Category: Culture

Posted on

The Sexual Revolution Reconsidered in a New York Times Article?

Columnist Ross Douthat at the New York Times has posted some interesting information and reflections on the sexual revolution. I want to present excerpts from both his column and blog. The bold black italics are his remarks, the red normal face type are my reflections.

My column todaymakes what I hope is a non-utopian argument for why social conservatives are right to welcome the recent evidence that American teens and twenty-somethings are waiting somewhat longer to have sex…. [I]t makes a huge difference not only whether people have premarital sex, but how early and how often and how casually, and that this is what social conservatives think changed for the worse starting in the 1960s…. It is a helpful distinction to indicate the trifold: whether, how early and how often. It would be preferable if there were no-premarital sex at all, for it would refelct God’s clear teaching on this. But even if we can’t fully roll back the fact that some do have pre-marital sex, at least its impact can also be minimized by chipping away at how early and how often young people engage in sexually sinful behaviors.

But I think it’s worth saying something about [another] question, because it’s crucial to the debate over how we should think about the sexual revolution and its consequences: Did the social trends of the last 50 years bring about “unprecedented gender equality”? Absolutely. Did they bring about “unprecedented personal fulfillment”? Well … for some people they did. But it’s very easy to find indicators that paint a more complicated picture. Female happiness has dropped since the 1970s, despite enormous female economic gains. Marital happiness has dipped as well, even though fewer people get married and it’s easier to leave an unhappy union. And then of course there’s the impact of higher divorce rates on children’s psychological well-being, the impact of rising single parenthood on child poverty, and so forth.All this is a way of saying that the only obvious gains women have made are economic and career related. Big whoop….It seems clearer, in other areas, that women are generally the big losers in the sexual revolution. Mr. Douthat has detailed a few of them here. I might add that women are far more likely to contract STDs, be used and cast aside, be left to largely raise children alone, and have far less social leverage over men. Men pretty much come and go as they please and for some reason women seem to tolerate it. Most of the social structures, that in the past, insisted that men do right by women have been stripped away. Pregnancy places few obligations on a man. He may have to pay some child support, but even here, many men get away with underpaying, paying late, or not paying at all.  

In many cases women have fewer options, if you ask me. Many, if not most HAVE to work. Many feel strong pressure to have sex casually in our promiscuous culture. Many feel strong pressures, economic and social to (sinfully) take strong medicine that radically alters their hormonal balance and suppresses the perfectly normal and healthy process of ovulation. Many are pressured to have abortions when “inconvenient” pregnancies occur. Women, perhaps as never before, because of our strongly visual and media driven culture, feel enormous pressure to look perfect and have bodies that are unnaturally thin and yet also curvaceous. This has always been the case to some extent but it has gone into high gear due to the widespread celebration of lust that has come from the sexual revolution. In so many ways, women have been the losers in the sexual revolution IMHO. Some will say, as a man, I cannot really have an opinion here. But perhaps some of the women who read will want to express their view.

The crucial question, to my mind, is whether all of the social changes that swept America in the 1960s and the 1970s are a package deal. [Some feminists and progressives] seem convinced that everything goes together — that the cultural shifts that have made our personal lives more unstable and (possibly) less fulfilling are inextricably bound to the shifts that made female equality a possibility, and then more or less a fact. Hence their reflexive hostility to the idea that anything could have changed for the worse in American sexual culture: To suggest that the general welfare might be enhanced if teenage sexual activity were a little more stigmatized or divorce a little harder to get, in their eyes, is to implicitly suggest that women belong in kitchens and finishing schools, rather than boardrooms and the Senate. It’s the slippery slope in reverse: Many progressives and feminists have committed themselves to an absolute defense of everything that changed during the sexual revolution, out of a fear that one concession will cost women every gain…..[T]he fact that smart feminists… feel compelled to act all blasé about the pornography industry, lest they give an inch to the forces of reaction, seems like one of the more regrettable aspects of the contemporary cultural debate. This is very well said. There is a kind of all-or-nothing thinking that seems to dominate the feminists and other progressives. It leads them to a strange sort fo silence about things that actually harm and degrade women. They make this deal with the devil for their economic gains and seem almost to fear common-sense traditional morality.

I don’t think this is the right way to look at it. The connection between feminism and sexual permissiveness strikes me as historically contingent rather than strictly necessary, and the economic and social gains that women have made since the 1960s seem robust enough to endure — or, more likely, continue apace — even amid a reconsideration of some of the social changes that accompanied them. Yes, an ethic of sexual restraint can be turned to patriarchal ends, but so can an ethic of sexual permissiveness, as anyone who’s hung out in a frat house for any length of time can attest. Exactly.

Mr Douthat then turns his attention to the relationship between traditional morality and happiness.

Two sociologists, Mark Regnerus and Jeremy Uecker, in their recent book, “Premarital Sex in America.”….look at sexual behavior among contemporary young adults, [and] find a significant correlation between sexual restraint and emotional well-being, between monogamy and happiness — and between promiscuity and depression. This correlation is much stronger for women than for men. Female emotional well-being seems to be tightly bound to sexual stability — which may help explain why overall female happiness has actually drifted downward since the sexual revolution. Imagine that! Following the norms that God and Natural Law prescribe actually might make us happier! How can this be? We were all taught by the social revolutionaries of the 1960s that free love and a casting off of the restraints would be liberating, and bring for contentment without guilt, and happiness. Now after all that, some forty years later, we come to find that God’s had it right after all.  🙂

When social conservatives talk about restoring the link between sex, monogamy and marriage, they often have these kinds of realities in mind…..The ultimate goal is a sexual culture that makes it easier for young people to achieve romantic happiness — by encouraging them to wait a little longer, choose more carefully and judge their sex lives against a strong moral standard. And I would add, wait till marriage. Because the bottom line is that promiscuity is destructive of marriage. Most men figure, “Why get married?” After all they get what they want, or what they think they want, without it. Why commit? So I would just go a little further than Mr. Douthat here and encourage women to insist that men wait until the wedding night. Of course, until a significant number of women start insisting on this, it is likely men will continue to stray and shun commitment. Now, some will comment that I am putting the onus on the women here. Perhaps I am. Men should behave and, Lord knows,  I’ve surely preached this to them. But I’m also being realisitic here. Women hold the cards in this matter and need to set the limits. I’m not excusing men, I’m just saying that women have most of the power and that men will, and are able, to follow their lead here.

Liberals argue, not unreasonably, that Planned Parenthood’s approach… — in which teen sexual activity is taken for granted, and the most important judgment to be made about a sexual encounter is whether it’s clinically “safe” —…. is tailored to the gritty realities of teenage sexuality. But realism can blur into cynicism, and a jaded attitude can become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Yes, the Christian view is rooted ultimately in hope and the vision that chastity is possible. Realism can be a virtue but, as Mr Douthat rightly points out, there is a false “realism” which is actually not realism at all but is cynicism in disguise. The theological virtue of Hope is the confident expectation of God’s help. Showing young people the way and having high expectations of them is rooted in a confidence that comes from Hope .

Social conservatives look at the contemporary sexual landscape and remember that it wasn’t always thus, and they look at current trends and hope that it doesn’t have to be this way forever. In this sense, despite their instinctive gloominess, they’re actually the optimists in the debate. Amen!

Posted on

Is Marriage About Civil Rights or Is It About What Is Best For Children?

The erosion of a coherent and shared vision for marriage in America continues. Nationally, the decision of the President to stop defending the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), constitutes a shift in the position of the Federal Government. Locally in the Washington DC area, (already enduring a City-Council imposed redefinition of marriage), the Maryland legislature is debating a proposal to redefine marriage to include Gay Unions.

We have previously discussed on this blog the long road that has gotten us here. (eg: HERE).   The fact is, the traditional and biblical understanding of marriage has been eroding for over fifty years in this nation. Most people, even Church going Christians, do not have a vigorous understanding of Marriage that is either biblical or rooted in Natural Law.

Because of this, advocates of so-called “gay marriage” have been able to successfully shift the conversation to a question of civil rights and bigotry. The President, in his order to the Justice Department to stand down from defending DOMA, stated that he thinks DOMA is an impermissible form of sexual orientation discrimination. Never mind that such a judgment is not his to make, that he is neither the judicial nor the legislative branch of Government.  The point here is that the concept of “gay marriage” as a civil right has won the day with the President, and frankly with many Americans. In so acting the President more than suggests that supporters of traditional marriage are guilty of supporting unjust discrimination. To this the US Conference of Catholic Bishops Conference has this to say:

This decision represents an abdication of the responsibility of the Executive Branch to carry out its constitutional obligation to ensure that the laws of the United States are faithfully executed.  It is also a grave affront to the millions of Americans who both reject unjust discrimination and affirm the unique and inestimable value of marriage as between one man and one woman.  Support for actual marriage is not bigotry, but instead an eminently reasonable, common judgment affirming the foundational institution of civil society.  Any suggestion by the government that such a judgment represents “discrimination” is a serious threat to the religious liberty of marriage supporters nationwide. [1] .

The statement is well worded and forceful. And yet it remains true that It is clearly an uphill battle for the Church to reassert a vision for traditional marriage. Seeing the issue as a matter of civil rights, and not about the nature and purpose of marriage, is increasingly common in the public discussion and explains why even many Church-going Catholics support so called “gay marriage.”

Finding our way back – Part of the essential work we must do in re-establishing  a coherent vision for marriage rooted in tradition, Natural Law and, for believers, Scripture, is to restore a proper reference point  so that all the pieces of the discussion make sense.

And what is this proper reference point? Simply this, Marriage is about children and what is best for them. It is not essentially about civil rights. It is not merely about two adults being happy and fulfilled. It is essentially about children and what is best for them. If we use this as our starting point a lot of other things begin to fall in place:

1. That Marriage should be a stable and lasting union – Children require 18-20 years to come to maturity. A stable environment is obviously best for them. The modern scenario, in too many cases, is that children are shifted back and forth between parents who are often divorced or never married in the first place. One weekend here, another weekend there, summers here, summers there. The instability is terrible for children. Parents should seek, above all to resolve their differences and stay married.

Stable homes, even though imperfect (and all homes ARE imperfect) are an important way that children learn virtues and values such as trust, commitment, forgiveness, toleration, generosity, conflict resolution, love, loyalty, and integrity.  A stable home, even if imperfect, inculcates in children a sense of true marriage and family, knits together important family ties at a multigenerational level,  and sets them up to also form stronger families themselves. They also learn proper dynamics between men and women, how to treat and regard a member of the opposite sex, and so forth

Those who simply dismiss the traditional and stable family as no better or worse than other arrangements are ignoring what long experience has taught the human family in this regard. Scripture affirms the value of a stable family when it speaks of a husband clinging to his wife (Gen 2:24  Matt 19:1ff  inter alia) and when Jesus forbids divorce (Matt 5, Matt 19, Mark 10 inter al). Marriage is about what is best for children. And stability, as a general rule, is what is best.

2. That Marriage should be heterosexual – Though, obviously heterosexuality is necessary for the actual procreation of children, this is not the main point here, for many Gays argue that they can adopt. The central point here is not the mere pro-creation of children, but what is best in raising them.

And the fact is, that children are best raised with a father and mother present. In terms of simple human formation, children are best raised with male and female influence. There are things that a father has to say and model for his children that only a father can properly and best do. There are things that a mother has to say and model for her children that only a mother can properly and best do. This is what nature herself provides in linking pro-creation, necessarily, to a father and a mother. Two fathers, or two mothers, or just one parent present, are not ideal situations for children. As a general rule it will always be best for children to be raised in a traditional family setting.

There are times were death or illnesses intervene. There are exceptional circumstances where a certain father or mother is unfit. But the general and common rule is that a traditional heterosexual marriage is ideal for children. Again, it is what nature herself has set forth, and for believers, it is also what God has set forth. In the rarer cases where a parent is missing from the family, it is essential for the remaining parent to provide opportunities for children to interact in a proper way with mentors of the missing sex. This can be accomplished most frequently with aunts, uncles, grandparents and the like.

But the bottom line is that traditional heterosexual marriage is optimal for children and their human formation. All other arrangements are less than optimal and to the degree possible children should always be raised in the optimal setting that Nature, and Nature’s God has set forth.

In adoption situations, married heterosexual couples should enjoy priority over single parent settings and homosexual couples. This is what is best for children. In terms of infant adoptions there is a usually a waiting list and these infants are thus best placed in the homes of qualified, married, heterosexual couples. This is not bigotry. This is what is best for children. As for older children, there is the sad reality that it is harder to find couples to adopt. But here too, married heterosexual couples should generally speaking be favored by that fact.

Again, the question is, what is best for the child. Not, how and whether certain adults may be offended by perceived bigotry, or whether the approach is politically correct or not. In the end we want what is best for children.

3. That traditional, heterosexual marriage should enjoy the favor of law and recognition  – One of the great battle lines in the marriage debate has been that married couples do enjoy certain favors under law such as tax credits, inheritance scenarios, hospital visitation etc. Most fair minded people see room for some give on these sorts of things. On a case by case basis, it may make some sense to allow, under civil law, a greater capacity for Americans to legally enact a wider variety of arrangements for power of attorney, inheritance, tax issues and the like.

However, if what is best for children remains our starting point, then it also follows that traditional, heterosexual marriage should enjoy some legitimate favors. Strengthening traditional marriage is a worthwhile goal for public policy. It may be of value that some tax breaks that make it easier to form and keep traditional families. Granted, the degree of such proactive policies is debatable. Even among supporters of traditional marriage there are many who have a more libertarian preference when it comes to ANY government involvement.

But in the end, whether it is through tax breaks, or other laws, or simply through special recognition, a strong support and advocacy of traditional marriage is proper and good. For, whatever strengthens the traditional family is good for children. Whatever we can do as a society to uphold traditional marriage, insist on fidelity, limit divorce and give special recognition and honor to these families is good for children.

And this also is why simply calling other unions “marriage” is problematic. To use the same term “marriage” for traditional marriages and also for gay unions implies an equality and identical reality which is not true. Gay unions are not on the same footing with traditional marriage since they are not what is best for children. Traditional marriage is what is best for children and it should enjoy an elevated and special status on account of this. Using the same word for the two blurs all this and traditional marriage loses the favor it should have and the recognition is it should receive.

Enough said for now. But note again the fundamental point: Marriage is about children and what is best for them. When children and what is best for them is our starting point, traditional marriage is clearly a best and proper. This starting point not only challenges advocates of “gay marriage” but also challenges advocates of traditional (actual) marriage. For, it sometimes happens that those in traditional marriage do not always have what is best for children in mind either. Too often couples do not work at their marriage and overcome difficulties. Too quickly many rush to divorces courts. What is best for children too often takes a back seat throughout our culture.

Posted on

On the Dying of Europe and the Questions We Cannot Fail To Ask

In this post I would like to ponder the apparent dying of Europe and what God might be teaching us. I would first like to present some information and then reflect as to what God might be teaching us.

We have pondered before on this blog that Christian Europe as we have known it is slowly dying away. The Pope has remarked that the lights are going out in Europe. The Christian faith has largely been forsaken by Europeans (only about 10% go to Mass and in many places over 60% describe themselves as atheists). Birth rates have plummeted to death-wish levels, and Europeans are slowly being replaced by Muslim immigrants who have a much higher birth rate. It is unlikely there will be any huge war that will usher in a Muslim Europe, just a slow and seemingly inexorable replacement as Europeans die out and Muslims from North Africa and other areas replace them.

There is already some evidence of Europe slowly giving way to its new identity as enclaves of Muslims become increasingly insistent on replacing European Law with Shariah based law and observance. Slowly these enclaves are growing. They have met some resistance to be sure, but their growth is undeniable. (See the map of France at the upper right. The darker shades of purple indicate a larger numbers of Muslim enclaves or “no-go” areas discussed below).

There is an increasingly common thing in European cities often referred to as  the “no-go zone or area.” They are Muslim sections of towns where the police, medical rescue crews, and other government agents will not venture. Some of these areas are “governed” by Muslim gangs. The areas are viewed as just too violent and/or risky to enforce laws. Other areas or zones have enacted Sharia Law, and community leaders enforce it. Local government officials are discouraged from, or no longer attempt to enter these “no-go zones” even to put out fires, enforce law or make infrastructure repairs for they are unwelcome and often meet with resistance and violence. In effect the no-go zones become a microstate.

In France no-go zones are referred to as Zones Urbaines Sensibles (Sensitive Urban Zones). Approximately 12 percent of all French in France live in a Sensitive Urban Zones. Many of the zones are governed under Islamic Sharia law and Islamic militants strongly resist any presence of the French police.

The rest of Europe is going down a similar path. England, for example,  is struggling with many immigrants who insist on living under non-English Law. All this means that political unity is threatened.  Europe, with a dying population and hostile minority groups, faces a bleak future. It seems clear that Europe is simply being replaced. [1, 2, 3, 4]

Now, to be sure, there are some who dispute this picture and insist it isn’t that bad. But, even if the seriousness of the current situation is disputed, the trajectory seems rather clear, and Europe’s future as increasingly Muslim is hard to deny.

It will surely be harder for the Church as well since religious tolerance is not widely appreciated in the Muslim world. Much will depend on how radical the brand of Islam that sets up will be. If Sharia is largely insisted upon and enforced things could get very difficult.

Sharia Law is the religious law of Islam. It comes from the Quran and also the known practices of the Prophet Muhammad. All Muslims believe that Sharia is God’s law but they have many different interpretations of it. It is not necessarily fair to simply condemn the wish for it outright since not all Muslims hold to or wish to see enforced its more odious components. Nevertheless, with Muslim extremism on the rise many rightly fear its wider imposition throughout Europe. Some of the more extreme tenets of Sharia include:

  1. Jihad, is defined as “to war against non-Muslims to establish the religion.” It is the duty of every Muslim and Muslim head of state (Caliph). Muslim Caliphs who refuse jihad are in violation of Sharia and unfit to rule.
  2. A Caliph (head of state) is exempt from being charged with serious crimes such as murder, adultery, robbery, theft, drinking and in some cases of rape.
  3. A caliph must be a Muslim, a non-slave and a male.
  4. A Muslim who leaves Islam must be killed immediately.
  5. A Muslim will be forgiven for murder of: 1) an apostate 2) an adulterer 3) a highway robber. Vigilante street justice and honor killing is acceptable.
  6. Sharia dictates death by stoning, beheading, amputation of limbs, flogging even for crimes of sin such as adultery.
  7. Non-Muslims are not equal to Muslims under the law. They must comply to Islamic law if they are to remain safe. They are forbidden to marry Muslim women….recite their scriptures or openly celebrate their religious holidays or funerals.
  8. A non-Muslim cannot inherit from a Muslim.
  9. Banks must be Sharia compliant and interest is not allowed.
  10. Homosexuality is punishable by death.
  11. There is no age limit for marriage of girls. The marriage contract can take place anytime after birth and can be consummated at age 8 or 9.
  12. Rebelliousness on the part of the wife nullifies the husband’s obligation to support her, gives him permission to beat her and keep her from leaving the home.
  13. Divorce is only in the hands of the husband.
  14. A man has the right to have up to 4 wives and none of them have a right to divorce him.
  15. The testimony of a woman in court is half the value of a man.
  16. To prove rape, a woman must have 4 male witnesses.
  17. A rapist may only be required to pay the bride-money (dowry) without marrying the rape victim.
  18. A Muslim woman must cover every inch of her body, which is considered “Awrah,” a sexual organ. Not all Sharia schools allow the face of a woman exposed.
  19. It is obligatory for a Muslim to lie if the purpose is abiding with Islam’s commandments, such as jihad, a Muslim is obliged to lie and should not have any feelings of guilt or shame associated with this kind of lying.
  20. The points are from Nonie Darwish in  “Cruel and Usual Punishment; The Terrifying Global Implications of Islamic Law”

Again, not every Muslim seeks to impose or enforce all of this. But, who is to say what will actually come to be when such a sweeping law is increasingly imposed in Europe? Who will limit the extremists? It is currently a very dangerous scenario that enclaves (no-go areas) are springing up on their own. Without any central authority or constitution to oversee the whole, “justice” comes down to what the local sheriff (er… Caliph) says.  No one can really say that the most extreme forms of Sharia will not become the law in the “wild west” that Europe may become.

Can’t happen here? In the United States, the dynamics are very different and Christians are not simply being replaced. However, there are already some attempts at insisting on Sharia zones in places like Baltimore, and Detroit. There are also increasing demands for “Sharia Compliant” banks, legal practices and the like. Yes, it may happen here but not likely in the way Europe is going. [5]

Some soul-searching. What must we learn?  – It is easy to lament where things may be headed. Indeed there are likely difficult days ahead. But we cannot miss the painful lesson that Europe shows forth, and to some extent America and the whole western world experiences.

First, Europe has lost the source of its strength. It simply does not pertain to strong, unified and cohesive cultures to simply be replaced. Obviously the West, especially Europe, has lost its strength. How has this happened? Europe’s fate was sealed long ago when the faith was largely abandoned and Europeans, as most of the West, set on a path of contracepting and aborting  themselves right out of existence.  Further, in the western world, as natural law and biblical morality have been largely set aside a cascade of deleterious effects have set in: Abortion, divorce, fornication, STDs, AIDS, teenage pregnancy, violence, broken families, poorly raised children, immodesty, pornography, sexual abuse, materialism, greed, individualism, relativism, egotism, and a whole plethora of crude, base and just plain bad behavior. All of this has dramatically weakened Western Culture.

Second, no culture can survive without something higher and outside itself to unite it. The word culture has at its root the word cultus. This is the Latin word for a religious system of beliefs and practices (and not the pejorative sense of “cult” that has come into English). Cultus is the totality of  religious practice and observance, the neglect of which is a very dangerous thing.

Clearly in the West, there has been a misguided experiment to see if we could take the “Cultus” out of Culture, and still have culture.  It is clear we cannot. Without a unifying set of beliefs and understandings that set forth our priorities, moral vision, and ultimate values and goals, we are doomed.

As God was kicked to the curb, first in the academy during the “enlightenment” and then by successive stages  in the wider populace, our fate was sealed. The center cannot hold without the cultus, which is the religious and transcendent basis of culture. A culture must have something outside and above it to knit it together.  The Lord says,

My people have committed two sins: They have forsaken Me, the spring of living water, and have dug their own cisterns, broken cisterns that cannot hold water. Is Israel a slave by birth? Why then has he become plunder?… Have you not brought this on yourselves by forsaking the LORD your God when he led you in the way?  (Jer 2:13,14,17)

Here in America we have struggled in similar ways. We are still far more religious than Europe, but rampant secularism threatens us as does the setting aside of Biblical morality and Natural Law. We are on a path similar to Europe and very foolish to stay on it.

Tragic Loss – Europe does not even have the dignity of being conquered by an Army. At least then it could go down fighting. No indeed, it is simply fading away by a kind of suicidal death-wish. Despite years of warnings the birth rate continues to drop. The lights are indeed going out in Europe. And it is a tragic loss, for Europe has a great intellectual, artistic and cultural legacy. I cannot claim the mantle of prophet, but barring a miracle, Europe as we knew it is passing away.

The Question we cannot fail to ask – It is one thing to lament the possible coming of a tough, intolerant form of Sharia. It ought to be resisted. Religious Liberty is strongly threatened by a radical form of Islam which may ascend from Europe’s ashes. But we cannot fail to ask, How did we get here? What can we in America and the rest of the West learn? What is God saying to us?

–

I am not entirely sure I like the tone of this video. But it does help paint a picture of what is going on in France and Europe.

Posted on

Prayer – "Hand to Hand" Combat

Peace be with you!

After a prayer service for peace in the troubled neighborhood in which I teach, I was asked, if it were legal, would I carry a weapon for protection. I pulled out a rosary and said, “I already do!”

Armed and dangerous

Ok, I was being a little factitious. But, I really meant it. I try to pray the rosary each day on my way to work. I think often about the 15 promises of the rosary and realize that it is indeed a powerful weapon. In fact, any prayer in the name of Christ is a powerful weapon. But, unlike a firearm, it cannot backfire, there is no moral question that needs resolved before its use, it cannot be turned around and used against me, it will never fail and the only training I need is found in my faith.

Furthermore, it is weapon that can effectively defend me against evil but unlike a firearm, it cannot be used to harm anyone else or used in a vengeful manner.

Is it proper to refer to a pious devotion as a weapon?

The Holy Father spoke of the Rosary as “a particular prayer of the Church and a spiritual weapon for each of us.”

Ephesians teaches us — “Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might. Put on the whole armor of God, so that you are able to stand against the wiles of the devil. Therefore take unto you the whole armor of God, so that you are able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand. Stand therefore, having your loins girded about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness, and your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace. Above all, take the shield of faith, wherewith you shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked. And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.” -Ephesians 6:10-11, 13-17

Earthly vs. Spiritual Weapons

The word “weapon” is often associated with pain, destruction and death. Unfortunately, Earthly weapons are often used unwisely for these purposes. However, when we are talking about the use of spiritual weapons for the destruction of death and sin, we should all seek to be armed and dangerous.

Brothers and sisters, as Lent approaches, don’t forget to arm yourself!

Posted on

Cerberus, the Three-Headed Dog. An Allegory for What Ails Our Culture?

In ancient Greek mythology the dog Cerberus guarded the entrance to Hades (the misty and gloomy underworld, the abode of the dead), permitting anyone to enter but none to leave. Cerberus  is usually depicted as a three headed dog and some have tried to link this to his seeing the past, present and future. Cerberus’ name comes to us in a Latinized version from the Greek, where he was called Κέρβερος (Kerberos).

Now, when you and I think of dogs, we think of “man’s best friend.” But,  in the ancient world dogs were usually thought of as wild animals that ran in packs and scavenged at the edge of town. They were not as domesticated as today. And Cerberus incorporates not only the fearsome qualities of a wild dog, but was also said to have a mane, not of hair, but of live snakes! He was said to eat only live meat and was the offspring of Echidna, a half-woman, half-snake, and Typhon, a fire-breathing giant. Not the most pleasant of “dogs” to be sure.

You get the picture. In Greek mythology he welcomed you to Hades when you died and made sure you did not leave.

Cerberus  redivivus? – I thought of Cerberus today in a meeting where we discussed the triple threat facing our culture today, threats that  create  a significant challenge for the Church in preaching the Gospel. This meeting was with some of my brother priests in the Deanery and Cardinal Wuerl. The Cardinal spelled out what he sees as a three-fold challenge for the Church to overcome: Secularism, Materialism, and Individualism. The three-fold threat, the triple header, if you will, reminded me of Cerberus. I’d like to summarize some of our discussion at the meeting.

Hades, here and now – As a final  introductory note, recall that Pope John Paul II often described, with concern,  the Western World as a “Culture of Death.” Essentially what this means is that, in our culture we increasingly sees death as a solution to problems. If the child is inconvenient or “defective,” abort. If the old person is suffering and using lots of resources, euthanize. If there is injustice, use violent means such as war to restore it. If there is a serious criminal, kill him. If we want to do research, kill embryos. That others should die to make my life more pleasant, safe, or viable, fine!  And so forth.

This is the culture of death and it corresponds in our mythological reference here to Hades, the abode of the dead. And, as our culture descends and increasingly enters this Hades, this abode and culture of death, it is welcomed there by the three-headed dog,  Cerberus. Cereberus, or course is not real, but allegorical and he helps ensure our entrance and also our stay in cultural Hades by his three-fold threat of:  Secularism, Materialism, and Individualism.

1. Secularism – The word “secular” comes from the Latin Saecula which is translated as “world”  but can also be understood to refer to the “age” or “times” in which we live. What secularism does to pay excessive concern to the things of this world and to the times which we live. It does this in exclusion to values and virtues of heaven and the Kingdom of God. The preoccupation with the things of this world, crowds out any concern for the things of heaven.

Hostility – And it is not merely a matter of preoccupation, but, often, of outright hostility to things outside the “saecula” (world or age). Spiritual matters are often dismissed by the worldly as irrelevant, naïve, hostile and divisive. Secularism is an attitude that demands all our attention be devoted to the world and its priorities.

Backwards – The attitude of secularism also causes many who adopt  it to tuck their faith under worldly priorities and views. In this climate many are far more passionate and dedicated to their politics than their faith. The faith is “tucked under” political views and made to conform to them. It should be the opposite, that political views would be subordinate to the faith. The Gospel should trump our politics, our world view, our opinions and all worldly influences. Faith should be the doorkeeper. Everything should be seen in the light of faith. But secularism reverses all this and demands to trump the truths of faith.

Secularism is the error wherein I insist that the faith should give way when it opposes some worldly way of thinking, or some worldly priority. If faith gets in the way of career, guess which gives? If faith forbids me from doing what I please and what the world affirms, guess which gives way? The spirit of the world often sees the truths of faith as unreasonable, unrealistic, and demands that they give way, either by compromise or a complete setting aside of faith.

As people of faith, it should be the world and its values that are on trial. But secularism in us puts the faith on trial and demands it conform to worldly thinking and priorities.

Secularism also increasingly demands that faith be privatized. It is to have no place in the public square of ideas or values. If Karl Marx said it, fine. But if Jesus said it, it has to go. Every other interest group can claim a place in the public square, in the public schools, etc. But the Christian faith has no place. Yes, God has to go. Secularism in its “purest” form demands a faith-free, God-free, world. Jesus promised that the world would hate us as it hated him. This remains true and secularism describes the rising tendency for the world to get its way.

Here is the first head of Cerberus welcoming our culture to the abode of the dead. For, to make this world our priority  and let it over-rule  our faith, is to board a ship doomed to sink with no life boats on board.  With secularism,   our fascination and loyalty is primarily to the world, and this amounts to arranging deck-chairs on the Titanic. If the world is really all that matters then we are the most pitiable of men for everything we value is doomed and already passing away. Cerberus beckons.

2. Materialism – Most people think of materialism as the tendency to acquire and need lots of material things. It includes this, but true materialism is far deeper. In effect, materialism is the error that insists that physical matter is the only thing that is real, or existent. Materialism holds that only those things which can be measured on scale, seen in a microscope, or empirically experienced (through the five senses), are real. The modern error of Scientism flows from this which insists that nothing outside the world of the physical sciences exists or is real. (More on that HERE).

In effect, materialism says that matter is all that “matters.”  The spiritual is either non-existent or irrelevant to the materialist. This of course leads to the tendency to acquire things and neglect the spiritual. If matter is all that really matters then we will tend to want large amounts of it. Bigger houses, more things, creature comforts, are all amassed in order to give meaning and satisfaction to me.

In the end it is a cruel joke however since; All things are wearisome, more than one can say. The eye never has enough of seeing, nor the ear its fill of hearing (Eccles 1:7). And again, Whoever loves money never has enough; whoever loves wealth is never satisfied with their income. [It] is meaningless….. The sleep of a laborer is sweet, whether they eat little or much, but as for the rich, their abundance permits them no sleep. (Eccles 5:10-12) But never mind, the materialist will still insist it is the only thing real or the only thing relevant.

The error of materialism is ultimately tied up in thinking that matter is all that exists and that man, a creature of matter and spirit, can be satisfied only with matter. Materialism denies a whole world of moral and spiritual realities that are meant to nourish the human person: goodness, beauty, truth, justice, equity, transcendence, truth courage, feelings, attitudes, angels and God. These are ultimately spiritual realities. They may have physical manifestations, to some extent, but they are not physical. Justice does not walk through the door and take a seat in the front row. Transcendence does not step out for a stroll, give a speech or shake hands with beauty. Such things are not merely material.

To deny the spiritual is to already be dying for the form of this world is passing away. To deny the spiritual is to have little to live for other than today, for tomorrow is uncertain and one step closer to death. The second head of Cerberus is materialism. He beckons us and draws our culture to live already in Hades, the abode, the culture of death.

3. Individualism – The error of individualism exalts the individual over and above all notions of the common good,  and our need to responsibility live in communion with God and others. Individualism exalts the view of the individual at the expense of the received wisdom of tradition. Individualism demands autonomy without proper regard to rights and needs of others. It minimizes duties toward others and maximizes personal prerogatives and privileges. It also tends to deny a balanced notion of dependence on others for human formation and the need to accept correction and instruction. Individualism also results in a weakening of the Church, schools and other institutions by neglecting our duty to take part in and, support them, crucial as they are to the flourishing of the human family. Just as we could not enter this world without God and our parents, so neither can we live fully in isolation from God and others.

Personal freedom and autonomy have their place and should not be usurped by government or other collectives. But freedom today is often misunderstood as the ability to do whatever I please, instead of the ability, the power, to do what is good. Freedom is not absolute and should not be detached from respect for the rights and good of others.

Excessive and mistaken notions of freedom have caused great harm in our culture and it is often children who suffer the most. Sexual promiscuity, easy divorce, abortion, substance abuse and so forth are an abuse of freedom and cause harm to children, and to the wider society that must often seek to repair the damage caused by irresponsible behavior.

Individualism is the third head of Cerberus. By it he beckons us to Hades, the culture of death, since by it,  he breaks down the ties that give life. So pervasive is individualism today that over 40% of people surveyed think marriage is passé. The result is death: contraception, low birthrates, abortion, and the children who are born are increasingly raised in the problematic settings of broken homes, daycare and poor discipline.

So here are, struggling with a culture of death in the West, (Hades) and our own Cerberus bids more of us enter. Pardon my figurative imagery, in this post. Allegorical Cerberus is not to be numbered among the ranks of “man’s best friend.” He’s a wild dog, scarcely trained at all. You will not be his master, he wants to be yours. Resist him, solid in your faith (1 Peter 5:9)

There are good things in our culture and some hopeful trends, among the young especially. We have discussed those here too. But allow today’s blog as a figure of what ails us. When we can name the demons they have less power over us.

Here is probably the most secular song ever written. It is deconstructionist, nihilistic, atheistic, anarchistic, and materialistic. And most Christians sing along with it on the radio with narry a thought. (Pay attention to the lyrics, they are terrible). It is surely a song emblematic of the age of the triple header threat. Cerberus would be proud.

Posted on

Scientism is not Science – Toward a Christian Admiration for True Science

In this essay I want to show forth a Christian admiration for science and distinguish it from the error of scientism. In so doing I pray your patience as I first lay a groundwork in the wisdom tradition of the scriptures and the Natural Law approach of the Church.

Context –In daily Masses we have begun reading from the Book of Sirach. Sirach  is also called, in older Bibles,  the Book of Ecclesiasticus (not the same as Ecclesiastes). St. Cyprian and the Latin Fathers termed it the Liber Ecclesiasticus(or Church Book) since it was widely read in the Church at liturgies and also extensively used in the early instruction of catechumens. In more recent years it has gone by the name  Sirach.  It is so named after  its author,  Jesus Ben Sira, who collected and edited the wise sayings in the Second Century BC.

God’s wisdom in creation– The Book is part of the “Wisdom Tradition” in the Scriptures. Other Books in this tradition include Proverbs, Wisdom and Ecclesiastes. The Wisdom Tradition contains an important insight. Namely, that creation enshrines within it the law and wisdom of God who created it. As such it is intelligible and revelatory. Let me allow and excerpt from the Sirach speak:

All wisdom comes from the LORD and with him it remains forever, and is before all time….He has poured her forth upon all his works,  upon every living thing according to his bounty; he has lavished her upon his friends. ….When at the first God created his works and, as he made them, assigned their tasks, He ordered for all time what they were to do and their domains from generation to generation. (Sirach 1:1, 10, 16:24-25)

Creation is Revelation – Note therefore,  that in making things, God has also poured forth his wisdom upon the work of his hands. He has ordered creation and set forth a law within it. The Wisdom Tradition insists that we are able to discern something of God’s existence, his law, his will and his purpose in what he has made. Creation is thus revelation, revealing to us the One who made it, and manifesting something of the will and purpose of the One who made it. It is for us to discern God’s wisdom which speaks to us from the created order.

In the New Testament,  the Johannine tradition takes up the theme of the Wisdom Tradition and explains how everything God has made he made through his Word (Jesus) and that this Word is impressed on all creation:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.  He was with God in the beginning.  Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. (John 1:1-3)

Now the Greek term translated here as “Word” is  Logos. As we have just seen the ancient Jews, particularly those who collected the Wisdom Tradition, understood that the created world has a Logike (a kind of Logic) based on the fact that God made it through his Logos (Word). John takes up this theme and teaches that when God spoke creation into existence through his Word (Logos) his Logos (Jesus) sets things forth with a Logike (logic) that is discernible and could be studied to make one wise in the ways (the logic) of God. Creation thus manifests Jesus, for he is the Word through whom the Father spoke everything into existence. In the Catholic Tradition we have come to call this scriptural teaching, Natural Law. In effect we can discern a logic, or  rationality, to what God has made and come to know of God and his will for us.

To summarize: God speaks to us in what he has made,  and we can discern that God has placed order and purpose in creation. There are laws and rationally demonstrable principles at work in all that is.

St Athanasius sets forth the Wisdom/Logos tradition as the early Church understood it:

An impress of Wisdom has been created in us and in all his works…..The likeness of Wisdom has been stamped upon creatures in order that the world may recognize in it the Word who was its maker and through the Word come to know the Father. This is Paul’s teaching: What can be known about God is clear to them, for God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature has been there for the mind to perceive in things that have been made….So there is a wisdom in created things, as the son of Sirach too bears witness: The Lord has poured it out upon all his works, to be with men as his gift, and with wisdom he has abundantly equipped those who love him….and in the light of this wisdom the heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament proclaims the work of his hands. – (Discourse “Against the Arians” by St Athanasius).

This is an exuberant and confident appreciation of the created world and the Catholic Christian rejoices in coming to know more of the created world for, in so doing, he comes to know more of God.

Problems emerge – And yet this exuberant vision  has suffered setbacks in the wider western culture as secularism, and scientism have dealt successive blows.

Secularism tends to see the created world as a closed system which cannot speak to anything outside itself. Secularism tends to exclude anything mystical in creation that points beyond or outside the closed system. It is more than simply an agnostic notion that we simply cannot know of things beyond, it is an antagonism to any reality beyond the here and now. And, in the more militant agnosticism and atheism common in current times, there is downright hostility to any requirements that the spiritual realm or anything outside the secular system might propose.

Scientism is an ideologically unbalanced form of science. It insists that if something cannot physically measured or observed it is not real; it does not exist at all. In its proper form, science is right to state its limits. It uses an empirical method, it limits itself to what is physically measurable and properly states that it is not equipped to pronounce on matters beyond its discipline. Again, this is wholly proper. But scientism strays into philosophy and theology by making claims it cannot measure or verify. Scientism says that if something is not physically manifest, it does not exist. That is a philosophical claim, not a scientific one. Those guilty of scientism also often make theological claims in insisting that there is no God. This claim cannot be proved, measured or verified using scientific methods. As such, scientism strays beyond the discipline of proper science. In so doing, scientism creates a toxic climate for a proper dialogue between faith and science.

True Science is a Joy –  Both faith and science have their proper role and proper place and, when these are respected,  a Catholic ought rightly rejoice in the findings of proper science.  The result is,  most often, an  increase in wonder and awe. I never cease to be amazed at the intricacy and magnificence of creation. Science, as never before, shows things hidden since the foundation of the world and now revealed for our wonderment. Science has marvelously demonstrated to me the order and design running through all things. As a man of faith I see the logike (logic) and wisdom of God on display through science that thank God for this wonderful gift of modern science given to us. As such, I rejoice in science.

But scientism is an ugly and fraudulent claimant to the scientific mantle. Cloaking itself in scientific mantle it wanders where no true scientist would go. It makes claims that true scientists would not make. It asserts that nothing exists beyond the material and empirically observable, which is not a claim true science can verify or refute. Scientism distorts true science and adulterates it. It poisons the climate and makes dialogue more difficult. It manifests hostility to religion and faith, something which no true scientist needs to have.

A truly Catholic perspective is to rejoice in science. Our tradition enshrines the understanding that creation is revelation and the more we can know of this creation, the more we can know of God, the more we can know of his Logos, Jesus Christ our Lord. Thank God for true science,  it is, for the believer another path to God.

But woe to scientism, which disregards as real or existent anything outside itself,  or outside the physical and material.  True science properly states its own limits. But scientism reduces everything to its own self and thus mistakes its limits for the bounds of reality.

In this Video Fr. Barron speaks of the error of scientism

Posted on

On the Gift of Doing Just One Thing

One of the great lies of the world is that we “can have it all!” We live in the age of great and seemingly endless possibilities and the fact is we want too many conflicting things. We want to be popular but we want to stand for something. We want our kids to be raised well but we want double incomes. We want good health but we want to eat rich foods and avoid exercise. We want God but we want the world too.

The fact is we cannot have everything and we must make choices. In choosing certain things we preclude other things.

But the real key in life is to learn to do just one thing, to want just one thing. This theme of unicity, of doing and wanting one thing is a consistent theme of Scripture. Lets look at some passages and see what they have to tell us.

  1. This one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before, I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus. Let us therefore, be thus minded…(Phil 3:13)
  2. “Martha, Martha,” the Lord answered, “you are worried and upset about many things,  but only one thing is needed. Mary has chosen what is better, and it will not be taken away from her.”  (Luke 10:41)
  3. One thing have I asked of the LORD, that will I seek after; that I may dwell in the house of the LORD all the days of my life, to behold the beauty of the LORD, and to inquire in his temple. ( Ps 27:4)
  4. A double minded man is unstable in all his ways (James 1:8 )
  5. Jesus replied, “No one who puts his hand to the plow and looks back is fit for the regin of God (Lk 9:62)
  6. No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money (Matt 6:24)
  7. Elijah went before the people and said, “How long will you waver between two opinions? If the LORD is God, follow him; but if Baal is God, follow him.” But the people said nothing (1 Kings 18:21)
  8. O adulterous people, don’t you know that friendship with the world is hatred toward God? Anyone who chooses to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God (James 4:4)
  9. And your ears shall hear a word behind you, saying, “This is the way, walk in it,” when you would turn to the right or to the left. (Isaiah 30:21)

Well, you get the point. We have a decision to make. We are to choose God and thereby forsake the world. But the problem is that most of us want both. And if most are honest there will be an admission that the world is actually desired more than God.

But true serenity can only be found by seeking God, alone and above every desire. Our hearts were made for God. He has written his name on our heart and He alone can fulfill us.  Yet, we waver, we want everything. And, frankly these endless desires torture us. They are in conflict with each other and ultimately they are never satisfied anyway.

The grace for which to pray is to be single-hearted, to want only one thing, to want only God. The beatitude for which to pray is:  Blessed are the pure of heart, for they shall see God (Matt 5:8) Most people miss the inner meaning of this beatitude.  The Greek word in this passage,  καθαροὶ (katharoi) is usually and properly translated as clean or pure in the usual sense. But a more extended meaning refers to something that is pure in the sense of being  unmixed with anything foreign, unalloyed. Hence there is the concept here of being single-hearted, having a pure and single motive, the desire to see God.  This is a very great blessing and God can give it to us.  Psalm 86:11 says,  Give me an undivided heart O Lord, that I may fear your name. The Latin Vulgate renders this verse as simplex fac cor meum. This is a great gift for which to pray: a simple, undivided heart. A heart that desires only God and what would lead me to him.

And by this one desire every other decision and desire is subsumed. This is what Paul means when he says, this one thing I do. He does not mean that he does not go here and there, or eat, or sleep. He simply means that everything he does is focused on, and supports the one thing: his goal to be with God forever.

A man journeying from Washington to New York would be on a fool’s errand if he took a road heading south. His destination is north. He may pull aside to get gas, or rest his eyes, but these things are only done to help him toward his goal.

A marathon runner does not stop to talk with friends, or step into a local bookstore to browse. He does one thing, he runs, he pursues the goal. Perhaps he will accept water offered. He might stop for brief moment to tie his shoe, but he only does these things because they help him to his goal.

But too many Christians who say heaven is their goal are heading south and stepping out of the race on fool’s errands.

The gift to be sought from the Lord is to be single-hearted, to have an undivided heart, the gift to do just one thing. Otherwise we are compromised, double-minded and just plain tired.

Impossible you say? With God, nothing is impossible.

OK, here’s one of the stranger videos I have posted to illustrate a point. But consider it. Its object is wrong, but its message is right. In the video there is a man who is so focused on just one thing that nothing else matters. He doesn’t even notice anything else. It’s just the one thing, that’s all he sees, that’s all that matters. Again, the object is wrong, but the idea is right, it’s all about one thing.

UPDATE – Thanks to a couple of readers who called my attention also to this movie clip from City Slickers (a movie I saw years ago but had forogtten). Please note there is one bad word in the clip but it “helps” make the point –

Posted on

On Becoming What God Made You to Be As a Road to Glory

There was movie some years ago that most of you have seen called Toy Story. It had a deep impact on me for it came out a critical moment in my life.

It was my 33rd  year of life and my 6th year of priesthood. I had suffered a nervous breakdown that required a week in the hospital, and a month off recuperate. What drove me there was being asked to take an assignment I really wasn’t ready for.  I was asked to pastor a parish that was in serious financial trouble.

Invincible? But I was a young priest at the time and was still emerging from my “invincible” stage where I thought I could do anything. I guess it’s pretty common for men in their twenties to figure they can handle anything. In those years opinions are strong, dreams are still vivid, and hard experience has not always taught its tough lessons yet.

So the young priest in me said yes to the assignment, even though I had reservations. It’s proper to say yes to the bishop, but he had asked me to discern not simply obey. Soon enough the panic attacks came, followed by waves of depression, and days where I could barely come out of my room. All this and I hadn’t even reported to the assignment yet. A priest friend, my pastor, reached out and helped me discern I wasn’t ready and that it was OK to ask the Bishop to reconsider. I did so, but felt I was an utter failure. My personal sense of this humiliation had me further decline into depression and that’s when I sought help,  with the encouragement of others. A week in the hospital for evaluation, a month off to recuperate, and years of good spiritual direction, psychotherapy and sacraments  have been God’s way of restoring me to health.

Somewhere in the early stages of all this I saw Toy Story. And right away I know I was Buzz Lightyear.  Buzz begins the movie as a brash, would be hero, and savior of the planet. Buzz Lightyear’s theme was, To infinity….and beyond!  The only problem was that he seemed to have no idea he was just a toy. He actually thought he had come from a distant planet to save the earth. He often radios to the mother ship and, hearing nothing, concludes she must be just out of range.

At a critical point in the movie  it begins to dawn on Buzz that he is just a toy and may not be able to save the day. He struggles with this realization and resists it, leaping  to the rescue not knowing he can’t actually fly. He falls from the second floor and his arm breaks off. (See the second video below) Suddenly he realizes he is just a toy, that all his boasting was based on an illusion. He then sinks into a major depression since his sense of himself has been destroyed.

But God wasn’t done with Buzz Lightyear. In the end Buzz saves the day by simply being what he was made to be, a toy. One of the kids takes him up and attaches a rocket to him. In the end that enables Buzz to fly and save the day at a critical moment, with the help of friends.

The lesson of the movie is a critical one and certainly the lesson I learned in my own mid-life crisis.  And the lesson is that our greatness does not come from our own self-inflated notions, but from God. And God does not need us to pretend to be something we are not. What he needs is for us to be exactly what he made us to be. Buzz succeeds by realizing that he is a toy and being just that, a toy. As such he saves the day. For me  too, I have come to realize that I am but a man. I have certain gifts and lack others. Certain doors are open to me and others are not. But when I accept that, and come to depend on God to fashion and use me according to his will, then great things are possible. But if we go on living in sinful illusion and grandeur we miss our truest call and place in God’s kingdom. Ultimately we must come to discover the man or woman that God created us to be. That is our true greatness.

All from a cartoon.

Here is another very brief video from the Superbowl ads that makes a similar point. A young boy thinks he is invincible and strives to order about inanimate creatures. But then, like Buzz Lightyear (and me), he discovers his limits and doubts. In the end he actually succeeds. But what we know, and he still has to learn, is that the power is really from his “Father.”

Here is the clip from Toy Story where Buzz discovers he is just a toy:

And here is where buzz saves the day. A kid had attached a rocket to his back, meaning it for ill, (but God intended it for good!).