Finding a Solution to the Church's Dwindling Clergy Problem

In a previous post, I mentioned that the Catholic Church is facing a dilema. The Church has dwindling numbers in its seminaries. The dilema is this: there are a number of homophilic men who are willing to enter the seminaries, to become priests; however, homosexuals are the chief group of sex-abuse offenders among the Church's clergy.

The Catholic Church today is in a very tight situation. On the one hand, eliminating homophiles from the seminaries would certainly reduce the sex-abuse scandals. However, they would also be throwing out many faithful clergymen without fully eliminating the problem. And with dwindling numbers of priests, this could be disastrous as well.Solutions to this problem seem to be few and far between, and the Church is in a "damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't" position.

I later said that I had a proposal, a possible, if somewhat farfetched, solution to this problem. The solution has several prongs, some more "doable" than others.
The first and most obvious step is to use the existing priests more efficiently. If we have a shortfall, why do some parishes have so many priests? No parish should absolutely need more than two; my own home parish has one single priest who is shared with a neighboring parish (about 30 miles away). There are a number of things that priests are needed to do, such as adminstering most sacrements, particularly Reconciliation, Holy Communion, and Last Rites/Annointing of the Sick (Confirmation and Ordination require a bishop, Baptism and Marriages may be performed by a deacon; more on this later). Working in the seminaries to train other for the priesthood is another thing that priests are needed for. However, in a time of during which we are in need of more priests, it make no sense to be using priests as principals of Catholic schools, for example. Much as there are a number of predominantly hispanic Catholics in the US, we also don't necessarily need multiple priests at each parish to give both English and Spanish Masses: the Homily can be given by a deacon where necessary, and giving the rest of the Mass in English could actually prove to be helpful to Hispanics who are trying to learn the language.
This brings me to the second phase of my proposal: the encouragement of more vocations for permanent deacons*. In theory, the vocation of the diaconate should attract more people that the priesthood. This is for a variety of reasons: deacons can be married, they can raise a family, they can hold a seperate career. Deacons are not a complete replacement for priests. However, they can fulfill many of the roles that would otherwise reuire a priest. As mentioned before, deacons can perform baptisms and weddings; they can also preside at a communion service**, as well as present the homily at a Mass. In many cases. deacons are also charged with teaching in the community (a duty related to some extent with the homily) and administering to the sick***. In short, attracting more men to the permanent diaconate will help relieve some of the strain on the Church's dwindling numbers of priests.

Neither of these two phases are particularly farfetched. The former involves reorganization of the priests, the latter involves actively attempting to attract more men to the diaconate. I don't think I've ever heard a homily in which the priest has called on men to consider whether they are being called to the diaconate, and direct calls to the priesthood in homilies have been almost as rare. However, there is one more phase to this proposal, one which would help increase the number of priestly vocations. It is the least implementable phase for several reasons, but if implemented would solve a few problems, both for the Church and for society in general.
The final part of my proposal is this: the Church should begin grooming children for the vocation of priesthood at a younger age. Now, there are both some practical and some impractical points to this. Practically speaking, this means that the Catholic schools should place more emphasis on the importance of the priesthood to the Church. That part is easy enough an may hopefully attract a few more young men to the Church.
The "less" practical side is that the Church could institute a form of adoption center for "unwanted" children. Such a center could take children of a certain (maximum?) age as a form of adoption. These children would be given a religious education, a dormitory room to live in, and all of the necessities of life needed (short of, perhaps, a true mother and father). In short, the Church would rescue unwanted children, some of whom may have otherwise been aborted, others who would have likely turned to a life of crime; it would teach them, giving them a better education than many children are given today. In return, these children would then dedicate their adult lives to the Church.
Certainly, not all of them would become future priests; but a good number of them certainly would; others may take up the vocational call of the diaconate. Most would probably end up very faithful to the Church: those who do not grow up to become priests, and there would certainly be some, would hopefully be gratefull enough to contribute financially to sustaingin these adoption centers. And, as the adoption centers would be preparing them for a possible future as priests, and since it would be encouraging them to seriously consider this vocation (unlike the secular world, which tends to do the exact opposite), odd are that a large number of these people would eventually enter the priestly vocation. This could create a great increase in the future numbers of priests.
This last phase is certainly imperfect. The greatest problem with it is that it would pose at the least a short-term strain on the Church's resources, both financial and in terms of personnel. If an operating cost of $10000/year is used, then if such a center had 10 children per year from infant to 18, the total cost of one such center would be $1.8 million/year. Unfortunately, taking an optimistic estimate that 10% of these children go on to becom priests, the result is that the Church will only gain one person to the vocation for an anual cost of $1.8 million (excluding the costs of operating a seminary). This becomes exceedingly expesnive to work out (the single biggest flaw in this phase). However, this expense may in part be offset if some of the "alumni" of such programs are encouraged to donate back to the program. Also, if the older members of such a center attempted to get jobs while living there, the costs could be slightly offset, as well. As a side benefit, the value of provding for one's own living would be learned by many of these people: a lesson needed by far too many in today's world.
It's unfortunately not a perfect plan (because of the prohibitve cost). However, it would benefit everyone involved. Tt would provide benefits to the Church in that if enough of these pre-seminaries were formed, the Church could swell the ranks of its priests again. It would benefit society (beyond just the fact that there would be more priests to go round), as we would have these centers that would take in the "unwanted" children of society that tragically tend to be viewed as a problem with not permanent solution as of yet. And of course, it would benefit the children themselves, as they would perhaps not gain a tradition family in the sense of a mother and father, but would at least be fed and cared for, well educated, and yes, loved by the people placed in charge of caring for them via the pre-seminary adoption center.
Should a means of overcoming the financial barrier be found, this would be a powerfull solution to the problem of the dwindling numbers of priests in the US. I gave the scenario of having a single center: imagine hundred of these centers, several in each state, providing for society's unwanted children, and in return seeing hundreds of additional people entering the priestly vocation each year as a result.


*The permanent vocation of the diaconate holds some special attraaction for me personally. I have been considering whether or not I have a call to this vocation. However, since the USCCB requires a minimum age of 35 years, I still have a long time to discern this vocation.
**However, the deacon cannot actually perfor the actual transubstantiation; this is a "power" reserved for priests (it is actually God Himself who does the transubstantiation, the priest acts as the "conduit" or "facilitator" for lack of better terms).
***The deacon may administered the Viaticum Communion, ie Holy Communion for a person who is nearing death; however, a priest is still required to actually perform the transubstantiation. The Sacrament of the Annointing of the Sick (aka Last Rites or Extreme Unction) must be performed/administered by a priest. Deacons are, in fact, often the ones charged with taking cmmunion to the infirm or elderly.

Zoos, Evolution, and Philosophy

The London England zoo will be featuring a new display: humans. The hatred the curators have of of humanity shows through with the label given to the display: "plague species." According to the zoo's spokeswoman, the idea behind the display is

"Seeing people in a different environment, among other animals ... teaches members of the public that the human is just another primate.”

Chalk up another case for teaching people the difference between science (evolution) and philosophy (the difference between humans and animals). The theory of evolution does nothing one way or the other to the concept of having a soul: it says nothing whatsoever on this point. However, the philosophy that came from it claims that since man descended from the beasts, he must be no greater than the beasts.

This is a tragic philosophy, which arguably allows for the justification of such atrocities as abortion and euthanasia. After all, it follows that if man is no different than other animals, then he can have no soul; if if man has no soul, then neither can a fetus. Should a fetus have no soul, then a just case could be made for its termination: being not yet developed physically as a human (until later stages), the argument could be made that the fetus is not human. Yes, there are arguments against abortion from libertarian and even atheistic stands, but they are mere arguments of logic that can be defeated by other, similar arguments; the philosophical argument that hinges upon the existence of a soul is alone invincible. Certainly, no qualm could be had about aborting an embryo, especially for the purpose of harvesting stem cells that could potentially cure diseases. Neither could a reasonable case ultimately be made to keep an infirm person alive and in a state of pain.

It is the possession of the soul that ultimately makes these things wrong. For this possession of a soul means that we are created in the image of God Himself. And this possession of a soul with a physical body is nothing short of an adumbration of the Hypostatic Union. Just as Jesus Christ was both fully God and fully human, we are fully beast and fully astral. That is, we as humans posses two natures, one that is our animal nature, our physical, mortal bodies and one that that is spiritual, our immortal and everlasting souls.

Evolution, when used alone as a scientific theory, poses no real threat to Christianity or Biblical principles. It is the bastardized and secularized philosophy that is formed from it that poses a true threat. And this threat is truly a great one, leading in it many forms to all of the greatest atrocities of our time and many from past times: abortion, euthanasia, the gulags and concentration camps, the holocaust, slavery, and even to an extent moral relativism. These all require that the victim be reduced to an inhuman status: one without a soul. This is exactly what the secularixed evolutionary philosophy does to people.

The Right to a Child?

The Hoover Institute's Jennifer Roback Morse argues today that there is no absolute "right" to have a baby. This is a very slippery slope to be on, but (unlikein a classical "slippery slope" scenario) the slope slips in several directions.

On the one hand, it can be argued that there is an absolute right to have a child, and that this is a fundamental right. This is dangerous ground on which to tread. Certainly, there are some individuals to whom this right is assumed to be denied: for example, very young minors. But what of the single woman who has no steady income who can barely support herself: does she have the right to have a baby? Or the incarcerated criminal: does he? And the family consisting of a drunken husband and his crack-addicted wife: do they have this right?

But on the other hand, does the government have the right to regulate this amonhst people? Should the government impose a childbirth limit, as in China? Should the government be able to step in to force an insemination clinic to inseminate a lesbian when they have moral objections to doing so?

A general "no" answer can't be applied to all these questions, but answering "yes" as a rule is also disastrous. Guadalupe Benitez, the woman mentioned by Morse in her article, is suing the donor clinic that denied her insemination. If the courts rule on this case, we may be faced with unfavorable answers to some or all of these questions that I've posed. Answering no to any of the first set of questions will certainly open the gates for "yes" answers to the second set (the last question in this set is actually implied by the other two). On the other hand, is it really a good idea to demand that government not step in at all in the case of the first set of questions, for fear of it grabbing authority to do that suggested in the second set?

The best answer here therefore is more complicated than the simplest. People are not entitled to have babies of their own, and it is certainly not a fundamental right. In the cases presented by affirming the first set of questions, the rights of the child are dismissed, and he or she becomes mere property. This is, in some sense, related to my earlier post about the relevance of the soul to humans: the soul is the source of human dignity, which in turn implies the necessity of human rights. Treating a person as property disregards this dignity (and therefore these rights). However, government intervention would more likely than not force an abortion upon the first and third cases, thus disregarding the most fundamental of human rights: the right to life.

So what is the sane, logical means of resolving these problems? First, government and society must recognize a simple biological fact: it takes two people, one man and one woman, to bring a human life into this world. This element must be considered as a criterion for the "priviliege" of having a child. Certainly, in the case of sper donor clinics, the doctors working in the clinic should be allowed to judge whether they believe that their patient should be allowed for "treatment." This simply goes back to the argument of the rights of store owners or workers to refuse non-vital services. This is doubly true when considering that the doctors at the said clinic are effectively acting as a substitute for the male element of the biological criterion.

In an ideal society, the biological criterion would mean more than than the mere existence of a male and a female at some point in the process. Rather, both would then be committed to raising the child through adulthood. Now, this is a clear idealization, and cannot be realized even in an ideal society (due to circumstance such as the death of one or both parents). However, it is only common sense that this should be considered as a part of the criterion.

Another consideration is economic status. The person who cannot possibly afford to support a child should not have that child. This also makes sense: if a person can't feed his or her child, then he or she is compromising that child's right to live, or a part of that right. This is again true for the case of an abusive parent: the child's rights to life and liberty are being partially of fully compromised.

Finally, there are the "special" cases. The alcoholic or drug-addicted mother, or the incestruos parents, are compromising a child's rights as well, by giving undue developmental stresses that may partially or fully endanger the child's right to life through risking deformities or handicaps that tend to occur in these situations.

Ultimately, I suspect, a true, "broad" solution cannot be applied. The best course of action would be to consider cases on an individual basis. The government can't mandate that a person not get pregnant via the natural means, and even if it could there would be no way to enforce such a law. Further, government mandated abortions are a cruel solution, curing the disease by killing the patient. However, intervention may take place in extreme cases by taking the child away from his or her parents. We see this applied in some cases today, as in cases of abuse. The government can also make sperm donor clinics illegal, or place controls on them, or allow for the staff of such clinics to make moral judgements as they see fit. A perfect solution? No. But a better one than would be handed down to us by attempting to answer the problem in broad terms.



*Note: most of this actually applies to allowing people to have a child in the sense of allowing them to have a child that they otherwise wouldn't have had, ie via adoption or via pregnancy after entering these circumstances. Once a person is pregnant, everything should be done to allow the child to be born healthy, and to live his or her life; however, in some cases some form of community or government intervention is, unfortunately, needed. The best course is for community, ie family and close friends, to step in to intervene positively. This can be done by contributing financial support in the case of the need for it (not via the government, however); by helping with counselling for the alcoholc or drug-addicted person; and in the most extreme cases, by taking the child away.

**The best case scenario is that the courts will remain wisely silent on these issues, but I suspect that is too much to hope for.

***The government, for its part, needs to stop financing the single women who go out and get themselves pregnant. These people should rely on the community for support, as guaranteed government assistance only seems to encourage some women to get pregnant for the free ride. If the parent can't support her child, the government should take him or her away and put him or her up for adoption; this would effectively have the government fulfilling the same role that it already fulfills in supporting children until adulthood, while not encouraging single women who want a fre ride in life to get pregnant. I say this in spite of my strong dislike of having the government interfere in much of anything, especially of raising children.

****I will be addressing the last note in a future post on, of all things, the Church.

Homosexual Priests?

The Vatican has drawn up a document that would block homosexuals from entering the seminary for training as priests. This is considered the first major "controversy" to be faced by the Pope as concerned with the future direction of the Church. The document itself would remove homosexuals (homophilics) from the seminary of the basis of "fairness." The document states that their position is unfair to them and unfair to the heterosexual (heterophilic) members of the seminary, because of the challenge of temptation placed on these men, and because this temptation would cause the heterosexual seminarians to feel uncomfortable.
As anyone who's been reading this blog would know, I'm not a "pro-homosexual" person. Probably close to 30% on the posts on this blog have been about homosexuality, and they have treated it as a sin. That being said, the Pope should rejec tthis document in favor of a different kind of seminary reform. Namely, homophiles should be considered for entry into seminaries, but there should be a more stringent screening process in general.
There are a few things to be said in this regard. First, it is not the attraction that is the sin: this is a mere perversion. The sin itself lies in actually having sexual relations with a person of the same sex. The word "homosexual" can be and is applied to both situations, the one in which there is attraction and the one in which the sexual relations have occured.
Second, the seminarians must take oaths of celibacy, so their sexual orientations should be irrelevant. Have there been cases where the oath hasn't been honored? Yes, a fairly high rate: 4%, and yes, most of these were homosexuals. Statistically speaking, it is impossible to accurately predict what percentage of the clergy is homophilic. However, estimates range between 10% and 50%. Even using the "conservative" estimate of 10%, and blaming all of the abuses on these people, this means that 60% of homophilic priests are faithful to their vows. We know that not all of the abuse cases have been by homosexuals, so the "faithfullness" ratio is most certainly higher than 60%.
Certainly, the responsibility of this failure must ultimately lie with the individual. However, these failure rates, though perhaps low compared to the genral population, are still considerable enough to warrant re-evaluating the training given to the priests in the seminaries. And knowing that the majority of sex-abuse cases occur in an identifiable minority of priests, namely those attracted to people of the same sex, suggests that the Church should certainly re-evaluate its celibacy training program and selection process; there isn't much of a selection process at all, perhaps due in part to the declining number of seminarians, from nearly 39600 in 1966 to just 4800 in 1999.
The Catholic Church today is in a very tight situation. On the one hand, eliminating homophiles from the seminaries would certainly reduce the sex-abuse scandals. However, they would also be throwing out many faithful clergymen without fully eliminating the problem. And with dwindling numbers of priests, this could be disastrous as well.
Solutions to this problem seem to be few and far between, and the Church is in a "damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't" position. The right thing to do now is to pray for the Holy Spirit's guidance for the Pope, the Vatican, and the Church as a decision is reached on this matter.

One Disaster Scenario

Today, CNN has an interesting report: "Expert: Katrina could unleash disaster." No kidding. It gets better:

Van Heerden described the dire possibilities.

"Imagine you're the poor person who decides not to evacuate: Your house will disintegrate around you. The best you'll be able to do is hang on to a light pole, and while you're hanging on, the fire ants from all the mounds -- of which there is two per yard on average -- will clamber up that same pole. And eventually, the fire ants will win."

My question is, where do they find these people?

It's a Tragic World

This morning as I was driving home from Mass, I was listening to the radio. During one of the all-too-frequent commercial breaks, I heard an add from a home DNA testing kit. The purpose of this kit was to determine whether a child was related to a man: to determine whether the men is the child's actual father. As I heard this add, I stopped to think about some of the implications. I had to wonder, what kind of sad world exists where this situation can occur, and occur frequently enough for such a product to be marketable?
Are there really than many women who are faitheless to their significant others, that many men who have casual sexual relations? In order for there to be any question as to who a child's father is, the mother would have had to have slept with multiple men in a short span of time. As in within a month or so. I look at how long it takes me to establish any kind of meaningfull relationship with somebody: the span is, at the very least, a few weeks, generally much longer. And this is just to make friends, the vast majority of whom I have absolutely no desire to be anything but friends with. But the timespan being considered here is weeks to (maybe) months. Barely enough time to even establish a relationship, let alone get to the point of having the relationship be meaningful.
These people are therefore choosing to forgo the love and skip to the sex. Now, there are plenty of people out there who wish they could do this, consequence-free. However, this is not at all a ceonsequence-free act. It is, in effect, one of the greatest acts of intimacy between two people. In committing this act so freely, people people cheapen it greatly. No other act of real love exists in a more intimate level, save to lay down one's life for one's loved ones: and this can only be done once.
The act was meant to symbolize two parts becoming one, as the two parents are joined in "making" a child, just as the act of marriage is meant to symbolize. In freeling engaging in the act for mere pleasure, people degrade the acts value, to the point where nothing special is given. Even should they find a loved one, and form a more meaningful relationship, the intimacy of sex has already been lost and would take much time to recover. What, then, is left for the person's spouse, that they can give uniquely to that person?
This, perhaps, is why the traditional family is in decline, why the divorce rate is so high, and why fewer and fewer people are actually getting married these days: so many people no linger view marriage as a sacred, special thing, but as a mere contract between two people that can and should be broken when it becomes inconvenient or "disadvantageous." It would also explain why so many people support the idea of homosexual "marriages," for when sex is merely for pleasure and marriage is just for legal benefits, both lose their true meaning, and with it, the real joy that underlies each. This loss is a tragedy that is to sad to be bearable.

It's All About the Attention

As if just having to hear about their bs isn't bad enough, we now have this. Not that it's any particualr surpise, the left in general and the homosexual "rights" movement in particular have been more about getting attention than actually getting any other benefits that may come about from their latest "cause." Virtually everything that the homosexual community does is aimed towards media attention and legitimizing their lifestyles in the public's eye.

The most obvious, not to mention frequently used, example of this is the multitude of "pride" parades that they hold in numerous cities across the world. The entire point of these parades is to "raise awareness" and to "show unity" to the rest of the people living in the area. Occasionally, some courageous people or groups will fight back. However, by-and-large, these parades are allowed, often shutting down large parts of the said city as the parade shut down traffic in the area.

Another symbol of the homosexual lobby's hunger for attention is the very symbol that such groups have chosen as a banner. The movement, in it's attention whoring, has defiled the rainbow, selecting it as the flag to reperesent their own pride. This grabs all sorts of attention, giving them a symbol to rally behind while infuriating those Christians who see the rainbow in its Biblical context. But the symbolism of their corrupted rainbow is underlined by a slightly less obvious reaon for shooing it: the rainbow is made of mutliple colors, and as such is highly visible, far more so than if they had chosen something os less colorfull variety.

Next there is the push for homosexual "marriages" across the world. In the US, at least, the claim is that they want these "marriages" because of the tax-benefits, inherritance laws, and hospital visitation rights. However, this would do no more than create another special class of citizens with these "rights." Rarely does one see the homosexual community working with conservatives and liberterians to abolish the death tax, for example. So again, the purpose is not necessarily to gain more rights that they lack: this is only an added "bonus." Rather, the objective is to get attention, and also to legitimize their lifestyles in hopes that it will be viewed as a normal way of life. The fact that we don't see a mass exodus of homosexuals from states like Oregon, Missouri, Michigan that have passed constitutional ammendments nanning homosexual "marriages" into states like 'Assachussettes or into Canada where such "marriages" are legal is only more evidence of this.

Finally, there is the homosexual activists' ongoing clash with conservative Christians and particulalry Catholics. There are plenty of churches that allow are will soon sanction homosexual "marriages." If that is what is really being sought, then homosexuals are free to leave those churches that won't condone such "marriages." Certainly, in the case of the Catholic Church, homosexual "marriages" will never be legitimately performed.

The Church has forbid it, and will continue to do so. Rather than accepting this and realizing that it is the individual who should change to match the Church and its beliefs, the homosexual lobby by and large contends that it is the Church that should change to better suite the individuals. Never mind that homosexuality has been condemned when mentioned in the Bible, upon which the Church's doctrine is built. Yet these homosexual activists will fight Christianity until it changes and falls into heresy, until it has been ruined from without, or until it has been driven underground.

And with some of the fighting, they are actually doing real, measurable damage. From proposals to deny churches tax exempt status unless they embrace homosexual "marriage" to the financial damage done to various parishes (or dioceses) from legal fees, there is a real, tangible economic cost to Christianity due to the homosexual lobby. One can only pray that the various churches remain strong, and (with any luck) that they will be united against this latest threat to Christianity.

"Logical" Proof that I Am a Nerd

For those of you who wonder what life "in the trenches" is like for a science nerd, here is a copy of a part of a recent im conversation between me and one of my friends (also a scientist). Somehow, we got onto the topic of women and dating, and this conversation ensued:

[Part1: Warming Up- A Little Background]

EquusNomVeritas: this one girl, I'd been talking to either via facebook or by aim for several months on a nearly daily basis
EquusNomVeritas: met once in person
SG3k: Facebook is the devil
EquusNomVeritas: lots of common interests, common values
EquusNomVeritas: etc.
EquusNomVeritas: one night, I ask her what she's doing, and she replies "making a care package for my bf; he's in florida"
SG3k: that's pretty good evidence against a long distance relationship, it's a much larger trust chasm
EquusNomVeritas: yeah
EquusNomVeritas: very much so
EquusNomVeritas: because at least when you see the other person, you have a prayer of reading the "not interested"
SG3k: well, you're a good guy ENV, and I'm a stunning example that waiting pays off, you'll find your perfect girl and forget the waiting in no time
EquusNomVeritas: true
EquusNomVeritas: (or at least, very likely)

[Part 2: Opening the Floodgates]

EquusNomVeritas: actually, the problem may be that the tolerances that I allow for "perfect" are too narrow. I may need to relax those a little...
EquusNomVeritas: to apply engineering principles to a non-engineering problem...
SG3k: not too much though, never sell yourself short
EquusNomVeritas: true as well
SG3k: and the advice I give to my friends who REALLY suck at relationships, always ask yourself if you're happy more often then you are angry or sad

[Part3: The First Line Should Be Suficient Warning...]

EquusNomVeritas: I just had a really nerdy thought...
SG3k: make a model? :-P
EquusNomVeritas: kind of
EquusNomVeritas: are you familiar with Langrangian-Eulerian meshes?
SG3k: I'm familiar with Langranges, Euler, and meshes, but not all together...
EquusNomVeritas: so the concept is that there are Langrangian meshes and Eulerian meshes
EquusNomVeritas: in the langrangian mesh, the mesh is an actual part of the object being modelled, it moves with the object
SG3k: okay...
EquusNomVeritas: in the Eulerian mesh, the mesh and object are not attahed, the object moves through the mesh
SG3k: okay...
EquusNomVeritas: so usually, the former is preferrable to the latter
EquusNomVeritas: but it the object gets too complicated, the mesh tears
EquusNomVeritas: Eulerians don't have this problem
EquusNomVeritas: so a solution is to create an arbitrary Langrangian-Eulerian mesh
SG3k: I'm afraid to think of where this is going :-P
EquusNomVeritas: yeah, I know... I said it was a nerdy thought
SG3k: lol
SG3k: you are such a nerd, but in the good way
EquusNomVeritas: yeah, I know...
.......

[Part4: Cooling Down]

EquusNomVeritas: i just wish I had a little more background in computer modelling so that I understood these models better and could therefore do a better job of reworking them
EquusNomVeritas: usually, they're used to model hydro-dynamics, by the way
EquusNomVeritas: basically, any fluid, including plasma
SG3k: wow, I don't want to explore that aspect of it with association to women....
EquusNomVeritas: yeah, I was thinking of figuring out how to apply it to personality
EquusNomVeritas: if it worked, I would become a very rich man...

The Great Trade

After listening to so many leftists whine about virtually all that is good for, in, or about America, I've come to the conclusion that something's gotta be done. They complain about the lack of universal healhcare; they scream about the loss of their rights due to the Patriot Act (or more recently to Robert's nomination to the Suprme Court); and they shriek about our "lack" of gay "marriage." In light of all of this rending of garments and knashing of teeth on the part of the left, I've come up with a reasonable plan to fix the problem: a sort of territory trade with Canada. We give them the Northeastern US states, from Illinois and Michigan to New York and 'Assachussettes, they give us all of Canada except for Quebec and Ontario. It's a perfect trade: everyone would be happy (except for perhaps the west-coast left-wingers and a a few people in each state who vote against that state's usual voting tendencies, but hey, they can always move).
Let's look at what each side will get out of this. First, we have the US: we get rid of the majority of our liberals. Society can then go back to "normal" (which will suddenly mean something), we can implement more states' rights, drastically lower taxes for social spending, possibly balance our budget. We'll be able to initiate more free trade with foreign countries, make abortions illegal, and place a more permanent, nation-wide ban on homosexual "marriage," more gun and property rights. We may even be able to fix problems with our education system! Oh, sure, we would still have the left coast, and there are plenty of liberlas in the "conservative" states, but all-in-all, we would be left with a predominantly conservative nation with a fair number of liberterians.
We would also be able to run two or three major conservatice or liberterian candidates in some elections, giving us more choice in the diversity of ideas presented in government. Ok, maybe not that last one, too many states are a little bit too close for that to work, but we could afford to lose a few elections for the Senate and the House, thus allowing voters to vote down some of our undesirable candidates (read: RINOs). Oh, and we would also be getting a fairly resources rich chunk of land.
What would the people in the Northeast US be getting? Well, all of their wildest dreams would come true: gay marriage, universal healthcare, abortions on demand and paid for by government without parental notification, no federal spending on a large military, beter relations with the "rest" of the world (read: France?), high taxes for the rich... They could form a socialist form of Gamorrah if they wanted it.
What would the vast swaths of land given to the US gain? Better govenment for the people living there. There are only a few major cities in that entire region (Vancouver, Calgary), and the rest of the population of that area is predominantly conservative or at least liberterian. They would probably appreciate the break from the far left government of socialist Canada, to be sure.
Finally, what would Quebec and Ontario gain? Um, well, some of the best (or at least most prestigious) universities in the world (MIT, Harvard, Yale, Cornell...). And a lot of people, meaning more tax dollars. This scenario would be win-win for everybody involved. Too bad it would require a constitutional ammendment to implement...

*Note 1: Some of this is tongue-in-cheek, some only half-serious; parts are exaggerrated, as well.
**Note 2: These trades are based largely on voting trends in presidential elections. The so-called "red state" provide us with plenty of liberal, democrat senators, and the "blue states" provide some republican senators (a few of which are actually conservative). However, as a generalization, the red states provide more conservatives to the House and Senate as well. This reflects that there are no perfect divisions for this plan to be implemented, but I can always dream...
***Note 3: This also disregards that the Supreme Court is the cause of many of our current problems. Maybe DC will leave with the rest of the northeast... Unfortunately, we would be losing one of our best Senators (Santorum), as DC is south of PA. Not to mention that one of my most faithful readers is from NH...
****Note 4: New York and 'Assachussetts can still go and "ef" themselves.

Karl Keating's E-Letter: Are Catholics Christian?

In Karl Keating's latest E-Letter, he discusses John McCarthur, minsiter of Crace Community Church (Sun Valley, CA) and President of the "Grace to You" ministry. McCarthur is one of those christians who attacks the Catholic Church as being not a Christian Church, and railing against those people who "embraced the deceased pope [John Paul II] as a brother in Christ and the Catholic church as just another Christian denomination."

This goes beyond the disagreements between various Christian denominations. People can passionately disagree on such doctrines as predestination and the importance of such things as marriage, baptism, and confession without disowning each other as Christian brethren. Yet within every Christian denomination there are some who go farther than simple disagreement to outright condemnation of Catholics and the Church.

In a series of discussions with my protestant friends, I have asked before why this is. Virtually all of the beliefs or doctrines of the Catholic Church are manifested in some way or another in the other denominations. The things that seem to be the greatest rifts between Catholics and Protestants are the doctrines of Purgatory, Papal Inerrancy, Veneration of the Saints, and the Deuterocannonicals. I will probably address some or all of these things in future posts: I have found that while these are the big stumbling blocks to most Protestants, they often aren't the only things for which the Church is attacked.

In fact McCarthur, like many others who have attacked the Catholic Church, does not really base his claims on these doctrines at all. Rather, he attacks what he percieves as the Catholic Church's teachings on salvation.

Roman Catholicism errs from Scripture at precisely the point of the gospel. Scripture teaches that we are justified by the grace of God through faith alone: "To the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness" (Romans 4:5). Roman Catholicism, however, insists that divine grace is dispensed though various rituals, including baptism, the Mass, and penance.
And adding ritual requirements to faith as instruments of justification is the very essence of the Galatian heresy.

Certainly, this is a position often echoed by Protestants. However, this is not so great a difference as to consider Catholics as non-Christian. Furthermore, it ignores much of Christian history. For example, many of the early Church fathers (i.e. the earliest Christians) held baptism, penance (confession), and the Sacrifice of the Mass as being important in these matters.

In general, the Church teaches that we can recieve grace through these things, as a gift from God. This gift is given to those who recieve the sacraments or attend mass in good faith, not through our own works but through God Himself. On the surface, this may appear as if Catholics claim that God is giving us something in return for what we do. This is not so: rather, He is giving us this Grace as His gift because it is promised to us. This is really no different than the doctrine that we will obtain salvation by our faith: in both cases, God is fulfilling His promises to us.

In the former case, He is saying that if you recieve sacrament x in good faith, then you will be recieving my grace; in the second case, He promises us that if we follow Him in good faith, we will obtain the grace necessary for our salvation. The first case is merely a part of the second. Since grace is really the means of salvation, God is granting us that which we need for salvation, but not because He is bound to do so by man. Rather, he grants us this grace and salvation because He "bound" Himself to do so when He promised to do as much: He keeps his promises, for God does not lie. In any case, the clause "in good faith" means that faith itself is actually the vehicle of His grace.

But more so than on the issues of the Sacrements, McCarthur attacks the Catholic Church on its doctrines pertaining to works and fatih. His claim is that the Church puts an inordinant amount of emphasis on works as a method of "earning" salvation. This is an attack against a percieved position. Catholics do not believe that people can earn their way into heaven. Rather, works are viewed as a reflection of our faith, as per James 2:

"You see that a man is justified by works, and not by faith alone."
James 2:24

The idea is not that works replace faith in salvation, but rather that they complete it. Oddly enough, McCarthur himself defends this position!

So where does the problem really lie? What is the real issue between people like this and the Catholic Church? This is a question that I have often puzzled over. Perhaps it is only simple misunderstanding, though I find this fairly hard to believe, especially in the case of people like McCarthur who have certainly spent time considering these issues. Could it be deliberate dis-understanding then? Possibly, but what would the motivation be? To increase his own person influence, his own personal "flock?" I have never met McCarthur personally, so I can't honestly say in his case.

Another possibility is that people see the "corrupted" versions of various Catholic teachings and doctrines. These are cases of Catholics taking a teaching or doctrine too far. For example, veneration of the saints has in some cases led to Catholics displacing their "worship" for God onto these saints; this was especially true in areas where people are converted from multi-theistic religions and pagan worship into the Catholic Church.

However, the fact that some people take a thing too far does not make that thing wrong: the fact that some people get drunk does not make modest drinking sinful, nor do fornication and adultery make sex within the bounds of marriage wrong. McCarthur must surely realize that just because some members of the Church corrupts certain teaching of the Church doesn't mean that all members of the Church do so. Yet he claims that his commission is to "free people from the bondage of the Catholic Church." This seems like a very strong claim to be made by a man who uses "The Bible Teaching of John MacArthur" as the slogan for his letterhead.

Energy and Politics

Thomas Sowell has a good article today at Townhall/GOPUSA/Human Events. He discusses the oil crisis:

"One of the dictionary definitions of a crisis is 'the point in the course of a serious disease at which a decisive change occurs, leading either to recovery or to death.'"

He then asks whether what we are facing is, in fact, an actual crisis. I would argue that if it has not yet reacehd that point, the current situation with oil is approaching an actual crisis. On the one hand, we can drill for more oil in Alaska (and perhaps even offshore, when the time comes that that decision has to be made). And doing this will certainly help, for a time. But eventually, the world oil reserves will reach a point where the supply cannot meet the demand, and when this happens, we need to have a backup system in place.
Unfortunately, political wrangling and finaggling, has eliminated or hampered most of our best options. Nuclear power is an excellent option, yet we are decommisioning nuclear reactors perhaps more often than commisioning new ones; environmentalists have a screaming fit every time a coal plant or hydro-electric dam is proposed; and the elitists such as Ted Kennedy (D-'Assachussetts)have opposed the construction of windmills for wind power in their neighborhoods.
Other possibilities include bio-electic power and solar power, both of which are extremely inefficient. One promising possibility is fusion, but the budget for research in this field has always been woefully short, and NIF, one of the two most promising fusion projects may have its budget cut before completion. Considering that the infrastructure is now in place and also considering that it can be used for nuclear stockpile stewardship without breaking any international treaties, this is very foolish; the House budget will fund it, the Senate budget won't. The other major project, ITER, has only now had a site selected for construction and will cost $billions (NIF has costed a total of ~ $3.5billion so far). And of course there are the oft-toted fuel cells, which are promising but still far from being ready for implementation (between remaining research and infrastructure changes). Finally, it is possible to manufacture oil synthetically, but at a much greater price than the current one.
What we have with oil right now is more of an artificial crisis than a real one: it has been largely created by politicians (on both sides) and by environmental extremists (read: psycopaths). However, an artificial crisis can be just as disastrous as a real one if a workable solution isn't found and implemented.

The Irresponsibility of Domestic Interventionism

Today columnist John Leo has written an interesting article about the great nany state. There is no field haven from these people, from their war on smoking to their fight against junk food, from their attack on "distracted" driving to their meddling with Major League Baseball's steroid problem (this requires congresional testimony why?). The problem with this kind of legislation is that it tells people what they can and can't do outside of the simple capacity of doing what is right for society: in other words, it infringes on people's freedoms without doing anything to necessarily benefit society. "Animal House" character Dean Vernon Wormer at one point stated that "Fat, drunk, and stupid is no way to go through life," but that doesn't mean that the government should be stepping in to prevent me from living in that way.

This kind of interventionism does several things, all of which are actually detrimental to both society and to individuals. The first is that it tries to prevent people from making mistakes. However, legislators should heed well the old addage: "Every time something is made more idiot-proof, God makes a better idiot." By preventing people from making little mistakes, the government is ultimately doing little more than setting them up to make bigger mistakes. Also, people once learned from their mistakes; however, as the government eliminates the "little things" for people to learn from, people have nothing to build their experiences on. Who do people then turn to for advice? You guessed it: the government.

Worse still is that a government's interventionism leads to a weakened sense of personal responsibility among its citizens. Why take responsibility for your own actions if it is easier to blame someone else? The directresult of this is manifested in the number and frequency of frivilous lawsuits. The cigarette industry then pays for people's health care expenses and the firearms industry is blamed every time a psycopath opens fire in a crowded school hall. The effect of this is that guns are far harder to obtain and every "sin" from cigarettes to junk food gets taxed. To see this another way, look at one of the hardest-hit industries: the medical one.
Once the concept of a "country doctor" was fairly common, but now is becoming increasingly less so due to the prohibitive costs of medical malpractice insurance. Meanwhile, many people (mostly on the left) clamor for a national healthcare plan to pay for drugs (also hard-hit by lawsuits, but expensive also becasue of the unholy alliance between HMOs and drug companies) and medical services; such a plan would, of course, spill ruin for everyone left in the medical field while bankrupting the federal government.

This lack of responsibility has more effects on our society. Most notable is that it has a tendency to spread,until nobody can be held responsible for anything. Indolent workers can't be fired, incapable teachers can't be replaced, and incompetent students can't be taught. And all of this is (at least in part) because the government doesn't think that we can be trusted to take care of ourselves. If this kind of thing continues at this rate, it won't be too much longer until they're right.

"Fort Qualls": The Other Side

After all of the media's blathering about the so-called "Fort Casey" outside of President Bush'e home in Crawford, it's nice to see a more "permanent" camp for the Bush supporters. The pro-Bush camp has sprung up in downtown Crawford, perhaps preferring not to disturb those people in the anti-Bush (or maybe I should say anti-Freedom?) crowd who, under the "leadership" of Cindy Sheehan, are laying seige to Bush's residence.
In related news, the Pro-Bush camp has asked to debate with the anti-Bush Crowd. However, the anti-Bush protestors have refused to debate with Bush's supporters (surprise, surprise). Say Michelle Deford: "We don't want to debate with people who don't understand our point of view." How original; it's nice to know that you have a point of view that can be defended in an honest and intelletual discussion...

The Map, the Compass, and the Guide

When travelling through an unfamiliar city or a strange forest, most people have some sort of help. Some use a map, other a compass, and still others a guide. None of these things alone will guarantee that a person will get where they want to go, and lacking these things will not necessarily prevent a person from arriving at the desired destination. However, when a person has all of these things, he or she has the greatest chance of getting where he or she wants to go. Just as a person travelling through an unknown area has these tools, we are given similar tools to get through life.

Perhaps the most useful tool for a lost traveller is a map. The good news is that we are provided with a map for our lives; it's called the Holy Bible, and it is the most complete map ever made. Following this map will certainly move you towards your desired destination.

The bad news is that there are a lot of cheap versions of our map, and a lot of counterfeits. These counterfeits and cheap maps contain some of the "right" informations, but also a lot of misinformation. Sometimes a road or a path is not shown on the map, other times it's in the wrong place. These maps include such books as the Talmud and the Qur'an, as well as such additions to the Bible as the Gospel of Thomas. Though they may contain some useful bits of information, these "maps" are more likely to simply get you more lost than before.

Many people prefer to use a compass to determine which direction to go. Fortunately enough, we all come with a sort of built-in compass: our consciences. Just as a compass points North, our consciences will always point towards doing what is right. However, just as it is only helpful to know which way is north when you know which direction you need to go, the conscience is only helpful when your sense of "right and wrong" is correct. In other words, if you don't know where you're trying to go in relation to where you are, knowing the direction in which you are going is not really very helpful.

Often when travelling in an unfamiliar area, we will use the services of a guide to help us find our way. This is especially true if our map is as complex and complicated as the Bible often seems to be. The matrix of streets and the tangle of paths presented in life are often so complicated that only a well trained eye can help unravel them. At other times, a pair of streets may lead to the same destination, but one is typically more crowded with traffic than the other; again, the advice of a guide may be well apreciated.

It just so happens that such a guide exists. In fact, many do: our family, our friends, and our religious leaders, the Church. Some of these people may have had experience with a particular problem that you are facing. Other may have a strongly developed sense of moral clarity. Still others have studied our map and have travelled the paths and streets that it presents many times, knowing which ones are usually safest and which have the least "traffic." In particular, the Church has 2000 years of experience behind it, and when acting with the wisdom gained from that experience will seldom lead you astray.

The Forest of Decisions, the City of Choices

Life can be likened to a system of roads through a city, or perhaps like paths through a forest. Each road/path represents a decision to be made, some leading in one direction and other leading in another. The roads/pathes form a sort of network, with two ultimate destinations, one Heaven and the other Hell. Like the roads in a city, some are only one-way streets: one the decision has been made, there is no going back. And like the pathes in the forest, some are easy to discern, others are quite subtle.

Often it seems like the roads to sin are easy to spot. Now, this is not the same as saying that they are easy to avoid, only that they are easy to recognize as sinful. Most of these have to do with do with our actions: clear violations of God's commandments. For example, committing adultery is easily recognized as a sin, yet many people fall into this sin anyway. And just as you cannot turn around on a one-way street, once you have committed the act of adultery, you cannot take the act back. That is not to say that you will forever be on the road of sin once committing one of these: even one-way streets have intrsections that allow you to change directions.

However, in these cases, the thing may become habitual, and you are stuck on this street for some time. Also, though God will forgive any sin in a moment's notice, these sins often hurt a third party. In the case of adultery, the third party is the sinner's spouse; that third person may not be so quick to forgive as God. Just as the one way-street may continue for a long time without allowing for a turn, the third person's trust and forgiveness may not be granted (or earned) for a long time after the path has been set upon.

When driving in an unfamiliar city, you may often miss the turn that was needed to get to your desired location. This happens with the choices that we make in life as well. For example, there may have been a time in your life in which you were the third party of a friend's sin; if your friend has repented and asked you for forgiveness, have you granted it to him? If not, you missed your turn. Making the correct turn required that you choose to do something differently (turning your car off of the street that you are following onto an intersecting street). Because you did not do this, you are now one the wrong street, though you did not actively commit a sin. This is how it is possible to sin "in what you have failed to do."

However, these sins of omission are often on the "two-way" streets with frequent intersections and/or U-turns allowed; they can usually be made up quickly in the end. For example, you can forgive your friend at any time, even though offering him this forgiveness may seem hard to do. You can also decide to hold his sin against him, allowing a grudge to fester between you; this is akin to missing the turn and stepping hard on the accelerator of your car.

Finally, it should be mentioned that not all choices ultimately are what they seem. Just as some paths through a forest may by bending gently lead you astray, some choices that appear to be the "right" choices may have dire consequences, and a few of the "wrong" ones may turn out for the best*. For example, take teetotality. This decision is not evil of itself, and for the right reasons may lead in the desired direction. However, it also has a subtle trap attached to it: that of pride. When you make this decision, you may begin to do so because of a fear that dinking will lead you into sin, away from God. So long as this decision remains an inward one, it will surely lead to Him. But it can also lead into a sense of superiority over other people, because, for example, they drink and in their debauchery fall into sin.

This sense of superiority often creeps in slowly and quietly. You usually don't notice it until it is well-established. Unfortunately, this pride in your decision to avoid the "sin" will lead you towards the devil, holding those who commit the sin in lower esteem than yourself. And this is also a thing that makes it so difficult to love the sinner while abhorring the sin. Rather than a genuine love, you hold the person in a sort of self-indulging pity, thinking "I am better off than that person, because she comits the sin of __, and I don't."

This allows for a distancing not only between you and the other person, but between you and God. You may begin to think that all that you do is of your own power, and that God should see that and reward you for it. To think such is folly: to expect a reward for your "good decision" is akin to thinking that God owes you something. The reverse is rather what is true: we owe everything to God, and thus every "right" decision that we make is only like making payments on the interest.


*Note: Usually, a "right" decision will be corrupted and lead away from God. However, a very few of the "wrong" decisions can ultimately lead towards God in the end. Usually, this is because a person realizes that some habit of theirs is sinful, and they look to God as a means of ending it. This can also in some cases occur after a "big" sin, some atrocity so great that the sinner becomes repentant and attempts to establish a relationship with God, or even to reinforce an existing (though often weak) relationship with Him.

On the Media: A Few Brief Observations

Cindy Sheehan and her rabble continue to dominate the media stories. Previously, the big stories have been missing teens in Aruba and the latest celebrity court trials. The media either hates us or thinks we're all stupid. Or both.

The media's coverage of the situations in Iraq and Afghanistan focus more on how many of our troops have been killed each day. Also mentioned are our allies' death tolls, and a (generally inflated) death toll of Iraqis. An occasional setback will occur for the Iraqi/Afghani governments, ans this will also be mentioned. What they try not to mention ever are the success stories in these places. What of the fact that many of the Iraqis have befriended our troops? What of stories of the Iraqi/Afghani reconstruction? The media also never seem to be able to bring themselves to mention how many terrorists have been eliminated. Perhaps they are using this number to inflate the "civilian" death toll?

The media have never really liked Israel, and have constantly been the greatest advocate of the formation of a Palestinian State. They have constantly called on Israel to pull out of the Gaza Strip and West Bank. Now that Israel is doing just this, the media is criticizing them for the way in which it is happening. They are also critical of Israel's hesitance to provide arms to the PA to assist it with "confronting Palestinian terrorism." My suspicion is that soon, the media will openly criticize Israel for making the Palestinians provide their own suicide bombers.

On curbing the problem of illegal immigration, the media's coverage has been unashamedly hostile to those who oppose illegal immigration. Coverage of the "minuteman" project was one example of this; the favor shown to Bush's amnesty policies and Arizona Senator John McCaine's disapproval of the minueman project contrasts sharply with the media's criticism of Ahhhnold's invitation to the project to come to California. However, one person is immune to the media's critism of opposition to illegal imigration: Hillary Clinton.

The US economy is booming. Unemployment is decreasing, jobs are paying more than ever, home ownership is the highest its ever been, and what does the media focus on? Gas prices.

Questioning the Holy See's Sovereignty

In the latest attempt to sue the Church, a US Lawyer is attempting to demand that the US State Department waive the Pope's diplomatic immunity. Daniel Shea, a Catholic educated lawyer is leading the effort to have the US ignore the usual procedures associated with the sovereignty of foreign countries by not granting the Pope diplomatic immunity. This raises some questions, first and foremost, even if the US for some reason decides to not recognize Vatican City as a sovereign country (it is), how is this going to force the Pope to show up for trial? He is the head of a foreign country, one that the US isn't eactly going to be inclined to invade to capture him. Besides which, this would involve convincing the Italians to allow us to do this. And since President Bush doesn't seem to like the idea in the first place, I just don't see this happening.
Mr. Shea surely knows that he won't be accomplishing anything with this (even the Supreme Court and the UN aren't likely to side with him on this one). No, this whole business amounts ot little more than throwing mud at the Vatican in an attempt to damge its reputation. Shea's affiliates are mostly anti-Catholic to begin with, his actions here re not more than a shallow attempt to hurt the Church in whatever way he can. Shea is the kind of scum that brings disgrace upon the legal profession.

The Full Significance of the Rainbow

When asked about what object they think best symbolizes Christianity, one of the first things most people will say is "the Cross." This is indeed a very important symbol for us. But another symbol of almost equal importance is the rainbow: a reminder of God's covenant with His people. The covenant, at its face value, is that He will never again smite humanity from the face of the earth. This is a pretty important promise to us as humans, but does this covenant go deeper than this simple promise to not smite all of us?

I would argue that the answer is yes. Although Noah would not have necessarily known this at the time, the covenant ultimately would mean much, much more. For if God had wiped out humanity then and there in the flood, Christ would not have been to earth to offer us our Salvation. The physical survival of the human race ultimately allowed for something far, far more important: our spiritual Salvation.

The promise from God that He would never wipe us out, never extinguish the human race, encompassed a second promise: namely that He would not condemn the entire human race to Hell after we pass from life in this world. And just as His promise to never smite humanity grants us all numerous "second chances," the gift of Salvation is always extended as an offer to us.

Therefore, the rainbow is actually symbolizing not one, but two promises. The first is that He will not in His anger destroy all of mankind. The second is that He would send His Son to us to reclaim our souls. The first of these promises actually implies the second: the rainbow would not be a sign of His love if He was intent on condemning every one of us to eternal damnation after our brief existence in this life. Therefore, our salvation was actually implicit in the covenant that He had established with us!

Each of us will die eventually. Therefore, a guarantee from God that that death won't be caused by Him in His wrath is insignificant, if the end result is that in either case we die and then are condemned to eternal damnation. Fortunately, the covenant carried more than this simple promise of non-extermination: it contained a guarantee that He would offer salvation to everyone who would accept it. More accurately, it contained an affirmation that He would deliver us from the bondage of sin, a promise that He had made to us during the Fall.

That promise includes everybody, from the most pure of the saints on down to the most wretched of the sinners. And no matter how many times we fall, no matter how many times we turn away, no matter how dastardly our deeds, so long as we repent and return to God, so long as we continue to try to resist sin and temptation, so long as we trust in Christ and reject Satan, the offer of Salvation still remains extended to us.

The rainbow was not just a sign of God's promise to not exterminate us. It was far more than this alone, for a promise to not destroy a person does little to comfort that person, offering only the smallest reassurance. No, the rainbow was a sign of God's greatest promise to us: that of forgiveness and love. This ultimate promise, signed by the rainbow and played out with the birth of our Lord and Savior was sealed by His death on the cross and delivered three days later when He rose from the grave. That is the real significance behind the rainbow.


-----
If you enjoyed this post, here are some other similar posts which I have written:
Reclaiming Our Rainbow
Meaning at the End of the Rainbow
If You Love the Sinners, Warn Them of the Sin
Descriptions, Not Necessarily Insults
Being Tactful and Being "Nice"
"Judge Not" and Mercy (Thirty Minute Musings)
Warnings and Ignorance (Thirty Minute Musings)
The Christian Society: Justice, Mercy, and Solidarity (Nicene Guys)
Apologetics and Motivation
Tolerance, Charity, and Dignity (Nicene Guys)

-----
Return to Home Page

Reclaiming Our Rainbow

The rainbow is one of God's miracles, recurring ever so frequently to bring joy after a rainy day brightening men's spirits. Unfortunately, there is a darker side to the rainbow now, a side that rears its ugly head more and more often these days. This dark side, this blemish on the beauty of God's creation, this unholy incarnation is the "Gay Pride" movement.

In seeking to normalize their perversions within our society, these people have selected as a symbol the rainbow, a sign of God's love for humanity. The significance of this love will be discussed in a future post. What is more significant here is that this is not at all what the "rainbow flags" of the queer community are being used to signify.

According the CRW Flags website, the multiple stripes represent diversity (or perhaps deviency is a better word), with each individual stripe representing one aspect of the movement. The six-colored variant has the colors red ("light"), orange ("healing"), yellow ("sun"), green ("calmness"), blue ("art"), and lilac ("the spirit"). This general blending of symbols sounds more like a pagan religion than a "secular" movement.

To add the insult of this injury, the flag is symbolizing the pride that these people take in their perverse sin. In a strange twist of irony, this group has corrupted a symbol of God's love, demeaning it to be only a demand for the "tolerance" of those whom have corrupted the beauty of the act of sexual intercourse into a perverse and meaningless indulgence of their base desires and lusts, and a symbol of their pride in their sin. And that's not the worst part or this defiling of a gift from God.

The rainbow is not only being used to represent a group of people whose lust has caused them to fall into a sin that is abhorred by God. Rather, it is being used to represent these people's pride. Pride, like lust, is one of the seven "deadly sins." However, while lust is only a base sin that strikes more at the physical nature of a person's humanity, pride affects that person at his very core. Pride doesn't stop at leading a person into sin, even continually leading a person into sin (which all of the deadly sins will do). It is far worse than this: it makes a person come to cherish (in a sort of sick way) those sins. The person no longer want to resist or overcome those sins. It is for this reason that pride is perhaps the deadliest of all sins: rather than causing a person to merely turn away from God, it causes that person to reject Him utterly, to block Him from that person's life.

It is this reason, first and foremost, that makes the queer "community's" use of the rainbow so unfortunate. They are not using it as a symbol of hope to represent their struggle against this sin. Rather, they are using it as a symbol of their rejection of God and His forgiveness. It is for this reason, first and foremost, that Christians should fight for the rainbow and all that it truly symbolizes.

-----
If you enjoyed this post, here are some other similar posts which I have written:
The Full Significance of the Rainbow
Meaning at the End of the Rainbow
If You Love the Sinners, Warn Them of the Sin
Descriptions, Not Necessarily Insults
Being Tactful and Being "Nice"
"Judge Not" and Mercy (Thirty Minute Musings)
Warnings and Ignorance (Thirty Minute Musings)
The Christian Society: Justice, Mercy, and Solidarity (Nicene Guys)
Apologetics and Motivation
Tolerance, Charity, and Dignity (Nicene Guys)

The Latest Courtroom Insanity

A Pennsylvania court has recently upheld a lower court ruling that "sexual orientation" and gender identity" must be added to the Allentown (PA) human relations ordinances. One of the implications of this ruling is that it s a big step towards allowing men to use the ladies' restrooms, and for ladies to use the men's room. How is this a good plan?

There are so many things wrong with this ruling. First and foremost, for anyone who is confused as to your gender: it's not a hard concept. Either you're a man or you're a woman. It doesn't take a biologist to figure out which one you are. Either it's there or it's not. Second, the co-ed showering situation: how many women out there feel comfortable about having your male co-workers join you in the showers? A few, sure, but I'm sure that most would be at least a little nervous about this. How many people actually think that all of the men who would be using the ladies' showers are doing so just because of "gender confusion" (read "just plain confused")? Not too mention, when you think of the complaints of married women about their husbands' sanitary habits, what would it be like to have an entire workplace worth of these people? Men: how many of you are happy with the idea of having your wives or girlfriends going to work in this kind of environment?

The ultimate question that this raises is, "Who actually benefits from this BS?"

God, Gays, and the Church

The ever-predictable proponents for gay "rights" are again attempting to use the World Youth Day as an excuse to push for their acceptance by the Church. There are a plethora of problems with this.

First, they are asking for a change in Church doctrines and teachings on sexual morality. Last time I checked, the Church doesn't change its doctrines. The Church does not just make these doctrines and teachings up; that is precisely why they are so difficult to change. Since it is ultimately God, and not the Church itself, who sets these doctrines, the Church can't simply decide to change them. It's just simply not in the Church's power.

This holds especially true since these doctrines are based on such things as, oh, say THE BIBLE!!! That's right, as mentioned before on this blog (see Neo-Christianity?), both the Old Testament and the New Testament make references to homosexuality. For those who are curious as to what these references say, here's a hint: it's not called a righteous lifestyle!
The groups in question, both from Germany, call for a relaxed Church stance towards homosexuality. This call is misplaced if coming from faithful Catholics: the Church is only acting on what has been revealed to it by God. If this call if coming from non-Catholics (which is more likely the case), the question becomes, why, exactly, do you care what the Church's position is?
In related news, Cardinal Pujats of Latvia has stated that the gay "rights" movement, particularly the more beligerent members thereof, is an even greater danger to the Church than even the Soviet Union. Good call, Cardinal! We could use a few more people like you in the Church, people with the backbone to stand up for the doctrines and moral teachings that are being ever so more frequently criticized, both from within and without. Even if the former Soviet Union and other countries with oppressive governments can be hard on the Church, it is important to remember that the Church has faced this kind of opposition throughout history, ever since its founding. The homosexual groups are a different kind of threat, and one against which the Church must be careful to guard itself.


As an aside, the Church can (and does) offer something specifically for gays. Ok, it actually offers a lot of things for gays, stuff such as a means for getting to know thier Savior, and what His will for them (and for all people) is. But that's not what I'm referring to right now. What I'm referring to is support groups for those who struggle with this problem. Any kind of sexual deviency tends to be especially hard for the person undergoing it, and the Church recognizes this. Anyone who is trying to overcome such a struggle has the full moral support of the Church. Note that this means that the Church will do what it can to help overcome such temptations, but that does not mean necessarily excusing them. The attraction to someone of the same sex may be genetic (I'm not especially inclined to believe this, but the Church does allow for the possibility), but that doesn't excuse person from fighting this urge, hard as it may be.

Immigration Economics

Thomas Sowell brings up some good points about immigration in his article on immigration. Although a lot of this is stuff that does come up in discussions about immigration, particularly illegal immigration, it's worth looking at again.

Most notably, the point on using illegal (and even some legal) immmigrants from Latin America to do jobs that Americans won't do is briefly touched on. As has been said before, and will probably be said again numerous times, immigrants don't take the jobs that Americans won't do. What they do is take those jobs at a lower cost to the employer. Now, it's certainly advantageous to the employer and to those wishing to purchase his/r products for this to happen, but it needs to be done in a manner that is "fair" to potential employees. There is always a minimum rate for which Americans will provide their labor.

This rate is governed by a variety of things. For example, this rate should increase based on how hard the work is. Another factor is whether the work is there year-round or seasonal (most employment is year-round, but some farm work may still be seasonal, for example...). And of course, there is the cost of living to consider. Most of these things put Americans on the same ground as immigrants (cost of living may give some immigrants a slight advantage here).
However, immigrants (specifically, illegal ones) have one advantage over Americans (and even legal immigrants): unlike legal workers, these people aren't technically governed by such things as minimum wage laws. And the money made by these people is worth a lot more to them when sent out of the country, so lower wages are comparably good for them. Even in the case of most legal immigrants, if the worker's family is still living in (for example) Mexico, each dollar of American money will "stretch" farther when sent "home."

Thus, immigrants (and particularly illegal ones) can "outbid" American workers for certain jobs, because less money is worth more actual wealth to these people. In other words, immigrants taking Americans' jobs, not doing jobs that AMericans won't. Right now, this may actually be good for the consumers and the employers, but on the other hand it creates higher unemployment. This is in turn actually bad for the economy, because many of those unemployed people are supported via government-funded welfare programs, which require taxpayer moeny. So in taking "undeireable" jobs, these immigrants are actually providing a net drain on the economy, and hurting everybody (because of the higher taxes needed to fund welfare).

The Subtle Dangers of Advertising

According to this article, erotic images can blind you for a split second. This is interesting, because it add more weight to the complaints of various Christians about the use of sex in advertising: in this case, on bulletin boards. It would be interesting to see if there is a higher rate of automobile accidents in the vicinity of these kinds of bulletin boards that in areas of comparable driving hazaards without sexually explicit advertising.

Abortions Stops a Beating Heart: Message Saves a Life

With all of the bad news that we here about society and the fight to stop the legalized murder of abortions, it is nice to sometimes hear some positive news. The Lord surely moves in mysterious ways, and it is good to hear that all of those pro-life bumper stickers aren't going for nothing. It is a shame that so many people are so self-centered that they will overlook the life of their own child for the sake of convenience. And for the mother to be in the story: congratulations are in order. You won't regret making the right decision; may your child to be bring you many years of happiness and joy.

Sheehan's Trespassing Rabble

The anti-war rabble led by Cindy Sheehan may be annoying to those of us who have to hear about it every day on the news. But it must be far more frustrating to the people who live nearby. These people are having to deal with a group of protestors have come, uninvited, to the area, where they have set up a sort of camp along the rural road passing by Bush's residence in Crawford. They have also apparently been parking on people's private propert (tresspassing), set up portable bathroom units (which are unsigthly and even more unpleasant to those downwind), and have sometimes blocked the road.
One local resident has apparently finally had enough of it. We can only hope that the government doesn't decide to itervene by claiming that his land would better serve public interests as a more permanent campground for this mob.

Christian Socialism Part II

My previous post Christian Socialism Part I explained how the efforts of liberal Christians to bring about a utopia via government socialism will ultimately fail. However, more need to be said on this matter. Specifically, something should be said about what a Christian Society does look like, and perhaps how we should move ourselves in that direction.

The analysis of liberal Christians is, at its core, not entirely wrong. A true Christian Society will in fact be utopian. But it won't be the false utopia that government creates. No, it would have to be a true utopia, created by the individuals in society giving of themselves to care for those in need.
As odd as it may seem, using the government as a means of accomplishing this results in having a means that defeats the desired ends. Now, some would argue that this can't be true, because the poor and needy are provided for. The problem with this is that the end is not to provide for the poor.

That bears saying again: providing for the poor is not, in fact, an actual end of a true Christian Society. The end of a true Christian Society is that the people in the society are charitable. The implication of the statement that "A Christian Society must provide for the poor" is that a society requires poor people in order to be a Christian Society! However, a charitable society does not require any poor people. Charity can take many forms, and caring for the poor is only one of these forms. Charity can also be performing a service for someone else, such as helping a disabled neighbor by mowing his grass, or by comforting an elderly woman whom has become infirm. In short, charity involves caring for somebody, and voluntarily putting them ahead of oneself, not for some reward or to avoid some penalty, but because of one's love for fellow man.

As was mentioned in Christian Socialism Part I, the socialist government actually works against this by taking one person's possessions (money) and giving them to another, rather than allowing for people to freely, charitably give those possessions to those in need. And as was previously stated, this can foster resentment and ultimately hatred, which are detrimental and have no place in a Christian Society. Another point should be added to this: when a person gives freely of his possessions to his neighbor, he can actually see the effect that it has on that person. He can see that person's happiness, and this in turn can bring joy to his own heart.

That joy is a critical part of the Christian Society, as it can be combined with love and faith to strengthen a person's relationship with God. This is, of course, the single most important part of a Christian Society, the belief in, and trust of, God. He must be allowed to be the center of the society, otherwise it would not really be a Christian one.

This means allowing people to acknowledge Him whenever and wherever they so choose (recall that the Bible tells Christ's followers to pray always, as in 1Th5:17). It also means that society should encourage Christian morality. This is where government may play a small role: it can stop giving its endorsements to homosexuality (via legalized gay marriages), abortion (via abortions on demand), divorce (via no-fault divorces), and a host of other social problems. Doing this will in turn make people less likely to engage in other immoral activities (for example, making abortions illegal and teaching abstinence only programs in the school rather than how to use a condom and where to get an abortion) would surely lead to less sexual relationships outside of wedlock and to more mare fidelity.

Alternatively, the government can help bring about a Christian Society by staying out of the way. This means allowing school choice for parents (and more notably, allowing for homeschooling) and allowing parents to raise their own Children, rather than forcing them to learn about such things as condom use, drug abuse, and moral relativism in the classroom.
Parents in turn must do their part to raise their children properly, and the Church and community should always be there to lend a helping hand. And with the government no longer supporting every member of the community who feels entitled to government aid, the community would be more tight-knit. This would be the happy result of various members of the community being more charitable towards each other, having spent more time helping each other directly and of their own will, rather than through forced redistribution.

This society would be in general a happier society than the one which can be created through government socialism. People would be truly charitable towards each other, caring about each other's needs. It's moral standards would likely be more in tune with those of Christianity. And most importantly, the rule of God would be freely acknowledged. Would this society ever actually be created? Perhaps not in this lifetime. But this is the ideal towards which Christians should strive, and not via government interventionism, but through genuine societal reform. It is not possible to create Heaven on earth without the assistance of God, but with His assistance, anything becomes possible. The society that remembers this always may some day become a true Christian Society.

Christian Socialism Part I

The marriage of (liberal) Christianity to the economic philosophy of socialism arises from the generally well-intentioned goal of some Christians to create a form of "Heaven on earth," a utopian state. They have argued that a truly Christian society is one that provides and cares for its members. Even the great Christian intellectual CS Lewis stated in "Mere Christianity" that a Christian Society's "economic life was very socialistic and, in that sense, 'advanced.'" But is this the whole (economic) picture of the Christian Society?

The answer to this question is most certainly "no." The concept is a noce one, but it contains several holes (or perhaps omissions?). It is true that in a Christian Society, everyone would be provided for, but the means to this end must ultimately take a different shape than those which the left-leaning Christian socialists attempt to use.

First, the advocates of socialism often neglect the part about every member of the society contributing in the way that he or she can. This can be seen in such things as the "Great Society" of President Lyndon B. Johnson. For example, the perhaps well-meaning programs to help support single mothers had a side effect that has no place in a Christian Society: the surge of single mothers. In other words, many women who may have waited and formed a healthy relationship and family which would have included a father to provide for the family, or alternatively who would have tried to make an effort to support themselves through working, were now having children out of wedlock as a means of obtaining a little bit of extra money for themselves.

Likewise, the various welfare programs created to help those without jobs have created a (small) class of people who simply refuse to work for a living- especially since some welfare recipients actually recieve more income than they would by working. In the very same chapter of "Mere Christianity," Lewis states that in a Christian society, "there are to be no passengers of parasites: if a man does not work, he ought not to eat."

The ultimate problem with the Christian Socialists plan though is not this omission of the part about each member of society doing what he or she can to contribute. Rather, it's the insistence on using the government to bring about this society rather than working for social change. There are several problems with doing this. First, the government is extremely inefficient. Though "liberal" are often loath to admit to this, many often do; think, for example, of the many critisms about irresponsible military spending that made up much of the left's rhetoric during the 1990's.

Many Christians would cite the Bible in an attempt to defend this position. Often cited is Mark 12:17, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's." This is fine, but it overlooks the context: namely that Christians must perform their civil duties (such as paying taxes). However, this is not equivalent to saying that those taxes should be used for income redistribution, however charitable. These people overlook Luke 9:1e-14 "He answered them, 'Stop collecting more than what is prescribed.... Do not practice extortion... be satisfied with your wages.'" Now, some may say that this isn't condemning government taxation for "altruistic" purposes, since He was talking to tax collectors who would be taking extra money for themselves.
However, there is only a small difference between taking extra money for yourself and taking extra money for someone else (which is what a socialist system is actually doing). Christ's instructions to the soldiers are likewise applicable here: taking something forcibly from someone else to give away is morally equivalent to taking that something for oneself. Also, the verse in Mark 12:17 can be extended to private individuals: they should be allowed to keep what is theirs.

Of equal importance is that when people are forced to do something, the claim can't be made that they are doing it out of "charity." This can foster resentment, but more importantly, the sense of a society being good is a false one. A society can only be as good as the people of whom it consists. The government of the society can't force its people to be "good" by forcing them to carry out an act that might have "good" consequences.

Which brings the next big problem of that faces those who wish to see such a society: a Christian Society can't really be Christian if it lacks God. Unfortunately, many Christian socialists overlook this point, or worse yet, dismiss it. Alternatively, some of them graps the idea that was mentioned above, namely that people can't be made good through government intervention; these people however tend to carry that line of reasoning to the wrong conclusion. And then there are the non-Christian socialist with whom the Christian socialists ally themselves. Whichever the case is, they often fail to overlook many of the great problems that afflict society, problems such as abortion and gay marriages. They also often side against Christianity in such issues as whehther it should ever be allowed in public.

The combination of these things (attempting to allow a free pass economically with a government that normalizes a number of social problems) is actually very detrimental to the creation of a Christian Society. On the one hand, the allowance of gay marriages is actually equivalent to giving approval to them, and by extension, to these kinds of relationships.
Legal abortions on demand, especially without any kind of pre- or post-abortion counseling, tends to de-sensitize people to the atrocity of taking another's life. If you don't believe me on that one, think about this: before legal abortions, we didn't have legal euphanasia, either. Abortions on demand also enables and thus encourages more out of wedlock sexual intercourse, aka fornication, which the Bible certainly labels as a sin. Then there is the no-fault divorce, which has been followed by a skyrocketing divorce rate and (when combined with abortion and the gradual degradation of the meaning of marriage in general) the drop in over-all marriage rates.

When combined together, these things creates a society that can be described as being un-Christian or "post-Christian" at best, and anti-Christian at worst. People no longer rely on the actual charity their fellow man, but on the income redistribution of the government. One ramification of this is that they don't turn to the church for financial help, and those whose income is being redistributed have less money, not to mention less reason, to donate to various charitable organizations. The result of this is less charity and goodwill between people, an important part of any true Christian Society. This also severes the first bonds between the people and Christianity: giving aide in good times and being aided in bad. Combine this with a society whose morals are in decline and thus at odds with Christianity, and the result is a society that no longer wants God. Such a society can no longer be considered as a "Christian Society."