On delays, morality, and other ponderables...

Okay, this time I truly do have a few excuses for waiting so long to update this blog (yet again):

1) The following events happened, in order:
a) phone service went out for 1.5 days
b) computer #1 (of 2) crashed (still picking up the pieces)
c) computer #2 (of 2) crashed (through my own bone-headedness--it's not fixed)
d) 3 day silent retreat with the Cistercians (excellent, and badly needed!)
e) currently immersed in a "Calculus refresher course" online (long story)

2) I'm trying to be better at helping my wife around the house, and not putting things off until she gets disgusted enough to do it for me. (For moral relativists out there: this is a *bad* thing to do, and I've since repented... though it took a Cistercian monk to kick me in the back-end [graciously and charitably] and get me to repent of it! Lesson: you don't have to be perfect to be a Christian; you just have to refuse to be stupid enough to persist in a sin when it's conclusively pointed out to you.) As such, my oft-neglected blog has been bumped even further down the priority list. :) Them's the breaks.

3) As a general rule, I'm just naturally bad at updating my blog on a regular basis.

Now, that confession time is out of the way... back to the (long-delayed) topic at hand: discerning good from evil. How, exactly, is that done reliably and correctly? How can we separate true "good" or "evil" from our mere opinions, feelings, sentiments, or other such will-o-wisps? I can feel horrid about going in to get a tooth drilled, though I know it's a good thing to do; and someone else can feel quite fine about using someone else as a sexual "object", though that's gravely evil. (Other examples abound.) So an objective standard is rather important. How does one find it? When faced with a choice to do [x] or not to do [x], how is one to decide the moral gradient of that choice (and to discern which of the two choices, if any, are in harmony with "goodness")?

There are several candidates for the "discernment assistant" job:

1) If your feelings are correctly calibrated to reality, they're one of the fastest and most energetic ways to discern good from evil; but again, that requires a correct calibration of those feelings, and that sort of calibration is hard to acquire... especially in this day and age, where we're conditioned (by advertisements and other social pressures) to calibrate our feelings toward the gratification of our bodily and emotional passions.

2) If you belong to an organization whose laws are unanimous in their derivation from reality (i.e. the objective moral law), then following and studying such laws is a good way to discern whether particular cases are good or evil; but that would also require that the laws' "derivation from truth" is verifiable--which can be a challenge, even if you find a candidate for an "all-good laws" group.

3) If you're under the authority of someone whose character is unimpeachable (and itself calibrated to the objective moral law), then you can follow the directions of that person--but this has the same caveat as does #2 (i.e. how do you know that your spiritual guide's character is unimpeachable?).

You may notice that all of the above (three) candidates share the same weakness: they all beg the question of, "How can we know that this 'guide' is a true and sure guide toward goodness?" Feelings can be askew, corrupt laws can be enacted, and vicious people can ascend to positions of [ersatz] moral authority. How can we diagnose such "diseases" in our potential leaders?

The answer, though wearying to many (especially nowadays), is one I've mentioned many times: our first resort must be right (or "sane") reason. We know the following:

• No true thing will contain a true contradiction within itself.


• No real thing will be completely vacuous and useless (i.e. a tautology, like "x = x").

Beyond this, there are several good "rules of thumb" which, though not infallible, can be used as good day-to-day guides:

1) If a moral principle is self-defeating by its very nature, it cannot be good.

Example: "Sex without producing children is more desirable than sex that produces children." (a.k.a. the "contraceptive mentality") This idea, if allowed to progress without bound, will tend to destroy the very population which seeks to enact it--"I'll have sex without having kids; let the *other* people have the kids, and pay the bills, change the diapers, etc.". Any tendency toward pervasive selfishness must necessarily be corrosive to any civilization (which must have laws restricting the selfishness of its members, in order to survive).

2) If a moral principle is designed to work only under artificial restrictions (e.g. only a privileged few are exempt from it), it cannot be good.

Example: "Let the government manage the details of all families, and make the decisions about how many children to have, how they are to be schooled, what religions are good to adopt, etc." Perhaps modern times have forgotten Huxley's "Brave New World", but it's obvious (to anyone with sense) that the ones doing the managing will get to choose the rules of management... and the question of "How/where did the managers get their formation, and from where/whom did they claim to get the god-like authority by which they micromanage the lives of countless people who are no less human than they?" really get lost in the shuffle. Appeals to expediency (e.g. "Well, *somebody* has to run their lives, because they're doing things we find abhorrent!") are horribly ill-suited as a defense, since nothing could stop such an oligarchy from ruling the people on the basis of their personal tastes (e.g. "we need to euthanize the handicapped, since I find them troublesome to behold!", "we need to mandate abortion for poverty-stricken families, since I find the idea of low-income children repugnant", etc.), rather than by right principles.

N.B. If someone raises a defense of, "But we can be sure that the ruling class will abide by their own rules, too!", I will reply with:

a) "Oh really? And how would you enforce that, save but through the agreement of the ruling class?" What if the ruling class decides that it's in 'the country's best interests' for the "privileged caste" to be free of the "restraints of the common folk"? Look to the former Soviet Union, to China, to North Korea, to Cuba, and to any totalitarian regime which claimed to "bring about equality and prosperity to all, by governmental fiat", if you'd like real-life results of that idea.

b) the very idea (of the "ruling class") being bound by its own governance is self-contradictory; if you try to imagine "a ruling class making rules--quite apart from its own opinions and preferences--to govern itself", I think you'll find that you're imagining nothing at all. It's a bit like asking someone to choose to disobey every choice they themselves make; in disobeying, they're also obeying!

3) If a moral principle does not acknowledge that the individual person is of greater value than any organization, governmental structure, or civil institution, then it cannot be good.

My father is very fond of deriding the oft-repeated saying, "Our [county, town, city, etc.] and our people have paid enough; let the state [of Illinois, etc.] and the federal governments pay their fair share!" He usually replies with something like: "Let the state pay its share? Are you talking about some other state? Because if you're talking about our state, then you're talking about US! The "state" doesn't have one thin dime; the *people* of the state have all the money!" This is just one problem with the "promote the state over the individual" idea; since the only possible reason to promote the "state" is in ORDER to promote the welfare of the individuals WITHIN that state, yes? What other abstract "state" could possibly benefit? Will the hills of Missouri smile with appreciation with each tax increase? Will the sands of Nevada shed a tear of gratitude with each revenue increase? Perhaps the map-border of Massachusetts will re-sculpt itself into a grin when its governor signs another tax increase into law? Come, now. Strip away all the titles and the artificial structures, and you have people, under the God Who created them... and that's it.

Given the above, perhaps you can see how many of the principles advanced by our current regim... ahm... "administration"... cannot be good. Mandatory taxpayer support of abortion (in D.C. and/or elsewhere), a legal system which can mandate the deaths (by dehydration, so as to allow cover for the executioners who can disingenuously say, "We didn't kill her! No bullets or knives or injections here, thank you! We just 'let her die', you see!") of the disabled when they're judged to be too burdensome, and other person-denigrating policies and actions are immoral at their core, and the only right choice is to flee from them with all speed.

As for personal discernments about right and wrong--well--next time, I think. :) (Browse the earlier articles on "cooperation in evil", for tid-bits about it, if you're anxious until then.)

Discerning Good from Evil, Part I

This is actually a "spinoff" from a discussion which I'm having with a commenter on Paul's Masterful Blog; see here for the original comment thread. For now, enjoy... and I'll set my brain a-stirring for the next installment, especially re: practical discernment of good and evil in our world.

If I understand Oliver's question/objection at all, it seems to involve this:

"In all this talk about [x] being good because God willed it, or that God willed [x] because it was good, or that God's will of [x] and the goodness of [x] flow from the Divine Nature of God, which is Goodness itself: what, exactly, IS goodness? We've talked about it and about its origins, but what is it? What does it look like, and how can we use it to identify the good from the evil?"

The problem is not that there are so few ways to go about this, but that there are so many! Here's only one of them:

A. A supremely perfect God exists.

Summary (and this leaves out *scores* of details! Ask about them individually, if you must...):

1) No object can be its own cause.
2) Causation implies change, and vice versa.
3) Any uncaused object is necessarily eternal.
4) Any uncaused cause is equivalent to existence per se.
5) Any uncaused cause must be unlimited and unique.
6) Our universe contains examples of changeable, non-eternal objects.
7) Ergo, an uncaused cause is required, as per #3-5.

B. Theism, by its recognition of this necessity (described in (A)), is the most reasonable paradigm by which the world and its dynamics can be explained. Since the "uncaused cause" conclusion is in harmony with theism, and not with atheism (which denies the uncaused cause) and agnosticism (which denies the knowability of the uncaused cause), it is reasonable to adopt a theistic paradigm until more compelling evidence/reasoning suggests otherwise.

C. Christianity is the most self-consistent paradigm which is also in harmony with theism and with the facts available to us in the natural world; thus, it is reasonable to assume Christianity as our paradigm until more compelling evidence/reasoning suggests otherwise.

D. Catholicism is the most self-consistent paradigm which is also in harmony with Christianity and with the facts available to us both in the natural world and within the contents of Divine Revelation (see (E), below); thus, it is reasonable to assume Catholicism as our paradigm until more compelling evidence/reasoning suggests otherwise.

E. Catholicism has confirmed that various facts have been communicated by God to us (i.e. Divine Revelation, or "The Sacred Deposit of Faith")--among which are guidelines for discerning the good from the evil.

F. Catholicism has confirmed that our human nature, though wounded by Original Sin, is still capable of recognizing truth (a.k.a. "the good") through the use of human reason, and of "tasting" truth through the use of human instincts and emotions--though these faculties (especially the latter) are clouded and fallible. Thus, it is possible (to a limited extent) to have an awareness of that which is good (or evil), even without explicit help from Divine Revelation.

G. Given all of the above, the most reliable way to discern the good from the evil is through examination of (and implementation of guiding principles given by) the Divine Revelation entrusted to man through Christ's Church; personal "awareness" might well be useful, but the fallen nature of man has rendered it weakened and less than strongly reliable.

I'm well aware of the fact that this schema leaves "grey areas" of morality; but given our fallen human condition, there's little hope of reprieve from that, this side of eternity. But you did ask.

So... go to it. Tear it apart at your leisure. :) My feelings won't be hurt by thorough examination (or even complete demolition) of my presented schema; just be logical about it, and do be polite, please. Life is too short to debate those who insist on being irritable and obnoxious.

The Patron anti-saint

As I was in the middle of typing my last blog entry, my wife (who's reading "Preparing Yourself for Mass", by Fr. Romano Guardini--good author!) shared a theological observation with me. (Yes, I'm not the only one. She does it too--quite often, in fact... and usually with far less rambling than I use! I'd encourage her to start a blog, if I didn't think it would take the last bits of her spare time, push her beyond her last scrap of endurance, and put her in an asylum for the duration of her natural life. But I ramble...)

She mentioned the story in John 6, where many of Jesus' disciples abandoned Him, because they simply couldn't believe His teaching about the Eucharist (cf. John 6:22-72)... but mentioned something that hadn't struck her until now: remember when, after the mass abandonment, Jesus turned to the twelve and asked, "Do you also wish to leave? (John 6:68)" St. Peter spoke for all of them, in saying "no", but did you notice? Judas Iscariot, the one who would betray Jesus, didn't leave! But the twist comes with Jesus' reply to St. Peter: "Have I not chosen you, the twelve? Yet one of you is a devil", speaking of Judas. The traitor didn't leave when the unbelievers left. Did that make him a believer?

Let's look at that for a moment. Now, this isn't conclusive--I'm just following my nose, here (with help from Fr. Guardini!), but think about this:

- After St. Peter says, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of everlasting life, and we have come to believe that You are the Christ, the Son of God!", Jesus follows up with the "Have I not chosen you, the twelve? Yet one of you is a devil! Doesn't this suggest, at least somewhat, that Judas didn't believe? Nothing iron-clad, true... but suggestive.

- Earlier, St. John writes (describing Jesus speaking at the moment when the disciples were about to abandon Him en masse), "'The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life. But there are some among you who do not believe.' For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who it was who should betray Him." (John 6:64-65) Again, nothing provable in a court of law... but again, see the close association with disbelief and betrayal?

- St. John, in his first letter, writes: "[...]many antichrists have arisen [...] They have gone forth from us, but they were not of us. For if they had been of us, they would surely have continued with us;" (I John 2:18-19) This suggests that, among others, Judas was not "of them" in the sense of being true followers of Christ (i.e. those who believed).

- plain common sense suggests that, if Judas had truly believed Jesus to be the Messiah of God, and the Son of God, he would never have betrayed Him.

So... we have Judas, who (at least according to strong evidence) doesn't believe. That begs a question:

Why didn't he leave?

I wish I could answer that question with certainty; I can't. But I can tell you one thing: we have modern evidence of the same, with every Faux Catholic who walks the earth. They don't believe, but they still don't leave (for many possible reasons, I'm sure). Some seek to remake the Church in their own image. Others truly wish to destroy the Church from within. Others sense the power and authority of the Church of Christ, but want to take (or manipulate) that power for themselves. Still others are too weak, complacent, and comfortable to leave, or even to face their lack of faith. (I was of that number, I'm ashamed to say.)

It would certainly fit. Consider the sense of betrayal felt by the Church as Faux Catholics sacrifice unborn children to Moloch (with the updated name of "Planned Parenthood") for the sake of personal thrills and promised material gain; doesn't it mirror the betrayal felt by Christ as Judas sold Him for thirty pieces of silver? Judas wasn't honest; he didn't leave (or convert). Faux Catholics aren't honest, either; they don't leave (or convert). It looks as if the patron anti-saint of Faux Catholics is none other than Judas Iscariot.

I'd add this: Judas could have repented. He could have gone back, begged forgiveness, and been received back... to the point where we could have had a "St. Judas Iscariot" in the Church martyrology. (It happened with the murderer known as Saul of Tarsus, after all.) Likewise: Faux Catholics can come back. Or, if they refuse to repent, they can embrace honesty, and leave the Church (which is often a large step toward ultimate repentance and reception as a *true* Catholic!). The only thing they can't do, without remaining a Faux Catholic, is remain in the Church while still falling under the condemnation of Christ: "There are some among you who do not believe."

The truth will set you free... but you must embrace it, first.

A Spade Is, In Fact, A Spade

(In atonement for neglecting this poor, starving blog for so long, I thought I'd feed it a 3-course meal; sit back, and let the rhetoric fly! :) )


I need to start this post with two confessions.

First: not only am I a sinful man, but I find it extremely hard to live up to the exhortations that I offer to everyone else. I can spend an entire evening teaching catechumens about the glories of redemptive suffering, and then I can mope for the entire following day because of my physical ailments. I can teach about the moral imperative of charity (and rejecting all ill-will toward our neighbour), and then sulk interminably over an offense that someone gave me. Oh, to be sure: I very rarely let these sins out of my head and into the external world (where others might see them)--and I sometimes even congratulate myself on my self-restraint in that regard--but, lest anyone think that I'm capable of "preaching from an ivory tower", I assure my readers that my feet are composed of the poorest quality of clay. I need that clear, lest people think that the fingers I wag at others are not equally wagged at myself. I assure you, they are.

Second: for all my talk of "faith, hope and love are choices, not feelings!", I was an enthusiastic proponent of "feelings-faith" (and basically making emotions the dominant guiding force in one's life) as recently as 7 years ago. When I condemn that error now, I do not do so as one who has no experience with such; in fact, the past 7 years have largely been a repudiation of that same philosophy which I embraced (and defended strenuously) for the majority of my life. (All right, all right: for the incurably nosey: I'm 40 years old, as of a week ago; okay? :) Now that *that's* out of the way...)

Why do I now fight so strenuously against this "emotion-driven" approach to life? Three reasons, primarily:

1) Rational: I've since examined the "emotion-driven" view of faith, and I've found it to be not only flawed, but completely unworkable (and--quite frankly--utterly insane).

2) Practical: it doesn't work. Or rather, it works to bring evil and ruin, all too successfully; what it does not do is bring about any substantial or lasting good.

3) Personal: with apologies for being vague, suffice it to say that the "emotion-driven" approach to faith leaves one open to horrors about which no sane person would even care to dream. I was lucky, and I survived... and I learned that the fight against "squishy, feelings-based faith" is not simply a matter of taste, or merely a fastidious distinction of systematic theology, or even a "good and laudable idea"; it's a matter of life and death. (Again: I hate to tantalize with a story that I won't tell... but to Little eye, my respected "sparring partner" on Jen's Wonderful Blog, I can say that--if it's any comfort--you're not the only one with stories which, if told to the general public, would cause many others to doubt your sanity!)


As the President-Elect of Death prepares to mount his new throne, won for him in large part by Faux Catholics (and Faux Christians, and squishy-thinking emotion-worshippers of all flavours) in two days, I'm tempted to stand in amazement at the sheer lack of all awareness of the darkness threatening to engulf us. Does that sound extreme? Hyperbolic? "Fanatical Apocalyptic Right-Wing?" (That last one was in honour of--and virtually quoted from--the hundreds of hard-working trolls out there, who work tirelessly to mock and neutralize truth in orthodox Christian blogs throughout the world.) Not only have the pagans of our land voted for the foremost champion of death of our time and country, but feelings-worshipping Catholics (and other self-proclaimed Christians) pushed him over the top... by quite a margin. The man:

- who's promised to re-legalize partial-birth abortion,

- who's promised to mandate all health organizations to provide "abortion services" to whomever asks for them,

- who's promised to throw wide the floodgates of taxpayer funding for abortions of all kinds--at home, overseas, and even after being born, (no reason why poor women should be denied the "right" to have their baby, born-alive after a botched abortion, strangled or left to die on a shelf; it shouldn't be an exclusive privilege of the wealthy, after all!),

- who's promised to throw open the taxpayer coffers in support of Embryonic Stem-Cell Research (what Paul, at his masterful blog, fittingly calls "recreational cloning/killing").

Need I go on? (Don't answer that, please.) Death is coming to our country's highest elected office in a way never before seen, and a majority of Catholics rejoice. I know of few other sentences which contain the very essence of heartbreak, as does that. May God have mercy on us.

So... in addition to a lament for the evil that's coming upon us (and which has already settled on the hearts of misled and/or morally corrupt members of our land--including at least a plurality of Catholics and other Christians), why do I mention this? I mention this because of three things:

1) Even in the midst of this ugly and perverse time: this battle--bloody, grotesque, and inhuman as it is--has already been won. Christ Jesus, Lord of All, has won. Don't despair. Grieve, certainly... but don't despair. Be faithful until the bitter end. If you grieve, know that faithful members of the Communion of Saints are grieving with you... and, God willing, you'll see them--face-to-face--rejoicing with you in the Kingdom, when all will be made new.

2) I offer this as another wake-up call to those who are "Faux Catholics/Christians", but who are sensitive enough to harbor twinges of doubt and unease at the agenda of the new "secular pseudo-messiah" who's ascending the "throne" of the presidency... and to those who are honest enough to be willing to re-examine the dynamics which brought them to their heterodoxy in the first place. (I was one of your number, for over 20 years of my adult life; I do not condemn you, but I also urge you to question where you are... and, God willing, to move out of it!)

3) I believe that Edmund Burke was correct when he said that the only thing necessary for evil to be victorious is for the good to do nothing. I don't claim to be "good" in any absolute sense... but I certainly claim to follow the good, found within the Lord of Perfect Goodness, Himself: Jesus Christ; and I don't want any non-Christian who's ignorant of the Gospel to accept the "Obama-led culture of death", simply because it seems to be the only game in town, and no one has said anything to the contrary.

Two days until the war takes a new and bitter turn. Pray, followers of Christ. Pray, and mean it. Rearrange your lives for it. Pray, fast, offer mortifications. I suspect this type of demon can only be driven out by prayer and fasting (cf. Mark 9:28). Get on it, warriors for Christ!

A Plea for Truth, Part II: A Plea for Reality

Is it so much to ask, that we treat things as if they really are what they are?

We do it in so many walks of life. When we teach our baby children to eat solid food, we gently encourage them not to insert the strained peas in their ears, nose, and other non-mouth orifices, right? When we teach young men and women how to drive, we encourage them not to treat brick buildings as if they were imaginary (i.e. gently encourage them to apply pressure on the brake pedal and angular force on the steering wheel, as needed), right? We don't consider it unreasonable when others ask us politely if we would refrain from treating their dog as a toothbrush, right?

So could someone please explain to me why it's acceptable for "Christians" to behave as if Christ didn't exist, or that He's irrelevant, or that He's of minor importance compared to our other priorities?

I'll stick to examples of so-called "good Catholics" (with thanks to Bishop Robert Hermann of St. Louis for the phrase), partially since I'm most familiar with Catholic teaching, and partially since I have the misfortune of being familiar with untold scores of cases in which dissidents, the heterodox, and (yes, even) heretics still claim the name "Catholic" and all the "privileges" pertaining thereto.

From LifeNews.com:

The president of the Catholic Health Association, Sister Carol Keehan, has issued a response to the pro-life advocates who are upset with her statement praising two pro-abortion picks by incoming president Barack Obama. Instead of backing down from her position, Sister Keehan goes further by offering a defense of Obama as well as his new pro-abortion Health Secretary Tom Daschle and pro-abortion deputy health care director Jeanne Lambrew. [...] Keehan also claims that Obama and his selections will provide better health care for pregnant women and unborn children. "They are committed to getting access to quality health care for all Americans, including pregnant women and their unborn babies," Keehan adds. "It is my belief that we ... will prevent more abortions by ensuring tangible health care for pregnant women and their unborn babies."

From LifeSiteNews.com:

Despite a bishop's order to cease, a Catholic hospital in Tyler, Texas that had been caught routinely performing direct sterilizations has issued a statement denying it has contravened the Church's moral law.

The hospital's statement came less than a week after Tyler Bishop Alvara Corrada issued his own statement reaffirming that two investigations confirmed Trinity Mother Frances Hospital's history of tubal ligations and other direct sterilizations, and that such activity must cease as being intrinsically contrary to human dignity and forbidden by Church law. [...]

Father Gavin Vaverek, Promoter of Justice in the Diocese of Tyler, said that the hospital does not define tubal ligations as “direct sterilization,” and is basing its denial upon this false understanding of what constitutes sterilization.

“It does not deny offering tubal ligations,” the priest said about the hospital’s statement, according to a CNA report. “Having admitted the procedures, Trinity Mother Frances now wishes to continue them in the face of clear teaching and directive of the bishop by reasserting its discredited opinion that the procedures really are not ‘direct sterilizations.’ Essentially, it is saying the bishop is wrong when he asserts that tubal ligations are direct sterilization.”

Let's translate these into plain English, shall we?

1) The president (a religious sister, consecrated and bound by vows in poverty, chastity and obedience to God through the Church) of the "Catholic" [sic] "Health" [sic] Association [okay]: (a) believes that the President-Elect of Death is a fine choice to lead our nation; (b) is thrilled with said President-Elect of Death's pro-death choices as members of his staff; and (c) is indignant that anyone would dare question her decision, her allegiance [sic] to Catholic teaching, and her standing as a "good Catholic" [sic].

2) A "Catholic" [sic] hospital, when confronted with the rightful orders of the local bishop that they cease all intentional sterilizations (which the Church condemns as intrinsically evil), refuses the order on the grounds that "the bishop doesn't appreciate the nuances of Catholic teaching in the matter, and that the condemned actions are really justified, if only they can be viewed in the correct way".

To this, I gently submit that a Catholic does, in fact, need to obey Catholic teaching--or else cease to be a "faithful Catholic", by definition. If someone claims to be a golfer while indignantly denying any suggestion that he use golf balls and gold clubs (preferring instead to use, say, avocados and a pair of tongs), then I might possibly support his right to choose not to avail himself of the normal tools of the trade--but I will also be justified in saying that he is not, after all, a golfer at all... but only claiming (without substance or merit) to be one, for whatever mysterious reason. If a satanist suddenly rejects all allegiance to Satan, I may well congratulate him for making an excellent spiritual step; but I cannot reasonably congratulate him on being a good satanist, because he has, in fact, ceased to be one by that very act of rejection... and, even in my newfound admiration of him, I could not help but understand the Satanist Club's decision to deny him his usual "members only" parking space.

Just so, I suggest, with Catholicism. How are we to view someone who wishes to cling to the "perks" of Catholicism (reception of Holy Communion, or whatever else those "perks" might be, in his or her mind), but refuses to obey even the most rudimentary elements of Catholicism (such as belief in necessary Catholic doctrines, obedience to rightful Catholic authorities, adherence to Catholic practices and the requirements that go with them, and the like)? How can an institution boast the name "Catholic", while at the same time arrogating to itself the decisions rightfully made by the Bishop (or other rightful Church authority over them)? In short: I can't see how such a person or institution could be viewed as anything but "not a good Catholic" (and, perhaps, not even Catholic at all).

As I've said before, there's a special pain in watching a Christian betray Christ (and even worse, to deny and "cloak" their betrayal with rhetoric and sophistries). I'd much rather encounter a sincere atheist or unapologetic pagan; they might decide to stab Christ in the chest, like an avowed enemy, but at least they don't stab Christ in the back.

Picture the following scene (with a hat-tip to Paul for the general theme:

(Disclaimer: the "pseudo-firefighters" in this scene are not meant to resemble, in any way, the true and literal fire-fighting heroes of our country--many of whom I'm proud to number among my friends! Hence the prefix "pseudo-"...)

You approach the house of a friend (who's married with 3 small children) just in time to watch the house erupt in flames, and to see an arsonist screech off in a very fast car. You call the fire department, and a number of pseudo-firefighters arrive... but--rather than single-mindedly fighting the blaze, as you expect--they look at the fire and shrug, and tell you earnestly how these flames aren't that bad (they've seen far worse), how the arsonist might not be culpable for his actions (perhaps due to troubled home life, or even because of a different cultural outlook), and how there are far more important concerns than merely fighting fires (one mustn't be a single-issue fire-fighter, after all). Another pseudo-firefighter walks up and suggests (in all seriousness) that we not forget all the other houses burning at that very moment, throughout the world... that we can't possibly fight them all, so the best way to fight this fire, and others (we mustn't be provincial and narrow, and focus only on *this* house, mind you!) is to work toward stronger and more sweeping state and federal regulations that mandate more flame-resistant houses. A third pseudo-firefighter opines, while the roof of the house begins to collapse and screams can be heard from inside the house, that more governmental support (and more money to strapped public school programs) would go a long way toward preventing poor, lost people like yonder arsonist from "acting out" in such a socially unhelpful way.

At the end of the day, as the medics remove the charred corpses of your friends, what would be going through your mind? What would you say to those who comment (perhaps tactfully) on your lack of charity and goodwill toward the pseudo-firefighters who arrived on the scene, and toward those who agreed with their way of handling things? What would you say to the pseudo-firefighters who rebuke you for yelling, screaming, perhaps physically shaking a pseudo-firefighter or two, or even illegally trying to go in and save the family yourself?

I'm sure Noah Webster never meant for "nuance" to be a foul word... but the distressingly large assembly of "liberated", "nuanced", "liberal", etc., Catholics--at "Catholic" hospitals, "Catholic" universities, "Catholic" blogs* and websites, and the like, have certainly made it unfit for most faithful conversation. May God have mercy on us.

To the "nuanced" of the world, here's my response: try objective truth, for a change. Christ (i.e. objective truth) would really prefer it of you... and perhaps you could then join us in stopping the runaway train known as the "Culture of Death", rather than adding fuel to the train's furnace?


(*) In all fairness, there seems to be at least one sensible contributor to Vox Nova, along with the courageous commenters who try to champion orthodoxy, over there.

A Plea for Truth

You'd probably never know it, to read my posts... but I'm not a confrontational type of guy, by nature; I enjoy lively discussion (so long as it remains friendly and reasonable, or at least civil and respectful), but I really dislike quarrels, sniping, and the like, and I usually try (under most circumstances) to avoid saying or doing anything which would rile anyone else up. However, when I'm confronted with what appears to be a blatant violation of an important truth, I'm caught in a dilemma: do I let the violation slide, or do I fight (with all the pain and unpleasantness that entails)? Well... God has made it increasingly clear to me that my vocation includes a defense of His Truth, as His Paladin (my full name from the Gaelic translates roughly into "virtuous warrior", or "Paladin", interestingly enough!); so I really have no choice but to fight... while holding to as high a standard of chivalric honour that I can, during the fight.

As such, there are times when I have to throw down the gauntlet, versus those who (consciously or unconsciously) stand athwart the Truth of Christ, and most especially versus those who claim the title of "Catholic" while minimizing, ignoring, dismissing, or even openly rejecting the Church's teachings (and on matters of severe importance, at that). The gauntlet does not mean that I hate my opponents; nor does it mean that I hold them to be evil, irredeemable, or anything other than fellow sons and daughters of God who happen to have been deceived (or otherwise "captured") by the Father of Lies. But the gauntlet does mean--regrettably--a battle. I can only offer such opponents, above and beyond my promise (insofar as my fallen nature, supported by the grace of God, allows me) to conduct the battle with honour, an idea from C.S. Lewis, in his excellent book, "Mere Christianity":

"When soldiers came to St. John the Baptist asking what to do, he never remotely suggested that they ought to leave the army: nor did Christ when He met a Roman sergeant-major--what they called a Centurion. The idea of the knight--the Christian in arms for the defence of a good cause--is one of the great Christian ideas. War is a dreadful thing, and I can respect an honest pacifist, though I think he is entirely mistaken. What I cannot understand is this sort of semipacifism you get nowadays which gives people the idea that though you have to fight, you ought to do it with a long face and as if you were ashamed of it. It is that feeling that robs lots of magnificent young Christians in the [armed] Services of something they have a right to, something which is the natural accompaniment of courage--a kind of gaiety and wholeheartedness.

I have often thought to myself how it would have been if, when I served in the first world war, I and some young German had killed each other simultaneously and found ourselves together a moment after death. I cannot imagine that either of us would have felt any resentment or even any embarrassment. I think we might have laughed over it."
(C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, Ch.7, pars.8-9)

To fight without rancor, to spar without hate; that, I offer to my opponents. Do not confuse that for any lack of resolve to strike directly and keenly, at need; I will not ravage anyone's emotions out of mere spite; but nor will I soften a necessary blow, simply out of some deference to feelings or (far worse) the "ritualized cowardice" of political correctness.

That being said: I now call upon those Catholics, in particular, who have embraced heterodoxy... who have taken it upon themselves to "follow their own consciences" to places which flatly contradict the spirit and law of the Church in Whom they were baptized... who have become content to invert venial sin with mortal sin, the negotiable with the non-negotiable. I most especially call upon those who trumpet their unyielding defense of any opposition to the death penalty, their hopes for the elimination of involuntary poverty, their unequivocal condemnation of the War on Terror, and all (otherwise good) goals which share an almost uncanny resemblance to the goals of the present-day U.S. Democratic Party. Most of all, I call those of the above whose ferocity in furthering the above goals is matched only by their lack of ferocity in fighting the evils of abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, human cloning, the cultural "normalization" of homosexuality, and the like.

To these, I ask the following simple question:

WHO'S ASKING YOU
TO GIVE UP
YOUR OTHER GOOD CAUSES???
For the love of all that's holy: do you seriously think that, if you were completely loyal to the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, you'd have to abandon ANY of your other good efforts? Why on earth would giving true and clear priority to the fight against the non-negotiable "articles of the Culture of Death" (e.g. abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, homosexual "marriage" [sic], human cloning, etc.) interfere with your other efforts to end poverty, to find practical ways to bring the War in Iraq to a speedy conclusion, to work against the death penalty, and such? Why, in the name of all that's good, would placing your efforts on the rock foundation of Truth endanger those efforts in the slightest, if those efforts are truly good?

Moreover, I warn you against a terrible danger, so subtle as almost to be imperceptible when you're immersed in it (as I well know--having been there for years of my life): when you give yourself permission to "detach" from obedience to the Church, you necessarily set something/someone else (almost always "yourself"!) as the final arbiter of truth... and that "something else" cannot possibly serve in that role successfully. The beginning of this "detachment" is subtle: it often starts with an appeal to the "supremacy of your own conscience" (which a cursory and context-free reading of Church documents will seem to confirm), and it seems so very innocent! After all: if you change from "I assent to the Church's Teaching in all matters of Faith and Morals" to the variant, "I currently happen to agree with all the Church's teachings regarding Faith and Morals", how would anyone else know the difference? If you're of a utilitarian and/or pragmatic mindset, there would seem to be no difference at all! In fact, it might even "feel" better, since--as you could easily tell yourself, using words almost identical to those of the Church: "The Church doesn't want blind obedience [which is true, so far as it goes]--She wants us to use our reason to meet and grapple with these truths, for ourselves!"

Thus is the door opened to the sin of pride... and a good-tasting and addictive poison it is, too. Not many 12-step groups to help you recover from it, either.

The "drift" then continues. Eventually, when you hit the first teaching of the Church which runs against your own feelings (and possibly thoughts)--it's almost always something related to sexual ethics, it seems (e.g. homosexuality, contraception, in-vitro fertilization, etc.)--you'll first experience the effects of being "cut off" from your base. (A tree that's cut completely through won't necessarily fall at first; it might need a breeze to start it tipping.) You'll think, "Hm... that doesn't make sense to me. In fact, I don't think that makes very much sense at all! Especially since my dear friend [x] is [homosexual, contracepting, using IVF, considering an abortion, etc.], and I love them, and they're not a bad person, and since only bad people would violate the Church's teachings, they can't possibly be violating the Church's teachings--or else, the Church's teaching is just plain wrong!"

Then come one of at least four main paths toward heterodoxy (i.e. "wrong belief"):

(1) [the more explicit] "The Church is just wrong about this one!"

(2) [the more implicit] "These teachings must not be real "Church teaching" at all! They're probably just the opinions of some old, celibate men in Rome, and Jesus probably wouldn't have agreed with it, either!"

(3) [even more implicit] "They may be Church teaching, but they're not *infallible* Church teaching! They're just one of those changeable ones, like limbo!"

(4) [one of the most implicit] "The teachings may be true, but other teachings are of far greater importance; love (see here for the real definition of that!), for example, is of a far higher priority than are picky, heady, theological 'rules' about details regarding sexuality."

And then, if you're brutally honest with yourself, you'll have only two authentic options before you: embrace your pet ideas, and formally leave the Church (whereupon even your pet ideas will eventually wither, fragment, and degenerate into putrefied parodies of what your once embraced with a clean heart); or surrender your pet ideas and reconcile yourself to the Church (whereupon all of your pet ideas that were truly good will eventually be given back to you, purified of the dross of error and sin).

I fully admit: when I was of that mind, I wasn't the least bit interested in such honesty; I was into feelings, feelings, and more feelings (which I thought were the basis of all "real" life). I suspect that many of the "heterodox Catholic" camp have that same insidious virus. I wish the prognosis of that disease were better... but it took literally *years* for me even to start facing the "fracture" at the core of my life (living "in" and "out" of the Church, at the same time), and it took many more years--and several life-shattering and painful events--for me to start making the hard choices necessary for moving away from it. I can only tell you that it's possible, and that it's by God's Grace alone, and that having lots of people "never stop praying for you" has a lot to do with chances of recovery (and with the chances of recognizing that it's something from which you need to recover!).

So... here's my challenge to you, if you're a heterodox Catholic (i.e. a Catholic who gives him/herself permission to go against the explicit teachings of the Magisterium of Christ's Church) reading this: I stand ready--with my all-too-human swordsmanship, my fallible shield-work, and my borrowed armour--to try my best to battle the errors that hold you, and I stand ready to pray for you, daily, no matter what. (I already do, in fact.)

The gauntlet is thrown. In the next weeks, months, and years, Catholics (and all Christians, for that matter!) need to unite in Truth, as well as in Spirit; no other kind of "unity" can hope to endure... especially if the near future is even half as dark as it promises to be, for those of Faith. In this present gathering darkness, Christ needs us all on the same side, and not fragmented into hundreds of politically-motivated mini-camps! The stakes are far too high to do anything else. And if taking and giving some hard knocks is what will bring people to shake off their errors and embrace the fullness of truth, then so be it; I can do no less, in the service of my Lord and Master.