IF SOMETHING YOU READ SEEMS OFF - INVESTIGATE!

Don’t take everything that you read at face value even if it appears in the newspaper and is authored by someone who we are told, “is a professor of history emeritus at Northwestern University” and “is the author of ‘Why I Am a Catholic.”  Intelligence, wisdom and understanding are all separate gifts and simply because someone has a “high education” does not mean that they have a grasp on all three of these gifts or that all of their arguments are altruistic.

Such is the case with the editorial in Monday’s Beacon Journal by Garry Wills.  Even if someone might agree with his conclusion, his path to it was a strained one at best.  There are so many problems with this article that one post would not be enough to point them all out.  At least for today two will be pointed out.

The first is an unneeded exaggeration to help make his point.  It is dishonest.  Remember when God said to Adam, “From that tree you shall not eat; for from the moment you eat from it, you are surely doomed to die.”  Gen 2:17.  Later, when speaking with Satan, Eve reports, “it is only about the fruit of the tree in the middle of the garden that God said, ‘you shall not eat it or even touch it, lest you die!’"  This is an exaggeration of what God said and makes God appear less reasonable and maybe even a little vengeful.  So when Mr. Wills says that the Church says, “You can be gay so long as you don’t do anything about it,” one must ask the question if this is really what the Church (and as Catholics we would ask is that really what Christ) says?  What it does say is that one may not have a sexual relationship with someone who is not your opposite gender spouse.  Is there far more compassion and room for living in that than the rather sterile and cold, “you can’t do anything about it”?  If a person really believes in the truth of their argument, then they should not need to rely on exaggeration or slights in order to make it.  It should stand on its own.  This is the first sign that Mr. Wills is not exactly confident of his theological position.

The second big area of difficulty is his understanding and use of natural law (which he labels as a “quaint theory.”)  Again, if you need to make light of something in order to make your point, you’ve already begun to weaken your position.  

But here is where I am stuck.  I am not sure if Mr. Wills understands Natural Law so poorly that if he had a similar application in a term paper he might flunk the course, or if he understands it so brilliantly that he is attempting to misapply it so ingeniously in order to lead people astray.  He makes the misleading statement that, “the first biological use of an activity is the only permissible use of that activity.”  (Again, see the Eve problem above.)  This would mean then, that a married couple is not permitted to enjoy sexual relations, that they must only engage in it for procreative purposes.  This is “absurd” he says.  As proof, he says that if we truly follow Natural Law then eating should only be for fuel and we would no longer be able to eat wedding cake or drink champagne.  I would agree with him if this actually had anything to do with Natural Law or actual Church teaching.  Yet he uses this example to say, in essence, if you see that as absurd, then one could logically see the ban on sexual relations outside of traditional marriage as absurd.  But here, once again, he hurts his case.

A married couple can enjoy sex.  There is a broad spectrum of activities in which they may engage.  They may, so to speak, eat cake and drink champagne.  What they may not do is eat things that are not good for them.  We are not permitted by Natural Law to eat road tar for the same reason a person should not put sugar in the gas tank of their car.  Neither should a person eat far more than they need for sustenance (that is called gluttony.)  Except in cases of emergency, we should not try ingesting food through orifices that are not designed for the intake of nutrition.  This is Natural Law, not the banning of champagne toasts.  

Mr. Wills did have some good points not the least of which is the unhealthy keeping of secrets that should not be kept.  But his arguments are so poorly concocted as to do more harm to his point than good - at least for those who are will not to just accept whatever it is that they are reading but to think well for themselves.

FIRST PRINCIPLES REVISTED

Two of the first things one learns about revelation (in the Catholic Church especially) is that, firstly, Jesus is the fullness of revelation.  He is the final “Word” when it comes to the understanding of our faith in this world.  Because of this, the second point is that all revelation came to and end with the death of the last Apostle.  The reason for this is that they walked and talked with Jesus and are the last of those who could let us know what Jesus revealed to them.

This is taken into account when the Blessed Virgin or another saint or angel is said to be appearing and giving messages or locutions.  If anything new is being said, the claim that such an event is taking place is not recognized as being true.  So, for example, when Mary was purported to be appearing in Barberton, as long as she was saying things such as, “Pray,” and, “Listen to my Son,” we as Church were at least open (and extremely curious.)  But when the message changed to the end of the world being upon us, on a certain date, and that we should get cabins in the woods and stock up, it was all over.  Jesus never revealed that.  In fact, He revealed quite the opposite.  This is also the reason that an apparition will not be reported as being worthy of attention until it is over and everything is reported.

We may be accused as Church of defining things as dogma as late as the 1950s.  But even these things had to be in line with what was believed since Apostolic times, with the teachings of the Church Fathers, and held in belief by the earliest times in the Church.  They have simply recently been defined.  If it invents something or runs counter to the past 2,000 years of faith and Tradition, it is to be thrown out.  This is how we keep on track.  We can’t say, “Now we know better!  We were wrong the last 2,000 years!”

Which brings me to a sign I saw on a local church building the other day.  Printed over a rainbow was the slogan, “God is still speaking.”  What does this imply exactly?  It seems that the banner makers are saying that some of the ways of believing that sexuality has been revealed to us has changed.  If this is the case there are only two possibilities.  1) Revelation has somehow reopened.  2)  Somehow the modern movement in the understanding of sexualtiy, gender and related issues IS in keeping with 2,000 years of belief.  Proving this would be an onerous undertaking.  

I DO believe God is still speaking.  Which, now that I think about it, means that I could have misunderstood the banner.  God is still saying, pray, love, forgive, unity, hope.  On that I think all agree.  But as for the how we need to look to the Fullness of Revelation as the true fullness of revelation.  If you want to challenge the Catholic Church on these topics, these are the playing grounds on which to engage it; more ancient than the death of the Apostle John, more stable than the Coliseum.  

IMAGINE A WORLD WITHOUT GOD

Imagine a world without God.

There is no Being to help guide the actions of man.

How are we going to establish right from wrong?

One might argue for Natural Law but that is a slippery slope.  Once you argue that there is inherent right way to live and wrong way to live in nature, then you start sneaking in an intelligence to nature and that will just ruin everything.

But wouldn’t it be good to not kill?  Could we not begin there?  Possibly.  But even there is a dangerous pin upon which to stand.  If this marvelous, complicated universe just happened, like snow flakes falling from the sky accidentally forming a snowman but WAY more intricate, then life really has no meaning except to the person who happens to have it.  Why should life be better than no life? Why should your life be important to me if you have something (land?) that I really want?  There can be no inalienable rights because that implies order, intelligence and meaning, which leads us to a discussion of God, which is something we want to avoid.

There can only be one answer in this type of universe:  The one with the most power decides what is right and wrong.  It could be an individual dictator, or committee, or even a whole voting nation.  We could vote in many of the dictates of any particular religion if we want.  And we could vote them right back out again.  It will, of course, lead to even greater meaninglessness with a thin covering of legitimacy.

Take, for example, marriage.  Back to the true pagans, it had to do with fertility and child raising.  In our modern age we have removed that definition completely so our brothers and sisters, or brothers and brothers could experience a type of permanent relationship, legaly binding, that we call marriage.  This particular route seems compassionate but this idea of marriage is destined to disintegrate.  If a desire to be married is the only requirement for being married and we have removed any ties to our history, then why stop at two people?  Why worry about a brother and sister who want to marry?  Why shouldn’t all the religious brothers of a monastery be recognized as one giant marriage to give them all of the protections that others have?  

The argument can’t be, “That just wouldn’t happen.”  What are you going to base a “This far and no further” law on other than right makes right?  (There are already legal attempts at similar scenarios of the above to this.)  In the end then, marriage will cease to mean anything unless the individuals want it to and have the freedom to do as they please by those in charge.

Now imagine we have formed a society that has bought into a meaningless universe.  Imagine further that you are frustrated young man who does not happen to be part of the society that makes decisions and has a voice.  You think culture is wrong and you see those you love and their ideas abused.  You have no power except to conform.

You are angry, powerless, and have no hope even in a next life.  What is to stop you from grabbing a gun or a knife and going on your college campus . . .

HERE'S WHAT YOU SAID

Yesterday there was a gathering of priests at St. Francis de Sales in Akron.  There are far fewer of these type of events than there was in "the day."  But they are essential.  It is why I regularly try to have guys (priests and seminarians) over to St. Sebastian.  Like you, we are not going from parish to parish hearing what the other guys are saying or how they are handling situations.  Besides doing such things as reading blogs, going on the diocesan website, or gleaning what you will from the USCCB, we too are on little islands wondering if we are in step.

So yesterday there was a lot of "shop talk."  "What did you say?  Where did you get that?  How was it received?  Are you still talking about it?  It was very interesting.  It's not that we don't know Church teaching, that much is clear, but how does it relate?  How is it received?  What is the best language to put across the message?"

It is all so new and so very complicated.  Too often people simplify the issues not realizing how "ball of twine" they are.  One must be careful about moving one sting for in doing so you disturb many others.

For example: hall rental.  Some parish, some where, is going to turn down a hall rental because someone wants to have a same sex wedding in the building.  They are going to be sued.  "What do we care what happens in our halls?" someone might legitimately ask.  "Let them do their thing and you are better for having the rental fee."

Then on the other side of town a teacher is fired because they had a very public same sex wedding, tantamount to promoting it in the Catholic school.  This person sues.  Then it comes up, "So, you will rent your hall, allow marriages on your property, but you are going to fire my client?"

Eh.  These are the things that I think about.

Anyway, 62% of you (out of 67) said that you received some guidance at your parish through the homily and another 10% say it was inferred.  Hurray for your priests who at least made an attempt to make the readings and Mass relevant to today!  But 22% said they heard nothing.

I remember being at a parish (as a lay person, I'm not THAT old) when Princess Diana died and walking out of Mass that weekend hearing a few people say, "I just knew he wouldn't mention her!"  No matter your personal opinion on the worthiness of the event, it was big news on people's minds.  How can you not at least make reference to it?

"And how many opportunities are lost because you didn't see the lesson in life that God had for you in life's ordinary events?"  (I put that in quotes but it is a slaughtering of a quote that I am too lazy to go look up.)

40% of you said that what you received was helpful while 22% said it was somewhat helpful.  36% said it was anywhere from none existent to harmful.  Hmmmmmm.  Let me know if anyone out there might be able to offer suggestions as to what might be offered to help information to be more useful.

BECAUSE 57% of you said you would like this to be discussed more (even though 19% said, "Okay, enough!")  

Granted, this was not an exhaustive or comprehensive survey but it was still very helpful feedback.  Sending out a prayer today for all of you and all concerned (either way) on this issue.

P T A IN PEACE

“So do you really think that the government is going to force you to do gay marriages?” he asked out of the blue.  The guy is always provocative, (Did you know that the disciples were Communists?) and the conversation, to say the least, interesting.

 

“It really doesn’t matter because we won’t.”

 

“But do you really think they’ll try?”

 

“I don’t know.  We’ll have to wait and see.”  My bigger concern at the moment is other fall out.  I envision a line of lawsuits more aimed at human resource issues or other pressure concerning what is preached at Catholic and likeminded Churches and institutions.

 

“I believe in marriage equality.”

 

“But that only works if you change the very definition and purpose of marriage as it has been understood for thousands of years.”

 

“Gay people have always been accepted in most cultures.”  The exact nature of this statement is debatable.  The most prominent of examples were almost always connected to marriage between a man and woman such as in Roman times.  But that is not the point.  It is easy to get sidetracked.  The discussion was not about any person and whether that person is worthy of dignity and respect, but a debate about the definition of marriage.

 

“That may be, but we are talking about same sex marriage which was not.”

 

“You do know that marriage is just a man made construct?”  Another curve ball and debatable if one is willing to engage.

 

“If we throw out the Bible and natural law you might be able to make that statement.”

 

“I don’t get my definitions from a book.”

 

“Ah.”

 

“Sorry, I just don’t”

 

“Okay.”  If you cannot bring in Western culture, natural law, or the Bible, then he is absolutely correct: Law is whatever those with power say it is and there is nothing left to be said.

 

There is a break in the conversation.  Then he adds, “I’m going to (some place) next week.  My daughter is getting married to another woman.”

 

That last comment is important.  It has absolutely nothing to do with above debate about the definition of marriage.  But it lets you know how intimate a topic this is for the person.  This is why it is essential that the conversation never become too heated, too personal.  The conversation would not have lasted longer than a sentence and you would have been marked as an angry bitter person and written off. 

 

Pray, think, act in peace.

REMAIN CALM

Just before our arrival Ireland legalized same sex unions.  When we reached Dublin, Rainbow flags were everywhere.  They were all down the main road of the city, hanging from businesses and from apartments.  The day we were to leave it was going to be Gay Pride Day there.  Then when we arrived at the airport we were greeted with many newspaper headlines that exclaimed such things as, "U. S. Gay."

I was not home in time to have Sunday Mass with the people of St. Sebastian and so have not had a chance to share with Sebastianites yet the thoughts of their pastor.  In a way I am grateful for that.  It was way to much to process quickly.

 

A couple days into this new reality my first bit of advice before anything else is this: Remain calm.

 

Yes, this is a very serious concern.  It is precisely because it is a serious concern that it is necessary that we remain calm.  Above all, do not make this an emotional issue.  Nobody wins that way.

 

In the 2,000 year history of the Church, we have been through similar things before.  (Consider Ireland's history!)  We have been through similar things in our own time with the legalization of contraception and abortion that became protected rights under the law.  And you know what, the Church has survived for 2,000 years.

 

We have enjoyed an extraordinary time of acceptance.  That is now coming to an end.  Abortion providors and same sex couples are walking in the front door of the courthouse and the 10 Commandments are being taken out the back.  And we will be Okay.

 

And it has not been all roses and chocolates for us anyway.  Catholics were long barred from social clubs, higher paying jobs, higher politcal offices, and from living in certain places.  This parish was built where it was because the neighborhood fought the original desired location where a Protestant church now stands because in the 20s they didn't want Catholics living here.  Things improved.  Then they got worse.

 

The point is: If you want to be Catholic you will survive.  There is a lot of important work to do but you will survive.  We will be fine.  Even if (and especially if) you are put to death for your beliefs, you will be fine.  This is not all there is.  This is not the endgame. 

 

So now let's starting thinking and praying and begin by placing yourself in the mind of Christ.

WITH THIS LUGNUT

Okay, I did NOT see this one coming.

 

Though I should have.

 

I remember having the discussion that if the definition of marriage was changed from its ancient understanding that was attached to procreation and family (or even sex for that matter) and base it solely on strong emotional bonds that it would lead to other forms of marriage other than just between two people and being told, “Oh no, that would NEVER happen.”  Well since then we have had the mother who wanted to marry her daughter in order to assist her in raising her daughter.  More recently we have had the case of the three women who married out west and one of them being inseminated in order for triumvirate to raise a family.

 

BUT I WASN’T IMAGINING CREATIVELY ENOUGH!

 

Yesterday (Wednesday) on NPR there was a story about the development of robots.  As they become more complicated and self-sufficient the question was asked at what point will they become “persons.”  The prediction was that their rights would develop over time.  Robots will slowing gain “rights” and eventually be able to sue.  Law suits could be filed not because the owner of a robot was seeking damages to his property but that the robot would be able to sue for violation of (his?) person.  The prediction was that 20 years following the first successful suing by a robot (against a human or another robot was not specified) there will be the first wedding.  (Again, they did not specify if it was between a robot and a person or two robots – but now we see almost anything can go.)

Here is another article on the topic.

 

Which all leads back to the sticking point: Once marriage can mean anything, it ceases to mean anything.

CHANGING FOUNDATIONS - CULTURES CULTIVATE

Continuing yesterday’s thoughts . . .

 

Let us just take one example from a current lively topic:  Marriage.  On the one hand we have a people with a certain set of foundational beliefs that go along with what has been the definition of marriage for the centuries and another with foundational beliefs that say marriage should be changed.  The first group claims that if changed, it will harm society.  The second group asks (rightly) the question, “So, same sex marriage was legalized in any number of places – did we see riots?  Did people start ransacking businesses?  Did schools go down the drain?  Did families disintegrate?  Did a nuclear bomb go off?

 

Well, of course not.  If same sex marriage were legalized in Ohio today, tomorrow Ohio would look much the same.  My cable would still work, Swenson’s would still sell hamburgers, and there would still be water in the tap when I turned it on.  But, like though the surface may look the same, underneath the foundations would be different and eventually those differences will start manifesting themselves.

 

Here is the subtle difference:  There is a reason (at least in the Catholic Church) there is no such thing as a “private” wedding.  There is a reason we publish bands, ring bells before and after the ceremony, and have it in the Church: because a marriage does not belong to the man and woman who are being married, it belongs to the whole community.  We all have a stake.  (Hence the worry that many priests have when a bride is too focused on having her perfect day.)  The ministry of love is to all these two who have become one flesh come in contact.  The purpose of marriage is to bring children into the world and raise them well within the community.  Beyond that, it is for the joy of the couple so that they may reach out. 

 

The new laws of marriage do not focus on community or for the interest of the next generation necesarily but the rights and joy of the couple.  It is not a marriage that the community necessarily has a stake in.  It can benefit in the way it benefits from any friendship or (chaste) love between any two (or more) people, but it is not the same as the fruitful, marital union of man and woman. Over time this foundational assumption will start to have an effect on every aspect of our lives.  Marriage and family, after all, are the building blocks of society and to change them is to change all of society.

 

True, there are horrible examples of marriage that at least have the façade of a true, traditional marriage, and there are shining examples of a more modern definition of marriage that seem to be life giving.  But the first is not a good marriage and the second would have the same effect on the community if the marriage were not recognized in this particular way.

 

There will be side issues thrown into the discussion also – infertile couples, legal protection for people, Christians proper relationships to their brothers and sisters with SSA, . . .  and these should be addressed.  But neither these nor the host of other issues that crop up have anything to do with the foundational belief system that undergirds them all.  What is marriage for?  It is an important issue too glibly decided and set aside without understanding the foundations that one is laying for society which will have an effect on every aspect of our lives.

LONE VOICES IN THE PAPER

Kevin O’Brien wrote a decent article in the Plain Dealer during Holy Week concerning the state of marriage.  He definitely spoke against the political correct position.  In part he said:

 

“Marriage is the fundamental basis of civilization and the smallest functional molecule of the organism that we call society.  One may reject the idea that God ordained heterosexual marriage as part of his plant for humanity, but one cannot reject the argument that nature ordained it as a matter of practical necessity.  Only heterosexual relationships can perpetuate the species.  There simply is no other way of going about it.”

 

That’s called Natural Law. 

 

He goes on further (and this is where I think he really makes his case) “If we put the law at odds with the order established and replicated though out nature, then how can anyone ever justify drawing a new legal boundary line?”  In other words, if we redefine marriage to be any two people who want to commit themselves to each other for life, why stop there?  What about polygamy?  Why should such people be denied the right to marry?  What about the case of the mother and daughter who want to be recognized as married, not for any indecent purpose, but because they want to team up to raise the daughter’s child and want legal protections and benefits?  Why shouldn’t the men of Saint Andrew’s Abby (who take a vow of stability) be recognized as all married so that they may be protected and receive benefits?  The harm?  Once marriage can mean anything, it ceases to mean anything. 

 

I’ve hear people say that it wouldn’t go any further than same sex marriage.  That the idea of it going any further than that is just silly.  But nobody can say why or what there would be to put such a boundary up to stop it there – a boundary that would now be clearly imaginary.

 

Unfortunately I think he hurts his case by saying people could start marrying across species and with inanimate objects.   Other species and such objects cannot give their consent. 

 

After finishing the article we said, “Man, is he going to get crucified tomorrow” and he was.  But if there is going to be any meeting ground on this issue, it will be with points such as this.  “God ordained it” as much as I may believe it is not going to wash with those who don’t believe that.