I begin this post by pointing out that I have received a few hits in recent days because of the search phrase "Why is the Catholic Church obsessed with sex?" That term hits this blog because of a short post I entered back in 2006. In that post I captured something from a forum I visit that succinctly summarizes other so-called Church obsessions throughout history. The problem is that out of context the post may make very little sense. Also in light of the pro-family demonstrations in Spain generating a flurry of "anti-gay Catholic Church" comments, I felt it best to explain the really quite simple teaching of the Church on sex.
Before I get to the goods, I want to take a short diversion. Shrine of the Holy Whapping pointed out an interesting National Catholic Reporter piece the other day that I think points out something very interesting about Pope Benedict XVI. The concept is what they call "affirmative orthodoxy". A quote from the Pope are in order:
Christianity, Catholicism, isn’t a collection of prohibitions: it’s a positive option. It’s very important that we look at it again because this idea has almost completely disappeared today. We’ve heard so much about what is not allowed that now it’s time to say: we have a positive idea to offer, that man and woman are made for each other, that the scale of sexuality, eros, agape, indicates the level of love and it’s in this way that marriage develops, first of all, as a joyful and blessing-filled encounter between a man and a woman, and then the family, that guarantees continuity among generations and through which generations are reconciled to each other and even cultures can meet. So, firstly it’s important to stress what we want. Secondly, we can also see why we don’t want something. I believe we need to see and reflect on the fact that it’s not a Catholic invention that man and woman are made for each other, so that humanity can go on living: all cultures know this. As far as abortion is concerned, it’s part of the fifth, not the sixth, commandment: “Thou shalt not kill!” We have to presume this is obvious and always stress that the human person begins in the mother’s womb and remains a human person until his or her last breath. The human person must always be respected as a human person. But all this is clearer if you say it first in a positive way.(source)
It is from this angle that I will attempt my explanation.
The Catholic teaching on sex can really best be summarized by stating what it IS FOR as opposed to what it is AGAINST. I want to rewind in time before the ready availability of artificial contraception. Conditions during that time make it very clear the intent of natural sex between two persons. Set the stage in your mind and then read the following:
Sex is both intended to be fruitful and to be unitive. If two people are considering the act, they must consider the consequences and prepare for the outcome of its fruitfulness. Every person on this earth has a mother and a father and the Church fights for the right of children to know their parents. This all naturally works within marriage between a man and a woman and with sexual acts rendering the unitive and procreative (fruitful) aspects fully in tact.
This is the very clear and obvious natural order of things. From this everything else flows. As Zippy Catholic recently stated on his blog:
The Church after all tells us that as something falling under the natural law sexual morality is accessible, at least in principle, to our reason. But it also makes the rest of Catholic teaching on sexual morality coherent rather than ad hoc. Immoral sexual acts in general then become of a piece: sodomy is wrong because it is a modified/unnatural sexual act; masturbation is wrong because it is a modified/unnatural sexual act; contraception is wrong because it is a modified/unnatural sexual act; intercourse with a transgendered person is wrong because it is a modified/unnatural sexual act; bestiality is wrong because it is a modified/unnatural sexual act; etc. etc.(source)
It is important to note that ecompassing the natural order of marriage (in a secular sense where persons essentially live together in order to raise children and give them knowledge of their parents) points out why divorce and infidelity fall into the "piece" of immoral sexual acts. That said, the sexual act is distinctly different from the person committing it. Most of society has figured this out in their easy division between the act of contraception and what the Church teaches about them as a person otherwise. The Church could not retain a dissent rate so high on contraception if it were such that people were defined and derived their dignity from the immoral sexual acts they performed. As I have stated in the past
Everyone knows the Church teaches against artificial contraception yet few people think that Catholic Church hates the majority of people in the US for using artificial contraception. However, when a priest in the Church comes out in a consistent manner against homosexual acts then it is clearly because the Church hates gays ... How does that follow? While the acts are obviously different they have some similarities and it can be said that they could be condemned for a common reason. They are both sexual acts that render the procreative aspect null. Both are condemned by the Church. Things I sadly have done in the past are condemned by the Church. If you were to follow the "hates gays" line of reasoning then the Church hates all of us. (source)
But is is clear the Church doesn't even hate gays, despite the insistence of so many that the Church does. In fact, the catechism makes a clear distinction on this point.
2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.
or as Pope Benedict says in the first quote I cite
The human person must always be respected as a human person. But all this is clearer if you say it first in a positive way.
The Church is not obsessed with sex as much as it is obsessed with the right order of things in terms of the procreation of children and the carrying forth of the Faith. It just so happens that sex is part of that right order. The obsession comes from those who are attached to disordered versions of the act who are bound in their disobedience to claim that the simple image of family depicted by the Church is a direct offense at their worth. After all, if you do not perceive your dignity as being that given to you by God, then you can wrap your dignity up in terms of your actions. That the Church gives all sinners their dignity is inconsequential. Those bent on accusing the Church of an obsession regarding sex are offended because they define their own person, not by God, but by their own actions.
This sort of happened to my LCD yesterday except it wasn't a Wii. It was a wooden sword. It was painful but do laugh anyway. Part of me thinks it was a blessing from God. I have ranted on overuse of TV in the past. Enjoy ...
Argh!!! The Saints lost ... that makes the NFC totally irrelevant to me now. I guess that puts me full time rooting for the Patriots in the post season. Yes I am a Patriots fan. Have been since the 1985 season and even moreso the short few games of Tommy Hodson at the helm in the early 90's.
I am somewhat of an anomaly around here in the land of LSU. I MUCH prefer pro football to college ball. Don't get me wrong, I am going to root for the local team. My wife graduated from there. My family has long ties to the university. I feel somewhat compelled to care because of my upbringing but in reality I don't really care that much. I like Les Miles if that's worth anything. I know that I will watch the national title game. Still, it won't be the same for me ... not like it was when I was a kid. Not like it was when Adam Vinatieri sailed that kick through the uprights for the first Super Bowl win for the New England Patriots in SB XXXVI.
The NFL doesn't suffer from the same dishonesty that NCAA ball, especially the Bowl Division, suffers from. Every year you have grades scandals, boosters caught dropping six figure bundles in the hands of high school coaches and recruits. Of course that never seems to happen at my friends favorite schools, or if it does then it was a teacher with an axe to grind or some other excuse. Everyone knows it goes on and nobody really cares to do much about it. We are talking institutions of higher learning. That is what they are supposed to be right? Now are there problems with the NFL? Certainly, but not to the point that it affects the game. In the highest level of NCAA football 90% of the teams have no legitimate shot at a national title before the season starts and well over 50% don't even have a mathematical shot at a national title each season. You can complain that Hawaii didn't belong on the field with Georgia but the fact is they cannot belong because every recruit knows Hawaii will never play for a national championship. Kind of hurts recruiting you know ... and the system is such that Hawaii CANNOT improve short of being elected to the club.
In the NFL every team has a shot. This isn't just in theory. This is reality. The rags to riches stories in the past few seasons bear testimony to that fact. New England is good. The Saints made the NFC championship game. Tampa Bay even won a Super Bowl. There is a real playoff that decides the winner on the field and there is no shifty underground trying to pay players that you are not supposed to pay. Everyone knows they get paid and that they get paid a whole lot. I think the whole above board nature of it creates a stunningly good brand of football. The cap system has evened the playing field and even though people lamented that this would destroy the dynasties that draw people to the game it has not. In fact, it has created one of the best dynasties that I can recall in the NFL ever. To me, the NFL is in its prime. College football is past its prime and the patchwork BCS is all the evidence I need of that. It was much more interesting to me as a kid. College football would do better to move to a playoff or move back to the days of major bowls with conference tie-ins. Just quit pretending you are crowning a legitimate national champion. I know it looks nice on bumper stickers and hats but the NCAA doesn't recognize it. I wish more fans would do the same.
College ball ... no thanks. I will support my non-BCS alma mater. I will even attend a game or two BECAUSE its my alma mater (after all, its supposed to be about education right?). For the rest of it, I'd rather catch the superior play and FAR superior modern-day competitive system of the NFL. I just wish the NFL would start a minor league system in the spring and start taking kids like MLB and the NBA do. I think it would do everyone a whole world of good including the big money universities AND the young kids trying to make it to the NFL.
P.S. My fantasy team finished 5th, which is about where I hovered in the standings all season ... yuck!
I was reading about the doctrine of the Eucharist last night and I realized that many non-Catholics have great difficulty understanding just what the doctrine of transubstantiation teaches. Dave Armstrong gives a nice summary, including the necessary explanation of accidents and substance which are the key to understanding this great mystery.
Transubstantiation is predicated upon the distinction between two sorts of change: accidental and substantial. Accidental change occurs when non-essential outward properties are transformed in some fashion. Thus, water can take on the properties of solidity (ice) and gas (steam), all the while remaining chemically the same. A substantial change, on the other hand, produces something else altogether. An example of this is the metabolism of food, which becomes part of our bodies as a result of chemical and biological processes initiated by digestion. In our everyday experience, a change of substance is always accompanied by a corresponding transition of accidents, or properties.
In the Eucharist—a supernatural transformation—a substantial change occurs without accidental alteration. Thus, the properties of bread and wine continue after consecration, but their essence and substance cease to exist, replaced by the substance of the true and actual Body and Blood of Christ. -- from CHN
A common objection of detractors of the Church is that when the consecrated host is subjected to scientific inquiry, what is observed is no different than bread prior to consecration. This is of no shock to Catholics. As Frank Sheed noted in Theology For Beginners:
One is occasionally startled to find some scientist claiming to have put all the resources of his laboratory into testing the consecrated bread; he announces triumphantly that there is no change whatever, no difference between this and any other bread. We could have told him that, without the aid of any instrument. For all that instruments can do is to make contact with the accidents, and it is part of the doctrine of transubstantiation that the accidents undergo no change whatever. - Theology for Beginners (c) 1981 by Frank J. Sheed, Chapter 18 referenced online at EWTN
A good summary of what the Church teaches regarding doctrine of transubstantiation can be summarized as it is in Ludwig Ott's Fundamentals of Dogma
Christ becomes present in the Sacrament of the Altar by the transformation of the whole substance of the bread into His Body and of the whole substance of the wine into His Blood.
The accidents of bread and wine continue after the change of the substance.
Be careful when discussing this doctrine with others not to insert into it understandings beyond what is taught.
First off I want to wish the readers who stop by here an early Happy New Year ... its been a busy one for me as many attempts to keep this blog up have come and gone, yet, here it is. Its the end of the year and surely one of my resolutions will be to write more. I hope I can follow through this time.
The major news sites will look back and review their top stories of the year ... most of those stories were not covered here.
I decided to be a crowd follower and post a year end summary of my top stories (newsworthy items that is) ...
In conversion news, and this is the blog of a convert, we had an Episcopalian Bishop to Become Catholic. In fact this same thing happened a few times this year. The biggest conversion of the year, however, is likely that of former president of the Evangelical Theological Society Francis Beckwith. He Could No Longer Explain Why He Wasn’t Catholic.
Major Catholic stories I ignored
The rise of "new" atheism Anti-Catholic movies make a big splash ... or not in the case of the Golden Compass. Tony Blair's conversion to Catholicism .. quite simply because I do not see the parallels the press sees when they say he is the biggest convert since Cardinal Newman.
Personal "Best of" awards
1. Best six bucks spent all year Winner goes to purchasing 48 longer wood screws than the cheap ones our builder decided to use in hanging the interior doors at our house. Now when a 40 lb child hangs on a door it doesn't submit to gravity quite as easily.
2. Almost best new parenting idea Winner goes to flushable diapers. Greener than disposables as it reduces landfill space. Almost as inconvenient as cloth because you still end up washing the outsides. Likely more expensive than both methods combined yet I found myself doing it whereas cloth diapering left me longing for the glory days of disposables.
3. Biggest waste of time for Full Circle blog technology Winner goes to using Jott to create blog entries. Yes, I can call in blog entries. Its not worth the hassle I put into it as I only used it during the test phase. But if I ever liveblog something ....
4. Best use of time for Full Circle blog technology Winner goes to Google Reader Live Blogroll. IMHO it still stands ahead of the feature created by Google themselves and I never have to maintain my blogroll other than adding new favorites to my Google Reader which I would do anyway.
5. Best gift Santa brought to the kids Winner goes to Automoblox
The year in our family
Our entire lives leading up until February of last year can be summarized in the Birth story of Peter. Our lives since have been dominated by caring for our little bundle of joy and the tough decision to homeschool and then to NOT homeschool our oldest son. Next year we MAY homeschool. Stay tuned.
One of the things I have noticed since becoming Catholic is that there is a tyranny of perfectionism that infects certain circles of orthodox Catholicism. It is a strong sense of pride that I think it is easy for all of us to fall prey to. I have in the past, as has my wife and we have both suffered many ill effects from it. The basic source of it is in fact that it is pride. In finding our Catholic faith we find that it presents the Truth. This quickly leads us to a sense of pride in having found the "right" religion, but at what expense if we hold so strongly to that rightness? The fact it is right should not detract from our need to be humble about it. After all, if not for the grace of God we would not have been able to find it. It is, after all, a gift from Him. This sense can then extend into other aspects of our lives and you find yourself judged for having too many kids, or not homeschooling, or supporting this candidate over that or even how you rear your children. In the end lifestyle and other non-doctrinal choices take on dogmatic force because after all, if you are right about your religion you find yourself empowered and clearly incapable of being wrong about anything else.
It is even further exaggerated by the call of our faith TO perfection through Christ Himself. Nothing unclean can enter the Kingdom of Heaven. We MUST become perfect. This can often get us into the fray of placing a very high level of expectation on our lives and soon scrupulousness is an unwelcome companion in our lives. Often false idols of "perfection" come into our lives to rule and oppress us. In the end we can find ourselves disillusioned with our faith for seeing it more like a list of burdens and rules. Pelagianism can then reign supreme in our mind and rather than finding ourselves happy that we received a gift we find ourselves disappointed that we fall short of the false "perfections" we think we are called to. The fact is, we are on a journey and it is one where we are COMPLETELY dependent on the grace of God -- something that demands a call to repentance and to humility. It isn't about the things we ourselves do alone. It is about our participation with grace -- something we would do best to ask for frequently. We fall short because we are not there. As my wife said, it would be like calling yourself a failure in one year of homeschooling because you failed to impart your entire education into the brain of a child in one year. No, that is unrealistic.
Our faith and its expectations should not distract us from the prize but rather serve to keep us humble and away from the pride of rightness and perfectionism. Oh how often we find even in our rightness how wrong we are. Humility is a better friend for the long haul and a truer path to sane living in Christ.
originally posted Monday, May 21, 2007 -- updated --
OK, I like the blogroll concept and Google Reader doesn't have that (it does now). So I just wasted a few hours coding the capability in PHP of a Google Reader "live" blogroll. I am not the only person in the world who would like that feature. I have even seen a few people say that is the only thing keeping them on Bloglines. **Thats a hint Google Reader development team.
"Freshness" is defined as "in the last 25 pages of my favorites" which appears to be in the last 4-5 days ... maybe a week. Also it is only as live as Google deems it live ...
There are two Feed URL's. One is a PHP script that generates the RSS feed information when it is accessed. I subscribed to that one with Google Reader so that Google would hit the feed on occasion. That link takes about 10 seconds to run. Google is patient so I am letting them hit that feed. That script also generates a file which I can also access. It returns nearly instantly and is much better for use as a blogroll.
The "live" blogroll is on the right. If anyone is interested in the junk PHP code I wrote leave a comment here or use the Contact me feature of the blog and I will post it here.
Google has implemented a blogroll feature on Google Reader making this code nearly obsolete, that is, except for the "freshness" of it. I am including two feeds below so you can compare the differences. My feed will be the first, the second will be Google Reader.
You will notice that the first column only has a subset of the Google Reader blogroll. The ones in that list which are not in the first you will note have either ceased updating or have not been updated in a while. If I put my own blog on my blogroll it would fall off occasionally. I consider it a feature so I will stick with mine until Google adds a similar control feature.
There is a neat RSS application that allows you to add a feed into your Facebook profile. Naturally, most of this stuff is severely dated. Now all I have to do is categorize it as "Personal and Family" and it will show up on my profile. I like Facebook so much more than MySpace.
Roman Catholics have overtaken Anglicans as the country's dominant religious group. More people attend Mass every Sunday than worship with the Church of England, figures seen by The Sunday Telegraph show.
Bishop Schori quite simply fails to realize that American Catholics do not tend to heed Mother Church on this particular teaching. In fact, Catholics contracept at the same rate as the rest of the nation. Fortunately this concerns our bishops who released the first document on the topic since the late 1960's in recent days. That would lead me to think that most new Catholics are NOT coming from large orthodox families with 12 kids. They are coming from conversions and from replacement rate Catholics. Furthermore, the Catholic Church in the United States is increasing in numbers despite the fact that ex-Catholics would supposedly make up the second largest Christian church in the US if they were all together in one denomination.
So our members are leaving in droves, contracepting just like the rest of the crowd and yet our numbers rise?
Care to explain those dwindling numbers again?
I'll give you a hint. The GROWING churches in this country have something in common and it has nothing to do with the birth rates of its members (a few of them being -- Assemblies of God, Orthodox, Catholic, Southern Baptist) ... The majority of churches whose memberships are decreasing also have something in common (a few of them being -- United Methodist, Evangelical Lutheran, Episcopal, Presbyterian Church USA, United Church of Christ)
Last night my wife told my son that she would not give him Egg Nog in his sippy cup until he had eaten his pizza. My son responded by bouncing up and down while protesting in a slightly muffled whine. Of course his response led to the logical conclusion that he did NOT eat his pizza. The problem was he already ate the pizza and I was a witness to this fact. In this case a failure to communicate led to a misrepresentation of the facts that could have had dire consequences for my son. He would not get his Egg Nog! I point this out because of the essay that I read yesterday on the date of Christmas from Mark Shea (linked below). Something similar happened there but the result of the exchange was far more extensive.
So how did it become "common knowledge" that Christmas is really just a warmed-over pagan festival? It happened through a series of ironies capped by yet another example of pseudo-knowledge.
The first irony is the reaction of the Christians of the late Roman Empire to Aurelian's attempt to co-opt Christmas and make it a pagan day of celebration. Instead of fighting with Sun-worshipers who were trying to rip off their feast, early Christians simply "re-appropriate[d] the pagan 'Birth of the Unconquered Sun' to refer, on the occasion of the birth of Christ, to the rising of the 'Sun of Salvation' or the 'Sun of Justice.'" Mark that, because we shall return to it.
The next irony happens in the 17th and 18th centuries, when the myth of "pagan Christmas" really took hold.
Paul Ernst Jablonski, a German Protestant, wished to show that the celebration of Christ's birth on December 25th was one of the many "paganizations" of Christianity that the Church of the fourth century embraced, as one of many "degenerations" that transformed pure apostolic Christianity into Catholicism. Dom Jean Hardouin, a Benedictine monk, tried to show that the Catholic Church adopted pagan festivals for Christian purposes without paganizing the Gospel.
In the Julian calendar, created in 45 B.C. under Julius Caesar, the winter solstice fell on December 25th, and it therefore seemed obvious to Jablonski and Hardouin that the day must have had a pagan significance before it had a Christian one.
Note that: Jablonski began, not with evidence, but with an assumption that the winter solstice must have had a pagan significance before it had a Christian one. In other words, Jablonski simply noticed a correspondence between the Julian calendar's solstice and Christmas and assumed the pagan feast must have been the prior one even though he had no proof for his theory. Meanwhile, Hardouin, rather than challenge that assumption, simply went along with it. And it's upon these two authors that the entire myth about Christmas being a warmed-over pagan Sun-worshiping feast is based.
The same thing holds true for another "fact" of history that I have mentioned on this blog before. Luther most likley never nailed anything to the castle Church in Wittenberg.
It was like a slap in the face when the catholic Luther researcher, Erwin Iserloh, asserted in 1961 that the nailing of the theses to the door of the Castle Church belonged to the realm of legends.
The facts are convincing, the first written account of the event comes from Philipp Melanchthon who could not have been an eye-witness to the event since he was not called to Wittenberg University as a professor until 1518.
Also, this account appeared for the first time after Luther's death and he never commented on 'nailing anything up' in 1517.
Announcements of upcoming disputes were supposedly regularly hung on the door of the Castle Church. But, openly hanging the theses without waiting for a reaction from the Bishops could have been seen as a clear provocation of his superiors. Luther would not have done that because he only wanted to clear up some misunderstandings.
It is also worth noting, that there was no open discussion of the theses in Wittenberg and that no original printing of the theses could be found.
"Honor and Respect My Wife, loving her as Christ loves his church and faithfully demonstrating my lifelong commitment to providing for her needs."
Excellent ... I have always thought that if more men read the part of Ephesians 5 directed at them their wives would be more prone to pay attention to the part directed at them. Unfortunately too many people want to read the part directed at their spouse.
The date of Christmas and its so called pagan origins
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
This whole entry at Mark Shea's from last December is fascinating. Apparently I missed it last year but fortunately Jeff Miller relinked it this year ...
The short version is Christians had been trying to determine the date of the birth of Christ long before it was officially tagged a pagan feast "instituted by the Roman Emperor Aurelian on 25 December 274".
...an important reference in the "Chronicle" written by Hippolytus of Rome three decades before Aurelian launched his festival. Hippolytus said Jesus' birth "took place eight days before the kalends of January," that is, Dec. 25.
The source of the pseudo-knowledge everybody knows? Catholic-Protestant apologetics. A Protestant trying to show the pagan origins of Catholic distinctives makes an assertion and rather than attacking the assertion itself as false, the Catholic apologist defends the assertion as if it were a fact.
And rightfully so. The use of deadly force was not necessary. The thief was fleeing the scene when he was shot. See my original post Protection of property with deadly force for more details on when this type of force is appropriate to use.
It is important for assessments in this regard to be carried out prudently, in dialogue with experts and people of wisdom, uninhibited by ideological pressure to draw hasty conclusions, and above all with the aim of reaching agreement on a model of sustainable development capable of ensuring the well-being of all while respecting environmental balances.
How is this not sensible and why is it considered an attack? I will never get why environmentalists to get all bent out of shape when asked to simply be prudent regarding the changes they ask governments to make. I am asked to be prudent in my life choices regarding my use of natural resources. It only makes sense that changes are phased in such that the PEOPLE those changes affect are considered FIRST.
Of course the Popes comments could easily be aimed at things like the rash suggestion of a "baby tax" mentioned in the previous post.
Goodness, I actually thought of this a few days ago and dismissed it in my mind as something society would never stoop to. Then again, the idea from some is simply that is isn't fair that they have to pay taxes while I pay LESS given the same income. For them it has nothing to do with the environment.
Decent societies know that the future depends on ... well ... a future. With birth rates approaching numbers too low to support an economy for decades on end what we really ought to be doing in encouraging increased family sizes and let God deal with the outcome of faithfulness, not shortsighted "experts". You never know, we might populate Mars :) --hint, hint, necessity breeds invention--
Of course that propaganda won't work on our children. We have four kids (6,4,3,10 mos) and they love each other and continue to hint that more siblings would be a welcome thing.
Yeah, a "just 2" requirement will go over like a lead balloon to them.
Extraordinary conversion - hell comes at us in obvious and sometimes unexpected places
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Originally posted May 21, 2005
Tonight I read an incredible conversion story. Frighteningly, I recognized something that happened to this woman that also happened to my wife and I, but in the most unlikely of places. First, this is what she described
but as the conversation went on I began experiencing something I did not expect---- in fact it was something that I had never experienced before nor have I since.
As the conversation went around the table I began to feel this heaviness around me--- The best way to describe it is to say it was like all the light and air were being sucked out of the room --- it was a very heavy oppressive feeling like as if gravity had just gotten five times stronger and the sun ten times dimmer. I was feeling very uncomfortable and was desperately looking for an excuse to leave when my pager went off giving me the perfect out. As I said goodbye one of the women chuckled and said as she pointed at me “don’t think we’ll be hearing from you again” --- during the conversation I had unconsciously turned my body toward the exit and away from the table--- My body language was pretty obvious--- I did not want to be part of the group. I mumbled something about letting “D” know my decision” and quickly excused myself.
On the drive home it was difficult to shake the feeling of oppressiveness that had lingered with me--- I was baffled by what happened—and in fact I had no clue what it was that had happened. It wasn’t until years later when discussing the experience with my spiritual director that it began to make sense. You see at the time I didn’t believe that there was an evil being or force per se--- humans in my mind were the cause of evil--- so---I felt no fear dabbling in the things I was dabbling in---to me Satan was just a mythical creature designed to scare Christian folks---I was too sophisticated to believe in such nonsense and so because of this dangerous and erroneous attitude it seemed that I had been allowed to experience the presence evil---- not that I believe any one person there was evil --- but that because of our openness to the occult I believe evil, just like water, will always seek the path of least resistance---Still whatever my beliefs after that experience I knew I didn’t want to see those people again--- and I didn’t. In a few days I had relegated it to just a weird experience --- negative energy--- and let it go.
This description sent chills down my spine because my wife and I experienced almost exactly the same thing at an Engaged Encounter weekend in spring of 2000. Let me set the stage. My wife and I were the only non-Catholics in the Engaged Encounter. At the time we were Episcopalian (well I wasn't yet). The priest who was going to marry us suggested that we make an Engaged Encounter weekend in the Lafayette diocese of the Catholic Church. We thought it was odd, but we went anyway. Overall, we had a very positive weekend. Engaged Encounter can be a very awesome experience but it depends on the angle that the presenters go at. Our couples focused on very important aspects of marriage and dared to include topics on contraception and cohabiation. Both of those sins eat away at marriage and are a prime underlying cause for future divorce (i.e. lack of trust and division of sex from marraige increasing the risk of behaviors leading to adultery) ... Anyway, that weekend there was a time when all of the couples sat in the round and a couple of questions were asked. The questions were about cohabitation and sex before marriage. The responses included
"I'll call you a liar if you say that you are not sleeping together before you get married" "After all, you wouldn't buy a car without a test drive, I don't see why getting married is any different" "We would be living together but my future father-in-law threatened to kill me if that happened" "The everyday difficulties of life require us to live in sin" and the gem of the evening. "We are all sinning and know it but we know Jesus is going to forgive us anyway so what is the point"
During the airing of grievances against the Church, my wife and I distinctly feel a deep darkness fill the room. It felt like a giant python filling every gap in the room, constricting the air out of our lungs. It was clear to me that this spirit was one of destruction. I felt like there were people laughing at us for being the different ones. I was stunned and didn't even know how to handle myself. I was being called a liar. My beliefs were being ridiculed.
Fortunately the priest and the couples running the evening DID know how to handle it and they did combat such error with charity and with the teachings of the Catholic Church. I still felt more like we needed an exorcist in the room. All but two couples were living together out of 23 and not a single one seemed to show any remorse over the matter.
Afterwards my wife and I stayed and talked to the young couple. This was their first Engaged Encounter weekend and clearly they were shaken up by what had taken place. The wife of the couple was in tears and was comforted by the fact that we stayed to talk to them. She mentioned that at their EE weekend nobody would have admitted to living together even if that was the case. It was taboo and even those who were doing it felt bad about it. She openly wondered what had happened in six years to make such behavior commonplace and acceptable. The attitude was one of total defiance. My guess is that we witnessed an unusual weekend. At least I pray that is the case.
That weekend likely prolonged our return to the Catholic Church by at least a year, if not two. I placed the blame for such ignorance on the Church rather than on the individuals present that weekend. I did come to terms with it and thus I will blog on the people in the pew next to me at a later time.
Kudos to Happy Catholic for highlighting this on her blog.
Many apologies for the light posting. My laptop has some issues making it difficult to transport so that gives me WAY less time to actually post things. When I HAVE brought my computer with me it was usually to deal with something work related.
I hope to get things cleared up soon. I expect posting to be light until after the new year. (watch me put up 50 posts between now and the end of the year) ...
OK, I hate to type this as this is one of the most painful Bulldog losses I can remember since the days when I was one of the chosen few watching a 2 win team in the TAC. Still, this headline bothers me. There is no way to sugar coat this. "Early Lead" was 22-12. Then Tech failed to score a single basket for nearly HALF A GAME (19 minutes to end the first and start the second half). Texas Tech went on a 42-1 run in that time frame.
I don't think the early lead had much to do with it unless you consider "early" the first 3/4 of the game.
A man who told police he planned to kill two men he believed were burglarizing his neighbor’s house shot them only when they came on his property and he felt threatened, his attorney said Monday. ... Lambright’s description is partly at odds with the 911 call in which a dispatcher urges Horn to stay inside his house and not risk lives.
“Don’t go outside the house,” the 911 operator pleaded. “You’re gonna get youself shot if you go outside that house with a gun. I don’t care what you think.”
“You wanna make a bet?” Horn answered. “I’m gonna kill ‘em.”
After the shooting, he redialed 911.
“I had no choice,” he said, his voice shaking. “They came in
the front yard with me, man. I had no choice. Get somebody over here quick.”
We were discussing this case on a forum I frequent. Initially I argued:
To me the very clear right thing to do was stay in the house and let the police deal with it. Even if they had gotten away the chances of them getting caught is pretty good.
In the end, the cops may have done the same thing but I would be willing to bet they have experience dealing with a situation like that where you or I is going to lose it pretty fast. Also there is a distinct difference between ...
1. "Hey you guys are stealing" and shooting them and 2. "Uh oh, they are armed and attacking me" and shooting them
I think the 911 call paints a picture much closer to 1 but that is one tiny piece of the pie. The forensic evidence should make it VERY clear what happened.
If he was not a "legitimate public authority" he really had no business outside his home. Nor do I think killing them was proportionate to the crime that was being committed at the time which is a sentence he rendered when he walked out that door to protect his neighbors property with a gun. The situation was almost certain to turn ugly. I am sure the two men he encountered felt threatened when they saw him walk out with a shotgun. Like the 911 operator said "no property is worth killing someone over". Finally, if he was not "defending his life" he was wrong. Period. I do not think there is any way to defend that (possible) action from the teaching of the Church (and of course as wrong as I am willing to be, the onus is on others to justify killing these men, not me) ... In the call at the end you get the impression he felt threatened so I'll grant him the benefit of the doubt which I feel he rightly deserves.
2264 Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow
2266 Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense.
However my initial response needed some modification ...
Aquinas wrote
On the contrary, It is written (Exodus 22:2): "If a thief be found breaking into a house or undermining it, and be wounded so as to die; he that slew him shall not be guilty of blood." Now it is much more lawful to defend one's life than one's house. Therefore neither is a man guilty of murder if he kill another in defense of his own life.
I answer that, Nothing hinders one act from having two effects, only one of which is intended, while the other is beside the intention. Now moral acts take their species according to what is intended, and not according to what is beside the intention, since this is accidental as explained above (43, 3; I-II, 12, 1). Accordingly the act of self-defense may have two effects, one is the saving of one's life, the other is the slaying of the aggressor. Therefore this act, since one's intention is to save one's own life, is not unlawful, seeing that it is natural to everything to keep itself in "being," as far as possible. And yet, though proceeding from a good intention, an act may be rendered unlawful, if it be out of proportion to the end. Wherefore if a man, in self-defense, uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repel force with moderation his defense will be lawful, because according to the jurists [Cap. Significasti, De Homicid. volunt. vel casual.], "it is lawful to repel force by force, provided one does not exceed the limits of a blameless defense." Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense in order to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one's own life than of another's. But as it is unlawful to take a man's life, except for the public authority acting for the common good, as stated above (3), it is not lawful for a man to intend killing a man in self-defense, except for such as have public authority, who while intending to kill a man in self-defense, refer this to the public good, as in the case of a soldier fighting against the foe, and in the minister of the judge struggling with robbers, although even these sin if they be moved by private animosity.
Shooting to kill has the intended consequence of killing when hurting would have sufficed. Fright would be preferable to injury which would be preferable to death.
Catholic Encyclopedia also expounds on the topic ...
II. Defense of Property
It is lawful to defend one's material goods even at the expense of the aggressor's life; for neither justice nor charity require that one should sacrifice possessions, even though they be of less value than human life in order to preserve the life of a man who wantonly exposes it in order to do an injustice. Here, however,we must recall the principle that in extreme necessity every man has a right to appropriate whatever is necessary to preserve his life. The starving man who snatches a meal is not an unjust aggressor; consequently it is not lawful to use force against him. Again, the property which may be defended at the expense of the aggressor's life must be of considerable value; for charity forbids that in order to protect ourselves from a trivial loss we should deprive a neighbor of his life. Thefts or robberies, however, of small values are to be considered not in their individual, but in their cumulative, aspect. A thief may be slain in the act of carrying away stolen property provided that it cannot be recovered from him by any other means; if, for example, he can be made to abandon his spoil through fright, then it would not be lawful to shoot him. If he has carried the goods away to safety he cannot then be killed in order to recover them; but the owner may endeavor to take them from him, and if the thief resists with violence he may be killed in self-defense.
Of course I still strongly disagree with his actions on the following basis ...
I feel he showed a lack of prudence (a cardinal virtue) in this case by simply walking out the door. It is unlikely that his neighbor was not carrying some form of homeowners insurance. In our society today I feel this devalues nearly every possession we own below what I would label "of considerable value". It would make far more sense centuries ago where someone could lose their livelihood in a theft. In fact, the short snippets of moral theology I have read on the matter gave examples of considerable value to be things like "your arm" or "your chastity". I would think strong weight must be given to this point. Second, the "other means" to prevent the thieves from leaving with the stolen items did not appear to take place here. He mentioned he was going to kill them and very little time occurred between him putting the phone down and saying "You're dead". I understand we are dealing with thieves possibly armed with guns and that certainly would need to be considered (which is further why he shouldn't have put himself in a position to have to make a life and death decision). Third, no matter how creepy those guys were some weight needs to be given to the possible motive of the thieves. "The starving man who snatches a meal is not an unjust aggressor". It is very well possible (although not necessarily likely) that is the case here. In any case`the outcome tragically produces a widow and an orphan as opposed to stolen items and an insurance claim.
This might be the point of legitimate disagreement between Catholics. I am interested in more input if anyone has some.
You're either FOR the terrorists or AGAINST the terrorists
Friday, November 30, 2007
I just love how people can take a difficult decision, like the one to go to Iraq and boil months if not years of data input, debate and difficult moral calculus down to a simple slogan.
Its a wonder we have wars, after all you are either RIGHT like me (and thus the height of GOOD) or not me ... and thus evil. I think its time I burn your mailbox down .... terrorist.
I guess the "logical" response to this is
You're either FOR killing or you're AGAINST killing.
I am cautiously optimistic. Never underestimate the need of evil to twist the facts to let us know that embryonic stem cells are a BETTER way than this reprogramming method. "They're cheaper" will be the first battle cry provided they can attach some arbitrary high expense to the PROCESS of reprogramming. Sooner or later they will come up with some toned down term to associate the "killing babies" alternative: Something like "envigorated stem cells" vs. "reprogrammed stem cells" ... You know, kind of like "death with dignity" has come to be the preferred term for the process of eliminating those undesirables who are feasting on our hard earned Social Security dollars.
In the mind of the world, the end justifies the means.
OK ... you might call me a pessimist after that blurb .... at least this morning.
The purpose is to quantify stances of presidential candidates that line up with the bishops criteria. The final analysis (see the points awarded below) is as follows ...
1. Ron Paul (R): 99 points 2. Alan Keyes (R): 70 (not on the ballot in all states) 3. Mike Huckabee (R): 69 4. Duncan Hunter (R): 50 5. Tom Tancredo (R): 48 6. John McCain (R): 36 7. Chris Dodd (D): 25 8. Dennis Kucinich (D): 22 9. Mitt Romney (R): 10 10. Joe Biden (D): 5 11. Fred Thompson (R): 4 12. Hillary Clinton (D): (-11) 13. John Edwards (D): (-13) 14. Bill Richardson (D): (-15) 15. Barack Obama (D): (-15) 16. Rudy Giuliani (R): (-28)
The bishops produced a massive tome regarding Faithful Citizenship during this upcoming voting year. As a man who has a hard enough time putting 5 lines on my blog occasionally it is a daunting task to get through it. I hope to in the next year or so. Still, the points are summarized in Healy's analysis.
The "intrinsically evil" (10 points each) issues were: * Protect all unborn (no exceptions; unborn protected under the Constitution) * Oppose Euthanasia * Oppose Research that Results in Embyonic Destruction * Oppose all Human Cloning * Oppose targeting of Noncombatants (Use of nuclear weapons or landmines) * Marriage is One Man, One Woman; Oppose "domestic partnerships" * Oppose Use of Torture * Oppose Racism
The other issues (1 point each) were: * Oppose the Death Penalty * Support a "Responsible Transition" in Iraq & Afghanistan * Work to avoid war and promote peace while dealing with terrorism * Ethical treatment for undocumented immigrants & family reunification * Temporary worker program with clear path to permanent residency for immigrants * Secure borders from illegal immigration * Support responsible use of media * Affordable health care * Health policies allow for conscientious objection * No contraceptive or abortive mandates in health programs * Choice in education * Support for religious schools * Support fair wages & programs to decrease unemployment * Support affordable housing * Welfare should reduce poverty & dependence * Support good social security program * Support sustainable agriculture & food security for all * Good environmental policies that respect God's creation * Support faith-based groups * Work to alleviate global poverty * Promote religious liberty and other basic human rights worldwide * Peaceful resolution in Israel, support Palestinian State & Lebanon's sovereignty
This seems to give some good support to the Catholics for Ron Paul movement. What I find even more interesting in this simple exercise is that it demonstrates quite clearly how a level headed orthodox Catholic could REALLY contemplate the idea of voting for Hilary over Rudy Giuliani. It isn't enough to say that she is THAT BAD when the Republicans actually have the capacity to put forth a worse candidate. The R behind his name isn't going to automatically get my votes -- as Astonished Yet at Home so hilariously labelled, I am not a follower of Jesus W. Christ, R-Nazareth -- I am a follower of Christ and His Church. The response to "you can't seriously expect me to vote for Hilary" might be "Umm, yes" -- Vote for Hilary as the lesser evil or join the new movement "pro-lifers for being quantified in the third party vote" this election. Then wait for 4 years until the Republicans put up a candidate worth flipping the switch for.
This is a "fresh" blogroll. It tends to list blogs most frequently updated at the top. It will also drop blogs not updated for a few days. Never fear though, if you post, it will show back up. If you are interested in how I did it see this post.
;){kind=logo}
;){kind=logo}
;)
This is a "fresh" blogroll. It tends to list blogs most frequently updated at the top. It will also drop blogs not updated for a few days. Never fear though, if you post, it will show back up. If you are interested in how I did it see 
Calendar
