Recently in Morality Category

Dating site eHarmony is going to roll out match options for homosexuals under pressure from the New Jersey Civil Rights Division.

I wonder when this is going to hit Catholic sites.

How can a constitutional amendment be unconstitutional? Homosexuals frantically try to stop Proposition 8.

Today I was at a Catholic site which offered some $3 talks on CD. I found one on Halloween, and I thought it would be interesting to hear what they had to say for $3. I was expecting there to be an MP3 download, but no, only CD. I'm thinking, this talk isn't worth $3 plus shipping, more than likely. And what was shipping? $7! Like heck I'm going to pay $10 for this CD! I felt like writing them and asking them to support MP3s for this sort of thing, when I realized that this was probably part of their business plan: A $3 loss-leader that sucks people into buying more expensive sets to justify the shipping. Kind of like my habit of buying additional items at Amazon so I can get free shipping. (Although those are usually items I would have needed anyway.)

Is this the sort of thing a Christian site should be doing? It always irks me when companies try to trick, deceive, or otherwise manipulate you into buying stuff. I feel like I'm being taken advantage of.

Anyway I am going without the $3 CD. I am not giving into this behavior.

A typical liberal social psychologist/anthropologist asks the question "Why do people vote Republican?" and gains a new respect for conservative values. He analyzes the definition of morality and compares the underpinnings of American society versus traditional societies. He's not going to become Republican but he's lost the chip on his shoulder and can see things from a conservative perspective. You could say that a liberal gets liberal. Like the author's view of conservativism, you won't agree with him but you'll respect his perspective.

(Thanks to Mike C.)

I got the following in a Family Research Council newsletter that was worth noting:

'One of the common myths about marriage in America is that "50% of all marriages end in divorce." But that figure is derived not from long-term analysis but from the fact that the raw number of new divorces each year is roughly 50% of the raw number of new marriages. These numbers are distorted by the fact that people with successful marriages usually marry only once, while people with failed marriages have often married and divorced multiple times. Fortunately, new data from pollster George Barna included a more meaningful statistic. Of all Americans who have ever married, only one-third have ever been divorced. This two-to-one ratio of marital success should encourage young people who may actually fear the "50-50" marriage myth. Another misconception is that a person's religion and values have nothing to do with marital success. Barna found that the percentage of people who have been divorced after marrying is lower among Catholics, evangelicals, and conservatives than it is among non-Christians and liberals. That's not to mention the fact that more born-again Christians (84%) have been married in the first place than atheists and agnostics (65%). For those just embarking on the adventure of marriage, be encouraged—your chances of making it "until death do you part" may be better than you've been told.'

Here is the press release on it.

A new poll sheds some interesting light on what behaviors Americans think are sinful. Adultery tops the list at 81% of respondents. (Beware of marrying the other 19%!) Use of hard drugs is 65%, abortion, interestingly, is 56%. Gossip (47%) and swearing (46%) beat out premarital sex (45%).

Only 91% of churchgoing Catholics believe in the concept of sin.

This is a pretty thorough poll, give it a look.

There is bad news about marriage. Seems that people are so inured to divorce that women are starting to speak of "starter husbands" as if divorce is just a foregone conclusion and a natural part of the relationship cycle. (Cycle? When did it become a cycle?) "For some, a starter husband is like a starter home — a semi-commitment where you're willing to do some of the surface work, like painting the walls, but not the heavy lifting, like gutting the whole foundation; he's just not a long-term investment. Others compare a starter husband to a first job, where you learn some skills and polish your resume before going after the position you really want." Ugh — it makes me want to puke just reading it. How beautiful is our Savior's true teaching on marriage, where two people give themselves unreservedly to each other for life.

"Marriage is the new dating and kids are the new marriage." "I think maybe we're moving more toward a serial-marriage society — maybe you have three marriages in your life and several different careers. That's where I'm heading." Not everyone is comfortable with this, but undeniably, this is how some people look at marriage. Oddly, some people claim that shacking up is a way to make marriage more sure and stable, but has it turned out that way? I can't help wondering why, if shacking up serves as a trial to see if the union will last, divorce is even envisioned after deciding to marry in such a situation.

The person interviewed in this article who was "married for like two seconds" (in her mind) justified her decision by saying her erstwhile husband was "wholly uncomplicated". Woman, if you didn't figure this out when you were dating him, you should be sued for romance malpractice. Not that saying so solves any problems.

No, the sexual revolution didn't really solve anything.

I've made a few posts about atheist apologist, but no neo-atheist I've heard about is as radical as Michel Onfray, a British author of Atheist Manifesto who argues some very troubling things. In his mind, if Christianity must fall, so must its value system. For example, its reverence for human life must be abandoned. Societies should have no qualms about infanticide and abortion. Also, free will has to go. He writes, "The child rapist is free…In his soul and conscience, endowed with a free will permitting him to prefer one option over another, he chooses violence—when he could have decided otherwise. . . . Who would even countenance a hospital locking up a man or a woman diagnosed with a brain tumor—no more of a free choice than a pedophilic fixation."

One wonders if he believes in any morality at all if he argues that child rapists should not be locked up. It's also unclear to me if human life is not sacred why murder should be illegal.

Will these atheist philosophies prevail? What will society look like if they do? I shudder to think.

Another Family Research Council piece:

On Townhall.com today [note: this was written earlier this month —eje], Jennifer Roback Morse, author of Smart Sex: Finding True Love in a Hook-Up World, deftly and succinctly demonstrates how futile federally funded comprehensive sex education is for its target audience. The common number that is touted as evidence for the success of contraceptives is close to 90%. Ms. Roback Morse looks deeper and discovers that this number is more representative among married women in their 30's and 40's. Within this group, only 3% of these women became pregnant while using the contraceptive pill. Nearly 50% however, of low-income co-habitating teenage girls become pregnant while using the contraceptive pill and over 70% become pregnant while using condoms. These are the numbers coming from the demographic the federal government is specifically targeting. The percentage of pregnancies that occur from abstinence is 0%. Despite this discrepancy in favor of abstinence, the federal government, Ms. Roback Morse states, spends $12 in contraceptive/condom education for every $1 in abstinence-only education. What is perhaps the most intriguing about this research is that the numbers come from Planned Parenthood. The very organization that aggressively advocates the use of contraceptives admits that their methods are at best feeble for their target audience. The federal government should look at these numbers and then focus its efforts on the inevitable success of abstinence instead of the inevitable failure of contraceptives.

The sexual revolution is coming around. Libertines are starting to see the bitter fruits of the sexual revolution. The wisdom of traditional morality is starting to be borne out by experience. An article in Touchstone Magazine explains why we are "Designed for Sex" and tells us what we lose when we forget what sex is for by J. Budziszewski. It is an excellent, excellent article that is well worth the read.

(Thanks to Bob L.)

I had the wonderful chance to hear Fr. Benedict Groeschel speak this evening at Our Lady of Perpetual Help Basilica (better known here as Mission Church) in Boston. The topic was Virtue and Character Strengths: Psychology Takes a Good Turn. Apparent there are some hopeful signs in the psychology world after much destruction (remember Fr. Groeschel is a psychologist). He used this example of a chairman of the American Psychological Association going back to Plato, Aristotle, the Old and New Testaments, Augustine, and Aquinas to discuss virtue and its merits. And he's Jewish no less! And they are realizing that psychotherapy ... well, really isn't helping people all that much. And they are trying to do something about it.

So that was good news indeed.

Here is another update from the Family Research Council, on hate crimes issues:

Jail House Crock: Girl Imprisoned for 'Hate Crime'

If you, like many Americans, are wondering what all the commotion is about over hate crimes legislation, consider this disturbing case in Crystal Lake, Illinois. In a high school prank gone terribly wrong, a 16-year-old girl distributed fliers at school that contained a picture of two male students kissing each other and a headline that read, "God hates [homosexuals]." (An ugly slang term was actually used.) According to reports, she managed to hand out about 40 copies before school officials intervened. Obviously, what the girl did was not only wrong, it was biblically inaccurate. God does not hate homosexuals. This type of behavior is not appropriate and the school officials should have disciplined the student accordingly. However, school officials chose to turn the matter over to local law enforcement. As a result, the teenager was charged with a "hate crime" by county officers and thrown into a juvenile detention center for nearly 20 days. When the 16-year-old appeared in court she was in shackles. The state's attorney said, "This is a classic case of the kind of conduct that the state legislature was directing the [hate crimes] law against. This is what the legislators wanted to stop, this kind of activity." However, the attorney's statements are in direct contradiction with the letter of the law, which says that a person can be charged with a hate crime if they commit "a criminal act with the intent to cause harm." Hate crimes, by definition, are violent acts. This is the progression of "hate crime" laws that has happened in almost every jurisdiction where they have been created. Once in place the laws are either modified or extended to include speech. FRC has just completed a joint project with Coral Ridge Ministries documenting how so-called "hate crime" laws have morphed into "hate speech" laws criminalizing biblically correct speech.

While I strongly disapprove of what this girl did, one could argue she has the right to do it under our Constitution. The fact that she was treated the way she was is a bad sign of what may be to come. Of course it's hard to draw a firm judgment without knowing the details. If, for example, her intent was to foment violence and that was clear, that would be wrong. On the other hand, if it was intended to make a moral statement, we need to protect that. It was called a "prank", which suggests that this was not an evangelical tract or an attempt at moral persuasion, and is not inconsistent with an attempt to foment violence. But you get into troublesome nuances. It is very difficult for the justice system to discern intent. That is why typically laws make specific actions either legal or illegal independent of intent. Speeding is wrong regardless of why you are doing it, though you may persuade an officer to look the other way. So if we say it's illegal to distribute this if your intent is to foment violence, but legal if you are attempting to morally persuade someone, not only are either of these two intentions hard to prove, but it makes the law subject to bias and subjectivity. (Not that it can't be subject to those things otherwise.)

In any case, we need to protect our right to say that "homosexual practices are wrong and homosexual desires are disordered", and we need enough margin to protect us from abuse at the hands of the law.

Why do people commit egregious acts of deception for no compelling gain? Perhaps you've seen this forward: It purports to be the palatial estate of a United Arab Emirates sheik. The opulence is simply breathtaking. The forward is designed to enrage you that we're paying so much for oil while sheik live in nearly limitless luxury.

I found myself wondering though why the shiek needed concierge desks (or whatever those small oval tables are), or why he would have his house photographed so meticulously ("Excuse me, Mr. Shiek, can I come in and photograph your home so I can discredit you on the Internet?").

Turns out it's all a lie. It's not a private home, it's a hotel. Moreover, the brazen perpetrator of this fraud starts off saying, "In case you're wondering where this hotel is, it isn't a hotel at all, it is a house!"

Why do people do this stuff? Why do they perpetrate baldface lies? I guess it makes sense in this case, since someone wanted to discredit the Arabs and probably felt some satisfying sense of revenge in doing so. But a lot (nearly all) of email forwards contain blatant lies, and it isn't always clear why people insert them. Often there is no obvious gain. Maybe it's just mischief: Let's see how many people believe this absurdity. What a shame that people would behave this way.

In any case, this site, www.snopes.com, is an awesome resource for debunking urban legends like this one. They take popularly forwarded claims and research them and either prove or disprove them. I highly recommend looking up an email in Snopes before forwarding it on. Chances are good it's bogus. We as Christians have a responsibility to respect the truth. That means not gossipping or propagating information of dubious veracity (and I would count forwards as information of dubious veracity). In other words if the source is questionable, it's time to take pause to check it before spreading it around. Not only that, you may be embarassed if you forward something around that turns out to be mistaken.

Jack Danforth asserts (Periscope, 9/18), with some hubris, that real faith is about searching for answers, not presuming to know them. Tell me, "St. Jack", how sincere a seeker are you if you fundamentally believe that you cannot find?

[Not surprisingly, he's an Episcopal priest — and three-term senator and lawyer.]

Just received this recommendation on this article from the Family Research Council:

That blunt title is Stanley Kurtz' lead story in The Weekly Standard this week. Perfect timing. Kurtz, who is a fellow at the Washington-based Hudson Institute, makes a powerful case that you cannot have both polygamy and democracy. In this article, Dr. Kurtz shows how essential one man-one woman marriage is to the life of democratic institutions. He traces the issue of polygamy to its roots in ancient times—and brings the issue right into the heart of modern day Europe. And same-sex marriage is the battering ram to force open the gates for polygamy. He says that polygamous Muslim immigrants in France, for example, are unassimilated and may be incapable of being assimilated. With their burgeoning numbers, they threaten France's very existence. We are already deeply indebted to Stanley Kurtz for his groundbreaking research on the disappearance of marriage in Europe following the liberalization of laws on civil unions. This article is a must-read for everyone involved in the debate overmarriage and the future of our country. In fact, as Kurtz shows, it is essential to any hopes for the development of democracy in the Mideast. (Might this be just one reason why the polygamous Saudis drag their heels in supporting our efforts there?) Stanley Kurtz's article should be read by every one of our 100 U.S. Senators before they vote on protecting marriage next week.

Here are some quotes from the article:

Today, the dominant school of thought in American family law favors recognition for the egalitarian practice of multipartner union known as "polyamory." And since the Supreme Court's 2003 decision in Lawrence v. Texas, which voided laws criminalizing sodomy, law journals have begun to publish calls for the decriminalization, regulation, and recognition of the "patriarchal polygamy" practiced today by so-called fundamentalist Mormons (but vigorously condemned by the mainstream Mormon church).

Given the post-Lawrence trend of the law journals, the success of Big Love (recently renewed for a second season), and calls for the legalization of polygamy by commentators at mainstream news outlets like USA Today and the New York Times, it has become necessary to offer a case against polygamy.

He makes an interesting point that in other countries, polygamous marriages are often stabilized at the expense of romantic love. (Also at the expense of individual autonomy and freedom.) How do you eliminate jealous between wives? Make the marriage not based on romantic love. Simple.

I think the upshot of this article is that the polygamy (and polyamory) issues are rapidly coming out in the open. We may see action on them sooner than we expected.

English scientists plan to combine human DNA with rabbit eggs to produce part-human, part-rabbit embryos that would produce stem cells useful for research.

Yowzers. How many gross ethical violations can you commit in one act?

They have no plans to bring the embryos to term. Frankly I'm not sure if that's good news or bad news. Having and actual chimera would be frightening, but, on the other hand, it's at least partially human, so would it be right to effectively abort it? This gets back into those thorny questions, what confers human personhood: Is it DNA? It would seem to be. How much human DNA does it take to confer human personhood? 100%? 50%? 1%? Certainly it's easy to argue that if you introduce one human gene into an animal, it doesn't make it human. On the other hand, if you introduce one animal gene into a human, it doesn't make him non-human. (I almost said "it".) Perhaps a better measure would be rationality. If the creature and reason and make moral judgments like a human, he's human. However this is a much more complicated test; it means, for example, that we can't determine if these rabbit-human embryos are persons, though we can make a morally certain guess.

My brain hurts.

(Thanks again to Matt K.)

I discovered an excellent talk on same-sex attraction given by a faithful Catholic with SSA. It combines elements of his testimony with an explanation of the Church's view of human sexuality. It is well worth a read. Here is an excerpt I want to share with you:

Is the Church too obsessed with sex? I often hear this complaint, and I even have been known to utter it myself. But before we rush to condemn the Church for “obsession,” I suggest the following experiment. Tomorrow night is Saturday night. Flip your television to the channel with the highest ratings. Count how many times sex appeal is used, whether in commercials or in the programming. Then, on Sunday morning, go to Mass, and count how many times the priest mentions sex in his homily. Compare.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. But no one is entitled to their own facts. And the fact is that our culture is in no position to accuse the Church of being obsessed with sex.

(Thanks to Alex Pruss)

The discussion in the Broke back Mountain thread has brought to mind for me the Theology of the Body and some awesome Christopher West CDs I have on the subject.

What is Theology of the Body? It is John Paul II's catechesis on human sexuality, written in the 1960s. It is nothing short of revolutionary. He takes a completely different approach to the subject than his precedessors — one much more suited to the 21st century. He's sparked a sexual counter-revolution that's changing lives around the world. This is completely opposite to what the media will try to tell you the Catholic Church thinks about human sexuality. It explains in joyful, attractive terms why the church proposes certain moral teachings. If you've every wondered what the rationale is behind them, and why they make sense, you will be very pleasantly surprised if you study TOB.

I think it is important for every adult Catholic Christian to hear the message of TOB. It's the antidote to our present culture.

Here is a good introduction to TOB. On Chris's website you'll find some tapes, DVDs, and CDs for sale. The ten-CD set that wowed me is also available for the almost-sinful price of $3.90.

Chuck Colson writes an interesting piece in his Breakpoint newsletter:

Bashing the Bling
A Principal Draws the Line

November 2, 2005

At high schools across the country, the prom has gone from being an adolescent rite of passage to an indicator of social status to, now, the kind of extravagant thing that can affect the Gross Domestic Product. Whereas, not too long ago, the expenses associated with attending the prom were the price of the tux or dress and a corsage, today they can exceed what some hardworking families earn in a year.

That's why one courageous and morally serious Long Island principal said, "Enough already!"

The principal was Kenneth Hoagland of Kellenberg Memorial, a Catholic high school in Uniondale, New York. Hoagland, a brother in the Marianist order, was weary of the stories he heard about the Long Island school's spring prom: "Students putting down $10,000 to rent a house in the Hamptons for a weekend bash … Fathers chartering a boat so their kids could go out on a late-night 'booze cruise.'"

What bothered Hoagland wasn't only, or even primarily, the "sex, booze, and drugs." It was the "the flaunting of affluence … a pursuit of vanity for vanity's sake—in a word, financial decadence … "

So, Hoagland took the almost unimaginable step: At the start of this school year, he wrote parents a 2,000-word letter informing them that Kellenberg would no longer "put on the spring prom." Parents are free to continue to do as they please, but the school would have nothing to do with what he called an "orgy."

Here is a good good followup article on how Costco treats their employees.

Opening paragraphs:

Abraham Lincoln, the first and greatest Republican president, and the man who held this nation together during its bloodiest and darkest hours, would not be tough enough to survive in 2005 on Wall Street.

It was Lincoln who said: "Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is the fruit of labor and could not exist if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital and deserves much the higher consideration."

There is a site run by Dannon Yogurt company that promises to provide "15 meals" (worth $1, gotta be a heck of a meal) to the hungry for every click on a particular link.

Is it moral to write a script to do this thousands of times? What do you think?

I talked this over with a friend and he pointed out that at some point, you deprive others of an opportunity to participate. I.e., if I served all 75,000 clicks ($75k is the limit) myself, which actually I could fairly easily do, that would mean that no one else would experience the joy of giving, and presumably the program would close down. (We're ignoring the possibility that they'll figure out it was a script and disqualify it.) One could also argue that hastening the end of the program would limit it's hunger-awareness message. Again, if I fulfill the rest of the clicks today, and tomorrow they shut the program down, no more awareness will be raised about hunger on their website.

Practically speaking, they will probably notice the spike in clicks, trace it to a single source, and disqualify them!

[This is excerpted from an email update from Crisis magazine.]

On May 7, a 26-year-old wife and mother named Susan Torres collapsed at home. Her husband, Jason, rushed her to the emergency room only to learn that she has stage four melanoma and is brain-dead with no hope for recovery.

Adding to that crushing news, Susan was 17 weeks pregnant. Jason knew that his wife would want desperately for the baby to live and be delivered, and so he instructed the doctors to keep her on life support until the child had a fighting chance.

Over a month has passed and the baby is doing well. Unfortunately, though, the hospital bills are adding up. Since insurance only covers a portion of the expense, the family is absorbing $1,500 a day in medical costs. They have little money and need our help.

This is the time for Catholics to stand behind a man who has lost his beloved wife; he must not lose his child as well. If the baby is successfully delivered, it will be a victory in the midst of a heartbreaking situation.

The family has a Website where you can donate money, receive regular updates, and look through a few family photos. I know you have bills to pay and all the other costs of everyday life. But if you can, please help them.

Here's the website:

http://www.susantorresfund.org/

Thank you in advance for your generosity. And please keep the entire Torres family in your prayers.

If you're the type of person who likes to watch train wrecks, check out the latest missive from Boston's own archheretic, Father Walter Cuenin. (See the "Pastor's Corner".) If you are still begging for more afterwards, go to the end of the bulletin and read "Boston Pride Interfaith Prayer Service and Parade" and "Catholics Worried About the Church".

I could accept the idea that we should welcome divorced and remarried people and gay people, except that Fr. Cuenin (or "Walter" as he is affectionately called in the bulletin, and "Wally" to his detractors) seems to be unable to make a distinction between welcoming someone and approving their misbehavior. This should be obvious in any grade school classroom where the children are welcome but their misbehavior is not. It may be hard to argue against the assertion that "to exclude th ese people seems contrary to the spirit of Jesus" but what is clearly in the spirit of Jesus is telling the adulterous woman, whom he accepts and saves from death, "Go and sin no more." If Fr. Cuenin would only follow Jesus in this, we'd have a lot less to complain about.

Anybody know what he means about Cardinal Lehman and Cardinal Kasper trying to get remarried Catholics without an annulment admitted to communion?

Meanwhile I can agree with what seems to be the understatement of the year — "This will continue to be a challenge for us — to be faithful to our church and to its entire people."

Here is a lengthy but excellent article from Crisis Magazine editor Brian Saint-Paul on the current push to get the Church to allow condom use in Africa. You know how we're being browbeaten and shamed into going along with the premise that we're allowing lives to be lost because of our teaching on contraception. As it turns out, it isn't true: Condoms aren't stopping AIDS in Africa. This article is a must-read.

Estrogen is poisoning our waterways, thanks to the ubiquity of birth control pills, wreaking havoc on ecosystems. Let's take bets on whether environmentalists care.

My friend Amy forwarded this interesting piece to me:

From the article "Band of Brothers" in the March, 2005 Homiletic & Pastoral Review, written by Fr. Richard M. Hogan (great article, and well worth reading!), pg 49.

“Two anthropologists, Lionel Tiger and Robin Fox, performed an experiment on a group of monkeys. The study included the head male, a number of other males, and some females. The head male, Austin, appropriated to himself three females and did not allow the other males to touch those three. Then, the scientists gave contraception to five of the females, including two of Austin’s three favorites. After these two of Austin’s favorites were medicated with contraception, Austin would still approach them, but not engage them as he had before. He found two other females who had not been medicated to replace the two who had been given the contraceptive medicine. With these two in addition to the one from the previous set of three who had not been contracepted, Austin formed a new set of three favorites. Of course, none of the other males were allowed to touch Austin’s favorites. Next, the scientists gave contraception to all the females. At this point, Austin became very confused, attempting rape and self-abuse. He would approach the females, but never engage them as he had before. When the scientists stopped giving contraception to the females, Austin re-established his relationship with the first set of three females and would not allow any of the other males to touch those three. The other males also re-established their relationships with the other females. Contraception caused the males to turn away from the females and toward deviant behavior.”

His source is:
Lionel Tiger, The Decline of Males, (New York: Golden Books, 1999), pp. 37-39

Now I expect that the estrus that the females go through had something to do with that — presumably females with contraception wouldn't give out the normal signs that drive the males wild, so to speak, thus depriving them of a desire to mate, but it's an interesting account nonetheless. Of course ... we have to be careful not to go so far as to say "Animals don't do it, therefore it must be unnatural." This argument has been used with respect to homosexuality, only there are animals that practice homosexuality.