It seems that recently the issue of gay marriage has been in many of the headlines. As a result of Obama announcing his personal support of gay marriage and the passing of a North Carolina amendment protecting marriage between a man and a woman as the only legal union, controversy, argument, and insults fill the air. Some claim that this issue is one of equality and rights, while others argue that this infringes on religious institutions. Leaving these arguments behind, however, and examining the issue of gay marriage from the social context of the family, some interesting insights can be gleaned.
As James Robison and Jay W. Richards write in their new book Indivisible, "In the Bible, there is family from the beginning...One man and one woman--the common ancestors of every human being" (120). It is deeply human, in that each of us belongs to our own family that loves and cares for us, but it is also unavoidably spiritual. The Church is also called the family of God. Therefore, our own understanding of the love between the Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, allows us to understand our the ideal love of own families and as well as our relationship with God. This spiritual understanding of the family is absolutely necessary in order to comprehend the importance of the family as a social institution. Without this spiritual understanding concerning the ideal familial love, the physical nature of the human family may become distorted.
Given this understanding, it is easy to see why statistics show that children raised in a family headed by a mother and father, a man and a woman, achieve higher than those who are not. Robison and Richards explain that this one factor, being reared by both a mother and father, affects a child's success more than any other defining feature including race, parental income, parental education, and neighborhood (121) (Stanton and Maier 2004). I have heard arguments criticizing those who oppose gay marriage based on studies that show that children need families, and that allowing gay marriage would enable more children to become part of a loving, supportive family. However, I am not convinced by this logic for one main reason. Children are brought into the world through the union of a man and a woman and as such, it is impossible for a homosexual couple to have their own children. Thus, the children that would be taken in by such families would still be victims of divorce, single parenting, or any of the other circumstances that lead to the statistics previously mentioned.
It is also important to realize that mothers and fathers are not interchangeable positions that are capable of being filled by either a man or a woman. Robison and Richards write, "What matters is not two parents but the presence of a married mother and father...Fathers are categorically different kinds of parents than mothers, and this is good for children" (122). Both parenting positions are unique and irreplaceable. One may say that everyone has different parenting styles, so this is simply just another alternative method of parenting. However, social science disagrees. Studies have shown a vast array of differences between male and female interactions with their children including physical touch, communication, and discipline. If one of these two roles is absent during development, the child will forever be without that unique interaction that would have been supplied by the absent role.
Both the mother and father of a child have unique gifts to offer their children during development. The development of a child without both a mother and a father would be lacking these gifts and given time this trend could severely alter the fabric of society, for society is built on the family. After all, the family is not just a physical group. It is a spiritual community that nurtures, cares for, and loves those who are part of it, just as the God the Father nurtures, cares for, and loves us, His Church.
Monday, May 14, 2012
Sunday, April 1, 2012
And so the Battle Begins
The Church has ever proved indestructible. Her persecutors have failed to destroy her; in fact, it was during times of persecution that the Church grew more and more; while the persecutors themselves, and those whom the Church would destroy, are the very ones who came to nothing.
--St. Thomas Aquinas
--St. Thomas Aquinas
We regularly hear, throughout our daily lives, about conflicts throughout the world. We hear of revolutions and uprisings in the Middle East, violence and suppression in Asia, and even within the U.S. we hear stories of violent protests and police clashing with the public as seen during the "occupy" movement. While it is necessary to stay informed and up to date on such issues so as to remain a responsible citizen, it is equally necessary to recognize an entirely different type of warfare, which has, of late, entered more prominently into the public square. Make no mistake, a spiritual battle is on the horizon. This battle is far beyond the scope of human warfare, with its guns and bombs. Instead, it is fought on a higher plane, with much more sophistication and far greater danger than any mortal war could pose.
It is quite rare that I ever use any type of apocalyptic reference because I feel that such references are often misinterpreted. However, in this instance such a reference to spiritual warfare is necessary, for that is exactly what is occurring. This entire issue began not long ago when the Obama administration issued a mandate forcing religious institutions to provide insurance coverage for contraception, even if it were gravely against their moral beliefs. The pope, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, as well as many local clergy gave an resolute and unwavering refutation to this proclamation. Catholic social services would sooner be shut down than to comply with this mandate. The assault on Catholicism in the U.S. continued when Obama invited the bishops to meet with him at the White House to discuss this disagreement. The bishops gathered with Obama in order to "work out the wrinkles" of the "maligned exemption" as Cardinal Timothy Dolan wrote. Instead, they were surprised to find that they were about to receive a lecture on the "correct" interpretation of Catholic moral teaching. Dolan, the president of USCCB said that, "The White House seems to think we bishops simply do not know or understand Catholic teaching." The audacity of the Obama administration to lecture the leadership of the Catholic Church in the U.S. on their own moral teachings is honestly quite shocking to me. However, the battle continues. In the Obama administrations most recent move to play hardball with the Catholic Church, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton named the Vatican as "jurisdiction of concern" in her report on money laundering and financial crime. As such, the United States government increases regulations on the Vatican in order to combat this perceived concern. This attempt to pay political hardball with the Catholic Church is insulting to me as a Catholic and completely embarrassing as a citizen of the United States.
Now I have just quickly summarized some of the recent events that have unfolded in the spiritual battle that we are currently facing. These events paint a grim picture for American Catholics in the coming years. Even Cardinal Dolan warned the American bishops to prepare for hard times. However, there is cause for hope. In fact, from my perspective I see two reasons for such hope. First, the recent attack on Catholics has caused Christians of any denomination, as well as those of many other faiths to unite under the same cause of religious freedom. In fact, I recently watched Glenn Beck (a devout Mormon) speak on this issue in one of his recent videos. He too took up the now familiar catchphrase, "We are all Catholics, now." Indeed this is true, for the Obama administration is attacking the largest and most centrally organized religion first. If dismantled, how could independent protestant churches ever hope to resist the government? Through his recent attacks, Obama may have unintentionally united a religious force which has not been seen in a long time. This type of positive force for religious freedom causes me great hope.
The second reason that I see for hope in this situation is due to faith. In fact, we know the outcome of our tribulations already. Christ wins. Quite simply, this is the end result. The trials we must face may be terrible in order to get to this point, but it is all Christ's work. How much greater will our reward be in heaven once these trials are endured for Christ's sake? Therefore, one simple message remains. Every day, every hour, even every action of our lives must be lived as Christ's witness here on Earth. We all have our roles to play in this spiritual battle, and we are on the winning side. Take heart then, and live for Christ.
If anyone wishes to come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me. For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will save it...Whoever is ashamed of me and of my words, the Son of Man will be ashamed of when he comes in his glory and in the glory of the Father and of the holy angels.
Luke 9:23-24,26
Sunday, March 18, 2012
Life is Never Wrong
I recently wrote an article about prenatal testing and its implications on babies with Down syndrome and many other genetic disorders. It was in this article that I cited a very sobering statistic. Between 84 and 91 percent of babies with Down syndrome are aborted. I used this statistic to question the necessity of prenatal testing. A recent development in the argument of prenatal testing has caused me to become an even harsher critic of such tests and the regulations surrounding them. For this story we visit The City of Roses, Portland OR, where a jury has just awarded Deborah Levy and her husband $2.9 million for the "wrongful birth" of their daughter Kalanit. I had a hard time wrapping my mind around this the first time I read it, so let me try to explain. When Deborah was pregnant with Kalanit, she received prenatal testing just like many other mothers do. The hospital reported that everything looked completely normal, and the pregnancy was carried to term. However, when Kalanit was born, something wasn't quite right. It turns out that Kalanit was diagnosed with trisomy 21: Down syndrome. It was at this point that Deborah, her mother, decided to press charges against the hospital claiming "medical negligence" of the doctors that processed the prenatal test. Deborah testified that although she "loves her daughter dearly," had she known the truth about her daughter's condition, she would have received an abortion. So now, the hospital is forced to pay big bucks for delivering a healthy child into the world.
Now, this case brings a great number of questions to my mind including those concerning the current legal system, the audacity of a mother to claim she loves her child while still desiring an abortion, and how the prenatal test failed, but let us focus here on the ethical issues. It seems odd to me that a country so intent on being politically correct can justify the modern day eugenics used to kill about 90% of those with a specific genetic disease. I do not like to use references to Nazi Germany because they often seem hyperbolic and cliche, but in this instance I believe it is appropriate. The Nazi extermination of those with disabilities in Germany aimed to exclude "unfit" Germans from the community.These strategies began with forced sterilization and escalated toward mass murder. The most extreme measure, the Euthanasia Program, in itself murdered an estimated 275,000 adults and children because of their disabilities. Now this action was, and is universally condemned. Yet Down syndrome babies face a similar danger today as the majority of U.S. citizens support abortion in the case of prenatal diagnosis. How is extermination of disabled citizens soundly condemned in one situation, and then overwhelmingly supported less than 70 years later?
The contradictions continue, for once an individual with a genetic disorder matures, they receive overwhelming support, and rightly so. The Special Olympics are supported by 170 countries around the world and more than 3.7 million people are involved in the event globally. The United Nations, as well as the United States, have repeatedly spoken out for the protection of those with disabilities, some 650 million people worldwide. Yet, the most common genetic disorder, Down syndrome, is attacked at the earliest stage possible.
Now I will return to the Levy case. It seems to me that even from the most basic perspective, this ruling is flawed. Even the phrase used, "wrongful birth" makes absolutely no sense. This just goes to show the extent to which procreation has become a consumer activity. Through the in vitro fertilization and abortion industries, procreation and termination of life have become so ingrained in our culture that many people don't even think twice about either. No longer do these procedures deal with the creation and destruction of human life as a gift from God. Rather, they have reduced the gift of life to have nothing more than instrumental value. That is, a baby's only worth is derived from the usefulness to others or the desire of others for that life. Looking back I feel it was inevitable that at one point a situation would arise such as this when the value of life was degraded so far that a claim would arise that a baby never should have been born.
I believe serious reflection on these recent events is necessary. Life is a gift from God. Parents do not have a right to choose the characteristics of the child they wish to have and certainly no jury of human beings has the right to declare that a life should have never been born.
Now, this case brings a great number of questions to my mind including those concerning the current legal system, the audacity of a mother to claim she loves her child while still desiring an abortion, and how the prenatal test failed, but let us focus here on the ethical issues. It seems odd to me that a country so intent on being politically correct can justify the modern day eugenics used to kill about 90% of those with a specific genetic disease. I do not like to use references to Nazi Germany because they often seem hyperbolic and cliche, but in this instance I believe it is appropriate. The Nazi extermination of those with disabilities in Germany aimed to exclude "unfit" Germans from the community.These strategies began with forced sterilization and escalated toward mass murder. The most extreme measure, the Euthanasia Program, in itself murdered an estimated 275,000 adults and children because of their disabilities. Now this action was, and is universally condemned. Yet Down syndrome babies face a similar danger today as the majority of U.S. citizens support abortion in the case of prenatal diagnosis. How is extermination of disabled citizens soundly condemned in one situation, and then overwhelmingly supported less than 70 years later?
The contradictions continue, for once an individual with a genetic disorder matures, they receive overwhelming support, and rightly so. The Special Olympics are supported by 170 countries around the world and more than 3.7 million people are involved in the event globally. The United Nations, as well as the United States, have repeatedly spoken out for the protection of those with disabilities, some 650 million people worldwide. Yet, the most common genetic disorder, Down syndrome, is attacked at the earliest stage possible.
Now I will return to the Levy case. It seems to me that even from the most basic perspective, this ruling is flawed. Even the phrase used, "wrongful birth" makes absolutely no sense. This just goes to show the extent to which procreation has become a consumer activity. Through the in vitro fertilization and abortion industries, procreation and termination of life have become so ingrained in our culture that many people don't even think twice about either. No longer do these procedures deal with the creation and destruction of human life as a gift from God. Rather, they have reduced the gift of life to have nothing more than instrumental value. That is, a baby's only worth is derived from the usefulness to others or the desire of others for that life. Looking back I feel it was inevitable that at one point a situation would arise such as this when the value of life was degraded so far that a claim would arise that a baby never should have been born.
I believe serious reflection on these recent events is necessary. Life is a gift from God. Parents do not have a right to choose the characteristics of the child they wish to have and certainly no jury of human beings has the right to declare that a life should have never been born.
Saturday, March 3, 2012
Slipping and Sliding
I have heard time after time that the so called "slippery slope argument" is a logical fallacy and cannot be used in debates. However, after a look through the not-so-distant history of America I would tend to believe that the slippery slope is altogether too real. Certainly the progression of laws concerning right to life issues provides ample support for a slippery slope theory. Let us begin in 1973 with the well known ruling of the Supreme Court on Roe v. Wade. It was in this ruling that the Supreme Court stated the due process clause of the 14th Amendment promoted the right to privacy for a woman, and as such extended a woman's right to have an abortion. After this ruling, the idea of a slippery slope was proposed, but it was largely dismissed. After all, how can allowing women reproductive rights cause any kind of harm to society?
Fast forward just about two decades to 1994. It was in this year that the state of Oregon passed Ballot Measure 16, which provided for the enactment of the Death with Dignity Act. This was the first instance of a state legalizing "physician assisted suicide," a euphemism for euthanasia. Washington State followed suit in 2008 with the passing of Initiative 1000 and soon afterward the trail court ruling in Baxter v. Montana legalized physician assisted suicide in Montana. Once again, the subject of a slippery slope was raised. How could we ensure that this practice wasn't abused to simply kill those who become a burden? Rather than address this fundamental problem, superficial restrictions were placed on the practice, aiming to reduce unwarranted killing.
In 2009, President Barack Obama lifted the ban of federal funding for embryonic stem cell research through an executive order. After this executive order, research began through federal funds toward applications of human embryonic stem cells. The benefits were claimed to be innumerable, but the costs are far more drastic as research began involving the active destruction of the human embryo.
Now, I do not try to claim that these events were all directly caused from the legalization of abortion in 1973. However, these issues are all closely related and in recent times have seen a drastic change in legal standing. What is the connection then? Although these events may not be linked by a direct cause and effect, there is still an overarching theme among them. This theme is the degradation of the value of human life.
Each of the events listed above was made possible by the dehumanization of part of the human species. In Roe v. Wade the fetus was not seen as a whole person because it was dependent upon the mother. Physician assisted suicide dehumanized the terminally ill patient to no more than an animal waiting to die without any hope for the future. Finally, through embryonic stem cell research, the embryo is dehumanized to the point that it has no more intrinsic value, but only instrumental value, similar to that of a tool. In each step along the way, the dehumanization process has become increasingly dramatic, leading to equally dramatic attacks on human life. Although the slippery slope may not directly link one event to another, the culmination of these acts through the dehumanization of human life has caused increasing affronts to the culture of life.
Fast forward just about two decades to 1994. It was in this year that the state of Oregon passed Ballot Measure 16, which provided for the enactment of the Death with Dignity Act. This was the first instance of a state legalizing "physician assisted suicide," a euphemism for euthanasia. Washington State followed suit in 2008 with the passing of Initiative 1000 and soon afterward the trail court ruling in Baxter v. Montana legalized physician assisted suicide in Montana. Once again, the subject of a slippery slope was raised. How could we ensure that this practice wasn't abused to simply kill those who become a burden? Rather than address this fundamental problem, superficial restrictions were placed on the practice, aiming to reduce unwarranted killing.
In 2009, President Barack Obama lifted the ban of federal funding for embryonic stem cell research through an executive order. After this executive order, research began through federal funds toward applications of human embryonic stem cells. The benefits were claimed to be innumerable, but the costs are far more drastic as research began involving the active destruction of the human embryo.
Now, I do not try to claim that these events were all directly caused from the legalization of abortion in 1973. However, these issues are all closely related and in recent times have seen a drastic change in legal standing. What is the connection then? Although these events may not be linked by a direct cause and effect, there is still an overarching theme among them. This theme is the degradation of the value of human life.
Each of the events listed above was made possible by the dehumanization of part of the human species. In Roe v. Wade the fetus was not seen as a whole person because it was dependent upon the mother. Physician assisted suicide dehumanized the terminally ill patient to no more than an animal waiting to die without any hope for the future. Finally, through embryonic stem cell research, the embryo is dehumanized to the point that it has no more intrinsic value, but only instrumental value, similar to that of a tool. In each step along the way, the dehumanization process has become increasingly dramatic, leading to equally dramatic attacks on human life. Although the slippery slope may not directly link one event to another, the culmination of these acts through the dehumanization of human life has caused increasing affronts to the culture of life.
Saturday, February 25, 2012
Cultivating the Interior Life
As Lent just began last week, I thought it would be appropriate to theme one of my posts in this manner. Therefore, this post will not deal so much with politics, philosophy, or the secular world, but instead it will be primarily concerned with the interior life. The liturgical season of Lent allows us a time for serious reflection on the state of our spiritual life. While doing some spiritual reading recently, I ran across a homily by St. Josemaria Escriva. While preaching on the first Sunday of Lent, he said, "We are at the beginning of Lent: a time for penance, purification, and conversion. It is not an easy program, but then Christianity is not an easy way of life. It is not enough just to be in the Church, letting the years roll by." This was a particularly convicting piece for me. My local pastor, Fr. Jim Northrop, often shares a similar message. He explains how our faith is not to be treated as some trophy to be placed on the mantle and taken down to show off on special occasions, or to console us only in times of need. Instead, our faith requires of us a deeply personal relationship with Christ. Similar to our relationships with those around us, this relationship with Christ must be nurtured through regular contact and discussion. That is, our relationship with Christ is nurtured through a strong interior life. Lent provides a wonderful opportunity to rededicate ourselves to cultivating a strong interior life.
The goal of the interior life is beautifully illustrated by St. Paul, "It is not I who live, it is Christ that lives in me" (Gal 2:20). This high and noble ambition requires constant diligence. We must, each day, deliberately choose to move toward Christ, for to shy away would be to restrict our interior life in its natural growth. Once again, I will use the words of St. Josemaria Escriva. "The fire of God's love needs to be fed. It must grow each day, gathering strength in our soul...if we don't feed it, it may die." Lent, then, provides us with an opportunity to track our daily advances toward Him. With these advances in spirituality, our desire for holiness should also advance.
Truly, our every day life provides us with ample opportunities to grow in holiness. Whether it be interacting with a difficult coworker or adopting a generous outlook instead of the usual critical one, these small steps, these deliberate choices to act in a way displaying Christ living through you, help to cultivate the interior life. Once these actions are habituated, they are transformed into a means of prayer, furthering frequent conversations with Christ.
I will conclude this post with a warning from St. Augustine. He said, "If you say "enough," you are lost. Go further, keep going. Don't stay in the same place, don't go back, don't go off the road."
The goal of the interior life is beautifully illustrated by St. Paul, "It is not I who live, it is Christ that lives in me" (Gal 2:20). This high and noble ambition requires constant diligence. We must, each day, deliberately choose to move toward Christ, for to shy away would be to restrict our interior life in its natural growth. Once again, I will use the words of St. Josemaria Escriva. "The fire of God's love needs to be fed. It must grow each day, gathering strength in our soul...if we don't feed it, it may die." Lent, then, provides us with an opportunity to track our daily advances toward Him. With these advances in spirituality, our desire for holiness should also advance.
Truly, our every day life provides us with ample opportunities to grow in holiness. Whether it be interacting with a difficult coworker or adopting a generous outlook instead of the usual critical one, these small steps, these deliberate choices to act in a way displaying Christ living through you, help to cultivate the interior life. Once these actions are habituated, they are transformed into a means of prayer, furthering frequent conversations with Christ.
I will conclude this post with a warning from St. Augustine. He said, "If you say "enough," you are lost. Go further, keep going. Don't stay in the same place, don't go back, don't go off the road."
Monday, February 20, 2012
On Objective Truth and Religious Subjectivism
One of the most common objections to organized religion that I hear goes something like this, "Religion may be true for you, but it's just not for me." This view seems to think that belief in God is a simple matter of feeling, a set of guidelines that may be used for an individual to live a happy life. For those that adopt this theory, religion has no concrete statements of fact asserting, for example, that an all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-loving God actually does exist. Rather, religion is simply a loose set of values or ideals to lead a successful life. Under this interpretation, it is easy to see how someone can claim religion is only for certain people. After all, if religion is only a guide, some guides are more useful for certain people than for others.
For religion to be applicable to a broader population than those who openly seek it, it must contain some element of objective truth. The subjective values asserted above can easily be removed from consideration by an individual simply because such a value is entirely dependent on the individual's own mental, emotional, and spiritual state. However, objective truth is by its very nature independent of the individual, and thus applicable to all, regardless of personal differences.
Contrary to the subjectivist's belief, religion does make objective assertions and not just subjective values. Much of this confusion is derived from society's use of the word "values" as opposed to "laws". Clichés such as "don't be judgmental," "different strokes for different folks," and "alternative lifestyles" simply reinforces the confusion. "Laws" seem unmovingly objective, and so they are. However, "values" seem to be entirely dependent on the individual. We each have different traits that we admire and so it seems that you have "your values" while I have "my values". However, the Church does not simply make claims about values. These claims are simply implied by the objective teachings of the Church. For example, the objective teaching of the Annunciation implies what appears to be a subjective claim about the ideal example of accepting God's will for our lives.
With these distinctions understood, we can now examine the argument of the religious subjectivist. Essentially, the argument claims religion is subjective, or dependent on the believer. In other words, religion is invented by the believer and for the believer. In this instance, God can be likened to Santa Claus for the religious individuals who don't wish to grow up, but instead live in self-delusion. In order to discuss the objectivity of religion, it can be broken down into three categories: theology, morality, and liturgy. These three categories address the various parts of human nature, intellect, will, and emotion respectively. Together, they address the whole of human nature.
The objectivity of theology, or the creeds and beliefs of religion, can be compared to the objectivity of a science such as physics. Just as physicists develop and change theories throughout time, each with varying degrees of truth, so too do theological formulations. No, there is not complete truth in theology because our knowledge as humans is limited. But this same argument can be made against the partial truth of physics, many aspects of which remain complete mysteries to the brightest scientific minds. However, the partial truths of theology, like physics, are objective.
In the category of morality, the values and works emphasized by religion, it can be argued that subjectivity exists, for morality is greatly dependent on the individual. However, once again when compared with an "objective science" this argument is weak. For this comparison I will use the field of medicine. Just as medicine best directs individuals toward physical health, so too does morality direct an individual toward spiritual health. Furthermore, health practices vary between individuals due to states in life and physical abilities. Yet, medicine is considered to have objective truth. Therefore, it is not valid to deem morality subjective simply because it can vary between individuals. Every person is at a different point along their spiritual journey and as such morality applies differently in different situations. Yet, there is objective truth in morality just as there is objective truth in medicine. There are universal rules for holiness just as there are universal rules to maintain good health.
Finally, with respect to liturgy objective truth can also be seen. The main purpose of liturgy is not simply to have a beautiful service (although beauty is a part of it), but to properly express the theological and moral aspects of religion and properly honor them. The truth and goodness of these earlier aspects are at their pinnacle during liturgy. For example, the theological truths about Jesus Christ and the moral obligations of his teachings are most properly and fully expressed through the sacrament of the Eucharist and through participation in the Holy Mass. Since the truth and goodness of these aspects are objective, so too is there objective truth found within the liturgy aspect of religion.
Thus, it can be concluded that rather than a subjective ideal for life, religion is far more powerful. It contains objective laws, which are not in any way dependent upon those who are religious. The Catholic Church was not dreamt up by naïve and idealistic humans but was divinely instituted.
For religion to be applicable to a broader population than those who openly seek it, it must contain some element of objective truth. The subjective values asserted above can easily be removed from consideration by an individual simply because such a value is entirely dependent on the individual's own mental, emotional, and spiritual state. However, objective truth is by its very nature independent of the individual, and thus applicable to all, regardless of personal differences.
Contrary to the subjectivist's belief, religion does make objective assertions and not just subjective values. Much of this confusion is derived from society's use of the word "values" as opposed to "laws". Clichés such as "don't be judgmental," "different strokes for different folks," and "alternative lifestyles" simply reinforces the confusion. "Laws" seem unmovingly objective, and so they are. However, "values" seem to be entirely dependent on the individual. We each have different traits that we admire and so it seems that you have "your values" while I have "my values". However, the Church does not simply make claims about values. These claims are simply implied by the objective teachings of the Church. For example, the objective teaching of the Annunciation implies what appears to be a subjective claim about the ideal example of accepting God's will for our lives.
With these distinctions understood, we can now examine the argument of the religious subjectivist. Essentially, the argument claims religion is subjective, or dependent on the believer. In other words, religion is invented by the believer and for the believer. In this instance, God can be likened to Santa Claus for the religious individuals who don't wish to grow up, but instead live in self-delusion. In order to discuss the objectivity of religion, it can be broken down into three categories: theology, morality, and liturgy. These three categories address the various parts of human nature, intellect, will, and emotion respectively. Together, they address the whole of human nature.
The objectivity of theology, or the creeds and beliefs of religion, can be compared to the objectivity of a science such as physics. Just as physicists develop and change theories throughout time, each with varying degrees of truth, so too do theological formulations. No, there is not complete truth in theology because our knowledge as humans is limited. But this same argument can be made against the partial truth of physics, many aspects of which remain complete mysteries to the brightest scientific minds. However, the partial truths of theology, like physics, are objective.
In the category of morality, the values and works emphasized by religion, it can be argued that subjectivity exists, for morality is greatly dependent on the individual. However, once again when compared with an "objective science" this argument is weak. For this comparison I will use the field of medicine. Just as medicine best directs individuals toward physical health, so too does morality direct an individual toward spiritual health. Furthermore, health practices vary between individuals due to states in life and physical abilities. Yet, medicine is considered to have objective truth. Therefore, it is not valid to deem morality subjective simply because it can vary between individuals. Every person is at a different point along their spiritual journey and as such morality applies differently in different situations. Yet, there is objective truth in morality just as there is objective truth in medicine. There are universal rules for holiness just as there are universal rules to maintain good health.
Finally, with respect to liturgy objective truth can also be seen. The main purpose of liturgy is not simply to have a beautiful service (although beauty is a part of it), but to properly express the theological and moral aspects of religion and properly honor them. The truth and goodness of these earlier aspects are at their pinnacle during liturgy. For example, the theological truths about Jesus Christ and the moral obligations of his teachings are most properly and fully expressed through the sacrament of the Eucharist and through participation in the Holy Mass. Since the truth and goodness of these aspects are objective, so too is there objective truth found within the liturgy aspect of religion.
Thus, it can be concluded that rather than a subjective ideal for life, religion is far more powerful. It contains objective laws, which are not in any way dependent upon those who are religious. The Catholic Church was not dreamt up by naïve and idealistic humans but was divinely instituted.
Thursday, February 9, 2012
The Goal of Manhood
Over the course of my Catholic school education, I've often heard talks about the clash between popular culture and Catholic morality. Many of these discussions focus on the disturbing trend of objectifying women, using advertising and supermodels as evidence of this trend. It seems that scantily clad women now pop off of the covers of nearly every magazine in the grocery store, and it is the prevalence of such images that spark many morality discussions. Have these magazine covers and advertising slots altered the image associated with the goal of womanhood? Almost certainly, it has. However, females are not the only ones to be affected by such imagery. As the perception of womanhood has changed throughout recent decades, the idea of manhood has changed in a corresponding way and yet it has received far less attention.
So what does it mean to be a true man? Society would have me think that the goal of my college life is to party hard, have a good time, and avoid any consequences for my actions, whatsoever. For as womanhood was objectified, the great and holy gift of female sexuality was cheapened. It became an object only meant for pleasure: something to be used. So too, the male persona developed into the user. Given this relationship style, it becomes easy to understand why nearly half of all marriages end in divorce.
This culture permeates our life so much that many of us rarely give notice anymore. For example, during the Super Bowl this year there was one advertisement that seems to illustrate my point exactly. It was a commercial for godaddy.com, starring Danica Patrick. The commercial begins when two men are transported to a world full of immodestly dressed women, all of whom seem willing to dote on the men in any way they pleased. The culmination is reached with a shot of Danica Patrick wearing only lingerie, and the men exclaim, "Is this heaven?" As Sr. Miriam James Heidland eloquently explains in her own blog on this topic, "Sorry to say, gentleman, but that is the anti-thesis of heaven. Heaven is so much more." However, this is merely an example of how disoriented our culture has become.
What then, is the purpose of manhood? In order to answer this question, we may look to the ultimate example: Jesus Christ. His life exemplifies manhood at its best. It shows the true goal of the desire that other men seek to quench through physical relationships with women. In every man, there is the heart of a soldier. This soldier is meant to seek and pursue his future bride. Furthermore, one of the most beautiful aspects of manhood is sacrifice. Just as Christ himself was a sacrifice for all of humanity, true manhood is the ability and desire to sacrifice, even at great personal cost, for a bride. This is why a man is not truly fulfilled through physical relationships with women. This sexual lifestyle requires no kind of sacrifice, no work toward something greater. Man is not meant to simply conquer, but to offer his life in service to God and to his bride.
I have heard people say that chivalry is dead, that men and women are the same, and that chivalry is oppressive. This is just not so. Men and women are created differently. However, these differences are complementary, and so men and women are drawn together in a loving union. In this union, it is the role of a man to dutifully serve God and his bride, so as to bring their relationship closer to Christ.
Sr. Miriam James Heidland's Blog: http://soltsisters.blogspot.com/
So what does it mean to be a true man? Society would have me think that the goal of my college life is to party hard, have a good time, and avoid any consequences for my actions, whatsoever. For as womanhood was objectified, the great and holy gift of female sexuality was cheapened. It became an object only meant for pleasure: something to be used. So too, the male persona developed into the user. Given this relationship style, it becomes easy to understand why nearly half of all marriages end in divorce.
This culture permeates our life so much that many of us rarely give notice anymore. For example, during the Super Bowl this year there was one advertisement that seems to illustrate my point exactly. It was a commercial for godaddy.com, starring Danica Patrick. The commercial begins when two men are transported to a world full of immodestly dressed women, all of whom seem willing to dote on the men in any way they pleased. The culmination is reached with a shot of Danica Patrick wearing only lingerie, and the men exclaim, "Is this heaven?" As Sr. Miriam James Heidland eloquently explains in her own blog on this topic, "Sorry to say, gentleman, but that is the anti-thesis of heaven. Heaven is so much more." However, this is merely an example of how disoriented our culture has become.
What then, is the purpose of manhood? In order to answer this question, we may look to the ultimate example: Jesus Christ. His life exemplifies manhood at its best. It shows the true goal of the desire that other men seek to quench through physical relationships with women. In every man, there is the heart of a soldier. This soldier is meant to seek and pursue his future bride. Furthermore, one of the most beautiful aspects of manhood is sacrifice. Just as Christ himself was a sacrifice for all of humanity, true manhood is the ability and desire to sacrifice, even at great personal cost, for a bride. This is why a man is not truly fulfilled through physical relationships with women. This sexual lifestyle requires no kind of sacrifice, no work toward something greater. Man is not meant to simply conquer, but to offer his life in service to God and to his bride.
I have heard people say that chivalry is dead, that men and women are the same, and that chivalry is oppressive. This is just not so. Men and women are created differently. However, these differences are complementary, and so men and women are drawn together in a loving union. In this union, it is the role of a man to dutifully serve God and his bride, so as to bring their relationship closer to Christ.
Sr. Miriam James Heidland's Blog: http://soltsisters.blogspot.com/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)