Marriage: What is the point?

I came across an interesting book on www.amazon.com, in one my meanderings. Since I am currently in the process of (perhaps) joining the Catholic Church, the book's title was of particular interest to me; "Sacred Marriage: What If God Designed Marriage To Make Us Holy More Than To Make Us Happy?". Let me say from the start that I have not read the book and do not have any plans to do so. The title, by itself, was enough to set me thinking about the purpose of marriage.

It seems to me that one thing that often plagues the modern mind is the inability to ask the right questions. It could be that our political sense has hijacked our common sense. There are some who want to redefine marriage without a thorough investigation of the nature of the social institution of marriage and all of the ramifications of such a redefinition. By the way, concerning this discussion, I would suggest reading the following article from Time Magazine.

What is the point of marriage? If it is simply the "legal" sanction to a partnership? If that is it why limit it to two persons? For that matter, what does a government have to do with the commitment of two persons? The type of questions lead to a whole slew of others that are even more complicated, like what will be the affect of abandoning natural and traditional marriage on our children and the society.

I find it interesting that the author, Gary L. Thomas, does not appear to be Catholic. However, the title of the book immediately calls to mind the Catholic (and Orthodox) view of marriage as a Sacrament, i.e., "The sacraments are efficacious signs of grace, instituted by Christ and entrusted to the Church, by which divine life is dispensed to us. The visible rites by which the sacraments are celebrated signify and make present the graces proper to each sacrament. They bear fruit in those who receive them with the required dispositions." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, Para. 1131)

In short, God Almighty instituted marriage, like everything in the natural order to make us saints. It calls to mind a now famous quote. "There is but one sadness," said Leon Bloy, "that of not being a saint." According to the Catholic Church the whole point of our creation was everlasting communion with The Holy Trinity (Sainthood). It is interesting that Satan would tell Adam and Eve that if they eat of "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" then they "shall be as God". For man to be like God was, indeed, God's idea from the beginning. Incidentally, notice that Satan did not lie blatantly, but, instead twisted the meaning. It is, then, not so surprising that people who support infanticide label themselves "pro-choice". Deification or Theosis are terms used in the Eastern Orthodox Churches. The concept is the same in the western, Catholic Church.

God, through the Church, did institute the Sacramentos to make us Holy. If we understand that, it is much easier to answer the questions that I posed above. My hope is that by focusing the public debate on these type of questions, our dialog will be more fruitful. Conversely, if we continue to ignore natural realities and twist meanings, according the the Satanic method, the results will be dramatically less beneficial.

New On-Line Bible Resource

Check out this wonderful On-Line Bible resource from NewAdvent. It is wonderful for language geeks like me.

"Story of the Weeping Camel"

My family and I viewed "The Story of the Weeping Camel" last night and found it fascinating and profound. I must admit that I did not expect much. In fact, I was prepared for another "March of the Penguins", which was not unenjoyable, but was not (in my opinion) profound. Perhaps, the difference was the presence of men (and women too, for those who are unaware of my position on "gender-neutral language").

The movie was much more than a virtual travelogue. It was, I think, perhaps unbeknownst to the director, producer, and distributors, a profound, applied contemplation on what it means to be human and a member of the geosphere. However, it surpassed the simplistic and polemic diatribes of the likes of Al Gore.

The story is set among nomadic shepherds in the Gobi desert of South Mongolia, who have herds of sheep and Bactrian Camels. The plot and title were derived from a pregnant female and the subsequent delivery of the baby. She was in labor for 2 days and, finally, delivered a particularly large colt. Although I, not being learned in Camel psychology, can only speculate why, the mother rejects the colt. The shepherds attempt to reconcile the mother and son, but to no avail. Finally, they concede that a ritual will be necessary. For my family and I, this was the most poignant part of the movie.

For those of you who would prefer to see it for yourself (and I highly recommend this), I will not ruin the ending for you. By the way, you can purchase it here. Let me just say that the "ritual" was inspiring. I was particularly moved but the transcendence of the event. The striking nature of its transcendence was probably greater since I am a modern urbanite.

It is astounding to me that moderns do not seem to appreciate the connectedness of being. I do not mean a monistic connectedness in the sense of communism and other such dreadful and pessimistic socio-political theories that have ruined the world. I mean to say that it was a wondrous and mysterious connectedness. The sort that was more easily understood by the "uncivilized", ancient mind.

The ancients could appreciate it and believe it because they were not yet robbed of mystery. Moderns, largely due to the heresy of scientism, have had this mystery taken from them by well-meaning (I think) scientists. We have turned Saint George into a mythological figment of out primitive imaginations and the dragon into a theory of evolutionary biology.

I am not,for a second, suggesting that we should abandon modern science and its benefits. I am, however, suggesting that we learn to see it for what it truly is...subjective. The word Science is taken from the Latin word Scientia, which roughly means knowing. We have forgotten that it is our perception of reality and, given that fact that "scientific facts" continue to change, we do not have absolute and objective knowledge.

Albert Einstein once (in response to an atheist) said "Try and penetrate with our limited means the secrets of nature and you will find that, behind all the discernible concatenations, there remains something subtle, intangible and inexplicable. Veneration for this force beyond anything that we can comprehend is my religion. To that extent I am, in point of fact, religious".

The ritual performed by the nomads, in the film, embodied this mysterious, inexplicable, and intangible transcendence that we have lost. The incantation of the ritual was a conduit for an eternal mysterious (some may say religious) truth that mother and child should be reconciled, as man and God. The knowledge or Word of what OUGHT TO BE was miraculously brought into time and space and saved the life of the colt. The word was, indeed, made flesh.

It seems interesting that many scientists are now theorizing that information (or a Word) seems to have proceeded matter in the universe. This theory opens us again to the idea that man is not simply a product of evolutionary accidents. In short, metaphysics comes into play again. The reality is that it never left. We are, this much is sure, but how OUGHT we to live.

Let us then dialogue (through the Word) concerning life and all being, not merely through test tubes and spectrometers. Let us connect with mystery and transcendence again, by putting Saint George back on his Horse, giving him his spear and staring wonderingly, as he slays the terrible and awesome dragon.

Indeed Saint George is more true than facts; just as is Harry Potter. Myths, fables, and faith allow hope to enter our world again. We can transcend our programming and biology. In this sense stories (whether historical or not) are religious and hopeful. The hopelessness and futility that modern pessimism (that is so much a result of scientism) is proposing is soundly refuted in "The Story of the Weeping Camel". Perhaps if we, as G.K. Chesterton said (in reference to Charles Dickens work) "abandon hopelessness, all ye who enter here", we may truly understand the ultimate mystery and hope embodied in the phrases HOC EST ENIM CORPUS MEUM....HIC EST ENIM CALIX SÁNGUINIS MEI, NOVI ET ÆTÉRNI TESTAMÉNTI: MYSTÉRIUM FIDEI: QUI PRO VOBIS ET PRO MULTIS EFFUNDÉTUR IN REMISSIÓNEM PECCATÓRUM.

Pornography Addiction!

I came across this wonderful website concerning pornography addiction. Check it out!

Manhattan Declaration

It is about time!!!

The Manhattan Declaration is proof that the there are many Christians who have not bowed the knee to Ba'al. I fully and enthusiastically support this Declaration, as it is simply the articulation of thousands of years of Judeo-Christian beliefs. I noticed, though, that www.manhattandeclaration.org is unreachable. It would not surprise me if godless (unless they count themselves as gods) liberals hacked the site. Anyway, you can read about it at the above link.

John Mark's signature ???

Two verses in the Gospel of St. Mark have always interested me. First there is his rendition of Christ's meeting with the rich young man. Specifically, Chapter 10 , verse 21 has intrigued me. It says, Jesus, looking at him, loved him and said to him, "You are lacking in one thing. Go, sell what you have, and give to (the) poor and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me." It always seemed to strike as similar to St. John's phrase "the disciple whom Jesus loved". It is, as far as I know, unamimously believed that St. John was making reference to himself. I think that it is possibel that St. Mark is employing the same device. Perhaps, he is the rich young man. It does appear that it is implied in the Acts of the Apostles that John Mark's mother was rich; as the Apostles used to meet in her house. It is likely then that the "Upper Room" was in St. Mark's house. Sacred Tradition indicates that St. Mark's Gospel was compiled from St. Peter's recollections in Rome. One may ask, why did he not just say it was himself. My answer would be humility. Also, he may have wanted to underscore that his encounter with the Son of The Living God is available to all. Moreover, the transformative nature of this encounter may have been alluded to in the other verse that mentioned.

In Chapter 14, verses 51-52, St. Mark's Gospel says, "Now a young man followed him wearing nothing but a linen cloth about his body. They seized him, but he left the cloth behind and ran off naked." I believe that this is St. Mark too. It would have been the perfect Mea Culpa for the earlier incident of the Rich Young Man, if that was St. Mark, as well. Additionally, it implies his guilt for not following Christ to His death. It just makes so much sense to me. The Rich man comes with everything and the other man runs away naked. He has lost all, except Christ. This is the nature of the relationship with Christ for all. It is the supreme paradox. We must lose all to gain everything! You must die to self and decorations of the world in order to have life. It is precisely for this reason that all who mean The Son of The Living God must discover same truth that St. Mark discover.

I can't stop laughing at this commercial!

I am not sure why, but every time I see this commercial, I begin laughing aloud. It needed to be posted on my blog. Cheers!

Biblical Morality

Melkite Church in McLean, VA

How Sweet It Was!

A New Season

It is finally here! The Pittsburgh Penguins begin their attempt to repeat as Stanley Cup Champions tonight at the Igloo. I would love to be there. On that note, if any wants to give me 6 tickets to the game, please add a comment and I will contact you. The crazy thing is that I think they can repeat. It does not appear to me that other Eastern Conference teams that were close in talent got substancally better. So, given no catastrophic injuries, I except the Penguins to go deep into the playoffs. If things turn-out as I think they will, Sid, Geno, and the others may meet Roberto and the Canucks for the Cup.

Arabic Hymn

A different view on the Theology of the Body

Finally! Someone has put together a cogent critique of the present glut of re-packages of TOB. I can definitely say that the more I heard of it, over the past few years, the more suspicious I became. Although, I could not put my finger on it, instinctively, I felt something was wrong. The author, at novantiqua.com did just this. It is not a sweepingly, thorough critique, but it is foundational enough to raise a few red flags. Please do not mistake what I am saying. I am not suggesting that Pope JPII's presentation was, in any way, heretical or misguided. I am, however, suggesting that the current rash of repackages take his presentation out of context. A word of caution, though, is warranted. The author is a Thomist (therefore, Aristotelian) philosopher, so be prepared for a somewhat completed style. I thoroughly enjoyed the articles and propose that anyone who has similar feelings about the current TOB rage will, likewise, enjoy them.

Good or Evil, Who Decides?

Saint Thomas Aquinas in Today's World

Homosexual...Marriage???

Let me start by being clear on two points.
1) I do not believe in homosexual people; so there is no point, in my mind, in determining whether people are "born this way" or not. I believe people, through corrupt culture or other psychological reasons, have physical attraction to persons of the same sex.
2) Homosexual intercourse, like other sins of the flesh, are "that which is against the order of reason" (St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Question 153). Therefore, it is sinful; just like masturbation, fornication, adultery, and abortion. The reason for intercourse is the solidification of the marital bond and procreation. In the nature of sins is that there are characterized by excess. Homosexual intercourse serves no societal useful end but immediate gratification (similar to adultery). It is similar to mutual masturbation.

After those two whoppers, I should be clear to the reader that I believe there is no such thing as "homosexual marriage" and, given the fact that we are social beings, the state has a compelling interest in limiting marriage to one man and one woman.

I do have empathy for those you suffer SSA. Likewise, I empathize with those you suffer an inordinate attraction to extra-marital relations, fornication, pornography, or child molestation. By the way, let me be CRYSTAL CLEAR, I am NOT advocating legalizing punishment of people who identify themselves as "homosexuals". I am saying that I believe, based on reason and revelation that homosexual intercourse is gravely sinful and, therefore, that homosexual marriage should NOT be recognized by the state. Please do not have faith-a-phobia and misconstrue my words.

"Let us also go, that we may die with Him." (John 11:16 RSV)

This passage intrigued me, since the first time I read it, especially when read in its context, like here. On the surface, it seems to be a noble, even heroic, testimony to the truth of Jesus' mission and the apostles willingness to die for it. However, when read in the context of the remainder of Gospel accounts, we hear that "they all left him and fled" (Mark 14:50, NAB). It is, plainly, a fair assumption that "all" included Thomas. Additionally, when we read John 11:16 in light of St. Thomas' (the Apostle) later interaction with the Glorified, Risen Christ (John 20:24-28), I think, it is apparent that St. Thomas the Apostle did not clearly understand the implication and ramification of his statement in John 10:16.
It seems to me most people. even today, skim over this text without giving it much practical consideration. In Luke 9:23, Jesus is reported to have said "If anyone wishes to come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me". This is in contrast to another reference to taking up one's cross (Mark 8:34), which omits the adjective daily, in the Greek text. It seems that, for the sake of consistency, the adjective (daily) should be explicate our understanding of Mark 8:34. Maybe St. Thomas the Apostle thought of one famous, heroic stand with Jesus, in which they would triumph and vanquish their opponents, when he suggested following Jesus. Jesus, though, shows us another picture of what St. Thomas' word should mean. The secret to followings looks, to me, that it lies in the constant or daily battles and temptations that we face. The victory appears to be through the struggles; similar to Hemingway's fisherman. On a more personal note, one of the biggest stumbling blocks between Christianity and myself is the flippant or, more tragically, doctrinal airbrushing that Christians give to this call to martyrdom. It is clear, to me, that Christ wants the reality of self-sacrifice to innundate the life of the believer, not merely be an accident of heritage. This call that St. Thomas the Apostle made needs to be heeded daily and dictate ALL actions that a Christian's life; speech, dress, mannerism, etc. Jesus himself tells us what the proper response to this call is in Luke 9,
"For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me will save it. What good is it for a man to gain the whole world, and yet lose or forfeit his very self?"
In summary, Jesus is NOT a get-out-of-hell-free card! Also, see an entry from another blog on the same topic here.

The Only Story Ever Told

My family and I just completed reading through the "Chronicles of Prydain" series, that was written by Lloyd Alexander in the middle to late 1960's and 1970's. It is a fabulous repackaging of classic Welsh mythology. All of us thoroughly enjoyed the series; so much so that I even engaged the idea for a moment that I preferred Prydain and its cast of characters to Middle Earth or Narnia. But then, I came to my senses ;->. I still prefer Tolkein and Lewis stories because of their strong spiritually allegorical feel. That being said, Prydain's heroes and villans, while lacking the allegorical quality of the aforementioned fantasy lands, are more human and, generally, less dour. I recommend this series to all.
While reading the books, it occurred to me, again and again, that good stories seem to share similar plots. They seems to inevitably revolve around good and evil, right and wrong. It may be that this is somewhat isolated to the historical-based fantasy. Nevertheless, some variation of the good versus evil them seems to abound it almost all stories. For example, the Thousand and One Nights stories have similar plots and these are, by no means, "Western" stories. By the way, I would also like to recommend "Arabian Nights" program that was produced for TV in 2000 by Hallmark. It starred Mili Avital and is a nice introduction to the Thousand and One Nights and the special effects weren't bad either, for TV.
I think the similarities in story speak to a common desire to utilize story, generally, and words, specifically, to give us meaning. We, as humans, desire meaning and purpose. We desire "The Good" of Aristotle. When we tell stories, we transcend ourselves. We see that what we are is not all we can be. We learn what we ought to be, in fact, what we MUST be. As it is stated by one of the characters in "Castle of Llyr", "Child, child, do you not see? For each of us comes a time when we must be more than what we are."
We are to be heroes; more than what our biology or psychology tells us! We are to live, love, fight, and have adventures; forget Satre's mundane existentialism! The adventures comes when we have purpose and meaning. We are to, like St. George, slay our dragons. The interesting thing is that, most often, our inordinate desires are our own dragons. These dragons can only be faced through inner struggle against the self. Taran, the hero of Prydain, starts as an impatient youth of quite poor judgement (for an assistant pig-keeper) and ends up as the "High King". He learns many lessons, along the way, but one of the lessons subsumes them all. In order to find oneself, one must lose oneself. Specifically, one must lose oneself to others. Our dragons of selfishness, pride, hatred, deception, etc can only be overcome by sacrificing them on the altar of others' needs.
Jesus said in St. Matthew's Gospel, "For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it". This is just one of the similar themes that are shared between Christ's teachings and various stories. Even Harry Potter has to sacrifice himself for his friends. The values preached in the Christian tradition seem to resound so widely, across the history of story, that it makes me think that the Gospels are NOT the "Best Story Ever Told". Perhaps, it is the ONLY STORY EVER TOLD!

Clarence Darrow v G.K. Chesterton

Evolution is not threat to religion, but to rationality

The title of this entry is a paraphrase, hopefully accurate, of a quote that I recall from G.K. Chesterton. I have been reading a lot of Chesterton recently. He was a British poet, playwright, novelist, and cultural critic who lived 29 May 1874 – 14 June 1936. My first exposure to his work was a production of his play, "The Surprise", on EWTN by the Theatre of the Word Incorporated. The play was nicely done and I enjoyed it. After that play, I resolved to familiarize myself with his works. Upon completion of the first chapter of his book "Orthodoxy", it became apparent that I should proceed with further reading. Subsequently, I read and enjoyed "The Everlasting Man", "Saint Thomas Aquinas", and "Saint Francis of Assisi". Also, I plan to continue reading his works.
He has been labelled the "Apostle of Common Sense" by the American Chesterton Society and, in my opinion, it is very appropriate. Although he was writing in the early 1900s, he, in many instances, seems to be writing for the 21st century. He had a wonderfully entertaining style of rhetoric that, to our detriment, has fallen out of fashion. My own personal theory is that one can become more intelligent by reading G.K. Chesterton. The implication is, clearly, that I should continue to read his works, then.
Although the physical sciences were not a specialty of his, nor was he trained in any of them, he had a unique way of reducing seemingly complex scientific issues to basic, logically discourse. I am sure that many dogmatic scientific naturalists may refute this. I argue, though, that he did not need to know the "nuts and bolts" of any scientific discipline to discuss the moral and ethical implications of them. Some of his thoughts on evolution, for example, do not "expose" evolution. However, they do propose some views of evolution that most people do not initially see.
He does not attempt to rebut evolution and rightfully so, in my opinion. Modern science has been a boon for us, medically, physically, environmentally, etc. The study of evolutionary science, for example, attempts to give us a glimpse into HOW the physical world we know has come about. It cannot , however, give us answers to the WHY questions, that must be engaged to answer the question of how we should live.
In this vein, G.K. Chesterton, mentioned something to the effect that evolution is no threat to religion, but, is a threat to rationality. The first proposition is easily proven by looking at the various charismatic religious movements in the world. Modern science has not, in any way, slowed the propogation of emotive approaches to any number of religions or irreligions. Soren Kiergegaard may have been on to something.
As regards the second statement, that evolution may be a threat to rationality, Chesterton may have just been restated Charles Darwin's own concern that his evolutionary theory raises other questions. Basically, the question of whether we should even trust our understanding of the sciences, if our minds are the result of an incomplete evolutionary process. It may be that Atheism is a Darwinian misfire.

I think, therefore I blog

"Je pense donc je suis".
Rene Descartes wrote these famous words in his remarkable philosophical work "Discourse on Method" in 1637. I thought that, perhaps, it was appropriate to begin my first substantive blog entry with an seemingly obscure reference to Monsieur Descartes' notorious statement. My decision is due to the fact that I, above all else, believe in rationality. I accept Descartes' basic premise that the our starting point for discovery, whether scientific or metaphysical, must begin with the assumption that something called rationality exists. It is an appropriate introduction to myself and why I am engaged in blogging.
While purposely maintaining my anonymity, I will attempt to layout a few of the key elements that have contributed to building my worldview. I could discuss, in today's entry, many of these elements. However, due to time limitations and boredom of whatever readers may exist, I will confine myself to but one of these, as it is the primary factor. It is religion and philosophy.
I was raised as a nominal protestant Christian in the United States. Religion was only a minor influence through most of my childhood. However, I, for whatever reason, became extremely interested in Christianity and religion, in general, in my teens. As it turned out, this was a phase that I was passing through until my early adult years. By the time, I had reached my twenties, I was a devout skeptic and dabbled in socialism. Eventually, I found my way back to theism, in the form of Islam. The clarity and authority of Islam, or at least my perception of it, was impressive to me. After many years of practicing Islam, I realized that I have too many questions about Islam to continue to practice it, in good conscience. Although I am now longer Muslim, however, many aspects of Islam still resonate with me, though. The last, and perhaps final, phase has been Christianity. Although, still not a being of a specific denomination, I am feeling out various forms of Christianity. I have never been drawn back to atheism, in any form. It seems too much of a leap of faith to conclude that there is no such thing as rationality; as this is the ultimate conclusion that must be drawn from the assumption that a higher intellect cannot exist. In the present age, atheism, popularly believed, is merely hedonism without a philosophical backbone. I think that one has much more intellectual integrity in being an agnostic, as opposed to an atheist. Perhaps the greatest response to the question of God is recorded in the Gospel of Saint Mark,

"Lord, I believe; help my unbelief!".

Blogging

Hello,

Woohoo! I have started a blog...finally! I am very excited for the opportunity to spout my musings to the world in a blog, as opposed to continually ranting to my wife. She has become accustomed to patiently awaiting interludes in my rants and adding vocal acknowledgements of her agreement or disinterest.
I intend to blog about various issues. However, I am certain that a few, apparently, disjointed subjects will monopolize my thoughts, though. My primary interests are, seemingly, quite varied. For example, I am may one day blog concerning hockey fights and the next day's subject may be transubstantiation.
My primary hope is that readers of my blog; if there, indeed, are any, will be encouraged to think about the sundry issues, beyond the headline. One of the problems in the world today is the mass media. While it provides a valuable service in keeping the populace, generally, abreast of important events. It too often descends into headlinization. Oops. The spell checker does not seems to like that word. Oh well. What I mean is that, in many instances (perhaps most), the mass media reduces an article of news to a headline. There will be no discussion or dialog of the nuance of the issue. This is a point I hope to discuss further in an upcoming blog. Hopefully, my blog will go beyond headlines and attempt to engage the issue on a deeper level; whether the blog entry concerns a news article or a theological musing. Perhaps, though, I am overvaluing my two cents.