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.

Related Links:

• Do you know of good links related to this post? Let me know by leaving a comment!

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Utilitarianism shows itself again in an editorial that appeared in our local newspaper. The syndicated editorial can also be read here: Bring on the Organ Market, Mr. Obama. Bill Steigerwald argues that the legalization of the human organ market would save lives, and all other considerations pale in comparison to the importance of saving lives.

With just the power of his oratory and his yet-untarnished moral authority, our new changer-in-chief could save 7,000 American lives a year, put an end to the physical and mental suffering of another 100,000 men, women and children and save billions of dollars in unnecessary medical costs.

All he has to do on Jan. 20 is call for the repeal of the National Organ Transplant Act of 1984. That’s the terrible federal law that criminalizes the buying and selling of human organs for transplant operations — and therefore makes it a virtual certainty that the supply of kidneys, livers and hearts will never meet our demand for them.

Citing an article in The Economist, Steigerwald dismisses concerns forwarded by opponents of human organ sales by calling them “irrational, exaggerated or bogus.”

Outlawing organs does what outlawing drugs, booze or any other highly demanded product does: it creates a dangerous black market with no regulatory or judicial oversight.

The line that caught my attention was:

Meanwhile, the “moral” arguments of the ivory-towered medical ethicists, who think treating human body parts like a commercial commodity is an indignity that trumps saving lives, are indefensible.

Here is the quintessential utilitarian argument. Saving lives is a tangible and obvious benefit. Protecting human dignity is an ambiguous, unobservable value. Therefore saving lives trumps human dignity.

There is no doubt that saving lives is a good thing to do. Pope John Paul II has called human organ donation a morally heroic act of service. However, buying and selling human organs presents a number of evils

• First and foremost, buying and selling human organs treats the human body as a commodity. The human body is part of the human person, and human persons should never be bought and sold.
• Buying and selling human organs turns an act of heroic love into an act of self-interest, destroying the virtuous value of the act of self-donation
• Buying and selling human organs strengthens the utilitarian philosophy in the medical community, which already sees itself in the business of providing products and services in exchange for money rather than serving the needs of the sick and vulnerable.
• To call the concerns that the rich would benefit at the expense of the poor is naive, considering human history. Questions need to be answered — who would profit from the sale of human organs, who would pay for these organs and how?, etc.

These concerns are less important than saving human life only if you believe that this life is all there is. If the end of earthly life is the end of our existence, then it makes sense that the extension of earthly life should be our primary priority. Or does it?

It is a great irony that the same utilitarian philosophy that embraces the sale of human organs for the sake of saving lives also embraces abortion and euthanasia. While life is an observable good, valuing life only really makes sense if the human person has dignity, and if human life has meaning beyond earthly existence. If these elements of human life are missing, then what’s the point of preserving human life that has no value?

On the other hand, if our human life has dignity, then saving human life makes even more sense. We are called to see our lives as a gift exactly because human persons have dignity. To sacrifice human dignity for the sake of saving life makes no sense. If life continues beyond this earthly existence (and contrary to popular “intellectual” diatribe, it is reasonable to believe that it does), how we face our inevitable death is also very important. Equally important is the attitude that human beings take toward each other. In the face of life in heaven, there is a point when we say that preserving human dignity is more important than saving our life.

Finally, Steigerwald’s claim that medical ethicists sit in ivory towers, detached from the real suffering of real people, is just plain ignorant. Medical ethicists are in the trenches every day, working with real people who are experiencing real suffering and real moral dilemmas. Their task is to help people embrace the greatest possible good within their specific difficult circumstances so that patients and families can live or die with true human dignity and in the peace that they have embraced goodness to the best of their ability. Modernists, utilitarians, and materialists who ignore the devastation their derision of transcendent goods such as human dignity rains on our culture live in a fantasy world that will in the end bring us doom in the name of healing.

Steigerwald’s own fantasy world is exposed when he claims that Barak Obama would not alienate anyone by legalizing international organ sale. He has obviously not been listening to the voices debating the value of human dignity vs. human autonomy. By abolishing the National Organ Transplant Act of 1984, Obama would open up a can of worms that would take his administration by surprise. America does not need yet one more way to treat the human person as a commodity to be bought and sold.

[ad#seasonal]

Related Links:

• Do you know of good links related to this post? Let me know by leaving a comment!

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

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]

Related Links:

• Do you know of good links related to this post? Let me know by leaving a comment!

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

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]

Related Links:

• Do you know of good links related to this post? Let me know by leaving a comment!

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

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.”

Related Links:

• Do you know of good links related to this post? Let me know by leaving a comment!

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

I found out after the concert that the music teacher had reservations about the blues piece. Her comment was, “Blues music is not good for your soul.” I would not go so far, but after my musical musings I understand where she is coming from.

Related Links:

• Do you know of good links related to this post? Let me know by leaving a comment!

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

In the “Inconvenient Truth” atmosphere of global warming paranoia, McDonough has been all but forgotten. However, his wisdom is very much needed today. The problem with Democratic liberal environmentalism is that it sees industrial America and big business as the enemy. In fact, it sometimes seems to consider all of humanity the enemy of the natural world. On the other hand, Republican conservative big-business tends to see all environmentalism as its enemy.

Conservative Christians who ally themselves with the Republican Party tend to make the same mistake. If Al Gore’s “Inconvenient Truth” alarmist mentality is incomprehensible, so is the attitude that since there is no evidence global warming is caused by human activity, there is no reason to try to control greenhouse gas emissions. I have to wonder, what is so wrong with wanting to put reasonable restrictions on greenhouse gasses and other pollutants? Since when is it anti-Christian to be environmentally conscious?

William McDonough transcends these myopic attitudes toward the environment and attempts to bring environmentalism and good business sense together. As an architect, he tries to make environmentally friendly buildings that save companies money by cutting energy costs.

USNews.com: Green Machine

McDonough is working to convince environmentalists and capitalists they have a common cause. What sets the architect apart is his rejection of traditional environmentalist attitudes. He discards as simplistic the notion of growth vs. no growth. “Most environmentalists are saying be less bad,” he says. “We think growth is good. It just has to be something you would be happy to see growing.”

Now that is transcendent thought! Instead of viewing big business as the enemy, McDonough tries to get big business to find profit in environmentalism. His philosophy is wise, deep and broad.

McDonough sketches his philosophy in a triangle, with economic returns, social good, and environmental benefits at the three corners. Instead of the either-or trade-offs typically associated with the environmental movement–build green or build cheap–McDonough believes it is possible to aim for the middle of the triangle, maximizing all three factors. Traditional thinking is that the way to build green is to, say, build a sealed box that costs less to cool because you can’t open the windows and it’s dark inside. But McDonough is convinced that with creative architecture and design, appealing workspaces can coexist with environmental efficiency and remain sound business decisions.

One would think that this out-of-the-box thinking (if you’ll pardon the pun) would be widely acclaimed. It is accepted by some. Ford Motor Company hired McDonough to redesign their original plant on Michigan Rouge River outside of Detroit. He also designed several office buildings in Silicon Valley in California. However, it seems his harshest criticisms come from environmentalists.

Some environmentalists are uncomfortable with the enthusiasm for business McDonough embodies, questioning the need to constantly justify good environmental design in terms of cost and vague promises of increased productivity. “Why shouldn’t corporations do it just because people will go home at night and feel healthy?” asks David Gissen, a professor at Penn State and curator of an exhibit on green architecture at the National Building Museum that will include several of McDonough’s projects. That he’s working with Ford at all has drawn criticism from environmentalists who see clients like Ford and the Gap as the enemy. McDonough bristles at those attitudes. “Who are we supposed to work with? At least they’re leading and trying to go forward,” he says. “People need to recognize the need of industry to transform–to move as quickly as possible toward the positive alternatives. Our job is to provide those positive alternatives.”

Why shouldn’t corporations do it just because people will go home at night and feel healthy? Because that’s not how corporations work. Corporations exist to make money. There is nothing wrong with that. They provide us with important goods and services. If they can make money, and make people go home at night and feel healthy, many corporations would be happy about meeting both goals. The narrow-minded thinking of McDonough’s critics will never work. We need more people like McDonough who are able to transcend narrow polemical thinking. We need these people in all areas of our culture, not just in environmentalism. The Catholic Church should be the largest source of transcendent thinkers. We need to get busy!

Powered by ScribeFire.

Related Links:

• Do you know of good links related to this post? Let me know by leaving a comment!

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.