Lust

Desires which well up inside,
Burning me as slowly they grow,
Now raging in my very soul,
Then consuming me with their fire,
Tempting—my guard is brushed aside—
A single coy look I cannot bear,
The wink of an eye or a long stare:
I will be overwhelmed with desire.
A dark and seductive voice calls me,
I strive to resist but want to give in,
My heart is crushed with this sin:
I don’t wish to listen to its call—
My consent is not entirely free—
It’s not fitting of my humanity,
But what appeal have I to dignity?
First I stumble, and then I fall.

Quote of the Day: Eye of a Needle--Some Context, Please

"And casting down the pieces of silver in the temple, [Judas Iscariot] departed: and went and hanged himself with an halter....And Jesus said to him: Go, and do thou in like manner."
(Matthew 27:5 and Luke 10:37)

This quote--or more accurately mash-up of two quotes--was told to me as a joke by another friend who has been active in the apologetics scene on campus. It is a good illustration as to why the Bible ought to be considered as a whole, with the proper context, and not merely as a series of random short statements.

Catholics recognize that the individual verses have merit to, but generally only when understood in the proper context. Not so for a number of our detractors, who prefer to quote random verses while ignoring their context: literary, cultural, historical, hermeneutic, and so on. To pick one often-misunderstood verse:

"And again I say to you: It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven" (Matthew 19:24).

This verse is often interpreted to mean that all rich men go to hell. Such an interpretation ignores that the passage continues:

"And Jesus beholding, said to them: With men this is impossible: but with God all things are possible" (Matthew 19:26).

That is to remind us that even this is possible for God. Our salvation is not from ourselves, not something which we earn--the Church has never taught salvation through works alone--but is a gift given from God, merited by faith. Even the poor man needs God's grace to be saved, even the poor man can lose salvation if he fails to find faith. He can choose to enter hell's gates or heaven's--a choice extended to him through God's mercy--though the way is not easy. If avarice is the sin of the rich, envy is every bit as much the sin of the poor.

There is also a bit of cultural context which is not found in the Bible itself, but in archeology and in history. The "Needle's Eye" also refers to a gate through which men (and camels) could pass in a time of siege. It was a narrow gate in the walls of a city--narrow and short because this is easier to defend from an attack--so narrow that a camel could fit only by first unburdening itself and crawling upon its knees (or bending down, as some put it). The lesson here then is this: rich men are not necessarily doomed to hell, but are instead told that they must not be burdened by their riches (they can leave these behind if necessary, and can use them wisely), and must be humble (as is indicated by a posture such as bowing). Prayer doesn't hurt in this endeavor, either (as per kneeling).

Wrath

A careless word of bad intent,
Gestures made from frustration,
Or a look betraying disdain—
These cause my mask to slip away.
My temperature seems to rise rapidly,
The blood in my arteries to boil,
My eyes becomes red as embers,
Complimenting the crimson hue of my face.
The hands by my side slowly contract,
Clenching into two tight fists,
They rise up to strike twin blows
As a scream escapes from pursed lips.
Contumacy leads to indignation,
My ego is bruised and swelling,
As I prepare to quarrel and fight,
My temper clouds my once bright mind.
A curse forms on my lips,
Breaking my sneer for a moment
As it is spit like venom at my opponent,
A foul wind passing between us.
My eyes now smolder with rage,
My visions has narrowed and focused,
The calming supplications of friends fade,
As I surrender the last vestiges of self-control.

Envy

I shake my fist in anger,
Looking up at the high-rises:
Those palatial penthouses,
The homes of those whom I despise.
What wrongs have they done me,
But to profit from my destitution—
Or so shall I perceive it—
My curse is upon their good fortune.
I long hope for the day they fear,
The revolution will come for them,
I’ll trample them under my boot,
And then their riches will be mine!
News of self-made men grown rich—
Met by their friends’ glad rejoicing—
Is to me heart-wrenchingly painful,
For this I save my most bitter tears.
For I cannot comprehend how
A man can gain such affluence
Without causing ten more to become poor,
To get ahead he’ll shove others aside.
I won’t accept charity from them,
Petty hand-outs to sycophantic greed,
Why should they enjoy plenty,
When there’s folks like me in need.

Brick by Brick: On Moving a Church

Our Sunday Visitor has a story up about a Church which is going to be moved "piece by piece, granite column by granite column" from a parish in Buffalo to another parish in the suburbs of Atlanta: 900 miles away!

"The 800-seat basilica is going to be moved, piece by piece, granite column by granite column 900 miles away to an Atlanta suburb, reflecting through its physical relocation a very real societal shift as Catholic populations decrease in the northeast and flourish in the south."

From the USA Today story:

Instead of building a neoclassical church, Wilbur's growing parish wants to buy classical-style St. Gerard's, take it apart and ship it 900 miles from Buffalo's depopulated east side to Norcross, Ga., for reassembly at Mary Our Queen parish. The parish has the endorsement of the Catholic archdiocese of Atlanta, the diocese of Buffalo and St. Gerard's former parishioners. All it needs is an additional $10 million.

Transplanting an 800-seat, century-old basilica would be an exceptional solution to an increasingly common problem: what to do about the growing inventory of closed churches across the Northeast and Midwest....

Many, like St. Gerard's, sit empty and decaying, waiting for demolition. A neighborhood loses an architectural grace note, and those who built it lose something they feel is sacred, according to Wendy Nicholas of the National Trust for Historic Preservation.

Advocates of the plan to move St. Gerard's say it could be a template for saving closed church buildings by finding them new parishes in the suburbs or the Sun Belt — "preservation by relocation," as Mary Our Queen's website calls it.

My take on this is that it's a good thing. Now, the parish Norcross would have built a very nice church in the neoclassical style otherwise. However, we are only just now coming out of several decades of architectural decay. This is evident in my own diocese--Austin--when one looks around the city itself. There are a few truly beautiful Churches, and I give props especially to the Parish of St Louis King of France, which built beautiful chapel for the Blessed Sacrament, and to St Williams parish in Round Rock with opened a large and awe-inspiring church a few years ago (one complaint: they didn't include an organ).

Unfortunately, a great many of the churches which have been built in the last 40 years or so are neither breath-taking nor inspiring. A few really do look like over-sanitized barns (a strange combination indeed), or like caves: wide though short, squat buildings which give one the sense of the horizontal component of the Church to the exclusion of the beautiful. These buildings often have a few redeeming features, but in general they lack any sense of the vertical or the catechetical. They may employ stained glass, but the glass depicts nothing. Many of the buildings are not permanent, which ought to be a feature of good churches, though I suppose in the case of a bad church, the temporary nature of the building is actually a blessing, since it will need to be rebuilt.

On the other hand, a great many good churches were built in the middle of the larger urban areas in the days when those areas were growing. Such areas are now shrinking, leaving many of our beautiful, inspiring, enduring churches abandoned, often sold into service "as performance spaces, catering halls, art galleries, restaurants, homes and, in Cincinnati, an Urban Outfitters retail store."

Thus, this plan seems to me to be a good solution to both problems. Also, the cost--$10 million--is actually no greater than the cost of building many other good churches: it actually may save the parish money (the cost of building a good church with seating for 800 can run to $20-30 million, or so I've heard). There is one curious point in the article which is easily overlooked:

The parish grew from fewer than 100 families to several thousand by World War II. In the years that followed, neighborhood residents began leaving for the suburbs. By 2007, St. Gerard's was down to about 100 families, and the diocese decided to close it.

This is really an aside, but the parish has returned to the same size that it was when first built; 100 families. Now, I know that they used to build parishes with the expectation that the parish would grow, but this seems a little sad to me. Ours is an age with greater material wealth than the one of 1911 (just prior to WWI); yet they were able to afford to not only build this marvelous church--this timeless building, which is indeed a basilica--but to maintain it through such times as the Great Depression. Now the same number of families are no longer able to keep the Church's doors open. And yet we complain when we have to endure Father's bi-annual fund-drive homily.

Avarice

A Flash of glittering gold is my art,
The metallic clinking of coins a symphony,
But these I enjoy in solitude,
Away from grasping hands and coveting eyes.
My cave is hidden away—secluded—
The sight of my treasure ensnares men:
Most become drunk with but a glimpse,
Risking all they are for a pittance share.
For such men I have naught to offer,
Not a coin shall part my company or care,
Though many a destitute beggar I encounter,
I will only tighten my purse’s strings.
Beggar or urchin may come calling to me,
But my fortress gates are unyielding:
The cries and pleas for mercy I hear,
These I detest and violently despise.
My fortunes I must tend, never straying,
Seldom do I venture from my abode,
For a miser cannot his treasure leave,
Nor can a dragon abandon his cave.
Piercing are the cries from the poor,
And scalding are the challenges of my foe,
Yet none is quite so haunting
As that soft voice beckoning me home.

Quote of the Day: Reagan on Torture

“By giving its advice and consent to ratification of this Convention, the Senate of the United States will demonstrate unequivocally our desire to bring an end to the abhorrent practice of torture.”
–Ronald Reagan on the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment

Ronald Reagan has always been amongst my heroes. He was not a perfect person, but he was the best president we've had in my lifetime, and well beyond; possibly the best ever, even with his flaws. And he moves up a little more in my opinion now that I know this about him. Lest anyone think that this policy endangered or endangers freedom, it is wise to remember:

"Freedom consists not in doing what we like, but in having the right to do what we ought"
-Pope John Paul the Great

Nicene Guys: Reflection about a Rib

“The LORD God cast the man into a deep sleep and, while he slept, took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. And the rib the LORD God took from the man, He made into a woman, and brought her to him. Then the man said, ‘She is now bone of my bone, flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, for from man she has been taken.’ For this reason a man leaves his father and mother, and clings to his wife, and the two become one flesh” (Genesis 2:21-24).

In his fifth “Theology of the Body” address as Pope, John Paul the Great notes about this passage that it is the first time in this Genesis account of creation in which the man Adam is identified as being explicitly male (and not generic man). It is only after the creation of a woman that the distinction between male and female really makes sense. In the words of Mr Christopher West, “Our bodies do not make sense without each other.” A man’s body does not make sense on his own, without a woman’s, and vice versa.

Read the rest!

Quote of the Day: Saint Ignatius on Obedience

"It is not hard to obey when we love the one whom we obey."
-Saint Ignatius

There have always been a great many dissenters within the Church, heretics who are not so honest as to acknowledge their heresy. They do not necessarily have much in common, but this one thing: not one of them really loves the Church as she is. Every one of them seems to demand that the Church should change in accordance with their heresy. Of course, if the Church were to heed such voices, she would be torn asunder, for there are wildly varying voices. Surrounded as she is by such cacophony, the Church is tasked only with listening to her Master's voice, and obeying it. For she is bride of Christ and not of the world, and it is His voice which speaks most reassuringly to her. "I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

The dissenters whom wish to cling to the Catholic identity if not the Faith have shown whom they love, and it is not the Church. Nor is is the Spirit Who speaks through her, nor her Bridegroom. For they refuse to heed te Lord's words, "If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me."

Pride

Standing head and shoulders above the rest
I look down upon friend and stranger
Fearing nothing-no one--I feel invincible,
Untouchable by the masses of men.
I'll pick a fight when feeling contentious,
I have never met another better than I,
Though never have I tried to seek Him:
Such a person doesn't well suit my tastes.
My laughter is loud and ever boastful,
It causes the decent man to shudder and cringe,
Many say my mirth is misplaced,
But he who laughs last has the slowest mind.
I maintain that obedience to superiors is virtuous,
None who know me would think such of me,
For they still don't understand this about me:
I'll never find He who is greater than I.
Yet I've been told by those who would be my friends
That I am too eccentric, or a hypocrite:
That my obstinacy is infuriating to them;
Since when is a little pride the source of such discord?

The Tebow Ad Controversy

It appears that there is quite a bit of controversy over the ads to be aired by Focus on the Family starring the Tebows. A number of womyn's groups take issue with the fact that Mrs Pam Tebow chose not to have an abortion during a life-threatening pregnancy. She is, of course, alive and well, as is her son Mr Tim Tebow. Now Mr Mathew Archibold of the Creative Minority Report has the latest round of controversy: the President of the Center for Reproductive Freedom, Ms Nancy Northup, is accusing Mrs Tebow of being a liar. From the Creative Minority Report:

Let's get this straight. The Center for Reproductive Rights is calling Tim Tebow's mother a liar because she's saying that an abortion was recommended to her in a country where abortion is illegal.

Are these people so insane that they can't believe a woman turned down an abortion? I know. I know. With all the fringe benefits of abortion including a lifetime of guilt, depression, higher risk of suicide, increased chance of infertility and cancer who could say no to an abortion, right?

And CRR's logic falls apart in that aren't they the same ones who say if you make abortion illegal, the same number of abortions would still occur but they'll be performed illegally and dangerously? In one of their own documents they say, "The Court's decision in Roe v. Wade all but ended the back-alley and self-induced abortions that once killed hundreds if not thousands of women each year."

But wait?! Abortion was illegal in this country before that, right? So how did all those women die? So, I guess, abortions still take place even when it's illegal, huh? I mean, did they not see Vera Drake?

But wait, there's more. In the Philippines, as in many other non-Islamic countries which have prohibitions against abortion, there are exceptions made in the law for the case of the mother's life. More precisely, there is a distinction between abortion--the deliberate murder of the unborn child--and life-saving surgery to correct, say, an ectopic pregnancy, in which the fallopian tube is removed, which results in the unfortunate death of the embryo. Such a procedure would have been legal in Mrs Tebow's case, even in the Philippines.

And, along with Mr Archibold, Mr Marcel Lejeune of the Aggie Catholics blog has one more point to add to this:

As CMR points out - the halftime show will have The Who performing. This is a group who is headed up by a man caught with child pornography.

In other words, a man who admitted to having child porn is not controversial at all, while a woman who decided to CHOOSE to keep her baby is a scandal. I know a lot of other women that kept their babies - the mothers of all who think keeping a baby is crazy-talk.

If only rock stars could marry, and if only women were allowed to be rock stars, I'm sure we wouldn't see cases like that of Mr Townsend. Still, it is quite shocking that the bigger scandal is the not-yet-public, not-yet-aired commercials by Mrs Tebow and not the child pornography scandal of the entertainment. You can bet that if Townsend was a priest instead of a rock star, there would be all sorts of public outcry over this; but since Townsend is a rock star, the Tebows' ad is the biggest controversy. After all, the media, the lawyers, and especially groups like Center for Reproductive Freedom gain nothing from tarring the rock star profession (as opposed to the clergy, a small fraction of whom are also guilty of this kind of thing). The children don't take center stage in this controversy; then again, groups like the Center for Reproductive Freedom never were too big on protecting children.

Nicene Guys: Explanations in Good Faith

"To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible."
--Saint Thomas Aquinas

Since today is the feast day of Saint Thomas Aquinas, a few words of wisdom from him are in order. In school, St Thomas was often teased by his peers, who though him to be dumb--they called him "the dumb ox"--yet ironically he was one of the greatest thinkers ever to live. To return bring the irony full circle, let me note that everybody thought I was a smart person in school, and now I will add my own thoughts, which will be considerably less enlightening than those of St Thomas.

I have said before that faith is like a pair of glasses--it really does alter one's perception of the world. Things which were once muddled can become clear, and things which were lost in the blur become visible. Gaining (or losing) one's faith really does change how one views the world. The change is rarely overnight--it's often gradual--but such things have happened before. Sometimes the change is not so much in what we see, but how we interpret it.

Read the Rest!

Quote of the Day: Newman on Resentment

"It is very difficult to get up resentment towards persons whom one has never seen." --Venerable John Newman

Yet, in spite of Newman's healthy observation, there is much resentment in the world. To be fair, it is more accurate to say that it is difficult to resent a person with whom we have never interacted. In Newman's day, that meant for the most part only people whom we have met in person. To meet in person is to shed anonymity, to attach a face to one's actions and a name to one's words.

Most such meetings in person have been a great deal more civil than "virtual meetings." Might it be because of the anonymity or at least the distance afforded by the internet? I know of any number of websites which require a person to be a registered member before posting comments--my other site included. For whatever reason, the comments on such sites tend to be more civil when the threat of banishment looms--but perhaps also because in giving a name, one steps out of anonymity and places one's own reputation on the line as well.

Quote of the Day: Chesterton on Dogma

"There are two kinds of people in the world, the conscious dogmatists and the unconscious dogmatists. I have always found myself that the unconscious dogmatists were by far the most dogmatic."
-G.K. Chesterton

Always one to look at the world in an unconventional manner, Chesterton exemplifies what I will call, for lack of a better word, a true freethinking Catholic. I will not claim to know all of the thoughts of every self-professed "skeptic," nor will I claim that there are no true skeptics (I know a handful of skeptics who seem to me to be honest and genuine in their skepticism). There are those who live a self-consistent life outside the Church: who call a thing absurd and then treat it as ridiculous, who will on occasion find themselves on the same side as the Church and will nevertheless retain their point of view, who are occasionally able to live as if skeptical about everything unless and until it justifies itself.

Unfortunately, such people are a rare breed. Chesterton once remarked that in a way, the Church made sense the the average person--even the non-believer--in many of her practices and rituals. Why, for example, should people not gather together to sing praises or anthems? What better representation of God's infinite mercy than bread and wine: our staple food and the drink of merriment for time immemorial? Yet, the man who would be unconsciously dogmatic does so in a far more dogmatic manner. He rejects the dogma of transubstantiation, yet defends to the last such dogma as the right to an education: a right which was not universally possible as recently as a few hundred years ago. He rejects the dogma of spiritual salvation, and yet holds rigidly to the dogma of economic or social salvation. He practically rejects the dogma of man, and yet insists upon the dogma that such a creature has rights without duties.

Most of the modern skeptics are tragically only selectively so. They are perpetually skeptical of the Church, because she upholds her dogmas and doctrines, yet not for a moment do they stop to question their own.

Nicene Guys: Abortion, Torture, and the Culture of Death

The Texas Alliance for Life—along with the Diocese of Austin—commemorated the infamous Roe v Wade and Doe v Bolton decisions on Saturday. It was a day filled with Masses and marches, rosaries and rhetoric, statistics (over 50 million dead in the American abortion holocaust alone) and speeches—of prayer and politics. The problem in America—indeed, in what was and may someday again be Christendom—is one not merely of politics, but also of culture. The late (and perhaps great) president Ronald Reagan once referred to the Soviet Union as the evil empire; it was true, but the late and certainly great Pope John Paul II offered a more profound critique of culture when he called ours “the culture of death.”

Read the Rest!

Father Zuhlsdorf on Marriage Prep

Father Zuhlsdorf has posted (and commented upon) an article about the Diocese's of Phoenix approach to marriage preparation: more preparation, and a longer period (nine months minimum instead of the usual six). My fiancee and I are currently undergoing marriage preparation from my parish, and are also taking an NFP class from the couple-to-couple league; on the latter, subject, I think that any couple who is planning to get married ought to at least take an NFP class, but that's a topic for another post.

As for marriage preparation, I have a few brief thoughts. First, our marriage preparation is done mostly by parish volunteers, and I am grateful for their effort and time. Second, many of the people who are taking our marriage prep class haven't had some conversations which I'd think would be prerequisites to engagement, such as: "Do you want to have children?" "No." "Really? 'Cause I want to have a big family."

Then there is the expense (thankfully, they will wave the cost for some couples who really need it): most of our prep classes ran between $175-350 depending on which class. Given that every church in Austin seems to want at least $600-800 for the wedding, and then throw in the hidden expenses at some ("What do you mean we have to pay your organist $300? We have a friend who is coming to play for us!"), and pretty soon the lion's share of the budget is going to church-related expenses (we're trying to keep the total cost under $5K, since we're young and poor). The expense combined with the time commitment to the course may make it hard to make the requirements more stringent--then again, if anybody is complaining about a several-month commitment as preparation for a lifelong one, he may be ignoring the bigger problem--may make it difficult to implement (more people may just choose to eschew church weddings).

My main comment, though, on the marriage preparation aspects are that it's a good thing that the Diocese of Phoenix is trying to increase the amount of preparation given to couples. Currently, the preparation is ok--and I think I'm in one of the better preparation courses--but it could be better. Our seems at times to be taught to the lowest-common-denominator, which is rarely useful for the rest of us. It has sparked some good conversations between my fiancee and I already, but a more advanced preparation would be welcome. Unfortunately, the only way to do that is to lengthen the amount of time required for preparation, because in this case, sacrificing the lowest-common-denominator is not a good policy to pursue.

Quote of the Day: On Language, and the Sexes

"We may dismiss the idea that masculine pronouns are misleading. Words are misleading when they mislead. If nobody is mislead by a turn of phrase, it is not misleading, and there is no one over the age of three who has been been fooled by 'he' into thinking that women are unpersons. It is not possible to produce a woman who believed (until feminists cleared things up) that 'He who hesitates is lost' did not apply to her....Feminist linguistic reform is an attempt to make all thought whatsoever concern feminism to the exclusion of everything else."
-Michael Levin

I might add that this quote is somewhat applicable to the other ideologies which hope to usurp and/or subvert the English language. However, the feminist revisionists are at least somewhat consistent in that they consistently want to abolish the use of "he," "him," "man," etc as generic (pro)nouns. Thus, these are about the only "small" words which remain too big for the minds of the average feminist--a pity, since one often needs to use small words when communicating with many such womyn.

On another note, Ms Danielle Bean has written an article about some of the differences between husbands and wives. It's certainly worth a look--unless you really believe that there are no differences between womyn and men, in which case you probably object to the use of the generic "man" (not to mention the common spelling "women") and stopped reading this by the end of the quote.

Three Quotes for Today

I've been playing around with the idea of bringing back my "quote of the day" posts--if not daily. There are three quotes for today. First, since today is the anniversary of what is and may likely be ever-remembered as the most notorious pair of Supreme Court rulings ever handed down--Roe v Wade and Doe v Bolton--a quote from St John Chrysostom is in order:

"Why sow where the ground makes it its care to destroy the fruit? where there are many efforts at abortion? where there is murder before the birth? for even the harlot thou dost not let continue a mere harlot, but makest her a murderer also. You see how drunkenness leads to whoredom, whoredom to adultery, adultery to murder; or rather something ... See Moreeven worse than murder. For I have no name to give it, since it does not take off the thing born, but prevents its being born. Why then dost thou abuse the gift of God, and fight with His laws, and follow after what is a curse as if a blessing, and make the chamber of procreation a chamber for murder, and arm the woman that was given for childbearing unto slaughter? For with a view to drawing more money by being agreeable and an object of longing to her lovers, even this she is not backward to do, so heaping upon thy head a great pile of fire. For even if the daring deed be hers, yet the causing of it is thine."

Second, a quote from the book which I'm reading, The Gods of Atheism by Fr Vincent Micelli:

"The Christian affirmation of the existence of God is not a 'blik,' that is, a fundamental attitude or commitment to see a being in a certain way, even though empirical reality cannot verify this being or view of the being. Christians find God in the realm of the empirical; for them, a universe of being, beauty, truth, order convinces their reason about the existence of its Author. Through faith, however, Christians know that God entered human history through the person of Jesus Christ who infallibly proved Himself to be God by an overwhelming number of wondrous deeds and signs, culminating in His physical resurrection from the dead. There is nothing exclusively subjectivistic about this knowledge. Certainly, this unique God of the Christian cannot be asserted to be compatible with anything and everything. He is the God of Abraham, Isaac, Joseph, of the Old and New Testaments, unique in Nature, powers, and transcendent ways of acting. As for the New Testament truth that God was in Jesus, St. Paul relates his own witness and the eye-witness of over five hundred others [many of whom were still alive while St Paul was writing] who saw, touched, ate, and drank with the risen Lord. Indeed so empirically certain is St. Paul of the physical, bodily resurrection of Jesus, his Lord and God, that he bases the life of his mission and of Christianity on the empirical historicity of this event. 'If Christ is not risen, then our preaching is in vain.' The early Christians gladly subjected their belief to concrete empirical tests; there was nothing blind or esoteric about their faith, grounded as it was on historical facticity."

And finally, a quote from G K Chesterton's most undervalued work, Heretics:

"An imbecile habit has arisen in modern controversy of saying that such and such a creed can be held in one age, but cannot be held in another. Some dogma, we are told, was credible in the twelfth century but is not credible in the twentieth. You might as well say that a certain philosophy can be believed on Mondays, but cannot be believed on Tuesdays. Your might as well say of a view of the Cosmos that it was suitable to a half past four. What a man can believe depends on his philosophy, not upon the clock or the century. If a man believes in unalterable natural law, he cannot believe in any miracle in any age."

Note that Chesterton's use of "natural law" refers to the laws of nature (physics or "natural science"), not to the Natural Law philosophy (a philosophy pertaining to morality). And now a discussion question: how are these three quotes related?

Book Review (Excerpt): "The Line Through the Heart"

It's been up for a while now, but I only recently found the site where the ISI book reviews get published. Here, then, is the link to my review of Professor J Budziszewski's "The Line Through the Heart: Natural Law as Fact, Theory, and Sign of Contradiction." The book itself was well-written; Budziszewski is fast becoming one of my favorite writers and speakers, and is also one of the most welcoming professors I've met. Here is an excerpt of the review:

There are some who would have the Second Tablet of the Decalogue while discarding the first. There is, therefore, a movement to divorce the morality of natural law from its theology—a sort of “Second Tablet Project” as Budziszewski calls it.

“The Second Tablet Project is probably more popular among lukewarm religious believers who wish to make the moral law palatable to nonbelievers than it is among nonbelievers themselves. Nonbelievers who want to get rid of the first tablet usually have doubts about the second, too—and for the same reasons.”

Such attempts to retain morality are doomed to failure. It has become something of a favorite expression of the popular apologist Mark Shea that “You can’t derive (or obtain) an ‘ought’ merely from an ‘is.’” Morality is reduced at best to a form of prudence, a consequentialist thing which can be circumvented. Morality is reduced to little better than legalism.

You can read the whole thing here.

Also, I would highly recommend joining ISI to anyone in academia (and beyond). Students can join for free here.

WDTPRS on Washinton Post's Plug for Priestettes, And Nicene Guys on the Golden Calf

Or, as father Z calls them, "wymynprysssstsssssss." And as an aside, one of his readers asks
"What particular “heresy” does this garbage fall under, I wonder?" My answer is: neo-Montanism. Or maybe just (post) modernity. Meanwhile, my latest (though not really greatest) piece is up on the Nicene Guys blog: "The Golden Calf of Narcissism:"

When the people became aware of Moses' delay in coming down from the mountain, they gathered around Aaron and said to him, "Come, make us a god who will be our leader; as for the man Moses who brought us out of the land of Egypt, we do not know what has happened to him." Aaron replied, "Have your wives and sons and daughters take off the golden earrings they are wearing, and bring them to me." So all the people took off their earrings and brought them to Aaron, who accepted their offering, and fashioning this gold with a graving tool, made a molten calf. Then they cried out, "This is your God, O Israel, who brought you out of the land of Egypt." ( Exodus 32:1-4)

So begins the story of the golden calf—Israel’s “sacred cow”—as recorded in the Book of Exodus. Many a person hears this story and laughs at it, or at the foolish Israelites who would abandon God so easily. Others take more heed of the literally dozens and more homilies for the Sunday Masses about not making idols for ourselves, not worshiping the things of this world, and of being faithful only to God. While these are good lessons to draw from this passage, there is another and often-overlooked lesson which can be drawn.

Read thou the rest of it!

Nicene Guys Feed: Contraception and Discernment

A little more than three years ago, when I first moved to Austin, I had very few friends of my own in the area. The nearest and dearest person I knew was my brother, who at the time lived less than a mile away from my apartment complex. He was a residential assistant at the time, and so lived in the dorms and had all of the duties and responsibilities which go with that post. I spent a good deal of my free time with him at St Edward’s, but he often had to make rounds or resolve some crisis or other, and so I spent a good deal of time talking to his fellow RAs and his residents.

I remember very few specific conversations which I had, but one stands out a bit in my mind today. One of the residents had taken up riding horses—my favorite activity growing up, and a thing which I still dearly miss—and so I had frequent short conversations with her. We talked a few times about horses, but on this particular night, we talked about something else. I don’t specifically remember how we got onto the topic of birth control and religion, but we did. It actually may have been a conversation about religion—she was an Anglican of some sort—but it drifted into the realm of birth-control. At some point, she mentioned that some relatives of hers were Catholics and that they insisted that one couldn’t use birth control. They didn’t know why they couldn’t, only that they couldn’t BECAUSE THE CHURCH SAYS SO.

Read the Rest!

Nicene Guys: Some Thoughts Concerning the Permanence and Sacramentality of Marriage

The topic of marriage has been on my mind quite a bit as of late. My fiancée and I are in the midst of our wedding (and marriage) planning. We just sent out the cards announcing date and time (so save the date!), and I've been discussing suits with my groomsmen. She's changed her bridesmaids' outfits a couple of times (making picking the aforementioned suits a bit more difficult), and has been meeting with her tailor to make the wedding gown. Today my fiancée and I begin our marriage preparation classes, and last night was the first of three NFP classes. We've even found a little time to read up on some materials and go to a few extra talks to prepare us for marriage: Fulton Sheen, John Paul the Great, Christopher West, and even a few discussions with the local priest.

All of this has caused me to think a bit about the theology which underlies marriage, especially in light of the high divorce rates. There are many people who believe that marriage ought not to be necessarily permanent, and others who want theirs to be permanent, but excuse failed marriages by saying "Too bad, so sad," but then turn around and complain about the Church's teaching against "remarriage" after a divorce.

Read the rest.

Nicene Guys Feed: Preaching to the Preachers: My Reflection Concerning Preaching

The article was originally delivered as a sort of sermon or reflection to the members of the St Martin de Porres Chapter of the Southern province of Lay Dominicans. In other words, it was preached to members of the Order of Preachers. In writing it out for print, there have been a few small changes made--it is always difficult to transcribe the spoken word into the written word, and so at times something is lost in transcription. I have done my best to do this, and hope this serves as good inspiration to those who need it, and especially that it is pleasing to God, to whom all preaching is properly dedicated.

“You are the salt of the earth; but if the salt loses its strength, what shall it be salted with? It is no longer of any use but to be thrown out and trodden underfoot by men. You are the light of the world….let your light shine before men, in order that they may see your good works and give glory to God.” (Matthew 5:13-14;16)

In the Gospel according to St Matthew, these words immediately follow the beatitudes in the Sermon on the Mount. They are, in a sense, the first time in the Bible in which Jesus tells his disciples that they, too, will be called upon to preach. But what is preaching, and what is its goal, and how do we do it?

Read the rest at the Nicene Guys' site.