Sorry for taking such a long break. I especially want to apologize to my fans, i know you both missed me terribly.
Part of the reason was gone so long was i simply ran out of topics worth writing on. Or rather, I ran out of things to say on them. The other part is, trying to write a post weakly became a chore and then i lost interest. From now on i will try to post more than once a semester, but no promises on how often that will be.
Here is what got me to come back. I saw a post from CatholicVote today and it got me thinking. You can read the article here.
But basically, the author is upset that some low level military clerk put together a power point in which Catholics were referred to as extremists.
Now, on the one hand, the power point did put us along side such groups as the KKK, Al Queda and Hamas. That is a little offensive but that was not CatholicVote's complaint. CatholicVote was upset we were called "extremists". They found something which was marginally offensive and then proceeded to miss why. Yes, it is offensive to imply the Catholic Church is a hate group. No, it is not offensive to call us extremists. That is exactly what we are called to be.
We are called to a radical Christianity that makes itself felt in every part of the world, that expresses itself in every aspect of society. Not with blades or bombs, but with truth and love. Catholic extremists devote their lives to serve the poor and underprivileged, they build schools and hospitals, they travel to strange and distant lands just to tell people whom they had never met just how much they love them.
Some religious extremists have Bin Laden. We have Mother Teresa.
Saints are radical, they go to the extreme. St. Francis once challenged a group of Muslim scholars to walk with him through a furnace and whoever survived served the true God. The scholars declined his offer.
After John Paul II recovered from being shot he went and forgave his attacker and even converted him to Christianity.
As the Titanic was going down, Father Thomas Byles turned down two seats on life boats in order to remain with those who needed him. He gave up his life in order to spend a few more minutes with people who were soon to die. He spent his last minutes praying the rosary, hearing confession and sharing what words of comfort he had.
This is Catholic Extremism, this is what we are called to. We ought never take offense when someone accuses us of living up to it. If only there were more Catholic extremists out there, the world would be a much better place.
From your friendly neighborhood Ghym
If you are wondering how to be a little more extreme in your Catholicism, consider joining MissionPals. A free pen pal program i'm running which pairs active catholic missionaries with everyday lay Catholics for mutual support and edification. You can read more about it at http://missionpals.blogspot.com/
If you like my blog, consider liking my page on facebook: http://www.facebook.com/TheologyWithGhym
Or share me with a friend!
Monday, April 8, 2013
Saturday, December 29, 2012
Why Every Woman Should be a Mother and Every Man a Father
Motherhood is one of those indispensable positions. We really can't do without it. The same is true of fatherhood. Catholics hold that every child has a right to a mother and a father. Although some instances make this impossible, outside of anyone's control, to purposefully deprive a child of either parent is to violate their rights and to act contrary to their dignity. We each begin life as a child, with a calling to be sons and daughters. As we grow older we gain a new vocation, to be mothers and fathers. This is universal to every person who has ever or will ever live.
A vocation is a calling, it is what you are called to be. We each have many vocations. Some people are called to be priests, they have a priestly vocation. Some people are called to be doctors, having a medical vocation. Every little boy is called to be a son and every little girls is called to be a daughter. As we travel through life we discover ever more vocations. Our very first vocation is to be children and we never grow out of our vocations, for heaven belongs to such as these.
Vocations are never callings to receive, they are always callings to give, to the gift of self. As children we gave ourselves in trust and obedience. We trusted our parents and teachers to guide us and so we obeyed them. In so doing we gave up our own desires and gave ourselves over to them. As adults we gained a new calling, to be more than children, to be parents. Every man is called to be a father and every woman is called to be a mother. Not necessarily a biological father or mother. If this were it would make life awkward for Catholic nuns and monks and priests. It would also be very unfair to those men and women who can't have children.
Nevertheless, all men and women are called to a type of motherhood or fatherhood. We are called to give ourselves to those who may find themselves under our authority, to be worthy of the trust they are called to place in us, to guide for their sake and not for our own. This is the servant leadership Christ taught us. We so often think that having the position of power entitles us to privilege and honor, it makes us better than those we have authority over, but Christ came as one who serves. You see, the essence of God is love and the essence of love is humility, to place another before ourselves. This is the essence of being a parent, to wield whatever power you may have for the good of another.
The president may think he is the ruler of the free world, but the truth is your parish priest has more real power in his pointer fingers and thumbs than the United States President has in the whole of his office. However, the priest does not seek to force his will on others or enrich himself at their expense. Rather, he pledges himself to poverty, chastity and obedience. In his voice is found the greatest power ever bestowed on mortal man, and yet he does not benefit from it in the slightest. He wields it only for the good of others. This is why we call him father.
Within the womb of a woman is found another great power. The power to bring forth life. A man is necessary for the first fifteen minutes or so, but after that his involvement is more or less voluntary. It is within the woman's womb that this new life finds incarnation, where it is nurtured for nine months, where the mother literally gives herself to her child, providing it with her own nutrients and sheltering it within her own body. The relationship between a mother and child for that first year of life is the purest embodiment of what it means to be a mother.
Within the Church we find nuns and religious sisters, women who have pledged themselves to be be the mothers of the world. They give themselves to God in the three vows or solemn promises of poverty, chastity and obedience. In this way they give themselves not only to God, but to us as well. Although they will never be biological mothers to anyone they become spiritual mothers to all.
To give ourselves in love, for the good of others, is to find the meaning of our existence. For adults, this means to be a parent. Sometimes to our own biological children, sometimes by adoption and sometimes to some person we have never met before and may never see again. This willingness to be a parent is more than just something we do on occasion, it is a state of being. You don't get to be a mom or a dad on a part time basis. Every moment of every day must contain the willingness to be a parent to whomever may have need of us.
This is part of the reason the Church opposes contraception. When we create physical barriers to pregnancy in the midst of sexual union we close ourselves off from our purpose of self giving love, from being moms and dads. Even Natural Family Planning can be contrary to God's will for us if it is done from a desire to avoid having kids. That is, NFP can be done for the sake of being a better parent to those who are already here. Neither it nor any other form of birth control should be used for the purpose of avoiding our parent vocations.
Every woman is called to be a mother and every man is called to be a father. Sometimes we get to be mothers and fathers to our own kids. Sometimes God has other plans for us. Sometimes we only get to embrace this love for an hour. Sometimes for a lifetime. Sometimes our openness to parenthood leads to us being parents. Sometimes it doesn't. What really matters is the openness. God is always open to being our Father, but we have to let Him. We too ought to be ever open; open to being mothers and fathers, open to being sisters and brothers, open to being sons and daughters. As long as we are open to love, we are growing closer to God. The second we close ourselves off, we have lost sight of our very purpose in being and have condemned ourselves to a misery of our own making.
If you enjoy my blog, consider clicking that share button down below. Maybe some of your friends will enjoy it too.
Also, feel free to like my page on Facebook; http://www.facebook.com/TheologyWithGhym
Peace and Love!
A vocation is a calling, it is what you are called to be. We each have many vocations. Some people are called to be priests, they have a priestly vocation. Some people are called to be doctors, having a medical vocation. Every little boy is called to be a son and every little girls is called to be a daughter. As we travel through life we discover ever more vocations. Our very first vocation is to be children and we never grow out of our vocations, for heaven belongs to such as these.
Vocations are never callings to receive, they are always callings to give, to the gift of self. As children we gave ourselves in trust and obedience. We trusted our parents and teachers to guide us and so we obeyed them. In so doing we gave up our own desires and gave ourselves over to them. As adults we gained a new calling, to be more than children, to be parents. Every man is called to be a father and every woman is called to be a mother. Not necessarily a biological father or mother. If this were it would make life awkward for Catholic nuns and monks and priests. It would also be very unfair to those men and women who can't have children.
Nevertheless, all men and women are called to a type of motherhood or fatherhood. We are called to give ourselves to those who may find themselves under our authority, to be worthy of the trust they are called to place in us, to guide for their sake and not for our own. This is the servant leadership Christ taught us. We so often think that having the position of power entitles us to privilege and honor, it makes us better than those we have authority over, but Christ came as one who serves. You see, the essence of God is love and the essence of love is humility, to place another before ourselves. This is the essence of being a parent, to wield whatever power you may have for the good of another.
The president may think he is the ruler of the free world, but the truth is your parish priest has more real power in his pointer fingers and thumbs than the United States President has in the whole of his office. However, the priest does not seek to force his will on others or enrich himself at their expense. Rather, he pledges himself to poverty, chastity and obedience. In his voice is found the greatest power ever bestowed on mortal man, and yet he does not benefit from it in the slightest. He wields it only for the good of others. This is why we call him father.
Within the womb of a woman is found another great power. The power to bring forth life. A man is necessary for the first fifteen minutes or so, but after that his involvement is more or less voluntary. It is within the woman's womb that this new life finds incarnation, where it is nurtured for nine months, where the mother literally gives herself to her child, providing it with her own nutrients and sheltering it within her own body. The relationship between a mother and child for that first year of life is the purest embodiment of what it means to be a mother.
Within the Church we find nuns and religious sisters, women who have pledged themselves to be be the mothers of the world. They give themselves to God in the three vows or solemn promises of poverty, chastity and obedience. In this way they give themselves not only to God, but to us as well. Although they will never be biological mothers to anyone they become spiritual mothers to all.
To give ourselves in love, for the good of others, is to find the meaning of our existence. For adults, this means to be a parent. Sometimes to our own biological children, sometimes by adoption and sometimes to some person we have never met before and may never see again. This willingness to be a parent is more than just something we do on occasion, it is a state of being. You don't get to be a mom or a dad on a part time basis. Every moment of every day must contain the willingness to be a parent to whomever may have need of us.
This is part of the reason the Church opposes contraception. When we create physical barriers to pregnancy in the midst of sexual union we close ourselves off from our purpose of self giving love, from being moms and dads. Even Natural Family Planning can be contrary to God's will for us if it is done from a desire to avoid having kids. That is, NFP can be done for the sake of being a better parent to those who are already here. Neither it nor any other form of birth control should be used for the purpose of avoiding our parent vocations.
Every woman is called to be a mother and every man is called to be a father. Sometimes we get to be mothers and fathers to our own kids. Sometimes God has other plans for us. Sometimes we only get to embrace this love for an hour. Sometimes for a lifetime. Sometimes our openness to parenthood leads to us being parents. Sometimes it doesn't. What really matters is the openness. God is always open to being our Father, but we have to let Him. We too ought to be ever open; open to being mothers and fathers, open to being sisters and brothers, open to being sons and daughters. As long as we are open to love, we are growing closer to God. The second we close ourselves off, we have lost sight of our very purpose in being and have condemned ourselves to a misery of our own making.
If you enjoy my blog, consider clicking that share button down below. Maybe some of your friends will enjoy it too.
Also, feel free to like my page on Facebook; http://www.facebook.com/TheologyWithGhym
Peace and Love!
Saturday, December 22, 2012
Santa or Jesus? Must we Choose?
Christmas is soon upon us. Yesterday we had the first snow to stay on the ground. Today i bought a few more Christmas gifts. Tomorrow i post a blog on Santa Clause. The day after tomorrow is the fourth Sunday of advent. It is a good time to contemplate what Christmas really is and what it should mean to us. Every year we hear our
pastors or priests talk about how the
Christmas season, the love and the self sacrifice, should not be restricted to only one month, they should extend
throughout the year. And yet, every year when the Christmas decorations
come down, so too does that Christmas spirit.
I have a problem with people who say Santa isn’t real. I stopped believing in him when I was around 10 or 11 years old and didn’t regain that faith until college. Today I absolutely believe in Santa, 100%, and if you know me you know I can defend my beliefs. I have heard many people discuss the differences between Santa Clause and Jesus and how Jesus wins on every comparison. These people are missing the point of the great Saint who spreads so much joy each season. When people place him above Jesus that is a problem, but they should not be in competition. Santa's gifts aren’t the physical ones left under the tree, and he doesn’t travel the world on a sleigh pulled by thirteen reindeer. All of these ideas are symbols for deeper truths which Saint Nicolas is trying to teach us. Christ is constantly working through Saint Nick and Saint Nick is constantly pointing us towards Christ.
Saint Nicholas is a real historical figure born around 270AD in a little town called Patara, in modern day Turkey. His parents were wealthy Christians who passed on their love of Christ to their son. They died when he was still fairly young, probably early teens. However, they had done such a good job passing on their faith that young Nicholas devoted himself and his inherited wealth to serving the poor and the needy in his community. When he was old enough he became a priest and soon after the bishop of Myra, a larger town to the east of Patara. He is remembered for his love of those in need, especially children and the many miracles and stories attributed to him. One story says he punched Arius at the council of Nicea. He is one of my favorite Saints and i could write this entire post on the historical figure, if you would like to know more in that regard look here. Today, i am more interested in the myth.
When people place Saint Nick and Jesus in conflict with each other the gifts are often the central focus. Santa gives material gifts and thus supports materialism, Jesus gives spiritual gifts and so He denounces materialism. For many this is enough to condemn Santa as a usurper. I would suggest that this is not necessary, that the true gifts are the same. The material gifts attributed to Santa are symbols of these true gifts, the gifts of faith, hope and love and the message of salvation.
Nicholas was a bishop and even to this day Santa Clause dresses in red, the color of Bishops. The role of the Bishop is to guide and serve. He is a husband to his church and a father to his congregation. If we are disobedient to God we cannot receive the gifts of the Spirit. So too, if we are naughty we cannot receive the gifts Santa brings. This is not materialism, this is symbolism. Being obedient to our parents teaches us how to be obedient to God. This obedience is necessary for salvation, the greatest gift of all.
As a bishop, Saint Nicholas was single. Mrs. Clause can be seen as a construct for the Church as the people of God. She teaches us of the role of a bishop as husband. But more than that, she teaches us of our responsibilities. Just as a wife needs to support and encourage her husband, so too must we support and encourage our bishops.
The sleigh represents the Church as a structure, as the institution through which we receive the sacraments. Just as Santa has his reindeer, the bishop has his priests. As the reindeer bring the sleigh and its gifts to the children of the world, the priests bring the the Church and its gifts to the children of God. We see this in Rudolph's red nose which glows so bright that it serves as a light to guide the sleigh. In every Catholic Church there is a red light, a candle burning near the tabernacle. It symbolizes the presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Just as Rudolph's red nose guides Santa's sleigh, the Eucharist must guide the Church.
And who are we in all this? We are the elves who make the toys. We display our faith and hope and love in the world. When we do this we produce the proofs that draw people deeper into God. But unlike the elves who stay safely hidden away in the workshop, we must be in the world drawing people into the Church where they can receive these gifts.
Christ and has granted Santa an infinite supply of faith, hope and love. Every time a gift is given in Santa's name this great saint gives a gift of his own to both the giver and receiver, a gift containing not toys or earthly wealth, but the three greatest gifts of all, the gifts of the Spirit, the gifts of faith, hope and love. Perhaps the reason these three greatest gifts of Christ tend to leave the world when the Christmas decorations come down is not because people forget Christ, but because they forget we are His workers. Christ has empowers Santa to further the message of salvation, but we must participate in this. Just as Santa has no gifts to give without the elves, our bishops will have no one to bestow their gifts upon unless we are out there winning souls.
We do not need to choose between Santa and Jesus. We have been called to a New Evangelization. Perhaps if we ask him, Santa will help us in this. He has a great deal to tell the world if we are willing to give him a voice.
Merry Christmas
And don't forget to like my page on Facebook!
I have a problem with people who say Santa isn’t real. I stopped believing in him when I was around 10 or 11 years old and didn’t regain that faith until college. Today I absolutely believe in Santa, 100%, and if you know me you know I can defend my beliefs. I have heard many people discuss the differences between Santa Clause and Jesus and how Jesus wins on every comparison. These people are missing the point of the great Saint who spreads so much joy each season. When people place him above Jesus that is a problem, but they should not be in competition. Santa's gifts aren’t the physical ones left under the tree, and he doesn’t travel the world on a sleigh pulled by thirteen reindeer. All of these ideas are symbols for deeper truths which Saint Nicolas is trying to teach us. Christ is constantly working through Saint Nick and Saint Nick is constantly pointing us towards Christ.
Saint Nicholas is a real historical figure born around 270AD in a little town called Patara, in modern day Turkey. His parents were wealthy Christians who passed on their love of Christ to their son. They died when he was still fairly young, probably early teens. However, they had done such a good job passing on their faith that young Nicholas devoted himself and his inherited wealth to serving the poor and the needy in his community. When he was old enough he became a priest and soon after the bishop of Myra, a larger town to the east of Patara. He is remembered for his love of those in need, especially children and the many miracles and stories attributed to him. One story says he punched Arius at the council of Nicea. He is one of my favorite Saints and i could write this entire post on the historical figure, if you would like to know more in that regard look here. Today, i am more interested in the myth.
When people place Saint Nick and Jesus in conflict with each other the gifts are often the central focus. Santa gives material gifts and thus supports materialism, Jesus gives spiritual gifts and so He denounces materialism. For many this is enough to condemn Santa as a usurper. I would suggest that this is not necessary, that the true gifts are the same. The material gifts attributed to Santa are symbols of these true gifts, the gifts of faith, hope and love and the message of salvation.
Nicholas was a bishop and even to this day Santa Clause dresses in red, the color of Bishops. The role of the Bishop is to guide and serve. He is a husband to his church and a father to his congregation. If we are disobedient to God we cannot receive the gifts of the Spirit. So too, if we are naughty we cannot receive the gifts Santa brings. This is not materialism, this is symbolism. Being obedient to our parents teaches us how to be obedient to God. This obedience is necessary for salvation, the greatest gift of all.
As a bishop, Saint Nicholas was single. Mrs. Clause can be seen as a construct for the Church as the people of God. She teaches us of the role of a bishop as husband. But more than that, she teaches us of our responsibilities. Just as a wife needs to support and encourage her husband, so too must we support and encourage our bishops.
The sleigh represents the Church as a structure, as the institution through which we receive the sacraments. Just as Santa has his reindeer, the bishop has his priests. As the reindeer bring the sleigh and its gifts to the children of the world, the priests bring the the Church and its gifts to the children of God. We see this in Rudolph's red nose which glows so bright that it serves as a light to guide the sleigh. In every Catholic Church there is a red light, a candle burning near the tabernacle. It symbolizes the presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Just as Rudolph's red nose guides Santa's sleigh, the Eucharist must guide the Church.
And who are we in all this? We are the elves who make the toys. We display our faith and hope and love in the world. When we do this we produce the proofs that draw people deeper into God. But unlike the elves who stay safely hidden away in the workshop, we must be in the world drawing people into the Church where they can receive these gifts.
Christ and has granted Santa an infinite supply of faith, hope and love. Every time a gift is given in Santa's name this great saint gives a gift of his own to both the giver and receiver, a gift containing not toys or earthly wealth, but the three greatest gifts of all, the gifts of the Spirit, the gifts of faith, hope and love. Perhaps the reason these three greatest gifts of Christ tend to leave the world when the Christmas decorations come down is not because people forget Christ, but because they forget we are His workers. Christ has empowers Santa to further the message of salvation, but we must participate in this. Just as Santa has no gifts to give without the elves, our bishops will have no one to bestow their gifts upon unless we are out there winning souls.
We do not need to choose between Santa and Jesus. We have been called to a New Evangelization. Perhaps if we ask him, Santa will help us in this. He has a great deal to tell the world if we are willing to give him a voice.
Merry Christmas
And don't forget to like my page on Facebook!
Saturday, December 1, 2012
The Five Catholic Solas
Some time back a fellow blogger circulated a list of five Solas. Now, he wasn't a Catholic. In fact, his list was meant to conflict with Catholic theology, to show the differences. Its been awhile since he put it up, but i felt a desire to write a response piece.
Mr. Calvin, who put forth the original articular, gives the following list;
My second point is love alone. We are saved for love, through love and on account of love. God saved us because He loves us so that we might love Him. Because God loves us, He is not satisfied to simply ignore our deficiencies. He is compelled by love to heal us, to reconcile us to Himself. God is love and we cannot begin to understand God apart from love. It is for and by love that we were made in the first place.
This third one is pretty straight forward. The Bible alone is insufficient. Scripture alone cannot explain where it came from, how we know what is and isn't scripture. Scripture alone cannot address series differences of opinion within the Church. Perhaps most grievous is that one must look beyond scripture to to find the very idea of scripture alone, it's not found in the Bible. In professing the Word of God Alone we affirm the need for and value of both scripture and tradition and the need of the
Church to interpret it. We profess the Word of God alone, but we do not limit this to only that which is written.
God Alone is perhaps the foundational tenet of Catholic faith. All the others are contained in this one. God is the source and means of everything. Salvation comes from Him, forgiveness comes from Him, the Word of God is His word which He enables us to interpret through His grace. I have expanded this from Christ alone to God alone in order to emphasis the roles of the Father and Holy Spirit. Christ is not alone, we cannot come to Him unless we are first called by the Holy Spirit, and this journey does not conclude until we arrive at the house of the Father. Additionally, i want to emphasis that even when God works in and through others, it remains God Himself who does the work.
In this final point, it is perhaps a very small change grammatically, but it is a very large change theologically. In the original, to God alone, any praise not directed towards God directly is wrong. To attribute glory to anything outside of God would detract from God. In recognizing instead, that all glory flows from God, we are free to praise popes and saints and small children because the glory we see in them is of God. They do not detract from God, they reflect God. In proclaiming From God Alone is the Glory, we recognize that to praise truth, goodness and beauty, wherever they are found, is to give praise and worship to Him who made them. We give glory to God when we recognize the grandeur of His creation.
By Grace Alone - This first point reminds us that we can go all things through God who strengthens us, but we can do nothing apart from Him. Everything we have we have through His grace. Everything we do, we do through His grace.
By Love Alone - This second point reminds us that we were made by love and for love. Apart from love our lives have no purpose, no meaning. We owe everything to God's love and are now called to share that love with the world.
By the Word of God Alone - This third point reminds us that our own intellects are insufficient. We must be guided by the Holy Spirit if were are to know anything of God. Our understand comes from Sacred Scripture and Tradition, interpreted by the magisterium under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
God Alone - This fourth point reminds us that we exist only by God's continuing choice. Our very existence is grounded in Him. He needs no one else but we desperately need Him.
From God Alone is the Glory - This fifth point reminds us that no matter where we may encounter truth, goodness or beauty; it is God's glory being manifest. We in no way detract from Him in praising His creation.
Mr. Calvin, who put forth the original articular, gives the following list;
- Sola fide ("by faith alone")
- Sola gratia ("by grace alone")
- Sola scriptura ("by Scripture alone")
- Solus Christus or Solo Christo ("Christ alone" or "through Christ alone")
- Soli Deo gloria ("to God alone be the glory")
Given my extreme laziness and very rusty Latin i'm going to leave my responses in English. If one of my readers feels called to translate my list into Latin i would find that amusing. It should be mentioned, my list should not be seen so much as a point by point critic, but rather as a Catholic alternative. There are some points upon which Calvin and i would agree, although i shall do my utmost best to ignore them for the remainder of this post.
The Five Catholic Solas, which i put forth, are these;
- By Grace Alone
- By Love Alone
- By the Word of God Alone
- God Alone
- From God Alone is the Glory
My second point is love alone. We are saved for love, through love and on account of love. God saved us because He loves us so that we might love Him. Because God loves us, He is not satisfied to simply ignore our deficiencies. He is compelled by love to heal us, to reconcile us to Himself. God is love and we cannot begin to understand God apart from love. It is for and by love that we were made in the first place.
This third one is pretty straight forward. The Bible alone is insufficient. Scripture alone cannot explain where it came from, how we know what is and isn't scripture. Scripture alone cannot address series differences of opinion within the Church. Perhaps most grievous is that one must look beyond scripture to to find the very idea of scripture alone, it's not found in the Bible. In professing the Word of God Alone we affirm the need for and value of both scripture and tradition and the need of the
Church to interpret it. We profess the Word of God alone, but we do not limit this to only that which is written.
God Alone is perhaps the foundational tenet of Catholic faith. All the others are contained in this one. God is the source and means of everything. Salvation comes from Him, forgiveness comes from Him, the Word of God is His word which He enables us to interpret through His grace. I have expanded this from Christ alone to God alone in order to emphasis the roles of the Father and Holy Spirit. Christ is not alone, we cannot come to Him unless we are first called by the Holy Spirit, and this journey does not conclude until we arrive at the house of the Father. Additionally, i want to emphasis that even when God works in and through others, it remains God Himself who does the work.
In this final point, it is perhaps a very small change grammatically, but it is a very large change theologically. In the original, to God alone, any praise not directed towards God directly is wrong. To attribute glory to anything outside of God would detract from God. In recognizing instead, that all glory flows from God, we are free to praise popes and saints and small children because the glory we see in them is of God. They do not detract from God, they reflect God. In proclaiming From God Alone is the Glory, we recognize that to praise truth, goodness and beauty, wherever they are found, is to give praise and worship to Him who made them. We give glory to God when we recognize the grandeur of His creation.
By Grace Alone - This first point reminds us that we can go all things through God who strengthens us, but we can do nothing apart from Him. Everything we have we have through His grace. Everything we do, we do through His grace.
By Love Alone - This second point reminds us that we were made by love and for love. Apart from love our lives have no purpose, no meaning. We owe everything to God's love and are now called to share that love with the world.
By the Word of God Alone - This third point reminds us that our own intellects are insufficient. We must be guided by the Holy Spirit if were are to know anything of God. Our understand comes from Sacred Scripture and Tradition, interpreted by the magisterium under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
God Alone - This fourth point reminds us that we exist only by God's continuing choice. Our very existence is grounded in Him. He needs no one else but we desperately need Him.
From God Alone is the Glory - This fifth point reminds us that no matter where we may encounter truth, goodness or beauty; it is God's glory being manifest. We in no way detract from Him in praising His creation.
Saturday, November 24, 2012
Contradictions in Scripture, One - The Two Creation Stories
Every one knows the Bible is full of contradictions and mistakes. Most people can't actually name any, but you know they're there. It's just common knowledge. Occasionally you will find someone who can give you examples. For instance, they used to claim the Hittites didn't exist, they were a mythical people for the Israelites to overcome in their cultural stories. I say "used to" because in 1876 George Smith discovered the Hittite capital of Carchemish and the Bible was vindicated. Maybe that is a bad example.
Here is one that is still used. Matthew 5 has Jesus preaching His sermon on the mount. Luke 6 has Him giving the same sermon but on a plain. Maybe this is an error, but couldn't Jesus have given the same sermon twice? Do you think i write each of my blog posts fresh for you? The answer is no, i quite often write something somewhere else and then turn it into a blog post. In fact, i did that just last week and i'm doing it again this week. I have a number of friends who are pastors. They all reuse their sermons. If we all do this, why not Jesus? Maybe this was His staple sermon and He gave it dozens of times. Maybe this is a bad example too.
Let's try a harder one. A lot of people have pointed out "two creation stories" in the opening chapters of Genesis. This raises the question; if Genesis had only one author, why did he tell the same story twice? But even worse than simply repeating himself, he contradicts himself. In the first story God creates animals first and people second, both male and female. In the second telling God creates man first, then animals and then woman. How do we explain this?
Before i respond to that, let me discus Bible errors in general. St. Augustine teaches that sometimes the Bible presents us with difficulties. This is true, some are a lot harder to explain than the ones i'm examining here, there are some i honestly can't explain. However, in faith, we believe all these difficulties, the apparent contradictions or mistakes, they all fall into one of three categorizes.
So, why the repetition? Artistic flourish. The author uses chapter 1 to establish an overarching theme, a venue for chapters 2 and 3. Then in chapters 2 and 3 he relates it to us. What of the chronological discrepancies? They aren't really there in Hebrew.
In English we are used to writing in chronological order. If i were to say; i bought a vineyard, i purchased seed, and i planted it in my vineyard. In English we assume this happened in the order specified; first i bough the vineyard, then the seed, then i planted. In Hebrew this assumption is to a much lesser degree. The same is true of ancient Greek and we can see a few examples of this in the opening chapter of Luke. Luke tells a series of self contained stories which overlap each other.
In fact, let's take a moment and reconstruct Luke 1:56 through 1:80 in correct chronological order.
Looking for a fun project? Go do with Genesis 2 what i did with Luke 1:56-80. It will be fun.
(My 'i's are left lower case by intention, to annoy the Grammar Nazis. If you spot an error elsewhere, feel free to point it out.)
Before you leave! If you enjoy my blog consider clicking that share button down below. Maybe some of your friends will enjoy it too.
Also, feel free to like my page on Facebook; http://www.facebook.com/TheologyWithGhym
Or follow me on Twitter; https://twitter.com/TheGhym
Here is one that is still used. Matthew 5 has Jesus preaching His sermon on the mount. Luke 6 has Him giving the same sermon but on a plain. Maybe this is an error, but couldn't Jesus have given the same sermon twice? Do you think i write each of my blog posts fresh for you? The answer is no, i quite often write something somewhere else and then turn it into a blog post. In fact, i did that just last week and i'm doing it again this week. I have a number of friends who are pastors. They all reuse their sermons. If we all do this, why not Jesus? Maybe this was His staple sermon and He gave it dozens of times. Maybe this is a bad example too.
Let's try a harder one. A lot of people have pointed out "two creation stories" in the opening chapters of Genesis. This raises the question; if Genesis had only one author, why did he tell the same story twice? But even worse than simply repeating himself, he contradicts himself. In the first story God creates animals first and people second, both male and female. In the second telling God creates man first, then animals and then woman. How do we explain this?
Before i respond to that, let me discus Bible errors in general. St. Augustine teaches that sometimes the Bible presents us with difficulties. This is true, some are a lot harder to explain than the ones i'm examining here, there are some i honestly can't explain. However, in faith, we believe all these difficulties, the apparent contradictions or mistakes, they all fall into one of three categorizes.
- Textual errors - The oldest books of the Bible are thousands of years old and before the moveable type printing press was invented they had to be copied by hand. We do not believe that God kept the scribes from making mistakes in transcription. The presence of copyist error in no way conflicts with the infallibility of scripture. Most of the numerical discrepancies can be explained this way.
- Translational errors - Unless you can reading ancient Greek and Hebrew, you are probably reading a translation. You know, i'm sure those translators did the best job they could, but they were not divinely inspired. (Not even the Douay-Rheims or King Jame Versions, sorry) Sometimes, to resolve an apparent mistake, all you have to do is go back to the original text.
- Reader error - Sometime its not the Bible at all, but rather the one reading it who is in error. The two examples i already gave fall into this category; they were wrong to believe the Hittites were mythical and they may be wrong to assume Jesus never repeated Himself. People who try to critic the scriptures on scientific grounds generally make this error. As the Bible is not a scientific text book it would be wrong to interpret it as such. Only truth claims can be wrong and not everything in the Bible is a truth claim; there are myths and metaphors and parables. The trick is telling the difference.
So, why the repetition? Artistic flourish. The author uses chapter 1 to establish an overarching theme, a venue for chapters 2 and 3. Then in chapters 2 and 3 he relates it to us. What of the chronological discrepancies? They aren't really there in Hebrew.
In English we are used to writing in chronological order. If i were to say; i bought a vineyard, i purchased seed, and i planted it in my vineyard. In English we assume this happened in the order specified; first i bough the vineyard, then the seed, then i planted. In Hebrew this assumption is to a much lesser degree. The same is true of ancient Greek and we can see a few examples of this in the opening chapter of Luke. Luke tells a series of self contained stories which overlap each other.
- 1:26 - Elizabeth is six months pregnant.
- 1:39 - In those day, when Elizabeth was six months pregnant, Mary goes to visit her.
- 1:56 - Mary stays three months and then leaves. (End of Story)
- 1:57 - (Start of new story) Elizabeth gives birth to John the Baptist.
In fact, let's take a moment and reconstruct Luke 1:56 through 1:80 in correct chronological order.
- 56a - Mary stays for three month
- 57 - Then the birth of John.
- 56b - Ok, now Mary can leave.
- 58 through 64 - John's circumcision and naming. In 64 John's dad speaks, blessing God.
- 67 through 79 - So we have to jump ahead, to what Zechariah, John's dad, says.
- 65 and 66 - Now we go back to the result of all this, fear and discussion.
- 80a and Chapter 2 - Chapter 2 happens as 80a is occurring.
- 80b and 3:1 through 3:14 - The opening of Chapter 3 tells how 80b comes about.
Looking for a fun project? Go do with Genesis 2 what i did with Luke 1:56-80. It will be fun.
(My 'i's are left lower case by intention, to annoy the Grammar Nazis. If you spot an error elsewhere, feel free to point it out.)
Before you leave! If you enjoy my blog consider clicking that share button down below. Maybe some of your friends will enjoy it too.
Also, feel free to like my page on Facebook; http://www.facebook.com/TheologyWithGhym
Or follow me on Twitter; https://twitter.com/TheGhym
Saturday, November 17, 2012
Why Jews Think Catholic Statues are Idolatry and a Catholic Response
I recently had an awesome conversation with some Jewish friends on Reddit. It started on the topic of morality and the law, corresponding to last week's blog post. However, we ended up having a discussion on idolatry. They seemed to think that Catholic use of statues constitutes idolatry. I, of course, took the opposite position.
We Catholics have our great thinkers, people who's contributions to the theological world seem to dwarf the works of most others, people like Saint Augustine. Judaism has it's great thinkers as well and perhaps chief among them is Mosheh ben Maimon, also known as Maimonides. Think Aquinas and Augustine rolled into one. In fact, even we Catholics owe a lot to Maimonides for his influence on the scholastics, people like Saint Thomas Aquinas.
Maimonides, this great philosopher and theologian, gives a definition of idolatry containing three parts;
I think it is fairly easy to show that none of these aspects of idolatry correspond to statues of saints.
In concern to statues of God, it gets a little more complicated. On the first two points we come out smelling like roses. A statue of God is not a mediator between us a God, it is meant to lift our eyes to heaven, similar to the serpent Moses crafted in the desert. (Although distinct in that the serpent lifted eyes to heaven in a more literal fashion while the statues in Catholicism do so in a more figurative fashion.) A statue of God is not a mediator, it is not even an intercessor, it is more like a sign post, and a sign pointing the way to Chicago is not a mediator between me and the windy city. Similarly, a statue is not an independent power. By virtue of the fact that the statue is made in the image of another, it cannot be independent of the other's power. A picture of me is valuable to my mother because it bares my image. If it did not bare my image it would be of no value at all.
At first glance it seems that the issue of worship should be simple as well. It is the one God Himself who is being worshiped and not any created thing. Idolatry is literally "image worship" and the image is not here being worshiped, directly or indirectly. Catholics recognize that no statue can represent what God actually is, for God cannot be limited to any physical form. Statues and other images can only display an aspect of who God is and even then only imperfectly. They are sacramental signposts, not objects of worship.
However, it is not that simple. For Maimonides, the use of any image in worship is idolatry and we do use images in worship. By the definition of Maimonides, Catholics are idolators. To get around this is one would have to refute the very definition given by this great Jewish thinker. I am a 25 year old Catholic graduate student with a blog. I do not presume to critic such a mind as Maimonides. I leave that for those with greater credential than I.
If a person were to try and refute this position, perhaps they could start by pointing out all the times God is described by analogy throughout the scriptures; God as a shepherd, God as a potter. Both of these images are employed in prayers, times of worship. If it is permissible to use literary images in the directing of our worship, why not a picture or a statue? I do not see any real difference. Much more would need to be said before one could call this a true refute, but perhaps there is a hole here.
More importantly, when one who is versed in Thomistic philosophy reads Maimonides, it is not difficult to see parallels. One of the things Maimonides taught was that Abraham came to know God as the final cause. He saw his neighbors worshiping these created things and realized there must have been something greater than them to create them, there must have been a first cause, an uncaused cause, an unmoved mover. Perhaps Aquinas was more of a thief than we realize.
There are only two things of which i am certain; i am certain of my own existence for to me this is self-evident, and i am certain this God of Abraham exists for if i exist there must have been something prior to me to cause my existence. Catholics and Jews disagree on a lot, but on this we agree; we agree that our God exists, and we agree on who He is. He is that which is and from Whom all else came.
We Catholics have our great thinkers, people who's contributions to the theological world seem to dwarf the works of most others, people like Saint Augustine. Judaism has it's great thinkers as well and perhaps chief among them is Mosheh ben Maimon, also known as Maimonides. Think Aquinas and Augustine rolled into one. In fact, even we Catholics owe a lot to Maimonides for his influence on the scholastics, people like Saint Thomas Aquinas.
Maimonides, this great philosopher and theologian, gives a definition of idolatry containing three parts;
- to do an act of worship toward any created thing
- to believe that a particular created thing is an independent power
- to make something a mediator between ourselves and God
I think it is fairly easy to show that none of these aspects of idolatry correspond to statues of saints.
- There is no worship towards any created thing for we do not worship saints or their statues. We honor the saints as we honor Moses or Elijah, or to a much lesser extent great sports players and war heroes. Worship is for God alone.
- The saints are completely dependent on God, just as we are. The saints are to God as the moon is to the sun. They reflect God's glory, God's magnificence, they contain none of their own. They are most definitely not independent powers.
- The saints serve as examples and intercessors. They give us images to model our own lives after, in order that we might better enter into the service of God. An intercessor petitions on behalf of another. We on earth can serve as imperfect intercessors for each other by praying for one another. The saints in heaven are perfect intercessors, for they are unimpeded by their own sin and now dwell within the true Holy of Holies, in the celestial temple. However, they are not mediators, we have no mediator apart from God Himself.
In concern to statues of God, it gets a little more complicated. On the first two points we come out smelling like roses. A statue of God is not a mediator between us a God, it is meant to lift our eyes to heaven, similar to the serpent Moses crafted in the desert. (Although distinct in that the serpent lifted eyes to heaven in a more literal fashion while the statues in Catholicism do so in a more figurative fashion.) A statue of God is not a mediator, it is not even an intercessor, it is more like a sign post, and a sign pointing the way to Chicago is not a mediator between me and the windy city. Similarly, a statue is not an independent power. By virtue of the fact that the statue is made in the image of another, it cannot be independent of the other's power. A picture of me is valuable to my mother because it bares my image. If it did not bare my image it would be of no value at all.
At first glance it seems that the issue of worship should be simple as well. It is the one God Himself who is being worshiped and not any created thing. Idolatry is literally "image worship" and the image is not here being worshiped, directly or indirectly. Catholics recognize that no statue can represent what God actually is, for God cannot be limited to any physical form. Statues and other images can only display an aspect of who God is and even then only imperfectly. They are sacramental signposts, not objects of worship.
However, it is not that simple. For Maimonides, the use of any image in worship is idolatry and we do use images in worship. By the definition of Maimonides, Catholics are idolators. To get around this is one would have to refute the very definition given by this great Jewish thinker. I am a 25 year old Catholic graduate student with a blog. I do not presume to critic such a mind as Maimonides. I leave that for those with greater credential than I.
If a person were to try and refute this position, perhaps they could start by pointing out all the times God is described by analogy throughout the scriptures; God as a shepherd, God as a potter. Both of these images are employed in prayers, times of worship. If it is permissible to use literary images in the directing of our worship, why not a picture or a statue? I do not see any real difference. Much more would need to be said before one could call this a true refute, but perhaps there is a hole here.
More importantly, when one who is versed in Thomistic philosophy reads Maimonides, it is not difficult to see parallels. One of the things Maimonides taught was that Abraham came to know God as the final cause. He saw his neighbors worshiping these created things and realized there must have been something greater than them to create them, there must have been a first cause, an uncaused cause, an unmoved mover. Perhaps Aquinas was more of a thief than we realize.
There are only two things of which i am certain; i am certain of my own existence for to me this is self-evident, and i am certain this God of Abraham exists for if i exist there must have been something prior to me to cause my existence. Catholics and Jews disagree on a lot, but on this we agree; we agree that our God exists, and we agree on who He is. He is that which is and from Whom all else came.
Saturday, November 10, 2012
Morals and Ethics and Politics
Last week i wrote on sin, you can find that post here. This week i would like to consider morals and ethics. How are they different? How are they the same? Do i have the right to force my morals or ethics on others? If Mitt the Mormon missionary mused on his Mormon morals, would they be mere Mormon musing of a Massachusite monarch? (Also, is that joke now dated?)
Morals and ethics differ in their source material. Morals are based on a set of beliefs, like a religion. Ethics are based on a philosophy which is in turn based on a set of beliefs. In the end all ethics are a form or morality, but not all morality qualifies as ethics. This is analogous to how all politicians are tiny bloodsucking animals, but not all tiny bloodsucking animals are politicians. (Also; All french are cowards but not all cowards are french, all Catholics breed like rabbits but not all rabbits are Catholic (some are Jewish), you get the idea.) Morals and ethics both find their foundations in a belief set. For morals this belief set could be divine revelation, or alien transmissions, or the deluded ravings of a mad man living in a cave. These are not all equal in validity, but they are all sufficient for the foundation of a moral code. Ethics must find their footing in a person's foundational assumptions, those basic beliefs that inform our worldview, that is, the way we view the world.
Something is subjective if it only applies to a singular individual or group. Something is objective if it applies to everyone. An example most of us can relate to is temperature. A guy would generally find 72 degrees (22.2C) to be a little on the warm side. If a member of the opposite gender, your mom, sister, or girlfriend, walks into the room she will ask why it is so cold in here. Our perception of 72 degrees is subjective because it depends on the person; be it warm, cold or just right. However, it is an objective fact that the room is indeed 72 degrees.
Because morality is based on an individual's beliefs, there is such thing as subjective morality. However, most morality is objective. It would be objectively wrong for me to hunt down that person who cut me off in traffic the other day and burn her house down. There is no real doubt here. (sadly) I would say there is nothing objectively wrong with consuming alcohol, so long as it is done in moderation. A cold Yuengling after a hard day's work (or while watching anime on Hulu) is a very nice thing. However i have friends who think all alcohol is of the devil and it is a sin to consume any. (They would like me to give it up, but since i'm already going to hell for being Catholic, i don't see why i should surrender my Rum and Cokes.) For the sake of argument, we are gong to say i'm right and alcohol is a good thing; it's not wrong for me and thus not objectively wrong. However, it would be wrong for them to consume alcohol as it would be a violation of conscience. Thus we have subjective morality. It is morally acceptable for me to drink a Long Island Ice Tea but would be morally wrong for my puritanical Baptist friends.
Ethics are never subjective. They are objective by their very nature. I can be right in my ethical claims and i can be wrong in my ethical claims, but there are no ethical claims which apply only to me. In fact, the absolute nature of ethics allows us to distinguish subjective morality from objective morality. Burning down that lady's home would be ethically wrong. This is how i know it is objective morality. If we can back up our morality with ethics then it is objective morality, universal truth. Subjective morality can have no ethical footing.
This brings us to our core concept, politics. The role of government in Catholic thought is two fold, according Pope Pius XII, "to safeguard the inviolable rights of the human person, and to facilitate the performance of his duties, is the principal duty of every public authority." The government has the authority and obligation to defend basic human rights. In addition, as every right correspondes to a duty, the government can and should enforce the performance of those duties.
The role of morals in politics seems simple. Subjective morality has no place in the public sphere. Just as you are under no duty to obey my morality and i have no right to force my morality upon you. Most everyone believes their morality is of the objective type. Even people who say all morality is subjective will admit that murder is universally wrong, i.e. objective. I often hear people say it is wrong to force your morality on others, thus making a claim on universal, objective morality. In practice we all believe our own morals are objective, otherwise we wouldn't hold to them. However, who is to say who is right? Morals should not be legislated as it is simply presumption to assert my morality as superior to yours. I can and should strive to convert you to my way of thinking, and you should do the same for me, but i cannot and should not use the government as a way to force my beliefs on you.
Ethics are the complete opposite. Ethics inform us of our human rights and of our duties. Ethics tell us what we cannot do and what we must do. They are those universal truths for which government exists. It is not only acceptable that the government enforce ethics, the government fails in its very purpose when it fails to do so. I can make a moral argument against homosexual activity, but i cannot make an ethical argument against homosexual activity. Who's rights are being violated? What duty is being ignored? I must therefor conclude that it would be inappropriate for the government to legislate against homosexual acts. The truth is, i cannot make a half decent moral argument against abortion. However, ethics tells us that the right to life is the most foundational of all rights and we have a duty to defend human life no matter the age or location of the person. The ethical arguments against abortion are thoroughly sufficient to merit a universal ban.
My arguments against contraception are moral arguments, based in my religious beliefs. It would be inappropriate for me to try and ban contraception with the arguments i currently posses. However, the opposite is also true. Just as it would be wrong for Catholics to force our views of contraception on others, it would be equally wrong for them to force their views on us. For example, by forcing us to purchase contraception for them, directly or indirectly. It is ethically wrong to force people to act contrary to their own moral beliefs. Each one of us has a right to conscience and to violate this right is a serious abuse of government authority.
Human beings are political creatures by nature. Whenever we form groups we form ways of governing those groups. Even among a group of friends they will have a mode of decision making. As political creatures it is important for us to understand the role of government. We must understand why it is in place, what it can and cannot legislate. When the founding fathers put forth the declaration of independence they also put forth three ethical claims; that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. At times we are called upon to lay down our lives to secure the liberty of another. At times we are called to lay down our liberty for the happiness of another. We can never enslave another for the sake of our own happiness. We can never kill another for the sake of our own liberty.
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Morals and ethics differ in their source material. Morals are based on a set of beliefs, like a religion. Ethics are based on a philosophy which is in turn based on a set of beliefs. In the end all ethics are a form or morality, but not all morality qualifies as ethics. This is analogous to how all politicians are tiny bloodsucking animals, but not all tiny bloodsucking animals are politicians. (Also; All french are cowards but not all cowards are french, all Catholics breed like rabbits but not all rabbits are Catholic (some are Jewish), you get the idea.) Morals and ethics both find their foundations in a belief set. For morals this belief set could be divine revelation, or alien transmissions, or the deluded ravings of a mad man living in a cave. These are not all equal in validity, but they are all sufficient for the foundation of a moral code. Ethics must find their footing in a person's foundational assumptions, those basic beliefs that inform our worldview, that is, the way we view the world.
Something is subjective if it only applies to a singular individual or group. Something is objective if it applies to everyone. An example most of us can relate to is temperature. A guy would generally find 72 degrees (22.2C) to be a little on the warm side. If a member of the opposite gender, your mom, sister, or girlfriend, walks into the room she will ask why it is so cold in here. Our perception of 72 degrees is subjective because it depends on the person; be it warm, cold or just right. However, it is an objective fact that the room is indeed 72 degrees.
Because morality is based on an individual's beliefs, there is such thing as subjective morality. However, most morality is objective. It would be objectively wrong for me to hunt down that person who cut me off in traffic the other day and burn her house down. There is no real doubt here. (sadly) I would say there is nothing objectively wrong with consuming alcohol, so long as it is done in moderation. A cold Yuengling after a hard day's work (or while watching anime on Hulu) is a very nice thing. However i have friends who think all alcohol is of the devil and it is a sin to consume any. (They would like me to give it up, but since i'm already going to hell for being Catholic, i don't see why i should surrender my Rum and Cokes.) For the sake of argument, we are gong to say i'm right and alcohol is a good thing; it's not wrong for me and thus not objectively wrong. However, it would be wrong for them to consume alcohol as it would be a violation of conscience. Thus we have subjective morality. It is morally acceptable for me to drink a Long Island Ice Tea but would be morally wrong for my puritanical Baptist friends.
Ethics are never subjective. They are objective by their very nature. I can be right in my ethical claims and i can be wrong in my ethical claims, but there are no ethical claims which apply only to me. In fact, the absolute nature of ethics allows us to distinguish subjective morality from objective morality. Burning down that lady's home would be ethically wrong. This is how i know it is objective morality. If we can back up our morality with ethics then it is objective morality, universal truth. Subjective morality can have no ethical footing.
This brings us to our core concept, politics. The role of government in Catholic thought is two fold, according Pope Pius XII, "to safeguard the inviolable rights of the human person, and to facilitate the performance of his duties, is the principal duty of every public authority." The government has the authority and obligation to defend basic human rights. In addition, as every right correspondes to a duty, the government can and should enforce the performance of those duties.
The role of morals in politics seems simple. Subjective morality has no place in the public sphere. Just as you are under no duty to obey my morality and i have no right to force my morality upon you. Most everyone believes their morality is of the objective type. Even people who say all morality is subjective will admit that murder is universally wrong, i.e. objective. I often hear people say it is wrong to force your morality on others, thus making a claim on universal, objective morality. In practice we all believe our own morals are objective, otherwise we wouldn't hold to them. However, who is to say who is right? Morals should not be legislated as it is simply presumption to assert my morality as superior to yours. I can and should strive to convert you to my way of thinking, and you should do the same for me, but i cannot and should not use the government as a way to force my beliefs on you.
Ethics are the complete opposite. Ethics inform us of our human rights and of our duties. Ethics tell us what we cannot do and what we must do. They are those universal truths for which government exists. It is not only acceptable that the government enforce ethics, the government fails in its very purpose when it fails to do so. I can make a moral argument against homosexual activity, but i cannot make an ethical argument against homosexual activity. Who's rights are being violated? What duty is being ignored? I must therefor conclude that it would be inappropriate for the government to legislate against homosexual acts. The truth is, i cannot make a half decent moral argument against abortion. However, ethics tells us that the right to life is the most foundational of all rights and we have a duty to defend human life no matter the age or location of the person. The ethical arguments against abortion are thoroughly sufficient to merit a universal ban.
My arguments against contraception are moral arguments, based in my religious beliefs. It would be inappropriate for me to try and ban contraception with the arguments i currently posses. However, the opposite is also true. Just as it would be wrong for Catholics to force our views of contraception on others, it would be equally wrong for them to force their views on us. For example, by forcing us to purchase contraception for them, directly or indirectly. It is ethically wrong to force people to act contrary to their own moral beliefs. Each one of us has a right to conscience and to violate this right is a serious abuse of government authority.
Human beings are political creatures by nature. Whenever we form groups we form ways of governing those groups. Even among a group of friends they will have a mode of decision making. As political creatures it is important for us to understand the role of government. We must understand why it is in place, what it can and cannot legislate. When the founding fathers put forth the declaration of independence they also put forth three ethical claims; that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. At times we are called upon to lay down our lives to secure the liberty of another. At times we are called to lay down our liberty for the happiness of another. We can never enslave another for the sake of our own happiness. We can never kill another for the sake of our own liberty.
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)