Where Has Our Moral Compass Gone?

The secular news is full of stories about crimes against various segments of society. These crimes range from, so called, crimes of passion to financial scams by individuals and corporate or political greed. It was not too long ago, perhaps thirty or forty years, that the worst thing we could imagine was our children being offered a “reefer” (now known as “joints”) or perhaps invited to play “hooky”. Our doors, at least in the suburbs or in more rural communities, were rarely locked and rape was a capital crime. In those days a girl was “easy” if she kissed on the first date and the most common weekend pastime for teens was “cruising” the local burger joints if they were lucky enough to have a car to use. Those were the days when being connected involved writing letters and notes or perhaps being on the phone for as long as one’s parents would permit because there was no such thing as call waiting or answering machines.

We of older generations, not to mention those of the “Great Generation” who are still with us, wonder what has happened to our moral compass. Why is it OK for a child to insult a teacher at school? Why is it OK for a child to be given marijuana by a friend and be simply given a warning? Why is it OK to offer condoms in high schools let alone middle schools? Where did the idea of “responsibility for one’s actions” get lost?

It sometimes feels like this all started with the 60’s and the liberal ideals of “free love” and “if it feels good, do it.” Not being a social scientist or social historian, we will not speculate on the ultimate roots of the problem but rather on were a solution might lie. Since much of what seems to be driving the social and moral decisions in our country is sex, let’s begin there.

Let’s start with the basics. The Church has always held that, for a person to be in God’s good graces and hence eligible to be in full communion with the Christ and the community of faith, one must be chaste. For persons not bound by vows of celibacy, entered into voluntarily, with full knowledge of the perpetual nature of those vows, chaste is defined as abstinence from sexual relations (e.g. sexual intercourse) with a person not sacramentally joined to that person in marriage. That means all single persons are bound by Church teaching to abstain from such actions lest they fall into mortal sin.

For those who feel cohabitation is now a secular premarital tradition approved of by the Church, they are dead wrong and need to be told so by all involved. It’s not OK to live together without the blessing of sacramental marriage. To be fair to those who feel same sex attraction (a disordered state, identified as such based upon human biology) the same exact rule applies. The Church does not recognized and will not recognize a same sex union as sacramental, regardless of its duration and regardless of what civil law says.

So, why is it that such a fundamental idea as Chastity has become an anachronism? Social liberals have long held that the state (and the Church) should not have a say in an individual’s “personal life.” Why, we ask, should that view have come to be? Quite simply, sex, especially for those who are younger than 60 years old is not only hedonistically gratifying but, because of the human hormonal condition, a force that drives especially males, but females as well, to reproduce. The fact that purely sexual relationships often rely on one person extracting personal pleasure at the expense of another (fostering disrespect) is inconsequential as long as sexual gratification is achieved. The fact that this was intended as a creative act, to foster new life is seen as inconvenient and undesirable. Hence, to prevent this possibility, contraception is necessary. And, if contraception fails or is inconvenient and new life is initiated those that consider personal gratification their sole goal will willingly take the expedient course of infanticide (abortion). Personal responsibility is ignored, sexual anarchy prevails.

The basic underlying moral stance that is ignored or misunderstood by those who believe that sexual promiscuity is somehow liberating is the fundamental idea that sexual union between husband and wife is a gift given by God. Its intent is to provide the couple with the ultimate gift, new life. To ignore this intent is to reduce the human spirit to animalistic instinct in the drive to reproduce the species.

So often we hear from various pro-life groups that contraception is bad; that abortion is an abomination. What we do not hear is the logic behind those assertions. It is ironically the feminist movement that most vocally insists that women should not be told what to do with their bodies. Does that mean that women should be exempt from the concept of chastity? Does that mean that, just because men cannot get pregnant when they disrespect another purely for sexual gratification, women should have the same debasing privilege? In the end the argument put forward by the sexual anarchists is don’t bother us with sexual morality, we should be free to rape and kill all we want as long as we feel physically gratified.

Although it is not announced as blatantly as this, most mainstream media broad casts this message in all but the most fundamental programming. From a media standpoint, we have left the age of Christian morality far behind and are now embarking upon an age of unprecedented “sexual freedom”.

And what are we, who hold fast to the concepts that Christ teaches, to do? We must hold our ground and stand squarely against those who foster the objectification of the human person as purely as sexual thing to be used or not as seen fit. We must cry out saying every person has worth from the unborn to the elderly and every person deserves to be respected. When challenged we must be ready to present the logic behind our arguments not just saying contraception is bad or abortion is murder, explain why that is so. Tell those who belittle our attitude that it is for them and for their children (if any survive) that we hold human life sacred.

Pax

The picture above is “The Holy Family” by Sisto Badalocchio, c. 1610

Paradox Humane Vitae vs. Environmental Conservation

Introduction: - Paradox Humane Vitae vs. Environmental Conservation

For the past several years I have been working on an apostolate of the Word and have found great satisfaction in that project. There are times, however, that issues surface that take my musings outside the purely hermeneutic and I feel called to reflect upon things of the world and forces affecting our lives as faithful Christians striving to live our values in a world that is rapidly turning away from them.

It is for this reason that I am starting this companion Blog. I place this in the public domain where I can invite others to help me refine my own understanding through dialogue. Your thoughts and challenges are welcome.

Today, as on most days, I take a look at what other Catholic Bloggers have concerned themselves about. A fellow Deacon, Greg Kendra who writes Deacon’s Bench has surfaced an issue that points squarely at a paradox that challenges to Humane Vitae encountered when seen from the purely rational perspective. Deacon Greg writes:

“The nation’s largest Catholic university will feature a commencement speaker who believes ‘the rest of life would benefit enormously’ from the extinction of mankind, considers Christianity ‘the most dangerous of devotions,’ and boasted about weakening the ‘dissolutive, oppressive institutions of organized religion.’”

He goes on to describe how E.O. Wilson will address a combined ceremony of DePaul University‘s College of Liberal Arts and Social Sciences and its College of Science and Health.

Anonymous Catholic Universities

Let’s first make some observations about a majority of large “Catholic Universities” founded over one hundred years ago. Most of them have become highly secularized and in a number of cases, where the name of the university is not blatantly religious (e.g. DePaul, Georgetown, Boston College, etc.) I would hazard a large part of the population does not even know they are technically Catholic institutions. In an attempt to continue to serve the universal population (and generate revenue), many of these universities have embraced the inclusionary principles of secular universities and colleges – providing a voice for new age rhetoric and secular morality. Under the banner of academic freedom, many philosophies and moral views have grown up in these organizations which are anathema to the Church’s teachings.

It is only when situations arise like Notre Dame inviting President Obama to speak (and giving him an Honorary Doctorate) and Georgetown inviting (and apparently un-inviting) Kathleen Sebelius, head of the department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to speak, that the fact that they are Church-affiliated organizations comes to light.

Smart People without Faith

Back to E.O. Wilson – he is a humanist! That’s the best short description of his highly recognized and awarded life-view. Like MOST academics in the life sciences he has the Darwinian view that life, far from being divinely created, is simply a culmination of billions of years of natural experimentation (or, as another famous Atheist/Humanist, Richard Dawkins has stated – life on earth was brought here by aliens). He cannot or will not consider that there is a power in this universe that he cannot deduce through logic that would have an impact on natural selection.

The Catholic Paradox

While this paradox does not apply to everyone, there is a significant group of the faithful that have to come to grips with it. Here are the challenging facts:

1. The Earth is a closed system. That is, for all practical purposes, nothing comes in from outside (except heat energy from the Sun and limited mater from meteorites and other space-born particles that may be attracted by the planet’s gravity); and nothing leaves except some atmospheric erosion and what we shoot into space.

2. While matter can be neither created nor destroyed, it can be changed from useful and healthful into toxic and harmful.

3. As the earth’s population increases there is a greater and greater strain on the natural resources of the planet and Wilson’s logic begins to look sound. Since resources are finite – the only solution appears to be that which files in the face of what the Church teaches about the dignity of human life and the sanctity of the gift God shares with us in procreation.

There is the paradox; logic says population control and even reduction is becoming necessary and yet we know that contraception and sterilization are not solutions we can accept let alone embrace. So what is the global solution? Does it lie in prayer alone?

It has been argued by a close friend that the concerns expressed above are overstated; that God will provide and that, as great as our scientific knowledge is, the omniscience of God will not allow us to fall into the abyss of global famine and starvation. I am more of the opinion that was expressed by St. Ignatius of Loyola who tradition holds said, “We must work as if it all up to us, and pray as if it is all up to God.”

Pax - Dcn. Jim