Contemplation of Moral Theology

New Site, New Address, New Posts

2008-02-09T16:36:00.000-05:00

I have decided to move my site over to Wordpress.com. I have copied all the previous posts and comments over to the place. I have retitled my site and will attempt to write more for the new site as time allows. I will continue to focus on Moral Theology. I have two new posts up as of today.

You can visit my new blog site at A Holy Endeavor or copy http://aholyendeavor.wordpress.com

On the "The Whys of Mating: 237 Reasons and Counting"

2007-08-01T11:41:00.000-04:00

Most news sources have picked up the story I first saw that the New York Times did on July 31, 2007 entitled "The Whys of Mating: 237 Reasons and Counting" (free registration may be required to access the story). First of all, the New York Times article title is misleading. It refers to the "Whys of Mating" when the study done clearly refers to the "Whys of Sex." Mating typically refers to the act of reproduction. Whereas this study clearly did not seem to equate sexual intercourse with reproduction. But I digress.

The New York Times piece concerns a study done by psychologists at the University of Texas at Austin who surveyed nearly two thousand people and came up with a total of 237 reasons why people have sexual intercourse. As the NYTimes story points out, these reasons run the gamut "from 'I wanted to feel closer to God' to 'I was drunk.' They even found a few people who claimed to have been motivated by the desire to have a child." The Times piece says that "The researchers, Cindy M. Meston and David M. Buss, believe their list, published in the August issue of Archives of Sexual Behavior, is the most thorough taxonomy of sexual motivation ever compiled. This seems entirely plausible." How this can seem plausible is a point of contention from my perspective. More on this later.

The researchers collected the data by first asking more than 400 people to list their reasons for having sex, and then asking more than 1,500 others to rate how important each reason was to them. Although it was a fairly homogenous sample of students at the University of Texas, nearly every one of the 237 reasons was rated by at least some people as their most important motive for having sex.

The best news is that both men and women ranked the same reason most often: “I was attracted to the person.”

The rest of the top 10 for each gender were also almost all the same, including “I wanted to express my love for the person,” “I was sexually aroused and wanted the release” and “It’s fun.”

Without getting much further into the study, I wanted to point out something very important about the volunteers in this study. As the study notes (you can find the study linked on the New York Times website in the form of a .pdf), the majority of those who took part in the survey and were tested with the Why Have Sex questionnaire, were undergraduate students (1,549: 503 men and 1046 women) and they ranged in age from 16 to 42 years of age and the mean age was 19. Of this group of 1,549 participants, 4% of the women were married and 2% of the men were married. These psychologists were clearly not motivated to tie together marriage and sexual intercourse. They were more interested in the sexual habits and reasonings from mostly sexually-active single people who live in a hook-up culture where sex is amusement and pleasure and with the body something to be used.

I might say more about the study as I read further into it. For now, this is all I want to say.

A Sign of Contradiction Remembered

2007-07-25T16:22:00.000-04:00

Today is a date that I do not forget during the calendar year. It happens to be one of my patrons feast days, St. James the Greater. Also, something I do tend to forget, according to the older calendar of 1962, today also happens to be the memorial of St. Christopher. Finally, today is also the 39th anniversary of Pope Paul VI's Encyclical Humanae vitae. Maybe not surprising, it was the last encyclical he ever wrote even though he continued as pontiff for another 10 years.

It is helpful to revisit some of Paul VI's words in this encyclical, to remind us in part of how truly visionary his words are, but also as a reminder of what is at stake. In paragraph 17, Paul VI elaborates on three consequences he sees as the evil results of the contraceptive mentality. First he envisions "marital infidelity and a general lowering of moral standards." Sadly this first consequence is easily seen in the rates of divorce and infidelity among married couples as well as its overwhelming repercussions for the notion of marriage and morality in the public square. Second, Paul VI sees

man who grows accustomed to the use of contraceptive methods may forget the reverence due to a woman, and, disregarding her physical and emotional equilibrium, reduce her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires, no longer considering her as his partner whom he should surround with care and affection.

Coupled with the outpouring of pornography, women and men have been reduced to instruments for use and eventual disregard. How often is love portrayed in our culture simply as dealing with physical pleasure and emotion? How often does one get the notion of love as self-sacrifice and care for another without such physical pleasure or emotion? As a result of the contraceptive mentality, one loses the meaning of love.

Finally, Paul VI has concerns about the contraceptive mentality invading public policy.

Who will blame a government which in its attempt to resolve the problems affecting an entire country resorts to the same measures as are regarded as lawful by married people in the solution of a particular family difficulty? Who will prevent public authorities from favoring those contraceptive methods which they consider more effective? Should they regard this as necessary, they may even impose their use on everyone. It could well happen, therefore, that when people, either individually or in family or social life, experience the inherent difficulties of the divine law and are determined to avoid them, they may give into the hands of public authorities the power to intervene in the most personal and intimate responsibility of husband and wife.

You almost get a sense that Paul VI envisions a "Brave New World" on the horizon when the contraceptive mentality becomes so much a part of the very fabric of existence that the government begins to regulate fertility and impose such regulations on everyone. Fortunately this last consequence has not come to full fruition, at least in regards to the United States. But such a government solution always could lurk around the corner. You begin to see such encroachment upon the consciences of doctors and pharmacists who refuse to offer such things as the Morning-After Pill. Let us hope and pray that this last consequence does not come to a full realization.

In paragraph 18, Paul VI recognizes that the teaching of Humanae vitae will be difficult.

It is to be anticipated that perhaps not everyone will easily accept this particular teaching. There is too much clamorous outcry against the voice of the Church, and this is intensified by modern means of communication. But it comes as no surprise to the Church that she, no less than her divine Founder, is destined to be a "sign of contradiction."(Luke 2:34) She does not, because of this, evade the duty imposed on her of proclaiming humbly but firmly the entire moral law, both natural and evangelical.
Since the Church did not make either of these laws, she cannot be their arbiter—only their guardian and interpreter. It could never be right for her to declare lawful what is in fact unlawful, since that, by its very nature, is always opposed to the true good of man.
In preserving intact the whole moral law of marriage, the Church is convinced that she is contributing to the creation of a truly human civilization. She urges man not to betray his personal responsibilities by putting all his faith in technical expedients. In this way she defends the dignity of husband and wife. This course of action shows that the Church, loyal to the example and teaching of the divine Savior, is sincere and unselfish in her regard for men whom she strives to help even now during this earthly pilgrimage "to share God's life as sons of the living God, the Father of all men."(Paul Vl, encyc. letter Populorum progressio: AAS 59 (1967), 268 [TPS XII, 151])

I find these passages to be very moving, especially the first paragraph. He calls attention to the Church and subsequently its members that they are to be signs of contradiction like Christ himself. And as a sign of contradiction, the Church presents the divine law in its entirety in order to protect the dignity of man. So much is at stake with the contraceptive mentality and how it can destroy the dignity that God has given to the human person.

Let us pray and hope that more people see the beauty in the Church's teaching on marriage and help the Church build a truly human civilization in which the dignity of each human person is not degraded but rather respected and uplifted befitting our call to be the sons and daughters of God.

It All Starts in the Church and the Home

2007-04-14T07:32:00.000-04:00

I won't bother linking to the many stories and headlines I have seen in the past day concerning a "new study" which tells us that abstinence education does not stop sex. The headline might as well have read: new study tells us that telephones do not stop sex. When will educators, politicians, media outlets, etc. finally realize that just because you present and educate someone with "information" that does not mean the now "educated" person with new information actually will use that information.

The development of good life habits, regardless of whether it deals with sex or the care of teeth, will not simply happen due to the presentation of information. How many of your parents told you first off that you needed to brush your teeth because of all the health benefits? You probably were told it was something you had to do.

Notice the irony about sex education: you only need to glance at the trends in sexual education and the rates of those infected with sexually-transmitted diseases and realize that those moments of education and information at schools did not make a difference either.

Truly educating someone about good life habits requires constant teaching and effort. Think about the Twelve Steps from Alcoholics Anonymous and how much effort and constancy it requires of individuals following and at times enduring those steps. What does that First Step teach? It teaches us complete dependence on God for all things. This First Step should provide us with a hint about how most approaches to education in sexuality go wrong.

Without a young person realizing how his sexuality is to be meaningful with a God-centered life, it is hard to see how a plea for abstinence with an information-deluge or a sex-education-deluge will do anything other than presenting a false impression of actually doing something. If abstinence and a life of chastity doesn't start with the Church and the Home, then I don't see how a school will do any better.

Just Thought I Would Share

2007-04-12T07:12:00.000-04:00

Over at a Dominican run website, you can find several great theological lectures given during the past year. The website is for Dominican vocations, and as a tool I presume, they post videos of lectures. Several of the video lectures involve the series at the Dominican House of Studies in Washington, DC concerning Man and the Image of God. I have linked below several of the lectures. You can view the lectures online or you can download them for later. I use the Podcast link and download the videos through iTunes. Enjoy!

The Image of God in a Post-Genomic Age given by Rev. Nicanor Astriaco, O.P. Assistant Professor of Biology and Instructor of Theology at Providence College, Providence, Rhode Island. Consultant to the Committee on Science and Human Values of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.

The Image of God & The Sacraments of the Church given by Rev. Romanus Cessario, O.P. Professor of Systematic Theology and Coordinator of Masster of Arts at St. John's Seminary School of Theology in Brighton, MA.

Charity's Knowledge: The Relationship Between Knowledge and Love in Aquinas' Account of Human Action given by Rev. Michael Sherwin, O.P. Associate Professor of Fundamental Moral Theology at the University of Fribourg, Switzerland.

The Marian Role in the Restoration of the Image of God given by Rev. John Corbett, O.P. Assistant Professor of Moral Theology Dominican House of Studies, Washington, D.C.

Strangers at Our Bedside: Updated

2007-04-09T19:17:00.000-04:00

It is a sad state of affairs when medical life and death decisions are decided by a committee. No doubt that in the last few decades, the medical community has provided ample ways of improving health and well-being for all people, from those unborn to those who are elderly. But at the same time, the medical community has succumb to the philosophies of the day in which cost analysis makes a difference in someone's care or the notion of "futility" becomes critical for deciding whether a person should live or die or better yet, medicine directs itself solely for the purpose of the elimination of suffering.

We also have moved away from a very local-oriented medical community (where you went to the same doctor time and time again and the doctor knew you and your family well and you knew the doctor well too) to a medical community of strangers in which you barely know much about your own doctor and he knows little more than what his diagnostic sheets tell him.

And when medical emergencies or complications arise, we go to a hospital, which is full of medical strangers who provide well or badly the medical care we need and in some cases we are left to the mercy of their decision-making powers, sometimes to the very issue of whether we will live or die. Take for example this case in Texas (free registration may be required to view the article). You have probably heard of similar stories. A family is fighting to keep their very sick toddler alive over and against the decision of the hospital seeking to end the child's life.

As 17-month-old Emilio Gonzales lies in a hospital, hooked up to tubes to help him breathe and eat, his mother holds him close and cherishes every movement.

Catarina Gonzales knows her baby is terminally ill and that one day she'll have to let go. But it's not yet time, she and her attorneys contend in their legal clash with hospital officials who want to stop Emilio's life-sustaining treatment.

An unusual Texas law signed by George W. Bush when he was governor lets the hospital make that life-or-death call. The latest legal dispute over the law -- Emilio's case -- goes to court again Tuesday, the day his life support is set to end.

"The family has made a unified decision" to keep Emilio living through artificial means, said Joshua Carden, an attorney for the Gonzales family. "The hospital is making quality of life value judgments. That's a huge source of concern."

Children's Hospital of Austin has been caring for Emilio since Dec. 28. He's believed to have Leigh's Disease, a progressive illness difficult to diagnose, according to both sides.

The boy cannot breathe on his own and must have nutrition and water pumped into him. He can't swallow or gag ... said Michael Regier, general counsel for the Seton Family of Hospitals, which encompasses the children's hospital.

Emilio's higher order brain functions are destroyed, and secretions must be vigorously suctioned from his lungs, Regier said.

"The care is very aggressive and very invasive," Regier said. Though the treatment is expensive, the hospital contends that money is not part of its decision. Emilio has health coverage through Medicaid.

Doctors and a hospital ethics panel determined the treatment is causing the boy to suffer without providing any medical benefit, Regier said.

Money is not the issue here, if that can be believed. The hospital wants to remove treatment because the boy is suffering due to the treatment. This is ironic. Trying to reduce suffering, but at what cost? The life-sustaining equipment will be turned off and then what? As the attorney for the family notes:

... Emilio's death by asphyxiation would be painful. He said the law prevents hospital workers from even giving the boy the drugs death row inmates receive to help them as they are executed by lethal injection.

"It's not like he'll just drift quietly off," he said.

In the end, a poor helpless little boy will have to suffer his death all due to a committee thinking it has the right and responsibility to end his suffering. How very scary it is to find that strangers have control over our lives and our loved ones when we are most vulnerable and in need of love, care, and support.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For those keeping up with the story, LifeSite is reporting that on April 11, the Texas judge issued a temporary restraining order to prevent the hospital from letting Emilio die. The case is to be argued furthe in the following week. You can view the story here.

The Depths of Love and the Heart of God

2007-04-07T21:13:00.000-04:00

Have we not approached one of the great divine mysteries in trying to understand the Heart of God? The Son of God, Jesus Christ became human, destitute, impoverished so that we, humanity, might become divine, rich, and full of life. The Prologue to the Gospel of John provides a beautiful summation of the work of Jesus Christ, Son of God and revelation of the Heart of God to us, children of God.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came to be through him, and without him nothing came to be. What came to be through him was life, and this life was the light of the human race; the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it. A man named John was sent from God. He came for testimony, to testify to the light, so that all might believe through him. He was not the light, but came to testify to the light. The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world. He was in the world, and the world came to be through him, but the world did not know him. He came to what was his own, but his own people did not accept him. But to those who did accept him he gave power to become children of God, to those who believe in his name, who were born not by natural generation nor by human choice nor by a man's decision but of God. And the Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us, and we saw his glory, the glory as of the Father's only Son, full of grace and truth. John testified to him and cried out, saying, "This was he of whom I said, 'The one who is coming after me ranks ahead of me because he existed before me.'" From his fullness we have all received, grace in place of grace, because while the law was given through Moses, grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. No one has ever seen God. The only Son, God, who is at the Father's side, has revealed him. (John 1:1-18, emphasis added)

To add further to this imagery of the Heart of God, we need only ponder the words of Pope Benedict's homily at last night's Paschal Vigil Mass concerning Christ's decent into hell:

Let us return once more to the night of Holy Saturday. In the Creed we say about Christ’s journey that he “descended into hell.” What happened then? Since we have no knowledge of the world of death, we can only imagine his triumph over death with the help of images which remain very inadequate. Yet, inadequate as they are, they can help us to understand something of the mystery. The liturgy applies to Jesus’ descent into the night of death the words of Psalm 23[24]: “Lift up your heads, O gates; be lifted up, O ancient doors!” The gates of death are closed, no one can return from there. There is no key for those iron doors. But Christ has the key. His Cross opens wide the gates of death, the stern doors. They are barred no longer. His Cross, his radical love, is the key that opens them. The love of the One who, though God, became man in order to die – this love has the power to open those doors. This love is stronger than death. The Easter icons of the Oriental Church show how Christ enters the world of the dead. He is clothed with light, for God is light. “The night is bright as the day, the darkness is as light” (cf. Ps 138[139]12). Entering the world of the dead, Jesus bears the stigmata, the signs of his passion: his wounds, his suffering, have become power: they are love that conquers death. He meets Adam and all the men and women waiting in the night of death. As we look at them, we can hear an echo of the prayer of Jonah: “Out of the belly of Sheol I cried, and you heard my voice” (Jn 2:2). In the incarnation, the Son of God became one with human beings – with Adam. But only at this moment, when he accomplishes the supreme act of love by descending into the night of death, does he bring the journey of the incarnation to its completion. By his death he now clasps the hand of Adam, of every man and woman who awaits him, and brings them to the light.

But we may ask: what is the meaning of all this imagery? What was truly new in what happened on account of Christ? The human soul was created immortal – what exactly did Christ bring that was new? The soul is indeed immortal, because man in a unique way remains in God’s memory and love, even after his fall. But his own powers are insufficient to lift him up to God. We lack the wings needed to carry us to those heights. And yet, nothing else can satisfy man eternally, except being with God. An eternity without this union with God would be a punishment. Man cannot attain those heights on his own, yet he yearns for them. “Out of the depths I cry to you…” Only the Risen Christ can bring us to complete union with God, to the place where our own powers are unable to bring us. Truly Christ puts the lost sheep upon his shoulders and carries it home. Clinging to his Body we have life, and in communion with his Body we reach the very heart of God. Only thus is death conquered, we are set free and our life is hope.

This is the joy of the Easter Vigil: we are free. In the resurrection of Jesus, love has been shown to be stronger than death, stronger than evil. Love made Christ descend, and love is also the power by which he ascends. The power by which he brings us with him. In union with his love, borne aloft on the wings of love, as persons of love, let us descend with him into the world’s darkness, knowing that in this way we will also rise up with him. On this night, then, let us pray: Lord, show us that love is stronger than hatred, that love is stronger than death. Descend into the darkness and the abyss of our modern age, and take by the hand those who await you. Bring them to the light! In my own dark nights, be with me to bring me forth! Help me, help all of us, to descend with you into the darkness of all those people who are still waiting for you, who out of the depths cry unto you! Help us to bring them your light! Help us to say the “yes” of love, the love that makes us descend with you and, in so doing, also to rise with you. Amen!

Love has descended into the very depths of hell and darkness to bring mankind intimately back to the light and the Heart of God so that we can share eternal communion with God; our hearts are no longer stone, but hearts of flesh, beating and pulsing with the Spirit of Love.

The Heart of God

2007-04-07T07:14:00.000-04:00

From Whispers in the Loggia, here are Pope Benedict's closing remarks following the Stations of the Cross in Roma last night:

Dear brothers and sisters,

Following Jesus along the way of his passion, we see not only the suffering of Jesus, but also all the suffering of the world; this is the deep intention of the prayer of the Way of the Cross: to open our hearts and to help us to see with our hearts.

The Fathers of the Church considered insensitivity, the hardness of heart, as the greatest sin of the pagan world and so loved the prophecy of Ezekiel: "I will take your heart of stone and will give you a heart of flesh" (Ez 36:26). To convert ourselves to Christ, to become Christian, is to receive a heart of flesh, a sensitive heart for the agony and suffering of others.

Our God is not a faraway God, untouchable in his blessedness: our God has a heart. Rather, he has a heart of flesh, made flesh itself to suffer with us and to be with us in our sufferings. He made himself man to give us a heart of flesh and to reawaken in us a love for the suffering, for the needy.

Let us pray to the Lord in this hour for all the afflicted of the world. Let us pray to the Lord that he may really give us a heart of flesh and make us messengers of His love not only with words, but with all our life. Amen.

New Look and Future Posts

2006-12-08T17:15:00.000-05:00

I almost have finished what was a very busy semester. I have one paper to finish.

I did a quick redesign of the website. It is something I have wanted to do for a very long time. More changes will be made when time is available. Be assured that I have some good posts coming soon. One will be a detailed look at the document on pornography, "Bought with a Price" from Bishop Loverde of Arlington, VA. Another will be a look at the pastoral document from the USCCB, "Ministry to Persons with a Homosexual Inclination."

May you have a blessed and holy Advent!

A New Argument Against Pre-Natal Testing

2006-11-24T20:28:00.000-05:00

I came across this story entitled "Prenatal Screening not so Accurate as Once Thought – 'Normal' Children Killed as 'Defective'?" from Lifesite.net. It refers to a story in Canada's Globe and Mail newspaper, "Study turns human genetics on its head." According to the Globe and Mail article, a recent study, published in the journal Nature, has brought to our attention more genetic differences than previously thought possible among human beings.

An international research team has overturned the harmonious message that flowed from the Human Genome Project in 2000 and discovered more DNA differences exist among people than the experts expected.

Using new technology to study the genomes of 270 volunteers from four corners of the world, researchers have found that while people do indeed inherit one chromosome from each parent, they do not necessarily inherit one gene from mom and another from dad.

One parent can pass down to a child three or more copies of a single gene. In some cases, people can inherit as many as eight or 10 copies. In rare instances a person might be missing a gene.

Yet despite these anomalies, they still appear to be healthy -- countering the notion of what doctors have deemed "normal" in genetics.

The work highlights how DNA helps to make each human unique, hinting that a towering basketball player, for example, might boast extra copies of a growth gene or that a daughter really might be more like her dad.

The scientific study of the human genome in the Human Genome Project (1990-2003) argued that "the human genome sequence is almost (99%) exactly the same in all people" (see here for reference). This most recent study suggests that this picture of almost identical human genome sequences is false. This recent

...research finds that the size of at least 12 per cent of the genome -- including 2,900 genes and regions between them -- can differ dramatically between people, and in some cases, between certain ethnic groups.

The size differences are the result of DNA that is either duplicated or deleted or contains unexpected added bits of genetic code. Scientists call the phenomenon "copy number variation" or CNV for short. And it is already reshaping genetic research.

"When we're accounting for what the human genome means, there's not going to be a single human genome map that is going to be useful to one person," said Robert Hegele, a noted genetic scientist at the Robarts Research Institute in London, Ont., who read the study. "It's a huge surprise that there's so much variation of this type . . . that is so common in so many healthy people."

The study suggests that there is quite a bit of variance in the human genetic structure among healthy people in which it is useless to try and pin "normal" on one version of the human genome map and then use that as a basis to determine who fits and does not fit this normal standard. What does this mean for pre-natal testing?

For this reason, scientists agree that doctors looking at less-detailed genetic tests -- such as karyotyping -- might have mistaken unusually-sized bits of DNA as signs of a medical problem.

Patients, or prospective parents receiving results of a prenatal test, for instance, might have been informed that something looked abnormal when, the new work suggests, it isn't.

While the report does not delve into the issue directly, Dr. Scherer [co-author of the study) acknowledged this is a possibility. He offered as an example a genetic test that relies on a "diagnostic probe" to evaluate the length of DNA code near the ends of chromosomes.

Shorter chromosomes, he said, are implicated in developmental delay or mental retardation due to DNA code that might be missing.

"But we found that in a large number of cases (shorter chromosomes) exist in the general population," said Dr. Scherer, who is also director of the Centre for Applied Genomics. "The chromosomes don't necessarily line up evenly . . . so people really need to scrutinize these results more closely before assuming it's pathogenic.

"The bottom line is that there's so much natural variation you have to go back and look closer."

Dr. Hegele agreed that such things might have been misread. "It's always been assumed those big changes would result in some type of disease, that they were rare and would lead to sort of catastrophic conditions," he said, noting that Down syndrome is the result of an extra copy of chromosome 21.

This recent study calls into question the nature of some pre-natal testing and how it identifies abnormalities. If what this study suggests is true, then some pre-natal testing, such as mentioned above in the quote, is useless and nothing but speculation based on false information concerning the human genetic structure and its variance among human beings.

The Whoring of the Young, part III

2006-11-18T19:21:00.000-05:00

I guess it should come as no surprised how sexualized Europe tends to be as opposed to the United States. I have been meaning to post about this story for a few weeks now, ever since I caught a small snippet about it in the Express paper from the Washington Post. The full story can be found here. A British company, Tesco, apparently put out interesting gifts to give to boys and girls this season (You can see the amended websites page here and here- the company changed the information about the gift to target it for adults, according to the article). The first toy is a "Peekaboo Pole Dancing Set." Yes, a stripper pole set for girls. As the Daily Mail story tells us,

The Tesco Direct site advertises the kit with the words, "Unleash the sex kitten inside...simply extend the Peekaboo pole inside the tube, slip on the sexy tunes and away you go! "Soon you'll be flaunting it to the world and earning a fortune in Peekaboo Dance Dollars".

The other great item for sale for youngsters was the Peekaboo Poker set, which included the following description:

The card game is is described as a game that "risks the risque and brings a whole lot of naughtiness to the table. "Played with a unique pack of Peekaboo Boy and Girl playing cards, the aim of the game is to win as many Peekaboo chips as possible and turn them into outrageously naughty fun."

If the original story is true, such abhorrent behavior from companies should be condemned. Children have enough to deal with in today's world without being contaminated with this sort of sexualized garbage.

The Whoring of the Young, continued...

2006-11-18T19:13:00.000-05:00

I found it necessary to add a part II to the previous story with it now encompassing a more global aspect. Lifesite.net reported with an article entitled "Child Porn Now Mainstream in Germany" that the German teen magazine, Bravo, regularly features nude photographs of teenagers, generally between the ages of 16 to 20. I knew how progressive European countries tend to be about sex, but I guess I would not have guessed it leading to sexualizing the youth through a teenage magazine. Coupled with these photographs is the regular sex-advice column of Dr. Sommer. Who knew teenagers needed a sex-advice column?

From the Lifesite.net article, I then found an article in Speigel Online, another publication in Germany, with an article in English concerning Bravo and its teen sex columnist (you can find that article here).

Lodged between the ads for tampons, zit concealers and mobile phone ring tones is a weekly sex advice column splashed with photos of teenagers, au naturel -- kind of like Penthouse Letters for kids. It's the kind of thing that would land the publishers in jail were it to hit newsstands on the other side of the Atlantic. If the Christian right or America's comb-over Congress got their hands on this, the courts would be busy for months.

But this is sex-positive Germany, not the Bible Belt. And here there are few taboos when it comes to telling kids where to insert the dipstick should they need to check the oil. The cultural epicenter of this sex-friendly youth society is "Dr. Sommer," the weekly Bravo column that has been providing teens with sex advice since its birth during the 1969 Summer of Love. And the Germans love it. The column's liberating message to teens has been greeted with open arms from across the religious and political spectrum. Indeed, it's not unusual for the column's staff to receive invitations to church groups to deliver youth sexuality sermons.

Aside from their view of American culture and its Bible-Belt "morality" (I guess we're not perverse enough....YET!), the advice column is pitched as being a message of liberation. What does this message of liberation entail?

That's not to say that Bravo is a cheap skin mag -- nor does the weekly seek to become the Teutonic version of the Kama Sutra. Rather, the nude photos are intended to provide reassuring images to adolescents suddenly confronted with serious physical and psychological pyrotechnics....

A combination of "Dr. Ruth," Teen People and "Savage Love," each week the staff of Dr. Sommer answer letters from teens seeking advice about health, sex, changing bodies, love and relationships. Hundreds of questions pour in each week in the form of written letters, telephone calls and postings to the popular Bravo Web site. The questions are those one would expect from uncertain youth trying to figure out what the heck is happening to their bodies, urges and emotions: How do I meet my first mate? How do I flirt? Why is my body changing? Will I ever recover from this heartbreak? Do I need contraception? Can I get AIDS from kissing? What is safe sex? Will boys still like me if I am flat-chested?

Does anybody wonder...where the hell are the parents???!?!??! And not to let you think that this is some small magazine, "more than 600,000 teens buy Bravo in Germany each week, and many more go to the magazine's Web site, where the Dr. Sommer section is one of the most popular, contributing significantly to the site's massive readership. In April (2006), Bravo.de chalked up nearly 39 million page views." So apparently, the magazine and website get a large readership in Germany. But has the work of Dr. Sommer made much of a difference in the past 36 years?

Bravo's recent study found that, despite more than three decades of publishing Dr. Sommer, German teens still know too little important information about sex. "We found that there are huge gaps when it comes to knowledge about how to prevent unwanted pregnancies, protecting oneself from AIDS and sexuality and contraception in general," said von Arx.

With all the information available on the internet and in books and magazines, people still don't know about sex. My favorite has to be about preventing unwanted pregnancies; let me harbor a guess about that one....how about old fashion abstinence, its 100% effective in preventing any pregnancy! So how does this information not get passed onto the new generations of Germans? von Arx, the pseudonymous Dr. Sommer, says its because of the sexual revolution.

"Forty years ago," she says, "people thought kids knew nothing and that everything had to be explained to them. But today the opposite is true. Our kids are growing up in a society where there are almost no remaining taboos when it comes to sex, and people assume they already know far more about sex than they actually do. They do have access to a lot more information today, but it often lacks context or is contradictory."

The sexual revolution brought on too much information that lacks context or is contradictory. Unfortunately, von Arx, does not tell us what context is necessary. It seems that teenagers need explicit guides on how to improve their sexual lives and visual aids to help them. You only need to go through Dr. Sommer's section on the Bravo magazine website to gain just a glimmer of what material is made available to and for teenagers in Germany. One could argue that the Bravo magazine is doing a service to the youth of Germany by providing sexual health information. The magazine is just presenting the information and letting the youth determine what to do with it. But that is far from the truth. Handing out information about how to have sexual activity presumes that this is a type of activity that should be normal for the youth of Germany in which to participate. Not to mention with its presentation of explicit graphics, you have handed them several things to use: 1) for imaginative purposes and the introduction of ideas they may not have had otherwise; 2) a useful guide on "how-to" have sex; 3) normalized it in a context of other young people are doing it, so why not me.

It makes me wonder how far off we are from this sort of situation in the United States, especially with the way sexual education has advanced in the public and private schools.

Parenthood and Life So Easily Discarded

2006-09-06T09:22:00.000-04:00

While I'm doing some work, I came across this article "Imagining Our Children into Non-Existence" written by Joseph Capizzi. From the introduction:

One of the consolations of the religious mindset is the release from the illusion that we can control our destinies. The release from this illusion, the believer knows, is also a relief from the pressures associated with our attempts to control our lives. Even the irreligious can come to learn this, and one of the best educations in the disillusionment of control is parenthood. Technology, however, increasingly saps parenthood of the capacity to teach this lesson.

The rest of the article discusses a New York Times piece which looks at a couple's use of pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) in screening out potentially harmful cancers. The couple could not bring a child into this world knowing that they could have prevented future suffering from a cancer that is genetically linked to their family. With PGD, this can be stopped, that is, there is no need to bring a life into this world that has the potential for unnecessary suffering, when we have the technology to prevent it. The couple, having used, PGD, did find an embryo that did not have a genetic predisposition to a certain cancer. One could say, Chloe, the daughter of this couple, survived the process of PGD.

But as Capizzi reminds us:

It’s hard to for me to imagine how the rest of Chloe’s life can escape the illusion her father and mother adopted. One doesn’t have children, so much as unleash them into the world, with all its dangers foreseen and unforeseen. Once you’ve adopted the illusion you can control your child’s destiny, how do you let them go? Once you’ve made the decision that this child can enter the world, but these children cannot, how will you manage the first unforeseen failure, or fall, or illness? That is the course the Kingsburys have taken. They didn’t stop the disease, as the father put it; they stopped the carriers of the disease. Chloe lives because scientists don’t yet have tests for every human imperfection; because science has not yet convinced people like the Kingsburys that life isn’t worth the risks. The article states that they “passed over” four embryos that had the defective gene and two more that failed the $2000 potential Downs test. Those embryos – those lives – were discarded. At least six of Chloe’s siblings were sacrificed for her existence. How’s that for growing up with pressure? She’d better do well in school.

The Whoring of America's Youth

2006-08-25T17:10:00.000-04:00

I want to apologize for the recent hiatus that has been experienced on my website. I have been working on my thesis, and with classes beginning next week, I may not post as frequently as I have in the past. But I will try and contribute interesting and thoughtful posts when I find something interesting, which brings me to today's post.

Society Gone Wild is an article I came across in my online reading today. Here is a taste of the article:

If you have ever found yourself up late at night staring at the television, you’ll likely be familiar with Joe Francis’s work. Joe Francis is the brains (?) behind “Girls Gone Wild,” that lovely, $40 million a year series of videotapes or DVDs that provide a historical record of the varieties of undergarments worn and removed by mostly drunken old girls and young women of the early twenty-first century.

A great recent article in the Los Angeles Times provides a wealth of information about Mr. Francis. We learn about his arrest on charges of racketeering, drug trafficking and promoting the sexual performance of a child; about his fondness for physically bullying women; about his philosophical insights into human nature (for instance, “only the guys with the greatest sexual appetites are the ones who are the most driven and most successful” – is that pre-Socratic? I forget); his business’s code ("Push That Porn!!!"); his pitiable life of being so gosh-darned famous ("It's fun for everybody else but me. I just get hounded by kids. It was more fun not being famous on spring break."); and even his gift for turning phrases ("I've been anally raped over and over by the media."). What a guy! But Mr. Francis isn’t the story. There’s nothing new in men profiting from sex, nor in what people used to call men profiting from the exploitation of women. What’s new, instead, is that it’s almost impossible anymore to call the eager dropping of one’s drawers in return for a T-shirt exploitative.(emphasis added)

That introduction should have caught your attention. Now check out this even more powerful statement from the article's author, Joseph Capizzi:

Let’s be clear about what we’re seeing. This is nothing less than the whoring of America’s youth. Joe Francis is not setting this trend, he’s capturing it on video. And these girls typically are not exposing themselves because they are drunk, though they are very drunk, but because that’s what they know.

Whoring of America's youth. It was only time before the over-sexualization of society started taking its toll on the youth of the world. This actually brings me to an interesting tie-in to what my wife had mentioned on her website concerning a recent visit we had to a Toys-R-Us. We were quite shocked to see such trashy dolls being marketed to young girls. Check out her post Valley of the Tramps.

I dare not think of what's next if this is how far things have gone.

Designer Embryos?

2006-08-10T08:40:00.000-04:00

In an commentary piece entitled "Embryos made to order" that appeared in today's Washington Times, Debra Saunders, a syndicated columnists, reports on Jennalee Ryan and her group The Abrahman Center of Life which advertises "The World's First Human Embryo Bank" online.

There's no need for would-be parents to settle for already-born babies or leftover embryos from couples with fertility issues. Ms. Ryan sent out a letter that explains, "Recipient parents will receive pictures of the donors as infants, and sometimes as adults; full medical background and health reports, and a family history." Her group, The Abraham Center of Life, uses sperm donors only with college degrees -- although "most of them have doctorate degrees" -- while most egg donors have some college.

That is not the most disturbing element. Maybe this next part of the commentary is:

Prospective parents can pick the sperm and eggs to produce their designer babies. Ms. Ryan even says she can find a surrogate mother to carry the fetus to term.

Get that? You can pick your own sperm donor and egg donor from their list of possible donors and you can even find a surrogate to help bring about "your" baby. All you need is the money to do it. Saunders ask pointblank, "Aren't you selling designer babies?" to which Ms Ryan replied:

"Designer babies? Yeah. Why not?" she replies with a laugh.

It is nice to know that Ms. Ryan is taking things so seriously. What caused Ms. Ryan to start this venture?

"You know why I did it? Because I could." Ms Ryan explains. She started Abigail's Silver Spoons Adoptions, Inc. years ago, and while that enterprise continues, she saw a new market in embryos.

Get that too? A new market indeed exists for such things. I guess it was only time until some venturing capitalist decided to make some money off of people - both in getting people to donate eggs and sperm as well as people who are desperate to have the baby they want in the manner they want it. Who knew life could be such a commodity. What is next? I guess I shouldn't ask Ms. Ryan that question. Finally, for justification purposes, Ms. Ryan says:

"As of right now, there is no regulation. You know how it works? If there is no law against it, it's legal."

What a nice notion of law and how it works. If there is no law against such a thing, then it's legal and perfect fine to make a business out of it.

I hesitate to link to the website for Ms. Ryan. I'll let those most interested in finding such a horrific practice to do so on their own.

A Critical Look at Real Sex: The Naked Truth About Chastity

2006-08-04T08:24:00.000-04:00

It must have been a year or so ago, when I discovered the book Real Sex: the Naked Truth About Chastity in a Barnes and Noble bookstore. The subtitle caught my attention. As I opened to the first page, I found a pretty solid opening:

Chastity: it is one of those unabashedly churchy words. It is is one of the words the church uses to call Christians to do something hard, something unpopular. ... Chastity is one of the many Christian practices that are at odds with the dictates of our surrounding, secular culture. It challenges the movies we watch, the magazines we read, the songs we listen to. ... Chastity is also something that many of us Christians have to learn.

So I felt compelled to buy this book, if only to read a popularized attempt at trying to defend and teach about chastity in the Christian life. I say popularized attempt because the author, Lauren F. Winner, is not a theologian but rather a lay woman, writing much from her own personal experiences and in an effort to bring more people to understanding the true nature of chastity.

The book, itself, is divided in to two sections. The first is "Talking About Sex" which constitutes the proper role of sex in marriage (from a biblical-creation perspective), how the community helps form our attitudes and public discourse concerning sex (in which sex is not a "private" matter), and addresses falsehoods concerning sex from the culture and church perspective. The second is "Practicing Chastity" which involves how to form proper guidance on living the virtue of chastity, how chastity is a spiritual practice which helps discipline the appetites of the body, how being single helps form the Church, and finally some practical matters concerning chastity.

There are some very important points that I think Winner makes and they deserve mention here. Part of her emphasis is that the Christian church, a term she uses broadly to denote Christianity, fails properly to dispose young people to chaste living, which has repercussions for later in life when situations arise that challenge a weak or limited understanding of the virtue of chastity and how it should form our lives. Winner writes:

...chastity is God's very best for us. God created sex for marriage and that is where it belongs. Still, many Christians who know about chastity have a hard time being chaste. Chastity may be instantly rewarding, but it doesn't always feel instantly rewarding, and let's face it, we live in a therapeutic culture in which people often make decisions based on what seems to feel right at the time. Too often the church, rather than giving unmarried Christians useful tools and thick theologies to help us live chastely, instead tosses off a few bromides - "True love waits" is not that compelling when you're twenty-nine and have been waiting, and wonder what, really, you're waiting for.

So how do we go about imparting the virtue of chastity better in young people? First we have to realize that "chastity, like most aspects of the Christian life, does not come naturally." It takes effort, patience, and working at the discipleship that has been given to us through our baptismal calling. Winner offers three furthering keys to developing the virtue of chastity: 1) prayer; 2) reading the bible and other Christian classics, and 3) the church, witnessing as the body of Christ in sharing the message of chastity, being willing to admonish those who sin and need help by showing generosity, compassion, and mercy to those who struggle with chastity in order to guide them through the love of Christ.

A key area in which she shows the role of the church and community in forming chaste relationships among men and women is the personal story she relates from her own dating situation. A campus pastor at the University of Virginia said to her and her boyfriend (her spouse now): "Don't do anything sexual that wouldn't be comfortable doing on the steps of the Rotunda." Meaning, in a non-marital relationship, the couple should be cognizant that they should not go beyond any activity that what they would not do in public setting. As Winner notes:

This was not just practical instruction, but also wisdom: sex has a public dimesnion and a private dimension. Christians gain access to the private side at a wedding. The question for married couples is not How far can we go? but How do we maintain the integrity of our sexual relationship, which at this point is only public?

"The point" here, "is to discern, with your community, what behaviors can protect the body and God's created sexual intent. For her and her future spouse, "the Rotunda rule established in us a certain discpline - perhpas a little disciplined sexuality migh titself be a good preparation for married, for the week when your wife has a urinary tract infection, or the few months after your husband's father dies, and sex is not in the cards, but maybe some kissing is." Very practical advice and helpful in trying to understand how chastity should help govern non-marital relationships. This is but one example of her down-to-earth sort of attitude toward the development of chastity in our daily lives.

I guess, in hindsight, I should have seen it coming from an author formed in the Protestant Christian tradition, but I was quite surprised to see in her rebuttal to the lie that "sex can be wholly separated from procreation" that Winner has no problem with birth control. In part of justification for having birth control, she said something that bothered me. "...birth control allows married couples to relax a little and have sex without fear." When should conjugal sex ever have a component of fear? Why should a possible pregnancy instill fear? New life always should be welcomed. When fear enters the picture, the intent of those sexual acts needs to be called into question. While proscribing birth control options on the one hand, Winner hesitates with a "carefree" attitude towards contraceptive methods - afraid in part because constant usage of contraceptive methods "invites us to be people who have utterly separated sex from procreation." Before she addresses her final conclusion concerning birth control, she draws attention to couples who are sterile and how they have sexual relations without a finality of procreation. Thus, she can say,"...that the whole of a married couple's sex life needs to be open to procreation, but each and every sex act need not be." This is typical revisionist thinking concerning contraception. Each and every sex act does not need to be open to life. It is the "whole" of a couple's conjugal life that carries the moral weight.

This conclusion puzzles me for what she later says concerning each and every choice we make.

The choices we make every day - where we shop, what we do with our bodies, how we pass our time - form us. They shape the type of Christians we become. What we do matters - not because good behavior gets us into heaven, but because behavior, good and bad, creates certain expectations in us, teaches us certain lessons.

A good question to pose to Winner is this: What does contraceptive sexual activity teach us then? That we can use our spouses for our pleasure and benefit and not deal with the "fearful" consequences of a possible pregnancy which may ruin our future plans and endeavors? That our conjugal sex life need not be related to procreation? Since these choices affect us, each and every day, what does it say about us when we choose contraceptive sex? I still am puzzled. Winner argues for a revisionist way of thinking regarding contraception and yet seems eager to endore a very Thomistic understanding of the formation of character in that all the actions we take form us.

Another criticism I have of the book is Winner's approach to "lies" the church tells us about sex. Some of these cases seem to be her fighting against a strawman. In all my readings I never came across such lies as "premarital sex is guaranteed to make you feel lousy" or "women don't really want to have sex, anyway," or "bodies (and sex) are gross, dirty, or just plain unimportant."

So while I appreciate Winner's attempt to stimulate conversation and action regarding the habituation of chastity, especially in young people, I feel that the criticisms I have raised diminish the positive value of the whole work. I would not recommend such a work for those who need a primer on chastity because the book as a whole lacks the full Catholic approach to sexual morality.

Dr. Death

2006-07-27T08:46:00.000-04:00

On Lifesite.com, the daily news line-up featured a column entitled "Doctors Kept Asking to 'Let' My Father Die: Wall Street Journalist." The article is a summary of a column that appeared in the Wall Street Journal on Friday, July 21, 2006 - "How Faith Saved the Athiest: Why did the doctors stop asking me to pull the plug?" The WSJ column, written by Pamela Winnick, describes her father's time in the hospital due to a blood clot. During this time in the hospital, she was repeatedly asked to "pull the plug" on her father or let him "die with dignity." She devised the ruse to tell the staff that her family and her father were Orthodox Jews. Once this was known, the hospital staff avoided further death with "dignity" talk.

Though my father was born to an Orthodox Jewish family, he is an avowed atheist who long ago had rejected his parents' ways. As I sat in the ICU, blips on the various screens the only proof that my father was alive, the irony struck me: My father, who had long ago rejected Orthodox Judaism, was now under its protection.

As though to confirm this, there came a series of miracles. Just a week after he was rushed to ICU, my father was pronounced well enough to be moved out of the unit into North Shore's long-term respiratory care unit. A day later he was off the respirator, able to breathe on his own. He still mostly slept, but then he began to awaken for minutes at a time, at first groggy, but soon he was as alert (and funny) as ever. A day later, we walked in to find him sitting upright in a chair, reading the New York Times.

Soon thereafter, her father was able to leave the hospital - alive and well.

On Father's Day, we packed my father's hospital room: his wife, daughters, grandchildren, each of us regaling him with our successes large and small. "Life's not so bad, after all," the atheist said. I wanted to go back to ICU, find Dr. Death, drag her to my father's room and say: "This is the life you wanted to end."

(Note: I thought it is worth mentioning that one sad thing about Minnick's column is her rant against "conservative" Christians, but regardless of that fact, the account of her father's treatment is still valid and compelling.)

The Lifesite.com news article does a nice job using Minnick's column to describe the situation we find ourselves in, that is, a medical profession that seems eager to end life as soon as possible. As Mr. Vanderheyden notes in the Lifesite article:

Ever increasing reports of incidents of this sort points towards a frightful widening acceptance and often even imposition of euthanasia for the sick and the elderly. The medical community appears the most insistent on this while conveying an attitude that it is far less trouble and less expensive for them to simply cease treatment for those they deem are close to death or even just incurable. It is becoming common in Western hospitals that the elderly are passively and sometimes actively euthanized without their or their family's consent. Last month LifeSiteNews.com reported on a prominant British medical ethicist who stated that it is time to "regulate" the already existing practice of "involuntary euthanasia," often referred to in legal systems as "murder."

A joint statement by a group of doctors and lawyers on euthanasia and physician assisted suicide (PAS) published on LifeSiteNews.com in October of last year warned that "If euthanasia became legalized, the decision whether to terminate or preserve a patient's life or to assist with PAS will rest with the medical profession. To legalize euthanasia and PAS would dramatically increase the power doctors have over their patients and severely decrease patient autonomy."

Who know's how scary things will be in the coming years when a medical emergency arises and you have to use hospital emergency facilities. Will Dr. Death be there waiting to "pull the plug" on you or your loved one? I don't mean to end on such a frightening note, but we have to understand the realities of the medical profession and how these "strangers" at our bedside may soon be calling all the shots when it comes to matters of life and death, whether in the name of let him "die with dignity" or "you are using up valuable resources or space" or "you cost too much" or you are an "inconveience."

Genetic Outlaws

2006-07-26T12:07:00.000-04:00

Browsing around the internet on a break from my thesis research, I found an interesting article in Business Week entitled "Confessions of a 'Genetic Outlaw'" which concerns genetic screening. Here is the opening paragraph of the article to get your attention:

From time to time, we are all confronted with the disconnect between how we see ourselves and how others see us. I've always seen myself as a responsible, law-abiding citizen. I recycle, I vote, I don't drive a Hummer. But I've come to realize that many in the scientific and medical community view me as grossly irresponsible. Indeed, in the words of Bob Edwards, the scientist who facilitated the birth of England's first test-tube baby, I am a "sinner." A recent book even branded me a "genetic outlaw." My transgression? I am one of the dwindling number of women who receive a prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome and choose not to terminate our pregnancies.

It certainly is a good article to read. If I have some time later, I will write some comments.

UPDATE: The article's main thrust concerns the place of disabled individuals (with Down syndrome, etc) in a technologically-advanced culture, whose medicinal practices seek to "alleviate potential suffering and protect the quality of the lives they are bringing into the world." What kind of message are we sending in our attempts to eliminate "unfit" embryos from being born into the world through the usage of genetic screening? The author of the article, Elizabeth Schiltz, does not suggest we abandon the usage of genetic testing but rather wants our attention to focus on what we do with the knowledge we gain from such testing. In a beautiful summation to the story, Schiltz concludes:

I would not want scientists to stop delving into the mysteries and wonders of the human genome. I am glad that I knew my son had Down syndrome before he was born. If one of these scientists found a "cure" for my son's Down syndrome, I almost certainly would give it to him. But I will admit that I would pause beforehand. I would think hard about this real-life conversation between a teenager with Down syndrome and her mother. The daughter asked her mother whether she would still have Down syndrome when the two were together in heaven someday. The mother, taken by surprise, responded that she thought probably not. To which her daughter responded, "But how will you know who I am, then?" And I would also think hard about whether the world would really be a better place without my son's soft, gentle, deep, almond-shaped eyes.

The alleviation of "suffering" in regards to individuals with Down syndrom reminds me of a poignant passage from Stanley Hauerwas' essay, "Suffering the Retarded":

The challenge of learning to know, to be with, and care for the retarded is nothing less than learning to know, be with, and love God. God’s face is the face of the retarded; God’s body is the body of the retarded; God’s being is that of the retarded. For the God we Christians must learn to worship is not a god of self-sufficient power, a god who in self-possession needs no one.... God is not separated from himself or us by his suffering; rather, his suffering makes it possible for him to share our life and for us to share his.

Since I am in the middle of my thesis research, I hesitate to continue further with more comments, but maybe down the road I will take up this issue again.

Periodic Continence and NFP

2006-07-14T09:27:00.000-04:00

I saw an article mentioned on the Insight Scoop which is a blog for Ignatius Press authors and staff. The article "NFP: A Defense and an Explanation" by Mr. Thoams Storck appeared in the Homiletics and Pastoral Review July 2006 issue. The article takes aim at the issue of whether serious reasons are needed to use Natural Family Planning (NFP) or similar methods in order to space children or delay pregnancies.

I do not take issue with Mr. Storck's presentation of NFP and whether the Magisterium offers some teaching regarding NFP. My criticism as I continued to think about it concerns much more with Mr. Storck's presumption that when the Church has talked about using methods to regulate the birth of children, it speaks of NFP. Indeed the praise that Mr. Storck lavishes on NFP from magisterial documents appears to be praise for the practice of periodic continence. Certainly, NFP contains periodic continence but I think its emphasis is a bit different than taking up periodic continence. Below, I have copied what I wrote as a comment on the Insight Scoop blog. I may add or change elements to make things more clear but I think the points I make in this long comment are valid and worth pondering.

I do want to make one comment regarding my first main point in this comment below. I think I may have over-stated the case in the manner that I do. I do not think Mr. Storck gives a particular impression of NFP. Rather I think I take a more general impression I get from those think that NFP means having conjugal intercourse during infertile times to avoid a possible pregnancy. I do apologize for this over-statement and I believe the point remains valid to some extent because of the impression that NFP generally has.

--------------(Start of Comment)--------------
Thanks for the link to that interesting article. Just from my two readings of it, I wish that Mr. Storck had made one important observation concerning NFP, a better reading of Familiaris Consortio and the Catechism as well as a better understanding regarding the ends of marriage.

The article, I think, leaves a wrong impression about the method of NFP in one respect and that is where an observation about NFP is necessary. NFP is not just about having conjugal intercourse during infertile periods, it is also about restricting sexual activity to such times. This really leads to where the Church praises about the use of infertile times. The couple learns to share in the virtue of continence in which they offer up and sacrifice conjugal relations for the good of the family, health of the spouses, or whatever is the just reason for the use of NFP. Periodic continence is thus a praiseworthy element of NFP (as we shall see in Familiaris Consortio and in the Catehcism, even Pius XII's Address to Midwives which Mr. Storck quotes, has a section entitled 'the Heroism of Continence'). It takes a mastery of the self on the part of both spouses to offer up this sacrifice.

And this observation leads me into my criticism of his reading of Familiaris Consortio in which he misses John Paul II's account of following the natural cycle of the woman's body. Mr. Storck seems to glide right past the part concerning "self-control" which he quotes in his article. It is not so much the ability to have conjugal intercourse within infertile times that builds up the marriage, but rather the ascetical practice of not having conjugal intercourse that provides a growing intimacy which deepens the bonds of marriage and love. You can practice periodic continence without resorting to NFP. Indeed, periodic continence is an important theme in this regard as you see in paragraph 33 of Familiaris Consortio:

But the necessary conditions also include knowledge of the bodily aspect and the body's rhythms of fertility. Accordingly, every effort must be made to render such knowledge accessible to all married people and also to young adults before marriage, through clear, timely and serious instruction and education given by married couples, doctors and experts. Knowledge must then lead to education in self control: hence the absolute necessity for the virtue of chastity and for permanent education in it. In the Christian view, chastily by no means signifies rejection of human sexuality or lack of esteem for it: rather it signifies spiritual energy capable of defending love from the perils of selfishness and aggressiveness, and able to advance it towards its full realization.

With deeply wise and loving intuition, Paul VI was only voicing the experience of many married couples when he wrote in his Encyclical: "To dominate instinct by means of one's reason and free will undoubtedly requires ascetical practices, so that the affective manifestations of conjugal life may observe the correct order, in particular with regard to the observance of periodic continence. Yet this discipline which is proper to the purity of married couples, far from harming conjugal love, rather confers on it a higher human value. It demands continual effort, yet, thanks to its beneficent influence, husband and wife fully develop their personalities, being enriched with spiritual values. Such discipline bestows upon family life fruits of serenity and peace, and facilitates the solution of other problems; it favors attention for one's partner, helps both parties to drive out selfishness, the enemy of true love, and deepens their sense of responsibility. By its means, parents acquire the capacity of having a deeper and more efficacious influence in the education of their offspring.

So it is not so much NFP that is praiseworthy itself but rather the emphasis is on the periodic continence that is a part of NFP. The Catechsim continues this point with paragraph 2370: "Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality. These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom." So the use of infertile periods really speaks to the practice of continence which is a part of NFP but not all of NFP.

Next, Mr. Storck continually refers to the procreation and education of children as being the primary end of marriage; thus he relegates the mutual love between the spouses as a "secondary end." Since the Second Vatican Council, the Catholic Church has abandoned the usage of primary and secondary ends. To reference them otherwise is a mistatement of the Church's official teaching. Gaudium et spes paragraph 50 does not make reference to the primary/secondary distinction. It makes the two ends on a more even level. The Catechism of the Catholic Church does not make reference to this primary/secondary distinction.

Lastly, I want to end with a beautiful section from Pius XII Address to Midwives. It speaks of periodic continence and its possibility within marriage because I feel that is where the Church's praise really lies:

"God does not oblige anyone to do what is impossible. But God obliges husband and wife to abstinence if their union cannot be completed according to the laws of nature. Therefore in this case abstinence is possible." To confirm this argument, there can be brought forward the doctrine of the Council of Trent, which, in the chapter on the observance necessary and possible of referring to a passage of St. Augustine, teaches: "God does not command the impossible but while He commands, He warns you to do what you can and to ask for the grace for what you cannot do and He helps you so that you may be able".

I hope I have been clear. I have re-written this several times and made dozens of corrections and deletions. I hope my comments are not out of place. I hope they clarify things instead.

Does the New York Times need a name change?

2006-07-12T14:26:00.000-04:00

I came across this story on Townhall.com, which is an excellent site to find news as well as good conservative analysis of current political events and news topics. The article, I found, is entitled "The New Gay Times" written by Brent Bozell III, the founder and president of the Media Research Center. The article details the New York Times and its involvement with the promotion of homosexuality not only through its biased news articles but also through sponsorship of events such as the Gay Games and talks/lectures about "gay" issues. As Bozell notes:

Just a few weeks ago, a "Times Talks" panel on the 25th anniversary of the first article on AIDS in The New York Times included radical activist Larry Kramer, who distributed his wild remarks in advance, claiming, among other things, that "the gay population of the world has been, and continues to be, targeted for extinction." His written remarks also called for "Nuremberg trials," to hold not only the late Ronald Reagan, but also the owners and editors of -- how's this for gratitude? -- The New York Times accountable, like Nazi war criminals, for the AIDS holocaust.

That's just crazy. But by placing its famous name squarely on the side of the gay left, The New York Times is sending a message to America's solid majority against putting thousands of years of tradition through the shredder. It says: You're all intolerant bigots on the wrong side of history, and you will be defeated, even if we have to make utter asses of ourselves in the process.

You have to read the whole piece and see the journalism practiced by the NYTimes.

The Future of Stem Cell Research

2006-07-06T13:28:00.000-04:00

In today's Washington Post, in an article entitled "Stem Cells Without Moral Corruption," (free registration may be required to access the article) Robert P. George and Eric Cohen do an excellent job of pointing out the errors in the attitudes of many scientists in the quest for "progress" with stem cell research and cloning. This "progress" does nothing more than use and discard human life - in the form of human embryos.

George and Cohen point to the infamous Hwang Woo Suk, a lead research from South Korea, who in 2004 and 2005 triumped his achievements in cloning human embryos and stem cell lines from cloned embroyos. But his work was determined to be fabricated. "Apparently, no cloned embryos were ever produced; no embryonic stem cells were ever created." In addition to the fabrication of data, Hwang "used eggs procured from junior researchers in his own lab - a violation of the Helsinki Declaration that governs medical research - and then lied to cover it up. His partner, Roh Sung II, paid 'volunteers' for additional eggs and forced them to lie about it on their consent forms." Hwang and his partner exploited women in their desire to acheive cloned embryos. These women "undergo a risky and unpleasant procedure - first, ovarian hyperstimulation, and then the insertion of a needle into their ovaries to procure the wanted oocytes - with no medical benefit to themselves." This type of exploitation and coverup

would never happen in America, researchers assure us. But as time goes on ... some will call the ethical limits into question: Why not pay women for their eggs? Why not induce poor women to profit by risking their health? Of course, no responsible doctor coudl advise his patient to undergo such a procedure. But perhaps we will simply "update" basic medical ethics as well, and decide that the "good of mankind" trumps the good of individual patients.

George and Cohen do not like the slippery slope of "progress" for the "good of mankind":

We have seen where this amoral logic leads us -- to shameful abuses of research subjects, which surely no one wants to repeat. But we have also seen, in the stem cell debate, how moral lines erode quickly -- from using only "spare" embryos left over in fertility clinics to creating human embryos solely for research to creating (or trying to create) cloned embryos solely for research. What will be next? Probably proposals for "fetal farming" -- the gestation of human embryos to later developmental stages, when potentially more useful stabilized stem cells can be obtained and organ primordia can be "harvested."

George and Cohen then argue that two pieces of legislation currently in the Senate would help protect the dignity of human life by prohibiting fetal farming and "one that would fund alternative methods of producing genetically controlled, pluripotent stem cells -- just the kind of stem cells we would get from cloning, but without the embryo destruction."

George and Cohen draw two final points: one about the cloning scandal and the other about the future of cloning research.

In the end, the lesson of the cloning scandal is not simply that specific research guidelines were violated; it is that human cloning, even for research, is so morally problematic that its practitioners will always be covering their tracks, especially as they try to meet the false expectations of miraculous progress that they have helped create.... But because cloning is so morally problematic, we need to find another way forward.

Instead of engaging in fraud and coverup, or conducting experiments that violate the moral principles of many citizens, we should look to scientific creativity for an answer. Since the cloning fraud, many scientists -- such as Markus Grompe at Oregon Health & Science University and Rudolf Jaenisch at MIT -- have been doing just that. And others, such as Kevin Eggan at Harvard, may have found a technique, called "cell fusion," that would create new, versatile, genetically controlled stem cell lines by fusing existing stem cells and ordinary DNA. Scientists in Japan just announced that they may have found a way to do this without even needing an existing stem cell line.

In other words: all the benefits of research cloning without the ethical problems. Looking ahead, it is becoming increasingly likely that reprogramming adult cells to pluripotency, rather than destroying human embryos, will be the future of regenerative medicine. It offers both a more efficient and far more ethical way forward.

This article provides some good reflections about the state of stem cell research and and the lessons that should be learned from the cloning scandals. Ultimately, the only true advances in science are those based upon the dignity of man and the respect for human life. Without these two fundamental truths, progress will be nothing more than the destruction of the weak and innocent in the name of the advancement of the "good of mankind." Science and medicine has seemed too eager to abuse those who are weak or disabled for the good of all, but we should take time to respect and defend those who are innocent and weak and give them the proper dignity that is due to them as human persons.

Biological Basis for Same-Sex Attraction? - UPDATED

2006-06-27T08:48:00.000-04:00

There are several stories you can find reporting on a study done by Anthony Bogaert, who is a Psychology Professor at Brock University in St. Catharines, Canada about one possible biological basis for same-sex attraction in men. Such headlines appear as "Men with older brothers more likely to be gay" or "Womb environment makes men gay." No doubt these headlines are deceiving. I have yet to find the study itself so I can not comment on the study but I will comment on a few things found in the articles about the study. The gist of the study is this: "Having several older brothers increases the likelihood of a man being gay...." Bogaert says, "It's likely to be a prenatal effect" which "suggests" a biological basis for same-sex attraction in men (emphasis added). Notice that it is a suggestion - not proven.

It should come as no shock to those who read on the issue of same-sex attraction to see studies trying to understand a biological basis for same-sex attraction. It has been, for sometime now, thought that somehow in fetal development, a fetus could be pre-disposed toward same-sex attraction. One theory has tried to explain this pre-disposition via the lines of hormonal washing of the fetus in the uterus through the hormones coming from the mother. This hormonal washing leads to a certain exposure of too much estrogen or too little testosterone upon the fetus in which the brain development is geared differently than what should be. Underlying such theories is the understanding that the male and female brains are different. So, for a man with same-sex attraction, he may have a more "feminine" brain, and for a woman with same-sex attraction, she may have a more "masculine" brain. This biological pre-disposition is just that, something that creates the possibility for a man or woman to have same-sex tendencies.

Bogaert, in his study, suggests there is some sort of prenatal factor that is a "maternal immune response to succeeding male fetuses" similar to "the maternal immune response that can occur when a mother has Rh-negative blood but her fetus has Rh-positive blood. Without treatment, the mother can develop antibodies that may attack the fetus during future pregnancies." But he did not speculate about the exact nature of this maternal immune response. And his research applies only to men, not to women.

Having biological (as opposed to step- or adopted) older brothers does not necessarily mean a younger brother would have a same-sex attraction. "This needs to be looked at in context of the overall rate of same-sex attraction in men, which he suggested is about 3 percent. With several older brothers the rate may increase from 3 percent to 5 percent, he said, but that still means 95 percent of men with several older brothers are heterosexual." Did anybody notice the first shocking statement in this paragraph? The study author, Bogaert, believes that the rate of same-sex attraction in men is at about 3% - not the usual 10% reported in the media and propaganda for "gay" rights and issues. The second statement concerns the study in particular; that 95% to 97% of men with several older brothers are heterosexual.

One thing notably disturbing about the study is Bogaert's attempt to dismiss environmental influences on same-sex attraction. He dismisses environmental influences upon the basis that "men raised with several older step- or adopted brothers do not have an increased chance of being gay." To get at this assertion, Bogaert studied "944 heterosexual and homosexual men with either 'biological' brothers, in this case those who are the same mother, or 'non-biological' brothers, that is adopted, step or half siblings." "He found that the link between the number of older brothers and homosexuality only existed when the siblings shared the same mother." This part of the study assumes, wrong in my opinion, several important distinctions: That the upbringing for biological siblings would be the same and that these siblings are identical in personality and habit. The study seems to suggest that these men would not have unique characteristics and personalities. No child is the same and I don't see how one could rule out environmental factors solely on the basis of biological or non-biological siblings.

While this study explores same-sex attraction in men, where does this leave women and same-sex attraction? Would they have a separate biological basis for a same-sex attraction disposition? This theory leaves much to be desired, first because of its attempt at dismissing without hard evidence environmental influences, and two because it is ultimately a theory and not much of one with conclusive evidence. That is part of the difficulty with the study being done by a psychologist and its limitations in understanding the biological and chemical interactions.

If I come across the study and find something interesting or helpful in explaining things better, I will provide an updated post about my discoveries.

Update: In response to the comment from Diane regarding my thoughts on the subject as well as her questions, I have added below a section regarding the intrauterine influences on the brain development of fetuses.

The quotes you will see below are from Dr. Jeffrey Satinover's article "The Biological Truth about Homosexuality" which appears in Same-Sex Attraction: A Parent's Guide edited by John F. Harvey, OSFS and Gerard V. Bradley.

First, in his article, Dr. Satinover alludes to the possibility that there is some genetic variable in which a person may be more likely to have same-sex attraction. "Whatever genetic contribution to homosexuality exists, it probably contributes not to homosexuality per se but rather to some other trait that makes the homosexual option more readily available than to those who lack this genetic trait." No study has shown with definitive evidence that there is a genetic cause of same-sex attraction.

Second, Dr. Satinover discusses intrauterine influences upon brain development of fetuses.

The hormonal enviornment in which a baby develops is a balance of androgenic (male) and estrogenic (female) hormones. A genetically male baby signals the mother to generate a more heavily androgenic environment than does a female baby. The particular hormonal balance then determines whether the baby will develop typically male or typically female genitalia, bodily characteristics, and brain structures. Because the maternal hormonal response varies, the masculinizing or feminizing influences are different for each developing baby.

And while our reproductive organs divide us as male or female, in regards to traits and characteristics, men and women are a mix of male and female traits. There are cases of men who have feminine physical traits and women who have masculine physical traits. All of this is within the normal range of variance for men and women. This difference of the noticeable physical traits carries over to the unseen brain and its development. Here there is overlap as well. There are men who have behavioral characteristics typical of women and vice versa for women.

From time to time the chemical signals get crossed. The maternal hormonal milieu of, for example, a genetically male baby will then be very far to the feminine end of the spectrum. In these unfortunate cases, her genitalia, body type, brain, and behavior will develop physically as a normal-appearing female. She remains, however, genetically male and therefore infertile.... In rare cases, the milieu is ambiguous. Regardless of the baby's genetic structure, the baby will emerge a hermaphrodite - one with variable proportions of male and female features.... Clearly, then, an important determinant of at least certain behavioral predispositions is the hormonal environment. Thus, some proportion of what appears to be genetic in homosexual behavior may actually be a nongenetic intrauterine effect on the parts of the brain that influence sexual behavior. (emphasis added)

Much of this influence of hormones remains unexplained, probably because of the difficult nature of understanding the brain and its development. Dr. Satinover concludes his article discussing what he sees as the larger factor in the development of same-sex attraction, and that is environmental influences.

My opinion follows closely with what Fr. John Harvey, founder of Courage and co-editor of this book from which I am quoting, argues. There is not ONE single cause of same-sex attraction. It is more likely to be a complex series of causes stemming from biological and psychological development of the individual. I hope my update has provided more clarity regarding this issue. Feel free to submit questions or comments and I'll try to respond as best as I can.

The Promotion of Evil

2006-06-23T09:05:00.000-04:00

When I read stories like the one I just read on Lifesite.net, I am grateful that my wife and I will homeschool our children. I can not imagine what it would be like to send my children to schools that openly promote and glorify evil.

The article on LifeSite "CA Senate Committee Passes Bill to Defund Schools That Don’t Promote Transsexuality, Bisexuality, Homosexuality" discusses a bill in the California Assembly that would penalize public schools in California that do not "adequately promote transsexuality, bisexuality, or homosexuality in its school policies." In addition, the bill also "repeals the current state law prohibiting transsexual, bisexual, and homosexual curriculum from being forced upon local schools, and authorizes the state Superintendent to develop new curriculum that affirms transsexuality, bisexuality, and homosexuality in all its forms."

It seems that everything must be sexualized nowadays. Television, movies, literature, advertisements, education. The sexual revolution hardly has stopped. I do not know the likelihood of such a bill being signed into law in California but it should serve as a reminder and warning of the state of things that lie ahead. It should be noted that the important legal precendent here is the Lawrence v. Texas decision from the US Supreme Court. In his dissenting opinion, which is often quoted for its prescient predictions, Justice Scalia finds that the majority opinion of the Court in the Lawrence case embraced the view that even if "the governing majority in a State has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral" that fact "is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice." If the majority of a state or nation cannot prohibit something it finds as immoral, then what can it prohibit? Scalia rightly points out that "this [notion] effectively decrees the end of all morals legislation." Of course, the irony here is that while it decrees the end of "traditional" morals legislation, the decision paves the way for a different sort of morals legislation whereby people are coerced or forced to violate their own consciences. One need only scan the internet for such stories in which pharmacists are either forced to provide abortifacients or lose their jobs. Or the recent story of the transportation commissioner in Maryland being fired for his views on homosexuality.

Homosexual acts are legitimate and even protected acts under the US Constitution. Why stop here? Why not allow incest? or bestiality? or prostitution? The Court's majority opinion argued that there is "an emerging awareness that liberty gives substantial protection to adult persons in decision how to conduct their private lives in matters pertaining to sex." Why does this not extend to minors as well? Shouldn't they partake of this "emerging liberty"?

The legitimization of abherrant behavior has opened the door for its further normalization and glorification. Since it is no longer illegal or unacceptable, schools should now teach about it and instruct students so they are no longer hampered with homophobia and the like. Indeed, our society moves ever closer the fuller promotion of evil. How many souls will be lost to such filth?

The Rehabilitation of Patriarchy

2006-06-07T10:54:00.000-04:00

I do not pay attention to many television shows nor do I really see many movies, especially since the birth of my daughter Cecilia. But ever since I became a father, I have noticed more and more that it is hard to find a positive father figure in these media, not that I look for one to follow in the media. But it seems most men in these shows reflect a Homer Simpson-esque disposition and maybe Homer Simpson is the epitomy of modern "fatherhood." I mean, how many movies or television shows have you seen that show a postive father role for a man? These "fathers" seem inept, lazy, indulgent, selfish, etc ad nausem. No doubt this stereotype is perpetrated to get back at patriarchy and its misuse throughout the centuries.

Understood and lived out correctly, patriarchy need not be an ugly word. In our day and age, the concept of patriarchy needs rehabilitation. It seemed unthinkable sixty years ago for someone to say it is better for a child to live without a father. But that thought seemed acceptable and even commendable just twenty years ago. What seemed unthinkable at either of those times was that a child could live without a mother too! Yet with the perpetuation of homosexual "marriages," technological advances such as in vitro fertilization, and the adoption of children by homosexual couples, it seems children can do without a father or mother as long as they are "loved." The "best interest" of children has become a fluid concept. When will it become true when a company or an organization can adopt a child? Just think of the movie the Truman Show. We are not very far from the exploitation of children in this way.

Indeed it appears that our current situation of fatherhood and motherhood has been building over the years. Just think of all the changes in the family over this time. Not in any particular order but I find the following thoughts to stand out as representative of the culture waves during the past fifty years: 1) sex doesn't mean anything but pleasure; 2) women, as homemakers, you have no lives and you need to have a career to be successful and fulfilled; 3) if you don't want to be pregnant anymore or if you have enough children, have an abortion; 4) children are burdensome and expensive; 5) children don't need fathers or mothers! 6) patriarchy is evil.

Please don't think I am against adoption of children by a loving couple of a man and woman who are married together and seek to offer a home for those in need. But it would be adoption under those circumstances alone which merit recommendation.

It seems that our culture has presented a two-fold attack against what it means to be a man/husband/father and woman/wife/mother. All of this has great repercussions for family and societal life. I don't mean to represent the pre-1960s era as being wonderful and perfect. It had its share of problems but atleast certain elements were respected and even admired. Motherhood and Fatherhood had defined roles and expectations, for better or worse. Now these roles have become reversed, confused, and obliterated.

John Paul II took great effort to rehabilitate the concept of woman and elevate the dignity of women. You can see it from his first encyclical in Redemptor Hominis, in the Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris Consortio, in his Theology of the Body audiences, and in the Apostolic Letter Mulieris Dignitatem, just to name a few writings. You may ask why begin with motherhood. I believe it was for the simple and important reason that women are the bedrock of society, the great deposit and foundation of moral wisdom, and it is upon such firm and fertile ground that a new culture can begin. If women said no to abortion, no to contraception, no to promiscuous sex, no to adultery, no to pornography, no to immodest clothing, etc, then men have to take notice and shape up or face a lonely bachelor existence of sin and worthless hardships. Women, together, united for the cause of holiness and the good can rectify many things through God's graces. The fruit of all this labor of John Paul II slowly has worked its way and the full effects will not be felt for sometime. But you can begin to see fruits of it in the many women who find joy and love in their motherhood and family and in the women who find a love in the religious life.

Now, I think it is time that the Church begin to rehabilitate man/husband/father because it is now needed more than ever. For those of you intrigued about this topic, I suggest you pick up the book Calling God "Father": Essays on the Bible, Fatherhood & Culture by John W. Miller. It speaks of the crisis of fatherhood in the breakdown of the family and society. He urges a recovery of the understanding of God as Father in order to rehabilitate an authentic patriarchy. With an authentic patriarchy, more men will come to understand their roles as fathers, after the mold of God the Father. Our culture desperately needs strong and loving men in the homes and in the parishes because has Pope Paul VI noted, in an address to members of Consilium de Laicis in 1974, "contemporary man listens more willingly to witnesses than to teachers, and if he listens to teachers, it is because they are witnesses."

Look Up to Heaven

2006-06-01T09:34:00.000-04:00

Pope Benedict XVI, in his homily on Sunday in Krakow, gives a beautiful reflection on the Ascension of Our Lord. "Why do you stand looking up to heaven?" is a question directed to all of us. "The answer to this question involves the fundamental truth about the life and destiny of every man and woman." Pope Benedict then points to two directions for understanding man's existence. First, it involves where we are. We are on the earth and we are standing. But why?

Our answer is that we are here on earth because our Maker has put us here as the crowning work of his creation. Almighty God, in his ineffable plan of love, created the universe, bringing it forth from nothing. Then, at the completion of this work, he bestowed life on men and women, creating them in his own image and likeness (cf. Gen 1:26-27). He gave them the dignity of being children of God and the gift of immortality. We know that man went astray, misused the gift of freedom and said “No” to God, thus condemning himself to a life marked by evil, sin, suffering and death. But we also know that God was not resigned to this situation, but entered directly into humanity’s history, which then became a history of salvation. “We stand” on the earth, we are rooted in the earth and we grow from it. Here we do good in the many areas of everyday life, in the material and spiritual realms, in our relationships with other people, in our efforts to build up the human community and in culture. Here too we experience the weariness of those who make their way towards a goal by long and winding paths, amid hesitations, tensions, uncertainties, in the conviction that the journey will one day come to an end.

God did not abandon us in our sinfulness but came into our history most intimately through the Incarnate Word, Jesus the Son of God. Human history became transformed into salvation history. Thus the end of man does not find fulfillment in or on the earth but rather beyond this earth.

“Why do you stand looking up to heaven?” We have read that, just as the Apostles were asking the Risen Lord about the restoration of Israel’s earthly kingdom, “He was lifted up and a cloud took him out of their sight.” And “they looked up to heaven as he went” (cf. Acts 1:9-10). They looked up to heaven because they looked to Jesus Christ, the Crucified and Risen One, raised up on high. We do not know whether at that precise moment they realized that a magnificent, infinite horizon was opening up before their eyes: the ultimate goal of our earthly pilgrimage. Perhaps they only realized this at Pentecost, in the light of the Holy Spirit. But for us, at a distance of two thousand years, the meaning of that event is quite clear. Here on earth, we are called to look up to heaven, to turn our minds and hearts to the inexpressible mystery of God. We are called to look towards this divine reality, to which we have been directed from our creation. For there we find life’s ultimate meaning.

As we approach the Solemnity of Pentecost, may we keep our eyes lifted toward heaven through all the difficulties and challenges we face, and may we find the peace and joy in our ultimate destiny which lies in God himself.

Will Holy Days of Obligation Disappear?

2006-05-25T08:28:00.000-04:00

I wish we had more Holy Days of Obligation. I honestly can say that I miss Ascension Thursday. Catholicism in the United States has become all too complacent regarding Holy Days of Obligation. And hasn't it become confusing as well? Who can remember really when certain Holy Days are not Holy Days because they fall on certain days of the week? I have to go review the rules when I need to understand for what is considered a Holy Day of Obligation. For those who do not understand, the US Conference of Bishops received approval to abrogate the precept to attend Mass on certainly Holy Days if these solemnities fall on Monday or Saturday: these solemnities are Mary, Mother of God, January 1; the Assumption, August 15; and All Saints Day, November 1. You can review the relevant section of Canon Law regarding this issue here.

It seems that in order to accomodate more people attending certain solemnities, the US bishops thought it was wise to move these days to Sunday so more people could observe these Holy Days. It also seems that we are moving in the direction that more and more of these solemnities will end up on Sundays or with new rules to dispense the obligation of attending. Sunday, the Lord's Day, unfortunately has become the only "holy" day that most Catholics will attend the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. I use "holy" in quotation marks in the previous sentence because I am not sure Sunday is an obvious Holy Day anymore either.

I want to offer a truly strong observation: Day after day Our Lord is neglected and abandoned by people who do not go to daily Mass. You may interject that daily Mass is not a requirement. But by bringing such an objection, you miss the point and show your bias by seeing your faith in the terms of obligations and law. The Holy Faith that we have received from Holy Mother Church is not one to be bound by rules and obligations. Sure, the laws and obligations are important, but they merely serve as a signt posts in the road of faith to help guide us. If you see yourself in this manner, saying I have to go to Church on Sunday because it is one of the Ten Commandments, then the faith which you practice is not a developed one. It is a child's view of the world. A more mature faith would attend to the Lord everyday possible. It should be our desire to go to Mass on Sunday and everyday because we come to participate in the Lord's sacrifice and receive Our Lord in His Most Precious Body and Blood. Should we not seek to adore Our Lord each and every day through this most supreme act of prayer with the WHOLE Church? Making such an effort is a sacrifice. You may have to get up early in the morning. You may have to go after work or during a lunch break to participate in Mass. But is not Our Lord worth it? I mean, we can find time to watch TV or read news or spend time on the internet but it seems Our Lord is a concern for Sunday alone or when we "really" need Him. If we practiced our faith with the devotion that we spend in other areas of our lives, then I think we would have a rich and life-giving faith.

I want to offer a few quotes I found in an old Adoremus Bulletin online. For those who do not know, Adoremus - Society for the Renewal of the Sacred Liturgy, is "an association of Catholics ... to promote authentic reform of the Liturgy of the Roman Rite." You can find their website here. Adoremus Bulletin is their journal which covers the liturgical scene. In the online edition of Vol. IV, No. 8, December 1998/January 1999, the writers of Adoremus summarize the US bishops discussion concerning the transfer of Ascension to Sunday. I want to offer several quotes from bishops who spoke concerning this change. You can read the whole article here which has many more statements from various bishop. Bishop Alfred Hughes (now of New Orleans, but then of Baton Rouge), opposing the transfer said:

...[m]y continuing concern is accommodation to our culture, and the backing away from sacrifice, and the loss of a sense of transcendence. And these are issues that are recurring, and every time we take a step in the direction that's being proposed, it seems to me that we yield a little bit more about our identity in the culture that we want to transform as well as find ourselves incultured into.

I'm aware that the decisions that we've already made about holy days have introduced a lot of confusion in our faithful, and it seems to me that the uneven implementation of this is going to introduce further confusion. So I would rise to speak against this particular proposal.

Bishop Raymond Burke (now of St. Louis, but then of La Crosse) opposed the move as well:

First of all, from a theological and liturgical point of view the Ascension is central to the celebration of the Paschal Mystery, the most sacred time of year in our whole liturgical year. And its placement within the forty days after Easter and ten days before the coming of the Holy Spirit is a key to the whole observance of this time: Our Lord, at His Ascension, instructing His disciples to pray for the new outpouring of the Holy Spirit, and then the observance of that first novena of prayer before the coming of the Spirit.

Practically, this transfer is not dictated by hardship or necessity. It has never been easier for our people to assist at Mass on Sunday or the holy days. [W]e are making the transfer in order to make it more convenient for people to observe the solemnity at the price of losing the sense of sacred time, and the sacrifice which we need to make in order to observe sacred times.

Practically, too, the possibility of the transfer will generate more confusion about the importance of this solemnity, as well as the other holy days of obligation, and with regard to the obligation to participate in the Eucharist on Sunday and on the holy days. With the mobility of our society and the ease of communications, this confusion is inevitable....

These questions and concerns found in these two statements continue to linger in my mind. Have we become too accomodating? Have we lost a sense of sacrifice? Have we lost a sense of transcendence? Have we confused the meaning of Holy Days of Obligations in general? I will leave these questions for you to ponder but you already should have an idea of where I sense we are heading.

Should not our hearts be burning within us in order that we may share the joy of the resurrected Lord and the faith which shapes and gives meaning to our lives? (see Luke 24:32-34)

Authentic Moral Action

2006-05-17T14:31:00.000-04:00

I had been awaiting a complete English translation of this address for sometime now. It is Pope Benedict's address to the members of the Pontifical Biblical Commission which met in Rome in late April 2006. You can find the address here. The address touches on one of the themes to which I have made plenty of my time studying: human action. In this address, Pope Benedict offers a beautiful reflection on the model for "authentic moral action" - Jesus Christ:

He makes his will coincide with the will of God the Father in the acceptance and carrying out of his mission: his food is to do the Father's will (cf. Jn 4: 34). He always does the things that are pleasing to the Father, putting his words into practice (cf. Jn 8: 29-55); he says the things that the Father asked him to say and to proclaim (cf. Jn 12: 49).

In revealing the Father and his way of acting, Jesus at the same time reveals the norms of upright human action. He affirms this connection in an explicit and exemplary way when, in concluding his teaching on loving one's enemies (cf. Mt 5: 43-47), he says: "You, therefore, must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect" (Mt 5: 48).

This divine, divine-human, perfection becomes possible for us if we are closely united with Christ, our Savior.

This perfection is possible in this life. It is not some unattainable ideal as some people want us to believe. We just have to unite ourselves closely with Christ because it is "the incarnate Logos who enables us to share in his divine life and sustains us with his grace on the journey towards our true fulfillment."

Christ, as the Word made flesh, lived out this very life to which God calls us to live. Indeed, Jesus does not simply ask us to follow him, but also through Baptism, Christ "allows us to participate in his own life, thereby enabling us to understanding his teaching and to put into practice." As followers of Christ, initiated into the divine life of God himself, we are invited "to enter into communion of life with him and to accept in faith and joy his 'easy' yoke and his 'light' burden (cf. Mt 11:28-30)." We are not alone in living out our Christian lives but rather we participating in the very life of Christ himself. So our task is to grow ever deeper in union with Christ.

And by uniting ourselves ever more closely to Christ, we can see "what man really is" because Christ, the Word made flesh, illuminates for us who man definitively is.

Consequently, the relationship with Christ defines the loftiest realization of man's moral action. This human action is directly based on obedience to God's law, on union with Christ and on the indwelling of the Spirit in the believer's soul. It is not an action dictated by merely exterior norms, but stems from the vital relationship that connects believers to Christ and to God.

So authentic moral action has two major components. First, the action must be in obedience to God's law. We must never act in disobedience to God's law. But the external obedience to God's law is not enough. Second, the action must be based upon our union with Christ and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. So it is with grace and the participation in the life of Christ, and our openness to God's will that we find ourselves as authentic moral actors, living a life towards our true and fulfilling destiny in the fullness of God himself.

AIDS Prevention Strategies

2006-05-17T08:35:00.000-04:00

For those not familiar with the website TheFactIs.Org, I highly recommend it for some great articles on social issues. An article posted on Monday, entitled "AIDS at 25: The Current Strategy Has Failed" by Dale O'Leary contains some powerful insights into the current strategies for dealing with AIDS. O'Leary argues that the current strategy of prevention for combating AIDS has failed because, regardless of the amount of millions of dollars put into education and condoms, "the number of persons living with AIDS has increased dramatically...." O'Leary points out that it is rather easy to avoid HIV infection:

A person who is chaste before marriage, faithful in marriage and married to someone who is also faithful, who receives high quality medical care, and who doesn't inject illegal drugs as virtually zero chance of becoming HIV positive. (emphasis added)

Chastity before and during marriage provides a solid method for the prevention of HIV infection. "If prevention is so easy," O'Leary asks, "why is the epidemic continuing unabated?" The following response to the question shows the unfortunate political nature of the public strategy for dealing with the prevention of HIV infection. O' Leary writes:

Because a coalition of AIDS patients and activists set up an AIDS establishment which vetoed every tested public health strategy for controlling a sexually transmitted disease. Don't tell people not to engage in promiscuity, prostitution, and injected drug use, they insisted, just tell them to be responsible and use safe sex. This hasn't worked because people who engage in "multi-partnering," employ "sex workers," and have "substance abuse" problems are by definition not responsible. The research shows there is a clear connection between irresponsible sexual behaviors and alcohol and drug abuse. Twenty-five years of experience has proven that no matter how much safe sex education the irresponsible receive they will not use a condom every time. And therefore the epidemic will continue. (emphasis added)

The strategy of the prevention of spreading AIDS through the propagation of safe-sex education has failed. People who engage in risky sexual or drug use behavior cannot be considered to ever be responsible. Isn't it ironic that these teachers of safe-sex are preaching to deaf ears? How we help people take on responsibility, that is something I am not prepared to argue at this point.

So what should we do to prevent the spreading of AIDS? First, O'Leary says that we have to get away from the AIDS establishment controlling the public policy in this area. Second O'Leary suggests that we have to implement, what I view as a pretty aggressive strategy for targeting the spread of AIDS. O'Leary suggests the following methods which "were suggested and rejected at the beginning of the epidemic":

1) mandatory testing of at risk populations, people seeking health care, those applying for health insurance or Medicaid, everyone under arrest, and pregnant women; 2) contact tracing and partner notification; 3) cracking down on the statutory rape of young women and sexual child abuse; 4) making knowingly infecting another person a crime; 5) abstinence education.

I am not sure if I agree with all of these suggestions. I have not given it much thought to be honest about how best to combat the spreading of AIDS. Would aggresive forms of testing to the groups mentioned above really make a difference in the prevention of AIDS? Surely it will make some of them more aware and help some stop the spreading of AIDS. I am not sure it will change people's behavior in the long run because as O'Leary notes the AIDS establishment has aggrestively sought to protect and promote sexual liberation over the goal of preventing new infections. As long as sexual liberation and sexual pleasure are the foci of people, no amount of aggresive testing will change things because it comes down to the responsibility issue. How do we imbue sexual behavior with a sense of responsibility. For Catholics, it is pretty easy. You turn to the Church and its' guidance which points to marriage as the ONLY and PROPER place for sexual activity. But for those who do not hold such a view, how do we provide those people with a framework in which to understand chastity outside of marriage and chastity within marriage? I do not have any answers here either.

Regardless of the many questions that exist on such an issue, it is important to see an examination of AIDS prevention strategies and where improvement can be made, and O'Leary certainly is to be commended for taking on the current "safe sex" prevention strategy and showing what a sham it really is.

Marriage and the Family

2006-05-14T19:07:00.000-04:00

In a speech given to the John Paul II Institute conference entitled "The Legacy of John Paul II on Marriage and the Family: to Love Human Love," Pope Benedict draws upon the vast source of teaching from John Paul II and illuminates, in very short form, several appropriate points. By the way, you can find the whole address here.

Pope Benedict alludes to Karol Wojtyla's (John Paul II) early days as a priest and bishop and the idea to "teach to love" which guided him through the difficult times after the publication of Paul VI's encyclical Humanae vitae, which, not coincidentally, Pope Benedict calls "prophetic and always timely (profetica e sempre attuale)."

This idea to "teach to love" undergirded John Paul II's "Catechisis on Human Love," found in the Wednesday audiences that spaned several years. Found in these catecheses are two fundamental elements (one of which I will discuss) to which, Pope Benedict notes, the John Paul II institute has reflected and developed over the past twenty-five years:

The first element is that marriage and the family are rooted in the innermost core of the truth about man and his destiny. Sacred Scripture reveals that the vocation to love is part of that authentic image of God that the Creator willed to imprint in his creature, calling man to become similar to him precisely in the measure in which man is open to love. The sexual difference entailed in the body of man and woman is not, therefore, a simple biological fact, but bears a much more profound meaning: It expresses that way of love with which man and woman become only one flesh; they can realize an authentic communion of persons open to the transmission of life and cooperate in this way with God in the procreation of new human beings.

One could spend a lifetime writing and developing those ideas contained in the first two sentences of that paragraph. Pope Benedict first calls attention to marriage and family being founded upon the truth about the human person and his calling towards God. The Church's teaching on marriage and family are not founded upon a false notion of patriarchy or out-dated idea concerning how to live but rather about the very nature and truth concerning who we are and how best to find happiness in this life and the next. Pope Benedict indictates the core of this understanding is from Sacred Scripture in light of man's call to love as being an "authentic image of God." And through love, we can become more and more closely united to God himself. Secondly and seemingly almost out of place, Pope Benedict refers to the sexual difference of man and woman not as simply biological but as expressive of the way of love between man and woman as "one flesh." The allusion to sexual difference is important because one of the insights drawn from the Theology of the Body is the complementarity that exists between man and woman because they are meant for each other. Contained in this "one flesh" of man and woman is the sacred reflection of Christ's relationship to his Church. This sacred reflection of Christ and the Church should help us gain insights into the importance of the total giving of self needed within the "one flesh" unity of man and woman in marriage. Because in this total giving of self in the conjugal act, man and woman are an "authentic communion of persons" which is open to new life and to the cooperation of God in procreation.

More could be said about this one paragraph but I will end my reflections for now. I may return again to this speech because it contains many such gems.

The Continual Pushing of Abortion

2006-05-10T08:32:00.000-04:00

The following headline caught my attention this morning: "OB-GYNs urge women to get morning-after pill in advance. Unwanted pregnancies targeted, but confusion reigns." You can find the article here (registration may be required to access it).

"The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists kicked off a campaign this week to prevent unwanted pregnancies by encouraging women to get prescriptions for emergency contraception. But physicans face considerable challenges in getting women to keep the morning-after pill in the medicine cabinet. Some women have never heard of it; others confuse it with the abortion pill. And some fear that keeping it on hand would make them seem promiscuous. Others worry that, if too readily available, it could be used as routine contraception. Last year, officials with the Food and Drug Administration - despite recommendations from agency scientists - postponed a decision to make the drug available over the counter, citing concerns that it might encourage teen sex.... The morning-after pill, trade name 'Plan B,' is a high dosage of the hormones in regular birth control pills. If administered within 72 hours of intercourse, it can stop the release of the egg, prevent fertilization or prevent implantation of the egg in the womb. It has no effect if a woman is already pregnant."

First, I want to clear up a major misconception contained already in the article. The Plan B pill is not just contraceptive, but rather it is also an abortifacient. Plan B works in three possible ways: 1) it inhibits ovulation, or 2) it delays ovulation, or 3) it prohibits the implantation of a fertilized egg in the uterine wall. The first two ways are contraceptive methods, but the third way is an abortive method, a chemical abortion. No matter how much these doctors attempt to couch the language of the usage of the pill as a contraceptive or an interceptor of fertilization, Plan B can and does act in as an abortifacient under the right circumstances. The egg prevented from implantation is not just an egg, but a fertilized egg. The fertilized egg is not the same egg it was before fertilization because of the combination of the sperm and egg now have formed something new. It is sad that this group of doctors is trying to misinform women concerning the full effects of this drug on their bodies and the new life that could be killed.

Apparently, this group of OB-GYNs is starting an educational campaign called "Ask me" which is "the response of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists to the FDA's refusal to make the drug available over the counter." One doctor is quoted as saying that the campaign is aimed at "anybody who may need emergency contraception, which is everybody that does not want to become pregnant for whatever reason." This educational campaign includes "'Ask me' buttons for physicians to wear to encourage patients to inquire about the drug, and posters that read 'Accidents Happen. Morning afters can be tough.'"

It sickens me to think that that these doctor are pushing this drug; how about those posters, "accidents happen"? Was the accident that I forgot to get my partner to use a condom? or I forgot to take my birth control pills? or the condom broke? Or getting pregnant is an accident? I didn't think sexual intercourse was a mystery to people who engage in it. I mean, doesn't everybody past the age of 12 know the consequences of what happens when a man and woman have sexual intercourse? A group of doctors who are spend their medical profession taking care of women (and who deliver babies!!) want to push women to take Plan B. These doctors are suppose to care for these women, and this is the care given. I think the poster contains a great irony: "Morning afters can be tough"! Possible side effects of Plan B (courtesy of the American Life League site - see below for more details):

nausea

vomiting

infertility

breast tenderness

ectopic pregnancy (can be life threatening)

blood clot formation

And, let us not forget that emergency contraception offers absolutely NO protection against sexually transmitted diseases. Who knew that the morning after pill could be that tough? What reasonable person would subject themselves to such possible side-effects? Of course, desperate women who find themselves in the situation of possibly being pregnant would subject themselves to Plan B.

The medical profession seems incapable of pushing responsibility (think abstinence here, it's safe, easy, free, and the best contraceptive available, with no harmful side-effects); instead, medicine has become a commercialized industry of solving people's "medical problems" (problems that were never considered to be medical in the proper sense) and fulfilling the desires of people to do what they want, when they want, and how they want it. Our culture has fallen so far from God in these areas. Our culture has submitted itself to the control of man through technology and its advances. At times, I am afraid of where things will go, especially in regards to the relation of law and medicine. Who knows how soon it will be when the government starts meddling even deeper into these areas of medicine?

For further reading regarding this topic, please check the following links:

the Morning After Pill by the American Life League
Comments on FDA Proposal to Change EC from Prescription to Over-the Counter by the USCCB Office of the General Counsel
Statement on the So-Called Morning-After Pill by the Pontifical Academy for Life

One wonders what St. Dominic and St. Thomas think of teaching like this....

2006-05-03T16:20:00.000-04:00

Below, I have excerpted a passage from a prepared talk given by the former master general of the Dominican Order, Fr. Timothy Radcliffe at the L.A. Religious Education Congress. You can find the whole text here.

First, a preface to clarify a few terms he uses (these quotes are from his address): 1) "By Communion Catholics I mean those who came, after the council, to feel the urgent need to rebuild the inner life of the church. They went with theologians like Hans von Balthasar and the then Joseph Ratzinger. Their theology often stressed Catholic identity, was wary of too hearty an embrace of modernity, and they stressed the cross. They had their publication. It was called Communio;" 2) "By Kingdom Catholics, I mean those of us who have a deep sense of the church as the pilgrim people of God, on the way to the kingdom. The theologians who have been central for this tradition have been people like the Jesuit Karl Rahner, and the Dominicans Edward Schillebeeckx and Gustavo Gutiérrez. This tradition stresses openness to the world, finding the presence of the Holy Spirit working outside the church, freedom and the pursuit of justice. They became very much identified with a publication called Concilium."

On the topic of sexual ethics, Radcliffe writes, "The church faces something of a crisis in sexual ethics. We propose a beautiful ideal, of sexual intercourse within the context of a lifelong commitment to a person of the other sex, open to the reproduction of children. And yet this ideal is hardly understood, let alone practiced, by most people within our society. A large percentage of people are either divorced and remarried, or living with partners, or practicing contraception or in same-sex relationships. The percentages, at least in Britain, are not much different for Catholics. So there is a chasm between the church’s teaching about sexual behavior and what Catholics live."

You got that? The Church's teaching is an ideal. And many people ignore the Church's teaching anyway. So, shouldn't the Church's teaching be discarded since nobody is following it? Certainly a very good "Dominican" argument. St. Thomas would be proud.

Radcliffe continues, "One reaction to this, often that of Communion Catholics, is to insist on the teaching. This has been the teaching of the church through the centuries, and it would be dishonest to surrender it or to compromise with a corrupt society. If our teaching is true, then we must stand by it, even if it offends people. Many Kingdom Catholics will feel unhappy about this. Millions of decent Catholics will find themselves pushed to the edge of the community because they are in what are called 'irregular situations.' This may be by chance, or weakness or a genuine disagreement with the church’s teaching. It is for people like this that Christ came, and how can we act in any way that makes them feel less than fully welcome?"

When has the Church ever insisted that the teaching should be maintained because it is the teaching of the Church. I have never heard of such a circular argument ever given by the Church. But if the Church insists on its' teachings, then people who do not follow the Church's teaching are marginalized. Did not Christ come for them? Not to repeat things I have already posted, but let us turn back to what John Paul II says concerning the idealized Church teaching and the marginalization of Churchgoers. "Only in the mystery of Christ's Redemption do we discover the "concrete" possibilities of man. 'It would be a very serious error to conclude... that the Church's teaching is essentially only an "ideal" which must then be adapted, proportioned, graduated to the so-called concrete possibilities of man, according to a "balancing of the goods in question". But what are the "concrete possibilities of man"? And of which man are we speaking? Of man dominated by lust or of man redeemed by Christ? This is what is at stake: the reality of Christ's redemption. Christ has redeemed us! This means that he has given us the possibility of realizing the entire truth of our being; he has set our freedom free from the domination of concupiscence. And if redeemed man still sins, this is not due to an imperfection of Christ's redemptive act, but to man's will not to avail himself of the grace which flows from that act. God's command is of course proportioned to man's capabilities; but to the capabilities of the man to whom the Holy Spirit has been given; of the man who, though he has fallen into sin, can always obtain pardon and enjoy the presence of the Holy Spirit.'" John Paul II notes that Christ has freed us from the domination of concupiscence and has given us what we need to be able to realize the "truth" of our being. So we have a choice. We can either be dominated by lust - which seems to be Radcliffe's scenario or we can be redeemed by Christ, which would be the Church's teaching. Which do you prefer? A slave to sin? or freedom in Christ?

Finally, Radcliffe says, "This is a real dilemma. Often what happens is that the church’s official teaching is proclaimed, but we look the other way and let it be known that everyone is welcome. We call this “the pastoral solution,” but it can look simply dishonest. Should we firmly proclaim the traditional sexual ethics and risk distancing people from Christ? Or should we be more accommodating, with the risk of just surrendering a moral vision?"

You follow Radcliffe? It is the Church and its outdated teaching which keeps people from Christ instead of sin! Radcliffe says we should make accomodations and do away with the idealized moral vision of the Church's teaching. Who needs it! So ultimately, the Church should remove the notion of sin, it would seem, and more people would embrace Christ and the Church???? Why bother with Christ then if we are free to do what we want? Once you have removed the evil that man can perpetuate through his own freedom and actions, then you remove why Christ came in the first place. The power of the Cross has been emptied.

Radcliffe says more one more jewel to adorn crown of accomodation, but my blood pressure needs to calm down. I will end on a far positive note. It is the concluding paragraph section of Veritatis Splendor:

"In the heart of every Christian, in the inmost depths of each person, there is always an echo of the question which the young man in the Gospel once asked Jesus: "Teacher, what good must I do to have eternal life?" (Mt 19:16). Everyone, however, needs to address this question to the "Good Teacher", since he is the only one who can answer in the fullness of truth, in all situations, in the most varied of circumstances. And when Christians ask him the question which rises from their conscience, the Lord replies in the words of the New Covenant which have been entrusted to his Church. As the Apostle Paul said of himself, we have been sent "to preach the Gospel, and not with eloquent wisdom, lest the Cross of Christ be emptied of its power" (1 Cor 1:17). The Church's answer to man's question contains the wisdom and power of Christ Crucified, the Truth which gives of itself.

When people ask the Church the questions raised by their consciences, when the faithful in the Church turn to their Bishops and Pastors, the Church's reply contains the voice of Jesus Christ, the voice of the truth about good and evil. In the words spoken by the Church there resounds, in people's inmost being, the voice of God who "alone is good" (cf. Mt 19:17), who alone "is love" (1 Jn 4:8, 16).

"Through the anointing of the Spirit this gentle but challenging word becomes light and life for man. Again the Apostle Paul invites us to have confidence, because "our competence is from God, who has made us competent to be ministers of a new covenant, not in a written code but in the Spirit... The Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. And all of us, with unveiled faces, reflecting the glory of the Lord, are being changed into his likeness from one degree of glory to another; for this comes from the Lord, the Spirit" (2 Cor 3:5-6, 17-18)."

More Responses to Choosing the Lesser Evil

2006-05-01T11:09:00.000-04:00

Just this morning, I came across again these powerful passages in John Paul II's Veritatis Splendor, paragraph #102-105 regarding the difficult situations in morality and our need to choose the truth with the help of God's grace, and that no commandment is too burdensome with God's help. I have added emphasis to certain passages, which make the points that need to be made in such arguments against the choosing of lesser evil. Since I am in the middle of doing some work, I won't offer more reflections of my own at this point; maybe later. I encourage you to read these sections if you haven't, and if you have read Veritatis Splendor, please take a moment to re-read these sections. You can find the whole encyclical here.

---------------------------------

102. Even in the most difficult situations man must respect the norm of morality so that he can be obedient to God's holy commandment and consistent with his own dignity as a person. Certainly, maintaining a harmony between freedom and truth occasionally demands uncommon sacrifices, and must be won at a high price: it can even involve martyrdom. But, as universal and daily experience demonstrates, man is tempted to break that harmony: "I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate... I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want" (Rom 7:15, 19).

What is the ultimate source of this inner division of man? His history of sin begins when he no longer acknowledges the Lord as his Creator and himself wishes to be the one who determines, with complete independence, what is good and what is evil. "You will be like God, knowing good and evil" (Gen 3:5): this was the first temptation, and it is echoed in all the other temptations to which man is more easily inclined to yield as a result of the original Fall.

But temptations can be overcome, sins can be avoided, because together with the commandments the Lord gives us the possibility of keeping them: "His eyes are on those who fear him, and he knows every deed of man. He has not commanded any one to be ungodly, and he has not given any one permission to sin" (Sir 15:19-20). Keeping God's law in particular situations can be difficult, extremely difficult, but it is never impossible. This is the constant teaching of the Church's tradition, and was expressed by the Council of Trent: "But no one, however much justified, ought to consider himself exempt from the observance of the commandments, nor should he employ that rash statement, forbidden by the Fathers under anathema, that the commandments of God are impossible of observance by one who is justified. For God does not command the impossible, but in commanding he admonishes you to do what you can and to pray for what you cannot, and he gives his aid to enable you. His commandments are not burdensome (cf. 1 Jn 5:3); his yoke is easy and his burden light (cf. Mt 11:30)."

103. Man always has before him the spiritual horizon of hope, thanks to the help of divine grace and with the cooperation of human freedom.

It is in the saving Cross of Jesus, in the gift of the Holy Spirit, in the Sacraments which flow forth from the pierced side of the Redeemer (cf. Jn 19:34), that believers find the grace and the strength always to keep God's holy law, even amid the gravest of hardships. As Saint Andrew of Crete observes, the law itself "was enlivened by grace and made to serve it in a harmonious and fruitful combination. Each element preserved its characteristics without change or confusion. In a divine manner, he turned what could be burdensome and tyrannical into what is easy to bear and a source of freedom".

Only in the mystery of Christ's Redemption do we discover the "concrete" possibilities of man. "It would be a very serious error to conclude... that the Church's teaching is essentially only an "ideal" which must then be adapted, proportioned, graduated to the so-called concrete possibilities of man, according to a "balancing of the goods in question". But what are the "concrete possibilities of man" ? And of which man are we speaking? Of man dominated by lust or of man redeemed by Christ? This is what is at stake: the reality of Christ's redemption. Christ has redeemed us! This means that he has given us the possibility of realizing the entire truth of our being; he has set our freedom free from the domination of concupiscence. And if redeemed man still sins, this is not due to an imperfection of Christ's redemptive act, but to man's will not to avail himself of the grace which flows from that act. God's command is of course proportioned to man's capabilities; but to the capabilities of the man to whom the Holy Spirit has been given; of the man who, though he has fallen into sin, can always obtain pardon and enjoy the presence of the Holy Spirit".

104. In this context, appropriate allowance is made both for God's mercy towards the sinner who converts and for the understanding of human weakness. Such understanding never means compromising and falsifying the standard of good and evil in order to adapt it to particular circumstances. It is quite human for the sinner to acknowledge his weakness and to ask mercy for his failings; what is unacceptable is the attitude of one who makes his own weakness the criterion of the truth about the good, so that he can feel self-justified, without even the need to have recourse to God and his mercy. An attitude of this sort corrupts the morality of society as a whole, since it encourages doubt about the objectivity of the moral law in general and a rejection of the absoluteness of moral prohibitions regarding specific human acts, and it ends up by confusing all judgments about values.

Instead, we should take to heart the message of the Gospel parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector (cf. Lk 18:9-14). The tax collector might possibly have had some justification for the sins he committed, such as to diminish his responsibility. But his prayer does not dwell on such justifications, but rather on his own unworthiness before God's infinite holiness: "God, be merciful to me a sinner! " (Lk 18:13). The Pharisee, on the other hand, is self-justified, finding some excuse for each of his failings. Here we encounter two different attitudes of the moral conscience of man in every age. The tax collector represents a "repentant" conscience, fully aware of the frailty of its own nature and seeing in its own failings, whatever their subjective justifications, a confirmation of its need for redemption. The Pharisee represents a "self-satisfied" conscience, under the illusion that it is able to observe the law without the help of grace and convinced that it does not need mercy.

105. All people must take great care not to allow themselves to be tainted by the attitude of the Pharisee, which would seek to eliminate awareness of one's own limits and of one's own sin. In our own day this attitude is expressed particularly in the attempt to adapt the moral norm to one's own capacities and personal interests, and even in the rejection of the very idea of a norm. Accepting, on the other hand, the "disproportion" between the law and human ability (that is, the capacity of the moral forces of man left to himself) kindles the desire for grace and prepares one to receive it. "Who will deliver me from this body of death?" asks the Apostle Paul. And in an outburst of joy and gratitude he replies: "Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! " (Rom 7:24-25).

We find the same awareness in the following prayer of Saint Ambrose of Milan: "What then is man, if you do not visit him? Remember, Lord, that you have made me as one who is weak, that you formed me from dust. How can I stand, if you do not constantly look upon me, to strengthen this clay, so that my strength may proceed from your face? When you hide your face, all grows weak (Ps 104:29): if you turn to look at me, woe is me! You have nothing to see in me but the stain of my crimes; there is no gain either in being abandoned or in being seen, because when we are seen, we offend you. Still, we can imagine that God does not reject those he sees, because he purifies those upon whom he gazes. Before him burns a fire capable of consuming our guilt (cf. Joel 2:3)".

Pope Benedict's Address to the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences

2006-04-28T15:22:00.000-04:00

Today, in the Vatican press releases, Pope Benedict's message to the Mary Ann Glendon, President of the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences is printed. This Pontifical Academy is meeting for its Twelfth Plenary Session to discuss the theme: Vanishing Youth? Solidarity with Children and Young People in an Age of Turbulence. You can find the full address here. I want to focus on just a few excerpts, which flow nicely with my previous post on the influence of parents in the discovery of God and particularly the role of love in influencing the lives of young people.

Pope Benedict writes:

"To bring children into the world calls for self-centred eros to be fulfilled in a creative agape rooted in generosity and marked by trust and hope in the future. By its nature, love looks to the eternal (cf. Deus Caritas Est, 6)....

It is children and young people who are often the first to experience the consequences of this eclipse of love and hope. Often, instead of feeling loved and cherished, they appear to be merely tolerated. In 'an age of turbulence' they frequently lack adequate moral guidance from the adult world, to the serious detriment of their intellectual and spiritual development. Many children now grow up in a society which is forgetful of God and of the innate dignity of the human person made in God’s image. In a world shaped by the accelerating processes of globalization, they are often exposed solely to materialistic visions of the universe, of life and human fulfillment." (emphasis added)

The Pope articulates several points really well. First he talks about the love necessary to bring forth new life into this world. Second, he talks about the failure of parents to love their children adequately. Children are not receiving the love and attention needed to be capable of living in this turbulent age. Third, he points to the consequences of such failures in that children lack "adequate moral guidance from the adult world" which affects not only their intellectual development but their spiritual development as well. Without the love which forms the lives of the young, the mind and the soul lack what truly is needed to sustain itself. Finally, he ties all this together with what effects this lack of love has own the world. We live in a world that "is forgetful of God" and forgetful of man's origins - being made in God's image. Instead, man is but material to be shaped and forged by his own will. And everything to be pursued in this life, according to materialist, are things to make us happy. We have become makers of our own destinies and happiness, in such a world.

But all is not lost, Pope Benedict argues:

"Yet children and young people are by nature receptive, generous, idealistic and open to transcendence. They need above all else to be exposed to love and to develop in a healthy human ecology, where they can come to realize that they have not been cast into the world by chance, but through a gift that is part of God’s loving plan. Parents, educators and community leaders, if they are to be faithful to their own calling, can never renounce their duty to set before children and young people the task of choosing a life project directed towards authentic happiness, one capable of distinguishing between truth and falsehood, good and evil, justice and injustice, the real world and the world of 'virtual reality.'"

Pope Benedict alludes to the ability of young people to be open to transcedence, and parents need to expose their children to love in which these young ones can come to realize their place in God's plan. All this is necessary for young people to be directed towards "authentic happiness" in which they recognize truth, goodness, justice, and the real world, and in turn the young can reject falsehood, evil, injustice, and virtual reality. It is the responsibility of not only parents, but educators and community leaders to help direct young people towards this "authentic happiness" which lies in God, God alone who is love.

Discovering God

2006-04-25T10:23:00.000-04:00

In the three months of experiences since my daughter Cecilia was born, I have learned some very powerful testimony concerning the discovery of God. There were some frustrating times during that first week with Cecilia. Talk about a major learning curve for a new father and a new mother. It must have been during the first two or three weeks at home with Cecilia that I was struck with an insight about God. During one of the whispered conversations with my wife at night (whispered because Cecilia sleeps in our bed), I said that seeing Cecilia completely dependent upon my wife for most of her needs, I cannot help but draw a very powerful connection between a mother and a newborn in that the mother is the face of God to this new and precious life.

Think about it for a minute. The newborn needs nourishment, comfort, a feeling of security, cleaning, etc. This young daughter of mine is competely dependent upon us, her parents. And from her parents, she gets everything she needs to live and be well. To provide for her, we act in a manner like God. Does not God gives us what we need: comfort, security, the nourishment from the Eucharist, and the cleansing away of sins? Very inchoately, this child of God takes in new feelings and thoughts about her place in the world. She knows who will take care of her in her moments of needs and distress. You can sense that because she does not want to be with other people; she wants always to be with her parents, especially her mother. Some have told us that we spoil her too much with our attention because she always wants to be held by us; I respond by saying that we are showing her the love she needs, and in the future, she will know who she can trust and depend upon for anything in life. In these moments you are, in a sense, God for her. Her recognition and love of God begins in what we do for her now. And through our own love and selflessness, she is beginning to see the love of God Himself through the care given to her.

To care for an infant, you have to lose yourself and give of yourself completely to this new life. This new life depends upon you for everything! Seeing my wife take care of Cecilia has given me this great insight into the powerful witness of a mother's love and how that mother's love is the very love of God for the new precious life, awakening a day in which she will encounter God for herself. Hans Urs von Balthasar comes close to such an appraisal of a mother's care for her child in his discussion of this analogy concerning Trinitarian relationship between Father and Son (I don't remember the exact place but it was in a translated article I read way back when in Systematic Theology).

If only more women and men realized the beauty and majesty found in the care and love poured out to a new life - that you can be the very face of God in your tender care and outpouring of love. Because it is in these moments that the newborn comes to love and know what love means. To be the face of God everyday, every moment is not an easy task. It takes God's grace to be that everyday. Sure, there are moments of struggle and difficulty, and when you think things are getting worse, but you have to remember to rely upon God for His strength and to refocus yourself because a young soul needs you and your support.

HIV and Condoms or the Lesser Evil Defense

2006-04-22T08:22:00.000-04:00

I want to discuss a topic that recently popped up in the media, namely, the morality or immorality of using condoms within a marriage where one of the spouses has HIV. I begin with an article from National Catholic Reporter website, John Allen's The Word From Rome column for April 21, 2006. You can find the article here. It has a section concerning comments from Cardinal Martini, former archbishop of Milan, advocating condoms for this reason. "Certainly the use of prophylactics can, in some situations, constitute a lesser evil." And Martini also says, "The question is really if it's wise for religious authorities to propagandize in favor of this method of defense [from HIV/AIDS], almost implying that other morally sustainable means, including abstinence, are put on a lower level."

To back up Martini's opinion, Allen includes another section of his column to other prominent theologians and bishops who back this approach. And finally, Allen adds another opinion from "Msgr. Angel Rodriguez Luño, an Opus Dei priest, a professor at Santa Croce University in Rome, and a consultor for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith," who "has said there's actually not much debate over the theology; most moralists, he said, believe the argument for condoms as a lesser evil is fairly clear. The question is how to explain that conclusion in a way that doesn't seem to offer a free pass for irresponsible sexual behavior."

Where to begin dismantling these responses? Clearly we are not talking about material cooperation with evil in the situation of a married couple who decides to use a condom because one of the spouses has HIV. Here in such a situation, there is formal cooperation with evil in destroying the meaning inherent in the conjugal act via a condom. The condom is not an evil object in itself. Let's be clear about that.

First, I find it very disconcerting that some Church officials seem to view sexual intercourse as the raison d'etre of the married couple. I guess these men have not understood the Church's teaching properly on the subject of marriage. I cannot find any such document that would tell me that for a holy marriage, one must have sexual intercourse constantly throughout a marriage or otherwise the marriage is not holy. Sexual intercourse is but a very small fragment of the married life. Indeed, at times, it has a very diminished role in the life of any good marriage. Marriage is much more about sharing the love of Christ with your spouse. And that takes the form of many different things. Being kind and caring about your spouse, helping out with the household, rearing children together, being prayer-filled and holy for the good of your spouse and family, and the list goes on and on.

When a couple finds itself in the situation of one of the spouses having HIV, maybe it should cause some reflection about how such a condition occurred and what God might be telling the couple regarding their life together. Maybe God is asking this couple to take on the life of continence. Certainly the couple may need counseling and help to understand God's role in all things. And if so desired, I have no doubt that a couple could live out a life of continence, with God's help, through prayer and the sacraments. In the early Church, you can find examples of when the man of a married couple became a priest, the couple would have to give up sexual intercourse for the rest of the marriage. More evidence of this can be found in The Apostolic Origins of Priestly Celibacy by Christian Cochini, S.J. I quote from Canon 29 of the 1st Council of Arles (314), "Moreover, [concerned with] what is worthy, pure and honest, we exhort our brothers [in the episcopate] to make sure that priests and deacons have no [sexual] relations with their wives, since they are serving the ministry every day. Whoever will act against this decision will be deposed from the honor of the clergy" (Cochini, 161).

Further, what would it say of the conjugal act and marriage itself if such an evil were permitted throughout the remaining years of a marriage. Does it not bespeak of a marriage whose unity has been destroyed? And for what, the gain of sexual pleasure? Is that what sexual intercourse has become, just for pleasure's sake? Marriage in such a context will no longer exist as an expression of the bond between Christ and the Church.

Second, I want to draw attention to the lesser evil defense. Let me illustrate with a very good and lucid example about the nature of choosing the lesser evil. In the two versions of the Exorcist Prequel movie, the main character is a fallen-away priest who has, to say the least, had a incident from the past that does not let go of him. He was a parish priest during the Nazi occupation, I don't remember which country exactly, but the priest tries to defend a group of townspeople who the Nazis want to murder. The Nazi leader in this town forces the priest either to choose a certain number of victims to kill or the Nazis will murder them all. So the priest is caught in a dilemma. Does he help the Nazis and save lives or does it let all in the group die? What would you do? In this case, the priest chose the "lesser evil" and chose people to be murdered by the Nazis and he saved lives in the end. Did he do the good thing? Of course not. That may shock some but it is true. The priest, in the end, did not have to commit any evil. He could have chosen to not do anything at all and let the Nazis kill everyone. Perhpas he even have struggled with them and then lose his own life in the process but atleast he would not have committed a grave sin. The priest should have chosen the huge sacrifice of himself and the others to stand up for what is good and holy. Instead he choose to cooperate with the Nazis and took it upon himself to decide who should live and who should die, which life was worth more and which was worth less. It is no wonder the priest lost his own humanity and his relationship to God because of this incident in the movie. When one wonders so far from God by such evil acts, how could they ever feel holy or close to God? And yet the priest, thinking only in terms of this life, did what he thought might be the better thing, namely, to choose the lesser of the two evils. The problem is that it was not the lesser because it measured evil only by this life and not by eternal life.

I think this example illustrations something inherent in our society's understanding of the human person. There is a problem with sacrifice. Who likes to sacrifice things anymore? In our culture of materialism and wealth and ease, sacrifice seems ridiculous and unbelievable. I mean, what kind of man in his right mind would turn down a high-paying/time-demanding job to spend more time with his family? Won't that extra money make things easier for his family and give them what they need? Human life has reduced itself to seeking pleasures in money, materials, the body, and others. We have become worse than animals in that we seek to debase ourselves in the pursuit of such things. Atleast animals instinctually go after what they desire. We have reason and a will. We can choose what we want and need. In the reduction of the human person, we have lost the illustrious norm of sacrifice, given to us by Christ himself in the Eucharist and on the Cross. Is it not service and sacrifice that define the human person? As Jesus tells us, it is in the giving of ourselves that we find ourselves.

No married couple with one spouse having HIV should ever have to choose evil. The right thing, the sacrifice, is to forgo sexual intercourse and take up a life of continence, for God. The couple should realize their place in the path to holiness and find new avenues of sharing their lives with each other. Giving up the conjugal act is not the end of marriage, but may be the new beginning of marriage for this couple. I mean, not to wander far off from what I want to say, but how did this spouse get infected in the first place? Was it through immoral activity? If so, then perpetuating more evil to occur within a marriage would be disasterous. Repentance, the sacraments, and prayer are needed more than anything. The conjugal act should be the last thing on this spouse's mind. Or did the infection occur through a blood transfusion or some other means not the fault of the individual? If so, what an unfortunate thing to have occurred. Many accidents occur to good people in life but that does not excuse them from the difficulties of the road to holiness. We all have our crosses and it is through God's grace that we can take them up and follow Christ in each day of our lives. "Be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect" is not some ideal but can and should happen in our lives. It is not absolute perfection in this life but a perfection that shows our growth in charity towards that final day in which we will behold the face of God himself.

Finally, I want to offer a final rejoinder to what Msgr. Luño said about most moralists believing the argument for condoms as a lesser evil is fairly clear. Please visit here. A good website, The American Papist, has a post containing articles concerning this issue HIV and condoms. Certainly there are moralists who disagree with this type of "lesser evil" approach. Please make use of these resources for more arguments about this issue.

Christians, be serious in taking action

2006-04-15T17:36:00.000-04:00

Below is an excerpt of a very fine homily from Capuchin Father Raniero Cantalamessa, preacher to the Papal Household. It was delivered on Good Friday at St. Peter's Basilica. You can find the whole text at http://zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=87735
________________________________________
"The time is sure to come when people will not accept sound teaching, but their ears will be itching for anything new and they will collect themselves a whole series of teachers according to their own tastes; and then they will shut their ears to the truth and will turn to myths" (2 Timothy 4:3-4).

This word of Scripture -- and in a special way the reference to the itching for anything new -- is being realized in a new and impressive way in our days. While we celebrate here the memory of the passion and death of the Savior, millions of people are seduced by the clever rewriting of ancient legends to believe that Jesus of Nazareth was never crucified. In the United States a best-seller at present is an edition of The Gospel of Thomas, presented as the Gospel that "spares us the crucifixion, makes the resurrection unnecessary, and does not present us with a God named Jesus."

Some years ago, Raymond Brown, the greatest biblical scholar of the Passion, wrote: "It is an embarrassing insight into human nature that the more fantastic the scenario, the more sensational is the promotion it receives and the more intense the faddish interest it attracts. People who would never bother reading a responsible analysis of the traditions about how Jesus was crucified, died, was buried, and rose from the dead are fascinated by the report of some 'new insight' to the effect that he was not crucified or did not die, especially if the subsequent career involved running off with Mary Magdalene to India … These theories demonstrate that in relation to the passion of Jesus, despite the popular maxim, fiction is stranger than fact, and often, intentionally or not, more profitable."

There is much talk about Judas' betrayal, without realizing that it is being repeated. Christ is being sold again, no longer to the leaders of the Sanhedrin for thirty denarii, but to editors and booksellers for billions of denarii. No one will succeed in halting this speculative wave, which instead will flare up with the imminent release of a certain film, but being concerned for years with the history of Ancient Christianity, I feel the duty to call attention to a huge misunderstanding which is at the bottom of all this pseudo-historical literature.

The apocryphal gospels on which they lean are texts that have always been known, in whole or in part, but with which not even the most critical and hostile historians of Christianity ever thought, before today, that history could be made. It would be as if within two centuries an attempt were made to reconstruct a present-day history based on novels written in our age.

The huge misunderstanding is the fact that they use these writings to make them say exactly the opposite of what they intended. They are part of the gnostic literature of the 2nd and 3rd centuries. The gnostic vision -- a mixture of Platonic dualism and Eastern doctrines, cloaked in biblical ideas -- holds that the material world is an illusion, the work of the God of the Old Testament, who is an evil god, or at least inferior; Christ did not die on the cross, because he never assumed, except in appearance, a human body, the latter being unworthy of God (Docetism).

If, according to The Gospel of Judas, of which there has been much talk in recent days, Jesus himself orders the apostle to betray him, it is because, by dying, the divine spirit which was in him would finally be able to liberate itself from involvement of the flesh and re-ascend to heaven. Marriage oriented to births is to be avoided; woman will be saved only if the "feminine principle" (thelus) personified by her, is transformed into the masculine principle, that is, if she ceases to be woman.

The funny thing is that today there are those who believe they see in these writings the exaltation of the feminine principle, of sexuality, of the full and uninhibited enjoyment of this material world, contrary to the official Church which would always have frustrated all this! The same mistake is noted in regard to the doctrine of reincarnation. Present in the Eastern religions as a punishment due to previous faults and as something to which one longs to put an end with all one's might, it is accepted in the West as a wonderful possibility to live and enjoy this world indefinitely.

These are issues that would not merit being addressed in this place and on this day, but we cannot allow the silence of believers to be mistaken for embarrassment and that the good faith (or foolishness?) of millions of people be crassly manipulated by the media, without raising a cry of protest, not only in the name of the faith, but also of common sense and healthy reason. It is the moment, I believe, to hear again the admonishment of Dante Alighieri:

Christians, be serious in taking action:
Do not be like a feather to every wind,
Nor think that every water cleanses you.
You have the New and the Old Testament
And the Shepherd of the Church to guide you;
Let this be all you need for your salvation …
Be men, do not be senseless sheep. (Paradiso, V, 73-80)

Manifesto

2006-04-09T15:05:00.000-04:00

It is my intention to make this weblog a source of many things relating to Christian morality.

Sometimes you may stumble across meditations on texts. Or you may come across formal arguments concerning moral theology. I occasionally may offer reviews of books I read during the course of my studies and leisure time. And certainly I will recommend books or articles I find fascinating and enlightening to those interested.

For the curious, you will not find watered-down Catholic morality here. I hold and teach the Catholic faith without reservation. And I humbly would submit my work to the Church for examination, if need be.

In my current work and research, I am focusing on sexual ethics, more specifically the issue of homosexuality and the Church's teaching. My moral theological interests span from sexual ethics, to marriage and the family, to bioethics, social ethics, and last but not least the intergration of the biblical witness in moral theology. I also have interest in systematic theology.

I welcome comments upon my posts and also welcome feedback or questions via email (which you can find in my profile).

A Sign of Contradiction

2006-04-09T13:32:00.000-04:00

In 2005, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger composed a beautiful set of meditations on the Way of the Cross for then-Pope John Paul II. In the meditation for the First Station, where Jesus is condemned to death, Cardinal Ratzinger writes:

"The Judge of the world, who will come again to judge us all, stands there, dishonored and defenseless before the earthly judge. Pilate is not utterly evil. He knows that the condemned man is innocent, and he looks for a way to free him. But his heart is divided. And in the end he lets his own position, his own self-interest, prevail over what is right. Nor are the men who are shouting and demanding the death of Jesus utterly evil. Many of them, on the day of Pentecost, will feel “cut to the heart” (Acts 2:37), when Peter will say to them: “Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God... you crucified and killed by the hands of those outside the law” (Acts 2:22ff.). But at that moment they are caught up in the crowd. They are shouting because everyone else is shouting, and they are shouting the same thing that everyone else is shouting. And in this way, justice is trampled underfoot by weakness, cowardice and fear of the diktat of the ruling mindset. The quiet voice of conscience is drowned out by the cries of the crowd. Evil draws its power from indecision and concern for what other people think."

Over nineteen hundred years have past since Jesus' encounter with Pilate, and things have not changed very much. How often have the right decisions been neglected and avoided because of indecisiveness or for concern of what other people think? How often has self-interest been characteristic of human action and endeavor? In the meditation for third station of the Cross, Jesus falls for the first time, Cardinal Ratzinger illuminates what underlies this malady of human action:

"Man has fallen, and he continues to fall: often he becomes a caricature of himself, no longer the image of God, but a mockery of the Creator. Is not the man who, on the way from Jerusalem to Jericho, fell among robbers who stripped him and left him half-dead and bleeding beside the road, the image of humanity par excellence? Jesus’ fall beneath the Cross is not just the fall of the man Jesus, exhausted from his scourging. There is a more profound meaning in this fall, as Paul tells us in the Letter to the Philippians: “though he was in the form of God, he 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... He humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a Cross” (Phil 2:6-8). In Jesus’ fall beneath the weight of the Cross, the meaning of his whole life is seen: his voluntary abasement, which lifts us up from the depths of our pride. The nature of our pride is also revealed: it is that arrogance which makes us want to be liberated from God and left alone to ourselves, the arrogance which makes us think that we do not need his eternal love, but can be the masters of our own lives. In this rebellion against truth, in this attempt to be our own god, creator and judge, we fall headlong and plunge into self-destruction. The humility of Jesus is the surmounting of our pride; by his abasement he lifts us up. Let us allow him to lift us up. Let us strip away our sense of self-sufficiency, our false illusions of independence, and learn from him, the One who humbled himself, to discover our true greatness by bending low before God and before our downtrodden brothers and sisters."

Man, in his attempt to create meaning for himself, has robbed himself of any meaning possible. Through the wellsprings of pride, man debases himself from his status as an image of God and it is Jesus and the Cross - the sign of contradiction - that should call man back to his humble origin. We need to recognize in Jesus and the Cross the humility that we lack and the guidance that we need from the true source of ourselves, God himself. Do we stand ready to learn from the Master?

Our discipleship as Christians calls us to live out our lives as signs of contradictions. We need to live out this call radically in a day and age when we are up against all sorts of anti-Christian sentiments and arguments. We have to not only learn our faith and live it, but we must live our faith well. And to live our faith well demands that we not be sluggish or lazy Christians but rather ones who must take up the demands of the Cross and become signs of contradictions in which we stand up for what is True, Good, and Beautiful – all which reside in God himself. Without these things in which life has true and ultimate meaning from God, we plunge ourselves into self-destruction. Man cannot revolve around himself. Man must root his existence in God alone.

To live the Christian life to the fullest makes many demands. We must be mindful of all of our actions and thoughts. We have to protect ourselves from harmful and sinful situations. We have to find ourselves in the right company of fellow Christians because, face it, we need the help and encouragement. We have to make many sacrifices to live the life that God calls us to live. Do not be fooled. Living Christianity to the fullest is not easy but its’ rewards are beyond compare.

Think about it. Often we spend so much of our time seeking fruitless and banal pleasures and material objects and wealth. Compare that with how little we spend seeking to love and serve God and to find the reward of eternal life. Who or what do we really worship in this life? Do we really worship and love the Lord God with all our hearts? Or do we really worship and love our jobs or pleasures or food or material goods? On this Passion Sunday, think of what the Lord Jesus has done for you. Think of the patience and care and love God took to give us life and to live it to the fullest in Him. Is not our lives but for the Lord? If so, then everything we do and say should orient us always toward God.

Heavenly Father, as we contemplate the sacrifice of your Son, Jesus Christ on the Cross, on this Passion Sunday, may we learn from His example, as a sign of contradiction to this world, to be ready and willing to live the Truth in every aspect of our lives. Through Jesus’ example, may we learn to live in humility. And may we draw strength and courage from Jesus’ powerful testimony as a sign of patience and understanding in Love for the all the world to see. Amen.