Just be nice

I have emerged from the cave I've been dwelling in in order to share a quote I found today that is too good to be missed:

From Red Cardigan:
'I actually do believe that most Catholics in America have very little understanding of Catholic moral issues because they, like most Americans, have almost no training in philosophy or logic. In addition to the decline in quality catechesis, most Catholics are wallowing in a syrupy moral mess where the only commandment God ever gives anybody is, "Always be as nice as possible!" The corollary to this commandment is: good is that which is sort of nice and makes people feel good about themselves, while bad is that which is sort of mean and makes people experience a loss of self-esteem. In that calculation, divorce, homosexual sex, fornication, pornography use, and similar ills can be called "good," while the Church's rules about marriage are "bad" and "hurtful."'

All Hypocrisy Considered...

I was asked about the significance of my post yesterday linking to the Anchoress' assessment of the firing of NPR's Juan Williams.

For those not familiar with the story, Juan Williams, a news analyst for NPR, was fired this week for comments he made in a conversation with Bill O'Reilly on FOX. He described his own apprehension when on an airplane with people dressed in Muslim garb, in order to make his broader point of overcoming one's own prejudices. NPR stated that Williams' comments were not in keeping with their expectations that their news analysts don't divulge their personal opinions on controversial topics and that Williams has long been pushing the envelope, so to speak.

It sounds innocuous enough, but the story quickly unraveled to show that there is a much more cynical back story going on. In my opinion, and I am not alone, as the overwhelming majority of the 8000+ comments on the NPR website can attest, NPR has lost its veneer of credibility as an objective media outlet, a credibility which was already on shaky grounds.

NPR has long been criticized for its left-leaning bias in its reporting and staffing. Myself, I used to listen to NPR daily at work (metal building=bad radio reception) and appreciated its in-depth coverage of a wide variety of issues, but after beginning to listen on occasion to conservative radio, I began to hear admittedly conservative viewpoints that were either never given airtime on NPR shows, or given short shrift with sneering contempt. Growing up in CT, I had been immersed in liberal think all through my education, and this was a turning point in my own political thought and understanding. I started to recognize the bias inherent in NPR, and as I started investigating, recognized it in other mainstream media outlets as well, especially in the networks ABC. CBS, NBC, CNN, etc. I began to see that the veneer of objectivity was just that- a veneer, a thin layer to cover up one material to make it look like something else.

In full disclosure, I don't have cable, and so I don't watch FOX. I have no vested interest in defending FOX, but it's clear to me that the reason FOX was able to gain the audience it has is because the public had been yearning for quite some time for a news outlet that wasn't blatantly left-leaning. (So don't fill the combox with "FOX isn't fair and balanced! They're not objective either, they're conservative!!!" I'm not making the case that they are, just that they obviously fill a void to provide counter-balance to the main-stream-media.)

That being said, Juan Williams was fired because of his relationship with FOX. It's interesting that he was fired the day after NPR announced it received a donation for $1.8 million dollars from George Soros, a multi- billionaire who not only has stated as his hopes the collapse of the U.S. dollar, but also a one-world government, who is also supporting organizations that are targeting FOX in general, and personalities on FOX in particular. It on the face of it smacks of blacklisting, and therefore, the suppression of free thought.

Speaking of free thought, aren't news analysts paid to voice their opinions? If you take NPR's stated reasons for firing Williams at face value, why is Nina Totenberg, whose comments about Justice Thomas, Justice Alito, and Jesse Helms were far more scathing, personal and controversial, still employed by NPR?

No, NPR showed its true colors here. The CEO of NPR made some pretty outrageous comments yesterday about the firing, suggesting that Williams should have kept his opinions between him and his psychiatrist, implying that such thoughts are only appropriate for psychological analysis, and not appropriate for a discussion about race and religion in the public square. And that's where it shows that NPR is not interested in free speech, free thought, or rational discussion, only groupthink that passes the Politically Correct Police. Criticism of muslims is: Simply. Not. Tolerated. That's what Williams' true crime was. Speaking about his gut reaction to riding on an airplane next to people of the same religion as some other people who, in the name of their religion, hijacked airplanes and crashed them into tall buildings.

The politically correct transgression in this case is in parallel to Shirley Sherod's firing from the Department of Agriculture this year. In her case, Sherod, a black lady employed by the Agric. Dept., was shown on video talking about her inital hesitation in helping white farmers. She was quickly fired, and rightly so, for she did, in fact, admit that she didn't help white farmers as much as she could have because they were white, but in the course of that video, she was trying to explain how she overcame her initial hesitation in helping white farmers, to realize that the struggles she ought to help overcome had nothing to do with race. Juan Williams did not act on his apprehensions, he did not discriminate or express hatred, he did not suggest that all or even most are Bad People (TM), but merely that he had a gut reaction to sitting on a plane next to Muslims, given the history of 9/11.

But NPR shows that not transgressing PC boundaries is far more important than expressing honest emotions in a rational debate about race and religion. But given the Soros connection, I wonder if there is something more going on here. Soros, I think, has bought and paid for this institution of the media in his attempts to achieve his goals.

Oh, and since the NPR CEO belittled the tax money that goes to support NPR, then I agree that maybe it's time to pull the funds since she doesn't think it's that big of a deal anyway?

Sorry, judge. Marriage is between one man and one woman.

I said that yesterday on Facebook and started a firestorm of comments, many from people who rarely comment. That's cool, I like dialogue. I find it more fruitful than the monologue format of blogging. I'm moving the conversation here, though, because it was getting a little too lengthy for Facebook, and I think that it would make good fodder for public discussion here.

Most of the commentary in disagreement with me was sincere, but predictable. We can't judge others, we're all God's children, it's not fair to deny homosexuals happiness, etc. I was accused not only of being judgmental and insensitive, but also of repeating dusty arguments without putting any thought into it.

The truth is, I have thought about this, a lot. Well, this in particular somewhat, sexual ethics moreso, but the whole ethical dilemma in general a lot.

I have to reject moral relativism because it denies the existence of truth; the push for gay marriage, as well as all the comments I got yesterday, were examples of moral relativism. Moral relativism says that what is right always depends on the circumstances, what is right (or wrong) for one is not necessarily right (or wrong) for others. Consequently, all debate about morality breaks down into shouting matches of "Yeah-huh!" vs. "Nuh-uh!" because there is no basis for measurement. Without any foundation for morals, we all become our own emperors. The problem with this is that some emperors are stronger than others, and some emperors become tyrants while others become slaves. Moral relativism leads to the gas chambers.

As a Catholic, I reject moral relativism because it rejects the existence of truth. We believe in Natural Law, the moral law that governs all people in all places. It is the inborn conscience universal to mankind. Natural Law informs mankind that murder is wrong, that child abuse is wrong, that theft is wrong. Natural Law causes mankind throughout history to revere courage, honesty, valor, devotion, commitment. Natural Law is not only universal, but universally binding. It is wrong to murder. It was wrong to murder 100 years ago. It was wrong to murder 1000 years ago, just as it was wrong for Cain to murder Abel in the beginning of humanity. Individuals may nonetheless murder, but the mere fact that they committed the act of murder does not make it morally licit.

Natural Law recognizes also that there is "a nature" to creation. This holds true to the sexual act as well. Our bodies are created male and female and as such, they are complementary. The sexual act, while pleasurable, is aimed at a specific purpose: the procreation of mankind. In that act, man and woman take part in an action that is unitive and procreative. Man and woman, in an intimate act, find an expression so strong that it has the potential to bring into being a whole new person. The biological explanation of how is empty in its understanding of why. That new person has constant needs: nurture, food, education, support. The most stable and effective environment for meeting those needs are in a family.

Because of this understanding of human sexuality, it is only appropriate to engage in the sexual act in a way that mirrors the open-ness to new life. Hence masturbation, artificial contraception, and homosexual acts are not appropriate in the scheme of the nature of our bodies' dignity. Because of the needs of the offspring brought into being through the sexual act, the institution of marriage has been necessary throughout history to safeguard the environment of children, and to form the building blocks of society as a whole.

Marriage, properly understood, is an institution of a life-long commitment between one man and one woman, who share intimate union, and if their union be fruitful, to protect, nurture and educate their children through adulthood.

Homosexuality is a disordered sexuality, in that it by definition, cannot express itself in a life-giving way. This is not the same as a man and woman marrying past child-bearing years, as their union still gives expression to the complementarity of their being. The homosexual act is by nature not open to life, therefore homosexual unions are not marriage.

And this brings us to the point of yesterday's post. Judge Walker in California declared that gender has nothing to do with the institution of marriage. And he is wrong.

Now, I accept that there are homosexuals. I accept that there are homosexuals living together in a committed relationship even. But it is not marriage. Accuse me of engaging in semantics, but it is not rightly called a marriage. Similarly, a cohabitating heterosexual couple is not rightly called a marriage. Both arrangements have some aspects in common with marriage, but they do not fit the requirements of definition.

So is that all I'm fighting for? A definition? Well in some ways yes, and in some ways no. Yes, I am fighting for a definition, as it is imperative that we live according to truth. If the judge had declared that 2 + 2 = 5, that would not make it so, any more than it was so when an earlier court ruling once declared that black people were property. Declarations that are falsehoods must be rejected, otherwise words, relationships, laws, lose their meaning. If marriage can be redefined, what about love? What about war? Peace? If words can, by fiat, be made to mean the opposite of their meaning, communication quickly loses its meaning.

And also, I'm standing up against more than a definition. Catholic blogger Mark Shea has posted numerous stories to illustrate the point that the modern movement to legalize gay marriage is not merely to allow homosexual couples legal options, which they have already achieved, or to be tolerated in society, which they also have already achieved, but that the end goal is approval. Tolerance is not enough; you must approve.

Now to turn to the Catholic faith, by which I order my life.

Some of the comments that I received were aimed at my religious sensibilities in an attempt to convince me that I was wrong in this matter. They said that God is love, only God can judge, and that if God made homosexuals the way they are, who is the Church to deny them happiness? I'll try to address that here.

God is love. Love is not a feature of God, that He may have at one time and not at another, but is His essence. Not all that He does is love, but all that He is is love. His love is strong so as to give Himself up in bloody agony and torment to buy back his beloved (that's you and me) from the claws of death. His will is for our eternal happiness, which finds its fulfillment in Him. But God does not force His love upon us. Man can, and often does, reject God. For one cannot accept God, yet reject His commandments. Love is an act of the will which seeks the good of the beloved in accord with truth. Love must be based on truth, and truth cannot contradict truth, just as God cannot contradict Himself. So we must live in accord with truth to live in God's love. We must live as God has revealed Himself, in imitation of Christ, in all ways possible.

Now to the question of judgment. Not to pick on the ones who made the comment (because I've heard the statement countless times from countless people), but of course we are to judge, as long as we understand in what way we mean to judge (for judgment already has more than one meaning). Let me pose it this way: Is there anyone reading this who doesn't reject the actions of sinful priests? Is there anyone who doesn't judge them to be wrong? When the priest abuse scandal broke, did anyone reading this say, "Well, it's not for me to judge how others live their lives"? Or another example: If you have children, would you allow your children to engage in sexual acts at the age of 6? or 10? Or would you judge that to be wrong, inappropriate, even -gasp- sinful? Do you judge the actions of politicians? Do you judge the actions of criminals? Of course you would! The point is that every one of us makes all sorts of value judgments all the time. So to choose this particular instance of "gay marriage" and declare that it's not for us to judge is frankly, a copout. Either one doesn't want to think it through to the logical consequences, or what that statement really means is "I judge it to be morally acceptable, and just don't want to say it."

The other meaning of judgment is that of the state of one's soul. That judgment is left to God alone. Neither you nor I can judge another person's soul and declare their damnation. By the grace of God we all aim at eternal life, though the choice is up to us.

As to the last comment, that God made homosexuals gay and to deny them marriage is unfair, let me just say this. It is not known why some people have an attraction to members of the same sex. I do know, however, that opponents of gay marriage are criticized for suggesting that homosexuality is genetic, and conversely, also criticized for suggesting that homosexuality is learned. No one really knows why, though in the end, I don't see that the question of why it is to be the important question. The important question is "What now?"

I believe, as I posted in my comment, that what is important is to encourage all people, homosexual and heterosexual, the importance of chastity. Chastity recognizes the gift of human sexuality (and the sexual act) and that the dignity and worth of a person far exceeds their sexual actions. People need to hear that abuse of their sexuality is an abuse of their dignity. The dignity of each person is to be respected, first and foremost by one's self. Such self-respect demands self-control. (Remember, I'm not letting heterosexual people off the hook here, either.)

I'm not an advocate of "fixing" gay people to make them straight. I'm cynical of such attempts. What I do respect is the effort to support homosexuals in carrying the cross that they bear in having a sexuality that cannot find a life-giving expression. Groups like Courage are an example of such support.

The Church doesn't seek to deny anyone happiness. To the contrary, the Church recognizes that the fullness of happiness lies in union with God. Such union, as we saw before, must realize truth and live in accord with that truth. Gay marriage does not accord with the truth of God's plan for the human family. That may sound painful, but sometimes the truth is painful.

I, like many other people of the current generation, grew up with a deficiency. Our culture has denied the validity of the Ten Commandments for the absolute sovereignty of the One Commandment: Thou Shalt Not Offend Anyone. You can't stand for what you believe in, for it might hurt someone's feelings. Well, if hurting someone's feelings leads them to truth, so be it. I'm not out trying to crush people, in fact, many times I'm still a coward who keeps my head in the sand. But like C.S. Lewis described, sometimes on an arduous journey that one is frightened to undertake, the most important first step is to throw one's bag over the wall. Then, one convinces himself that he is not undertaking the journey, but merely climbing the wall to retrieve one's bag. After that, one has already climbed the wall and might as well keep going.

I'm not trying in this discussion to crush anyone, nor to deny anyone happiness. But sin never leads to happiness. It may lead to pleasure, it may lead to good feelings for a while, but it is far short of the true happiness that we seek in our eternal union with God.

For more reading (as if this post wasn't long enough!) consider these three posts:

http://vocatum.blogspot.com/2010/08/bishop-jaime-sotos-2008-address-on.html

http://youngevangelicalandcatholic.blogspot.com/2010/07/guestpost-hidden-option.html

http://redcardigan.blogspot.com/2010/08/real-agenda-is-out-of-closet.html

Note to Newsweek:

We are not here to make the President's job any harder or easier. We're not here for his sake at all.

The job of the President is to serve the American people in ways consistent with the Constitution.

And dismantling the American economy against the will of the people via overreaching legislation propped up with outright bribes and unfair deals is not consistent with the Constitution.

And they wonder why the Tea Parties have become so popular these days.

Letter to Editor, March for Life 2010

With no ill will toward Elissa Bass or the Algiere family, I find it interesting that the Day ran a 500 word, front-page article with large pictures about a missing goat, yet this story doesn't even get mentioned:

Hundreds of area residents joined hundreds of thousands of Americans from across the country to join the largest, longest-running grassroots march on Washington to stand in defiance of the Roe v. Wade decision which enabled approximately 50 million state-sanctioned deaths since 1973.

This is an especially shocking journalistic oversight considering: 1. Current health care legislation dominating news this year has been effectively derailed in part by objections over abortion and other right-to-life issues. 2. Recent polls show that the majority of Americans for the first time since 1973 consider themselves "pro-life" and 3. A federal study released in the April 2009 issue of Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers and Prevention confirmed a strong link between breast cancer and both abortion and oral contraceptives.

Is there a reason for the Day's oversight? If staff funding is a problem, I would be happy to give a reporter a ride to next year's March for Life. Until then, wait for the call when my cat goes missing.

One more thing the Brown win in MA means...

...people like David Marciniak have one less over-reaching incompetent statist nitwit to worry about in Washington.