A Real Problem, The Wrong Solution.

Apparently, if I promote chastity and human dignity, then that means that I support rape.

I hope that sounds as ridiculous as it is, but that is the position of a new "march for us" type movement called "SlutWalk." I was first made aware of it through the wonderful facebook feature called "Friends' Events," otherwise known as things I was not invited to, but for some reason facebook thinks I should attend. So, this is the page for the "SlutWalk" nearest to me: Washington DC.

On one hand, they appear to want to help end rape. To quote them, they want to not "blame the victim in sexual assault cases." Their rallying cry is the patently obvious "No one asks to be sexually assaulted."

On the other hand, "blaming the victim" is new code for asking women to wear chaste clothes. This blew up from the Toronto Police simply "advising young women not to 'dress like a slut' in order to be safe." I will not link to the official website, as their sponsor has placed a pornographic picture on it. They plan to "take back" the term "slut" but it is unclear what they want to turn it into (other than use it as a provocative title for their movement). To quote "We are tired of being oppressed by slut-shaming; of being judged by our sexuality and feeling unsafe as a result. Being in charge of our sexual lives should not mean that we are opening ourselves to an expectation of violence, regardless if we participate in sex for pleasure or work. No one should equate enjoying sex with attracting sexual assault." So, this movement is also a cover for supporting prostitution, homosexual activity, and "free love." And, if you bring up opposition to these to a person who was raped, then you are "blaming the victim."

Their solution: to DEMAND respect for an unchaste lifestyle. They want "meaningful dialogue." Their idea of doing something about it is simply "coming together." In other words, they want the Thought Police to punish rapists.

Are they right? If a person walks up to you naked, should you treat them the same as if they had on long parkas and snow pants?

Are they wrong? Does what a person wears send a message? Would wearing less provocative clothes decrease the occurrence of rape? 

I think it's a selective surgery of both. You can tell someone that they're sending a message with their clothes, while being respectful of them. If you wear provocative clothing and get raped, there is a sin on both sides. The solution is not societal acceptance of self-proclaimed "sluts." The solution is an increase for respect of human dignity occurring in the form of both chaste clothing and prevention of rape.

Holy Trinity

Yesterday was the Solemnity of the Holy Trinity, and also Father's day. 

So what is the Trinity? To quote from Frank Sheed's Theology for Beginners:

"The notion of one God who is three persons must be profoundly mysterious. We could not know it at all if God had not drawn aside the veil that we might see...Since he wants to be known by us, we must respond by making the effort to know him. In its barest outline the doctrine contains four truths:

1. In the one divine nature there are three persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit

2. No one of the persons is either of the others, each is wholly himself. 

3. The Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Spirit is God

4. They are not three Gods, but one God. 

...Even Catholics sometimes appear to think that we have here a mathematical contradiction, as if we were saying, 'Three equals one.' We are not, of course. We are saying: 'Three persons in one nature'. The trouble is that, if we attach no meaning to the words person and nature, they tend to drop out; so we are left with the two numbers...We can say that there is but one divine nature, one answer to the question 'What is God?', one source of the divine operations. But there are three who totally possess that one nature. To the question 'Who are you?' each of the three could give his own answer, Father or Son or Spirit. But to the question 'What are you?' each could but answer 'God', because each totally possesses the one same divine nature, and nature decides what a being is. Because each possesses the divine nature, each can do all that goes with being God. Because each is God, there is no inequality, either in being or operation... the three persons do not share the divine nature... it can be possessed only in its totality... the three persons are distinct, but not separate... they do in fact what three men could not do--they know with the same intellect, love with the same will." 

A review of the readings from Sunday:

First Reading:

Ex 34:4b-6, 8-9
Early in the morning Moses went up Mount Sinai
as the LORD had commanded him,
taking along the two stone tablets.

Having come down in a cloud, the LORD stood with Moses there
and proclaimed his name, "LORD."
Thus the LORD passed before him and cried out,
"The LORD, the LORD, a merciful and gracious God,
slow to anger and rich in kindness and fidelity."
Moses at once bowed down to the ground in worship.
Then he said,  "If I find favor with you, O Lord,
do come along in our company.
This is indeed a stiff-necked people; yet pardon our wickedness and sins,
and receive us as your own."

A good passage for if someone tries to say that God in the Old Testament was wrathful in contrast to Jesus in the New Testament. God does not change!

Second Reading:

2 Cor 13:11-13

Brothers and sisters, rejoice.
Mend your ways, encourage one another,
agree with one another, live in peace,
and the God of love and peace will be with you.
Greet one another with a holy kiss.
All the holy ones greet you.

The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ
and the love of God
and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with all of you.

The final prayer here is a Trinitarian formula. If you were to just say it to me, randomly, I would recognize it as being a prayer of the Mass, I wouldn't immediately point you towards 2nd Corinthians. But here it is. Also, the verse "the God of love and peace" stuck out to me, as "love and peace" seems to be borrowed by the culture (e.g. hippies, and the anime Trigun) sadly without reference to the fact that without God, there can be neither love nor peace. 

Gospel

Jn 3:16-18

God so loved the world that he gave his only Son,
so that everyone who believes in him might not perish
but might have eternal life.
For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world,
but that the world might be saved through him.
Whoever believes in him will not be condemned,
but whoever does not believe has already been condemned,
because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.

During Mass, my Dad leaned over to my Mom and jokingly said "But that's a Protestant verse!"

It made me wonder, to what extent has today's Protestantism scrapped 34Sola Scriptura in favor of Sola John 3:16? Would it surprise an Evangelical to know that Catholics not only accept this verse but proclaim it as the Gospel at Mass all around the world? It is unarguably a really good passage, but like any part of the Bible, it does not do to take it out of context or interpret it contrary to Sacred Tradition or the Magisterium. I feel it has been overused to the point of being a slogan, people have become tired of hearing it, and so it has lost its meaning. Which is sad. Catholics should bring it back. Y'know, a "Take back John 3:16" campaign. No, not really. It's funny to think about, but Catholicism doesn't work that way.

Lastly, as Father's Day was yesterday, and I do thank my father, my grandfathers, and all priests and bishops and other men who are good fathers. Being a good father is a reflection of the love of God the Father. Unfortunately, due to the moral decline of our culture and the prevalence of contraception and abortion, fatherhood is not appreciated in our culture. Half of all marriages end in divorce. This article says a lot (it's a bit old)  but things haven't changed much. With so many families with only a single parent of a mother, of what importance is Father's Day? I find that really sad.

1 Year!!!

It's (a little after) my blog's birthday! It's a silly thing to celebrate, but it's a good time for reflection. It's not like any of my little thoughts here went viral or anything, but I did appreciate the space for putting thoughts down. I have one follower (a family member). If there's anything I would do differently, it's to try to write about the liturgical seasons more often. So, my next post will be about Trinity Sunday!

If Animals Do It, It Must Be Ok 2

I have need of this title again:
Oakland School's Lessons in Gender Diversity
Before I get to substance, may I ask where was the editor who allowed this title to get through without some capital letters? Oh, well, people who read news online probably write like that and wouldn't even notice. Actually, I didn't even notice until I wrote the title here. Anyway, on to something that actually matters...

Yes, fish can change gender (but not by will, there has to be a lack of the other sex before one changes).
I've never heard of  geckos before, but there are apparently some species that are asexual. I guess to be a hermaphrodite (like an earthworm) you still have to find a mate, unlike aforesaid gecko. I'm an engineer, not a biologist. But I am a human and can definitely say that a human is not a bird, or a fish, or a fly, or a spider, or a gecko. A human is not of the same level of creation as the animals. And I'll believe that until a family of ducks moves to a new county to put their ducklings in a better school, or until an elephant writes to a publishing company to get printed the latest in his bestselling mystery novel series. Or until some reptiles get together hammers and brushes to dig up the bones of their ancestors. As human as we treat our dogs and cats (and though they've picked up human actions from us), no dog or cat is going to discuss with you their views on religion or politics. You can try to say that animals have souls, but it has just as much real world evidence as the Flat Earth Society.

What is a human, then? Why has marriage between one man and one woman been held up as the norm, and why has it been the only type of relationship that has survived for millenia? A human is made in God's image, and "God inscribed in the humanity of man and woman the vocation, and thus the capacity and responsibility of love and communion" (CCC 2331). It is the norm because that's how God made us. "Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female; for this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'"? (Mt 19:4f). CCC Article 6 (or 2331-2400) is a very complete explanation of human sexuality. I will end with 2393: "By creating the human being man and woman, God gives personal dignity equally to the one and the other. Each of them, man and woman, should acknowledge and accept his sexual identity."

If Animals Do It, It Must Be Ok

Last post from today, I promise...

Just that on the news, there was a story I couldn't help wanting to comment on. Here are some links:
The Caligula Effect: Why Poweful Men Compulsively Cheat
Sex and Politics: Are Men Really More Likely To Cheat?
The Case for Letting Your Partner's Eye Wander

Sensational titles, but with some pretty sad content. Maybe I'm naive, or just have wishful thinking, but I think it's a big generalization to say that all men who have powerful positions are bad. And just because some people fail at being moral doesn't mean we should just throw out morals. I'm sure I can make a list of men who are good role models that's a longer list than the Caligula one...
Jesus
St Joseph
St Peter
Sts James and John
Sts Phillip and Andrew
St. Stephen
St. Francis of Assisi

St Francis de Sales
St Maximilian Kolbe
St Thomas More
St Stephen, King of Hungary
St Henry II, Holy Roman Emperor
St Edward the Confessor, King of England
And, you probably know, the list of saints goes on and on.

Our culture is breaking us apart, but the Catholic Church is still on the rock where it was before, while everything on sand is being more and more obviously washed away.
They Say Marriage is a Dying Institution: What's Really Dying is Love
Does Marriage Even Work Anymore?
Marriage can't work without God... heck, any attempt at a moral life is impossible without God. We shouldn't look to animals for what is "natural" because they don't have souls. They can't tell us what is "natural" for a soul. They can't give us morality. We have to look up for that.

Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus 2

I had an idea for an interesting analogy for how we can  only be saved through Jesus. Imagine you're in a race, but before it starts, you get blindfolded. This is like original sin... you didn't choose it, but it will affect how you act. But it keeps you from seeing how to get to the finish line. The finish line is heaven, and the racetrack was laid out by Jesus (Jesus is "the way"). But you're blindfolded! A friend can come up to you and say, hey! you've got a blindfold on! If you see the way (Jesus) you'll be able to get to the finish line (heaven). Or you could stubbornly say that you don't see a racetrack, and unless you can provide proof of a racetrack or a finish line, you're not going to take your blindfold off. In fact, you could convince yourself that having a blindfold on is the way you're supposed to be! The other possibility is that you never take your blindfold off, but you do your best to follow the racetrack anyway. It is physically possible to finish the race with the blindfold on, but isn't it kinder to be a missionary and help take people's blindfolds off?

Luke 24:13-35

 This passage was the Gospel reading on Mother's Day this year, so it got kinda pushed aside, but I think it's a really important passage both for the Eucharist and for the idea of Sola Scriptura.

Now that very day two of them were going to a village seven miles from Jerusalem called Emmaus, and they were conversing about all the things that had occurred. And it happened that while they were conversing and debating, Jesus himself drew near and walked with them, but their eyes were prevented from recognizing him. He asked them, "What are you discussing as you walk along?" They stopped, looking downcast. One of them, named Cleopas, said to him in reply, "Are you the only visitor to Jerusalem who does not know of the things that have taken place there in these days?"

And he replied to them, "What sort of things?"

Jesus knows. But He doesn't want them to know He knows. The fact that Jesus doesn't immediately say "Hey, it's me!" makes the circumstances of the later self-revelation significant. In fact, all through the Gospels, Jesus tells people to keep His miracles secret, and does not allow the demons removed from people to spread the knowledge that Jesus is God. This seems like the opposite of a good marketing strategy. How will anyone know you've just risen from the dead if you wait forever to tell them?

 

They said to him, "The things that happened to Jesus the Nazarene, who was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people, how our chief priests and rulers both handed him over to a sentence of death and crucified him. But we were hoping that he would be the one to redeem Israel; and besides all this, it is now the third day since this took place. Some women from our group, however, have astounded us: they were at the tomb early in the morning and did not find his body; they came back and reported that they had indeed seen a vision of angels who announced that he was alive. Then some of those with us went to the tomb and found things just as the women had described, but him they did not see."  I think this is the most succinct description of Jesus. It's only missing the fact that Jesus was more than just another prophet. Maybe the "we were hoping" means that they had all given up on Jesus being the Messiah. Maybe that's why they couldn't recognize him when he walked with them; they were not mentally able to. Are we always able to see Jesus when He walks with us?

 

And he said to them, "Oh, how foolish you are! How slow of heart to believe all that the prophets spoke! Was it not necessary that the Messiah should suffer these things and enter into his glory?" Then beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them what referred to him in all the scriptures. What the Bible refers to as "the scriptures" is what we as Christians hold as the Old Testament. The old writings that testify to Jesus. The Gospels and New Testament letters are the new writings that testify to Jesus. I don't think there's any other religion that tries so hard to provide evidence/testimony/witness to its truth. There's no other religion where God lowered Himself to become human and know what it's like. There's no other religion where God is loving enough to sacrifice Himself. If you have to make Pascal's wager, wouldn't you want to be in a religion with a God who is as loving and merciful as our God is? So many people ask for proof, for reason. But they don't realize that God revealed Himself over and over and even came to live with us. And that's not enough. Jesus takes the time to interpret everything too! We don't even have to interpret the scriptures ourselves! In fact, we probably shouldn't, so that we don't come up with something contradictory to what Jesus said. Just one problem: this doesn't say what God's interpretation is.

 

As they approached the village to which they were going, he gave the impression that he was going on farther. But they urged him, "Stay with us, for it is nearly evening and the day is almost over." So he went in to stay with them. And it happened that, while he was with them at table, he took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them. With that their eyes were opened and they recognized him, but he vanished from their sight. I think it is significant that Jesus spent all day finding Jesus in the scriptures, but their eyes were not opened. Cleopas wasn't with Jesus at the Last Supper, and his unnamed companion was probably not an Apostle either as he's not named. Jesus could have opened their eyes any time during the explanation of the scriptures. Is it a coincidence that Jesus wanted them to recognize Him in the bread? Do we always recognize Jesus in the Eucharist as if "our eyes were opened"? How can we lessen the importance of the Eucharist to "only a symbol" when it is the primary way to recognize Jesus?

 

Then they said to each other, "Were not our hearts burning (within us) while he spoke to us on the way and opened the scriptures to us?" They realize that they found Jesus in the scriptures after they found Jesus in the meal. That is the order Jesus wants us to find Him. If Jesus intended us to have Sola Scriptura, wouldn't He have their eyes opened during the opening of the scriptures? The scriptures are important (it make their hearts burn within them) but it is has secondary importance to the breaking of the bread, in this passage.

 

So they set out at once and returned to Jerusalem where they found gathered together the eleven and those with them who were saying, "The Lord has truly been raised and has appeared to Simon!" Then the two recounted what had taken place on the way and how he was made known to them in the breaking of the bread. As as addition to whether or not we see Jesus when He walks with us, do we see Jesus when He walks with others? Are we willing to put our own interpretation of the Bible aside if we are told Jesus gave us God's interpretation? Do we recognize Jesus in the "breaking of the bread" today?