellence, in marital union. In his theology of the body, he shows that this is revealed through sex differences, masculinity and femininity:

The body which expresses femininity {“through” masculinity and vice versa masculinity “through” femininity,} manifests the reciprocity and communion of persons. It expresses it by means of the gift as the fundamental characteristic of personal existence. This is the body—a witness to creation as a fundamental gift, and so a witness to Love as the source from which this same giving springs. masculinity and femininity—namely, sex—is the original sign of a creative donation and an awareness on the part of man, male-female, of a gift lived in an original way. Such is the meaning with which sex enters the theology of the body (John Paul II, Theology of the Body, 61-62).

The ability to recognize the law of the gift in the body’s sex differences is what John Paul refers to as the nuptial meaning of the body. The body shows that the human person is made for love—that is authentic love. Authentic love is one that gives the whole of oneself and receives the whole of the other person, soul and body—including fertility. Obviously then, It is most perfectly expressed in marital intercourse open to fruitfulness. This grammar of the body is falsified when intercourse is engaged in when there is no irrevocable, lifelong commitment to one another or when this exchange is centered on pleasure and closed to fruitfulness. It is also clear that there is no nuptial meaning to be found in same sex intercourse. It is sterile by its very nature. When we refuse to recognize that we are in a fallen state and that not all of our inclinations may be authentic, then it is inevitable that we will embrace the lowest temptations of our fallen nature. The solution is Christ through His Sacraments; the intellectual evidence is found in returning to this nuptial meaning of the body which shows us we are made to give ourselves as gifts in authentic acts of love.

This Is Scary

O.K., I am starting to see a pattern here. I have discovered that there is an inverse relationship between the amount I write and the number of comments I get. In the limit then I guess that I would get an infinite number of comments if I were to stop posting completely. Maybe I should try it? Any way, continuing with the theme from yesterday’s post, LifeSiteNews today has a very scary article about pre-teens in the U.K. who are taking as role models and idols—get this—porn stars. A survey found that 25% of preteen girls said they aspired to be lap dancers. What is happening over there? While in the U.S., a researcher they interviewed found that women are accessing porn in steadily rising numbers. Women, on average, are not attracted to porn; at least not in the same way, as are men. However, this seems to be changing. It is not by nature, even fallen nature, but by cultural pressure. A previous post discussed the confusion young girls experience when they are told by the culture that they should experience sex (and often) the same way do boys. This problem seems to be escalating. The researcher interviewed traces the widespread acceptance of porn to actions by the ACLU who treat this as an issue of freedom. This canard has been adopted by the culture as a “pc” issue says she. I suppose if we as a culture can turn on the most defenseless, the unborn, there is no reason we cannot also offer up our young pre-teen virgins on the altar of the gods of sexual license disguised as freedom. Sometimes it seems that we are getting very close to the point that God is going to say well lets just scrap this whole thing and start over...

Corruption Disguised as Freedom

So goes a portion of the subtitle of a book LifeSiteNews reports about. I cannot vouch for the accuracy or perspective of the book, but in general as the article describes it, there is much truth in what they say. A recent discussion at work brought to mind the danger we face in the U.S. given our cultural heritage, or perhaps more accurately, our undifferentiated understanding of our heritage. In this discussion, I recalled seeing the founder of the “Church of Satan” being interviewed a number of years ago, on TV. I was curious so I watched it for a while. I thought, what could this guy possibly say that would compel anyone but the socially disaffected to have any interest in what he was trying to sell. What he said was something of an eye opener. He said that all Americans should be Satanists. In his thinking, the U.S. was founded by rebels, our heroes are the individualist/rebels . . . well, he stated, the master of his church was the ultimate rebel. I wonder to how many people this would appeal? An undifferentiated view of rebellion would certainly make this a compelling argument to some. This is the same problem with an undifferentiated view of liberty or freedom. The theme of the book is that certain segments of society have a particular agenda which is to subvert the religious heritage of the U.S. in the name of freedom. It is the type of freedom advocated by the purveyors of the Enlightenment, made bloody by the rabid ideologues behind the French Revolution, and turned into a philosophical and practical hatred of God and religion by the atheistic humanists. Monsignor Robert Sokowlowski, a phenomenologist philosopher at The Catholic University of America, likes to say “have you made your distinction today?” It is critical to understand the distinction between true freedom and libertine freedom which, as the book title suggests is a masquerade for corruption. The key to making this proper distinction is to understand the truth of the cosmos; that God has created it with an order that reflects His perfection. In other words, it is not arbitrary but is, in a certain sense, patterned after Him. St. Thomas called these “patterns” the divine ideas. Furthermore, man was created in a special manner, different from the rest of creation. We were made in the image of God. We have an intellect that can reason; we have a will that can choose, and we have the freedom to choose as God does. However, this is not an arbitrary, capricious freedom, but the freedom to be oneself; that is, to act in accord with the truth. This freedom gives us the capacity to love. Love is not authentic if it is compelled. It must be a gift; a total gift of oneself. Of course the result of this is that because it is a free act of the will, there must be the possibility to reject God and His gift of love. Satan did that and so do we every time we choose our wills in direct contradiction with God’s will. It was the result of Adam and Eve’s choice that we all are in a condition that makes it very difficult choose God’s will with each and every choice. However, if we are to move from who we are to who we ought to be, be are obligated to choose Truth and Life. That is, we are obligated to give ourselves to God by taking control of our disordered desires and aligning our wills to God’s will. The happy truth for humanity is that Christ has given us a remedy; that lack of which made this an impossible task for our elder brothers and sisters in the Covenant. Christ has restored us to grace. We have the Sacraments which provide the grace, ex opere operato. Our cooperation with this grace is the key to our becoming our authentic selves; to becoming holy; without which no one will see God (Heb 12:14). The siren song of modernity and its libertine view of freedom is indeed corruption. It is corruption of the order which God created. However, it is corruption or our souls when we succumb to it. The corruption of a soul in grace, one that moves into the blackness of mortal sin, is the worst tragedy imaginable. Just one soul in mortal sin is infinitely worse than the disaster of Katrina and all others put together. Those who would reject this statement need to understand more clearly the gospel message as taught by the Church. If one does not understand the seriousness of mortal sin then I suspect he is not all that concerned either, about those who peddle corruption disguised as freedom.

Relation and Sex Differences

I am debating whether I should bring up this idea because I may have trouble concisely making my point . . . but I rarely see angels where I tread any way. O.k. what do I mean in the title by relation? Hold on to your hats because I am going to try to briefly explain some metaphysics which I realize is fraught with danger (Hiérothée you had better turn away). When we are talking about reality (both visible and invisible, material and spiritual) there are two categories of “being.” Things can be either substances (this does not necessarily mean material substances, there are spiritual substances—e.g. the soul) or accidents. Substances exist on their own but accidents only exist by inhering in a substance (e.g. black only exists in conjunction with a substance such as a piece of paper). So the question arises about masculinity and femininity. Are these substances or accidents? If a substance then men and women would be of two different substances. The significance of this is that this would mean man and women possess two separate nature—which cannot be. If that were the case there, Jesus would have only assumed the male nature and only males would have been reconciled to God. So what are masculinity and femininity. They are relations. This is analogous to the (but still different) to the Trinitarian Persons who are not separate substances, there is only one divine substance/nature, but they are Three Distinct Relations. For creatures relations are accidents in the realm of being but they are essential to personhood. The human person is a substance but it is also relational. The person is created in relation to God and others and made for volitional relationships. In fact, these relationships are necessary for holiness, for perfection. One can only fulfill himself by giving himself away. This is a necessary aspect of relationship. John Paul the Great finds in the Genesis narrative the relationality between the sexes revealed:

As Genesis 2:23 already shows, femininity finds itself, in a sense, in the presence of masculinity, while masculinity is confirmed through femininity. Precisely the function of sex, which is in a sense, “a constituent part of the person” (not just “an attribute of the person”), proves how deeply man, with all his spiritual solitude, with the never to be repeated uniqueness of his person, is constituted by the body as “he” or “she.” The presence of the feminine element, alongside the male element and together with it, signifies an enrichment for man in the whole perspective of his history, including the history of salvation (John Paul II, Theology of the Body, 49).

In the above quote, he says that Adam and Eve discover their personal identity in the presence of the other; they only discover masculinity in the presence of femininity and vice versa. Sex differences only have meaning in relation to the opposite sex. Here he shows that we can see how sex functions as a part of this self-discovery/self-identification. In our bodies, the fullness of our persons is made apparent, as an unrepeatable person who is either female or male. This has application for the discussion of those suffering from same sex attraction and so-called transgender identities. For these, there is no self-discovery or self-identification. There is no complementary other. Each confused person remains an enigma to himself and the other. This frustration prevents the gift of self from taking root and leaves the two confused persons to take rather than receive, and to try to possess and consume the other. This leads to the physical, emotional, psychological, and social damage we have been discussing for the last few months. I hope that this is not too opaque. It is worth the risk and the effort to understand this because it helps to show how all of creation has order and meaning to it. All parts of creation are created with a purpose, an end, and they must interact in the manner for which they were created or all hell breaks loose . . . literally!

So There You Have It!!!

B16 reconfirms Church discipline regarding the priesthood and those brothers of ours who tragically suffer from same sex attraction. We need to pray for them as they are sure to be bombarded with a contrary message from the secular media very quickly.

For those of us who do not agree with this policy, perhaps this is an opportunity for humility and obedience and learn from the Church's 2000 years of wisdom.

Let Freedom Ring

I was watching Journey Home tonight and listening to the experience of Fr. Terry Kraychuk. He was an outlaw biker who lived a life of total dissipation. A friend of mine, Fr. Don Calloway describes a very similar experience in his testimony. I noticed that later next month, Marcus will be hosting someone who was addicted to pornography. I have not heard the last person’s story, but I will bet that he describes it in the same terms as the first two gentlemen: they all recognize the slavery what comes with putting one’s will ahead of God’s will and living in a manner contradictory to the manner for which we were created. Biblical witness describes this in terms of obedience. Unfortunately, as I have mentioned many times already, obedience has negative connotations. The reaction almost seems to be a teenage rebellion which often is articulated something like “I am an adult, I can decide for myself.” However, we need to rise above this immature message of society and temptation from the original rebel. Obedience is not anything to be sneezed at (the freedom of a blog . . . to let one’s prepositions dangle with near impunity). For Jesus, obedience was central to who He was as Son of the Father. As I have pointed out before, He said that His food was to do the will of His Father (John 4:34). St. Paul talks about the obedience of faith (Rom 1:5; 5:19). Faith is obedience because we are being obedient to the way we were created—to trust in God. Jesus says it similarly: “He who believes in the Son has eternal life; he who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God rests upon him” (Jn 3:36). Faith is obedience to our human nature, lack of faith is disobedience and rebellion against the way we were made (succumbing to the temptation to skepticism and pride) and therefore, can condemn us. Paul goes on to articulate what folks in every time and place who have hit bottom have come to realize: we become slaves to the one whom we obey (Rom 6:16). We are either slaves of Christ or slaves of Satan and our passions. The latter he says, leads to destruction. Indeed, obedience is an critical truth for St. Paul and St. Peter as can be seen throughout their epistles. Hebrews even tells us that Jesus learned obedience through what He suffered (Heb 5:8). This obedience to Christ extends to the authority He left in His Church. St. Ignatius, the bishop of Antioch and probably a disciple of St. John the Divine, bears witness to this ancient and continuous Christian teaching around the year A.D. 110. “Indeed, when you submit to the bishop as you would to Jesus Christ, it is clear to me that you are living not in the manner of men but as Jesus Christ, who died for us, that through faith in His death you might escape dying. It is necessary, therefore,--and such is your practice,--that you do nothing without the bishop, and that you be subject also the presbytery, as to the Apostles of Jesus Christ our hope, in whom we shall be found, if we live in Him” (Ignatius of Antioch, St., Letter to the Trallians, in Faith of the Early Fathers Vol. 1., William A. Jurgens ed., (Collegeville: The Liturgical Press, 1970), 20). He makes his assertion of Church authority even more forceful later in the same letter: “In like manner let everyone respect the deacons as they would respect Jesus Christ, and just as they respect the bishop as a type of the Father, and the presbyters as the council of God and college of Apostles. Without these, it cannot be called a Church” (ibid., 20-21). There is no one who has not hit rock bottom and found their way back to authentic freedom who does not recognize the slavery of sin. The only true freedom is the freedom to be daughters and sons of God. This occurs only by being obedient to Christ and the authority He left here to guide us is the sure path to true freedom (cf. 1 Jn 3:24). So then, in our hearts and actions let true freedom ring!

Obedience

In our immature legalism, most of us are apt to see obedience as the attempt of some to infringe upon our freedoms and the rightful exercise of our free will. It has almost completely negative implications for most of us, furthermore, because it seems to circumvent our ability to think and choose for ourselves. I am not sure that obedience is in the American vocabulary. If it is, the term certainly is not put in the category of a virtue. However, among some Catholics there is at least a real sensitivity to being called disobedient. This might be a vestige of the sense that it has some importance. Perhaps there are some situations where obedience is the oppressive burden that comes to mind. However, when it comes to the teachings of the Church this should be the furthest thing from our minds. God has revealed Himself to us for the sole purpose of giving us what we need to move from the persons whom we are to the persons whom we ought to be. All of the Church’s teachings on Who God is, what we must avoid, and even the disciplines which tell us what we ought to do are intended to help us toward this goal. Obedience is nothing other than recognizing who we are and who we must become and living in accord with this truth. That is the reason the Church is given this authority to bind us, even in disciplines, under the pain of mortal sin. Vatican II itself, though not in these words, makes this clear. Obedience is possible only when we trust God and therefore, trust His Church. Therefore, for Catholics holiness, because it is a fruit of obedience—rightly understood (i.e. not an immature legalistic view of it),—is only possible by means of a total surrender of oneself to God and so an authentic trust in and obedience to His Church. Trusting first in ourselves was the fault of Satan, of Adam and Eve, and so the fault which is the source of every sin of ours. I know it is the American way. It is the Calvinist, individualist culture which we have grown up in. We all are guilty of this fault because we are all sinful. I think that the big change in one’s spiritual life comes when one comes to terms with this and he no longer willfully takes himself as the absolute authority. I know, what about conscience. Conscience is not the source of revelation. Conscience is the process of taking absolute moral norms (which we receive) and judging our actions against them (at least in a nutshell, but I could be faulted for not being more precise). Thus, we still have to receive these norms. It is a false understanding of conscience when we try to pit them against Church authority. I have found it also much more intellectually satisfying and much more a comfort to have a trust in the Church and to willfully, follow and embrace the Church’s authority. Certainly, one should know the why of what the Church teaches because of its beauty and for the purpose of evangelizing; but knowing the why can never be the prerequisite to our embracing any particular teaching or discipline. It is to our peril, and maybe those to whom we are closest, when we take upon ourselves the authority given solely to the Church.

Sex, Personhood, and the Priesthood

There has been a lot of discussion lately about same sex attraction and the priesthood with the coming of the Apostolic Visitation. Many Catholics who usually are obedient to the Church seem to be balking at Her policy of not ordaining men who suffer from same sex attraction but are committed to living chaste lives. I discussed this earlier this week and have posted on it in such articles as whether there will be sex in heaven (this one is worth looking at if for nothing else the link to Peter Kreeft’s article on the sexual order of creation—a must read!), and in an article on women and the priesthood. I will not repeat these here but I would like to emphasize the importance of sex and healthy sexual identity for human personhood. First, I would like to make some distinctions in terminology because this will clarify the disorder of homosexuality. The term “gay” was coined in the late 60’s – early 70’s to identify an agenda to make the homosexual lifestyle not just accepted but lauded. Thus, it is not just the pc term equivalent to homosexual but brings with it an agenda. Homosexual is a term used for those with same sex attractions. However, the danger of the term is that it seems to imply that same sex attraction goes to the core of personal identity (for those philosophers-it is assumed to be ontological). The paradox is that most who advocate the gay agenda will deny this same significance of sex for personal identity to masculinity and femininity. However, same sex attraction is a psychological disorder, not a state of being. Significant enough, Scripture never talks of “homosexuals” but of those who do homosexual acts. Among homosexuals, one can identify those who push the agenda, those who are simply content to engage in homosexual acts, and those who experience same sex attractions but are committed to living chaste lives. Generally, among faithful Catholics there is no argument about the first two groups. However, unfortunately, even the third group must not be ordained until they have been “cured” of their pathology (which, by the way, the Catholic apostolate Courage reports happens at a very high rate for those who pursue treatment). However, it is important to recognize that same sex attraction is of a completely different order from heterosexual, concupiscent lust. The latter is natural, the former is disordered. The struggle with the disorder as I have said, is a struggle to find oneself, not just a struggle to overcome lustful thoughts. Even without the theological restrictions, the pragmatic/prudent concerns weigh against this. But there are some other insights about sex and human personhood which can help illuminate the importance for sex for personal identity. Who else: John Paul the Great provides insightful understanding of sex and personhood. In his theology of the body catecheses he points out that sex is more than just an attribute of the person, it in part, constitutes personhood.

As Genesis 2:23 already shows, femininity finds itself, in a sense, in the presence of masculinity, while masculinity is confirmed through femininity. Precisely the function of sex, which is in a sense, “a constituent part of the person” (not just “an attribute of the person”), proves how deeply man, with all his spiritual solitude, with the never to be repeated uniqueness of his person, is constituted by the body as “he” or “she.” The presence of the feminine element, alongside the male element and together with it, signifies an enrichment for man in the whole perspective of his history, including the history of salvation (John Paul II, Theology of the Body, 49).

It goes to the very core of the person. We are constituted as a concrete, unique, and unrepeatable person only as a he or she. Later he says that it determines one’s personal identity.

Sex decides not only the somatic individuality of man, but defines at the same time his personal identity and concreteness. Precisely in this personal identity and concreteness, as an unrepeatable female-male “self,” man is “known” when the words of Genesis 2:24 come true: “A man . . . cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh.” The knowledge which Genesis 4:1-2 and all the following biblical texts speak of, arrives at the deepest roots of this identity and concreteness, which man and woman owe to their sex. This concreteness means both the uniqueness and the unrepeatability of the person (John Paul II, Theology of the Body, 79).

Our sex even has implications for how we should act:

The fundamental fact of human existence at every stage of its history is that God “created them male and female.” He always creates them in this way and they are always such. Understanding of the fundamental meanings contained in the mystery of creation, such as the nuptial meaning of the body (and of the fundamental conditions of this meaning), is important. It is indispensable in order to know who man is and who he should be, and therefore how he should mold his own activity (John Paul II, Theology of the Body, 74).

If we are not sure of our sexual identity, we cannot know who we really are or how we should properly act. This loss of self is a pathology, the turmoil of which cannot be underestimated. That at root the reason that we see suicide rates 300 percent greater for those suffering from same sex attraction than for heterosexuals (lest any one say this is due to so-called homophobia, this holds even in “gay friendly” countries like the Netherlands and in very accommodating U.S. cities like San Francisco). Until one suffering from same sex attraction finds himself, he cannot be a spiritual father over others. This is both pragmatic and theological. Those already priests, are validly and licitly priests but they have a tough situation to deal with. I would encourage them to join their local Courage group. God does not call those who cannot be priests. He will not work against His Church. I hope that we all can do more to understand the why rather than to assume, for example, that the Church must be wrong in this because barring these men from the priesthood does not appear to be the charitable approach.

Altar Placement and Confused Thinking

I have to admit that I can become quite distracted by liturgical “innovations” which are theologically suspect and especially, disobedient. I have been to several churches in which the Altar is moved to one side of the sanctuary, with the ambo placed in a position on the other. The candles are then placed on the far sides of both the ambo and Altar. I suppose that this might be done innocently by some who want to show the integral unity of the Liturgy of the Word with the Liturgy of the Eucharist. However, the original idea was proposed by “liturgists” who wanted to, in their minds, increase the prominence of the Word and to attenuate the attention paid to the altar lest the idea of the Sacrifice of the Mass remain too much in the minds of the congregants. Regardless of the motives, this is both disobedient and indicates faulty liturgical theology. The current General Instruction of the Roman Missal explicitly states that the “altar should . . .be so placed as to be truly the center toward which the attention of the whole congregation of the faithful naturally turns” (paragraph 299). In other paragraphs, it explains why: the altar is where the Sacrifice of the Cross is made present in the Eucharist; this is the center of the thanksgiving which the Mass accomplishes (see pp. 73, 296). Certainly, it is correct to say that the Mass is a unified whole. However, trying to symbolize this by placing the Altar and ambo in balanced opposition to one another reflects confused thinking. First, it supposes that there can be no hierarchical priority in this unity. The Trinity shows us this is not the case. It is no wonder that the same folks who push this kind of thinking also want to reject the hierarchical structure of the Church because they do not see that it can coexist with an authentic communion. This egalitarian thinking in which equality means sameness is problematic. This thinking of course extends even to the area of sexual differences, where if men and women are to be equal then they necessarily must be the same. Christ is present, par excellence, in the Eucharist. He is present in His word but not in the same excellent manner that He is present in the Sacrifice of the Altar. He is really, truly, and substantially present: Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity. To get this wrong is to lose the reality of Christ’s love and His saving action of the Cross as it is applied, throughout time, to His Church. This sacramental reality is fundamentally what separates us from the ecclesial communities of the Reformation and what makes us so close to our separated Sister Churches of the East. If we get this reality wrong, we get ourselves wrong. We become only metaphorically, only symbolically God’s children. However, that is not the case. We are God’s children (see 1 John 3:1) because we share His Flesh and Blood. We are what we eat; we are the Mystical Body of Christ because we eat His Flesh and drink His Blood. The Liturgy teaches and it also makes present the saving act of Christ. Misguided innovations too often teach falsehoods which make understanding and entering into the saving mystery of the Mass less and less likely for today’s generally poorly catechized and poorly formed Catholics.

Spiritual Schizophrenia

My wife and I took a trip to Europe just after the first Gulf War. Not many people were traveling due to terrorism concerns and so there were some rather good airline deals. I had just finished my first masters and so this was a kind of celebration. I had also recently been reawakened to my faith, which I call my holy 2x4 experience (I thought the term was original but I have recently heard it used by others), but I had not put it all together yet (in fact I am still working on that). Any way, we were in Dublin, Ireland going to Sunday Mass when the visiting bishop said something in his homily that was eye opening for me. He said that many of us were spiritual schizophrenics. I suppose that is more charitable than calling us hypocrites but I do not think that these terms are necessarily equivalent. There is a certain pathology in both but the former case seems to me to be more one of honestly (but perhaps still culpably) not recognizing the fact that we act one way in church and another in our everyday world. Our faith often has little influence on us the rest of the week. Even to the point that we can act as practical atheists the rest of the week. That realization was the beginning of a long, ongoing effort to make my life correspond with what I profess. B16 made a very similar statement about us as Catholics to a group of Mexican bishops he received for their ad limina visit recently as reported by Zenit in today’s issue. In fact, B16 recognizes that “For the Bishop of Rome, ‘The separation between the faith professed and daily life of many is one of the most serious errors of our times.’” This is an eye opening statement; it is one of the most serious errors of our time! There perhaps is no problems in society that could not be positively impacted if we as Catholics were not such spiritual schizophrenics. Making up almost a quarter of the U.S. population, we could make tremendous strides on social justice issues, on improving the moral sense of the entertainment and news media, and in returning our culture to one that respects all human life. Unfortunately, too often we fall for that old canard that we need to be able to think for ourselves. The statement is true but if we were to really follow it then we would recognize that the only sure source of truth is not through our tortuous rationalizations but from the gospel revealed by Christ and kept pure through His Catholic Church. Too often though we do not think for ourselves. We are led by the thinking of others in the news and entertainment media, by our fallen feelings, or simply by the inertia of our life style. There are signs of hope today but the solution will only come when the majority of Catholics close this gap between faith and action. We must be guided by our faith by endeavoring to live our lives guided by the gospel which includes lives of self-giving love, service, purity, and obedience. I sometimes wonder why some seem to be given these wake up calls, some of us with spiritual 2x4s, and others do not. I suspect that perhaps we all are given the gift but not all of us want to recognize them.

I Can Love You Like That

The title to this song by John Michael Montgomery (though I recall that some pop group subsequently recorded it) came to mind today during the homily for the Feast of the Triumph of the Cross. Monsignor was very animated; he actually slapped the podium a couple of times at the end asking if we ever knew that God “loves us like that.” He made an interesting point. This feast does give us the opportunity to celebrate the Cross’s triumph in a way that we simply cannot during Lent and especially on Good Friday. Regardless of the season, it is important to remember that the Cross is all about love. You know all the hullabaloo (errr . . . maybe that sounds a little too aggie??) about The Passion of the Christ reminded me of St. Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians (1 Cor 1:23). The Cross is a scandal and folly to the world. Only to Christians is this sign of defeat and humiliation turned on its head. Only in Christ can death be turned to life. It certainly is a sign of contradiction. Death has turned into life because of Love. Love is more stern than death (Sg 8:6). Can you even imagine love like that? To die for us in such a horrible, humiliating, unimaginable way, while we were yet sinners (Rom 5:8). It is frightening; it is a love that makes demands. We cannot bear to think of it. No wonder those, even professed Christian scholars, who are so attached to the world cannot bear to hear about this kind of love. It is a love stronger than even our love for ourselves. Why the Cross though? There are many reasons I suppose. However, this instrument of torture, par excellence, is perhaps the most fitting way for the Son to reveal the Father’s love. Trinitarian love is the total gift of Self. Jesus has to visibly reveal this love to us because we will not listen when we are simply told about it. What can He give to the Father other than everything that the Father has given Him. He has already done this in the eternal processions, now He must do it in His human nature. He can give His life, but that is not enough. He can give his obedience, but that is not enough. He must pour out every last ounce of himself for all to see, for love of the Father and so for love of us. The Cross drains Him of Himself one agonizing drop at a time. As His Precious Blood drips to the ground and He responds with “Father, forgive them . . . “ only then can we understand what it means to love. Only then do we truly understand who we are. We are called to love Him like that and so love each other like that. Could we sing the title of that song? This is the reason when the world sees a crucifix they see death; when a Christian sees it, he sees life, love, and Triumph!

Homosexuality and Spiritual Fatherhood

The press is all abuzz about Archbishop O’Brien’s statement that those suffering homosexual attraction should not be ordained as priests. According to the secular press reporting (which always seems to lose a lot in translation) the Archbishop identified several reasons for this, including the difficulty it poses for those struggling with their sexual identity and the ill fruits it has born with the numbers of homosexual ephebophilia cases which came to light starting in 2002. However, there is a deep theological issue as well that goes to the heart of what it means to be a male person and what the priesthood really is. The genius (to borrow JP the Great’s term) of masculinity is fatherhood. All men are created to be fathers, whether biological or not. Jesus is a male for a reason. It is for the same reason that all priests in the Old Covenant were male. Priesthood is an office of spiritual fatherhood. You see God the Father is not male but He does relate to us as masculine to feminine. Masculinity is marked by an initiating offer of love; femininity by a receptiveness to this love and a return of the love. In the Old Testament Prophets, every time Yahweh was presented as a Bridegroom it was in the context of God redeeming His people. The vocation of a priest is to mediate between God and man, and this mediation is God’s love to His Church. Jesus, the Son reveals the Father; He is the image of the Father. That is why He is the Bridegroom and the Church is the Bride. Jesus offers to the Church God’s all giving love, manifested through His total gift of Himself on the Cross. New Testament priests, are alter Christi, they are other Christs. They offer Christ’s Sacrifice of the Cross in the Mass and do it not in imitation of Him, but they actually lend themselves to Him. It is Christ on the altar saying “this is My Body . . . “ It is God who saves His people by applying the one redeeming Sacrifice of the Cross, in time through the Mass. So one who suffers from homosexual urges is a man, so why can he not be a priest? It is for the reason that if he is confused about his sexual identity he cannot be a spiritual father. He cannot mediate God’s masculine love of initiative to His Church. He cannot any way, while he still has this confusion. However, Courage reports that they have a very high success rate in helping those who want to, heal from this disorder. Homosexuality is a pathological condition, not a state of being. It can be treated and in many cases resolved. The guidelines for these folks being admitted to the seminary must be done on a case by case basis but if they no longer have a confused sexual identity, this aspect of the problem is resolved.

Male and Female He Created Them

As it usually happens, every time I think I have come up with an insightful thought I find that it was most likely an unconscious recollection of something I had read. Karol Wojtyła wrote much the same thing as I recently commented in a thread a few days ago (see Mass Confusion below). I found it was in some notes I had taken as I was preparing to write my dissertation. In Love and Responsibility he writes:

Every human being is by nature a sexual being, and belongs from birth to one of the two sexes. This fact is not contradicted by the phenomenon of so-called hermaphroditism – any more than any other sickness or deformity militates against the fact that there is such a thing as human nature and that every human being, even the deformed or sick human being, has the same nature and is a human being precisely because of it. In the same way every human being is a sexual being, and membership of one of the two sexes means that a person’s whole existence has a particular orientation which shows itself in his or her actual internal development (Love and Responsibility, 47).

To treat anyone differently than a human man or a human woman (and these are not interchangeable based upon the desire of the person) is to treat that person as less than human. It makes no sense to follow the current scientific theories about human personhood when they conflict with Church teaching because science admittedly reduces the human person to biological phenomena. They have not the competence then to make proclamations about the whole human person because they neglect his spiritual reality. Anytime you have a choice between having something explained to you by someone who sees the whole picture or just a part of it, pick the former. In the case of the human person, lives and spiritual wellbeing could depend upon it.

Showing One's Stripes

It has often been said that a person's (or organizations?) true colors can be seen by the way they respond in crises / tragedies. There is much to be said of that. In these situations, there is less chance or concern for putting on false pretenses perhaps. Maybe there are other reasons. My Aunt Bev sent me an article the other day about a particular organization trying to collect money to help people affected by Katrina. It seems that Planned Parenthood is showing their true stripes. They say "Help Those Affected by the Hurricane," in a headline on their website, but if you read too closely you might find out that 100% of the money will go to help their local affiliates to help offset the huge legal expenses they are now incurring. Perhaps most people who know about Planned Parenthood will not be confused by this but for those who have no clue about them and want to help those who have been displaced, this subterfuge is calculated to separate them from their money for a purpose not likely what the charitably minded donor had intended.

The Man of Lust

Well, another change in the color scheme. With two back to back Longhorn turnovers in the second quarter and another to start the third, squandering a 10 pt lead, it is time to take down the burnt orange. That, and it got bad reviews anyway. I would have suspected that I was getting inputs from some Aggies but for the .au country code in one of the e-mail addresses. Any way, any thoughts on this color scheme? The man of lust is a term that John Paul the Great uses in his Theology of the Body catecheses to refer to the fallen human person who is subject to concupiscence. He speaks of this in terms of the three-fold lust St. John the Evangelist speaks about (1 Jn 2:15-16). These are the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life. I will let those who are not familiar with JP the Great’s treatment of this read the link, but the short of it is that in our fallen state we tend toward reduction of the other and selfish benefit. Life and the human person are unintelligible without acknowledging original sin and concupiscence. Life East of Eden can be confusing without reference to God and to our fallen state. I thought I would make a list of some of those common confusions which arise because original sin and concupiscence are not recognized: Authenticity is not acting as you feel. Being “authentic” is a post-modern virtue which essentially means one must be true to his feelings. Your feelings are your guide. I suppose that domestic violence should not be illegal then? Rather, being authentic is being and acting as we were created, to give ourselves totally to God and so to one another. Love is not the same thing as feelings. Feelings change as relationships mature. When the feelings associated with the novelty of a new relationship are mistaken for love, it is no wonder that we have such a high divorce rate. Love is an act of the will. You must choose to love or not to love someone. Lust is not the same thing as love. Lust in fact is the opposite. Lust wants to possess someone as an object for selfish motives; love gives oneself and receives the other as a gift; that is not as a possession. Experience is not truth. This is especially a problem with some feminist theologians who make their personal experience the criteria for discerning what is authentic Divine Revelation and what they can reject as the product of oppressive patriarchal institutions. Experience must be evaluated and view through the lens of truth as presented by Divine Revelation, not vice versa. Sexual attraction can be distorted and acting on it can be personally damaging. This includes homosexuality, bestiality, polygamy, etc. For those who do not recognize we are in a fallen state, they must assume that their feelings of attraction are normal but the results are physical, psychiatric, and spiritual mayhem. Because the goal is purity, there is no such thing as a mature audience. We fool ourselves if we think that we can subject ourselves to sinful temptations in the media and be unaffected by it. Sure adults are more capable of dealing with “mature” material than are children but that does not mean that we can do so without negative spiritual consequences. Anyone want to add their favorites? O.k. so the Horns pulled it out but I think I will stick with the current color scheme . . . for awhile . . .

Tyler Again . . .

If you have been reading here regularly you saw a couple of posts about my nephew Tyler a while back. We went down to FL and saw my brother and his wife and boys in July. Unfortunately, Tim and his family have not caught a break since then. They are in the midst of several more difficult challenges. Right how his wife, Sheri is in Texas with her mom who is on her death bed. His other son, my godson, may have a disease that causes sudden death. The doctor bills are piling up. If you have any extra prayer time, please add them in. Back to Tyler. Tim relates it better than I:

I do have to tell you a quick story about tonight… Tyler was doing his homework at the table before dinner tonight and he heard me talking to Sheri. When I got off the phone, he told me that he did not want to grow up and get older. When I asked him why not, he said “because I don’t want Uncle David to die.” I must admit I was not expecting that answer. David, you sure did have an impact on Tyler!

I am not sure what this means but if you don't see me posting anymore, Tyler may have gotten older.

Pietas

As you can tell, we have changed the look a little bit. We had a few complaints that it was hard to read. Given the few readers we are down to right now, we certainly don’t want to lose any more. Why the burnt orange background? It’s football season—Hook-em Horns baby! Well not really, it is football season and I do root for the Longhorns but this was the first unobjectionable background I hit upon that did not require changing all of the other fonts. Any comments, recommendations? On to the topic of the day: Pietas, or piety. You know, I have noticed recently that many otherwise orthodox Catholics seem to shy away from or even belittle people, writings, etc. as “too pious.” Huhh? I am not sure where that comes from. Are they being influenced by secular minded people that public displays of religious life is verboten? Is it left over from their pre-awakening days when you would be called a Jesus Freak for being too religious? Perhaps it’s a judgment that everyone expressing himself publicly is insincere and so all public expression of piety is a false piety (but I hope not). I have no clue. Maybe it’s a bit of all of these, or maybe it’s something I haven’t considered. What is piety? It comes from the Latin, pietas, which means love, loyalty, devotion. Piety was commonly associated mostly with a love, loyalty and devotion to one’s parents, country and to God. In fact, piety originates with our love of God. Religious piety is our love, loyalty and devotion to God. Piety is one of the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit. To eschew one of these gifts, for any reason, makes absolutely no sense. If piety is real, it takes a visible expression. Those who fall into the trap of thinking that one can express themselves mentally/spiritually without incorporating their bodies haven’t thought about what would happen if they treated their loved ones that way. If you did not hug, kiss, touch, or caress your parents, siblings, spouse, children, then your words would soon begin to become suspect. Again, at a sporting event when your team scores, you do not sit passively, rejoicing interiorly, spiritually. We are a composite beings, our nature is to be a unity of body and soul. Without either, we are not human persons. Our bodies express our person, our souls. Our souls can be seen only through our bodies. With whatever is happening in our souls, our bodies want to follow. We become frustrated if they cannot. It is Platonism, not Christianity, to try to separate the spiritual life from bodily expression. Pious expression may be at first uncomfortable for us if we are not used to it. Stoicism within U.S. Catholicism seems to be an Irish inheritance that some have traced to the penal days in Eire when Irish Catholics could not publicly practice their faith without risk of imprisonment or death. However, stoicism in religious expression is not Christian doctrine, nor is it healthy. We need to get over it. I can sympathize with this comfort with stoicism. Being stoic is very comfortable with my personality. I can empathize with the fear of being considered too religious, it took me some time to overcome that fear. I can understand that some folks may seem to be showboat ’in but that is not a judgment that we need to (or should) make unless we are very sure and have the opportunity for fraternal correction. Piety is required for heaven, one way or another. If we don’t develop it here, we will get the opportunity (God willing) to become very pious in Purgatory—if we die in a state of grace. Being pious is nothing more than giving yourself totally to God. It should be visible to everyone around you, in some manner. While not everyone need run down to their local Charismatic Renewal meeting and pray for the gift of tongues, no one should eschew piety as something extraneous to authentic faith, or even something optional. The first step to piety is to surrender yourself completely to the Holy Spirit (an ongoing project—but it is not quietism). He will take care of the rest.

Mass Confusion

As a society, we are awfully confused. Let me explain why I say that. Today I went to an ecumenical/ interreligious collegiate group meeting on campus here at UIUC. All went well at first, until one lady took the floor for 45 minutes. Ostensibly about a global interreligious group of which she is president, the discussion quickly and almost completely become a discussion about oppression of “gay-lesbian-transgendered” people because of the hegemony of traditional religions. I do not do well keeping quiet when I do not have an opportunity to respond. Since I was representing my organization rather than myself and our ecumenical liaison did not say anything I decided that I would keep quiet. Probably the best thing because this is a very difficult issue to respond to very quickly. Then again, maybe it was just moral cowardice on my part. After ward, I was discussing this with a colleague who mentioned a philosophy class one of the priests on campus attended, in which the professor introduced the class to the “fact” that there are five (count them) “genders.” I am sure you can figure out what they are: female, male, gay, lesbian, transsexual. The priest mentioned that he did not see five latrines in the campus buildings . . . he spoke too quickly, I understand that all new buildings have to have them by state law here in IL. I hope this is a false rumor. Of course, when we start letting our disordered, lustful desires dictate what defines human nature, there is no end to the number of genders we can have. I suppose that we can soon expect a proliferation of genders. There will be the polygamous gender, the bestial gender, the ephebophelia gender, the pedophilia gender, the foot fetish gender, the self-sexual gender . . . you get the idea. Revelation shows that God created us male and female (no transsexual gender here). Biology shows us that there are only two complementary sexes as well. Common sense shows us that we the only thing that differentiates a male or female homosexual/sexually confused person from anyone else is his human will to act in a way that conflicts with his sex. Those who fall prey to this cultural confusion most likely do so for what they think are benevolent reasons but I would suggest a closer look reveals that they are really selfish reasons. We make ourselves feel good when we make others feel good. This is in one sense, a manifestation of the “law of the gift.” But when we affirm others at the expense of their well being and the truth, in reality we are only serving ourselves. We avoid hard feelings and gain the good feelings of mutual affirmation. However, this is not the loving, authentically charitable thing to do. John Paul the Great has an important admonition when it comes to playing around with one’s sexual identity:

The personal resources of femininity are certainly no less than the resources of masculinity: they are merely different. Hence a woman, as well as a man, must understand her “fulfillment” as a person, her dignity and vocation, on the basis of these resources, according to the richness of the femininity which she received on the day of creation and which she inherits as an expression of the “image and likeness of God” that is specifically hers. The inheritance of sin suggested by the words of the Bible— “Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you”—can be conquered only by following this path (Mulieris dignitatem, 10).

While this is addressed specifically to women, it applies equally to men. We can only fulfill ourselves as persons when we use our feminine or masculine gifts (notice he does not mention gay-lesbian-transex gifts because there are none proper to these disorders). We can only defeat the temptations and disorders which are due to fallen nature and concupiscence when we recognize who we really are—a male or female, human person—and act accordingly. Real love is sometimes tough love. That does not mean not being sensitive and loving in trying to bear witness to the truth. Perhaps in some cases it may even require 0nly silence and prayer. But in the end, the world will not get the truth from itself. It requires faithful Christians to bear witness to the truth in a manner keeping with real Christian charity.

Equality in Difference

One of the most unforgivable terms that you can use among the politically correct Christian anthropologists these days seems to be the term “complementarity.” I am pretty sure that defending JP the Great’s use of the concept was a killer, at least in part, for me at one Catholic college I interviewed with earlier this year. Why might this be? Perhaps I should say what it is. There is natural complementarity between men and women. God has created us this way. Women have gifts that naturally complement men’s gifts and vice versa. The generative organs are one biological manifestation of this but this complementarity extends beyond physiology to emotions, psychology, etc. Women are naturally better at some things and men better at others. Ouch! This is where the problem comes in. For various reasons, some feminists (well maybe a lot more than some) are quite suspicious of any talk of inherent differences between men and women. One reason is that they fear that the differences will be used to justify exclusion of women from some areas. They also are influenced by the French Revolution’s view of equality—which in a word means sameness. This thinking still imbues French society and is behind their attempts to restrict religious symbols from the class rooms (recall the prohibition against Muslim girls wearing head scarves). They may be justified in the first concern, at least to some extent. However, the danger of abuse cannot justify the rejection of truth. I for one know for certain that women are much better than me at many different things (in general that is—there is much room for variation within the envelopes of maleness and femaleness). I am very happy that my wife and I do naturally complement each other in our various strengths and weaknesses. For all of the arguments against complementarity, none hold up to common sense. Study after study has come to the conclusion that the general “stereo types” that people have about what is masculine and what is feminine generally hold up across cultures and societies. These differences also resist manipulation by misguided “gender homogenists” . . . those who experiment on the young trying to prove that it all gender identity is culture driven. John Paul the Great provides important advice to women and men about complementarity. He says that equality does not need to mean sameness and that those who think it does risk losing their specific qualities as a woman (or man I suppose). In commenting on Genesis 1:27, he says:

“One could say that the sacred author was eager to assert, once and for all, that woman bears within her a likeness with God no less than man does, and that she was created in God’s image in her own personal characteristics as a woman and not only because of what she has in common with man. This is equality in diversity (cf. CCC 369). Therefore perfection for woman is not to be like man, making herself masculine to the point of losing her specific qualities as a woman. Her perfection—which is also a secret of affirmation and of relative autonomy—is to be a woman, equal to man but different. In civil society and also in the Church, the equality and diversity of women must be recognized” (John Paul II, The Church, 480 [June 22, 1994]).

Free to Be Me

Freedom is essential to authentic human flourishing, it is essential for holiness, it is essential for self-fulfillment. So says John Paul the Great. So why does the Church also teach that people are not free to do as they please. The vanguards of a libertarian view of freedom make it clear that they think the Church is the enemy of freedom. Leading up to the confirmation process for John Roberts for (now) Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, these pundits are making much of the fact that he appears to be a faithful Catholic. Nina Totenberg on NPR, July 23rd appeared to be concerned over his ability to be a judge who is free to decide cases on their own merits because he is a “conservative Catholic.” Christopher Hitchens, writing in the August 1st edition of Slate, says that Roberts can legitimately be singled out for questions about his faith that others cannot because he is Catholic and “the Roman Catholic Church claims the right to legislate on morals for all its members and to excommunicate them if they don’t conform.” Sure, everyone knows that there is no freedom in the Church. Is John Paul the Great’s position then, a contradiction? The key of course is an authentic view of freedom. Our modern view of freedom is an immature, infantile, or perhaps more accurately, an adolescent view of freedom. It is a demand for autonomy from any sort of responsibility or ramifications for the choices one makes. This autonomous freedom extends to a freedom from reality, from the natural law, the moral law, and for some even from the laws of physics. Our culture’s understanding of freedom is that of a teenager who demands to be treated as an adult; which means—I don’t want any responsibilities, I just want to do as I please without having to answer for it. It is the freedom that Cafeteria Catholics demand; that is, the desire to be considered “good Catholics” but on their own terms. If this is an authentic view of freedom, then the answer to the question is definitely—yes. There is most definitely a contradiction. However, the answer of course is that there is no contradiction because the adolescent dream of freedom is a sterile freedom. In fact, it is no freedom at all. Freedom can only come from God Who is the Source of everything. We are truly free only when we are not encumbered by inhibitors to our true fulfillment. These obstacles are solely found in sin. Sin is the only thing that separates us from being who and what we were created to be. Our freedom is one of those ways in which we are created in the image of God. Without freedom there would be no love, no morality, no saints, no heroes, no friendships, no culture, no poems, no art, nothing that makes us who we are. Without freedom there would be no you or me. However, without freedom there also would be no sin. If you were the creator, would you have allowed the possibility of sin to provide the space for all the rest? I’m glad He did, even though the results of sin can often be unthinkable, unbearable, and inhuman. You see we need this freedom if we are going to be free to be you and me; but with it we also get the freedom to become an inward turned, stunted human person. If we die that way we have chosen our condition for all eternity (which makes me shudder to think about). The immature view of freedom is correct in one regard; no one can stop them from choosing the acts they wish to do, but they are wrong when they think they can choose the consequences too.

The Master of Suspicion

It seems in every crisis on which the mainstream news reports, it becomes almost unbearable to watch their machinations. Whether due to ideological agenda or because of a culture of sensationalism—maybe it’s a bit of both—it seems that the major news outlets seem to seek out the worst that people have to say about the leadership which has responsibility in the matter. Most of us probably have not been able to miss the conspiracy theory that the press seems to fanning, that racism was at the core of the human losses because of a perceived slow response in rescue efforts. I suppose that since our country was founded on the suspicion of authority, our culture makes us susceptible to this type of thinking. This brings to mind how central trust is to being a human person. For example, we possess most of what we know because we have trusted those who have taught us. We leave our houses, buy food from the grocery store, or get behind the wheel of a car only because we first trust in the general good intentions of others in our society. God created the human person to trust. We are born trusting and learn as quickly as we do, in part, because we trust. In fact, we call innocent, children who have not yet learned that they cannot always trust others. Trust is central to family life, it is central to social life, it is also central to faith. One cannot have faith without learning to trust. This by the way is why divorce is so destructive to children. It undermines their ability to trust in others. If their parents (those they trust the most) abandon them, and regardless of what one might tell them this is what they experience, they lose the ability to trust. This makes forming lasting relationships very difficult for them. The reason that divorce begets divorce. The lack of trust is also at the root of original sin. In Genesis, we see that Satan was able to convince Adam and Eve that they could not trust God. God was depriving them of something so they had to take matters into their own hands. This was the first breach of trust. Satan is the master of suspicion. He recognizes the fragility of trust and preys upon its fragile nature. Suspicion forces us to take matters into our own hands. We become the final arbiters of everything, including truth. This is what happened with Adam and Eve, it is what happened in the East-West schism, and it was the crux of the Protestant Reformation. One can see it so clearly in the satanic carnage of the French Revolution when suspicion finally overcame the purveyors of the revolution, and ultimately finally turned on themselves. Suspicion is the foundation of Enlightenment thinking and rationalism. Paul Ricoeur called Karl Marx and Friedrich Nietzsche the “masters of suspicion” because they came so close to Satan, I suppose. They taught that to affirm man, one had to reject God. This is exactly what Satan convinced our first parents and is at root of all of his temptations. I do think that this is also at the foundation of those who think that they must pick and choose among Church teachings. A logical look at this thinking shows that it is not faith but only a happy coincidence. Those suffering from this disorder simply find that in some (maybe even many or most) things the Church just happens to teach that which fits with one’s world view (which ultimately comes from who know what source). I should say a word about the difference between suspicion and prudence. Of course when the consequences are grave if we are deceived, or if the probability is high that we might be, then we must prudently exercise caution. However, this is not the same as fomenting a perpetual attitude of distrust (which really is only conveniently applied when demands are made on us to which we are not willing to yield). Prudence is judiciously applied caution; skepticism is a pathological setting of subjective barriers that we dynamically adjust to keep unwanted demands at bay. Prudence comes with a heart open to truth and love; skepticism is closed in on the person who is alone to decide for himself what he will or will not believe. To be authentically human, to be able to give yourself completely to God, you must trust Him. To trust Him is also to trust His Church, which St. Paul calls the Pillar and Foundation of Truth (1 Tim 3:15). Without this trust, we cannot complete ourselves by giving ourselves away. It takes much grace, and our cooperation with it, to overcome experiences which have taught us, so seemingly indelibly, not to trust. But it is possible, I am living proof. The first step is to recognize the sources of our suspicion (temptation and experiences) and to flee to Christ for salvation from both of them. He will defend us from the first and help us come to terms with the latter. We best flee when we make use of His gifts of Mother Church, Her Sacraments, the Communion of Saints, and especially the Sacrifice of the Mass. The Master of Trust has already defeated the Master of Suspicion. The only task remaining is for each of us to decide in which company we will choose to abide.

Kant Got Somethings Right

While Immanuel Kant was the source of some significant, erroneous philosophical thoughts which have permeated our thinking today, he also articulated some important truths. Karol Wojtyła in his book, Love and Responsibility, reveals that in one respect that Kant was a positive impact on his thinking:

. . . Immanuel Kant, at the end of the eighteenth century, formulated this elementary principle of the moral order in the following imperative: act always in such a way that the other person is the end and not merely the instrument of your action. In the light of the preceding argument this principle should be restated in a form rather different from that which Kant gave it, as follows: whenever a person is the object of your activity, remember that you may not treat that person as only the means to an end, as an instrument, but must allow for the fact that he or she, too, has, or at least should have, distinct personal ends.

The Battlefield between Love and Lust

John Paul the Great, in his theology of the body catecheses, described the heart as the battlefield between love and lust. I don’t suppose that many in our culture today are even aware of this battle. The popular media seems even to equate the two. However, the difference between them is like night and day. The battlefield is due to concupiscence. Under the influence of concupiscence men and women, in different ways, will tend to turn the other into an object for self gratification. For men, the gratification is usually focused on pleasure. With women, it is often a somewhat more integrated sense of self-fulfillment. In any case, when the motivation is to take and possess the other person rather than to give oneself and to receive the other as a gift, the result is this “objectification.” If the circumstances of copulation are not between husband and wife who have an irrevocable, lifetime commitment to one another, an openness to receiving the whole other person, including his fertility (which means an openness to the possibility of the full fruitfulness of the act) then love is defeated and lust wins out. Yesterday’s thread contained a discussion which touched on this in discussing the problem of homosexuality in the context of marriage. Homosexual relations can never go beyond lust. Authentic love is by definition, a total self gift. When it is expressed genitally, it must correspond to the created order. Here of course, common sense shows that in the created order, genitals (whose Latin root means generative or fruitful) point to the possibility of procreation. Homosexual, genital expression is by its very nature, sterile (as would be heterosexual, anal intercourse). There is no mechanism for fruitfulness. It of course, differs from heterosexual copulation in which one of the spouses in infertile in that intercourse in the latter corresponds to the created order but a biological defect prevents fertility. In homosexual intercourse, it is the act itself which is defective and not a biological pathology which inhibits fruitfulness. Marital intercourse is the most perfect reflection of Trinitarian love when it is open to the fruitfulness of bringing forth a third person. Notice I say open. This means taking no unnatural measures to interfere with fruitfulness. The very act of impeding fertility is a closing off of oneself to the fullness of the other person. I suppose that while it is much less likely, even a couple using natural family planning could possibly use NFP with the intention of thwarting God’s will. However, I would not think that they would bother using NFP if that were the case. Any other use of this most holy act other than that reflects Trinitarian (i.e. fruitful) love is a grave distortion of the purpose of the act. The Christian must cooperate with the grace of the Sacraments if he is to overcome the fallen inclination to satisfy himself at the expense of fulfilling the more human orientation to give himself and receive the other as a gift. Without the Sacraments and cooperation with the grace (i.e. practice of the virtues), he is destined to be a casualty on the battle field, where lust triumphs and authentic love dies.

Hmmm . . .

The divisions which we see in society seem to revolve not around the traditional “haves and have nots” but between those who believe in the sanctity of each human person and in the sanctity of human sexuality and those who believe that all morality must yield to the capricious will of each person. This almost satanic demand for the absolute right for "choice" was the main reason for the vitriol against President Bush and for the on-going resistance to orthodox Catholic judges in the U.S. In Canada, there is strong resistance to Christian moral teaching at the government level. It is clear that there is a strong push in Canada to equate homosexuality with heterosexuality. A visit on any day to LifeSiteNews will give you story after story of Canadian government action against anyone who would publicly disagree with homosexuality as something natural. This widespread, diseased thinking has led to dire predictions from many. Even some very stable personalities have seen the trajectory of western culture and predicted calamity ahead. Fr. Groeschel has said that he believes that within the next 50 years (he said this sometime before the beginning of the new millennia) the only recognizable institution from today will be the Catholic Church. John Paul the Great said at we are standing at the crossroads of history. He said that what we do in the next few years will decide if we follow the path to ruin or renewal. Mind you, that the context of both of these are the demise of Western society but not necessarily the end of the world. LifeSiteNews has an article about an otherwise stoic editor of a Catholic magazine who regularly criticizes predictions of the end times. He seems to have changed his mind. He editorializes that homosexual marriage will inaugurate the final judgment. I am not sure about that myself. Even if he is correct about the criteria which has to happen before the final judgment, it is not ours to predict. However, I do believe that we are taking giant steps down the path which leads to destruction. I do not know if we are irretrievably lost or not. Nevertheless, whether the final judgment is right around the corner or not, our particular judgments are quite close. When it comes our time to answer for our actions, we need to be prepared to give an account for why we (or maybe it is just me) failed to spread the truth of the Gospel (by deed as well as word) to a world in such desperate need of it.

Don’t Show This to Penn and Teller

These two “comedians” skewered Mother Theresa for her profession of the Christian message on suffering because they are of the world and to the world, suffering is a scandal. It is the reason the Greeks and the Jews could not accept the Cross. However, there is untold suffering going on now in our country as there as been in South East Asia since the tsunami, in the Mideast for almost a century now, and in various parts of Africa for almost the same length of time. Suffering is the lot of our fallen race. We scream back at our Creator for His not stopping it and those of us who believe cannot help but wonder why. Suffering is an indication that things are not as they should be. It is our lot because we are east of Eden. We are not where we should be. Christ demonstrated par excellence the meaning of suffering. It is the result of man’s sinfulness. But God did not leave us alone in it. He joined us in His suffering on the Cross and He gave us the capacity to participate in His work. Our task is to join our sufferings to the sufferings of the Cross in order to undue it’s cause . . . that is to make reparations for the effects of sin. When suffering cannot be avoided, we must embrace it . . . as Jesus told His disciples, we must take our crosses up and follow Him. St Paul tells us that suffering doesn't separate us from Christ:

Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? As it is written, "For thy sake we are being killed all the day long; we are regarded as sheep to be slaughtered.” No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us (Rom 8:35-37)

In fact not only does it not separate us, he tells us we must suffer to be joined to and glorified with Christ:

For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God. For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the spirit of sonship. When we cry, "Abba! Father!” it is the Spirit himself bearing witness with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, then heirs, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him. I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us (Rom 8:14-18).

St Paul actually tells us that we should take joy in our suffering if offered in union with Christ for the sake of His Church:

More than that, we rejoice in our sufferings, knowing that suffering produces endurance, and endurance produces character, and character produces hope, and hope does not disappoint us, because God's love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit which has been given to us. (Rom 5:3-5)

and

Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ's afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church, . . . (Col 1:24).

It may seem a little difficult to understand what St Paul means by "what is lacking in Christ's afflictions," especially if we interpret it as suggesting that he suffered less than was necessary. But that is not what St Paul means; we know from Hebrews that Christ’s Sacrifice was perfect, once for all time. He is saying that the suffering that Christ suffered for us, we His Mystical Body (also known as the Church) also have to share in. He suffered for our sake, not so we wouldn't have to suffer -- but the suffering we experience can be joined with His suffering on the cross and it can be made an offering pleasing to God. BUT it can only be pleasing to God if we do it as part of Christ’s Body -- the Church. For some this is a hard concept because it would seem that there is nothing we can do to add to Christ’s completed work on the cross; and it is true that we do not add anything. However, the following anecdotal story might show how we can be co-workers with Christ in the work of redemption (cf. 1 Cor. 3:7-10). A former Presbyterian minister (anyone recognize who this is?) tells of how he came to this realization one day when he was jogging around the perimeter of his parish trying to get into shape. He saw a young father trying to mow the lawn and his 4 year old son was trying to help with his plastic lawn mower. The next time around he saw that the son must have been getting in the way because he was sitting off to the side, obviously disappointed. The third lap around he saw that the father had now picked up his son, and now there was a look of joy on the little boy’s face, who was holding the handle bars of the lawnmower, as he and his father mowed the lawn. The son fancied himself a co-worker with his father, and in a real sense, he was. He did not add anything to the father’s work, but the father out of love for his son, raised his son’s dignity and allowed him to participate with him in his work. This is what St. Paul is referring to here; God does not need our work, but He graciously raises our dignity by joining our suffering to His, when we are joined to His Mystical Body, He allows it to be applied in the work of Redemption. When you are suffering watching the suffering that is going on right now . . . perhaps you even suffer because a loved one is in the after effects of the storm, do not waste it. Offer it up for those who do not know to. Offer it up for those who have died. Offer it up for the reparations for the sins that plague us so, here east of Eden.