The Joy of the Truth » Natural Law

What if Natural Were Not Natural?

Jeffrey S. Arrowood, MTS — Fri, 18 Jun 2010 14:00:43 +0000

The Spring 2003 edition of Wilson Quarterly ran an article called, “What is Natural?” The author, Andrew Stark, was exploring the standards used by insurance companies to decide what treatments to cover and which ones not to cover. One of the standards that he explores is the classic standard of a true medication or treatment returning the human body to natural functioning. Of course, like a true modernist, Stark then asks the question what exactly is natural? One example that he gives is the question of covering Viagra but not birth control pills. The idea of returning to the body to natural functioning would seem to indicate that Viagra should be covered since it returns the natural procreative functioning of the male, and that contraception should not be covered because it works against the natural procreative functioning of female. Then Stark pulls the standard modernist trick “what if.”

But suppose we view “natural” sexuality in recreational, not procreative, terms. Since “most Viagra users are men aged 50–75, hardly peak biological years for procreation,” a writer in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer pointed out a few years ago, “the specter of ‘recreational’ use is hard to ignore.” Viagra users are not fulfilling their natural functioning but thumbing their noses at it. After all, as Robert Scheer wrote in the Los Angeles Times, “Isn’t sexual impotence God’s gentle way of saying to a 75-year-old man, ‘You’ve had enough’?” Contraception, by contrast, enables a woman “to enjoy sex,” Paige Shipman of Wisconsin Planned Parenthood told me, precisely by “eliminating a direct threat to her natural functioning: the ravages on her body that would result from having to bear 12 to 15 children.”

So if sex is understood in procreative terms, Viagra promotes natural functioning and contraception thwarts it. If it’s understood in recreational terms, Viagra frequently mocks natural functioning and contraception protects it. [1. Stark, Andrew. "What's Natural?" Wilson Quarterly. Spring 2003. 55-56.]

This common modernist fallacy creates a false supposition on which to base an argument. The argument itself seems perfectly logical, but the very premise on which it is based is made up out of thin air. “Suppose we just change the rules.”

For what reason would we consider sexuality from a recreational viewpoint? It is obvious to human reason that the purpose of human sexuality is greater than pleasure alone. It is equally obvious that at least part of that purpose is procreative. While there are many things in human life that bring pleasure, there are very few for which pleasure is the ultimate purpose because pleasure is such a low good on the hierarchy of human needs.

Of course, once you start heading down a false trail of logic, it is easy to remain misled. Paige Shipman’s comment about contraception preserving a woman’s natural functioning from the ravages of her body that result from having 12 to 15 children is a completely spurious argument. First of all, chemical contraception ravages the body even more than natural pregnancy — artificially aging the cervix, making the body more susceptible to cancer, and causing infertility. On the other hand, the woman’s natural fertility functioning makes it unlikely that she will ever bear 12 to 15 children. The application of little human reasoning to her natural fertility cycling guarantees it. The woman can use natural family planning to limit the number of children she has without using chemicals that would further damage her body.

Modernists like the “what if” game. It allows them to create a logical-sounding argument that calls truth into question while at the same time it makes no real claim to truth itself. It’s a dangerous form of propaganda that can do real harm.

Are We Missing God’s Plan for Our Adulthood?

Jeffrey S. Arrowood, MTS — Wed, 09 Jun 2010 14:00:28 +0000

It’s amazing what thoughts come to me as I mow the lawn. I was watching my children play in the sandbox and get excited every time I came into view on the riding lawnmower. I began to think about how carefree their lives are, not weighted down by the worries and concerns of the adult world. Sometimes my four-year-old daughter can’t understand why mommy and daddy don’t just play with her 24 hours a day. What could possibly be more important than playing?

These past weeks have been filled with concerns and worries. These concerns and worries don’t seem to touch our children at all. Yet they weigh heavily on my hearts and minds. Of course, this is how it should be. This is exactly what the Church means when it teaches that the innocence of children must be protected (most people see the term “innocence” in a purely sexual context — this is not the way the Church defines the term). Children are mentally, emotionally, and spiritually unable to handle the stress of the adult world in a Fallen world. By protecting them from this stress, we give them a chance to mature so that they are able to handle it by the time they are old enough to start taking on the responsibility.

Of course, as I watch their carefree play, I began to get a little jealous. Why can’t I be that carefree? Then it struck me that this is exactly the desire expressed in humanistic psychological philosophies. Philosophies such as Transactional Analysis Theory have made us believe that a healthy adults is able to recapture the carefreeness of childhood, and that being weighed down by adult concerns is a sign of psychological dysfunction. The more I thought about this the more ridiculous I felt about being jealous of my children. Humanistic psychology has proven to be untenable. It just doesn’t work. When adults try to be carefree in a Fallen world, we tend to become careless instead. When we try to reclaim our childhood we just end up hiding from reality.

Indeed, God’s design is for human beings to grow into what He has planned for us to become. Childhood is a preparation for adulthood — earthly life is a preparation for eternal life. All the while we are meant to grow in our capacity to love. So, what is in this desire to recapture our childhood that the gloomy adult world may be missing? What does God want to develop us into as adults that is reflected in the carefree play of childhood? Certainly God’s plan stands in opposition to the two extremes:

Humanism that would have us stick our heads in the sand and ignore evil, embracing a carefree childish attitude that ignores our responsibilities as adults

“Realism” that sees only the evils in the world and believes that all joy is nothing more than wishful thinking

The Christian is called to a balance. We must face the realities of this world, including the sinfulness and the evil that is was brought about by original sin. However, we face these evils knowing that good wins in the end. We faced them with joy, hope, and love. In that sense we can recapture some of the carefree joy of childhood. If we are not living in joy, hope, and love, we are missing out on what God has planned for our adulthood lives.

Joy is more than happiness. It is a deep-seated satisfaction that our lives have significance and meaning. The difference between the innocence of childhood and the joy of adulthood is that the innocence of childhood exists in oblivion to the evil around us, while the joy that occurs in adulthood often exists despite needing to face that evil.

Joy is the fruit of hope. Hope is trust in God. We trust that He will remain true to His promises to make all things right in the end — to bring about His Kingdom. We have hope in His power to bring good out of evil.

Love is the very life of God — the power to freely give ourselves as gifts to others for the sake of their good. When we love others, we are willing to face the evil that comes our way, and even to sacrifice good things that we may have coming to us for their sake. Love is strengthened by hope, and love is what makes our lives significant and meaningful, bringing us joy.

These are three of the elements that the innocence of childhood prepare us for and grow into. In the end, joy, hope and love are better than carefree innocence. If we are not living these three fruits of grace and maturity in our adult lives, we are missing out on what God has planned for us.

Like I said, it’s amazing what thoughts come to me as I mow the lawn.

Organ Donation: Act of Charity or Abuse of Human Dignity?

Jeffrey S. Arrowood, MTS — Mon, 07 Jun 2010 14:00:16 +0000

New York recently past a law requiring all citizens to be organ donors unless they opt out. While Catholic moral theologians are still debating the moral rightness of organ donation, in a culture of death this new law is more than problematic.

Catholic moral theologians debate the moral value of the organ donation because of the principle of totality and integrity, which states that the body should be kept whole unless the removal of a body part is necessary for the body’s overall health. This principle protects the dignity of the body as part of the human person. This philosophy of the human body stands at odds with other philosophies within our culture that see the body as a mere vessel for the spirit, or that see the human person as no more than a physical animal. There is also question about whether or not a human person is truly dead with the organs are harvested. Complete bodily death leads to the immediate deterioration of organs. Some organ donation advocates want to create a new category of “death” that allows for the harvesting of organs before the body is completely dead as long as it is reasonably certain that the patient will not regain consciousness and that the brain activity has fallen below a level defined as the standard for life. This places the value of the organ donor’s life below that of the organ recipient because the organ donor’s life is considered useless. The definition of brain death is debated among moral theologians.

Besides questions about the morality of organ harvesting in general, there is also the question about free will. If organ donation is deemed morally acceptable, it is because it is a free gift of one’s body for the good of another, and therefore an act of love. However, if organ donation is forced by law, this free act of love is diminished or even destroyed. Furthermore, our culture runs the risk of becoming utilitarian, judging one life against the other based on some standards of quality that are purely materialistic and that do not recognize the dignity and value of each human person.

Any way you look at it, the New York law is a problem. Yes, it could save lives by making more organs available for transplant, but only at the expense of devaluing other lives. It could put doctors in the position of making value judgments that determine that one person’s life has less value than another person’s. It could be one more step in the culture of death to devalue human personhood and to make life, our bodies, and our very lives into nothing more than a commodity for the highest bidder.

Faith and Reason

Jeffrey S. Arrowood, MTS — Thu, 01 Apr 2010 17:49:00 +0000

OK! One of my two major writing projects is completed and I now have time to dedicate to the blog and website again. I have probably by now lost all of my readers and will need to start from scratch. However, being me, instead of starting something new I’m going to continue the thread of thought that I left off with in my review of The Shack, even though most of you may not remember what that thread was.

So, a quick review: one problem I have with The Shack is the idea that it makes it appear that God wants us to completely surrender our self-will to God and rely on His will alone. While I agree that the main goal of the Christian’s life is to submit his will to the will of God, in the fullness of truth is ever-paradoxical. God calls us to submit our wills to His by exercising our free will – by freely choosing to make His will our will rather than passively surrendering ourselves to God’s will. As C.S. Lewis puts it in the Screwtape Letters, God wants us to surrender our will to His, only to give it back to us in ultimate freedom.

Do I sound like I’m splitting hairs here? An illustration will make my point clearer.

I have been reading / reviewing used books for the Bookstore. I came across Journey Without End by Carlo Carretto, an insightful mixture of pro-life teaching, mystical experience and spiritual direction. The only real problem I have with the book is that the author takes a strong stance against Natural Family Planning. Fortunately, the author is not in favor of contraception. Rather, he is opposed to any attempt to regulate births within a marriage. However, his position on NFP has many of the same problems as the anti-institution arguments made in The Shack.

This quotation reflects the core of his position.

‘I don’t hold with the Billings meth~d, I don’t hold with those who exclusively study the method but neglect reading
the Bible – which teaches how much God loves life and wants o ~r~pagate it and how his providence lovingly watches over each life, over every human being – and so contrive by artifice and selfishness to frustrate the programming done by God. My mother, I heard it said at home, w~s very regular in her cycles and always had her temperature just right.

‘In a word then, with this well-tried method, I should never have come into the world at all.

‘Morality would have been intact, but the divine programming designed to bring me to birth would have been mocked by my mother’s scheming and selfishness.

· cAs luck would have it, she got her sums wrong and 1 was born all the same; yes, I was born.

‘I was lucky enough to be born, though entirely by mistake, with the full consecration of ~morali;y.

cy ou can see these methods aren’t any good, since they get believers used to paying more attention to morality than to love, more to the act than to the intention.

‘In a word, the methods make them self-centred.

‘Wouldn’t it be better to promote faith in God, the hope that he is the true Father, that there’s no need to be afraid of babies, that food won’t run out since God is almighty?

. . .

‘When God programmes the birth of a baby, it’s better to trust absolutely and totally in him.

Like The Shack, this book sets up a false dichotomy between morality and love. Legalism is the error of following the moral law without love, but properly understood morality and love are one and the same thing. The Church is the way the Holy Spirit now guides us to moral truth, which guides us to love. The Church says that Natural Family Planning is in harmony with selfless love, as long as it is used for the proper (unselfish) reasons. Those proper (unselfish) reasons fall under the realm of responsible parenthood.

Yes, we are called to trust in God’s providence. That is where morality calls us to generosity in love. However, God always deals with us as free beings – not seeing freedom as a necessary evil, but seeing it as the way He created us to reflect His image. We are to seek God’s will by use of our free will to pray, discern, and reason what the greatest good is in each situation.

God, should we have another child right now?

Pray about it and be open to God’s voice
Evaluate your physical resources – finances, physical space, etc. – with consideration of the good of your family (not selfish desires to hoard physical goods for yourself)
Evaluate your psychological resources – stress levels, etc
Remind yourself that you are called to self-sacrifice and generosity in love
Make a reasoned, prayerful decision based on what is good for your family

It’s not either free will or God’s will; it’s not either morality or love. Truth is most often both and. We are created and called to use our intellect and our will to seek God’s will and to follow Him as free, loving persons.

Check out the Screwtape Letters by C.S. Lewis! Highly recommended! Click on the image to go to the bookstore.

Despite my disagreement with the author about NFP, I do recommend this book as a wonderful perspective on abortion. Only one available (used). Click on the image to go to the store.

The Dark Side of Science as Religion

Jeffrey S. Arrowood, MTS — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 19:50:45 +0000

A dark side can be found for anything. Certainly the Catholic Church has had its dark moments. After all, it is full of sinners. However, one can convincingly make the argument that the dark side of Catholicism is not due to its doctrine, but due to the failure of people to live up to its doctrine. When science attempts to replace religion as the source of meaning in life, the dark side becomes inherent in its doctrine. After all, for a naturalist the purpose of life stops at the propagation of the species. Naturalists are confronted with personal angst when they face death. Neither are platitudes absent from such a worldview. Telling a widow that her husband will “live in on our memories” is nothing short of a naturalist platitude. There is no afterlife, but our individual lives continue in the memories of others and in the genes we managed to hand down to the next generation. What true value can an individual life have in such a philosophy?

A scientific religion would probably have few mystics. However, one who might qualify for the role would be H.P. Lovecraft. Lovecraft’s modern Gothic horror fiction carries a single message – the universe is brutally apathetic about the individual person. His horror is often grounded in secular evolutionary philosophies – the monsters in one story turn out to be de-evolved human beings. Supernatural elements tend to be alien or demonic forces, with no recourse to supernatural Goodness in sight. Horrors go on under the surface of human awareness all the time, and the universe doesn’t care.

One story, “The Call of Cthulhu,” begins with a doctrinal statement about Truth.

The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents. We live on a placid island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity, and it was not meant that we should voyage far. The sciences, each straining in its own direction, have hitherto harmed us little; but some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the light into the peace and safety of a new dark age.

In Catholic thought, the disassociation of elements of truth leads to error. We do not read the Bible as a collection of proof texts (that is why most Catholics do not memorize chapter and verse), but as a whole. We do not support science separated from philosophy, theology and divine Wisdom. The totality of Truth leads to He who is Truth, Goodness and Beauty Himself.

[ad#seasonal]

We Have Come Full Circle

Jeffrey S. Arrowood, MTS — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 16:43:32 +0000

If it seems at times that my blog posts are not in sync with current events, it’s because most of them are a product of my meandering ponderings as I work in the garden, take a shower, or spend (distracted) time before the Blessed Sacrament. I was mulling on these thoughts as I was clearing my garden, getting it ready for winter.

I was thinking about our culture’s obsession with what it calls “science.” How did we get to the point where scientists can comment on areas of life not observable by science (such as God) and be embraced as experts? How did we get to the point where scientists assume that knowledge within the realm of science are matters of personal conviction rather than objective truth? How did we get to the point that “scientists” make assumptions about where human life begins, the side-effects of contraception, contraception and abortion as “women’s health,” in-vitro fertilization as the best option for infertile women, a biological genesis of homosexuality, etc. are made without scientific evidence? Then it occurred to me. Our culture is once again embracing “authority” as a source of truth.

Arguments using authority as a source for truth used to be very common. People who had proven themselves as trusted experts in an area were cited as proof in support of a thesis. For example, St. Thomas Aquinas often cited “The Philosopher” (Aristotle) and “The Apostle” (St. Paul). It was not necessary for Aquinas to prove what these two authorities said; the fact that they said it was proof enough. Such weight of proof was based on trust. Cited authorities had proven themselves and general consensus trusted their conclusions. Of course, for Catholics the ultimate authority was God. Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition were trusted because throughout history God had proven Himself trustworthy.

Many historians mark Descartes as the beginning of the rejection of arguments by authority. His famous dictum, “I think therefore I am,” was an assertion that the only truth of which one can be absolutely certain is his own thought. In truth, rejection of authority began before Descartes. After the medieval period of history culture began to turn more and more toward humanism, rejecting God as the source of all truth. The Protestant Reformation damaged trust in authority by casting doubt on the authority of Sacred Tradition and on the Magisterial authority instituted by Christ. Interpretation of scripture, which was seen as the only legitimate authority remaining, was left up to each individual. The Renaissance was a celebration of human ability, even though much of the subject matter in art and literature was still religious. Arguments by authority were cast in suspicious light. By the enlightenment arguments by authority were completely rejected in favor only of truth that could be proven by science and reason. By the twentieth century even reason had been rejected so that only science was considered a trustworthy source of truth.

Today scientists and “professionals” are trusted as authorities because the assumption is made that their claims to truth are based on science. There is a very large difference between the modern and the ancient reliance on tradition. Whereas the traditional use of authority was based on trust of the individual, modern use of authority is based only on the often erroneous assumption of scientific validity. “Well, he has a PhD, he must know what the science says about the subject.” Furthermore, while an appeal to authority was traditionally seen as a valid proof for an argument, it did not stand alone. Even appeals to divinely inspired authority (Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition) were paired with further proof from reason and science. Today, the word of an authority is typically accepted uncritically without need for further proof.

In one sense we have come full circle, back to the use of authority as proof. On the other hand, our current resting point is not the same place at all. While we continue to reject established authorities such as Aristotle, St. Thomas Aquinas and even God Himself, we readily and uncritically embrace unproven authorities simply because of their social status as “professionals.” In the end, by ignoring solid claims to truth through science, reason and trusted authority and embracing the unfounded opinions of so-called “professionals,” we have set ourselves up to be duped.

A related book at the From the Abbey Bookstore!

The Truth of Things by Marion Montgomery.

Against the modernist belief that truth is subjective, Montgomery promotes a return to classical philosophy and logic. She uncovers a world of academia where meaningless themed classes such as “the Literature of Vampires” have replaced systematic learning. Marion Montgomery also analyzes how this trend has affected our culture as a whole. Anti-intellectualism has even grasped the Catholic culture, and we need to be aware of its presence. Montgomery’s writing is academic and heady. You may find it difficult to absorb for long periods of time. However, this is one of those books for which perseverance pays off. The ideas Montgomery presents are absolutely enlightening.

[ad#seasonal]

Thinking and Intelligence aren’t the Same as Wisdom

Jeffrey S. Arrowood, MTS — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 17:14:57 +0000

I was talking to my mom about politics yesterday. We were sharing our frustration with all of the negative ads that seem to be hitting a crescendo in the last week before the election. We were also sharing our incredulity at the number of Catholics and non-Catholic Christians who seem to be defending their vote for the pro-choice Barak Obama, even though he has promised to sign the “Freedom of Choice Act” into law as his first act as president. I shared with my mother one example of my frustration.

A recent editorial in our local newspaper made the following claim:

It really makes me sad and I can’t see how anyone with a Christian conscience can vote McCain-Palin ticket. Vote for McCain, vote for the alcohol industry. Oh, they are against abortion but apparently not against liquor and they neglect to mention that the McCains are making a killing, in more ways than one, on the alcohol industry. I guess you aren’t as dead when you have been killed by a drunken driver. Try telling that to the family of the mother and 10-year-old daughter who were killed by a former surgeon after his third drunken driving offense.

I don’t want to see anyone killed but I think it would be poetic justice if it was your family and not mine killed or maimed by alcohol which is the industry McCains make a living from. How can you be this blind.

Apparently McCain has family members who are high up in the management of some major businesses in the alcohol industry. Therefore, a vote for McCain is a vote in favor of drunk driving and alcoholism. Therefore, the writer of this letter concludes that a vote for McCain is just as pro-death as a vote for Obama. Q.E.D.

If I need to explain to you how ridiculous this argument is, I’ll buy you a pizza and a beer some time and we can talk.

My expression of frustration was, “People just don’t think.”

My mom replied, “Oh, people are thinking. That doesn’t mean they’re thinking right.”

Ah, the wisdom of my mother. That must be where I get it from, eh?

My mom’s statement hit me because I had just been reading about the supernatural virtue of temperance in the book Divine Pity by Fr. Gerald Vann. This is the book on which I have been meditating during Eucharistic adoration each week. What struck me was a small paragraph on intellectual intemperance.

Fr. Vann said that there are two kinds of intemperance of the mind

to use the truth simply as a means of profit & pleasure
to twist the truth and pervert it

Both of these errors sacrifice reverence for the truth, which is an expression of Truth Himself.

It occurred to me that the problem with American culture is not that we don’t think at all (which might be considered the sin of intellectual insensibility), but that we use our intelligence to rationalize evil. Rationalizing evil actually commits both aspects of intellectual intemperance. When we rationalize, we use parts of the truth to explain away an evil for our own profit and pleasure, and we have to twist and pervert the truth in order to make it fit our desires.

The American culture has become very good at rationalizing evil. Moreover, doing so has become a firmly entrenched habit. The problem is not that America is less intellectual than it should be, or that people do not think. The problem is that American does not know how to correctly handle truth. We think, and we are proud of our “enlightened thinking,” but we do not think rightly.

Way to go, Mom. You put your finger right on it.

The Divine Pity by Fr. Gerald Vann.

family

Cheaters Never Prosper

Jeffrey S. Arrowood, MTS — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 09:37:00 +0000

Ok, “cheaters never prosper” is a cliche. But so is “every law was meant to be broken,” yet we hear this saying much more often – in word or idea. Our country is currently suffering from the greedy cheating of people associated with the Annie Mae and Freddie Mac companies. In 2002 we heard about a number of scholars who had plagiarized or otherwise misrepresented themselves and their scholarly work. At that time, U.S. News and World Report carried the article, “Our Cheating Hearts.”

The article begins:

The French philosopher and mathematician Blaise Pascal once claimed that “mutual cheating is the foundation of society.” For as long as there have been rules, it seems, there have been cheaters.

I would like to know the context of Pascal’s statement. He was, after all, a Catholic scholar and I find it difficult to believe that he was so defeatist. This statement, like “every law was meant to be broken,” indicates (with a wink and a smirk) that cheating is natural to human beings.

When we are faced with human depravity, we tend to defend our sensibilities in two ways. First, we try to shrug it off by convincing ourselves that it is inevitable or normal or inevitable. Second, we try to find a psychological explanation.

What’s going on here? Doesn’t anyone play by the rules? On Wall Street, the one-two punch of greed and competition is to blame, says journalist James Stewart. His coverage of the 1987 stock crash and insider-trading scandals earned him a Pulitzer and became the foundation of his bestseller Den of Thieves. All that money sloshing around, he says, “can drive people into a frenzy. . . . You’re thrown in that competitive situation at a very early age and exhorted to win at all costs.” And that win-at-all-costs ethic, critics say, is the foundation of the cheating culture.

In Hollywood, “you can get away with your embezzlements and your lies, and your murders, but you can never get away with failing,” according to Dominick Dunne, celebrated chronicler of the powerful and notorious. The pressure to succeed–and the fear of failure–Dunne says, is the perfect prescription for cheating. It may also be the root of widespread cheating among students. Consider: Seventy-four percent of high school students admitted to “serious test cheating” last year. That’s more than double the number who admitted this in 1969.

Certainly an overemphasis on success leads to cheating. I see this in high school students and their parents, or example. Sometimes we even get parents defending or even abetting the cheating by their children and offering the excuse, “Well, she has to get into college and she can’t do that without a good grade in this class.”

Obsession with success and the willingness to sacrifice integrity show a degradation of priorities and a false sense of happiness – a willingness to sacrifice transcendent goods such as honesty, truth and integrity for the sake of temporal, imperfect, and insecure goods such as money and success. Obsession with success brings constant dissatisfaction and cheating does nothing to alleviate the unhappiness caused by a disordered life.

Of course, there are other reasons for cheating as well:

But pressure to succeed isn’t a complete explanation. Undeniably, there is an almost romantic appeal to “beating the system”–particularly if the system, whether it’s the speed limit or the stock market, is perceived as rigged or unfair. Take the tax code, for instance. Nearly everyone thinks he or she pays too much or that others don’t pay enough. So Americans cheat to the tune of $195 billion a year, according to the Internal Revenue Service. That amounts to a whopping $1,600 per taxpayer.

While the first cause of cheating is a false sense of true happiness, the second is a false idea of the purpose of authority. “Sticking it to the man” has been in vogue since the 1960′s. Actually, it has been part of the American culture since the American Revolution when True Whigs held a philosophy that held all authority suspect. Americans hold that individuals need to grab all they can for themselves while authority attempts to keep them from it.

However, the truth is that authority is intended to lead us to authentic goodness, especially when our own weaknesses or ignorance would make attaining that goodness more difficult if not impossible. Often our attempt to “stick it to the man” or to “beat the system” are like my two-and-a-half-year-old’s stubborn refusal to wear pants.

And think about the reasons people give for cheating. We steal cable because “the prices are a rip-off.” We fudge insurance claims because “the rates are sky high.” We pocket office supplies because “the company can afford it.” All these rationalizations suggest people are perversely cheating to restore fairness. Is this tolerable?

Yes, sometimes the explanation of why we cheat is just that we’re selfish and whiny. We tend to think we are never getting enough because we are never satisfied with what we have.

So, whether we are revealing our messed-up priorities, our hubris, or our selfishness, we sacrifice much when we cheat. Cheaters destroy their personal integrity – the virtue of being who you were created to be. What’s more, since human beings are created to receive Truth, cheaters do great harm to justice between them and others, therefore isolating them from the bond of trust that creates a society. And what do we gain? A stapler? A few hundred dollars that we’ll spend foolishly anyway? A good grade that won’t even be remembered ten years from now? Even those people who rise to positions of power and prestige by cheating live with the constant fear that they will be found the fraud.

Furthermore, all sin does harm to society

No wonder many are now asking if there’s been a major shift in cultural standards–whether cheating and deceit have become accepted tools of the trade in the never-ending quest for success.

We have an innate sense that cheating is evil. U.S. News & World Report, the consummate supporter of bad science, explains:

Yet there is tension here as well. As great as the urge to cheat may be, we also have an almost hard-wired hatred of cheaters and a deep-seated urge to punish them. In fact, studies have shown people will go to great lengths to ferret out and punish cheaters, even when doing so is costly and offers no material gain. According to sociologists, this instinct to punish rule-breakers may date to hunter-gatherer societies, which were highly egalitarian–there were no hierarchical leaders. So when it came to sharing food, for instance, these minisocieties had to work as a group to punish any freeloaders.

It amazes me that everything can be traced back to the “hunter-gatherer” era of human history, as if this era (inexplicably) forever defined human nature. Truth be told, every time the “hunter-gatherer” era is used as an explanation for modern human behavior, the connection is based on a total guess. There is no evidence. This pseudo-scientific explanation is a “socially acceptable” alternative to the acceptance of natural law. We know that cheating is bad because human beings were created for Truth.

As Catholics, we know through Divine Revelation that human beings once knew the perfect life, but that Original Sin damaged our intellect and our will. Therefore we are tempted toward sin and deceit, yet we still hold goodness as our ideal. Cheaters never prosper – not because they are never successful but because they sacrifice the reality of who they are meant to be for the myth of what they wish they had.

[ad#naturallaw]

Enjoying the Gift but Loving the Giver More

Jeffrey S. Arrowood, MTS — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 18:09:59 +0000

In our diocesan parenting program, “Teaching the Way of Love,” one of the points we make is that we need to teach our children how to receive love well in addition to teaching them how to give love. I tell the story of Christmas at my parents’ home and at the home of my in-laws.

At my wife’s family’s Christmas celebration the kids are turned loose at a designated time and everyone rips into their gifts in an atmosphere of joyful chaos. Adult eyes are everywhere, watching our own children opening gifts, trying to watch for our nieces and nephews opening the gifts we got them, watching our children try to steal their cousins’ toys, receiving words and hugs of thanks all at the same time.

At my own family’s Christmas celebration, everyone receives their gifts and then we take turns opening one gift at a time. So one person opens one gift, shows it to everyone, says thank you (with words – hugs come later), and then the next person opens one gift. The children get a little antsy to be able to open their gifts, but they do enjoy watching everyone else open theirs (and have to be reigned in once in a while when their desire to help gets a little overbearing). It takes a very long time to get through all of the gifts, and we’re usually hot and tired afterward. But the ritual is accomplished with much eating and much laughter.

I then ask the audience, at which celebration would you rather be the giver of the gift? Despite the fact that my description of my parents’ celebration always seems more boring than the actual event, the audience invariably chooses it over the celebration of my in-laws. Why? Because everyone is watching the recipient of the gift open it, taking the time to see what the gift is, taking time to appreciate it together, and sharing in the love behind it. Even gag gifts make their way into this ritual, signifying our knowledge of each other and an appreciation of our family’s collective sense of humor. The giver of the gift is appreciated at least as much as the gift itself.

Teaching our children to receive gifts well perhaps needs to go beyond reminding them to say “Thank you.” It may require parents to teach their children how to

recognize gifts that come in not-so-obvious forms that might otherwise go unappreciated
appreciate the meaning behind certain gifts, “This was your grandfather’s carving knife. He gave it to you because he hopes you’ll enjoy wood carving as much as he did.”
take the time to appreciate one gift before rushing on to another
learn how to appreciate gifts that were not on the wish list
learn how to accept disappointing gifts with graciousness and love

The main idea is to teach our children that the gift is a sign of love from the giver. The gift is meant to be enjoyed, but the giver of the gift should be appreciated and loved more. Think of the implications of teaching our children the art of receiving a gift well. Especially when they realize that all created goods are gifts from God, given to us as signs of His love.

What would it mean to move through life enjoying the gifts, but loving the Giver more? It would mean living a life of supernatural temperance. Temperance as a natural virtue helps us to find a balance in the enjoyment of physical goods and pleasures that is healthy for us spiritually and physically. Supernatural temperance adds to that healthy balance the awareness that every physical good and pleasure is imbued with the meaning of the love of God. When we focus on the Giver more than the gift, we are able to enjoy the gift even more because we receive both the goodness of the gift and the love of the Giver.

The implications for human relationships are the same. We would interact with others in an attitude of gratitude and love, recognizing all the ways that they offer themselves as gifts to us (and, of course, returning the gift of love in service to them as well). Battling selfishness and greed would be made easier by the enjoyment of the love of neighbor.

The implications for chastity are amazing. What would it mean to see sex within our romantic relationships as a gift? What would it mean to receive that gift well, to focus on the love of the giver more than on the gift itself? Sex before marriage would be seen as ripping into the gift early, without regard to the giver (since it does not yet reflect the true commitment of married love). However, the gift of one’s sexuality (the ability to give and receive love as a man or as a woman – which extends beyond the act of sex or even the context of romance) would be shared in the context of true love. Sex within marriage would be seen as a mutual gift of love, not just a means to pleasure. Of course, the pleasure is enjoyed as well – and even more since it comes with the awareness and sharing of love.

Focusing only on the gift (materialism) offers only temporary and incomplete happiness. Focusing on the giver leads to enjoyment of the gift, plus appreciation of the love of the giver. What a beautiful way to live our lives.

Check out these books at the From the Abbey bookstore about giving and receiving love.

Crystal Star Angel is about a boy who wins a special gift by discovering the true meaning of love. This is a great book for teaching children about giving and receiving gifts. This is a Christmas story.

Divine Pity explicitly makes the argument about supernatural temperance and the importance of loving the giver more than the gift.

[ad#seasonal]

What America Needs is a Good Clown

Jeffrey S. Arrowood, MTS — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 18:25:49 +0000

I just listened to Archbishop Fulton Sheen’s program, “The Clown is Always Right” (an episode of Life is Worth Living). Archbishop Sheen proposes that clowns hold within their characters the ideal balance of seriousness and humor. He then describes in modern culture the division of classes, some of which take the world too seriously and have no humor and others how live only to enjoy life and take nothing seriously.

We can certainly see this trend in modern culture. Those who take the world too seriously and have no humor include the “hate crime police.” These descendants of the politically correct crowd tolerate no humor about any group of people they deem “persecuted.” I’m not promoting humor that occurs at the expense of another’s dignity. I’m talking about the kind of humor that is rooted in a people’s ability to laugh at themselves and then to allow others to join in that laughter. Such humor is rare today.

Those who refuse to take anyone seriously include the “free sex” crowd. These people want sexual pleasure without the serious task for which sex was created – the task of bearing and caring for children. They define freedom as the ability to do whatever you want (personal autonomy) as free from consequences as possible.

The Catholic life is one of balance. In this case, we are called to enjoy life – to laugh, to love, to receive the goodness of Creation. However, we are also called to take certain things very seriously – the well being of others, the consequences of our choices, our physical and spiritual health, our salvation and the salvation of others. Such a balance ensures that we receive the fullness of the goodness of life. Jesus emphasizes this balance – this paradox – in His own teachings. “Blessed are those who mourn.”

The Joy of the Truth » Natural Law

What if Natural Were Not Natural?

Related Links:

Are We Missing God’s Plan for Our Adulthood?

Related Links:

Organ Donation: Act of Charity or Abuse of Human Dignity?

Related Links:

Faith and Reason

Related Links:

The Dark Side of Science as Religion

Related Links:

We Have Come Full Circle

Related Links:

Thinking and Intelligence aren’t the Same as Wisdom

Related Links:

Cheaters Never Prosper

Related Links:

Enjoying the Gift but Loving the Giver More

Related Links:

What America Needs is a Good Clown

Related Links: