Philosophical Objections to Gay Marriage

The topic of gay marriage is a divisive subject, in large part because it is constantly coupled with religious overtones. However, gay marriage is not at its heart a religious issue; rather, it is a philosophical one. It is a faulty modern philosophy of love which allows society to even consider the possibility of gay marriage; the same flawed philosophy which has previously justified other sexual perversions such as divorce, adultery, and pornography.
Love, in its romantic sense (eros), must be a full expression of unity between a man and a woman, because the differences between man and woman are united by the completion of the human person. Men share specific characteristics with all other men, and women share specific characteristics with all other women. It is only when man and woman come together that a true exploration of the human person is possible. Thus, homosexual relationships cannot fully explore the totality of the human person, rendering love impossible.
Two points about love must be made. Romantic love is not simply a feeling of mutual attraction, as many moderns argue. Love is and must be a total outpouring from both individuals in a relationship to each other. If anything is held back, love between two partners cannot exist. Also, love cannot be felt for a time and then discarded. One who completely bares their soul to another (the physical aspect of which is the act of sexual union) cannot then take that revelation back. Love requires constant commitment, and demands the constant revelation of both partners to each other.
If either of these two aspects is not present, love cannot exist. What makes marriage special if it is nothing more than a formal legitimization of mere erotic attraction?
This is why divorce, adultery, and other forms of sexual deviancy are perversions of love. Divorce intimates that two people can share everything for a time, but they can break their relationship off and enter into total intimacy with another. Adultery signifies that it is possible to give oneself totally to more than one person. Similarly, gay marriage intimates that it is possible both to have an intimate connection with someone who one cannot experience the completeness of humanity.
Proponents of gay marriage often claim that since marriage is already treated casually by society, that marriage is not further harmed by the adoption of homosexual marriage. This statement is dangerously inaccurate. Fifty years ago, divorce was not rampant, it would have been unthinkable to kill a child who had survived an abortion, and gay marriage was abhorred.
We do not know what people will believe is acceptable fifty years from now. But we do know that gay marriage takes us further down a dark path, just as divorce, adultery, contraception took society did in previous eras. That path will lead to the eventual acceptance of now-unthinkable concepts that reflect similar misunderstandings of love and marriage.

"Separation of Church and State?" Or Elimination of the Church Altogether?

Nowhere in the Constitution does the phrase “the separation of church and state” exist. (Thomas Jefferson first coined the phrase in 1802 - more than a decade after the Constitution was ratified.) Yet many treat the term as though it is enshrined in the Constitution.

Those who bandy about the term “separation of church and state” argue that it means church and society remain completely separate from one another. Religion and government must not intersect, and society must not show a “preference” for one religion over another. Society must remain agnostic: ANY mention of any form of deity must be eliminated from the public eye altogether. (Never mind that by doing so, the government has already adopted a form of religion - irreligion.)

This is actually only the tip of the iceberg. In actuality, the loudest criers of the “separation of church and state” want more than the mere separation of the two powers. Those who argue for the “separation of church and state,” really want religion to be subordinate to the state – and eventually, replaced by the state altogether.

Not coincidentally, proponents of the “separation of church and state” support an ever-growing, metastasizing state. In a sense, a leviathan state becomes a new religion, touching on all aspects of life. The “public good” – as determined by government experts – develops a set of new rules that regulate human behavior just as strictly as religion's moral codes.

The recent decision by the Obama administration to force insurance companies to cover contraception for all employers – including religious employers who serve people of other faiths – is a perfect example of this trend. The defenders of this decision demand that even faiths that believe contraception is immoral be forced to violate their consciences and pay insurance companies for something they believe to be evil – for the sake of the “greater good” of society, as determined by medical "experts."

As such, statists demand that the church to have absolutely no voice in the governance of a society. They desire that religion become irrelevant, so that the state can then supplant the church as the sole arbiter of authority.

But to fully replace religion, the state must supplant religion completely – by eliminating it. In effect, religion must be forgotten entirely for the state to take the place of religion. So every hint of religion must be expunged altogether from society.

Those who seek the “separation of church and state” are in reality seeking the isolation and elimination of the church.

Darwin's Case Against Contraception

Outside observers of Catholicism are often under the mistaken impression that the Catholic Church opposes contraception because She desires Her followers to breed as many children as physically possible.

They are completely wrong. That is not the view of the Catholic Church. That is actually the view of Charles Darwin.

The Catholic Church opposes contraception because She teaches the twofold purpose of sexual intercourse – procreation and unity. Sexual intercourse is meant to unite man and woman together in a joyous, fruitful act that quite literally has the potential to create new life. In the Catholic tradition, this twofold purpose of the sexual act cannot be separated - a couple cannot lawfully have sex solely with the end of pleasure (or, for that matter, solely with the end of baby-making) in mind.

But for Catholics, while every act of sexual intercourse must be open to life, that does not mean that every act of intercourse must be performed with the sole intention of procreation. Indeed, the Catholic Church teaches that men and women can abstain from sexual intercourse during a woman's fertile periods for grave reasons (for example, medical reasons) - a practice known as natural family planning. The Church does NOT teach that couples must have as many children as physically possible.

By contrast, Darwinian evolution postulates that sexual activity evolved over time as a method for individuals to pass on their genetic code to their descendants. In Darwinian evolution, sexual intercourse is for the purpose of reproduction, and the pleasure inherent in the reproductive act merely serves as an incentive for couples to reproduce.

According to Darwinian theory, over time, stronger individuals are better able to pass on their genes and have a greater influence on the gene pool of a species, while weaker individuals are less able to pass on their genetic code, and thus have less influence upon the future of a species.  

Having more descendants is a sign of evolutionary success - more descendants means more opportunity to further one's influence on the gene pool. Those who fail to reproduce and pass on their genetic code to descendants are evolutionary failures, because they do not have a chance to pass on their genes to offspring and have no genetic influence on future members of their species.

Thus, humans who have many children are evolutionary successes, in Darwinian terms, because they are able to spread their genetic code to more descendants, and have a greater influence on the gene pool of the human race. By contrast, individuals who contracept thwart their reproductive capacity and deny themselves the chance to influence the human gene pool.

So from a Darwinian standpoint, faithful Catholic married couples who have many children are highly successful, and those who contracept to the point of having no children are Darwinian failures.

Yet despite their insistence on "science" and Darwin's rightness, modern secularists view the act of sexual intercourse solely through the prisms of pleasure and power. They pay homage to Darwin while ignoring his most fundamental principles and scorning basic biology.

The spectacle of secularists who enshrine Darwin and attack the Church for being unscientific, while themselves blithely ignoring basic evolutionary principles, is incredibly ironic - the devotees of reason themselves willfully ignore logic.

A Joyful Lent

Today is Ash Wednesday, the day which marks the beginning of the liturgical season of Lent. During Lent, we are called to draw closer to our Lord by emulating the 40 days of fasting and prayer in the desert that Christ underwent before He began His public ministry. The Church asks Her followers to deny themselves common pleasures and to pray more deeply, so as to follow in the footsteps of Christ.

But far too often, Lent is treated as a time of gloom, sorrow, and self-sacrifice by Christians. We are called to give up pleasures that are dear to us. We are called to mortify our senses and our pride, praying and reflecting on the sufferings of Our beloved Master.

To many (including myself), this is a painful trial. After all, who would not be unhappy at the thought of giving up things that they like – especially for things that do not provide obvious temporal benefits? Lent can become a time of fruitless complaining, even for faithful Christians, who fail to bear their suffering well.

But Lent should not be a time of sorrow. Indeed, in order to be a fruitful Lent, our sacrifices should be made in a spirit of cheerfulness, and the period of Lent should be a time of joy.

Lent reminds us that comforts and possessions cannot grant us happiness in the long run, and that our true happiness is in the Lord. Only God can satisfy man’s desperate craving for happiness.

We must be willing to cast aside unnecessary things during this Lent, and embrace our Master's yoke.

If we do so, we will come to a fuller realization of our spiritual state. We will come to rely less and less on those pleasures we depended on to bring us happiness, and instead rely solely on God, the source and fountain of true joy.

If our Lent is successful, we will draw ourselves closer to God through its observance. In doing so, we will become truly happy - for the Maker of happiness will fill us with His delight as we draw ever nearer to Him.

Besides, Christ told us not to be sorrowful when fasting. Indeed, we are commanded by Him to be so joyful that others may not be able to detect that we are fasting through our misery: “But when you fast, put oil on your head and wash your face, so that it will not be obvious to others that you are fasting, but only to your Father, who is unseen.” (Matt 6:17-18)

Indeed, as Catholics, we must go farther than mere stoicism. We must be joyful in this season of Lent – so joyful that others may be inspired by our glowing example. We must attract others to live the Christian life of suffering by taking joy even in the Cross.

Let us all seek to exude a spirit of Christian joy this Lent, as we draw ever closer to our Master through prayer and self-denial.
Have a blessed Lent, dear readers.

The Principle of Community

As water seeks its own level, so too do people. People seek out those who perform certain activities, and practice certain behaviors, and form communites with those people.

Common interests are one factor in the formation of communities. Friends seek out friends with similar interests. Lovers (at least those who stay lovers for more than a month) similarly share common interests.

Virtue is also a strong determinant in the formation of communities. Good people tend to associate themselves with good people. Monks gather in tight-knit communities, churches are composed of individuals sharing common moral and religious principles, and humanitarians band together to form charitable organizations.    

Similarly, bad people also seek each other’s company. Criminals form gangs, cults isolate themselves into communities separate from the outside world, and politicians gather in Congress.

(That last part was only mostly in jest.)

People naturally seek their own kind. Common bonds between individuals, such as religion, political parties, and hobbies, unite people. Relationships and friendships are built on commonality and on shared bonds between people. People are comfortable around people they share a common bond with, even if that bond is merely allegiance to the same sports team. Conversely, people avoid situations where they feel out of place or like "a fish out of water.”

Common virtues and common vices similarly bond people together. Lechers tend not to associate with moral women, nor are nuns found in strip clubs.

This principle of community also holds true in romantic relationships as well. While it is true in part that “opposites attract,” it is also true that a relationship where both parties are completely opposite from each other will not survive. Good relationships thrive when common bonds, such as love of certain hobbies or activities or shared religion are present.

Virtue is a strong predictor of the solidity of relationships. People tend to end up with spouses who share similar interests and who possess a similar level of virtue. A person lacking virtue will usually end up with a spouse who similarly lacks virtue. A person possessing a great deal of virtue, by contrast, will usually end up with a person who similarly possesses virtue. And those virtuous couples tend to have more fulfilling relationships than those lacking in virtue.

Concerning Proper Attire for Mass

T-shirts and shorts, low-cut tops, miniskirts, and other skimpy items of clothing are common attire for some Massgoers - even on Sundays. This refusal to dress appropriately during Mass reflects a fundamental and dangerous disrespect for God.

Wearing proper clothes during Mass should not be an option: it is an essential duty for Christians.

God does not need us to dress properly for His sake. God, of course, has no need for human praise. He is immortal, and infinitely higher than us by His very nature. No action of ours can harm or defame Him.    

Rather, proper attire during Mass is for our benefit. Proper attire reminds us that at Mass, we are in the presence of the divine, and that we must act accordingly.

During Mass, we are present at the Holy Sacrifice of Calvary, represented before us. We are placed at the point when God comes down from heaven and gives His Body and Blood to us in the form of bread and wine. 

Should we not show our Lord the courtesy of dressing up honorably during this great miracle?

If we were to see the Pope or the President dressed in low-cut tops or ratty T-shirts, we would exhibit horrible disrespect for them. The dignity of their office requires a dress code suitable to the occasion of meeting them. How much more true is this for our Creator, who keeps us in existence!

The parable of the guest who did not wear a wedding garment at the wedding of the king's daughter (Matt 22:11-14) gives a stark warning of the consequences of improper dress during Mass. The ill-attired wedding guest was cast out into the darkness for his refusal to honor the king by dressing properly. If an earthly king punished a subject so harshly for disrespecting him and his beloved daughter, what will our heavenly King do for disrespecting Him at His sacrifice?

Should we not give our King and Master our full attention and honor, in every respect? Should we not dress as we were at the feast of the Lamb of God on earth at Mass? For indeed, we are!

Poetry Session! The Valentine's Day Edition

Happy Sts. Cyril and Methodius Day, everybody!

Oh, and it's also that other holiday, the ridiculously confectionalized one. But like Christmas, despite all the nonsense surrounding it, St. Valentine's Day still serves a good and holy purpose to those who seek to love and obey God.

And as an excuse to inflict poetry on you! (Insert evil laugh here!)

O lady of my dreams, our hour draws near,

The time in haste approaches when we meet,

But first must come my trial of pain and fear
The bitter must be tasted ere the sweet.

For saintly souls do not in shadows walk,

And so the angels' staircase I must climb.

For mortal vision could not bear the shock,
Nor low and craven enter the sublime.

I hear your lovely voice in every sound,
In all my dreams you beckon me and call,
With every passing day you more surround,
And grow as I seek to give you my all!

Strange, is it not, that still we have not met,
But still I hear you call me onward yet?