Relativity

Earth's gravity pulls my rock down at 9.8 m/s² but your rock may fall at a different rate. My 2 + 2 = 6. The North won the civil war, if you believe it. Rape is wrong, for me, but may be not for you. Who knows if the Holocaust happened? Nobody. Abortion is right for you if you think it is. Water is necessary for some people to live. The Earth goes around the sun in my neighborhood. A pound is 16 ounces when I buy goods, but when I sell them I use an 8 ounce pound to charge customers.

Why would anybody agree with any one of those statements? "Well, because one of those is true," you might reply, and I can guess which statement that would be. But why do you think it is true? In no area of human knowledge do we accept that the rules that govern the universe are subject to personal opinion. Why do you think the morality of an act is subject to your personal whim?

American society (and I suspect others) drill into our heads constantly that there is no such thing as right and wrong, that moral knowledge is not knowledge, that right and wrong are just opinions. Yet, they expect us to follow laws. Why? If rape is right for me, why can't I do it? You can't say because it is wrong, because there is no right or wrong, remember? Oh, because it hurts someone, you say? But so does abortion. And now we're back where we started.

People who claim that morality is relative really mean that only the things that they want might want license to do are relative, and other things are. They will find it OK to restrict what we eat, because eating poorly would cause health problems down the line, but encourage homosexual activity that will cause health problems down the line.

If someone said that the weight of a pound was different for different people in order to make more money selling you stuff you'd stop them pretty quickly. Why should you accept that someone can do something else that's objectively wrong? The classic objection is that different people have different ideas about what's right and wrong? That's true, but different people also have different ideas about where Colorado is on a US map. Their ideas are mistakes or ignorance, and are not accepted as truth. People who believe in moral relativism are the modern day equivalent of flat earthers.

So, who's idea of right and wrong is the "right" one? For that we have to accept morality as a real branch of knowledge based on postulates and logic, just like mathematics. It is a real branch of knowledge, and the moral order as defined by the Catholic Church is based on the natural law - the order of things in the universe. It is not some arbitrary thing that dropped from the sky. For instance. the moral law tells us that killing an innocent human being is wrong. That is a premise. Science tells us that an embryo (or fetus) is a human being. Abortion kills an embryo (or fetus). Therefore abortion is wrong.

To contradict the statement "abortion is wrong" you have to either argue that abortion doesn't kill (it does), a human embryo is not alive (it is), a human embryo belongs to another species (it doesn't), an embryo is not innocent (which implies evil intent) or that it is OK to kill innocent human beings. If you want to disagree with the premise that it is wrong to kill innocent human beings, then we can talk, but let's at least be honest and admit that the statement was properly reasoned from the premise and that the premise is a reasonable one.

Sorry if this post seems to ramble a bit - I've had a day of people arguing vociferously about morality being baseless, irrelevant and arbitrary, and so I'm taking it out on you, dear reader.

Read More

Back from camp

As some of you may know I spent the last week camping at Boy Scout camp. I learned a lot of things there, and got some great stories which I will hopefully get to blog about. But what I wanted to talk about today was something that happened on the first evening, last Sunday.

There is a family of Lone Scouts who camp at the same time we do and join us for various events. They get camaraderie, pizza and ice cream from us, but we get the best of the deal. You see, there is a small open air Catholic chapel out in the woods on camp grounds. The Lone Scout patrol hikes to it, with two suitcases carrying the equipment (lectionary, candles, etc.) and matter to say mass. Following them is a priest, who says mass for us in the chapel.

The priest, who is Hungarian, is a very interesting and reverent fellow. While he prepares for mass he explains what he is doing and quizzes the kids on the Sacraments and other aspects of the faith. Not as if he's testing them, but matter of factly. He weaves it into stories.

Last Sunday he spoke about the origins of the word "Sunday." In languages descended from Latin, he told us, the word comes from the Latin "Dies Domini" or "Lord's Day." Hence "Domingo" in Spanish or "Domenica" in Italian. However, in Russian, the word is "воскресенье" which means "Resurrection." He told us when the communists took over, all words relating to Christianity were banned from speech. Yet, the Russians had to say "Resurrection" every time they spoke of Sunday, which left a bad taste in their mouths.

After this conversation one of the simplest, yet most beautiful masses I have attended began. The weather was hot and muggy, and we were all in our dress uniforms, sitting on logs and kneeling on the dead leaves and sticks of the forest floor, but nobody noticed. As the Eucharistic prayer began, a cool breeze blew through and it became quiet and comfortable. And at the elevation, the clouds parted and the setting sun shown down behind the altar.

I'm not claiming this was a mystical experience, but it was a beautiful peaceful moment, which stayed with me the rest of the week. God is good.

Read More

Abortion and the ISS

One of the arguments put forth by pro-aborts in defense of abortion on demand is the "Thompson's violinist" argument. It goes something like this:

You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. The director of the hospital now tells you, "Look, we're sorry the Society of Music Lovers did this to you--we would never have permitted it if we had known. But still, they did it, and the violinist is now plugged into you. To unplug you would be to kill him. But never mind, it's only for nine months. By then he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you." Is it morally incumbent on you to accede to this situation? No doubt it would be very nice of you if you did, a great kindness. But do you have to accede to it? What if it were not nine months, but nine years? Or longer still? What if the director of the hospital says. "Tough luck. I agree. but now you've got to stay in bed, with the violinist plugged into you, for the rest of your life. Because remember this. All persons have a right to life, and violinists are persons. Granted you have a right to decide what happens in and to your body, but a person's right to life outweighs your right to decide what happens in and to your body. So you cannot ever be unplugged from him." I imagine you would regard this as outrageous, which suggests that something really is wrong with that plausible-sounding argument I mentioned a moment ago.

There are so many flaws in this argument that it readily falls apart, because it is a seriously flawed analogy. A woman doesn't wake up mysteriously pregnant - some action has been taken (usually voluntarily) to cause it. And the fetus is not kept alive by extraordinary medical means that seriously hamper the woman's ability to live, but by the natural functions of the woman's body. I could go on.

In light of this, and the recent withdrawal of the United States from manned space flight, I would like to humbly offer what I consider to be a more accurate analogy, involving the International Space Station (ISS). Imagine you are an astronaut on the ISS. A visiting Soyuz capsule docks with you and unintentionally leaves behind an astronaut (perhaps because a safety device malfunctions). You didn't want this astronaut on the ISS, but here she is. The next scheduled Soyuz flight that could pick her up is due in nine months. You have the life support capacity (food oxygen) to keep her alive for the nine months, but it may mean certain accommodations, such as watching your diet, being a bit more cramped than normal, nor being able to exercise or use equipment exactly when you want to. Is it reasonable for you to shove this astronaut out the airlock?

I consider this to be a more accurate analogy in a number of ways. Although the astronaut is not physically connected to you, as the violinist is, she does rely on your life support system, which you control, and which was placed there for your benefit. In addition, it recognizes that the mother's body, like the life support system on the ISS, is designed to be able to support an additional life. The extraordinary action is the murder of the astronaut - the status quo is to keep her there. This is analogous to the case of abortion - the status quo would be to do nothing and let the baby develop. The visiting astronaut could have been left there by accident (aka contraceptive failure) or on purpose (aka rape). It doesn't matter how she got there, if she is human.

I've been thinking about this analogy for a couple of days now and I think it holds water. What do you think? In what ways is it an imperfect analogy? In what ways is the violinist argument stronger?

Read More

Dark Knight of the Soul

I know it's been a while since my last post. I thought this spring was busy, but it is nothing compared to this summer. My wife is recovering from shoulder surgery, which gives me a perfect opportunity to reflect on just how much I need her and how perfectly suited marriage is to the creation and rearing of children. In other words, I'm super busy.

Michal Voris is a nut, but his heart is in the right place, and although I often feel he goes too far, at least he's going in the right direction. In a recent video he publicly resigns from the Knights of Columbus over the refusal of the national council to either allow a local council to police its own membership nor do it themselves.

For readers unfamiliar with the Knights of Columbus, their overview booklet states:

In 1882, Father Michael J. McGivney invited a small group of parishioners to gather in the basement of St. Mary’s Church in New Haven, Connecticut. His goal was simple — to establish an Order that would unite men in their faith as well as help provide for Catholic families in times of need. It was in that humblest of beginnings that the Knights of Columbus was founded.

At issue is whether or not a pro-abortion politician can remain a member of the K of C. The local council said "no", the national said it was not up to the local council, but up to them, then did nothing about the situation for over a year, through inaction implicitly approving the status quo.

I know people on both sides of the issue, and I don't mean to belittle their opinions, but this is "What does Mike Think" and I've been thinking about this. In fact, sad to say I lost sleep thinking about this. While I disagree with Voris' decision to leave the K of C, and I think his accusations of malfeasance on the part of the national council is inappropriate, he has a point about the scandal caused by the council's approval of the situation.

The Constitution of the Knights of Columbus states:

Ipso Facto Forfeiture — Members
SEC. 168. Any member of this Order shall, ipso facto, forfeit his membership in the Order —
Failure to Remain a Practical Catholic
1. Who shall fail to remain a practical Catholic in union with the Holy See.

In addition, in their Resolution on Building a Culture of Life, the Knights state [emphasis mine]:

FURTHER RESOLVED, that we reaffirm our long-standing policy of not inviting to any Knights of Columbus event, persons, especially public officials or candidates for public office, who do not support the legal protection of unborn children, or who advocate for the legalization of assisted suicide or euthanasia; and of prohibiting such persons from renting or otherwise using facilities over which we have control, or speaking at Knights of Columbus events, or bestowing on them honors or privileges of our Order of any kind, or inviting them to serve as honorary chairpersons of events, celebrations, or committees, or hold any office in the Knights of Columbus;

Which begs the issue of how one could remain a member yet be barred from any events.

The defenders of the national council say that "if the bishop fails to publicly excommunicate a person we must assume the bishop believes the person to be in union with the Holy See." Certainly the Knights should remain obedient to their bishop, but in this case the bishop has not stated whether or not the politician in question is in fact in union with the Holy See, but simply hasn't made a public statement one way or the other. As we saw in the case of Patrick Kennedy, a bishop may in fact decide a politician is not in union with the Church, but handle it privately for pastoral reasons.

So as I see it, the basis of the dispute is whether or not Catholics can in good conscience make a decision about the whether someone's behavior is in accord with the Holy See, or whether they need to appeal to a bishop in all cases. Rather than present my opinion on the matter, I will defer to Cardinal Arinze.

Read More

Happy Independence Day

Authentic democracy is possible only in a State ruled by law, and on the basis of a correct conception of the human person. It requires that the necessary conditions be present for the advancement both of the individual through education and formation in true ideals, and of the "subjectivity" of society through the creation of structures of participation and shared responsibility. Nowadays there is a tendency to claim that agnosticism and sceptical relativism are the philosophy and the basic attitude which correspond to democratic forms of political life. Those who are convinced that they know the truth and firmly adhere to it are considered unreliable from a democratic point of view, since they do not accept that truth is determined by the majority, or that it is subject to variation according to different political trends. It must be observed in this regard that if there is no ultimate truth to guide and direct political activity, then ideas and convictions can easily be manipulated for reasons of power. As history demonstrates, a democracy without values easily turns into open or thinly disguised totalitarianism.

- Bl. Pope John Paul II in Centesimus annus

Read More

American Idol

A few weeks ago at the death mill I was verbally assaulted. Not by one of the customers or staff, or by a pro-death passerby, but by another pro-lifer. The subject of the assault was that I was an idol worshiper (aka Catholic). Apparently I worship statues, my rosary beads, and my scapular. After a five minute dress down, and being told that I was "disgusting" the accuser told me that she used to be a Catholic (as if I couldn't have guessed) until she learned to be a Christian. She told me she learned that her scapular couldn't save her, and her rosary couldn't save her and her statues couldn't save her - her Bible saved her.

Now, I understand how all these things can be used in a superstitious manner (and apparently were by this woman), but I can assure you that I don't worship anyone but God. A statue is a statue and the only use I have for it is to remind me of the men and women who have set an example for me of how to live. My rosary beads do nothing for me but mark the number of prayers I am saying so I can use my meager brain power to contemplate the life of Christ. My scapular is non-existent because I don't have one.

Note that she didn't even mention Eucharistic Adoration, which to a protestant actually is idol worship, and is a great way for me to slip in a reference to "Lift the City" into this blog post.

But that isn't really what I wanted to blog about. While I was listening to this woman's tirade, it struck me that while I am saved by Jesus, this woman claims she is saved by her Bible. I believe if pressed she would say that she didn't mean that literally, that she is saved by Jesus Christ, but I think her words are a Freudian slip. While she and other "Bible Christians" accuse us Catholics of worshiping idols, I would claim the finger points both ways (and more truly in their direction).

One theme in the bible is that "man does not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of the Lord" (Deut. 8:3, Matthew 4:4) The Bible Christian twists this to mean that the Bible is king, but I think it means just the opposite. We are told in scripture that the bible does not contain every word or action of God (John 21:25). St. Paul reminds us in 2 Thessalonians to listen to what we've been taught, both orally and in writing (2 Thessalonians 2:15). And in Matthew we are told to take our conflicts to the church as the last word (Matthew 18:17). The bible should not be the last word. Christ tells us that is reserved for the church.

And to me that makes perfect sense. A book is a book. It has no meaning without human interpretation. If that human interpreter isn't divinely protected from fault, then the bible itself is not protected from fault. In other words, God doesn't deal in print, He deals with people. And it is the Bible Christian, not the Catholic, who has elevated a book to be superior to the authority appointed by Christ, and so is worshiping an idol - a paper idol - over the true Word.

Read More

Jenny has

Jenny has two women whom she was taught to call "mommy", although only one really is.

Jenny has a father in Boston who has laughing blue eyes and a beard. She will never know this, however because he will always be just "donor" to her. She imagines he was a spy captured by enemy soldiers and that's why he never comes to see her. In fact, he makes people happy playing beautiful music on the piano. Jenny will never take piano lessons because nobody knows how much she would love it if she had the opportunity.

Jenny has a Father in heaven who loves her, and she loved Him too until she was taught that He didn't exist and that people who believed in Him were ignorant and hateful. Jenny's mother teaches her that in reality things are what you believe them to be and if you want happiness you have to envision it and the universe will send it to you. Any sadness Jenny has is her own fault because she's not trying hard enough.

Jenny has a family history of colon cancer on her father's side, and since she doesn't know to get screening for it, it will probably kill her if she lives long enough.

Jenny's father has an aunt who could teach Jenny how to make pierogi and dance a polka, and how to speak Polish, and tell her about her grandfather, who was descended from a duke. Jenny will never meet her.

Jenny has a grandmother who lives in a nursing home. She wishes she had someone to visit her or a reminder that someone loved her. Jenny loves to draw and makes dozens and dozens of pictures of flowers that her "mommies" put on the fridge until they finally have to throw some out.

Jenny has an "uncle" who likes to borrow her mother's clothes, and who teaches her what a male body is like. Her "mommies" want her to be free to explore sexuality. Jenny uses this to her advantage and becomes a very popular fifth grader.

Jenny has a baby who loves her, whom she will never know. She's not sure whose it is, but since she is 13 and it might be her gym teacher's he takes her secretly to get an abortion.

Jenny has a savior who died for her, whom she will never know. He sheds a tear for her as the nail pierces the flesh of His left hand.

Read More