The War on Terror vs. The War on Women

It’s interesting to note that those who think the term “war on terror” is politically incorrect seem to be very comfortable with the term “war on women”.

The war on terror should be called “overseas contingency operation”, but the war on women, happening right here at home, is a real war and The Catholic Church is a top aggressor. How dare they not help pay for the contraception of others; to help them deface their natural & healthy fertility!? How dare the Church want legal protection for every human life!? Have you ever heard of such madness!? While this travesty is happening in the U.S, there are some actually worried about a few extremists in the Middle East who get carried away sometimes.  If we could be a little nicer to them, I’m sure they would lighten-up so we could focus more on the real war happening in our own backyard.

 

In case you can’t tell, I’m being sarcastic. What would a real war on women look like? Consider a scenario where men kill innocent women and call it an “honor killing” or a land where men will relieve a woman of her nose with a knife if she removes her veil in public. Now that is a war on women if I ever heard of one.

Is the Catholic Church an enemy of women or did the Catholic Church actually begin woman’s liberation? In a book called How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization, by Thomas E. Woods, Jr., Ph.D., we read about some interesting things that may not be taught in our public schools (or Catholic schools for that matter).

Ø  After the promiscuity of the ancient Romans, the early Church taught that intimate relations were only for husband and wife restoring dignity to women and marriage in general.

Ø  The Church also sanctified marriage elevating it to the level of a sacrament and prohibited divorce. This was a huge benefit to the women of the ancient world. Men could not leave their wives with nothing to run off and marry another woman.

Ø  Adultery, according to the Church was not confined to only a wife’s infidelity, as the ancient world so often had it. The men were held equally accountable.

Ø  The Catholic Church helped women gain autonomy. Women were allowed to form self-governing communities. Where in history were women able to run their own schools, convents, colleges, hospitals and orphanages outside Catholicism?

 

INTERESTING SIDE NOTE:

So numerous were the women joining the Church in the early centuries, the Romans thought Christianity was a religion for women.

 

As mentioned before on this blog, every problem has a cause and an effect and it is important to know which is which. Do we really understand the cause of the problem or are we only fixated on the effects? A root-cause of many societal problems is a misunderstanding of the word “freedom”. The supposed war on woman is about people thinking rights are being taken away and taking away rights would be akin to losing freedom, but if we understand true freedom we understand this: Freedom is NOT being able to do what we want; freedom is being able to do what we ought.

Fight for true freedom

The Evil of Two Lessers

You're the Diet Coke of evil.
Just one calorie, not evil enough.

Some speak of voting for “the lesser of two evils” in the upcoming presidential election and that voting this way only brings more evil.  A more accurate phrase may be “the evil of two lessers” IF we understand the reality of evil.

Thomas Aquinas tells us that good signifies “perfect being” and evil signifies “the privation of perfect being”, so when a thing lacks a perfection it ought to have, we perceive the deficiency as evil (see his Compendium of Theology). 



Another important point is that evil has no substance, nature or being. We may say for example, Satan is evil, but the word "evil" is an adjective. Satan is not evil itself in the way that God is Goodness itself. Think of darkness; it is merely the absence of light. Darkness doesn’t come from anywhere or find its source in anything; it is merely the lack of something. No one can bring more darkness or take away darkness; one can only take away light, bring light or stop light from dimming. Once we understand all this, we can see that any candidate is a “lesser” in the sense that everyone is imperfect and the imperfection can be called evil. So we are really talking about the imperfection of two candidates or “the evil of two lessers”.

Really?
Whatever....

Think of monetary debt as an election issue. Candidate “A” has a plan that will grow the debt by 20% per year. Candidate “B” has a plan that will grow the debt by 10% per year. Let’s say debt or negative dollars = evil and positive dollars = good. No one really brings negative dollars. I can’t hand you a negative dollar bill. Both plans result in more debt, but "B" is better. Going back to our light metaphor, Candidate “B” will slow the dimming of light better, or bring more light to help compensate or some combination of both. The result is more light (more dollars) than "A".

 

We can easily relate this to the topic of abortion or the killing of human beings. Suppose Adolf Hitler died before the fall of Nazi Germany and there was an election for a successor. Candidate “A” wants to keep the killing of all Jews legal. Candidate “B” wants only the killing of Jews who are a product of rape/incest or any Jew unintentionally threatening the life of a German. Both are imperfect because both will allow killing, but Candidate “B” brings more good , moving closer to perfection like lighting one candle brings more light in the darkness.  Is choosing NOT to vote at all in this scenario a sin of omission, because “B” could possibly save many lives? Just a question.

Of course, there is always a third party or a write-in candidate. This option reminds me of the contemplative side of Catholicism. A big part of contemplation is to be in the present moment because that is where we find God. The past is gone and the future does not exist; there is ONLY now. In the present moment there is no time to build-up a more perfect (or less evil) third candidate that can win. In our moment in the voting booth, we can only try to bring more good (more light) based on the candidates we have.

It is better to light one candle than to curse the darkness.

 

A Week without God

Something I saw in a local parish bulletin (plus a political convention going on) made me think of “A Week without God”. Hope you like…

Ø  SINDAY

"If you were blind, you would have no sin; but since you say, 'We see,' your sin remains. (John 9:41)

Ø  MOURNDAY

“Be miserable and mourn and weep; let your laughter be turned into mourning and your joy to gloom.” (James 4:9)

Ø  TEARDAY

     My tears have been my food day and night, while they say to me all day long, "Where is your God?" (Psalm 42:3)

Ø  WASTEDAY

"He found him in a desert land, and in the howling waste of a wilderness...(Deut 32:10) 

Ø  THIRSTDAY

“but whoever drinks of the water that I will give him shall never thirst…" (John 4:14)

Ø  FIGHTDAY

“but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them; or else you may even be found fighting against God." (Act 5:3)

Ø  SHATTERDAY

“He will judge among the nations, He will fill them with corpses, He will shatter the chief men over a broad country.” (Psalm 110:6)

Seven days without God makes one WEAK!

Truth Balloon

If you ever had a habit of lying, you may have noticed how the truth tends to rise to the surface in time. It almost seems to be a natural law of sorts.  The tangled web we weave when we first practice to deceive ironically helps to catch the truth. A visual metaphor better than a web may be one of those long party balloons clowns make animals out of.

 

The balloon itself can represent our world or the reality which we can see. Air can be “Truth” which we do not see directly; we see the effects. One can squeeze-out the air in a certain part of the balloon, but it still exists; it pops-up somewhere else in the balloon, although perhaps in another form. We can try to suppress Truth in our individual life or in society, but it still exists and will eventually show up somewhere else.

This metaphor can be applied to Protestants/Evangelicals throughout history that have attempted to "squeeze out" Christian Tradition. The kind of Tradition that ultimately comes from God (not the traditions of men); the kind Catholics might spell with a capital “T”

Ø  Squeeze out the Pope, get “The Bible Answer Man”

 

Ø  Squeeze out the Magisterium of Catholic Bishops, get the Baptist General Director of Missions

We have a need for human authority; this is why Jesus set up a visible on earth Church with people in charge.  Bible churches do not use the Bible as their sole authority; they are also using whatever biblical interpretation their church leaders interpret. The Bible doesn’t actually “teach”, just as a math book does not teach; people do the teaching. If I handed some students an algebra book, told them to join an algebra study group and pray hard for understanding with no algebra teacher, how well would they do on the final exam? How well would they truly understand?

I once heard a minister say that the only proper interpreter of scripture is scripture itself. This reminded me of when I was a kid asking how to spell a word and being told to look it up in the dictionary. I would say to myself in frustration…”But I can’t spell the word, so how can I look it up”. It also reminded me of Acts 8:30-31 “Philip ran up and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and said, “Do you understand what you are reading?” And he said, “Well, how could I, unless someone guides me?”

 

Of course, some Christians will say that the Holy Spirit does the guiding, teaching and interpreting for them individually. This would be somewhat reasonable if there were only two Christian denominations in the world, the misguided (or evil) Catholic Church and one true and holy “Bible Church”. The reality of course, is that there are thousands of Christian denominations that claim “Truth” from the Bible and yet teach different things. So it all begs the question, “Which Bible Answer Man or General Directors should we listen to?”

Ø  Squeeze out the Eucharist, get the altar call.

There is something about going to an altar to receive Jesus publicly that just won’t go away!

 

Ø  Squeeze out the Rosary, get the Prayer of Jabez

The Prayer of Jabez comes from 1 Chronicles 4:10 “Now Jabez called on the God of Israel, saying, Oh that You would bless me indeed and enlarge my border, and that Your hand might be with me, and that You would keep me from harm that it may not pain me!" And God granted him what he requested.”

The prayer is composed of four parts. First, Jabez asks God to bless him. Second, he asks God to enlarge his territory or increase his responsibility. Third, he prays that God will be with him and stay close. Lastly, Jabez asks that God keep him from harm so that he will be free from pain. Like the Rosary, Christians are encouraged to say the Prayer of Jabez on a daily basis so it can become a treasured and lifelong habit.

SIDE NOTE: I do wonder if a Christian who prays this daily could ever accept the spiritual value of suffering that all of us can share with Christ.

Both the Rosary and the Prayer of Jabez are criticized for vain repetition (see Matthew 6:7). Stop and think of repetition for a moment (OK, that’s enough). Did you think of day and night repeating over and over, seasons coming and going, breathing air in and out or your heart beating again and again? What is vain is vain, but repetition with meaning brings life.

All of this is not just about Protestants & Evangelicals reinventing the wheel, it is about the Truth finding its way to the surface!

Inspiration for this post comes from a talk I heard by a fine fellow named Ian Murphy during my recent stay At Catholic Familyland. He has a fascinating conversion story going from Agnostic to Baptist to Catholic.

Fascinating Conversion Story Part I:

 

Fascinating Conversion Story Part II:

The Logic of Bullying

In today's polarized political climate, I offer some observations on hypocrisy.

---

It seems that it is okay to engage in spewing poisonous rhetoric regarding the conservative stance on gay "marriage."   Childish personal attacks and  oh-so-witty and hip "arguments" are rampant.


















After bullying them with such wit, they cry with shared sympathy for someone who has been bullied saying, "Don't you know it's cruel to belittle and demean someone else?"

---

They scream with horror that the religious right is imposing their version of morality on them, crying "who are you to tell us how to live?!"

And in the next breath, they will explain how THEY know what to do and that everyone ought to do what they say is right.

---

They will say "be yourself, who cares how you look to others?"

And then hold up those who do exactly that and proceed to mock them for how silly they look.

---

They will sneer at conservative believers who respect their own leaders.

Then they will practically worship those who think like they themselves do.

---

They will tell you that some people have no will in the matter of practicing homosexuality since they are born that way.

Every person looks out at the night sky, or the mountains, or the sea in awe with an innate belief in something more, certain that there is more to the universe than what can be seen.

Yet they are told that there is in fact nothing more; and they should fight this instinct to believe.  You have a choice, just suppress it.  You are not an animal at the mercy of your instincts.


Find purpose despite the fact that your life is a meaningless accident and so there logically can be no purpose.

---

This one-sided freedom to mock, to return hate with hate is not how Christians are to behave.  We are to bring reason, clarity and kindness to the conversation.  We are to be a light, a light that both lifts the darkness of ignorance and is a beacon to lead all people to the truth.  That truth is, after all, what we all are seeking.

Two Space Aliens and a Sex-Study

The Chick-fil-A fiasco is showing us the rapid de-evolution of society. We are reaching the point where one must agree with same sex marriage OR BE PUNISHED. Even the leaders of major U.S. cities, like Chicago and Boston have publicly hinted at this. Many have used a slow sounding metaphor, like “boil the frog” to describe the intolerance, perhaps it’s more appropriate to say something that invokes speed, like “microwave the frog”.

Those who agree that marriage should only be defined as one man and one woman are said to hold to the Biblical definition of marriage, but which came first, the chicken or the egg? Which came first, opposite sex marriage or the Bible? How many citizens of Japan, China, India, Ancient Greece or Ancient Rome would say their view on opposite sex marriage comes from the Bible?


Traditional and Non-Biblical Chinese Wedding
WWCD - What Would the Chinese Do?



Kang & Kodos From Planet Rigel IV

Since emotions run very high with this issue, we lose objectivity. Let’s consider a most objective scenario outside of ANY human society.

Two space aliens, let’s call them Kang and Kodos, have come to earth to study the sexual behavior of the planet’s most highly evolved species. This is of great interest since this alien species from planet Rigel IV reproduces asexually; they have no detailed knowledge of heterosexual reproduction or any sexual behavior involving more than one member of a species.

Kang and Kodos have never heard of marriage, since there is no need for such an institution on their planet. Additionally, our alien friends know nothing of the Bible or God, although the inhabitants of Rigel IV do wonder about “The FirstCause” and what a curious thing an uncaused cause would be.

Kang & Kodos observing "behaviors"

Don’t worry; these aliens have no intention of harming us, in fact they wish to help us evolve or “progress”. Part of the overall mission is not only to learn about our sexual behavior, but to study how our sexual behavior can help the common good of ALL humans. They objectively observe and report on the following human sexual behaviors with no discussion of right or wrong; good or evil.

1. Rape
2. Incest
3. Prostitution
4. Masturbation
5. Random sex between consenting homosexuals
6. Random sex between consenting heterosexuals
7. Exclusive, but temporary sexual relationships between consenting homosexuals
8. Exclusive, but temporary sexual relationships between consenting heterosexuals
9. Exclusive and permanent sexual relationships between consenting homosexuals
10. Exclusive and permanent sexual relationships between consenting heterosexuals

Since thinking means connecting things, Kang & Kodos have made some connections:

Connection #1: Sexual coupling between human males & females tends to create human offspring, although not in all cases.

Connection #2: Sexual coupling in context of behavior #10 tends to create stable and productive offspring within the basic cells of human society called “family units”, although not in all cases.

Connection #3: Sexual behaviors #1 – #9 tend not to achieve what has been observed in connection #2 and tend to cause or accentuate problems for humans such as unwanted offspring, disease, addictions and other emotional & physical trauma, although not in all cases.

Kang & Kodos have also drawn a conclusion from the facts and the connections:

It is in the best interest of human society to encourage and support behavior #10 for their continued existence and progressive evolution. Behavior #10 is unique among the other sexual behaviors/relationships in terms of its procreative, unitive, healthy & stabilizing effects on human society.

Kang & Kodos rejoicing after a successful mission

As has been discussed before on this blog, the rational basis for secular marriage laws is rooted in procreation for the establishment & protection of family units (not romantic love). 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.

Marriage should be reinforced, not redefined.

Wheels of Life

This has little to do with Faith or Reason, but then again, we need faith that some "wheels" will be waiting for us in life and a reason to use them. But are we riding toward God or riding toward "self"? If you're a visual learner, click HERE to see the direction of a soul.

I've heard it said that prayer, simply put, is "directing one's life toward God", so our prayer life (or lack of) is indicative of our direction and speed. I believe I'm right smack-dab in the middle of the cartoon below. Where are you, but more importantly, which direction are you going?