The Unintelligibility of Same-Sex Marriage

God is the author of marriage, but this does not convince same-sex marriage activists. The “Adam & Eve, not Adam & Steve” argument doesn’t go very far. The reflex rebuttals are, “You have no right to impose your religion on others” and the familiar “Separation of Church and State.”

At this point the dialog shuts down, but I find that secular arguments tend to re-boot the discussion. I occasionally debate proponents on other forums. To be honest, they have quite a bit of difficulty breaking down the logic in the following post:

Few things represent a lack-of-thinking more than the idea of same-sex marriage. We need to turn down the noise on this issue and look at the facts.

Why is the government in the marriage business?
Does the government care who you “love”?
Would marriage exist if humans reproduced asexually?

The nature of male/female marriage leads directly to the building blocks of a nation just like the cells of a body. Strong families and a productive future citizenry result from a permanent and loving union between one male and one female. If we don’t see this clear connection to our society, we’re just not looking. The very idea that The State should NOT give incentive & recognize a procreative union as unique from other types of human unions boggles the mind.

You will ask; what about infertile couples or couples who do not want children? This question brings a new debate. The debate becomes, should marriage be defined as any man and any woman or only a man and woman willing & able to have children. The question in no way logically justifies same-sex marriage.

You will ask; what about equal rights for all? Many relationships, other than marriages, have tremendous personal significance to those involved. The fact that we do not call them marriages is not evidence of bigotry, but recognition of reality.

Proponents of same-sex marriage insist that marriage has nothing whatsoever to do with reproduction; why children? I like to counter with a question of my own; why sex? Suppose two sisters share a household and love each other very much. Why should they not be married if they want?  Why discriminate against people because they are not sexually attracted to each other? It’s not fair.

Another question; why the number “two”? Why can’t marriage be any 3 people or any 30 people? I’ve been told this is a slippery slope argument and slippery slope arguments are automatically invalid. So if my kids are playing with matches, and I project that there will be a fire and someone will get hurt, this would be another automatically invalid slippery slope argument.

Then there is the discussion about “What’s it to you?” Let them marry. It does not affect heterosexual marriage in any way. This would be a separate post I think. For the purposes of this post, I’ll say that I prefer my government do things that are intelligible as oppose to unintelligible. What say you?

Marriage should be reinforced, not redefined.

Professor Ratzinger on “Meaning”

Behold, I am scary-smart.

Continuing a tribute to B16 seven years on, here is another insight inspired by Professor Ratzinger.

Science tells us a lot about how something works, what it does or what physical attributes it has. The scientific method is frustrated, however, by questions related to “meaning”. Galileo hinted at this when he said, "Religion tells us how to go to heaven; science tells us how the heavens go." As a result, a secular answer to the question, “What is the meaning of life?” might be, “We make our own meaning.”

If you think about it, we really don’t understand what something is unless we know its purpose. Imagine you were to stumble upon a razor, but didn’t know what it was for. You will notice that it is very sharp. Let’s say YOU decide the purpose of the razor is to cut wood; what will happen? You will not cut wood very well and you will destroy the razor. Why? Because you did not know what the razor was really for. You did not know the intended purpose of its existence.

Professor Ratzinger addresses the question of “meaning” in the first chapter of his book, Introduction to Christianity. Here are some highlights paraphrased a bit:

Ø  Meaning is the bread on which man subsists. Everyone knows the situation of “not being able to go on” in the midst of outward abundance. How many have plenty in terms of health, food, clothing and shelter, but live quiet (or not so quiet) lives of desperation. It’s a problem related to “meaning”.

Ø  He goes on about two kinds of thought. Calculating thought is concerned with “make-ability”; reflective thought is concerned with “meaning”. We need both. In an age in which calculating thought is celebrating amazing triumphs, we are all threatened by thoughtlessness, a flight from reflective thought.

Ø  Meaning is not manufactured from knowledge. We can study the physical attributes of a razor for an eternity and never grasp its true meaning. Meaning, that is, the ground on which our existence as a totality can stand and live, cannot be made, but only received. Meaning that is self-made is in the last analysis no meaning.

Ø  The good professor also gives a clever analogy to self-made meaning; imagine a man trying to pull himself out of a bog by his own hair. This is the absurdity of the statement, “We make our own meaning.”

Why am I not being uplifted?!?!



A very simple, but very good answer to life’s meaning can still be found in the Baltimore Catechism. Why did God make us? God made us to know Him, to love Him, and to serve Him in this world, and to be happy with Him forever in heaven. Theologian Frank J. Sheed said it in a simple way too; why did God make us?.......because we should like it.

“Eye has not seen nor ear heard, nor has it entered into the heart of man, what things God has prepared for those who love him.” (I Corinthians 2:9)

One thing at a time?

This past week, the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith (CDF) issued a document ordering a supervised renewal of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR).

Since then it has been volley after volley at the bishops with accusations and comments ranging from "after the sexual abuse crisis, where's your moral authority?" to "an all-male hierarchy are again telling women what to do."

What I found the most interesting is the concept where, since there is a sexual abuse crisis going on, the Church is not allowed to work on anything else.  I think this is not a logical nor reasonable approach.

I often see this in secular politics.  "It's the economy, stupid!"  So then government leaders cannot work on any other problems until this is worked out?  Health care has to wait?  Transportation infrastructure has to wait?  HHS Mandate has to wait?  Obviously not.  A government, like a person, can have several things going on at the same time.  I am sure each person reading this has.

Is it simply a red herring?  Is it a distraction to stop the Church's progress on one front because someone doesn't like it?  I don't know.  Perhaps.

Be that as it may, I'd like to point out another "either/or" occurrence within the LCWR situation.  The CDF has pointed out that not enough attention is being paid to doctrinal matters within the Conference.  Media reports were that the sisters were somehow spending too much time on feeding the poor and caring for the sick.  Cries of "what would Jesus do?" and  "the bishops have it wrong" arose.  On and on.

Again, why is it an either/or situation?  In one's life, in your business, in your government, isn't it expected that, in the pursuit of a goal, many different courses have to be pursued simultaneously?  Of course it is.  Yet the women religious are seen by the media as "one trick ponies."  As if they are only able to do one thing at a time.  However, isn't it clear that when one thing is pursued exclusively, balance is sacrificed?

Spending all of one's time reading doctrine on why we should serve poor, and then NOT serving the poor is out of balance.   Conversely, serving the poor without understanding why we should, may achieve a goal, but is that at the expense of another, just-as-important goal?  An outside observation can sometimes be the most perceptive and helpful.

Recall that the CDF is correcting a group who professes to BE Catholic.  To be Catholic, one must both believe all that the Catholic Church believes and teaches, and then one is to go and do likewise.  Why is this assessment not well within the Church's purview?  Of course it is.  Why the sexist rhetoric?  This is not a male vs. female false dichotomy, it is the Church helping the Church.

Why else is spiritual direction so well-advised for those trying to grow in spirituality?  That's exactly what I see here.

Tribute to B16 seven years on: Professor Ratzinger on “The Supreme Being”

It’s been seven years since Cardinal Ratzinger was elected Pope; so much for a transition papacy. Seven is often a number that represents completeness or perfection in scripture. I don’t think his pontificate is completed and he is not perfect in terms of impeccability, which is often confused with infallibility, but that is another post for another time.

I do, however, want to share insights from reading his book from the 1960’s called Introduction to Christianity. The title sounds deceivingly simple, but it’s a heavy read (for me anyway). I heard somewhere that this was a favorite book of JP2, and after reading it, I had to put our Pope into a category of people I like to call “scary-smart”.

What do you mean you disagree with me?
Do you know who you're dealing with?

It reminded me of reading Aquinas or Augustine. There were occasions when I may have known the meaning of each individual word in a paragraph and the grammar was perfect, yet somehow, I did not understand. Anyway, I understood some things and I’ll have a series of post to share in the weeks to come. This post is about “The Supreme Being”.

Paraphrasing from Part One, Chapter III…
The God of faith is personal, defined by the category of relationship. The God of the philosophers is “The Supreme Being” and tends to be impersonal.

In this view it seems an absurd idea that this Supreme Being should concern himself with man and his pitiful little world, his cares, his sins, and his non-sins. Oddly, this projects negative human characteristics of pettiness, arrogance and aloofness onto the Supreme Being. We thereby imagine him as a consciousness that will NOT embrace the whole.

By calling God “Father” and “Almighty”, The Creed has joined together the family concept and the cosmic power in one God; the God of faith and the God of the philosophers. This expresses accurately the whole point of the Christian image of God. The tension between:

Ø  Absolute power and absolute love

Ø  Absolute distance and absolute proximity

Ø  Absolute being and direct affinity

Ø  Maximum and minimum

Ø  The greatest and the least

Ø  The first and the last

Ø  BOTH/AND, not either/or

Not to be encompassed by the greatest, but to let oneself be encompass by the smallest – that is divine.

Stay tuned for more as I’m able to process it. As I mentioned, the good professor is “scary-smart”. If you don’t hear from me, you may assume my brain has exploded.

BRAIN-FREEZE
Always study Professor Ratzinger S-L-O-W-L-Y!

40 Days of Prayer?

The Lord says, “This is My Body”.  The priests for choice say, “This is my body.” These are the exact same words, but coming from opposite ends of the universe. The Lord continues, “…given for you”. The choice clerics continue, “…kept for me.”

This is my body

 A Planned Parenthood affiliate is conducting 40 days of prayer to “support woman”.  On the spiritual side, what evidence is there to back the premise that God approves of killing innocent human life as a personal choice that supports woman? On the secular side, one wonders how supposedly educated people can actually be pro-choice and recognize science & human rights at the same time. (see post Pro-Choice The Moral Blind Spot)

Ironically, 40 days of lent is often used to give up something, mirroring what Jesus did in the desert before starting His public ministry. Fasting and other sacrifices allow us to be more aware of our souls and put less emphasis on our bodies. This 40 Days of Prayer also comes from the opposite end of the universe, using the cry of “my body” that drowns out the soul. It seeks to hold on to something, a depraved choice, instead of letting go.

This is My Body

Some will be sincere in these prayers; some are only mocking the 40 Days for Life campaign. Looking at the big-picture, whenever we make a significant choice in life we should ask, “I’m I doing this more for God or more for myself? This is the question I pose about Planned Parenthood’s 40 Days of Prayer, since prayer is essentially about directing one’s life toward God.

4-Year-Old Translation Dictionary

This post has nothing to do with faith or reason, but I thought I’d post it for fun anyway. Besides, you might like it. My youngest daughter turns five soon, so I took time to reflect on the creative vocabulary of a four year old in the form of a mini-translation dictionary. Here’s what I came up with:

§  alleluia: Mass

§  alligator: elevator

§  always: too often for her (some grown-ups use this term)

§  baby grown-ups: munchkins from Wizard of Oz

§  band-aid car: ambulance

§  burgers: boogars

§  capiano: piano

§  chest: chess

§  cookie man: Poke′mon

§  friends: school

§  girl cheese: grilled cheese

§  grude:  grew

§  hair nuts: hair knots

§  happy fools day: April fools day

§  hot dog: any sausage like meat

§  peer butter: peanut butter

§  man on the potty: handicap parking sign

§  measure my feet: weigh me on the bathroom scale

§  miss nastics: gymnastics

§  no fair: not my way (some grown-ups use this term too)

§  one more: infinitely more

§  snacker:  food pantry

§  tomorrow: any point in future time

§  whatever: okay

§  yesterday: any point in past time

My favorite…

§  holy bird: Holy Spirit

  

“Let the children come to me and do not prevent them; for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these” Luke 18:16

Reason Rally II

Atheists & Secularists held a “Reason Rally” in D.C. on March 24th. Ironically, God is the source of reason and any true reason rally would ultimately lead to Him. Since the theme of this blog is Faith & Reason, I thought I’d write-up a reason rally of my own.

We had an incredible warm spell in March in the Chicago area. One sunny eighty-five degree day I was driving down a familiar road, when I saw a man in his front yard with some Christmas lights. I thought to myself, “It’s a bit late, but what a perfect day to take down Christmas lights.” I then began to think; maybe he was not a bit late, but a lot early putting up his lights for next Christmas.

I did not actually observe him taking down the lights, but only holding the lights. Taking the lights down was an assumption on my part. Driving by, I had no way to know or prove what he was doing or not doing with the lights. However, based on certain premises from past experience, it would be MORE reasonable to say the man was taking down the lights and LESS reasonable to say he was putting them up, although both are within the realm of possibility. (Yes, I often have strange thoughts like this).

Other examples of such things:

• Speaking of driving, what do we do as we approach a green light? We drive through it assuming the other drivers on each corner of the intersection will stop on red. The red light is in no way connected to their brakes and there is nothing physically stopping them from running the light, but it is more reasonable to think a car will stop at a red light and less reasonable to think a car will run a red light, although both are within the realm of possibility.

• Are your parents really your parents? Suppose you had no access to a birth certificate or DNA test and you don't even look like them. Your parents say they are your real biological parents, but you have no proof. Why do you believe them? If you have learned to trust your parents over the years, it is more reasonable to believe them and less reasonable to assume they are lying.

• How about this one? Someone suffering from paranoia says, “Everyone wants to kill me.” You respond, “I don’t want to kill you."  The person answers, “Of course you would say that to keep your evil plan a secret.” There is some logic there, but the premise is unreasonable.

There are many things in life we simply cannot prove; some argue that we cannot prove anything at all. We certainly cannot prove things like dogmas, philosophies, ideologies, morals, values, goodness, badness, justice, purpose, etc. using a scientific method, so what should we do? Premises are certainly a key; given certain premises we should logically move toward what is more reasonable and step away from what is less reasonable. Also, the more assumptions one needs to make a premise true, and the more complex they are, the less reasonable the premise becomes.

For the atheist, a premise needs to be that the universe comes from nothing for the purpose of nothing. More specifically, it comes from nothing intelligent for no intended purpose. This is a good definition of an accident; the universe is a perfectly fine tuned accident.

Making something from nothing actually defies the laws of physics and we must be careful not to redefine “nothing” to be some scientific “something”. Also, something unintelligent or non-rational making or becoming something rational under its own power and direction contradicts our general experience. I would need to call either of these two unreasonable or at least LESS reasonable when comparing to what St. Thomas Aquinas proposes in his contingency theory for example. See posts Aquinas Regarding Contingency & Fr. Spitzer on the Existence of God. 

Scientism holds that truth can ONLY be found through the scientific method. This poses a problem because we cannot use the scientific method to prove the previous sentence is true. This defies a principle in logic called the principle of non-contradiction. Bible Christians hold that we know what is true through the bible ALONE. The difficulty here is that this teaching cannot be found in the bible, so it is unbiblical. This too fails the principle of non-contraction. See post All Statements are False.

This brings us to the Church in the modern world. Those who do not study Catholicism do not understand the premises for what is taught. From the existence of God to the teachings on Mary, one premise logically flows to the next. For example, let’s look at Mary’s title “Queen of Heaven”.  If we accept the premise that the Old Testament foreshadows the New Testament, then we can see how the ancient Kingdom of Israel foreshadows the new Kingdom of Christ, and the King of Israel foreshadows Christ the King of Heaven.  In the ancient Kingdom of Israel, the queen was always the mother of the king (not the wife or wives) and part of her role was to bring petitions to the king (see 1 Kings 2:13-20). Given this premise, it is reasonable to say Mary is the Queen of Heaven and part of her role is to bring our petitions to Christ, in fact, it would be strange if it were otherwise.

Many run with the assumption that Church teaching is a bunch superstitious hooey from the dark ages; this then becomes a premise.  Once we have this premise, Catholicism is instantly dismissed. As a result, we search elsewhere for ultimate truths. We look to other Christian denominations, religions of the East, science or make-up our own. How did we become so arrogant that we automatically dismiss centuries of careful thinking from thousands (millions?) of Catholic intellects without even objectively exploring the premises?  

Bishop Sheen once said that we all have “a philosophy”. We all believe things we can't prove. Spend time exploring the premises for your beliefs. What assumptions are you making for your premises to be true? How complex are they? Always ask “why?” Are you using true reason or reason based only on the premises/assumptions you like best?

Bishop Fulton Sheen