About Me

My photo
I am a Roman Catholic convert from Protestantism. My wonderful wife Tenille and I live in Louisville, Ky., with our daughter Esther, and two sons, William and Ezra. We attend Mass at the beautiful St. Martin of Tours Catholic Church on Broadway Street.

Monday, May 27, 2013

On the Feast of The Holy Trinity

Of all those great phrases and expressions, so powerful and pregnant with meaning, which, through much repetition become mere banalities, there are few in the English language so rich and magnificent as the expression "of hearth and home". This simple phrase, as simple and commonplace as the thing which it expresses, has all the power and beauty of such fundamental things, like roots and stone. It captures at once the tenderness and depth of familial love, and the majesty and strength of fire. To those who were blessed to be raised in good and loving families, such an expression carries the gift of inexpressible memories, memories burgeoning with such deeply felt, but unspoken, ideas as growth, life, foundations, and home. To those whose childhood memories are scarred with memories of brokenness, bitterness, separation, and solitude, this expression may stir that deeply hidden longing for stability, comfort, warmth, and family. And these are among the most deeply engraved longings in the human heart.

When one hears the expression "of hearth and home" it is easy to conjure up images of curly-headed toddlers playing in the firelight, of the chiaroscuro of the shadows framing the glowing figure of the woman robed in all the grace and majesty of motherhood, and of the deeply etched lines and shining eyes of the father marvelling to play such a part in all of this.

But what of the firelight? Why the hearth? Is it not simpler and more profound to merely utter that monumental word "home" and leave it as it is? Or why not candlelight, or sunlight, or even darkness flecked with stars? And yet, for some reason, the hearth seems essential, almost as if the subconscious of those who first spoke the phrase demanded that home and family and fire all go together. I, for one, feel quite certain that they do go together. One might almost say that the secret of the family is the fire.

I suspect that God, knowing full well the temptation to power and strength that brought down Satan and so many others, often chooses to hide majesty and power in the fragile and the simple things of life, where only humility and love can find them. What if we, like Prometheus of old, should rebel against the gods and bring down fire from heaven? Would we not soon end the world in some apocalyptic conflagration? But in the love, humility, understanding, and devotion of a Christian family there burns a fire that does not destroy, but may transform all the earth. And perhaps the family itself hides this power because it was patterned upon the Image of God Himself.

And this brings us to the point of theses scattered thoughts. The Trinity. That great and inexplicable mystery of the Christian Faith, is it not the very foundation and fountainhead of all of our Theology? How the Doctors and Theologians discoursed, and debated, and warred upon this central dogma! They wrestled with fine points of doctrine, and "et filioque" clauses, and reminders that we must believe in this single three-Person God never "confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Substance." And the saints and the mystics marvelled at the Trinity, and dwelt and adored in its Life as if they were swimming in some vast ocean of Love.

There is something terribly exciting about having a secret. It may be a bad secret, like some delightful bit of gossip, which one burns to tell. Or it may be a good secret, which one must hold until the time that it is ready to be revealed, when all may rejoice in it. A person with such a secret will find it very hard indeed to hold his tongue. His very attitude will be one pf knowing, and he is likely to bubble over with excitement and drop veiled hints here and there. It is something very like that with the history of the revelation of the great mystery of the Trinity. Like some Divine secret it is hinted at in various places in past ages. Three angels come to visit Abraham. God says "Let us make man in Our image." The Spirit moves the Prophets, and a Son is mentioned. But there is nothing particularly clear in all of this, and world had to wait until the great Revealer came.

It is Christ Who finally made known to us the monumental secret of the Personal Life of God. It was He, whose death rent the temple veil, who unveiled the very heavens. And the sons of Adam gaped up in astonishment at what they saw, and they have gone on rejoicing in it from that day to this.

When the veil of the heavens was rent, and the remnants of it swept aside, the great secret of Eternity was revealed. And that secret was not that the heavens were empty, nor that Yaweh dwelt in some Olympian solitude as we might expect. The staggering, joyous secret was that the heart of Eternity was Love, that God Himself was a Family. And it is here that the sane and healthy, the wounded and the scarred, all find their Hearth and their Home.

Sunday, May 26, 2013

The Equality Fallacy Part V: What Then is Marriage?

"I have been requested to write something about Marriage and the Modern Mind. It would perhaps be more appropriate to write about Marriage and the Modern Absence of Mind." (G.K. Chesterton, Sidelights, 1932)

"...while I have known thousands of people arguing about marriage, sometimes furiously against it, sometime rather feebly in favor of it, I have never known any one of the disputants to begin by defining what marriage is." (G. K. Chesterton, Sidelights, 1932)

An incomplete definition is really no definition at all. A definition is intended to clarify, while an incomplete definition causes confusion.  To be complete, a definition must cover every essential aspect of the thing being defined. If, for example, one were to try to define "man" (in the sense of homo sapiens, not in the sense of "male") as a being with a rational soul, such an incomplete definition would do little to illuminate the nature of man. After all, angels are rational. Aliens, if they exist, may very well have rational souls. Some even hold that animals have rational souls. Or again, if one defined "man" as a creature with a body, the same confusion persists. Perhaps man is a mere animal, even a fish or a possum. Accidental details are irrelevant; it is of no concern if a man has black hair, or a birthmark. Only the essentials must be covered, but all of them must be covered, or the attempt at definition has failed.

In the first of this series of posts on homosexuality and gay marriage I proposed that most of the arguments commonly used to support gay marriage were emotional rather than logical. Later I listed a number of popular canards, dealing with issues such as homophobia, the narrow-mindedness of the religious right, bigotry, and the like. All of these were examples of arguments or persuasions that  missed the central issue. Once again, the central issue may be stated as follows: "What is marriage, and within the framework of the proper definition of that word, can homosexual unions accurately be described as marriages? And, furthermore, if they cannot be so described, what is likely to be the resulting effect upon society if we redefine the word marriage to include such unions?"

While I am inclined to agree with the second quote from Mr. Chesterton at the beginning of this post, I will also say that there are times in this present debate when attempts at defining marriage are made. They are not always explicitly stated, more often they are held subconsciously and expressed as a vague assumption. However, I believe that even these rare attempts at defining marriage are incomplete, as I will attempt to demonstrate today, and therefore they result in grave confusion and error. For those who become rather understandably impatient with certain philosophers and theologians throughout history who have been willing to write lengthy books or wage bitter wars over the proper definition of some esoteric word or phrase, the present topic affords us with an excellent example of the immense importance of a correct definition. An apparently slight difference in the definition of the simple word "marriage" can lead to almost diametrically opposed concepts of society, politics, and family. I, for one, find that to be something important enough to argue about.

What, then, is marriage?

Since a definition must not only be accurate in each of its aspects, but must also be complete, I would like to begin by determining what marriage is not. Each of the following items are not necessarily wrong--they are generally all part of marriage--but not one of them taken by itself can constitute an accurate definition of marriage. It will then become imperative to determine if all them taken together are sufficient to create that definition.

Love, commitment, and sex. These are, in most people's minds, the essential aspects of a complete definition of marriage. Of course, it is quite clear that not any one of these three aspects is sufficient for that task, taken on its own. Love and commitment are both ideas that may exist completely apart from marriage, and both may be entirely platonic. Friends, roommates, family members, and business partners may all practice and experience varying degrees of love and commitment, but in ways that clearly have nothing to do with any definition of marriage.

Is sex then the answer? Again, taken on its own, sex is also a clearly insufficient definition, or  else every sexual act would constitute a marriage. And why, with any of three ideas, is it necessary to assume that only two person be involved? After all, cannot love, sex, and commitment occur in polygamous relations as well, provided all parties involved are satisfied with the arrangement? Certainly the advocates of polygamy would argue that they can

If the correct definition of marriage is none of these three aspects taken individually, perhaps it is all three of them taken in conjunction. Perhaps marriage can be described as a loving, committed relationship between two persons who are sexually attracted to one another. However, a little analysis will demonstrate that even this definition falls apart under closer scrutiny. After all, love can die without the marriage being dissolved. Sex can also come to an end. Age, disease, impotency, and physical handicap can all render a marriage devoid of sexual relationship. Nonetheless, no one would imagine that these situation make the marriage nonexistent.  And even infidelity, which is a grievous offense against commitment, does not in itself dissolve the marriage. In our present culture, an act of infidelity allows to injured party to pursue a legal means of dissolution, but no one would consider that an act of infidelity automatically transforms a marriage into a non-marriage. After all, countless couples work through infidelity, finding forgiveness and healing, without ever for a moment considering themselves unmarried. Even if answers could be found to all these  objection, none of this explains the legal and political interest in marriage. If marriage were nothing more than a public promise to faithfully love someone "until death do us part", why the tax  breaks, why the social benefits, why the legal complexities and political machinations? Does it really make sense that the government would be so deeply interested in supporting and benefiting two person who merely intend to have sex together for a rather long time?

What then is marriage?

I would propose a fourth essential aspect to marriage, and that is family. I say essential, although it is clear that many valid marriages do not result in children. To explain what I mean, allow me to argue backwards, in a sense, in order to arrive finally at our point of departure.

Now it is self-evident that the continued existence of the human species can only be assured by means of procreation. We are not immortal, so it is necessary that our numbers be constantly replenished by new generations. In a word, it is imperative that our species give birth to children. Since we have not yet determined the success or possibility of human cloning, the birth of children is presently our only recourse to replenishing the population. This much is clear and certain.

Secondly, there is only one way (barring the miraculous) in which a child can be formed, and that is through the fertilization of the female ovum by the male sperm. This, too, is undeniable. Now, there are only two ways in which this fertilization can occur: sexual intercourse and  artificial fertilization. Artificial fertilization has its own moral and psychological problems, which will be examined in a forthcoming post, and is far the less common, or natural, of the two options. By and large the standard mean for fertilization is that of sexual intercourse. Physiologically and biologically, procreative sexual intercourse is only possible between a man and a woman. Barring artificial insemination (again, more on that soon), two men or two women are absolutely incapable of producing children.

This producing of children is  a thing of unspeakable wonder and majesty, with which we modern people have grown too accustomed, even bored or frustrated. There is something that longs to create (Catholics might call it the Imago Dei) written into the very fabric of the human person. Yet, try as we might, it is here alone, in the act of conception, that we get to be almost as gods, and work with God Himself in the creation of something entirely new-- a human person, endowed with freedom and a soul. No other natural human act of creation comes close to rising to such a level.

Bearing children is not only a wonderful thing, but (as stated above) it is also essential to the survival of our species. Thus it has both a personal and a general aspect. But it has a sociopolitical aspect as well. Reproduction is also essential to the State. Any country which slips too far or too long below the replacement rate (excepting the possibility of a great influx of immigrants), is destined for internal and external weakness, and eventual collapse. The State has a reason to be concerned with the continuation of procreation (though modern states primarily seem to be concerned with halting procreation).  But this concern focuses not only on quantity, but quality as well. It is not enough to have large numbers of children, the State also hopes that the majority of such children are well-raised, intelligent, successful, and otherwise destined to be good citizens. It is for this reason that the State interests itself with the environment in which these children will be raised.

It is here that the cultural and societal importance of marriage becomes more evident. Children could be produced by any teenage couple copulating in the back seat of a car, or any one night stand in a Motel 6. However, such an arrangement is far less than ideal. Children have certain needs, physically and psychologically, that must be met for their good and the good of society. It has long been evident to countless generations and cultures, even our own to some extent, that these need are best met through the institution of marriage. There are three principal reasons for this.

1. Every child is to some extent the biological product of its mother and father. Not only its actual life, but its genetic code, and aspects of its personality, are taken from both of its parents. Scientifically we may consider X and Y chromosomes, sexually we recognize that every child takes from both the feminine and the masculine. Not only is that its origin, but the child will eventually enter society, a society comprised of males and females, and will find it important to be able to participate with both sexes. For this reason, a child needs both a male and a female influence in its raising, from its earliest years. And since its genetic make-up, and much of its personality is taken from its biological parents, a child also ideally needs to be raised by its biological parents. Normatively speaking, provided that they are reasonably decent people and good parents, a child is best raised by its immediate blood relatives. There are countless scholarly studies and statistics that have demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that children raised by two parents generally suffer far less from psychological illness, drug use, etc., than those raised by single parents. There is also sufficient evidence that these two parents should represent each gender-- one male, one female. Ideally, it is obvious that, generally speaking, a child should be raised by its biological parents. I recognize that this is not always possible, and that there are always exceptions to such rules, but we will examine that in a moment.

2. Personal Attention. A married couple also represents the ideal model for raising children, because of love and personal attention. For all of their many benefits, schools, day cares, and government institutions can never provide the detailed, loving, personal attention that every child really needs for healthy maturation. Rarely can workers in should fields, no matter how kind and loving they may be, ever equal the love that biological parents feel for the child that sprang from their very bodies. It is one of the great errors of our modern cultures that the raising of children has been so institutionalized. In business, in government, in every other field, we recognize that the more important a subject is the greater the need for a small, specialized organization to treat it becomes. And since the raising of children is of far greater importance, is it not self-evident that that small, attentive, healthy, personal, organic unit called the family is best fitted to raise a child?

3.  Commitment. Not only do children need parents and family, but they also need fidelity. Not only do their parents need to demonstrate faithfulness toward their children, but also towards each other. Every child learns by example, and the closest example that he/she has is the example of his/her immediate family, especially those often inadequate role models call Mommy and Daddy. Fidelity between the spouses is thus essential to healthy development of a child. Statistical evidence for this abounds as well. Children from divorced families are significantly more likely to experience divorce, separation, or commitment issues in their own adult lives. Psychological issues become more prevalent here, too. Again, there are exception here as well, but generally speaking a child needs a marriage, even more than a marriage needs a child.

Let us pause to recapitulate.

The raising of children should ideally be managed by two parents. These parents should be one male and one female. Again, ideally, they should be the child's biological parents. And these parents should live in a committed, faithful relationship. I am quite sure that all this sounds like an institution with which we are all familiar, an institution called marriage.

And so, starting from the beginning again, where have we gotten? The birth of children is essential to the survival of the human species. It is also essential to the health, structure, and continuance of society. Children are biologically derived from the sexual intercourse of a man and a woman. The ideal environment for their raising is in the family of their biological parents. Since the biological parents must be male and female, it becomes evident that marriage, with its societal and cultural implications, must automatically be heterosexual.

 We could stop here, but there are too many objection, too many questions, too much ground left uncovered.

First of all, let us remember that the State supports marriage in a positive way, but it does not guard it in a negative way. Let me explain. It will no doubt be argued that not every heterosexual marriage leads to children, whether due to choice or nature. To those persons who, like myself, prefer the idea of a small and limited government, it will be clear that it is not up to the State to ask every couple whether they intend to have children (nor is it possible, the couple has only to lie), nor may she interfere medically and determine a couple unfit for marriage due to impotency, age, etc. Such a negative approach would be unbearably totalitarian and repugnant to the modern mind. However, the State blesses and benefits marriage in a positive way, thus recognizing it as the ideal way of producing children, and thus acknowledging it as the core of the family, as family is the core of society. Thus marriage is honored for what it alone (in a natural sense) can produce and provide, not that it always does produce and provide in every situation. Yet no other natural institution can provide what marriage does. Marriages which, whether through nature or choice, do not detract from that fact, since they are accidental to the state of heterosexual marriage, not intrinsic to it. But barrenness is intrinsic to homosexual unions. There is no natural means of child production in gay partnerships. Children can only be procured by means of adoption or artificial insemination, and, as was made clear above, neither of these are ideal circumstances. This unnaturalness of child-bearing and child-raising is essential to gay unions, not accidental.

Let me be quite clear: the matter of children and family is the reason why the state supports (or, as in Communist Russia, opposes) the institution of marriage. For good or evil, her interest in marriage is for that reason, and that alone. The State does not bless a couple for having sex. She does not offer them benefits for liking one another. She is  not deeply concerned about the welfare of the nation if two people choose to live together. No, she is concerned with the family, the producer of future generations, and the upholder of the structure of society. In such a definition, only heterosexual couples may be considered for marriage. Gay unions or partnerships are just that, unions and partnerships. We cannot legalize gay marriage, because gay marriage does not exist. It is not a thing. It has no definition. It is not an illegal marriage, it is simply not a marriage at all, whatever the law may say.

What then is marriage? Marriage is the seed of the family, its beginning and its home. It is, ideally, the only truly safe and healthy place for family. It is here that children are brought forth biologically in accordance with nature, and in an environment of love and fidelity. It is here that they are raised by their biological parents. It is here that populations are replenished. It is here that civilization is nurtured, and cultured preserved. It is here that our future is established.

We live in a pluralistic society. In such a society, homosexual relationships are not condemned, per se. Those of us who object to homosexuality on moral grounds must retain the right to speak out on this subject, to demonstrate our concern for the souls of those who are homosexual. But such a pluralistic society does not create laws to forbid the practice of homosexuality between two consenting adults. They may love one another. They may be committed to one another. They may have sexual relationships with one another. But however much we may tolerate such unions, whatever we may call such unions, let us not call them marriage, for this they can never be.

I, for one, think that definitions are important. And when we redefine marriage, we redefine the foundation of our society. And when we strike the foundation, the structure crumbles.

Take heed.








Wednesday, May 15, 2013

The Equality Fallacy Part IV: The Contradictory "Logic" of the Liberal Left

We have all heard the popular adage "You can't have your cake and eat it too." This is really nothing more than a simplified version of a traditional philosophical dogma called the Law of Non-Contradiction. The Law of Non-Contradiction, or LNC, states that it is impossible for two mutually exclusive ideas to both be true at the same time and in the same sense. Aquinas references this in his first proof of the existence of God, reminding us that we cannot simultaneously be both in a state of potentiality and a state of actuality at the same time in the same respect. In other words, you can't be in motion while you are standing still. You can't devour your cake and simultaneously have it still sitting untouched on your plate. The fact that the cake analogy has become proverbial demonstrates to us that the Law of Non-Contradiction is not only for philosophers, but that it is commonsense, something obvious to the profanum vulgus, the common crowd to which most of us belong. Yet, as G. K. Chesterton often noted, commonsense is not so common anymore, and I notice that many of the influential, educated, and world changers of our times are remarkably inept at logic, and remarkably adept at holding mutually contradictory ideas at the same time. Now, in spite of the title of this post, I am not prejudiced enough to assume that only the liberal left is guilty of such mental gymnastics (though they are often quite talented at them), but within the context of this series of posts on homosexuality and gay marriage, it is the liberal left that will be the focus of this critique.

The right wing, the conservatives, and the Christians of our country (who, for some odd reason, have all been rather ignominiously lumped together as though they were but one creature) are far from being above the pitfalls of logic. However, in the case of sexuality, there is at least a certain consistency to the conservative arguments, which is lacking in the liberal arguments. The Christian sees sexuality on three levels, each level related to the other, but with a certain order of importance, with each level subjugated to next higher. The act of subjugation involves control, but not contradiction. The three levels, or tiers, are: the natural (or biological), the human, and the Divine.

On the natural, or biological level, we deal  with impulse and instinct. We may recognize two principal aspects to sexuality at the natural level. The first is the unchecked hormonal attraction between the sexes, and the second is  the biological aspect of reproduction and the survival and propagation of the species. Here there is no reason or judgment, no morals or social codes. Here nature runs its course.

On the second level, the human, we see the basic principles of the natural accepted (e.g., the goodness, pleasurableness, and importance of sex), but subjugated to the higher reason and emotions of man. Love plays a greater role here, often restraining the impulses of nature, and promoting fidelity and chastity. The free will and higher reason of the human person burdens us with the complexities of choice, judgment, responsibility, and morals. No longer may we act purely upon passion and instinct.

At the third level, the Christian sees sex in its truest aspect, in the light of the Divine Image. Again, the basic principles of sex are not changed, but they are  further restrained and subjugated as man is raised above his animal and human natures. Sex is still seen as good, pleasurable, and important to the survival of the species, yet here its moral framework is even more refined and clarified (e.g. "But I say to you, whoever looks on a woman to lust after her has already committed adultery in his heart"), and sex may be entirely forgone for some higher cause, as we see celibacy, "...those who made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of God." Throughout these three levels we may see change, but also consistency. We see a steady improvement from mere bestial nature to Spirit-guided humanity, but we never see an actual contradiction. The lower laws of sex may be superimposed upon by higher laws, but even at the Divine level sex does not suddenly become evil, nor are we told, for example, to begin having sex with animals or making love to trees. Consistency, yes; contradiction, no. I fear, however, that I cannot say the same for the sexual arguments of the liberal left.

The left, in this matter, has in general little interest in the Divine level, except when it suits their purposes. We may occasionally be reminded, for example that Jesus said some very sweet things, such as "Love one another", and "Do not judge", which are infallibly interpreted by the left to mean that real Christians should support the legalization of gay marriage and be supportive of the homosexual lifestyle. Forgive me, but I cannot help but feel a certain level of annoyance when those who do not even believe in our  Savior stop to tell us precisely what our Savior meant.

For our present purpose, therefore, we will consider the contradictions and inconsistencies within the pro-homosexual arguments, commonly presented by the liberal left, only within the context of the natural level, leaving the human level for examination in a future post on marriage.

On the natural level, the modern liberal viewpoint of sex applies to far more than merely homosexuality. The "natural" side of sexuality is greatly promoted in modern culture. The idea of uninhibitedly pursuing one's passions is not new in the post-Christian West, but not until Sigmund Freud and other psychologists was such behavior cloaked in scientific respectability.  Not only did Freudian psychoanalysis excuse many moral faults, but it succeeded in creating the illusion that many traditional moral laws and cultural taboos were actually harmful to the psyche. All of us today feel the weight of Freud's success' whether Christian or atheist, liberal or conservative, most of us are familiar with idea (whether or not we accept it) that inhibitions and repressions are dangerous, and liable to imbalance the mind. One must not repress, one must express-- that is the idea. We have only to look a little further up the road to Dr. Alfred Kinsey, the infamous sexologist, to see to what perversions such uninhibited and amoral thinking leads. Kinsey's work is nearly devoid of moral proscriptions, focusing purely on sexual behavior (even in children), and successfully indoctrinating a future generation with a severely skewed understanding of human sexuality. It is not my purpose here to critique Kinsey, his own writings and methods of research stand in judgment on his thought. But the scientific and pseudo-scientific work of men such as Freud, Kinsey, and others has clearly left us with a dangerously uninhibited view of sex.

Summing up, we are taught that sex is natural, normal and beautiful (as, indeed, it is), but also that inhibitions and repressions are wrong. To such a mindset Christian "prudery" is a psychological fault. Traditional morals and taboos are unhealthy. We are told (in the face of evidence to the contrary) that masturbation and pornography are natural and healthy. It is dangerous to repress our animal instincts (or might I say, in some cases, the nature of the beast?). Embarrassment, modesty, and blushing, are all traits of a less-evolved human. The message is clear and appealing: Be a sexually natural, healthy, and uninhibited person.

Returning for a moment to our central issue of homosexuality, we will find that the principal arguments for it are both rooted in the "natural". We are told, without much explanation, that homosexuality is "normal", a perfectly natural option for persons so disposed. Secondly, we are told that certain persons are born that way, so it would be a mark of bigotry to refer to their sexual preferences as "unnatural". Whatever we may call it, homosexuality is certainly no longer viewed as abnormal, as a result of environment, or as a psychological ailment. The very expression "sexual orientation" (as  opposed to "sexual preference" or "sexual choice"), indicates to us that homosexuality is intrinsic to certain persons, that it is part of their very nature. And Freud would remind us that to inhibit our natural desires is dangerous. The Christian, therefore, is now hated not only as a moral witness, but as the "inhibitor", inflicting grave damage upon the souls to whom he preaches and which he seeks to assist.

Very well. But what of the actual arguments put forward by the pro-gay community? Is there any consistency or cogency to them? Let us see.

First of all, the argument of genetic predisposition. We have become accustomed to the argument that homosexuality is of genetic origin, that homosexuals are "born that way", that "God made them that way", that they have no choice in the matter; therefore we have no right to declare what is "natural" in them as unnatural, or wrong.

To begin with, I find it ironic that a culture so skeptical, so devoted to scientific proof and empirical evidence (particularly as regards matters of  religion) has so readily accepted the idea that homosexuality is genetic, in spite of the fact that genetic predisposition has yet to be conclusively established. It is of course possible, and in the future it may be established, but it speaks volumes on the topic of propaganda and media influence that countless thousands believe it to be established already, when it is not. The question of the studies and their results in this matter would make for fascinating reading, but they deserve a chapter of their own.

For the moment, my concern is to determine whether the argument is valid and consistent even if the major premise were proved. Clearly the argument assumes the minor premise that whatever is natural to an individual is therefore morally acceptable. And it is here that the appalling breach of logic is unveiled. Why would we assume that a genetic predisposition is synonymous with what is good and normal? After all, have not scientists and psychologists long taught us that alcoholism, schizophrenia, and other mental and physical ailments are often genetic in nature as well? They may be part of the suffering individual's nature, but surely we do not on that ground deem them good! Nor do we need to stop with these comparisons, but let us turn to specifically sexual issues. I find it strange that so much emphasis is put upon demonstrating that homosexuality is normal purely because the homosexual "was born that way", but where are voices seeking to demonstrate the same thing concerning pedophilia, necrophilia, and bestiality? Surely, these behaviors are just as likely to be genetic in nature as homosexuality, but even if they were so proved to be, would we then condone them as normal and healthy? On the contrary, all of these issues are treated as illnesses needing help and understanding, but not as morally acceptable lifestyles, or alternative sexual orientations.

Consistency, please. If you will attempt to prove that homosexuality is natural simply because it is the result of a genetic predisposition, then you must also be prepared to defend pedophilia and other sexual behaviors on the same grounds. And even in our present society, I am still convinced that you would be hard-pressed to garner much support for such a position.

But, it will surely be argued, homosexuality is commonly witnessed among many species of animals. What could be more "natural" than the testimony of nature itself? Here again, the subject of homosexual behavior in animals deserves its own separate treatment. Issues such as domestication, homosexual versus bisexual behavior, mutation, and hormonal balances make this a very complex topic indeed. Nonetheless, the frequent homosexual behavior witnessed even in wild animals is an undisputed fact. My concern is not so much with whether certain animals exhibit gay tendencies, but with whether I should take my moral code from fruit flies and penguins. We are men after all, not animals. The question is whether we will seek to rise above the level of the beasts, or whether, with our greater intelligence and responsibility, we will sink far below it.

Yet on this topic as well we must seek for consistency. Once again I note with some irony that the liberal is deeply concerned with demonstrating the naturalness of homosexuality from the behavior of animals, but fails to apply the same argument to certain other rather inconvenient domestic traits of the animal kingdom. After all, philandering is far more common among animals than homosexuality. Perhaps we can excuse infidelity as natural, since monogamy seems be merely one of several options in nature. Or perhaps we can take our lesson from the Black Widow Spider, and defend the husband-killer in court as merely acting in accordance with nature. Or again, what of those mothers in the animal realm who devour their young? My point is simple: the human species must not blindly take its morals from the observation of animal traits and tendencies. And we are just inconsistent enough to refuse to do so in countless other areas besides homosexuality. After all, it is not uncommon to see a dog humping a man's leg, but most of us would still consider it more than a little disturbing if we were to see a man humping a dog's leg.

In conclusion, if we seek to demonstrate the moral acceptability of homosexuality from the evidence of genetics and animal behavior, we must be prepared to accept a host of dreadful sexual and domestic aberrations by the same logic.

Consistency, please.

No, you cannot have your cake and eat it, too.


Saturday, May 11, 2013

The Resurrectionist

Some of you who read my blog may remember a gentleman by the name of Walter "Bud" Ober, a parishioner of St. Martin of Tours parish here in Louisville. Several of those who knew him in our parish nicknamed him "The Saint of Saint Martin's", and from my own personal acquaintance with him I am strongly inclined to agree. Indeed, among the handful of truly holy people whom I have been privileged to know in my life, I can think of few more worthy of canonization than Bud Ober.

I met Bud some seven or eight years ago at Saint Martin's, during a time in which I was Catholic in faith, but had not yet entered sacramentally into the Church. At the time, the already frail and elderly widower ran the Perpetual Eucharistic Adoration Chapel, attended Mass seven days a week, led Rosary prayers before and after noon Mass Monday through Saturday, led the Divine Mercy novenas, and on Fridays led the Stations of the Cross.  I remember him, as his health failed, wearing a neck brace, bent almost double, shuffling slowly up the aisle to find his pew, looking for all the world like a corpse in pain, only to raise his head and fix one with the most youthful and truly joyful smile one can imagine. The Spirit blazed and shone within his aging body, and I quickly became aware that when I was around him I was standing in the presence of holiness of a rare and beautiful degree.

Bud Ober is not the point of this post today, which is about another man, but I mention him here because I owe him something. Several things, actually-- his prayers, his kindness-- but one day he did two things for me changed my life forever. At that time I hung out at St. Martin's, soaking up what I could, though I could not yet receive the Sacraments. I had largely been alone in my journey towards the Church, and had at that time spoken only once to a priest. I was not yet familiar with priests; I saw some for whom I had great respect, but I deemed them to be "different", as though from another planet. St. Martin's parish was blessed with no less than four priests during this time, which was the reason for the great number of Masses celebrated there (some seventeen or more a week, I believe). The pastor was Fr. Frederick Klotter, and he was assisted by three retired priests from the Congregation of the  Resurrectionists: Fr. Charles Scheinbackler (who said the Latin Mass into his nineties), Fr. Ray Hoffmann, and Fr. John Lesousky. The last two celebrated most of the daily Masses at St. Martin's, and I saw and heard them both regularly, though I  never spoken to either one of them.

During those days I was very lost, afflicted with severe OCD and religious scruples, living an unguided ascetical lifestyle that was dangerous to my mental health, and which later proved to be rooted in mental illness. Crushed and burdened, I entered St. Martin's one day, somewhat near despair, filled with the maddening horror (against all Catholic teaching) that I had somehow committed the sin against the Holy Spirit, and was already doomed to everlasting hell, an eternity of emptiness and separation.  I could find no solace, no hope, and so I turned to Bud Ober, pulling him aside after the noon Mass, and asking him if we could talk for a while. He took me to the Saint Gregory chapel in the back of the Church, and I poured out all my troubles to him, hoping that here was a man who could offer me guidance, wisdom, and hope. He did, but not in the way I expected. I do not remember that he said one direct word to relieve my situation, but in his wisdom and simplicity he did two things which I will never forget.His only advice was to tell me, "You need to talk to a priest". He then took off his scapular and gave it to me, leading me in a short Marian consecration. Then he left me with the promise that he would arrange to introduce me to one of the priests, either Fr. Hoffmann, or Fr. Lesousky. Little did I guess that day how great was the Hand of God.

Now I had seen both of the priests he mentioned celebrate Mass, and I had heard their homilies. I knew which priest I wanted to meet-- Fr. Lesousky. If there ever was a man who looked and sounded like one of the saints of old it was surely Fr. John. He exuded reverence and sanctity. With his gleaming snow-white hair, strong jaw, and rich, oratorical voice he has always reminded me of a clean-shaven, Catholic Gandalf, bridging the gap between darkness and light, and thundering against the forces of evil, "You shall not pass!" Here was the man who could help me! Like Padre Pio, or Jean Vianney, he would surely read my soul, work a miracle in my mind, and with magnificent wisdom and Divinely inspired advice would dispell the darkness and set me free.
 
I returned to St. Martin's a day or two later (my memory of these events is sketchy now), and Bud told me that he would introduce me to the priest after Mass. I felt a twinge of disappointment, for the priest that day was Fr. Ray, not Fr. John. No doubt Fr. Ray was a good man, but his voice was less inspiring than Fr. John's, his homilies were short and simple, read from a sheet of printer paper; also, I was scrupulous and judgmental enough to imagine that the good priest's slightly portly bearing was an indication of overindulgence and a soft lifestyle.

Nonetheless, he was kind and welcoming and we talked by the tabernacle for some thirty minutes to an hour. He listened to my fears and scruples, and to my dismay seemed to think that I was overdoing my asceticism. The only thing which I clearly remember and took from that meeting, is the memory that at one point he told me, "It's okay to go out and have a beer with your friends." I was mildly shocked. Perhaps I expected a miracle, perhaps some paradigm-changing penance, perhaps some perfect prayers to say, something more austere, more "holy" to my mind. I confess that I went away a little disappointed, blinded to the work of God, with no idea that I had just been given my Father and my confessor, straight from the hand of God.

Holiness comes in many guises, and the Spirit works in many ways. I had, and have, so much to learn. At least in hindsight now I have begun to see that it is God, and not myself, Who best knows what I need. I did not need a miracle then, I needed humility; I was not ready for majesty, I needed mercy; not heroic works of Charity, but small steps of trust; not fasts and penances, but gentleness and patience. And holiness, what of that? It was there as well, cloaked in simplicity, and I slowly learned that Fr. Ray Hoffmann was one of the holiest men that I have ever known. The saints of God express perhaps one or so of the attributes of the Divinity. There are those who overturn the moneychangers tables and sweep the temple clean. There are those who stand against the Pharisees and call them out as hypocrites and snakes. There are those who raise the dead and walk on water. And there are those who say to the woman caught in adultery, "Neither do I condemn thee." Father Ray was one of these. No condemnation did I ever receive at his hands, no judgement, no wearying of patience, no end to mercy.

He was not a man given to deep theological discourses, or to severe ascetical practices. He was rather the quintessential parish priest; always with a smile and a quick joke, always humble, always trusting, always simple (in the best meaning of that word). I never saw him troubled or perturbed, never angry, never sad. He was like the calm, unruffled water that disguises great depth.

In spite of my initial disappointment, I had at least made contact with a priest, so I called him again not long after that. And then again. And then it began to become a habit. I confessed to him, even before I entered the Church and could receive sacramental absolution. I did almost all the talking, and he listened. I poured out my troubles, my sins, my fears. I tortured him with my scruples, I argued with him when he told me I was being too hard on myself. Like all people with scruples I could not trust, and was convinced that I was always right. I must have worn him out. I must have been the most frustrating child. I called him too late sometimes. Sometimes I felt that I needed to confess two or three times a week. I would talk sometimes for over an hour, going over the same ground, re-explaining, arguing, doubting. Yes, I am quite certain that I wore him out. Often, too, I would make an appointment, and then go off the deep end, returning like the proverbial sow to the mud, to a profligate and un-Christian lifestyle. I would not cancel my appointments, I would simply not show up, sometimes for a month or two. All the while I lived a morally bi-polar life, swinging from scruples to decadence, and back again. And then, one day, I would call him and ask if I could drop by for a while. And then I would repeat it all over again. And never once did he rebuke me, or show anger at the shoddy way in which I had treated him. Never did he chastise me, or turn me away. Never once was he less than welcoming, less than patient, less than kind. He became a rock and light to me, and I can still see him, still hear his voice in my mind. He walked with me through my greatest darknesses, my deepest pains, my most overwhelming fears. He saw my hopes, my joys, and the Hand of God in my life. He married my wife and I, he blessed our apartment and our van, he heard my wife's first confession when she entered the church, he lived to see all three of our children, and we named our little Ezra Ray after him.

He was in his late seventies when we first met, in his eighties when he contracted cancer. He told my wife and I in private, and made it clear that he wanted it kept quiet and did not want a big deal made of it. He never lost his sense of humor. When I asked him rather bluntly once (because you can talk to a priest about things like death) what the prognosis was, how long he had, he laughed cheerfully and said, "Well, you've still got time to buy bananas and they'll ripen." In fact he lasted much longer than any of us expected, though he was moved from the rectory at Our Lady of Lourdes to assisted living, and became steadily more bed-ridden. His health continued to weaken, his hearing began to fail, but he remained mentally sharp and his spirits never seemed to dim. My wife and I slowly sought out a new confessor, but continued occasionally to still go to him, receiving absolution at his bedside.

After long months his condition seemed to improve somewhat, and the cancer went into remission. I began to think he might hold on for a long while. I called him about three weeks ago to set a time for confession, but my plate was very full and I had to cancel. I figured I would reschedule soon. I never guessed that time had run out. He passed from us three days ago, on Wednesday night, the eve of the traditional Feast of the Ascension. I cannot help but feel deep sorrow that I did not see him one last time. As I examine my emotions, I do not feel despair or overwhelming sadness. I am glad for him, for he had fought the good fight, and it was time for him to leave his bed. He was a man at peace, a holy man, one of the Father's true children. He was deeply devoted to the Rosary and to Mary, and I have no doubt the Blessed Virgin stood by him at the end. But for myself I hold some sorrow, for I miss the man that guided me so long, though it is no small thing to know I have a priest upon the Other Side, still there to pray and bless. I can truly say of him, that I have no idea where I would be now had God not sent him to me. Perhaps lying in a gutter. Perhaps something worse.

Like any Catholic should, I will say some prayers for him, lest he spend even a minute in Purgatory, but I do not think he will. He was a holy man, a model of patience and humility. He was God's gift to me for a time, though I did not guess it when we first met, when he suggested I go and have a beer with my friends (God bless you for that, Fr. Ray!). He was the son of a baker who fed me with the bread of life. He was a valiant man, who by the Grace of God, had long triumphed over alcoholism and defeat. For all his simplicity he was no fool. He was deeply acquainted with the human condition, and deeply acquainted with the Love and Mercy of our God. He knew me better than I knew myself, and knew what I needed when I could not see the truth. He was one of those who entered into the mystery of the Incarnation, and showed to me the Love of God in human form.

There is a line in the Requiem Mass which requests for the departed, "Let the standard-bearer, holy Michael, bring them into holy light." So be it. And "Grant them eternal rest, Lord, and let perpetual light shine upon them." May you be triply blessed for all you did for me, and may your reward be great. Now rest in peace, my Father, my confessor, and the greatest man I have ever known.


Wednesday, May 8, 2013

The Equality Fallacy Part III: Common Canards and Standard Sophistries


 A mother duck has an interesting way of defending her young. If a predator approaches her nest too closely she will feign a broken wing, tempting the predator with the hope of easy prey. She hobbles along the ground, drawing the intruder away from her young, only to fly away to safety once the danger to her children has passed. The French word for duck is canard. It is from this behavior that the word "canard", used to describe a false or misleading argument designed to distract from the central issue, is derived.


In my first post on gay marriage I stated that  most of the standard arguments and persuasions which one hears in favor of gay marriage are either more sentimental than logical, or peripheral peripheral than central. Many of these standard arguments are (whether intentionally or unintentionally) mere canards, drawing our attention and energies in myriad directions, but rarely ever focusing on the critical issue. The central questions concerning gay marriage are clear and simple (although the answers may not be).  They are: What is marriage? What is the role of marriage in our society? Can gay "unions" truly be considered as marriage? What is the resulting effect upon our society if we redefine marriage? But we will here little about these questions. We will hear about bigotry, religious fanatics, love and commitment, equal rights, civil rights, and so on. Before probing the central questions in this matter in future posts, I would like to use this post to take a quick look at some of the common canards which you and I may encounter on any given day. To do this I am making use of political cartoons. I feel that these express the popular thoughts and attitudes on the topic of gay marriage with simplicity and precision.

1. The Religion Canard:
 



 This is a three-pronged persuasion, and to my mind, one of the more dangerous and insidious. First, it draws a clear battle line against religion. Gay marriage is seen as acceptable, rational, and just; religion is stupid, unjust, and therefore unacceptable.  Secondly, it indicates that the only opposition to gay marriage is blind, religious absolutism. The case against gay marriage (according to the cartoon) rests upon revelation, not reason, not natural law, not social concerns. Thirdly, and perhaps most dangerously, it leads us to the borderland of separation of church and state. By indicating that opposition to gay marriage is purely one of religious belief, we are given to understand that we have no right to legislate our religious beliefs. Thus the voice of the religious person is effectively silenced.

2. The Comparative Marriage Canard:

 


 

 This one is common, reasonably effective, but rather easy to see through. Since those who oppose gay marriage also voice their support of traditional marriage, these cartoons attempt to demonstrate to immorality and degradation which exist within traditional marriage. This is something of a hybrid between a red herring argument and an ad hominem attack. The answer of course is simple: you simply cannot make something good, true, or wholesome, merely by showing something else to be bad, false, and degenerate. Of course, as a Catholic Christian, I do not consider divorce and drunken Vegas marriages to be a valid part of the sacred institution of traditional marriage any way, Yet even if they were, please remember that a bad apple is still an apple, not a pear or a walnut.

3. The Partisan Canard:



This is really just a variation of the Religion Canard, except that in this case the opposition to gay marriage (which once again is given no rational arguments) is grounded not in blind belief but in blind adherence to a conservative party.

4. The Civil Rights Canard:
Straight vs. Gay
 The message here is clear. Gay marriage is viewed as the a civil rights issue comparable to those fought for by African-Americans and women in our country. But, again, this misses the point entirely. The issue is not whether homosexual persons have equal civil rights qua persons, but whether homosexual unions can validly be considered as marriage. Once again, the argument hits our emotions, striking us with memories of Jim Crow laws, bigotry, and segregation.







5. The Homophobe Canard:


There are few arguments more common on this issue than the ad hominem attack that somehow the majority of those who oppose homosexuality or gay marriage are automatically "homophobes". Let us remember that a phobia is an irrational fear. Again, we are given no credit for having rational arguments against gay marriage. I find this interesting, since we rarely ever hear of phobias connected with other major social or political issues. Those who are concerned with the national debt are not "debtophobes". Persons opposed to legalized marijuana are not generally labeled as "cannibuphobes." Yet the very word "homophobe" removes all credibility from the one who so labeled in the minds of all observers. On a psychological level it also hints that the phobia stems from insecurity, perhaps even an unconscious desire to "be gay." It is a nasty, below-the-belt attack, but like all such hits, it is extremely effective.

6. And a Few Other Canards: Here I leave you with an additional sampling of other political cartoons on this subject. You will notice how each and every one of them misses the key point of the debate, but focuses instead on stupidity, bigotry, homophobia, religious intolerance, etc. All of these strike our sentiments, emotions, and prejudices. None of them deals with the issue at stake.