The Rupture between Sexuality and Procreation

“The libido of the individual becomes the only possible point of reference of sex. No longer having an objective reason to justify it, sex seeks the subjective reason in the gratification of the desire, in the most ‘satisfying’ answer for the individual, to the instincts no longer subject to rational restraints. Everyone is free to give to his personal libido the content considered suitable for himself” (Ratzinger, 85).

These words of Pope Benedict from his book The Ratzinger Report constitute his analysis of the implications of the modern mentality on human sexuality, which is at the core of the debate over homosexuality today – a mentality in which the objective reason for the sexual act is no longer rooted in the absolute for which it was created, that is, unity and procreation. Rather it is reduced to an act that is perceived and touted as one that is the least absolute in all of nature, thus losing a sense of intelligibility about the act. And if this act, which in reality represents man as an image of God in nearly its fullest sense, is without intelligibility, then man loses intelligibility.

The defense of homosexuality represents an implicit denial of the intelligibility of man in that it makes the false assumption that there is nothing in the nature of man that should convince him that certain acts betray his nature. Stemming from an exaggerated personalist philosophy, the rupture between sexuality and procreation naturally leads to a rejection of objectivity in the sexual act and devolution into pure subjectivism where sexual gratification becomes the greatest good. Without intelligibility, there can be no guiding principle to act according to man’s nature, thus making it perfectly acceptable to use the body in any way one desires. If this is truly the case, then there is no basis for laws against pedophilia, rape, incest, etc. If there is no natural law guiding that which is most fundamental to the existence of man, that is, the sexual union between a husband and wife, then one would be hard-pressed to make a case for the existence of natural law at all with regard to man. This leads to a rejection of the entire concept of natural law, and thus, the nature of man. In other words, man has neither nature nor intelligibility. If man has no nature, then man is not man. If man has no nature, then man is nothing, for all existing things have a nature. If man has no intelligibility, then he is created by an unintelligible god, which is no god at all. Therefore, the defense of homosexuality is not only the implicit denial of man’s intelligibility, but also the denial of an existing man and an existing God.

The Truth about Security and the Security of Truth

Materialism, being the raison d’etre of our present society, has proven itself to be the driving force for most decisions of most people. It is embraced as the means by which to obtain security, albeit an extremely false security as it is sought in that which is devoid of Truth.

Security is freedom from fear and anxiety as well as freedom from the danger of loss. This is clearly a good in the truest sense. There is not a sane person alive that would opt for insecurity over security. While understanding of how to obtain it may differ profoundly from one person to the next, the fact remains that security is good by its very nature.

To hold that security is good by its very nature should lead one to an even greater understanding of both God and security. Being that God is all-good, it is safe to conclude that the nature of security, which is good, receives its goodness from a certain source, that is, Security Itself – God. God also being Truth would necessitate that security can only be found in Truth. Through a simple method of substitution, we come to the realization that to be united to God is to be united to Security; in God, there is no fear or anxiety, nor is there any danger of loss. Conversely, to be separated from God (Truth) is to be united to fear, anxiety, and loss.

On a practical level, one can quickly ascertain the effects of materialism on the prevailing understanding of security and the means by which to obtain it. What is the reason that we buy and consume at an almost obsessive level? Why must our houses be turned into warehouses for our ever-expanding collection of stuff (for which we pay a great price) instead of a home for an ever-expanding family? The answer is that there is a certain perception of good in the possession of many things: increase in social status, establishment of a certain reputation, and an increase in options by which we amuse ourselves. Ultimately, these things are seen as synonymous with security – security for one’s reputation and social status, security in one’s ability to provide for oneself or family, even security to possess more through the inordinate amount of work done in order to make money that will be used to buy even more stuff.

The fundamental problem in the above philosophy is that the very thing that it seeks is the very thing that it destroys. It seeks security as the ultimate goal, yet in amassing a great collection of goods, that person has only increased the potential for loss. For the materialist, the greatest good is the possession of many things; therefore, the greatest fear of the materialist must necessarily be the loss of those things. At this point, what should be clear is that materialism is marked by increased danger of loss and the accompanying fear and anxiety. This marks the complete loss of security. In fact, one of the most telling signs of the insufficiency of materialism at gaining security is the constant need to gain more….and more….and more. Why more if security has been achieved? Can we not rest on our laurels once we’ve arrived at the goal? Clearly, the Goal has not been achieved. It has been avoided completely, and it is this Goal that haunts those who insist on substituting Him with every form of idol known to man, from statues in the ancient world to sex and money today. Francis Thompson may be the poster-child for this essay. In The Hound of Heaven, he wrote:

“I hid from Him, and under running laughter.
Up vistaed hopes I sped;
And shot, precipitated,
Adown Titanic glooms of chasmed fears,
From those strong Feet that followed, followed after…

They beat – and a Voice beat
More instant than the Feet –
‘All things betray thee, who betrayest Me.’”

To seek security in anything but the very source is to deny ourselves of that which we seek. Indeed, the more we seek it elsewhere, the more bitterly it flees and betrays us. We have assurance of the converse in the words of the Word Itself: “Seek first the Kingdom of God and all these things shall be added unto you.” In the non-canonical but creatively poetic words of Thompson, He reveals Himself to us as the goal that we desperately seek yet at the same time exclude in the words:

“Ah, fondest, blindest, weakest,
I am He Whom thou seekest!
Thou dravest love from thee, who dravest Me.”

The Delusion of Belief?

I’ve recently had the pleasure to debate a self-avowed atheist via email. While I’m tempted to post his arguments (without his name attached), they’re a bit elementary. Most of his arguments for atheism consist of simply insulting belief in God’s existence as delusional. He even admitted that labeling Christianity as “delusional” is foundational to his argument, thus making his perspective unworthy of respect. He revels in his ability to use the phrase “fantastically arrogant” so many times in reference to belief in God that it’s become boring. Sounds like a page straight out of Christopher Hitchen’s playbook. He’s even resorted to claiming that a creator would have had to create the creator, and so on. How original. He drops names (philosophers’) like flies, but I wonder just how well-read he is for him to resort to such elementary arguments. What I post here is an argument that I put forth which he insists of sidestepping entirely:

From an atheistic perspective, you believe that all things in the world are governed and caused by the laws of biology, chemistry, and physics. Consequently, nothing that exists can function at all outside of these parameters. If all things in this world are governed only by the laws of biology, chemistry, and physics, then why do you dismiss belief in God as utter nonsense? For anyone to believe in God, such a reaction (the belief itself) must necessarily also be governed and even caused by the laws of biology, chemistry, and physics. You're the one that believes that nothing can be governed by anything beyond these. Do you think it's delusional for a lion to take down a gazelle? Of course not, because it's simply yielding to the laws that dictate its actions. Consequently, you're labeling as delusional literally billions of humans that are simply following these material laws. They apparently have no other choice than to believe, since it's these laws that caused it. And if it's possible to go against these laws, as you prove by your unbelief, then yet again we see the possibility of something beyond these laws at work. Anything that can operate beyond these laws is what we call supernatural, typically performed by what we call the spiritual. This then means that even your unbelief is a spiritual act. How ironic.

I’m presently waiting for his response. I’m sure it’ll be good.

Homeland Security Beware: Radical Maritime Terrorists

I just finished watching a few minutes of Larry King interviewing the cast of Whale Wars, a group of activists who do what they can to prevent the hunting of whales. What I find extremely telling about our present culture is it's propensity to laud and honor radical extremists of the left type while labeling as potential terrorists activists on the right.

The inversion of values in our culture is obvious and has been for a long time, but it makes me feel better to point it out anyway. Let's compare and contrast the whale activists to pro-life activists. Pro-life activists have been branded as potential domestic terrorists because they reject the killing of unborn human beings so much so that they're willing to stand on sidewalks protesting in front of abortion clinics. Some of them actually go so far as to pray in front of the clinic. The most dangerous of them even attempt to dissuade women by offering them alternatives. The horror! Can you believe the lengths these people will go to force their agenda on the public?

The whale wars cast, on the other hand, are fighting a noble war with noble efforts. They risk their lives because they reject the killing of whales. They're willing to ram their boats into the sides of whaling ships. Some of them valiantly throw butyric acid onto the decks of the whaling ships. Other noble whale defenders bravely throw Methocel on the decks making it so slippery that the whaling crew is unable to walk upon it. It's inspiring to see the lengths they go in their acts of self-sacrifice in order to save whales.

To be fair, I must disclose the fact that in regard to whaling, I'm personally opposed to it, but I wouldn't want to force my beliefs on others. I think we should uphold the whalers' rights to kill as many whales as they want. In an effort to insure that their rights are protected, all regulations on whale-killing should be removed. Hell, even teenagers should be able to kill whales, especially baby whales. I would even propose the possibility of using federal taxes to pay for private whale-hunting expeditions. At some point in the near future, it would also be important to create a dialogue about mandating insurance coverage of whale-killing expeditions. But we really should do what we can to reduce the number of whale-killing.

The above is obviously tongue-in-cheek, but it truly is disturbing the see the trend in popular thought and culture. Imagine if pro-life activists threw acid at women walking into abortion clinics. What if they rammed their cars into clinics? What if...what if they bombed a clinic? Then they MUST be evil terrorists, right?

Check out the following link to get an idea of the tactics these wackos use to save whales:

http://animal.discovery.com/videos/whale-wars-tools-tactics/