“A light will shine down from somewhere. It will light upon you. You will experience an epiphany. And you will say to yourself, I have to vote for Barack. I have to do it.”
-Barack Obama, 1-7-2008, CNN

This actually happened to me today, well, something close to it. A bright light shined on me, blindingly bright. I thought I may be granted with the grace of an apparition of Jesus, Mary, or a saint. But right before I called out, “Is Jesus true God and true man, Lord of Heaven and Earth” I heard “Thou, child, must voteth for Barack Obama.” Realizing my soul and sanity were at stake, I averted my gaze, pulled out a crucifix, and started “In nomine Patris.” With an inhuman shriek, the light disappeared.

To this time, I do not know what happened. It could have of been a demon, summoned to do the bidding of evil. Or it could have of been a liberal with a spotlight, I do not know. However, I shall find out. For if it were a demon, I will likely experience spiritual attacks. And if a liberal? I will be subpoenaed by the ALCU.

Why

Why don’t rationalists reason

Why do feminists hate femininity

Why do mother murder their unborn children

Why don’t people wonder

Why don’t people stand up for each other

Why don’t people think about what everything means

Why don’t people care for each other

Why don’t teachers teach truth

Why don’t men be men

Why don’t people think through their beliefs

Why is there no common sense today

Why is everyone a hypocrite

Why is everyone a deceiver

Why do I exist

Why am I writing this

In the essay "Babies and Distributism", Chesterton attacks birth control, or as he points out what it should be called, birth prevention.

He then relates it to Eugenics (the "breeding" or "selection" of favorable traits in humans, think Hitler or Planned Parenthood, their close because, well, they were associated with each other), and says, "Let all the babies be born and then let us drown those we do not like."

Normally Chesterton was before his time in his writing, but this is an area he failed to predict clearly. If only he could have seen the acceptance of abortion and the advent of the ultrasound and other tests during the pregnancy. The baby doesn't even need to be born before deciding to kill it. Physical defects, genetic problems, even gender, are now used as criterion to kill the unborn. And it seems so much cleaner, only the abortionists really knows what is going on during the abortion. Now if only the pro-lifers would stop showing the pictures of the oddly humanish blobs of tissue from the dumpsters behind the abortion mills.

And who needs more water pollution?








Here is the Chesterton essay in whole, it is a good one.

BABIES AND DISTRIBUTISM

I HOPE it is not a secret arrogance to say that I do not think I am
exceptionally arrogant; or if I were, my religion would prevent me from
being proud of my pride. Nevertheless, for those of such a philosophy,
there is a very terrible temptation to intellectual pride, in the welter
of wordy and worthless philosophies that surround us to-day. Yet there
are not many things that move me to anything like a personal contempt.
I do not feel any contempt for an atheist, who is often a man oflimited
and constrained by his own logic to a very sad simplification.
I do not feel any contempt for a Bolshevist, who is a man driven to the
same-negative simplification by a revolt against very positive wrongs.
But there is one type of person for whom I feel what I can only
call contempt. And that is the popular propagandist of what he or she
absurdly describes as Birth-Control.

I despise Birth-Control first because it is a weak and wobbly
and cowardly word. It is also an entirely meaningless word;
and is used so as to curry favour even with those who would
at first recoil from its real meaning. The proceeding
these quack doctors recommend does not control any birth.
It only makes sure that there shall never be any birth to control.
It cannot, for instance, determine sex, or even make any
selection in the style of the pseudo-science of Eugenics.
Normal people can only act so as to produce birth;
and these people can only act so as to prevent birth.
But these people know perfectly well that they dare not write
the plain word Birth-Prevention, in any one of the hundred
places where they write the hypocritical word Birth-Control.
They know as well as I do that the very word Birth-Prevention
would strike a chill into the public, the instant it was
blazoned on headlines, or proclaimed on platforms, or scattered
in advertisements like any other quack medicine. They dare not
call it by its name, because its name is very bad advertising.
Therefore they use a conventional and unmeaning word,
which may make the quack medicine sound more innocuous.

Second, I despise Birth-Control because it is a weak and wobbly
and cowardly thing. It is not even a step along the muddy
road they call Eugenics; it is a flat refusal to take
the first and most obvious step along the road of Eugenics.
Once grant that their philosophy is right, and their course
of action is obvious; and they dare not take it; they dare
not even declare it. If there is no authority in things
which Christendom has called moral, because their origins
were mystical, then they are clearly free to ignore all difference
between animals and men; and treat men as we treat animals.
They need not palter with the stale and timid compromise and
convention called Birth-Control. Nobody applies it to the cat.
The obvious course for Eugenists is to act towards babies as they
act towards kittens. Let all the babies be born and then let us
drown those we do not like. I cannot see any objection to it;
except the moral or mystical sort of objection that we advance
against Birth-Prevention. And that would be real and even
reasonable Eugenics; for we could then select the best, or at
least the healthiest, and sacrifice what are called the unfit.
By the weak compromise of Birth-Prevention, we are very
probably sacrificing the fit and only producing the unfit.
The births we prevent may be the births of the best and most
beautiful children; those we allow, the weakest or worst.
Indeed, it is probable; for the habit discourages the early
parentage of young and vigorous people; and lets them put off
the experience to later years, mostly from mercenary motives.
Until I see a real pioneer and progressive leader coming out
with a good, bold, scientific programme for drowning babies,
I will not join the movement.

But there is a third, reason for my contempt,
much deeper and therefore much more difficult to express;
in which is rooted all my reasons for being anything I am
or attempt to be; and above all, for being a Distributist.
Perhaps the nearest to a description of it is to say this:
that my contempt boils over into bad behavior when I hear
the common suggestion that a birth is avoided because people
want to be "free" to go to the cinema or buy a gramophone
or a loud-speaker. What makes me want to walk over such
people like doormats is that they use the word "free."
By every act of that sort they chain themselves to the most
servile and mechanical system yet tolerated by men.
The cinema is a machine for unrolling certain regular patterns
called pictures; expressing the most vulgar millionaires'
notion of the taste of the most vulgar millions.
The gramophone is a machine for recording such tunes
as certain shops and other organizations choose to sell.
The wireless is better; but even that is marked by the modern
mark of all three; the impotence of the receptive party.
The amateur cannot challenge the actor; the householder
will find it vain to go and shout into the gramophone;
the mob cannot pelt the modern speaker, especially when he is
a loud-speaker. It is all a central mechanism giving out to men
exactly what their masters think they should have.

Now a child is the very sign and sacrament of personal freedom.
He is a fresh free will added to the wills of the world;
he is something that his parents have freely chosen to produce
and which they freely agree to protect. They can feel
that any amusement he gives (which is often considerable)
really comes from him and from them, and from nobody else.
He has been born without the intervention of any master or lord.
He is a creation and a contribution; he is their own creative
contribution to creation. He is also a much more beautiful,
wonderful, amusing and astonishing thing than any of the stale
stories or jingling jazz tunes turned out by the machines.
When men no longer feel that he is so, they have lost the appreciation
of primary things, and therefore all sense of proportion
about the world. People who prefer the mechanical pleasures,
to such a miracle, are jaded and enslaved. They are preferring
the very dregs of life to the first fountains of life.
They are preferring the last, crooked, indirect, borrowed,
repeated and exhausted things of our dying Capitalist civilization,
to the reality which is the only rejuvenation of all civilization.
It is they who are hugging the chains of their old slavery;
it is the child who is ready for the new world.

As of late, I have felt like there is nothing I do to help the world, or the people in it. This is a sense of feeling like I am not using my gifts for God. Also, I have a large amount of time to spend thinking and reading as of late.

So as a result, I want to start writing more often, talking about books, theology, philosophy, spirituality, practical daily thoughts, current events, and the like. I will general write and post it in the evening, and may attach a particular prayer or reading from either that day’s Mass or Breviary. And maybe some thoughts on it, who knows?

I have several lined up, and will be working on some more over the weekend, but will be spending some time up in the Hills this weekend. So these posts will likely start some time next week.

Watch for them.

Yesterday was the anniversary of the decision of Roe v Wade, the court decision that overturned all federal and state law against abortion. Since then 48,589,993 children were refused the right of life.

We cannot be indifferent. You have to choose a side. Indifference, neutrality, or impartiality is a decision, it is a decision for evil against good. It is accepting evil and rejecting justice. In Nazi Germany, many people were indifferent. Many people were indifferent about Jim Crow laws and slavery. Many people are indifferent about poverty. Many people are indifferent to domestic abuse.

Inactivity is not standing still, but flowing down the river of perdition. I would prefer someone rowing down the river than someone flowing with it. At least the person rowing can turn around and go against the stream, the other is helpless.

“One man asks: What is to come?
The other: What is right?
And that is the difference between the free man and the slave.”
-Dietrich Bonhoeffer

And what of Christians that accept abortion? That defend the right for a “choice.” What are we to say to them? Upon reflection, can we think of any words? God came to us as a child. Much is made of the scandal of the cross, what of the scandal of the cave? God conceived in the womb of the virgin, Godhead confined to the womb, and born of human flesh, the Creator of heaven and earth having a mother. And then God was chased to Egypt by the soldiers of Herod as they slaughtered the innocents.

Whose spirit lives in those that cancel life in the name of Christ? Is that of Christ or Herod?

Lift up your voice for the voiceless. The service of the Church has to be given to those who suffer violence and injustice… The Church takes to itself all the sufferers; all the forsaken of every party and of every status. Here the decision will really be made whether we are still the Church of the present Christ…”
-Dietrich Bonhoeffer

Much is made today of social justice. Seeking to relieve hunger, the pain of poverty, and the despair found in the hopeless. But what is our seeking of justice if we fail to speak for the silent sufferers. What deprivation of food can be compared to refusing to feed the fetus? What pain can compare to the suffering of the fetus being torn apart, to whom the abortionist refuse to give painkillers lest it be seen as a concession to the possibility of life? And what despair compares to a child murdered by their mother? Can we say we search for justice?

It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish.
-Mother Teresa

I am personally opposed to.....
Slavery, but that isn’t the government’s area do anything about it.
Genocide, but I can’t force my morality on others.
The murder of Matthew Shepard, but I don’t feel like I can legislate morality.
Rape, but that’s a personal decision people need to make for themselves.
Pedophilia, but a person’s sexuality is private.

If you are personally opposed to something, you oppose it. Otherwise, whether you realize it or not, you are lying.

However, is it right to legislate morality? What is legislation other than establishing punishments to moral infractions? Traffic laws are legislating morality. Rape, homicide, pedophilia, assault, and robbery laws all legislate morality. That’s what laws are; they give the protection of the state to those that can’t protect themselves. Laws legislate morality.

I would rather the state impose on the mother the baby’s right to life over the mother imposing her right to happiness on the baby. All laws impose. That is what they do. The question isn’t whether to impose and legislate morality, but who’s morality and who is it imposed on.

Speak out for the one who cannot speak, for the rights of those who are doomed.
- Proverbs 31:8

Like David we must embrace the powerful weapons we have been granted, for we come in the name of the LORD of hosts, the God of the armies of Israel. The battle is the Lord’s, let the praise of God be on our lips and a two-edged sword in our hands. We must shout the marching song of the Gloria, grab the rope of the Rosary, strike with the sword of scripture, and hold before us the shield of the Eucharist.

For we are not contending against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the powers, against the world rulers of this present darkness, against the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places.
Ephesians 6:12

We must pray, for it is up to God. We must act, for God works through us. Politics, awareness protests, aid for those seeking help before or after an abortion. Prayer, lots of prayer. We must love to win, for love is the goal of the universe. The Crucifix is the fullness of love; the clinic of sin and selfishness.

If my people who are called by my name humble themselves and pray, and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, will forgive their sin, and heal their land.
- 2 Chr. 7:14

The current state of the battle for life in a culture of death is that of the highest importance. The best indicator is the issue of abortion and sexuality. At times, the struggle between the two seems to be slow, unchanging and static. This is not due to inactivity but to a frightful struggle between the two.

Like two grapplers in combat, there is a seeming inactivity as each works on their grips and stances, each with small victories and defeats. It is a battle between Good and Evil, between Life and Death. And the Church is the leader in the charge against the enemies. The secularists, moral relativists, and “progressives” (really regressives to paganism); the advocates of “family planning” (no family, control your life), “mercy-killing” (merciful to those around, not the patient), “Birth Control” (little birth, no control), and the unseen forces that drive them without their knowledge. It is a battle between the Church and the modern heresies.

When the stillness breaks it will be fast and furious. If life triumphs, there may be a new springtime in the world, a renewal of civilization. If the demoniacs hold out, the world will continue to plunge to depths unknown since the fires of Moloch and Baal feasted on the flesh of infants. We are under that same smoke crying for justice as it rises heavenward from the incinerators of abortion. And it will be replaced by the oily smoke of judgment that hung over the ruins of Sodom and Gomorrah, for a culture that survives by death can not end anywhere else.

Christmas is commercialized, no one disagrees with that. But then what is the true meaning of Christmas. Love, fellowship, and peace on earth? This is them message of the holidays. My little brother brought a booklet home about what people do during the “holidays.” Some light candles, others decorate a tree; some dress up, but for all people it is a time of families spending time together. Safe, non-threatening, nice trash. Like most errors of this kind, it is an error of omission, the central aspect is disregarded, and the customs and celebration of that event are filched from it.

Tomorrow we celebrate the day that God became man. What does that mean? Is there more to it then love you neighbor? Even the angelic chorus of “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among men with whom he is pleased” is warped into a bland platitude (often the ‘with whom he is pleased’ gets omitted). Why is there this desire to wipe clean December 25 from Christian influence? What is it about the nativity that inspires such hatred in the enemies of God?

It is possible that pagan Emperor Aurelian founded Sol Invictus, the Feast of the unconquered sun, in a similar manner what happens today, to combat the Christian Christmas(1). It seems that Christmas has been a “sign to be opposed” throughout the times.

And rightfully so, for Christmas day is a revolutionary day. It challenges, opposes the world. It is by its very nature subversive. It contradicts the normal order and causes worldly assumptions to be faced. It puts the worldly ways in opposition to the Godly ways, and demands a choice. Unfortunately, almost our entire approach to it makes the wrong choice.

What do we celebrate? The day God was born man. The time at which God came down from Heaven and came to us. What does this mean to us? What significance does the coming of the God-child have 2000 years later?

God is coming, we must prepare ourselves. This is the time that John the Baptist preaches to us:

“The voice of one crying in the wilderness: Prepare the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.”

“The axe is laid to the root of the trees; every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.”

“His winnowing fork is in his hand, to clear his threshing floor, and to gather the wheat into his granary, but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire.”

Self-congratulatory celebration isn’t in the picture. Instead we see the coming of the King, and are told to prepare ourselves.

The liturgical color for Advent is violet. Lent, Holy Saturday, and Confession use this color. Violet has the symbolism of penance, atonement, and expiration of sins. God is coming into the world to save mankind. But this necessitates mankind repent to be saved. Advent is very close to Lent, a time of self-examination and pruning, of fasting and preparing.

The world loves feasts but hates fasts. Look at Mardi Gras, Fat Tuesday, the day before Lent. Mardi Gras is loved popular, Lent isn’t.

Christmas is the coming of the King. And this king comes in hidden away in a stable and lain in a manger. The true king wasn’t Caesar, wasn’t Herod, but was this small child born in poverty and rejection. The true kingdom isn’t of this world, but the next. And this offers us a choice of which kingdom to serve, of earth or of heaven.

Christ comes to save us from our sin. This is joyous thing. But to be saved of our sin, we must realize that we are sinful, and plead forgiveness. And repenting of our sin is never easy. During Advent and Christmas, we focus on the coming of Christ, and that means reforming ourselves and denouncing our sin.

The time is here; make straight the pathways of your heart for the coming of God. Cut out what isn’t worthy of Him, and repent of all your sins. Chose Christ over the world, we are only pilgrims on our way to our true home, from which we were exiled by sin. The babe in the manger is the meaning of our existence, and to leave His side means leaving all joy and life for darkness and death. Let it never be so.

And I will lead the blind in a way that they know not,

In paths that they have not known I will guide them.

I will turn the darkness before them into light,

The rough places into level ground.

These are the things I will do, and I will not forsake them.

(Isaiah (RSV) 42)

In the tender compassion of our God

The down from on high shall break upon us,

To shine on those who dwell in darkness and the shadow of death,

And to guide our feet into the way of peace.

Luke 1:78.79

(1) http://www.ancient-future.net/christmasdate.html

Thank you St. Jude for your intercessions in my time of need. May all who face hopeless situations call upon your aid.

The Female Soul

I had a discussion with a friend several days ago about beauty. In particular, how amazing trees blowing in the wind look when hit by sunlight, and how beautiful everything in general is. He responded that I was crazy, and that the greatest beauty on earth is found in the feminine body.

I would like to think about this for a minute. It is true that men find the female form to be incredibly exquisite. There is an indefinable allure and beauty in the female sex. This is not traceable to any specific aspect. Geometry, some combination of angles and lengths in pleasing ratios or vibrancy of color is not to blame. There is not a magical angle that causes the attention of a man to be snatched, nor a hue that snaps the male head around.

Many would call it a response from evolution. Love named an instinct to breed and pass on the species. Does a doe cause a buck to daydream? Does Fido’s heart quiver upon walking past Daisy? Does Ringo the Chimp find himself tongue-tied in the presence of a mate? Attraction between the human sexes isn’t just for reproduction. It is innate in a special way. Mere sexual attraction and reproduction wouldn’t cause the Greeks to war against Troy. Romance is more than just evolutionary artifacts, this goes to the core of human nature.

A female body is enchanting, possessing an innate beauty. It arises such feeling that one must wonder it they were put there, for something like this is no accident. In Genesis, we find the origins of man and woman. We find that man is created, and then woman from man; two parts of a whole; woman for man, man for woman.

If the female body and the feelings that arise from it were designed, they were deliberately designed, not some mistake. Since this was designed, since it has purpose, it would be reasonable to continue that and say that the whole woman is the most attractive thing to man, not just body, but mind and soul as well.

Men don’t understand women; this is one of the givens of life. The inner workings and motivations of their minds are alien to one another. The male finds the female’s mind confusing, illogical, emotional, but above all, mysterious. Alluring, dangerous, something to face, but never to conquer, never defeat.

The body is part of us, it is an external part. Of all the parts of the person, the body is the surface, what initially meets the eye, but not the indicator of depth. The body decays, but not the person (I do not suggest that the body is but a physical shell, our physical body is essential part of us, but a part, not the center or definition). One could say that the body is like the surface of a deep lake, there is much more below it.

If the female beauty is so enchanting, how much more enchanting must the female mind be. If the surface is so exquisite, what hidden wonders lay in those mysterious depths?

This is deeper, more hidden, it is not as eye-catching or obvious as appearance but more meaningful and real, if harder to find. The mind is more private than the body, as it should be, and is closer to the center of the woman than physical beauty.

Continuing, if the body is appealing, and mind enthralling, what, oh what, of the soul?

The human soul; this is the deepest, most foundational thing to man, the Spark of God, divine flame. The soul is the real source of a person, wellspring of all else: mind, body, heart. Yet this is still the most hidden. The physical is experienced by the physical in the senses; the mind to the mind in conversation; and soul through the giving of one’s own soul.

As one goes deeper into the person, closer to their core, more intimate, the level of commitment, trust, and giving increases. And as you draw nearer to the beloved, the soul is what you seek, and that is what you start to find.

In view of this, what injustice it would be to withhold and to stand back, to seek only the superficial. To be satisfied with the surface and sated with the sensuous. It is here, in the feminine soul, that we find the source of beauty, the fountain of femininity. It is this central nature, not the external body, which is truly feminine.

In Perelandra, C. S. Lewis describes this deep nature, the wonder and beauty, as a: “Curtained gateway to a world of waves and murmurings and wandering airs, of life that rocked in winds and splashed on mossy stones and descended as the dew and arose sunward in thin-spun delicacy of mist.” There is something in that passage, unidentifiable, that does create a quiver inside, and it speaks to us. It has the feminine, the elusive and mysterious aura that enchant a man.

Body, mind, and soul all here unite, the whole woman. This fundamental, united person is what attracts a man, what men strive to possess.

However, it is too common that a man will not strive for this wholeness, but be satisfied with the flesh, placing physical intimacy as a goal. And often not intimacy, but only sex. Men have often sought after this to the exclusion of the other traits, and in a way not desiring union, but pleasure, as in a good cup of coffee.

This is exemplified in pornography- softcore, hardcore, strip club, ect. Whether Hustler, Playboy, posters of scantily clad models, strippers, strip clubs, Sports Illustrated Swim Suit edition, or Hooters, the goal and effect are the same, the physical beauty is divorced from the beauty of the whole person, to move the proverbial fig leaf from the privates to the face, to deny their very personhood. The reason Adam and Eve didn't notice they were naked until they fell is because they saw eachother as people, and not as objects of pleasure. This denial of personhood is a form of murder, one we are all guilty of.

In Greek, the word “eros” signified erotic love, which many people take to mean sexual intercourse. However, a much better description would be possessive love. Romantic love, which is a form of eros, desires to possess the beloved: body, mind and soul. That is the difference in desire between Eros and lust. Eros is a desire for the whole person, desiring to have that person, as an end. Lust desires the person for something about them, an aspect, not the person. And love, further still, is self-giving, a desire to lay down one’s life for the beloved. It seeks their interest, and will sacrifice for them.

It is a firm principal that all things point to God, especially human interactions. Being that man and woman where created for each other by God, the relationship points to the divine. The beauty that the man finds in woman is a precursor to the beauty and sweetness found in God, the source of all good and beautiful.

Ruminations

Men watch a movie to watch a movie, women watch movies as an activity with others. This is especially true for scary movies, they don’t watch it to be scared, but to be scared with others.

Women’s magazines (Glamour, Cosmo, ect.) are not good. They contain in them an underlying despair and desperation that comes from a society were relationships aren’t binding. From dating to divorce, once you get in a relationship, it is easy to get back out of it. Because of this, the magazines focus on how to keep your man, from how to look good, to how not to offend his friends, to how to be the best in bed. It is a destructive despairing attitude, basically pleading men to stay. As opposed to the past, where the power of the woman was restraint and, crude as it sounds, if a man wanted a sexual relationship, marriage came first. And marriage was binding. Now, women are told restraint is bad, so they give themselves to men, and then the men have nothing to do, they don’t have to “earn” the women by being better men. How many years of divorce, despair, and depression are we going to subject ourselves to before we realize the sexual revolution and radical feminism was at best a misguided mistake, and at worst a demonic deception.

I may have of been converted by the teaching and authority of the Church, but it is the Sacraments that hold me there. From where I stand, to leave Christ in the Eucharist would be to leave Christainity, there is no way I could go back to Protestantism. Everything I had there, I have in the Catholic Church, and I have more in the Catholic Church. Chesterton writes about this feeling in Conversion and the Catholic Church, how after finding himself in the largest room there is, he couldn’t force himself to go into any smaller rooms, and all rooms are smaller than the Church.

I have though that if I started going to the Traditional Latin Mass in town, I would quickly fall in love with it. I have been going, and am falling in love with it. The sense of the sacred is there like nothing I have ever seen before. The paintings, architecture, music, smell, style of dress, and everything else proclaim one thing. YOU ARE IN THE PRESENCE OF GOD.

Catholics don’t realize what it means to be Catholic. The idea of a spiritual authority in the Church is foreign to Protestants, and this has influenced many Catholics. The idea that faith is something that you did on your own, not that it is something that is done within the Church (not the Church building, but within the teachings and guidance of the Church) is rampart among American Catholics. This is seen in several areas. One is confession; many see it as a optional counseling session. It is not, it is absolutely needed. If you are Catholic, you need to go to Confession. Why wouldn’t you? Scripture never says “Confess your sins in your head and God will forgive you” but “Confess your sins to one another”. The other area is in the authority of the Church, for example, contraceptives. The Church teaching is quite clear on this subject. There are reasons, if you want to investigate; it isn’t hard to find resources online. Many professing Catholics reject this, and use or advocate it for a variety of reasons. One is to filch the pleasure from sex without the embracing the purpose of it, self-giving leading to procreation. This is selfish, and will lead to more problems. Another is to allow immorality, in which case you are already in trouble. However, for the Catholic, the Church’s teaching is enough. If you use or advocate contraception, you are to a) stop, and b) go to confession before receiving Eucharist. As paraphrased from Augustine, “Rome has spoken, the case is closed.” (Sermon 131.10)

The word virtue comes from the Latin virtus, which signifies life, strength, manliness, and courage. I think it is funny how modern society has ignored this concept of virtue. Virtue is something for the goody-two-shoes, the squares. Is it any wonder then how the modern idea of manliness is violent, rough, sexually dominating, danger seeking, doesn’t care about other, emotionless, swears, drinks, smokes, and many other “manly” things. And very few of them actually have to do with virtue. In fact, to be virtuous is seen as unmanly. To not want to watch porn, swear, get drunk, or engage in extra-marital sex is seen as unmanly. Today’s model of a man is closer to a sexually frustrated, violent adolescent then a real man. If you want to see a real man, look at the Crucifix.

That’s enough for know, that it is.

Apologetics – The Church and Scripture

This one is a hot topic; there are many accusations towards Church doctrine on scripture.

The ones I will address are
1. The Church banned the Bible
2. The Church banned the translation of the Bible
3. The Church discourages reading the Bible on your own
4. The Church added books to the Bible


1. The Church banned the Bible
This is a mischaracterization. The church has banned Bibles from the possession of the laity on several occasions. The reason in each case is that a translation with errors, unintended or intended, was being circulated, often in connection with a heresy.

If a translation with distortions to the text was circulated today, all of Christianity would move to ban it, or at least, make known the errors. In days past, the supply of bibles was short; the quickest and safest method would be to destroy anything that wasn’t “official.”

Keep in mind these weren’t small distortions, but were used to justify all sorts of heresies up to and involving ritual suicide and infanticide.

2. The Church banned the translation of the Bible

Translating the Bible on your own was indeed forbidden or at least strongly discouraged. It is also true that vernacular translations were very uncommon and looked upon with suspicion by the Church.

First of, literacy was extremely uncommon. If you could read you were rich, a priest, a monk, or a nobleman. And, if you could read you were educated, and if you were educated you knew Latin, so why would you need a translation?

Second, Bibles were rare, and why would one go through the trouble of translating the Bible when the Latin version was available. They were also expensive, if you could buy one, you could probably read Latin.

Another reason is that those that did set out to translate the scriptures into the vernacular often did it for their own purposes, providing a Bible that the common person could read was often the last of their motives. Often times, they had their own ideological slant that they would read into it. The Church didn’t like people just making their own translations not because they were against the spreading of Sacred Scripture, but out of concern for disrespect and twisting of scripture. One example of this is in Romans 3:28, in his German Bible, Luther added the word “alone” when there was nothing in the Latin to suggest it. He claims that this is what Paul meant, and it was needed to convey the meaning into German, but still, he added it, (this translation is no longer accepted nor used).

Today one example of this is the New World Translation. This translation is used by the Jehovah’s Witnesses to support their heretical doctrines on the Trinity and Nature of Christ. Catholics and Protestants alike decry this translation. If the Church could, it would rightfully remove these mistranslations from circulation.

3. The Church discourages reading the Bible on your own

All the way to ancient times, the Church has discouraged individual reading of Scripture outside of the interpretation of the Church. We have guides like the creeds that give us a basic framework of belief to rest on. Basic Christian doctrine has settled deeply into the core of teaching on Scripture, so often we don’t realize the number of ways that the Bible can be used to support heretical ideas.

The example of Arius is a good one for this. He taught that Christ wasn’t eternal, but created by the Father. His arguments were thoroughly based in scripture, and won over many rulers and powerful people to his heresy. The Council of Nicaea was called, and produced the Nicaean Creed, which is today the basic statement of Christian belief.

Today you see sects that hold heretical ideas from readings of scripture that go against the Christian Tradition, groups like the Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, A True Church, and more.

From Dei Verbum, the Vatican II document on the Revelation of God

“21. She has always maintained them, and continues to do so, together with sacred tradition, as the supreme rule of faith, since, as inspired by God and committed once and for all to writing, they impart the word of God Himself without change, and make the voice of the Holy Spirit resound in the words of the prophets and Apostles. Therefore, like the Christian religion itself, all the preaching of the Church must be nourished and regulated by Sacred Scripture. For in the sacred books, the Father who is in heaven meets His children with great love and speaks with them; and the force and power in the word of God is so great that it stands as the support and energy of the Church, the strength of faith for her sons, the food of the soul, the pure and everlasting source of spiritual life. Consequently these words are perfectly applicable to Sacred Scripture: "For the word of God is living and active" (Heb. 4:12) and "it has power to build you up and give you your heritage among all those who are sanctified" (Acts 20:32; see 1 Thess. 2:13).

22. Easy access to Sacred Scripture should be provided for all the Christian faithful.”

In an address on September 16, 2005 on Pope Benedict XVI said:

"The Church must be constantly renewed and rejuvenated and the Word of God, which never ages and is never depleted, is a privileged means to achieve this goal. Indeed, it is the Word of God, through the Holy Spirit, which always guides us to the whole truth (cf. John 16:13).

In this context, I would like in particular to recall and recommend the ancient tradition of "Lectio divina": "the diligent reading of Sacred Scripture accompanied by prayer brings about that intimate dialogue in which the person reading hears God who is speaking, and in praying, responds to him with trusting openness of heart" (cf. "Dei Verbum," n. 25). If it is effectively promoted, this practice will bring to the Church -- I am convinced of it -- a new spiritual springtime. "

4. The Church added books to the Bible.
This objection generally goes “The Catholic Church added 7 books at the Council of Trent during the early days of the Reformation.”

Whether or not they belong there, they were there from the first canon proclaimed at the council of Rome (382) and seconded by the Council of Carthage (397) in Africa with St. Augustine. They are also found in Augustine's book On Christian Doctrine. Also in several more councils, and in different Bibles from that time period. This Canon was reaffirmed at the Council of Trent, not changed.

Lay Catholics have fallen behind in the area of scripture literacy, and an appreciation for knowing Sacred Scripture is something that we can relearn from our separated brethren. However, the center of the Church isn't the Bible, but Christ. Christianity is not a book belief, but a belief in the living God.

Did the Catholic Church say that Protestants aren't saved?

“The consequent duty of theologians to expound with greater clarity the diverse aspects of ecclesiology has resulted in a flowering of writing in this field…The vastness of the subject matter and the novelty of many of the themes involved continue to provoke theological reflection. Among the many
new contributions to the field, some are not immune from erroneous
interpretation which in turn give rise to confusion and doubt …the Congregation wishes to respond to these questions by clarifying the authentic meaning of some ecclesiological expressions used by the magisterium which are open to misunderstanding in the theological debate.”

With this introduction, a new document was released by the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, the Curia overseeing Catholic Doctrine. The document revisits several areas of Catholic ecclesiology and the relation of the Catholic Church to other sects of Christianity. It says nothing new, and the basis of the document is that the Church said nothing new at Vatican II, but clarified its teachings. They quoted Pope Paul VI saying:
“What Christ willed, we also will. What was, still is. What the Church has taught down through the centuries, we also teach. In simple terms that which was assumed, is now explicit; that which was uncertain, is now clarified; that which was meditated upon, discussed and sometimes argued over, is now put together in one clear formulation"

The issue to stress is that this says nothing new, doesn’t contradict Vatican II or the ecumenical work of John Paul II. What it does it explain the teachings of the Church because people have been misinterpreting the more recent teachings. By this I mean both the liberals that say Vatican II made the church more user-friendly and the conservatives that say Vatican II was a mistake.

This is ecumenical progress, not regress. For ecumenical progress, both sides need to have a clear picture of what each side believes, and the relations between one another. Without this, discussion is futile at best.

Some more clarification. It DOES NOT say that the Protestant churches aren’t saved. It says that they fail to fulfill the proper requirements to be a “Church” and are instead an “ecclesial Community.” This is for several reasons, mostly because the Eucharist isn’t present. Which in turn is the result of not having Apostolic Succession like the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, and by not holding to the doctrine of the Real Presence, specifically, transubstantiation. They lack the Eucharist, which is the very life of the Church, but by baptism, they are in the Church.

Yes, it says that non-Catholic Christian communities are lacking in areas, what it says is: “It follows that these separated churches and Communities, though we believe they suffer from defects, are deprived neither of significance nor importance in the mystery of salvation. In fact the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as instruments of salvation, whose value derives from that fullness of grace and of truth which has been entrusted to the Catholic Church”

Once again, this changes nothing; much of the uproar I have heard is from an article in Time magazine that very poorly catches the aim of the document. Read the document itself, and some better articles on it then the Time one.

This is also an incomplete introduction to Catholic ecclesiology, and I would suggest reading some of the documents that this quotes from.

Actual Document
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070629_responsa-quaestiones_en.html

Better Article
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=9874

Lumen Gentuim
http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html

Unitatis Redintegratio
http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19641121_unitatis-redintegratio_en.html

Dominus Iesus
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html

Ut Unum Sint
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25051995_ut-unum-sint_en.html

Apologetics - Do Catholics try to work to heaven?

Question: Do Catholics think that they can work their way into heaven.

This question is often directed at two areas - the Sacrament of Reconciliation, and the relation of works and faith.

The first is easy to refute (I am just dealing with this one aspect, I will have a fuller discussion on Sacraments later).

The Council of Trent says “The matter, as it were, of this sacrament, on the other hand, consists in the acts of the penitent himself, namely contrition, confession, and satisfaction. These … are required in the penitent for the integrity of the sacrament for the full and perfect remission of sins, are for this reason called the parts of penance.” (Council of Trent, DS 1673)

“When Christ's faithful strive to confess all the sins that they can remember, they undoubtedly place all of them before the divine mercy for pardon. But those who fail to do so and knowingly withhold some, place nothing before the divine goodness for remission.” (Council of Trent, DS 1680)

So for the Sacrament of Reconciliation or Confession, one must be A. Truly sorry and repentant, and B. Confess everything they can. Otherwise the Sacrament is illegitimate, and a grave sin; you are trying to fool God. It isn’t magic, it doesn’t just poof away sins. A sacrament is a method through which grace, from God, flows to the individual believer. It isn’t a magical technique or a piece of technology. It is the living God.

Now, on the relation between faith and works. To insist that we can merit our own salvation by our own works is an old heresy known as Pelagianism. The Catechism says in paragraph 2020 “Justification has been merited for us by the Passion of Christ. It is granted us through Baptism. It conforms us to the righteousness of God, who justifies us. It has for its goal the glory of God and of Christ, and the gift of eternal life. It is the most excellent work of God's mercy.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1997) Justification is wholly from grace, we do not have any merit to bring to our conversion; even the ability to choose to follow Christ is by grace.

Ephesians 2:8-10 says “For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.”

“For by grace you have been saved”
Sola Gracia. Grace alone. By grace. It is purely the grace of God that saves. Not faith. Not works. Only Grace, only the working of God.

“Through faith”
Faith is involved, but is not what saves. It is grace alone which saves.

“And that not of yourselves”
Reaffirming the point that it is God’s grace, not our faith, that saves.

“It is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast.”
Now we get to the oft quoted part used to support sola fide (faith alone). This is used to say that faith, not works, is what matters. However, notice something, this says nothing about faith right here, but the gift of God – which is grace. This says that we are saved by God’s grace, and faith is intrinsically involved.

This is where most quotes of this section leave off. However, by doing that they are pulling it out of context and distorting the passage.

“For we are His workmanship”
We are the work of God. We are, by His grace, something God works on. Phillipeans 2:13 says “For it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.” He works in us to will and to work for His great pleasure. He works in us - grace, the gift of God. To will – faith, desire for Him, a continuing conversion of heart. And to work – to do, to act, good works. So it is grace that works in us to bring faith and works.

James 2:22 says “You see that faith was working with his works, and as a result of the works, faith was perfected.” Works come from faith, and in works, faith is perfected, completed, brought to it’s fullness. This is not a first – then relation, but a mutual relation. As Bonhoeffer says in his classic The Cost of Discipleship “Only those who obey can believe, and only those who believe can obey.”

“Created in Christ Jesus for good works”
Here is the crunch, here is what most proof-texts of this leave out. We are saved by grace to do good works, they must be present. It is not what we do that matters, but our heart, motivation, the will that leads to it.

“Which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.”
In Mark 12, an old widow gave virtually nothing monetarily, but everything by her will. She gave, while the others made a show. It isn’t the magnitude of the works that matter, but compliance with the workings of grace in us.

Notice did not say “faith alone” anywhere in this most common proof-text. The only place “faith alone” appears in scripture is James 2 “a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.(2:24)”

In summation, we cannot work for our salvation on our own. When we are moved by the grace of God in us, we must work. We must.

It is my goal to lay out a series of notes / posts / essays giving a quick overview and defense for areas of Catholicism that for those unfamiliar with it. These will not be aggressively apologetic articles, but I intend to justify and explain the issues with Scripture, quotes from the Catechism, and reason.

This endeavor is needed because the Catholic Church is plagued by many misconceptions and mistruths. If these were true, Catholics wouldn’t want to be Catholic either. Many of these are the offspring of strawmen erected by anti-Catholics for hundreds of years. One notable source is the book Roman Catholicism by Loraine Boettner. This has been called the Bible of anti-Catholicism, and much of contemporary anti-Catholicism stems from this book. I will devote a separate post to this book.

As the articles are written I will post the links here. I am not sure of what all I will cover, but I know I will at least do Mary, the Saints, prayer to Mary and Saints, Infantile Baptism, the Sacraments, Baptism, Eucharist / Communion / Transubstantiation, the Pope, the Mass, the Deuterocanonical / Old Testament Apocrypha, Faith and Works, Scripture and Tradition, and others.

I went through a rite today for RCIA. The rite was The Call To Continuing Conversion..

Continuing Conversion. The phrase evokes a continuing life of dying daily, nay, every moment for the Gospel. Everything that we do has an impact. Everything. As C.S. Lewis said

“Every time you make a choice, you are turning the central part of you, the part of you that chooses, into something a little different from what it was before. And, taking your life as a whole, with all your innumerable choices, all your life long you are slowly turning this central thing either into a Heaven creature or into a hellish creature -- either into a creature that is in harmony with God, and with other creatures, and with itself, or else into one that is in a state of war and hatred with God, and with its fellow creatures and with itself. To be the one kind of creature is Heaven: that is, it is joy, and peace, and knowledge, and power. To be the other means madness, horror, idiocy, rage, impotence, and eternal loneliness. Each of us at each moment is progressing to the one state or the other. “

Everything we do changes us, every little thing, things we think only matter for an instant, then disappear. These things are what shapes us. We do an infinite many of them in a day, and they do more to shape who we are then the “big” things we do. Every little thing, every thought, every action, every interaction with another, shape us into “immortal horrors or ever lasting splendours.

So then I ask you, will your join me in continuing conversion to the Gospel of Christ.

Sexuality - Part II
The reason for this follow up is to justify and strengthen some early arguments, expand, and look at it closer. This one is really long, I apologize.

"We cannot know what X-in-Heaven is unless we know what X is. We cannot know what sex in Heaven is unless we know what sex is. We cannot know what in Heaven's name sex is unless we know what on earth sex is.
But don't we know? Haven't we been thinking about almost nothing else for years and years? What else dominates our fantasies, waking and sleeping, twenty-four nose-to-the-grindstone hours a day? What else fills our TV shows, novels, plays, gossip columns, self-help books, and psychologies but sex?
No, we do not think too much about sex; we think hardly at all about sex. Dreaming, fantasizing, feeling, experimenting—yes. But honest, look-it-in-the-face thinking?—hardly ever. There is no subject in the world about which there is more heat and less light."

This is an excerpt from Peter Kreeft in an essay on the role sexuality will play out in Heaven. I think the points he makes are quite valid in this essay. Especially when he says "No, we do not think too much about sex; we think hardly at all about sex. Dreaming, fantasizing, feeling, experimenting—yes. But honest, look-it-in-the-face thinking?—hardly ever."

Our own experiences show this to be true. Walking around my floor earlier, I recorded the number and nature of sexual references on doors. I found five references to fornication (sex outside of marriage), and one of each rape, incest, sodomy, and pornography. This was only on the doors.

In this blurb I want to give a few more supporting arguments to the sacredness of sex. Last time the points I brought up were mostly dealing with conscience, and the roots and nature of sexuality. This time I would like to bring in several arguments supporting the sacredness of sex, and then spend more time looking at the meanings and ramifications.

The first argument is from anthropology, or the study of man. This is that cultures have some sort of elevation of the sexual act. Whether good or bad, there is no society, including ours, that I know of in which sex is treated like it is with animals, mere procreation and pleasure.

This speaks very much about the role of sexuality among humans as different from the animals. If animals had any hints of ceremony in regards to sex, that would be a strong argument against this. However, as anyone that has lived on a ranch can attest, animals have no shame, no hesitation in regard to intercourse, it is merely breeding.

The fact that animals have no sense of sacredness in regards to sex may initially seem like an argument against the sacredness of sex; however, it is a very strong argument for the sacredness of sex. If animals, even developed animals like the great apes, do not have even a glimmering of human ideals with sex, then where do these ideals come from. There is no argument that they evolved, Ancient societies has just as much or more respect and reverence for sexuality then the modern world.

Even dolphins, the animal said to be the only other one to have sex for pleasure, have no glimmer of reverence for it. The fact they engage in it for purposes extra-procreation shows that the animals aren't merely prudes that wish to be utilitarian with sex, but that there really is no special status of sexuality with animals.

Another point comes from the nature of the act itself. There are two things associated with it.
A. Complete physical intimacy.
B. Procreation.
The complete physical intimacy is important, because our external acts show our inner feelings. I wouldn't hug and kiss a stranger on the street nor would I only shake hands with my brother. There are physical acts that we do according to the relationship between ourself and the other.

It is effectively impossible to get much more physically intimate then sexual intercourse. Therefore, the relationship between the couple should be the deepest possible, a committed relationship that says for as long as we live we will be with eachother. As the husband gives himself to the wife and the wife to the husband physically, they do the same in the whole relationship
Procreation is the continuance of the human race. So why is this another strong argument. It wouldn't be if we were only animals. But we are not (showing that is outside of the spectrum of this essay).

Humanity is created Imago Dei, each human is a unique piece of humanity. Every human is completely unique, possessing an eternal soul, This is where procreation comes in. Through sexual intercourse, humans are given a chance to cooperate with God to bring forth a new man. Through sex, humans partake in the divine nature of the creator.

Some rules with sex. Yes there are rules, why, to be restrictive? To assert the authority of God over man by making man follow meaningless and abstract rules? No, God is creator, the engineer. So he must know the working of man better than anything else, like the engineer is the best to consult about how to use a device.
We have to change the oil in our car. Is this to assert the authority of the manufacturer, oil company, or mechanic over the owner. No. It makes the car run the best. You may think that true freedom in a car is being able to do as you want, but if you use corn syrup as motor oil, there is no freedom there.

Similarly, if we treat our bodies, our sexualities, as something we want to be able to do anything we wish with, we will be using them defectively, and destroy the freedom it has.

Sex is the consummation or physical side of two becoming one. The man and the woman come together and form one. They form one, THEY. The male doesn’t absorb the female not does the female absorb the male. They come together, each giving themselves to the other. Because of this mutual giving, what the woman gives to the man, he doesn't grasp, because he is already giving himself to the woman and visa versa. This giving to the other leads to the formation of one.

Because of this, both partners must come together not out of selfishness, but of sacrificial love and giving. If they are merely using each other for their own pleasure, they not only destroy the giving nature of the act, but become less of a person. When we seize onto something for ourselves to make it ours, ours alone, whether it be a pleasure or position, we lose ourselves. When we focus on the self, the self shrives and dies.

Similarly, if we focus on the pleasure the act brings, we lose ourselves there too.
The act isn't only sacrificial to the other, but sacrificial to the children that may come from the act. They are just as integral to the sexual act.

It is because of these reasons the Church (The Catholic Church and all other groups before Planned Parenthood) has always rejected artificial birth control (the pill, condoms, etc.) It has also condemned masturbation because of this element in sexuality. If birth control is wrong because it eliminates the sacrifice to the possible children, then masturbation is even more wrong because it eliminates the sacrifice to the partner too, making the sexual act completely selfish.

Pornography worsens this. Now not only are we utilizing the sexual act for our own pleasure, but using the opposite gender as a tool to get it. Pornography takes the human form that is created to be beautiful to the eyes of the other, and enslaves it to the self. This is lust, the lust I talked about in the earlier post.
John Paul II writes:

"The person is a being for whom the only suitable dimension is love...Love for a person excludes the possibility of treating him as an object of pleasure......the commandment of love is not limited to excluding all behavior that reduces the person to a mere object of pleasure. It requires more; it requires the affirmation of the person as a person."

So by taking someone, there is a person behind that image, and turning them into a tool for your own selfish pleasure, you are denying their personhood. This is an act of hatred, of murder. The great sin of pornography is that it objectifies the other into merely a "object of pleasure"; this selfishness drives out the possibility of love, and replaces it with hate, of the other and the self. This hate makes it harder or even impossible to give to the other in any acts of love.

To those out there that struggle with porn and masturbation, stop. That is the best way to get away from it. This is of highest importance. It helps immensely, trust me.

That is all, I may post another follow up, but for now, I am tired and headed to bed.

Comment if you have read/own and of these books.

Bibles
NKJV
NIV
Message
NAB
Interpretor's Bible
Aramaic New Covenant

General Theology
Christianity and Civilization - Emil Brunner
A Heretic's Guide to Eternity - Spencer Burke
Mere Christianity - C.S. Lewis
Apologia Pro Vita Sua - John Henry Newman
Truth and Tolerance - Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI)
Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms
The Four Loves - C.S. Lewis
The letters of Ignatius of Antioch (bishop of Antioch 105 - 115 AD)

Ecclesia(Churches/Denominations/Ecumenism)
Catechism of the Catholic Church
The Creed, What Christians Believe and Why It Matters - Luke Johnson
Eastern Orthodox Theology - Compilation of Essays
Evangelical Truth - John Stott
Nicene Christianity: The Future for a Ne Ecumenism - Compiled Essays
The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind - Mark Noll
Catholicism and Fundamentalism - Karl Keating
Christ and Culture - H.R. Niebuhr
Luther's Ninety-Five Theses
Luther's Small Catechism
On Being Catholic - Thomas Howard

Writers

G.K. Chesterton-
The Everlasting Man
Orthodoxy
The Catholic Church and Conversion

Don Miller-
To Own a Dragon - Reflections on Growing Up Without a Father
Blue Like Jazz
Searching for God Knows What

Dietrich Bonhoeffer-
A Testament to Freedom (Collected Writing)
Meditations of Psalms
Letters and Papers from Prison

Karl Barth-
Commentary on Romans
The Call to Discipleship
Armchair Theologian's Guide to Karl Barth

Popes-
Crossing the Threshold of Hope - JP II
Ut Unum Sint - JP II
Humanae Vitae - Paul VI

Sociology
The Conquest of Cool - Thomas Frank
Nation of Rebels: Why Counter-Culture Became Consumer Culture - Heath and Potter
Guerrilla Dating Tactics - Wolf

Miscellaneous
Wild at Heart - John Eldredge
The Measure of a Man - Gene Getz
Prayers Across the Centuries
Revolution in World missions - Yohannan
Questions You Can't Ask Your Mama - Gross and Foster
Augustine: A New Biography - James O'Donnell
Prayer's of A righteous Man - Gallery
The Joy Of Coffee - C.S. Lewis

The church claims to be the Church that Christ founded. The Church claims to be the instrument of grace from God to man. The church claims that it speaks with the authority of Christ. "The one who listens to you listens to Me, and the one who rejects you rejects Me; and he who rejects Me rejects the One who sent Me." - Luke 10:16

This means that either the church is what is says, or that is a damnable creation of men and all Christians absolutely compelled to combat it with all the power they have.

This is similar to C.S. Lewis' analysis of claims that Christ was merely a good teacher. Either He was God or the most damnable liar in human history. Christ has not left the choice up to us in regards to His divinity. Nor has he left the choice up to us about the role of the church.

The very fact that most Christians do not do respond to the church in the negative fashion gives support to the Church being the Church that Christ founded.

The Feminine.

What is the thing known at the feminine and how does it relate to men. Why is it that the man reacts so violently to this one thing? Is it merely the product of a desire to continue the species through sexual intercourse? Are we attracted to the feminine as the bull is attracted to the cow in the late summer? I would say not really.

As with many things, the version we find most often in the world is one that has been reduced and stripped of its glories and now stands stark and base. Does this meant that the modern understanding of things in wrong. Not technically, but the modern epistemology or "theory of knowledge" is by large reductionistic. Not that it is bad to get to the foundations of something, but the method is much like that of dividing by the dependent variable to cancel something out in algebra, you are going to lose a considerable amount that you don't have to or want to discard.

We can see this at work with the idea of man.

Modern view – Man is a more intelligent ape that has advanced tool-making skills, complex social structures, and two opposable thumbs.

Truth – Man was created Imago Dei (image of God) and is the pinnacle in and purpose of creation. He was meant to have a loving relationship with God and with others. He is different from all the animals, not only in intellect, but in his soul. He is also physically related to the Hominidae family.

The modern understanding and the truth have some same elements, but the modern strips much of the truth away, and generally the part that matters is lost.

Another area this happens is in the feminine, and the male's attraction to it. The modern reduction is that attraction is an evolutionary necessity that is in our instincts so we don't die out. What this describes is the attraction to the female body that men have. But even then it too fails to adequately describe what is happening because there is also, in Christian sexuality at least, the element of man and woman being created for each other so the attraction ties back into the very nature's of man and woman. This is where platonists and puritans have problems because by identifying the root of sexual attraction as how man and woman were made, and not mere animal lust declares that sexual attraction, in its true form, is good.

Notice that I didn't use the word lust in the preceding paragraph. Lust would be taking that attraction, which is recognition of something as beautiful and wanting to be united with it, and perverting it into something to be privatized and used for one's own pleasure. Lust sees the other person as someone that is good only for pleasure, not as another person. The sins of lust are both the assumption of dominion over another person, as well as the objectification of the other person.

We see a similar reduction with the actual sexual act. There are two possibilities. Either it us entirely physically pleasurable, just as good food or warm sunlight is pleasurable and that is where it ends, Or sex is something that is sacred and must be treated with the utmost care and reverence. These are the only two.

However, another one has been suggested by a friend of mine, that sex is something that has emotional connections and is a sign of deep love. This position is one in the middle of the two positions. It says that sex is more than just pleasure, but has deeper and important meaning, but isn't sacred as the second position holds. So where does this meaning come from, social norms? If so, then it really isn't sacred, we just think it is. If sex is more then just physical, why? The institution of sex in creation by God, we must say this, he designed the human body. For procreation sex is needed, so sex has an integral part in humanity.

How do we know that sex has more than just physical pleasure? Scripture tells us that there is a deep union between man and woman in sex, that the two become one, the man and woman coming back together as if Eve went back into Adam, forming one. I have also been told that sexual relations forms a bond between two persons and this bond is integral to the nature of sex. If there is any sort of bond forged in the act, then it is evidence for the scripture view, and in refutation of the animalistic view.

There are those that hold that sex is only a pleasurable act with no deep meaning. By effort they are able to separate themselves from the convictions that are instilled in us. For them, it is only physical pleasure; they take the pearls of human sexuality and trample them into the dirt of the pigsty. We must keep them in our prayers, for they know not what they do.

We must hold that, while sex is a pleasurable physical act, it is also sacred, and must be treated with the utmost respect and reverence.

On another note, back in high school and in early college, I thought it would be great to be married because in marriage there is sex. That is certainly an element, but my feelings about it have changed. Now I still think it would be nice to have that physical contact will be great, but what I really look forwards to is more of the relationship.

I don’t know why exactly, maybe I am maturing, maybe I am burnt out and desensitized because of how often sex or sexual themes pop up in today's society, or maybe some other reason.

What I really look forwards to is drinking hot cocoa after work, watching it rain or snow, or having someone to snuggle and cuddle when it is cold out. Or maybe someone to talk to that will give me their opinion on the latest thought bubble that came to my mind.

In the following area I will be discussing science and reality and modernity and some other stuff.

Science doesn’t give us reality; it gives us a description of our surroundings (what we can directly sense at that moment, the TV picture is surroundings, the newscaster isn’t), . Reality is so much more than our surroundings at that instant.

However if we say that reality is what we can observe, that if we can’t observe something through the scientific method, then it doesn’t exist. This is what elements of modernistic sciencism will say. It asserts that reality is just our surroundings.

Since our surroundings are what we observe, we find our surroundings to be reality.

This leads to two options-

One

Reality is our surroundings, nothing we can’t directly observe doesn’t exist in our reality. There is only the “I.”

Two

We all have our own realities and truth is subjective to the individual because reality is as well. This also gives two options. The first one is option one from above. The second is that there is more than just the “I” there is the “we,” there are many individuals with their own reality.

We then find that if we all have our own reality, then we can lay down absolute judgment on things in it, and no one else has the authority to judge our reality. However, this has every judgment made being without any authority, so there is no such thing as truth and untruth. We may then argue that truth and untruth may be found in universally held ideas, i.e. murder is wrong. This still falls because one judgment made without the authority to do so has the same authority as millions of judgments without authority, zero.

Also, if we admit to the possibility of right and wrong, we admit in the existence of transcendental things, which we dismissed by saying things exist only if they are observable. And since this option comes from the assumption that there is such thing as the other as being transcendental to individual realities, we must dismiss it as well. At the end we return to option one.

Conclusion

We find that “I think, therefore I am” as being the only thing we can say. What a pitiful, sad, and despairing conclusion.

This leads to nihilism, or something like it. For if I am the entirety of reality, then seeking pleasure and avoiding pain is the only thing left.

Every particle in our being screams against such an end. More on that later.

Random Thought bubbles

Could it be that the reason that I see correlations in the post-evangelical church and the RCC is because the post-evangelical church is connected to the post-modern times, it is relevant to the post modern, and the catholic church is “relevant” to all times, so if I were to look into how the evangelical movement and the RCC are similar, I would find other areas, and if I were to look into any other movement that rose out of a time period or philosophy, then there would also be similarities, because the RCC is timeless.

It isn’t because of the theologian we have the creeds, but because of the heretics. Nor is it for the saints we have the law, but the sinners Also, the more anyone follows Christ, earnestly searching for truth, the more they come into Catholic perspectives, for the dogmas aren’t there merely as guidepost to the devout, but also as barriers to those seeking to reduce the love and mystery of God.

Why is it we idolize sin, why is it that things are held up on pedestals in media? Is it because of knowledge of the fallen nature of man, but still the innate awareness of the former glory that is still in creation and a search for redemption? Do we think that by idolizing something we are able to change the nature, by lifting sin up we are able to make is noble and good? Why is it that we don’t realize that if we were to declare dog crap a gourmet food, it may become desirable, but it is still dog crap?

We define others by our interactions with them, not as a complete individual (mostly, we strive to identify others as individuals, but never quite get to it), because we are not them. If we aren’t grounded in what we believe, we also define ourselves by our interactions with others. Some say that we are only made up of our interactions, but we must still have a soul, or we fall to another kind of determinism, that a person can be defined by their past interactions, and so all future reactions to their environment can be determined. So we must maintain that reactions to the environment come partly from their past experiences, but that each interaction changes the person, not because the interaction, but the choice they make changes their “inner man” as CS Lewis said. However, this could just be an issue that I have, because of my mild autism; I often have issues identifying with a mindset other than my own. However, that might be why the idea of the otherness of others is so fascinating to me.