My Spiritual Advisor is Two Years Old-2

                Yesterday my two year old boy was running ahead of me.  He surprised me when we approached the crest of a steep decent and he stopped and reached out his hand to me.  This is surprising because his most frequently used phrase is, “No, me, self!”  He is Mr. Self-Reliance and is impervious to the fears normal people would reasonably have in situations such as this.

                I realized something though as he reached out his hand to me and that is just how grateful I was having it.  I recognized how amazing it is to hold a tiny hand and how I wanted nothing more than his safety and well being.  Reaching out is the key here; his reaching out caused me to reach out to him physically, sure, but more than that I reached out to him within myself, extending my empathy, my protection, my love.     

                I was able to appreciate this as a frail and fallen human father; I cannot begin to fathom how God the Father, the model upon which all fatherhood is modeled, experiences the instance we reach out to him.  We, like my son, often only do this when the danger seems so immanent that even we recognize it.  I long for my son’s hand always. 

WWGBSD (What would George Bernard Shaw Do?) - Back the Republican "War on Women" via the VAWA!

                The “progressives” are confused it would seem.  George Bernard Shaw would skewer them on a spit and slowly roast them over a fire.  George Bernard Shaw was and is by all accounts an extremely progressive figure in the history of the progressive struggle.  He also saw himself as a preeminent feminist; but what that meant in practicality is that women should actual be equal.  Shaw was not sympathetic to arguments which reflected an empathy which caused inequality.  The logical end of this trial by fire/ survival of the fittest Darwinist approach was eugenic. He saw himself as continuing towards the superman of Nietzsche in his philosophy. 

                So as one examines the rhetoric surrounding the “Violence against Women Act” one must wonder who is progressive and who is conservative?  If one erased the preconceived knowledge of what is Republican and what is Democrat one sees the Republican women in the House putting forth very Shavian arguments about equality in order to forgo “special” protections for say female migrant workers. 

                We hear the Democratic women in the house talking about the actual need of women in vulnerable situations; thus undercutting an overarching progressive assertion of the need for “equality”.  A ready example of Shaw’s lack of appreciation for the vulnerability of women would be his play “Mrs. Warren’s Profession”.  In this play Mrs. Warren is the co-owner of an International chain of brothels with the virtuous Shavian head for business.  In the real world outside the theatre and Shaw’s play Jack the Ripper was hacking prostitutes up in the streets of Whitechapel.  The disconnect is not only striking but telling.  Shaw wants us to be detached and rational in regards to sex, as Dan Savage wants us to be detached and rational about sex, and meanwhile the bodies of the vulnerable are used and discarded as rubbish.      

                I find that the question is confused because men and women are not going to be exactly equal as they are not exactly the same.  What needs to be focused upon is not a false notion of equality which ignores fundamental difference but a real equality in the appreciation of the dignity of humans.  The House Republican version of the VAWA fails to do this.  The Democrats usually own this lack of appreciation as they share a Shavian appreciation of sex as business.  I say this as Democrats fail to realize how birth control and abortion commoditize the sexual act, even if not for monetary exchange, thus leaving the vulnerable used and discarded as rubbish.

                So the progressives may hold up the standard for Shaw in almost any instance but in this instance he would bury them up to their necks in the sand of his wit and devour them alive in the fire ants of his logical, though misguided, thoughts and words.  That’s what George Bernard Shaw would do!

Problems Inherent in Comparing Race and Sexual Preference

                Recently, the news media has been drawing ready comparisons between the struggle for racial equality and gay marriage.  I believe there are many glaring problems with the comparison, socio-economics being one obvious area of homosexual advantage.  They are able to excel in their chosen fields and that has created a political war-chest which has fueled the political momentum they now enjoy. 

                Race has involved a generational struggle against socio-economic oppression because of the nature of race, i.e. skin pigmentation.  This explains how the homosexual individual has risen so far within the socio-economic system and people of color have struggled; homosexuality is inherently not generational because of the nature of homosexuality as not being biologically regenerative and it is inherently not superficially overt. 

                Racial equality, though it has been made complex because of socio-economic injustice, has asked us simply and rightly to simply overcome our superficial differences.  The argument is routinely put forth that race is genetically insignificant; meaning there is biologically no appreciable difference between two human beings down to their genes.  Homosexuals and their advocates often state that homosexuality is not a choice but based upon genetic predisposition; so this means that genetics is not insignificant but very significant in determining behavior.  So what will it be?  Genetic determinism, Orwellian double-think, or moral responsibility?

                To update the last update on civil unions in Colorado; I spoke too soon last time.  Civil unions have been defeated in a special session of the Colorado Legislature called by Gov. Hickenlooper.  God only knows why it got so far this year, but Speaker of the House McNulty finally got his house in order and sent the bill to the proper committee where it died.  I would like to reiterate the fact that in no state in our union has marriage been encroached upon by a vote of the polis, in fact just the opposite has happened.  Marriage is under threat from the social vanguard; this causes what has been borne out by history, not the dictatorship of the proletariat but the dictatorship of the vanguard.  It is our responsibility to protect marriage in the milieu of the culture at large.  It is of greater importance to protect marriage in our homes and hearts.  God bless you, marriage, and the family.

My Spiritual Advisor is Two Years Old

                My two year old son has a specific quality my wife though I should write about; I obviously agree.  He is so cute but when I scold him he does something which is beyond cute, its heart melting, and so endearing: he gets a huge quivery lip and heavy knitted brow; he puts his chin down on his chest and rolls his shoulders forward, he has a look of complete dejection and he often whimpers to himself in such a way that it mimics talking to himself.  He appears to be hopelessly wrestling with the abandonment thrust upon him by his father.  I disintegrate inside.

                It is what happens next which makes him my spiritual director.  He runs to me, hugs me tightly, and bursts into tears.  I console him, I tell him I love him, I stroke his hair, I kiss his cheek, I think only of his peace of mind, of his peace, after all he is a good boy.  I don’t tell him what he did is now ok, just the opposite, but I let him know that he is still a good boy and that is why he cannot do what he had just done.  Then I hold him until he cheers up or gets distracted, which is usually very quickly, the clouds dissipate and he’s off again.

                So often we experience our own lip quivering moment and we run away from God.  We assume he isn’t listening or would not listen to us, we may fear his wrath, and we may assume his judgment when inside our Father his heart has melted.  He extends his arms to our heels running in the opposite direction and we miss our opportunity to be little ones who hug it out.  We miss the opportunity to have our Father assure us that we are not defined by our faults, and so we become defined by our faults, but by the love of God.

                It is fitting that my wife encouraged me to write this after she was in adoration of the Eucharist as she has a strong devotion to St Therese and writing this has reminded me of her “elevator to heaven”.

                “It is impossible for me to grow up, and so I must bear with myself such as I am with all my imperfections. But I want to seek out a means of going to heaven by a little way, a way that is very straight, very short, and totally new. We are living now in an age of inventions, and we no longer have to take the trouble of climbing stairs, for....an elevator has replaced these very successfully. I wanted to find an elevator which would raise me to Jesus, for I am too small to climb the rough stairway of perfection. I searched, then, in the Scripture for some sign of this elevator, the object of my desires, and I read these words coming from the mouth of Eternal Wisdom: "Whoever is a little one let him come to me." And so I succeeded. I felt I had found what I was looking for...The elevator which must raise me to heaven is in Your arms, O Jesus! And for this I had no need to grow up, but rather I had to remain little and become this more and more. O, my God, You surpassed all my expectation. I want only to sing of Your Mercies.”

                Uncanny, I think.  St. Therese, pray for us, especially my little spiritual directors! 

Objective vs. Altruistic Morality

                I wish to expound upon an idea I touched upon in my last blog post “It’s not natural.”  I tried to illustrate that an objective morality which would allow one to find no fault in homosexuality would also leave the door wide open to the genetic or hormone therapies one would use to cure homosexuality.  Genetic engineering is always a gravely immoral act; the ends never justify the means. This is not to say that homosexuals are free of their responsibility not to act upon their disordered understanding of human sexuality.  Disordered sexuality is everywhere from pornography to adultery.  It is not as if the homosexual’s disordered appreciation of sex is graver than a husband who looks at porn; although the homosexual will not ever have the option of a fruitful sexual union leading to the unavoidable usage of one's partner as a sexual object with every single sexual act, whereas the husband looking at porn still has the option of repenting and having a natural and ordered relationship with his wife.  It is moreover that homosexuals are trying to compromise the institution of marriage.  That moves the arena from the personal battle to the social.   

                Objectivism is on one end of the moral theory scale as it rejects altruism in favor of rational self-interest.  What this means in the actual world is that those with the power to assert their self-interest will prevail.  If the gay lobby is stronger than the university research lobby then the homosexuals are golden; but if they aren’t then the babies are getting some hormones, right into the anterior hypothalamus.  This is not morality it is a pissing contest. 

To illustrate I would refer to the recent exchange between Dan Savage and the students of the National High School Journalism Conference.  Dan Savage stated, “We can learn to ignore the bullsh--in the bible about gay people- the same way we have learned to ignore the bullsh-- in the bible about shellfish, about slavery, about dinner, about farming, about menstruation, about virginity, about masturbation.”  When more than 100 students walked out of the auditorium in protest he called them, “pansy-a--ed.”  Did I mention he was speaking out against bullying?  See how fickle objectivism is?  The ends justify the means, or the meanness.  

                What altruism brings is not only objective truth, as the one truth lies outside oneself or one situation; but the promise of checking power in favor of that objective truth, actually saving us from ourselves as we are eventually crushed by the objectivism we use to crush others.  So it is not moral to “fix” homosexuals but it is moral to witness to them how we carry our crosses, which we all have to.

                The crosses we carry are lessons in holiness.  We learn self discipline, we learn to sacrifice, and thus we learn to love.  True love is not a feeling but every action in our lives directed at expressing the reality of that feeling.  Otherwise the hormones and neurotransmitters evaporate without moving us into deeper and longer lasting hormones and neurotransmitters.

                We witness in private but in the public square we defend the Church and her teaching, especially as it pertains to marriage and abortion.  We must try to keep our faith whole and intact; because as the Catholic Church may prescribe individual self mastery, the objectivist prescribes extreme and punitive reprisals against “bigoted” theological teaching.

                To update the last blog Civil Unions will pass the Colorado House of Representatives, the Governor will sign it and it will become law in Colorado.  God bless this state and our country, please pray for us.  

 I must add, just to clarify, the Church is not bigoted and neither should we be.  The Catechism of the Catholic Church states, “2358- The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial.  They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity.  Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.  These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359- Homosexual persons are called to chastity.  By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.”

                The conversion of sinners and the perfection of the faithful are not won without the long suffering of the faithful.  Simply to shout down the homosexual lifestyle is to convert sinners to sin and highlight our own faults as Christians.  We must firmly resolve to be prayerful and closer to the sacraments than ever before for the sake of society’s conversion.  God’s will be done; He has already won through his cross and resurrection.  Let us resolve to be faithful witnesses of that truth. 

It’s not natural… What? It’s not.

                There is a law which would give same sex couples the “rights and responsibilities” of married couples making the rounds in the Colorado capitol for the second time.  It promises not to confer marriage upon these couples but rather “civil unions”.  There is by all accounts one thin line between this bill and the Colorado law books; it is a committee, the same committee in which it died last year.  Thank God for committees; as there is no instance in the country in which same sex unions have become law by a vote of the polis.  They have always been asserted by legislators and/or judiciaries.  Not that it’s unnatural for persons in positions of power to feel as though they need to negate the will of the people; so I will write of the promised topic- why is homosexuality “unnatural”?

                Some think that homosexuality is completely natural because of our genetic make-up; that is called genetic determinism; our genes determine our behavior.  Some people think that homosexuality is natural because two male penguins hang together and take care of an egg; that is called projection.  Because we can project human reason upon animals does not mean that they possess said human reason or that they could make our behavior seem reasonable to their animal minds via projection.  Projection is actually complex mental behavior although it is completely natural to humans.

                First, genetic determinism, I have touched upon this aspect in several essays and I roundly reject it as a significant behavioral determinate.  There are different theories as to whether there is actually a “homosexual gene” but in my appraisal it is an insignificant argument even if there is.  Genetics cannot significantly affect an individual’s behavior, even when one speaks of addiction it has been shown to only slightly increase one’s propensity to exhibit that addiction.  Individuals tend to be haunted by the living physical realities of alcoholism and choose to learn that “coping” mechanism in the paradox of embracing the demon to drown the demon.  Many individuals react in exactly the opposite way; violently renouncing the smallest drop of alcohol, as if it were an allergen, in case the specter would appear and affect the people in their own lives as they were affected.  The behavioral determinate is not so much the alcohol as parental abuse.  There is even in the genetic pull of alcoholism a real and powerful choice to be made.  Genetics becomes an excuse for not making appropriate life choices.

                Next, homosexual activity in nature among animals does not define what is natural for human beings.  If it were there would actually be no laws because animals kill each other, so can humans but it is considered in bad taste.  Animals cannot be held to any standard of ethics or taste; as animals are incapable of an understanding of ethics and they have no use for taste.  In order for homosexuality to be natural for humans based upon the natural world at large ethics would have to be unnatural.

                  I suppose ethics is unnatural but then so is logic and so are all of the traits which make humans unique.  Maybe we aren’t, I will have to read up on it in the chimpanzee book of chimp anthropology (chimpthropology) at the library of chimpanzee history on the Chimp U campus; although I could save myself some time and just look it up on the Chimp-net.

                So why does this even matter?  If it feels good do it.  Who does it hurt?  Is there so much love in the world that we can discriminate?  My body my choice!  There are many other bumper stickers style philosophies bandied about with the intent of foiling any reasonable objection and cast all who question the legitimacy of a lifestyle choice thoughtlessly into the cavernous category “bigot”.  Why does this matter?

                It matters because people matter.  It matters because marriage matters.  It matters because word definition matters.  How can an individual lovingly sit and watch someone do something which is totally misdirected?  Both sides can ask this question; we must not simply demonize one another. 

                I have not always held the views which I hold today; because I was an atheist, hyper-relative, and misguided in my appreciation of human sexuality.  I can tell you this I have never held views which were easier to defend, well balanced, and well reasoned as I have as a Catholic.  Because as a relativist scratches the surface of the bumper sticker catchphrases all they find beneath is a bumper.

                When science has discovered that all one needs to “cure” a homosexual is a little testosterone or ovarian steroid given at the right time or in the right place that question is a matter of human dignity.  The call to self mastery is a call to human dignity.  Human dignity is what allows humans their human nature; it is the threshold of the natural for human beings.  If one has eliminated the source and defender of human dignity as a goal on the path to one’s self interest the time will come that that path will lead to one’s own destruction; as one becomes a road bump on the highway of human “fitness”.

                The legislator offered that the legislation would provide the same “rights and responsibilities” as married heterosexuals have.  Heterosexual marriages fall apart because of instances of infidelity; whereas the likes of Dan Savage and Gore Vidal lobby the public to embrace an open sexual reality which is common among gay relationships.  The divorce rate shows that this is in no way palatable to the women of the world.

                Women want more of their mates not less; male homosexuals, it would seem, want to drive women to homosexuality as a refuge against their lack of perceiving an emotional difference between the sexes!  If monogamy is not a characteristic heterosexuals and homosexuals share then how could we ever have the same responsibilities; even if homosexual women are preternaturally bonded that is not natural as it requires no sacrifice of one’s nature as is inherent of heterosexuals and love in general?  I mean to whom are we responsible if we rule out our spouse and our God?  We are responsible to ourselves alone and that sort of scenario is never more than a sham.

                If you want your “loved one” to be able to see you in the hospital make them your medical power of attorney.  Heck, make them your durable power of attorney and have a signing ceremony.  What is at stake is the imposition of a set of “values” upon a group which are theologically opposed and that imposition was clearly represented by the fact that the legislator refused to add an amendment suggested by another legislator which would have allowed a conscience clause.  This clause would have protected religious institutions whose theology morally opposes the gay lifestyle.  It was refused as “bigoted”.

                So thank God for that thin line of committee legislators which separates this state from civil unions and probably separates every Catholic priests and myself from jail time.  So when the “inevitable” happens I’ll see you in the clink; that will be the only place one will be able to celebrate mass anyway!