The Intellectual Foundation of Catholocism

Jimmy Akin has a great post on an interview with Frank Beckwith at the National Catholic Register. In the interview he discusses the intellectual foundation of the faith and the misrepresentation of Catholic teaching by protestants and evangelicals.

I think GK Chesterton said this, although I could be wrong so please correct me if I am. Of course I'm paraphrasing from memory:

"There are many people who hate what they think is the Catholic Church, but few who actually hate the Church"

Organist Fired for Selling for Pure Romance

I would like to applaud the priest in this story. It is not easy to do the right thing. People always perceive the actions of the church as discriminatory. The priest did not say this woman had to quite her job selling sex toys. He simply said it was inconsistent with Catholic teaching, and that she would have to choose whether to continue her duties with the Church or Pure Romance, but she could not do both. It was her choice. She exercised her free will, and the Church did not interfere.

The tone of the story is slightly derogatory to the Church and the priest involved. The priest doesn't even condemn all of the products Pure Romance sells. He says some of the products are inconsistent with church teaching, and he's right. He handled it in a very restrained and loving way. Why do people constantly want the Church to bend to their ideas? One of the things that is great about the Catholic Church is the consistency of the teachings. I can understand acting out of ignorance, and sinning because of the human condition. However, once you are aware of the teaching, to act willfully and consistently in opposition to it is to choose not to be Catholic.

That's up to the individual, but don't ask the Church to change teaching just so you can remain Catholic and continue sinful behavior.

International Sex Trafficking Ring in Minnesota

Like I've been saying, this is happening almost daily now. Via Power Line comes this report of the indictment of 25 people involved in smuggling illegal immigrants to Minnesota who were then kept as slaves to work in the sex industry there. It seems most are more interested in the immigration aspect of this story, since the government in Minnesota has taken a laissez faire approach to immigration policy. Still, the more interesting thing to me is that there is enough demand, in Minnesota of all places, for an international sex trafficking ring to take root there.

Congratulations Father Chris Decker!

I wanted to take a moment to congratulate Fr. Chris Decker who was ordained over the weekend. If you don't know him, he is the host of The Catholic Underground, a podcast that is well worth your time. I've been listening to it for about six months now, and it is entertaining and enlightening. Here is the text of the homily given at the ordination mass.

New Study Finds Non-Contraceptive Sex Acts as an Antidepressant for Women

A new study outlined in Psychology Today claims that women who have sex without condoms gain an antidepressant effect. The author writes:

"Study author Gordon G. Gallup, Ph.D., a psychologist at the State University of New York in Albany, also found that women who routinely had intercourse without condoms became increasingly depressed as more time elapsed since their last sexual encounter. There was no such correlation for women whose partners regularly used condoms."

The study attributes this to chemicals in the semen. Reductionist science at work. To me it's just more proof that God's plan for sex and marriage has more benefits than we can imagine. Someday the science will catch up with what the church teaches.

HT - Instapundit

Things That Make You Go Hmmm.

Stories like this seem to show up in the news on an almost daily basis now. According to the article in the Cincinnati Enquirer:

"Rodney McMillen, 36, of Norwood, broke into a Fort Mitchell apartment armed with a knife and wearing only a thong, set up a video camera, then jumped on a sleeping woman and attempted to rape her."

There are a couple of things that are disturbing about this story. First of all, if you're not familiar with Northern Kentucky, Fort Mitchell is a fairly upscale suburban neighborhood. There are some working class areas, but it's not like this is taking place in an inner city ghetto, or an area of decline like some areas in Cincinnati itself. Although I do have to note, the man was not from Ft. Mitchell, he lived in Norwood, which is one of the declining areas in Cincinnati.

The second interesting fact is that he set up a video camera before he attempted the crime. This is how they caught him of course, after the victim fought him off. Is this guy just a candidate for the Darwin Awards or is there deeper reason behind his actions?

Of course, I am speculating on this story, but I would not be surprised if Mr. McMillen was heavy pornography user. I don't think anyone can seriously deny the link between heavy pornography use and the escalation of sex crimes around the world. Although I don't agree with her politics, One Angry Girl has some excellent resources on her site regarding this issue. Porn causes it's consumers to objectify women. It is like any other addiction in that the addict needs more and more graphic material to get his fix. This results in an escalation into more "perverse" forms of pornography and possibly to an attempt to act out in the real world.

The article claims Mr. McMillen is mentally ill, and he very well may be, but that condition would have just made the escalation that much faster in him. The fact that he showed up wearing a thong and was prepared to video tape the act suggests that he harbored a fantasy that this was just a game, and that his victim would willingly go along with the act. Possibly just putting up a modest attempt to fight him off, but engoying it all along. Not coincidentally, this is how some rape scenes are glofified in pornography. Why else would he think he would have time to retrieve a camera after he was finished, and escape wearing only a thong.

I don't believe pornography should be protected as free speech. It should be outlawed whenever possible. At some point our society has to distinguish between things that are intrinsically immoral, and things that can lead to immoral behavior but are not immoral in and of themselves. Alcohol, for instance, is not intrinsically immoral. If used in moderation it can be safely consumed and add enjoyment to many social activities. If abused it can have serious consequences, but so can many things if they are used in excess.

Pornography on the other hand is immoral in and of itself. Many will claim it can also be used in moderation, but this disregards the effects on the participants in the production. As the Catechism of the Catholic Church states:

"It offends against chastity because it perverts the conjugal act, the intimate giving of spouses to each other. It does grave injury to the dignity of its participants (actors, vendors, the public), since each one becomes an object of base pleasure and illicit profit for others. It immerses all who are involved in the illusion of a fantasy world. It is a grave offense. Civil authorities should prevent the production and distribution of pornographic materials" (CCC 2354)

The bottom line is that pornography uses another human being as a means to our own end, in this case sexual pleasure, without regard to the effect it has on that person. Don't fool yourself, it has an effect. The internet is full of websites of people who used to be in the adult entertainment business who will attest to this fact. Not to mention the growing problem of human slavery, a lot of it dedicated to finding people to supply the sex industry. If your not familiar with this problem, here is an article I found in about ten seconds on google. One of thousands detailing this problem that is rarely discussed.

This kind of thing isn't talked about in daily conversation. It isn't polite, but look it up, it's a real problem, and we have responsibility to speak out.

The day has finally arrived here in Northern Kentucky. The Creation Museum that has been under construction off of Interstate 275 in Petersburg is set to open on Monday. I have many reasons to want to comment on this, the least of which is the fact that the museum is literally 10 minutes from my Mom's house.

Over the last few years I've watched the building go up, seen the construction delays, and even debated Ken Ham, the leader of Answers in Genesis, via e-mail. That people believe in young earth creationism doesn't bother me as much as the fact that media folks use this kind of information to beat all Christians over the head, without bothering to research what each group really believes. We are all lumped together and targeted for ridicule as simpletons, or people who need faith as a crutch because we are too weak to face reality.

I don't think there is any better time to clarify the Catholic Church's position on evolution. I'm sure that is what prompted our local Diocesan newspaper, The Messenger, to print an article on creation and evolution by Fr. Ronald Ketteler, who is a professor of Theology at Thomas More College here in Kentucky. The article was titled, "Faith and science: A Catholic perspective on the issue of creation and evolution" Fr. Ketteler writes:

"The Catechism of the Catholic Church affirms a central tenet of the Christian doctrine of creation: 'We believe that God created the world according to his wisdom. It is not the product of any necessity whatever, nor of blind fate or chance.' (CCC n. 295) Within that doctrinal perspective, contemporary Catholic teaching holds that there is no inherent conflict in principle between the science of evolutionary biology and the doctrine of creation"

English please! As Catholics we believe God is "Creator of heaven and earth, of all that is seen and unseen", we do not claim to know exactly how he did it. Evolution certainly could have been a part of the process, and given the scientific evidence in it's favor, it probably was involved. Catholics do not share the 'Sola Scriptura' mentality, that everything in the bible is literally true. We read literally when the text calls for it, and we read figuratively when it is called for. We rely on the Church and sacred tradition to guide us in how to interpret texts that were written thousands of years ago.

Our basic understanding of Genesis is that it is a framework for how God created the world, but it is figurative, and very short on details. There are many good books on this, and it is beyond my scope to go into it here. This issue confuses many good Catholics, and they have a knee jerk reaction that evolution must be wrong. I propose that what they are reacting to is not biological evolution, but what has been called "Evolutionism".

Evolutionary biology is almost certainly true. Fr. Ketteler writes, "the well known observation of Pope John Paul II in his 1996 message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on evolution, namely, that 'new knowledge leads to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis.'"

Evolutionism, on the other hand is a dogma of secular humanism championed by people like Richard Dawkins. It basically takes the science of evolution and extends it into the philosophical and metaphysical realm. It is the age old problem of reductionism. Evolutionism proposes to take God out of the equation as a causal force by claiming evolution is unguided. The problem is, this cannot possibly be proven by science.

Fr. Ketteler continues in his article, "From this doctrinal standpoint, Catholic teaching criticizes those 'neo-Darwinians who adduce random genetic variation and natural selection as evidence that the process of evolution is absolutely unguided' for such an ideology strays 'beyond what can be demonstrated by science.' (C&S n. 69)"

So, we can see that the science doesn't conflict at all with Catholic teaching, but the dogma of Evolutionism is in direct conflict, and even attempts to supplant God. Evolutionists hide behind the science, but are actually taking part in a philosophical debate, which is always a matter of faith. Neither position can be proven by science, because we are dealing with the spiritual, which cannot be observed by the senses. Thankfully, we as Catholics know that God has revealed himself to us so that we may understand.

On the other end of the spectrum, young earth creationists put God in a box. They claim to know exactly how God created everything, and if even the science of evolution is true, it would destroy their faith as they know it. Personally, I don't think God would purposefully deceive us. If the earth was only 6,000 years old, why would he make it appear 4 billion years old? I also think that God setting in motion and directing a process like evolution to eventually bring about a creature he would give a soul and teach about love, is far more amazing.

If you are interested in further reading on this subject, I highly recommend Ken Millers book Finding Darwin's God. For a quick taste of his ideas, review his website here.

Why Isn't The Church More Inclusive?

Yesterday I was listening to the Busted Halo Cast, and was intrigued by something that happened during their "Word on the Street" segment. They went out and asked people what they thought about the future of the Church, and what they would like to see from the Church. The theme that seemed to resonate throughout the answers was that the Catholic Church needed to be more inclusive or it would decline in the future.

I don't know about you, but when I read inclusive, I think tolerant. But as someone once said, "Tolerance is the virtue of a man without conviction." What people want is for the Church to approve of their behavior. They want the Church to tell them it's OK to have sex outside of marriage, contraception isn't really wrong, we're old fashioned and out of touch.

It is not the role of the Church to adapt to the culture, it is supposed to preach the truth. If someone doesn't agree, they are not Catholic. Remember Henry VIII, at least he realized he wasn't Catholic anymore. Perhaps they should try this church described at the Cafeteria is Closed. It's Catholic like, but without all the rules. Please stop pestering my Church to change. I like it the way it is.

I guess what really bothered me was that the gentlemen doing the podcast didn't even mention this. It was kind of glossed over for fear of offending anyone. I agree that we should have respect for all human beings, and love them, regardless of their behavior, but that does not mean we should not tell them what we believe for fear of offending them.

The Torture Debate

Mark Shea of Catholic And Enjoying It often posts about his opposition to interrogation procedures approved by the Bush administration for terrorist suspects. I tend to agree with him. We claim the right to go to war using the just war doctrine or a secular variant of the same, but if we don't use moral tactics to fight the way, are we really any better than our enemy?

This Smoking Gun article details some of the Al-Qaeda torture tactics from a recently recovered manual. The manual was found in a raid in Iraq along with Al-Qaeda prisoners. Be careful clicking the link, there are graphic images. This is what we must not become.

The New Birth Control Pill

You may have heard of the new birth control pill that promises to keep women from having their period indefinitely. I don't have the energy to go on a(nother) diatribe about why contraception is immoral, but this post with a suggested warning label for the new pill sums up my position nicely.

Six Pack Abs Update

I'm several days into my new diet and workout plan and unexpected things are happening. The workouts are intense and the long recovery seems to be doing it's job. I've made significant gains in strength in less than a week after being at about the same level for a couple of months. I "look" thinner already, and I can already see a line in my stomach. Much to my surprise when I got on the scale this evening, I gained four pounds! Not the result I was looking for.

I have to conclude that this is gained muscle mass due to my thinner look. I'm going to keep at it despite the result and see what happens in a week or two. At that point I'll decide if this is getting me to my goal.

Pope Warns Politicians Who Back Abortion

Alright! I'm glad to Pope decided to speak up about this publicly. You may support abortion rights and consider yourself a Christian. You may believe in God, you may be an otherwise decent person, but you are not Catholic. This is one of my biggest gripes with people I talk to about being Catholic. They complain that the Church isn't inclusive enough. There is no debate on this one. We believe abortion is intrinsically evil. If you don't, you aren't Catholic. Case closed.

My favorite version of this is my various acquaintances who don't like the Catholic church because they weren't allowed to get married in the Church. The argument goes something like this:

"Well, they wanted me to get my first marriage annulled. That's like saying the five years I spent with her meant nothing. Like we were never married."

Well duh! That's exactly what's being said. It's very simple. Either you were never validly married and were living in a state of mortal sin, or you were validly married and are not free to remarry if your wife is still alive. We believe marriage is a sacrament that joins two people together forever. If you don't believe that, OK, but don't asked to be married in our church and impugn our beliefs.

Sorry for the rant, but this situation has come up more times than I care to count. My favorite comment of all time though was when a Protestant friend told me,

"You don't really think that cracker is the body of Christ do you? If we thought Jesus was really in Communion we would crawl to church on our knees."

I guess he's never been to a Catholic church with kneelers, or seen the procession of the faithful up the stairs to a Church in Mount Adams during Holy Week. We believe, and we do get on our knees.

If you don't believe, please don't go around telling everyone your Catholic.

The Slippery Slope

Today we get news that a Massachusetts company called Advanced Cell Technology has had successful experiments using embyonic stem cells to repair eye damage in mice. I don't think I have to expound on my objection to this practice, but let's follow the logic of the embryonic stem cell proponents to it's conclusion. If we can arbitrarily destroy a human life to help another human, how do we draw the line? What's to stop companies like ATC from growing humans from the embryos and harvesting organs for transplant patients?

All that is stopping them is the technology. If you can destroy a life that is a week old embryo, or abort a seven week old fetus, where do you draw the line. Who gets to make the decision? This is a road we do not want to go down. Life begins at conception and every human being conceived is precious and should have the same rights and protections.

If you only watch and read main stream news, your probably suprised by this article. After all, President Bush prohibited all embryonic stem cell research didn't he? Nope, he only prohibited the use of federal funds for the research. Private companies can do whatever they want. We should urge our representatives to pass a law making it illegal to do research with embryonic stem cells. Force private industry to devolop cures with morally acceptable adult stem cells. They show more promise in early research anyway, why are we risking going down this path?

Geek to Freak!

I made a bet with a friend that I could have six-pack abs by June 22, 2007. He's giving me 10-1 odds on a $10 bet that I can't do it. This would be a monumental accomplishment since I've never had a six pack before (Even when I was a kid). I've had pretty good success so far just trying to lose weight (So far I've gone from 214 to 194), but it's time to get drastic. I'm going with the four week program outlined by Tim Ferris on his blog. My first workout will be Sunday afternoon after my wife and son leave for a two week vacation.

I will be making a couple of modifications. I won't eat nearly as many calories since I'm going more for fat loss than muscle gain. The real goal is to reduce my body fat percentage into the <10% range. Stay tuned to this blog for updates.

PS - Pick up Tim Ferriss' new book The 4-Hour Workweek. You won't regret it. It's got some very original material in it about the new economy and alternate work environments.