WHY WHICH BRAND OF SELF DRIVING CAR YOU BUY MATTERS

You Catholic faith has a lot to do with what self driving car you buy in the future.

Maybe ten years from now you are happily driving (well, riding) along, drinking you coffee and finishing up some last minute things as your car speedily scoots you along to your destination.  All of a sudden and in a way that could not be predicted, three people tumble into the street in your path: an elderly man, a pregnant woman and a well dressed middle aged guy.  There is nothing that can be done!  The car will have to hit one of these people while you drink your coffee or veer off of a cliff killing you, possibly some woodland creatures and possibly cause some pollution to the environment.

The decision is not made in a vacuum.  A computer does not make this decision.  All of the input comes from human beings and somewhere along the line someone programed a decision as to who will be sacrificed in the computer’s brain.  As it turns out the old man is a great senator, the woman would go on to be a terrible mother causing her child to be a terrorist and the well dressed man was on a job interview, that he didn’t get, and will spend the next 30 years living for free in his mother’s basement playing video games.  Does this matter?

Who gets to decide who gets hit?  Are you still morally culpable in any way?  What if you have to decide, before you buy the car, what moral standards you will use.

You new car comes with your choice of:

Traditional Judeo/Christian ethics

Revised Judeo/Christian ethics for the modern person

Atheist

non-denominational

Buddhist

Utilitarianism

AND MANY MORE!  YOU CHOOSE!

Often the Catholic Church is accused of being anti-science (an illusion of which an honest historian will relieve you.)  Often the Church is just saying, “This is new territory and we should think about the moral implications before blindly going forward and ending up someplace we don’t want to be.”  Science, as is its current nature, wants to march on with what it can do (rather than, sometimes, what it should do) and wants to police itself (which we see how well that turned out in the Catholic hierarchy.)  

Go science!  Go faith!  Hand in hand we can do much good together.

IS IT POSSIBLE THAT THIS POST IS COMPLETELY IMMORAL?

I was making a Google search for some information for a homily I gave last weekend.  I needed, “Examples of things that are legal but immoral.”  The last entry on one site said this:

“That depends on your definition of ‘immoral’.  Defined as such in some book?  Then almost anything can be immoral, including things that are legal.

“But if you're talking about actual morality (which is relative, not absolute), not the fake stuff religions claim, almost anything that's legal can, in some instances, be immoral.  Legality is orthogonal to morality (IOW, one has nothing to do with the other)”

There is a lot of rich, fertile soil to dig in here.  Probably because the cows have been standing over it too long. 

So what is “actual morality?”  Morality is the extend that one (or a group) can say something is right or wrong.  If it is completely subjective, than I cannot say that something is right or wrong for someone else, only myself and those who either agree with me or that I can force to be obedient.  Therefore, it may be illegal for me to let my dog do his business on you lawn, but I may think it moral.  After all, dogs have rights, he enjoys the freedom, his gift to you is good for your lawn.  And prevents filling up landfills.  

The owner of the lawn however thinks it is completely immoral.  He does not want my dog’s gift on his lawn, does not want my dog trespassing, does not think it is good for the environment, and is upset he is going to have to go outside and pick it up.

There is something we can do legally here of course, but is there anything we can say morally of morality is relative or subjective?

If morals are subjective then no.  I think brown is horrid and you think it is the best color ever.  I think something is immoral and you see nothing wrong with it.  If this is true, then there is no such thing as morality.  There are preferences and all we have left is legality and with it “might that makes right.”  Legality is no longer orthogonal to morality, it is morality.  

The paragraph would be better written:

“But if you're talking about actual morality (which is absolute, not relative), not the fake stuff relativists claim, many things that are legal may be immoral.  Legality is orthogonal to morality only insofar as there is a basis for absolute morality.”

GOOD THING GOD INVENTED FIGS

As a student, for a summer, I lived with an alcoholic.  At first I was living on my own, house sitting through the graciousness of a friend and then was told, “This guys needs a place to stay.  He’s just coming off drinking and is trying to get his life together so I though he could stay in the house with you.”

I was cool with that and realized that I would need to get rid of the wine in the refrigerator that I enjoyed with dinner at night.  Now, I could have whined (ha) and complained and said, “I have every right as an American citizen to eat and drink as I wish and choose.  Everybody else should be responsible and control themselves.  This guys should be responsible for his drinking and I should not have to live differently just because he isn’t.”

The problem is that there is a modicum of truth to that but it would be cruel and idiotic.

Yet that is exactly what we do as a nation with something far more powerful and potentially damaging.  We push sexuality to the fore, we exploit it for advertising, use it gratuitously in art, demand that in the name of equality men and women be put in potentially compromising positions with each other (aka the near occasion of sin,) and push to promote the rights of those who wish to act out provocatively in public as far as possible with just the barest and thinest veil of modesty still in place.  Then, when people act out inappropriately (as we all agree they should NOT do) we are surprised, shocked, angry, and vengeful.

This is a broken model that is not working well.  It is a problem when we both celebrate liberty as license and do not recognize the fallen nature of man.  It is problem when we overly celebrate the individual and not the communal (catholic) nature of humanity.  It is dangerous when we don’t balance the dignity of the individual with the life of the Body of Christ.  It is not dealing with the fact that, while under our clothes we are all naked, there is a reason for fig leaves.

SHOCKED MAYBE, BUT REALLY? ARE YOU SURPRISED?

Yesterday, my day away (somewhat,) a priest friend and I went out for brunch.  Though one of my favorite places for breakfast food, they practiced the uncivilized trend of having T.V.s playing in every corner of the restaurant.  So we were into our cup of coffee when Fr. B says, "Do you see what they are reporting on T.V.?"  It was the shocking story of the man who shot the reporter, camera man, and the interviewee on live television.  

"Can you imagine your world being so small," I opined, "that the only way this disturbance in your life can be dealt with is by killing somebody?"  

Fr. B replies, "How much you wanna bet it is a love triangle and that we find out he later ends his own life?"

Well . . . he was close.

Talk about jaded.

But really, are you surprised?  We are constantly working on becoming what some people consider a freer society, but it is leading us down some deadly paths.

1. You have a right to happiness in this world.

2. There are those who deserve life and those who don't.

3. There is no God who needs to be part of civic life therefore there are no absolutes.

4. Truth is subjective.

5. Man is the highest authority.  (At least the one with the most power.)

So, with these as your premise, where do you find meaning in your life; in what you do, accomplish, and are "good for."  That brings you happiness (or escape) is that which is labeled, "the good."  If these are the goods, anything that works against them is evil.  And if you don't have a well developed sense of God, Divine justice, hope both in this life and the after life, that you have dignity and meaning through simply through your being, which comes from this God, that there is such a thing as redemptive suffering, that every aspect of your life and the lives of those around you are a part of these paradigms, then for an increasing number of us, personal justice based on my idea of truth imposed by my will becomes a more realistic option.  

If we keep telling people McDonalds is a real food option, can we be surprised when people base their lives on a McDonalds diet even to the point where they get sick?  And if we keep teaching people that they are their own moral authority, can we be surprised that they take the advice seriously?

WHO GETS TO DECIDE WHO HAS TO BE TOLERANT AND WHY?

Cleveland is being asked to pass a law that would force everybody except churches to allow transgender persons to use whatever bathroom they wish.  Of course, in the age of Tolerance, those who think this might not be such a good idea are labeled Intolerant and even to debate the issue in the name of Tolerance is deemed Intolerable.

 

On the one hand I understand the concern.  (Deep in taking of breath from the collective audience reading this.)  I remember my first experience with a transgender person.  My Aunties would take me to the double header Indians games and Municipal stadium (gads I miss that place) when I was in grade school.  We generally got the mid range seats and so there were never many people around us – neither those going for the really cheap seats nor those who could afford really good ones.  So people around us stood out.  One day there was what appeared to be a woman in a lime green miniskirt.  I knew something was different here even as a kid.  I had no idea that there was such a thing as transgender people and so what I was seeing didn’t compute.

 

He was a slender African American person having some of the attributes of woman, (to my little boy’s brain: “Okay, there are those.  Check.  Makeup.  Check.  Long hair.  Check.”)  But other things that didn’t fit.  (Adam’s apple.  “?”  Big hands.  “?”  Deep voice.  “?”  Stubble.  “?”) 

 

Now, here is where my understanding would kick in.  What if this person suddenly realized that the need of bathroom was desperate?  How would I feel being this person going into the men’s room with a bunch of testosterone rich, drunk, men?  So we are asked to be compassionate and, by law, make this person feel comfortable with the bathroom he or she chooses to use except at a church.

 

POR OTRA PARTE:  Tolerance is a one way street here.  What about the people who would feel uncomfortable having a person who appears to be of the opposite sex in their bathroom?  How safe would a woman feel with a man, even if he is identifying himself as woman, in the bathroom with her at a downtown bar or any other number of scenarios?  What if of one hundred women, only 3 felt uncomfortable?  Are they Intolerable wretches that need to be sent to a counselor to get over their prejudice?  Why should they be sent to counseling and not the man who identifies himself as a woman?  He could dress like a man and go to the bathroom but women have no such option to end up in a place in which they feel comfortable carrying out their sensitive business. 

 

Anyway, the argument could go on and on about on whom the duty falls to be the one to have to be tolerant of the other.  They can’t both be accommodated without building owners constructing numerous bathrooms from which people could choose.  “Women’s bathroom for those born and who remain female.”  “Women’s bathroom for life long females and those born male but who identify as female but have not yet had an operation.”  “Women’s bathroom for those who identify as female but beyond that don’t really care who else is in here.”  THERE is true but very expensive tolerance.

 

What is happening here is a defining of what is “normal” beyond a setting on a dryer and exactly who must be tolerant of the sensitivities of whom.  Opening this door does not make Clevelanders more Tolerant, it only defines of what they will be Tolerant and of what they won’t be Tolerant.  At the core of all wars on Tolerance, there is the determination to eliminate the voice and rights of all who are not Tolerant of my Tolerance.   And in this and similar cases it will be enforced by law.

RANT - COUNTER RANT: KNOWING WHAT YOU REALLY WANT

“There should be a less moralistic choice.”  This was the opinion expressed by a minister in this weekend’s Akron Beacon Journal in the letters to the editor concerning a local hospital joining the Catholic Health Care system.  Like so many people, this minister has been hoodwinked into thinking that there is some sort of neutral position when it comes to ethics.  He does not want fewer morals as he thinks he does, but a different set.

 

Let us begin with toying with idea of if there is a God or not.  If one does not believe that there is a God, the basis of moral grounding changes dramatically even if, on the surface, they may seem the same as Christian.  If there is no God, then there is no Creator.  If all that there is has no intelligent design behind it, then it is a fluke.  If it is a fluke, then it has no real meaning.  If it has no meaning it really can’t progress toward anything – it is simply what it is.  If that is the case, then a human being is no more wonderful than a stone.  (Many people like this idea.) 

 

If all that is the case, then the case for goodness, for morals, is entirely based on a social contract.  The social contract will be largely shaped by those with power.  So “I won’t burn your house down if you don’t burn my house down,” holds as long as the two home owners agree to the contract and are able to enforce it.  But if there is no absolute good, breaking the contract may really make someone mad, but in the end it doesn’t matter.

 

With this is the groundwork, those without power begin to lose out – those without a voice – who cannot defend themselves.  Abortions become a right for the woman, using people in other countries to make cheap goods for us makes sense, marriage becomes about the right of happiness for adults rather than the good of the community and the raising of children, and porn becomes enshrined as free speech.  Following close on those heals could be physician assisted suicide, euthanasia, and less care for the elderly, the poor and the troubled.  Slowly the edges erode away so that it is possible to fall into an undesirable and therefore less protected (or not protected) category.  This lead John Paul II to refer to this modern swing in society as a culture of death.

 

With a God however there is a Creator.  With a Creator there is a giveness and a love for that which is created.  If something is loved (with far more than a feeling) it has purpose and a goal.  If it has a goal it has meaning.  If it has meaning it has value and that value is simply in the created’s being, not in their power or usefulness.  Concepts of “the good” and right and wrong have much more traction, are clearer, easier to defend, more universal, and are easier to rectify when they have gone off track.  The baby in the womb, the sick, the elderly, the parent with dementia, the foreigner, they all have value because they are, not because of how they benefit us.  It is a culture of life.

 

Now, to remain neutral is not to stay out of these arguments but to make your own metaphysical claims about the human person and his worth.  These will become the foundations of a philosophy that will have implications in civil law and civility.  It will burn Judeo/Christian capitol (instead of enjoying its fruits) and the nuetralist’s presuppositions will lead him toward the lessening of the value of life.  Staying neutral is not staying out of it, it simply warps the only two existing systems and acts as a transition out of one toward the other.

 

The good reverend on Sunday was not asking for “less morals,” for he will be left with the exact same amount of morals the day after his wish comes true as the day before.  What he wants is a different set of morals.  God help his grandchildren if he gets it.

THE DEVIL MADE ME DO IT

Holy is getting a rotten reputation.

What is holiness? For some inexplicable reason it has become associated with some archaic list of random rules that God (or some gray headed men in Rome) has whimmed up for us. Our lives are seen as some contrived, real time, 3D game that, if we follow the rules set out by the game master, perfecting our skills at maneuvering the playing field, we can enter the top level where you can list your names with the other winners of the game who gained the moniker “saint.”

How many times have you heard someone say after failing to be holy in a situation, “I’m only human”? That little trite excuse is a misnomer. In a sinful action you are not being “only human”. It is at that moment that a person is being in-human, falling short, or missing the mark. If the action in question was perfectly explainable by referring to the fact that some action is in alignment with what it is to be human, then it would not be sinful; it would be part of what being you is. That would make episodes of “Law and Order” mighty boring. They would have a guy they captured in court, his defense would be, “I was only being human,” and the judge would shrug his shoulders, slam down his gavel and say, “He’s right. He was acting as human beings are called to act. Gotta let him go. NEXT!” But the case is “I am only human” is an excuse, and a bad one at that, not an explanation.

Now, what can be said is, “I’m a fallen human.” That would at least be closer to the mark. Jesus, though he was divine, was also fully human. I do not think that anyone (well, anyone who reads this site) would make a case that Jesus, being fully human, performed actions we would call sinful. Why? Because he was a perfect man. It is when we do something noble, something good, something inspiring, it is when we sacrifice for love of others that we should say, “what do you expect? I’m only human.”

I will grant you that on the details many people will argue about that which is best for a human. I happen to buy the whole ball of wax handed down and preserved within Scripture and the Tradition of the Catholic Church. In it I see the path to what is best for the human race.But it is this call to finding out what is truly human, that which makes us healthiest as individuals and as a whole, bodily, mentally, and spiritually, making our relationships healthy between each other and our God that makes us most human, that grants us most freedom. That makes us holy.