Tag: Culture

Posted on

Cohabitation’s Dirty Little Secret

Back the 1970s there was a lot of talk that living together before marriage was a “wise” thing to do. After all, said its proponents, “You need to try a shoe on before buying it” and “You take a car for a test ride before negotiating the deal.” Never mind that human beings are a little more dignified and complicated than shoes or cars, and that we don’t “buy” one another. Never mind all that, according to the proponent of this theory, we were supposed to bow our heads to the obvious wisdom of “shacking up.”

Further, this little bit of post sexual revolution “wisdom” was obviously something that previous generations had never considered (since they were all sexually repressed after all), neither had they tried it and found it wanting and thus rightly discarded it. No, no this was a brand new insight  of a brave new world, and who could really argue that cohabitation was both sensible and “wise?” Or so they said.

But the dirty little secret about cohabitation (aka “shacking up) is that it doesn’t work like its proponents claim. Cohabitors have higher divorces rates when they do later marry. They are less prepared for marriage, not more prepared.

In a recent article in the New York Times (of all places),  Meg Jay, a clinical psychologist at the University of Virginia shares some statistics and insights as to why cohabitation does not work. As usual why I share articles, the excerpts from the original article are in bold black italic print. My remarks are in red plain text. Pardon the somewhat cynical, ironic and playful tone of my remarks. But sometimes when you can’t cry, you laugh or play the fool.

Cohabitation in the United States has increased by more than 1,500 percent in the past half century. In 1960, about 450,000 unmarried couples lived together. Now the number is more than 7.5 million. The majority of young adults in their 20s will live with a romantic partner at least once, and more than half of all marriages will be preceded by cohabitation. This shift has been attributed to the sexual revolution and the availability of birth control, and in our current economy, sharing the bills makes cohabiting appealing. But when you talk to people in their 20s, you also hear about something else: cohabitation as prophylaxis. (Prophylaxis is a fancy clinical term for “preventative,” as in “preventative of divorce.” And this is the dirty little lie about cohabitation, it doesn’t prevent it). I would also add to the list of causes: a general decline in religious observance, the decline moral standards, decline of the family, and the decline of maturity and ability to make commitments. While some will prefer to call my additions judgmental, it is hard to argue that widespread promiscuity and the unwillingness to make and keep commitments, having babies outside of marriage or aborting them, are signs of a healthy culture. No there is something basically wrong with us.

In a nationwide survey conducted in 2001 by the National Marriage Project, then at Rutgers and now at the University of Virginia, nearly half of 20-somethings agreed with the statement, “You would only marry someone if he or she agreed to live together with you first, so that you could find out whether you really get along.” About two-thirds said they believed that moving in together before marriage was a good way to avoid divorce. Deep down I think all these young people know better and that pre-maritial sex is wrong and stupid. But there is so much stinking thinking today that it is possible to play games with yourself and rationalize. Pair this with the silence of many pulpits on such matters. I wonder how many Catholic teens and young adults have ever been explicitly taught by their parents, pastors and/or catechists that living together outside of marriage is a sin or that, as the Scriptures clearly attest, “fornicators will not inherit the Kingdom of Heaven.” I strive to make this clear to the young people in my parish from 7th grade up. One of the tools I use is this list of scripture quotes I put together as I reason with them from Scripture: BIBLICAL TEXTS ON FORNICATION OTHER SEXUAL MATTERS

But that belief is contradicted by experience. Couples who cohabit before marriage (and especially before an engagement or an otherwise clear commitment) tend to be less satisfied with their marriages — and more likely to divorce — than couples who do not. These negative outcomes are called the cohabitation effect. Oops where did these inconvenient facts come from? Imagine that, something modern being wrong?! Well, let’s at least appear smart by giving it a smart-sounding name like “Cohabitation effect.”

Researchers originally attributed the cohabitation effect to selection, or the idea that cohabitors were less conventional about marriage and thus more open to divorce….Research suggests that at least some of the risks may lie in cohabitation itself. You don’t mean to tell me!

[Regarding cohabitation] most couples say it “just happened.” “We were sleeping over at each other’s places all the time,”…“We liked to be together, so it was cheaper and more convenient. It was a quick decision but if it didn’t work out there was a quick exit.” [This is] what researchers call “sliding, not deciding.” Moving from dating to sleeping over to sleeping over a lot to cohabitation can be a gradual slope, one not marked by rings or ceremonies or sometimes even a conversation. Couples bypass talking about why they want to live together and what it will mean….. Actually, the concept of drifting is a very important insight. Most people do not up-and-leave the Lord or the Church in a huff. Most do not simply wake up one day and dive into serious sin. Rather, more subtly, and thus more dangerously, they just drift away from God and into sin. The book of Hebrews warns: We must pay more careful attention, therefore, to what we have heard, so that we do not drift away (Heb 2:1). The drifter goes quietly, often imperceptibly off course, and often comes to his senses way down the road when the journey back is tough. And thus many young people simply drift from the Church and from moral virtue. Thank God for those campus and parish programs that DO reach at least some of them, to keep the drifting to a minimum. Thank God too for parents who take the spiritual life of their teens and twenty-somes seriously, and help to keep them on course. Because, drifting these days, leads way down stream and eventually over the falls.

One thing men and women do agree on, however, is that their standards for a live-in partner are lower than they are for a spouse. Imagine that, thinking less of a shack-up honey than a spouse. How can these young people be so judgmental? And how dare they think higher of marriage than any other form of relationship people wish to dream up. Hmm…but they DO think this way. I wonder why? Could it be that deep down inside, in the conscience, under all the justifications, rationalizations and stinking thinking, they know better?

Sliding into cohabitation wouldn’t be a problem if sliding out were as easy. [Actually it would still a problem, a problem known theologically as sin, and sociologically known as stabbing the traditional family in the heart, making life very difficult for the children born into all the chaos or threatening those children by abortion] But it isn’t. Too often, young adults enter into what they imagine will be low-cost, low-risk living situations only to find themselves unable to get out months, even years, later. It’s like signing up for a credit card with 0 percent interest. At the end of 12 months when the interest goes up to 23 percent you feel stuck because your balance is too high to pay off. In fact, cohabitation can be exactly like that. In behavioral economics, it’s called consumer lock-in.

Lock-in is the decreased likelihood to search for, or change to, another option once an investment in something has been made….Cohabitation is loaded with setup and switching costs. Back to the buying a selling paradigms again. But the point makes sense.

…[They] have furniture…dogs and all the same friends. It just [makes] it really difficult to break up.

I’ve had [many] clients who also wish they hadn’t sunk years of their 20s into relationships that would have lasted only months had they not been living together.

Founding relationships on convenience or ambiguity can interfere with the process of claiming the people we love. A life built on top of “maybe you’ll do” simply may not feel as dedicated as a life built on top of the “we do” of commitment or marriage. Wow, you don’t mean to tell me after all these years that our ancestors might have actually been on to something do you? I mean I thought they were just sexually repressed and juvenile, and that we were liberated and come of age. You don’t mean to tell me that maybe previous generations developed the system of dating and marriage to help us guard our hearts or something, or to help us be more happy? Well since that is not possible, we’re going to have to get the sociologists to study a lot harder to figure out some better explanation!

I am not for or against living together, (but you ought to be based on what you’ve just said) but I am for young adults knowing that, far from safeguarding against divorce and unhappiness, moving in with someone can increase your chances of making a mistake — or of spending too much time on a mistake.  – Yes, facts are stubborn things…

Meg Jay is a clinical psychologist at the University of Virginia and author of “The Defining Decade: Why Your Twenties Matter — and How to Make the Most of Them Now.” These remarks are excerpts of her longer article which is here: The Downside of Cohabiting

On a more serious note from me, the problem of Marriage and family in our culture is an ominous one. Frankly, it doesn’t take a degree in sociology or anthropology to understand that kind of crisis in the family we are currently experiencing is a civilization killer. The numbers regarding marriage are very alarming:

The number of marriages celebrated in the Church has fallen from 415,487 in 1972 to 168,400 in 2010 — a decrease of nearly 60 percent — while the U.S. Catholic population has increased by almost 17 million. To put this another way, this is a shift from 8.6 marriages per 1,000 U.S. Catholics in 1972 to 2.6 marriages per 1,000 Catholics in 2010…

[In this Catholics reflect the general social trend]. In 2010, 53 percent of Catholics surveyed in the General Social Survey (GSS) indicated that they were currently married. By comparison, 51 percent of non-Catholics surveyed were married. [But this an astonishing drop from 1972 when 79% of Catholics were married. Among younger adults 18-40 the number is even more shocking: Only 38% are married!]

Some of [the low numbers]  can be explained by Catholics waiting longer to marry, but the shift here has been slight. In 1972, the average age at first marriage reported in the GSS for Catholics ages 18 to 40 was 20.9. In 2006 (the last time this question was asked), it was 23.9.

Thus, the decline in Church marriages is more about not marrying at all than marrying older. [Our Sunday Visitor 6/26/2011]

The sexual and social revolution thrown by our culture is having its effect. We have sown in the wind and are reaping the whirlwind. And what seems most remarkable, even with all the data coming in, we have no will or ability as a culture to reform ourselves on any wide scale. As St. Paul put it so well well: Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and their senseless minds were darkened (Romans 1:21-22)

Thank God for the faithful remnant. It is hard to know where our culture will go, but as for the Church, though reduced in numbers, she will remain, by God’s promise and will we shall endure, even this.

Posted on

I Miss Women Wearing Hats and Veils in Church. A brief reminiscence of days gone by.

I know, I know, I am so hopelessly old fashioned. But I want to say, I miss women wearing hats. I have written before (HERE) of how I miss them wearing the veil in Church. But even before the veil, the hat was more commonly worn by women in 1940s and before (See photo  below left, of my parish taken in the early 1950s, click photo for a larger view). Veils became popular in the later 1950s and 1960s before head coverings for women (and men) all but disappeared in the late 1960s (along with just about everything elegant).

The Easter Bonnet, once a main tradition at Easter, now provokes stares of confusion when mentioned to younger people today. “Easter Bonnet?…What’s that?!” Too bad, gone with the (cultural) wind.

Frankly we have become a very informal culture and we almost never dress up any more. Jeans and a T-Shirt, even for Mass. When I was a kid in the early 1960s I would not set foot in the Church without trousers, a button down shirt, a necktie and (in the cooler months) a dress jacket). Women and girls always wore a dress and a veil or hat. Frankly too, we would not think of going to a restaurant in those years either, without dressing up a good bit.

Yeah, I know, I am hopelessly out of date and some of you feel judged. But I’m just going to say it again, I miss the fact that we almost never dress up any more, and that things like hats, jackets and ties for men, formal and pretty dresses for women, veils (or hats) in Church are gone.

In the African American Community where I have served for most of my priesthood, dressing up for Church and women wearing hats and veils, hung on a lot longer, but it too has largely subsided. I read an article in the Washington Post yesterday that largely read the funeral rites over hat wearing in the Black congregations. There’s still a few with the “ole time religion” but they are far fewer. Here are a some excerpts from the article:

For generations, church sanctuaries across the nation on Sunday mornings, especially in black churches and especially on Easter, transformed into a collage of hats: straw ones, felt ones, velvet ones, every shape, size and color, with bows, jewels and feathers, reaching for the heavens.

But anyone walking into today’s services expecting to see a nonstop parade of women making fashion statements on their heads will be sorely disappointed. Many daughters and granddaughters of the women who made bold and flashy hats synonymous with the black church have not carried on the tradition.

Anita Saunders, 42… grew up watching her mother’s generation flaunt their hats in church. “And I always loved it,” says the Indianapolis resident. “It was part of Sunday, the experience of the hats. We looked forward to seeing what hat Sister So-and-So was going to wear. My friends, we all grew up in the same church with mothers who wore hats, but we don’t. And so, yes, it seems it’s fading out.”

Elaine Saunders…is part of that generation of black women who launched hat-wearing into the stratosphere…..Their style was dignified, elegant, sometimes irreverent and even humorous, but it was always eye-catching. “You have a certain air when you put on a hat. If you put on the whole shebang and you’re satisfied, you walk different. You act different. And people treat you different,” says Saunders….

The whole shebang would be a hat that matches the suit that matches the shoes that match the bag….

Mother and daughter not only wore hats and gloves to church but also donned them for shopping trips downtown. “If you were dressed up, they thought you were somebody important, so you’d get waited on,” Saunders said.

“I guess as I got older, around my teens, I started flirting around with different hairstyles,” said Sylvia Magby, 58, “I started cutting my hair, and I just never found a hat that fit my head.” Her youngest sister, Anita…won’t go near a hat (except the emergency baseball cap for bad hair days). She was much younger when she first rebelled against them. “I was maybe 6, and I was very concerned that the hat would disturb my bangs, and I wanted nothing to do with it,” she recalls.

Many women say, “I have hats from my mother and other relatives, but I don’t wear them,” or “Hats don’t look good on me,” [But] as Saunders sees it, “there will be a set of women who will wear hats forever.”…there, in all its splendor,  that poof of fuchsia and iridescent feathers, … for all the world to see.

Read the Full Article Here: Church Ladies and their Hats, A Fading Tradition

Some will doubtless say, “Well look, it sounds like it was more about pride and getting seen, than worshiping God.” Others will doubtless remark that the Scriptures envision a woman covering her head before God as a way of covering her glory (i.e. her hair) and thus being humble before God. OK fine, but I’d just like to add that there is also something wonderful about the dignity of dressing really well to go to God’s house, something classy, something fitting. And again I’ll just say, I miss it, and always appreciate when I see it.

We men too have let things drop often marching into Church with sandals, jeans and a t-shirt. I regret too that we so seldom wear suits or hats anymore. Priests still wear the suit, but a fine cassock is hard to find and there is a lot of sloppy and poorly set forth liturgical vestments and altar cloths. Finer things are few and far between.

A small boast form your host, I have worn a fedora in the cooler months since my 20s. Not only do I think it looks good, but it is also does a great job keeping the cold away. I am amazed at what a difference a simple hat can make. Think about it men, a good hat can be classy and warm.

And ladies, I don’t DARE tell you what to do, but let me just say it again, I MISS the veils and hats. Yes, a real touch of class. Uh oh, now the comments are open.

Posted on

Coming to a Truer Understanding of Tolerance

Last week on the blog we spoke briefly of tolerance in the discussion about Sloth. For it sometimes happens that what some call tolerance is more of a disinterestedness of discovering the truth and living by it. But there is such a thing as true tolerance and it has an important place in the human setting.

Permit then some further thoughts on the issue of tolerance, a frequently misunderstood concept. This post is not intended as a systematic treatise on tolerance. Rather just some thoughts on a what some have called the only “virtue” left in our increasingly secular society.

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy defines Tolerance and toleration:

Toleration — from the Latin tolerare: to put up with, countenance or suffer — generally refers to the conditional acceptance of or non-interference with beliefs, actions or practices that one considers to be wrong but still “tolerable,” such that they should not be prohibited or constrained. [1]

It goes on to make a distinction that is often lost today:

[I]t is essential for the concept of toleration that the tolerated beliefs or practices are considered to be objectionable and in an important sense wrong or bad. If this objection component (cf. King 1976, 44-54) is missing, we do not speak of “toleration” but of “indifference” or “affirmation.” [2]

In effect tolerance involves putting up with something we consider wrong or displeasing but not so wrong that we must move to constrain it. Tolerance does NOT mean we approve of the tolerated thing as something that is good. This essential point is often glossed over by those who often demand that tolerance mean approval, and that to disapprove of something makes one “intolerant.”

Of itself, tolerance is a good and necessary thing. But, like most good things, it has its limits. As a good thing, tolerance is essential in an imperfect world. Without tolerance we might go to war over simple human imperfections. We all have friends and family members who are people we like but, as with every human person, they also have annoying or less desirable traits. Without tolerance we would be locked in a power struggle and a fruitless battle to make each person perfect to us. As it is, we tolerate less desirable aspects of people for higher goods such as harmony, friendship, respect, mercy, kindness and the like.

However, there are limits to tolerance. There are just some things in human relationships that are “deal breakers.” There are things that cannot be tolerated. For example serious and persistent lies breach the trust necessary for relationships and such behavior is not tolerated reasonably. Behavior that endangers one or both parties (either physically or spiritually) ought not be tolerated and often makes it necessary to end relationships or establish firm boundaries.

In wider society tolerance is also necessary and good but has limits. For example we appreciate the freedom to come and go as we please and it is good to tolerate the comings and goings of others. This is so even if some of the places they go, (e.g. a brothel), do not please us or win our approval. Without such a general tolerance of movement things would literally grind to a halt. But for the sake of the value of coming and going freely we put up with the less desirable aspects of it.

However this tolerance has its limits. We do not permit people to drive on sidewalks, run red lights or drive in the left lane of a two way street. Neither do we permit breaking and entering or the violation of legitimate property rights. We restrict unaccompanied minors from certain locales, etc. In effect, every just law enshrines some limit to tolerance. Conservative and Liberals debate what limits law should enshrine, but both sides want civil law to set some limits. Even Libertarians, while wanting less law, see a role for some law and limits, for they are not anarchists.

So, toleration is a good and necessary thing but it has its limits. Our modern struggle with the issue of tolerance seems to be twofold:

  1. The definition of tolerance, as we have discussed, is flawed. Many people equate tolerance with approval, and many call disapproval, intolerance. But, as we have seen, this is flawed. Without some degree of disapproval, tolerance is not possible.
  2. The second problem centers around the limits of tolerance. In our modern world we are being asked to tolerate increasingly troublesome behavior. A lot of this behavior centers around sexual matters. Proponents of sexual promiscuity demand increasing tolerance despite the fact that their behavior leads to diseases, abortion, teenage pregnancy, single parent families, sexual temptation, divorce, and all the ills that go with a declining family structure. Abortion proponents also demand tolerance of what they advocate, although this behavior results in the death of an innocent human being. Many people of faith think that the limits of tolerance have been transgressed in matters such as these.

Rapprochement? – The debate about toleration and its limits is not new, but it seems more intense today when a shared moral vision has largely departed. Perhaps we cannot as easily define the limits of tolerance today. But one way forward might be to return to a proper definition of tolerance. Perhaps if we stop (incorrectly) equating tolerance with approval, a greater respect will be instilled in these debates. To ask for tolerance is not always wrong, but to demand approval is.

Consider the debate over homosexual activity. Many people of faith, at least those who hold to a more strictly Biblical view, find homosexual behavior to be wrong. The same can be said for illicit heterosexual behavior such as fornication, polygamy, and incest. But on account of our disapproval of homosexual behavior we are often called “intolerant,” (and many other things as well such as homophobic, bigoted, hateful, etc).

But tolerance is really not the issue. Most Christians are willing to tolerate the fact the people “do things in their bedroom” of which we disapprove. As long as we are not directly confronted with private behavior and told to approve of it, we are generally willing to stay out of people’s private lives. But what has happened in modern times is that approval is demanded for behavior we find objectionable. When we cannot supply such approval, we are called intolerant. This is a misuse of the term.

And further, what if our objections do not simply emerge from bigotry as some claim but, rather, from a principled biblical stance? Our disapproval does not, ipso facto, make us bigots. Neither does it mean we are wholly intolerant and seek to force an end to behavior we do not consider good. Very few Christians I have ever heard from are asking for the police to patrol streets and enter bedrooms and make arrests.

We are not intolerant, we simply do not approve of homosexual activity. And, according to the proper definition of tolerance, it is the very fact of our disapproval, that permits us to show forth tolerance. Perhaps such a consideration might instill greater respect in these debates and less name-calling from our opponents.

An aside– Gay “marriage” is a more complicated matter since it involves existing law and a demanded change in that law by proponents of so-called “gay marriage.” Most traditional Christians see a limit to tolerance here since we consider that God defined and established marriage as described in Genesis 1 & 2. Hence we cannot favor attempts to substitute a human redefinition of something we believe instituted by God.

Finally a thought as to who really “owns” tolerance. Opponents of traditional Christians often claim the high ground of tolerance for themselves. But the paradoxical result of this is a “holier-than-thou” attitude is an increasing intolerance of Christian faith by the self-claimed tolerant ones. Legal restrictions of the proclamation of the Christian faith in the public square are increasing. Financial exclusion of Catholic Charities from Government money used in serving the poor are becoming more common as well. In other parts of the world where free speech is less enshrined, Catholic priests and bishops are being sued and even arrested for “hate speech” because they preach traditional biblical morality. None of this sounds very “tolerant.”

Our opponents need not approve of our beliefs but they ought to exhibit greater tolerance of us, the same tolerance they ask of us.

Please add to this discussion.

This video demonstrates comically and in extreme form how even those who demand tolerance often exhibit intolerance themselves.

Posted on

100+ Charlie Chan Sayings and Proverbs. A surprisingly good selection of truisms and insights for your reading pleasure.

My Father was a great fan of Charlie Chan movies, a series of detective movies from the 1930s featuring a fictional Chinese-American detective. My father had every one on them on video tape. Not only did he watch them often, he also collected Charlie Chan sayings. For in every movie there would be dozens of wise, witty, and insightful sayings. He jotted them down as he watched and once presented me with a collection of the sayings.

On Friday’s I like to blog on lighter fare and this Friday evening is no exception. I simply want to present the list my father gave me with later additions by me. This list is long, but many of the sayings are well worth the read. Not all of them are of equal value, but there are some real keepers in the list. Many indeed are in deep conformity with the biblical tradition.

If you want to print a convenient list, I have put this in PDF version of them here: Charlie Chan Sayings

But for light reading and edification enjoy this list of Charlie Chan sayings:

  1. Admitting failure like drinking bitter tea.  (Charlie Chan in Egypt)
  2. After dinner is over, who cares about spoon?  (Docks of New Orleans)
  3. Always happens – when conscience tries to speak, telephone out of order.  (The Black Camel)
  4. Ancient ancestor once say, “Even wise man cannot fathom depth of woman’s smile.” (The Shanghai Cobra)
  5. Ancient ancestor once say, “Words cannot cook rice.” (Charlie Chan in Reno)
  6. Ancient proverb say. “Never bait trap with wolf to catch wolf.” (Shadows Over Chinatown)
  7. Ancient proverb say, “One small wind can raise much dust.” (Dark Alibi)
  8. Anxious man hurries too fast and stubs big toe. (Charlie Chan’s Courage)
  9. Bad alibi like dead fish – cannot stand test of time. (Charlie Chan in Panama)
  10. Best to slip with foot, than with tongue. (Charlie Chan at the Circus)
  11. Biggest mysteries are not always crimes. (1935 Pennsylvania Referendum Message)
  12. Blind man feels ahead with cane before proceeding. (Charlie Chan’s Courage)
  13. Boy Scout knife, like ladies’ hairpin, have many uses. (Charlie Chan’s Secret)
  14. Can fallen fruit return to branch? (Docks of New Orleans)
  15. Cat who tries to catch two mice at one time, goes without supper. (Charlie Chan’s Greatest Case)
  16. Charming company turn lowly sandwich into rich banquet. (Charlie Chan in Reno)
  17. Chinese funny people; when say “go,” mean “go.” (Docks of New Orleans)
  18. Confucius has said, “A wise man question himself, a fool, others.” (Charlie Chan in City in Darkness)
  19. Confucius say, “Sleep only escape from yesterday.” (Shadows Over Chinatown)
  20. Cornered rat usually full of fight. (Shadows Over Chinatown)
  21. Curiosity responsible for cat needing nine lives. (Charlie Chan at the Circus)
  22. Deception is bad game for amateurs. (Shadows Over Chinatown)
  23. Deer should not toy with tiger. (The Golden Eye)
  24. Detective without curiosity is like glass eye at keyhole – no use. (Charlie Chan in the Secret Service)
  25. Dreams, like good liars, distort facts. (Charlie Chan in Shanghai)
  26. Drop of plain water on thirsty tongue more precious than gold in purse. (Charlie Chan in Egypt)
  27. Easy to criticize, more difficult to be correct. (Charlie Chan at the Race Track)
  28. Elaborate excuse seldom truth. (Castle in the Desert)
  29. Even draperies may have ears. (Charlie Chan at Treasure Island)
  30. Every fence have two sides. (Charlie Chan’s Greatest Case)
  31. Every front has back. (Charlie Chan in London)
  32. Every man must wear out at least one pair of fool shoes. (Charlie Chan Carries On)
  33. Every maybe has a wife called Maybe-Not. (Charlie Chan Carries On)
  34. Favorite pastime of man is fooling himself. (Charlie Chan at Treasure Island)
  35. Fear is cruel padlock. (Charlie Chan at the Wax Museum)
  36. Foolish rooster who stick head in lawn mower end in stew. (Charlie Chan at the Race Track)
  37. Foolish to seek fortune when real treasure hiding under nose. (Charlie Chan at the Race Track)
  38. Front seldom tell truth. To know occupants of house, always look in back yard. (Charlie Chan in London)
  39. Good detective always look for something unusual. (The Red Dragon)
  40. Good tools shorten labor. (Charlie Chan at the Circus)
  41. Grain of sand in eye may hide mountain. (Charlie Chan in Paris)
  42. “Great happiness follows great pain.” (Charlie Chan at Treasure Island)
  43. Guilty conscience always first to speak up. (The Feathered Serpent)
  44. Guilty conscience like dog in circus – many tricks. (Castle in the Desert)
  45. Guilty conscience only enemy to peaceful rest. (Charlie Chan at the Circus)
  46. Guilty mind sometimes pinch worse than ancient boot of torture. (Dangerous Money)
  47. Hastily accuse – leisurely repent. (Charlie Chan’s Greatest Case)
  48. Hasty conclusion easy to make, like hole in water. (Charlie Chan in Egypt)
  49. Hasty deduction, like old egg, look good from outside. (Charlie Chan’s Secret)
  50. Have two ears, but can only hear one thing at time. (The Shanghai Chest)
  51. He who squanders today talking about yesterday’s triumphs, have nothing to boast of tomorrow. (Docks of New Orleans)
  52. He who takes whatever gods send with smile, has learned life’s hardest lesson. (Docks of New Orleans)
  53. Honorable father once say, “Politeness golden key that open many doors.” (Charlie Chan at the Opera)
  54. Hours are happiest when hands are busiest. (Charlie Chan’s Murder Cruise)
  55. Humbly suggest not to judge wine by barrel it is in. (Charlie Chan’s Greatest Case)
  56. Humility only defense against rightful blame. (Charlie Chan at the Opera)
  57. Ideas planted too soon, often like seeds on winter ground – quickly die. (The Sky Dragon)
  58. If request music, must be willing to pay for fiddler. (Charlie Chan at Treasure Island)
  59. If strength were all, tiger would not fear the scorpion. (Charlie Chan’s Secret)
  60. Illustrious ancestor once say, “Destination never reached by turning back on same.” (Charlie Chan at Monte Carlo)
  61. It is difficult to pick up needle with boxing glove. (Charlie Chan’s Chance)
  62. It takes very rainy day to drown duck. (Charlie Chan’s Chance)
  63. Kind thoughts add favorable weight, in balance of life and death. (Charlie Chan in Egypt)
  64. Law is honest man’s eyeglass to see better. (Charlie Chan’s Greatest Case)
  65. Long road, sometimes shortest way to end of journey. (Charlie Chan at the Race Track)
  66. Man cannot drink from glass without touching. (Charlie Chan in Paris)
  67. Man has learned much, who has learned how to die. (Dead Men Tell)
  68. Man is not incurably drowned – if  still knows he is all wet. (Charlie Chan’s Chance)
  69. Man who fears death die thousand times. (Castle in the Desert)
  70. Man who flirt with dynamite sometime fly with angels. (Charlie Chan at the Race Track)
  71. Man who improve house before building foundation, apt to run into very much trouble. (The Feathered Serpent)
  72. Man who ride tiger, cannot dismount. (The Chinese Ring)
  73. Man who seek trouble never find it far off. (Charlie Chan at the Circus)
  74. Man never born who can tell what woman will, or will not, do. (Charlie Chan in Reno)
  75. Mind, like parachute, only function when open. (Charlie Chan at the Circus)
  76. More fear, more talk. (Charlie Chan in London)
  77. Most mysterious thing is what mankind does to itself for reasons difficult to understand. (1935 Pennsylvania Referendum Message)
  78. Much evil can enter through very small space. (Charlie Chan at the Circus)
  79. Must harvest rice before can boil it. (Docks of New Orleans)
  80. Necessity mother of invention, but sometimes stepmother of deception. (Charlie Chan’s Secret)
  81. No one knows less about servants than their master. (Charlie Chan in Shanghai)
  82. Optimist only sees doughnut, pessimist sees hole. (Charlie Chan in Paris)
  83. Owner of face cannot always see nose. (Charlie Chan in Shanghai)
  84. Patience, big sister to wisdom. (City in Darkness City in Darkness)
  85. Patience lead to knowledge. (Charlie Chan in Panama)
  86. Sharp wit sometimes much better than deadly weapon. (Castle in the Desert)
  87. Silence best answer when uncertain. (Charlie Chan in Shanghai)
  88. Silence big sister to wisdom. (Charlie Chan in Paris)
  89. Silent witness, sometime speak loudest. (Charlie Chan at the Circus)
  90. Smart fly keep out of gravy. (Charlie Chan at the Race Track)
  91. Smart rats know when to leave ship. (Charlie Chan in Shanghai)
  92. Talk cannot cook rice. (Charlie Chan in Shanghai)
  93. The ignorant always loud in argument. (Docks of New Orleans)
  94. The impossible sometimes permits itself the luxury of occurring. (Charlie Chan’s Chance)
  95. Theory like mist on eyeglasses – obscures facts. (Charlie Chan in Egypt)
  96. Tongue often hang man quicker than rope. (Charlie Chan at Monte Carlo)
  97. To speak without thinking is to shoot without aiming. (Charlie Chan’s Murder Cruise)
  98. Trouble, like first love, teach many lessons. (Dead Men Tell)
  99. Trouble with modern children, they do not smart in right place. (Charlie Chan in The Secret Service)
  100. Truth, like football – receive many kicks before reaching goal. (Charlie Chan at the Olympics)
  101. Truth sometimes like stab of cruel knife. (Charlie Chan at the Race Track)
  102. Two ears for every tongue. (Charlie Chan in Shanghai)
  103. Under strong general there are no weak soldiers. (Charlie Chan’s Chance)
  104. Unhappy news sometimes correct self next day. (Charlie Chan at Treasure Island)
  105. Useless as life preserver for fish. (Charlie Chan’s Chance)
  106. Useless talk like boat without oar – get no place. (Charlie Chan at the Race Track)
  107. Very difficult to believe ill of those we love. (Charlie Chan in Reno)
  108. Very wise know way out before going in. (Charlie Chan at the Circus)
  109. Waiting for tomorrow waste of today. (Charlie Chan in Egypt)
  110. When money talk, few are deaf. (Charlie Chan in Honolulu)
  111. When pilot unreliable, ship cannot keep true course. (Charlie Chan’s Secret)
  112. When player cannot see man who deal cards, much wiser to stay out of game. (Charlie Chan at the Race Track)
  113. Willingness to speak, not necessarily mean willingness to act. (The Golden Eye)
  114. Woman’s tongue like sword that never gets rusty. (Charlie Chan’s Greatest Case)
  115. Woman’s voice like monastery bell, when tolling, must attend. (Charlie Chan’s Greatest Case)

Posted on

Did the composer of (perhaps) the most secular song ever written, later disavow that song?

Growing up I listened to a lot of music. And, like a lot of teenagers, I didn’t pay much attention to the words, they were just another instrument in the whole melody of the song. As I got older, I started paying attention to the words and was often shocked at what I had been humming.

Like many people my age, one of my favorite songs was John Lennon’s “Imagine.” A beautiful melody, in a thoughtful and meditative tone.  But oh the words! When I finally got around to paying attention to them, I stopped listening to the song. For in it, Lennon imagines, with approval, a world without God, religion, or country. In effect no piety, no loyalties. He also dismissed the idea of heaven, hell, and more than implies that religion, faith and God are the source of violence, greed and disunity. Here are some of the lyrics:

Imagine there’s no heaven
It’s easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people living for today

Imagine there’s no countries
It isn’t hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people living life in peace

You, you may say
I’m a dreamer, but I’m not the only one
I hope some day you’ll join us
And the world will be as one

Imagine no possessions ….etc.

The song become quite the ballad of the secular humanists, and though peaceful and serene in its cadences, was a real slap in the face to faith, religion, Church, Country, piety, patriotism and the free market economy. The song reached beyond secular humanism, more than implicitly endorsing atheistic Communism, or at least Socialism in its dream of “no possessions.”

In effect the song says to faith and to all holding the other traditional values above, “Your day is over, you have caused evil, and we are moving toward a utopian paradise without you. You are not invited for you are the problem.”

Yes, there it was: Imagine, perhaps the most secular and radical song ever written, dripping with contempt, deconstructionist, revolutionary, and reductionist, a Magna Carta for secular humanism, and Communism.

And yet, it would seem John Lennon either disavowed the song, or never meant it in the first place. In an interview given shortly before his death, perhaps his last, he says some remarkable things that indicate a very different John Lennon than the song portrays.

I do not read, and will not even mention, the magazine in which the interview originally appeared (in 1980). But am quoting a secondary source which references that final interview. It is an interview that seems largely forgotten, since Lennon’s murder wholly changed the conversation and froze his image in place as the “60s radical.” It would seem he was far from that when he died. I am only here quoting a small part of the article, which you can read in its entirety here: Stop Imagining

Here are the pertinent excerpts:

In his definitive song, “Imagine”….[Lennon]  famously dreams of a world with “no possessions.” The mature Lennon explicitly disavowed such naïve sentiments: I worked for money and I wanted to be rich….What I used to be is guilty about money. … Because I thought money was equated with sin. I don’t know. I think I got over it, because I either have to put up or shut up, you know. If I’m going to be a monk with nothing, do it. Otherwise, if I am going to try and make money, make it. Money itself isn’t the root of all evil.

The man who famously called for imagining a world with “No religion” also jettisoned his anti-theism. “People got the image I was anti-Christ or anti-religion,” he said. “I’m not at all. I’m a most religious fellow. I’m religious in the sense of admitting there is more to it than meets the eye. I’m certainly not an atheist.”

Even more shocking to the idea of Lennon as a secular leftist, or a deep thinker, the man rejected evolution. “Nor do I think we came from monkeys, by the way,” he insisted. “That’s another piece of garbage. What the hell’s it based on? We couldn’t’ve come from anything—fish, maybe, but not monkeys. I don’t believe in the evolution of fish to monkeys to men. Why aren’t monkeys changing into men now? It’s absolute garbage.”

……His final interviews make clear he was above all concerned with his family. “I’m not here for you,”he said, speaking to his fans. “I’m here for me and [Yoko] and the baby.” He revered the institution of marriage, explaining how much it meant to get the state approving his union with Ono. “[R]ituals are important, no matter what we thought as kids. … So nowadays it’s hip not to be married. But I’m not interested in being hip.” [1]

So there it is, the revolutionary, it would seem, either reconsidered, or never fully embraced the radicalism of the song “Imagine.” Elsewhere in the article he is quoted as saying, “It’s easier to shout ‘Revolution’ and ‘Power to the people’ than it is to look at yourself and try to find out what’s real inside you and what isn’t, when you’re pulling the wool over your own eyes. That’s the hardest one.”

I do not hold John Lennon up as anything other than he was, a singer and composer, and quite a good one at that. I personally cannot stand it when we elevate movie stars, and entertainers to the status of cultural and political experts. But given the fact that others do, it is worth noting that one of the icons of the secular humanist movement and the radical left, made something of a journey back to traditional values, family, faith, and personal accountability.

I do not sanction everything Lennon says in the article, I only note the journey he made and claim the hope that Lennon did not die the radical atheist some thought him to be. I pray too others will and are making the journey he apparently did.

Posted on

In the Aftermath of Redefining Marriage, Absurdities Multiply. Woman "Marries" Herself in Recent "Ceremony"

Let the further absurdities begin. Having redefined marriage, the secular world may discover it has actually undefined marriage. For in removing so basic an aspect of the definition of marriage (a male and a female), proponents of gay “marriage” will have a hard time excluding any newcomers to the the now opened-ended notion of “marriage.” Consider the following story from Yahoo News:

Last week, Nadine Schweigert married herself in a symbolic wedding ceremony. The 36-year-old divorced mom of three wore blue satin and clutched a bouquet of white roses as she walked down the aisle before a gathering of 45 friends and family members in Fargo, North Dakota…..

She vowed to “to enjoy inhabiting my own life and to relish a lifelong love affair with my beautiful self,”…the ring was exchanged with the bride and her “inner-groom,” guests were encouraged to “blow kisses at the world,” and later, eat cake. Schweigert, who followed the ceremony with a solo honeymoon in New Orleans, claims the wedding was her way of showing the world she’s learned to love and accept herself as a woman flying solo. …Schweigert’s 11-year-old son was her biggest critic: “He said, ‘I love you, but I’m embarrassed for you right now.'”  [1]

Of course the woman did not marry herself, that is impossible. But why let reality get in the way of wordsmithing and living in a self defined world?

The intrepid reporter could not avoid adding his own commentary:

I believe everyone has the right to marry, regardless of sexual preference…. For some people being alone is what feels most natural. Shouldn’t they too be entitled to tax breaks? …Some people are actually proud of their solo relationship status and even ready to commit to it. Maybe if more people could reap the benefits of a wedding without a partner, there would be a lower national divorce rate.… -Piper Weiss, Shine Senior Features Editor, Single [2]

Let’s overlook the logical fallacy and abuse of the English language in the phrase “solo relationship” for the absurdity is evident enough; and it you don’t see it, I have a square circle to sell you. Let’s also overlook the bizarre non-sequitur that single “marriages” would somehow result in a lower “divorce” rate. For as absurd as the notion of self-“marriage” is, the notion of divorcing one’s own self is even more absurd. Where would one go from oneself?

But absurd is the word for the whole strange redefinition of marriage movement. The secular world, having sown in the wind, now reaps the whirlwind. If something as outlandish as two men together can be called “marriage,” who is to say that any other part of the definition cannot be tampered with? Why should marriage be between only two? Here come the polygamists. And apparently too, here come the soloists like Ms (Mrs?) Schweigert. And while we’re at it, who is to say marriage has to be between two humans? Bring on the bestiality advocates as well as those who would like to effect marriages between their pets.

Absurd? Sure! But so is two men getting “married.” And I would wonder how advocates of homosexual “marriage” would be able to answer Ms. (Mrs?) Schweigert’s (s’ ??) salvo,  as well as the silly conclusions of the reporter? Are they not hoisted on the petard of their own “logic?” For if something as basic as sexual identity can be removed from the definition of marriage, who is to say that duality, and even humanity, cannot be removed? Can the homosexual community and advocates of homosexual “marriage” really say such things as polygamy and bestiality are a bridge too far? Why? On what basis?

I have a solution. Back to the Bible, back to Natural Law, and back to tradition. Yes, Scripture, and the natural Law and tradition it reflects, is easier and clearer. God set forth marriage in Genesis pretty well: One man (Adam) for one woman (Eve). God calls her a “suitable” partner for Adam (Gn 2:18). And Adam was to cling to his wife in a stable life long relationship (Gn 2:24), and their fundamental task was to be fruitful and multiply (Gen 1:28). (Which would be pretty hard if the first and archetypal couple were  homosexual or solo-sexual – (is that a word?)).

Now for those polygamy advocates, who will surely opine here that the Patriarchs had multiple wives, I will only say here that the Scriptures do not approve of things, simply because they report them. The fact is, polygamy always led to trouble and, as Israel matured, it was set aside. The Patriarchs erred by departing from God’s plan for marriage.

So here we are, going into the waters of ever deeper absurdity. A woman “married” herself (she did no such thing). And soon enough the “soloists” will be at City Hall demanding licenses and benefits. The polygamists will be there with them, and Lord only knows what other combinations.

In the end, if anything is marriage, nothing is marriage. We need to stop using the word and return to the older “Holy Matrimony.” The word “marriage” is becoming increasingly meaningless.

Here’s the rather depressing Beatles song “I Me Mine, sung interestingly, at the very time they were breaking up and heading off to solo careers.

Posted on

What is Piety? And How Does a Lack of Piety Spell Doom for Us?

In the modern world the word “piety” has come to be associated with being religious. And while it does have religious application, its original meaning was far wider and richer. The English word “piety” comes from the Latin pietas, which spoke of family love, and by extension love for one’s ancestors,  of one’s country, and surely of God. Cicero defined pietas as the virtue “which admonishes us to do our duty to our country or our parents or other blood relations.”

For the ancient Romans piety was one of the highest virtues since it was the virtue that knit families and ultimately all society together in love, loyalty and a shared, reciprocal duty. Piety also roots us in our past and gave proper reverence to our ancestors.

I hope you can see how essential piety is and why, if we do not recapture it more fully in the modern world, our culture is likely doomed. Piety is like a glue that holds us together. Without its precious effects, we fall apart into factions, our families dissolve, and the “weave” of our culture gives way to tear and dry rot.

Recently over at the Catholic Education Resource Center Donald Demarco (Professor at Holy Apostles College and Seminary in Cromwell CT) wrote some helpful reflections on Piety. I’d like to share some excerpts here, the full article is HERE.

“Piety,” said Cicero, “is justice toward the gods,” and “the foundation of all virtues.” By extension, piety is the just recognition of all we owe to our ancestors. [Thus], the basis of piety is the sober realization that we owe our existence and our substance to powers beyond ourselves. We are social, communal beings. We are not islands; we are part of the mainland…..

“Greatness” is never a purely individual accomplishment. Its roots are always in others and in times past….Our beginning coincides with a debt. Piety requires us to be grateful to those who begot us. It also evokes in us a duty to give what we have so that we can give to our descendents as our ancestors gave to us. [And] Piety, by honoring what poured out from the past to become our own living substance, enlarges and enriches us. It disposes us to give thanks and to live in such a manner that we ourselves may one day become worthy objects for the thanks of others.

Piety was a favorite virtue of Socrates. Far from considering himself a self-made man….[he] gave full credit for whatever civility he enjoyed to those who preceded him. Ralph Waldo Emerson, by contrast, America’s head cheerleader for the man of self-reliance, spoke of “the sovereign individual, free, self-reliant, and alone in his greatness.” Emerson’s belief in the “greatness” of the individual is a dangerous illusion. It is a presumption that naturally leads to pride.

The great enemy of piety is individualism. Individualism is the illusion that we are somehow self-made, self-reliant, and self-sufficient. It is essentially an anti-social form of thinking that belongs to Nietzsche, Rousseau, Sartre, and Ayn Rand rather than to Socrates, St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, and the Founding Fathers of the American Constitution.

The soul of individualism is unfettered choice. Abortion, for example, is presumed to be a private affair. Magically, as its advocates allege, it affects neither the child, its father, the family, nor society…. “Individuality” is the result of a fall from grace. Adam and Eve behaved as persons until sin reduced them to individuals. As individuals, they began lusting after each other. The aprons of fig leaves they fashioned indicated that they were profoundly ashamed of their new identities as self-centered and self-absorbed individuals.

Yes, individualism leaves us largely closed in our self and pathetically self-conscious.

So many of our struggles in this modern era center on a loss of piety, a loss of love and duty owed to our families, community, Church and nation. Our families and our duties to them and the wider community are sacrificed on the “altar” of self-love and self-aggrandizement. Divorce and cohabitation stab at the heart of families ties and family loyalty. We indulge our sexual passions and selfishly cling to our supposed right to be happy at high cost of a devastated family structure, and a heavy-laden community. Church and nation, that are somehow supposed to carry the weight of our imprudent and selfish choices. We speak incessantly of rights but almost never of duties.  Love of me, and what I “owe myself” is alive and well, but love and duty toward family, Church, community, and nation has grown cold. “I gotta be me” results in many, very small and competing worlds.

Further,  Our modern and post-Cartesian era is mired in a “hermeneutic of discontinuity.” That is to say, we have significantly cut our ties with the past. Our ancestors, and antiquity have little to say to us since we have closed our eyes and ears to them. The “Democracy of the Dead,” as Chesterton called tradition, has been cut off by the “Berlin Wall” of modern pride. Our love and respect for our ancestors and the duty we have to honor their wisdom is, to a large extent, gone. We largely see ourselves as “come of age” and are arrogantly dismissive of past ages. As such our continuity with our ancestors and with the wisdom they accumulated is ruptured, and our mistakes are both predictable and often downright silly. As we indulge our passions, and are largely lacking in self-control, we who pride ourselves as “come of age” look more like silly and immature teenagers, than the technical titans we boast of being. It is one thing to go to the moon, it is another to wisely accept need to learn from the past.

Some will like to emphasize the errors of the past, such as slavery, in order to dismiss it. But this misses the point that we learn, not only from the good things of the past, but also from the errors of the past. I learned as much from my parents’ struggles as from their strengths. We do not honor our ancestors because they are perfect. Rather we honor the collected wisdom they have handed on to us, some of which was discovered in the cauldron of struggle and sin.

Finally, the loss of piety also means the significant loss of learning. Without the respect and honor of our parents, teachers and ancestors, there can be no learning. If I do not respect you I cannot learn from you. It is no surprise that in our current American culture, which often celebrates youthful rebellion, that learning, tradition and faith are in a grave crisis. Teachers in classrooms spend so much time in discipline that there is little quality learning time. Parents, whose children are often taught by popular music and television that “adults are stupid” and “out of touch” give little thought to dismissing their parents wisdom. Where there is no respect, there can be no learning.

It is no surprise that the opening commandment of the second table of the Law is “Honor your Father and Your Mother that you may have long life in the land.” For God knows well that if a generation lacks piety, it severs itself from no only from worldly tradition but also from Sacred Tradition. Without reverence, without piety, there is no learning and there is no faith. We are cut off from the glorious wisdom God entrusted to our ancestors. It is no wonder that, in these largely impious and individualistic times,  faith is considered irrelevant to many and the Churches are increasingly empty.

Pray for piety. Pray for the gift of strong and abiding love for your family, for Church, for community and nation. Pray too for a deep love and respect for the ancestors who have gone before us, stretching back into antiquity. We owe a great debt to our family, nation, Church and ancestors. They have much to teach us, not only by their strengths, but also by their struggles. Scripture says,  Remember your leaders, who spoke the word of God to you. Consider the outcome of their way of life and imitate their faith (Heb 13:7).

This song is rooted in Hebrews 12:1-3 and the opening lines say, We are surrounded by a great cloud of witnesses, looking on, encouraging us to do the will of the Lord! We are surrounded by a great cloud of witnesses. Let us stand worthy and be faithful to God’s call. The photos in this video are from the clerestory walls of my own parish, showing the saints in the “cloud of witnesses.”

Posted on

Cerberus – the Mythical Three Headed Dog as an Allegory for What Ails Us.

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.

So lets apply the images of Greek Mythology: Hades and Cerberus, to what ails our culture today.

Hades, here and now – 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 see 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, the three-headed dog, 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. These three threats are represented by his three heads.

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.

Hostile – And it is not merely a matter of preoccupation with the world, 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.

Misplaced Priority – 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). Some have told me John Lennon disavowed this song before his death, but I have not been able to verify this. It is surely a song emblematic of the age of the triple header threat. Cerberus would be proud.