On Marriage, Divorce and Concubines

I just came across a few articles I wrote for The Pitt News (opinions section) around 2000 during my undergrad days. I'll be posting them for the next couple 'o days.

Here it is:

Recently, I overheard two people talking on the bus about marriage. One said, "Yeah, I think I really love this guy. I think I'm going to end up marrying him. Hey, and if it doesn't work out, divorce is pretty accepted now, so it's no big deal."

Why would someone say such a terrible thing about the institution of marriage? I did some searching trying to answer this question.

I came upon a review by Kari Gold of a book by Maggie Gallagher titled "The Abolition of Marriage." Gallagher suggested that "the legal, social and economic supports that sustained marriage over the centuries have been dispatched with astonishing speed, and marriage has been reconceived as a purely private act, not a social institution. ... Thanks to no-fault divorce and the attitudes, norms and policies that support it, getting married now more closely resembles taking a concubine than taking a wife."

The institution that was created long ago for rearing children within the loving, mutual self-giving context of the parents' relationship is now severely diminished. Instead, marriage's primary mission is more the pursuit of self-satisfaction for each individual member of the couple.

I see something very detrimental in this trend.

Once something valued for its ability to please becomes less pleasing or unpleasing, even for a short time, it is then easy to exchange it for something more satisfying. This could suggest one possible motivation for divorce and adultery.

As far as I know, even on "Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire?" (50 concubines for one millionaire!), the vow "for better or worse, in sickness and in health, till death do us part" is still said. It seems that it is said now purely for pleasure as just another romantic gesture. Really, how romantic are the words if they're not meaningful? It's just like perjuring oneself for personal gain in court.

As Gallagher wrote, "[We've come to] nurture a moral code that effectively turns abandonment into a virtue and self-interest into the highest virtue. ... Lacking any common good to appeal to in dealing with one another, we are driven instead to use selfishness as the currency of all exchange."

This selfishness could result in the sorrow of divorce for the couple. It could also result in distress for a divorced person's next spouse after another divorce. More importantly, the children could become deeply troubled by the mere fact that their parents are no longer together and could see it as their fault.

But one might ask, is it not better for parents to get divorced if they are always quarrelling? Not according to Laurie Lee in "Models of Marriage and the Law." She says, "[This trivial love] makes a paper house of marriage, flimsily built for instant collapse, haunted by rootless children whose sense of incipient desertion already dooms them to an emotional wasteland."

From this downward trend, society - of which families are the foundation - will continue to take a nose dive into despair. Those trained in this failing institution will continue to look for what their parents did, seeking pleasure at the expense of others' happiness. In response to their experience, they will more likely have multiple partners and/or equally unstable relationships. In turn, their lives will seem empty due to the depravity of any stability or true unconditional love, making them continue the cycle.

What is a possible cure? From observation, and some experience, I have realized that if commitment is a problem, don't get married. If the only way to get closer to someone is marriage and you genuinely desire to grow old with that person, marriage might be the way to go. Don't take marriage lightly.

Marriage commitment is becoming another dissolvable, shallow union without the total self-giving vow of the individuals within the couple. Further, just as in concubinal relationships, sex, which should be a beautifully symbolic expression of total immersion in one's marriage partner's life, is becoming a cheap thrill or means of control in and out of marriage.

In this continuing downward trend, children who eventually grow up in society will become more unstable because of this selfish training at home. Keeping this in mind, the Americans for Divorce Reform stated, "The best marriages are those where both husband and wife realize [from the start] that good marriages take work and effort; they just don't happen."

[Gutter Ball Master's] guides to true agape are Jesus, the Bible, his parents and his girlfriend.

Celebrating Humanae Vitae

Is your Church doing anything to celebrate the 40th anniversary (July 25, 1968) of Humanae Vitae? What are you doing? I would like to propose something to do at my Church.

It reaffirms the constant Christian teaching/Tradition (until 1930 with the Church of England, but constant in the Catholic Church) that using contraception is a mortal sin. Read this at First Things to learn some more about the Papal encyclical, Protestant reaffirmation of the Tradition, and the "The Vindication of Humanae Vitae".

Zeal For Your House Consumes Me

It's been reported (I don't remember where) that the US has become more divided since people have moved to areas where most other people agree with their moral/religious/political positions. I see this in Baltimore, MD where I live. We have two of the most liberal US senators, mostly liberal US rep's., a very liberal State Senate, and a liberal Governor (former Balto city mayor).

More moral/religious/political conservatives need to populate the liberal areas. I need some help. Will somebody help me?

I pray that God will give me the strength in perseverance to do and say what is right for the glory of His Kingdom.

Zeal for Your House consumes me! Saint Thomas More pray for me.

"The Eucharistic person"

Below are two contrasted articles from the same day (7-10-08) on LifeSiteNews.com.

[1] From verbatim transcripts of the "Conference on Population Problems," just one of the countless number of such meetings the book exposes, Connelly found that what drove them were the questions of how many people the world could hold along with "whether 'industrial development should be withheld' from poor, agrarian countries like India." By decreasing mortality and encouraging "breeding," development would increase inferior populations and further degrade "the genetic quality of the human race." They decided radical measures to reduce birthrates were justified in order to save "Western Civilization" from being dragged down by the growing humanitarian demands of Third World countries. [New Book Exposes Eugenics Mandate in Reproductive Rights Agenda / Part I: Power, Money, and Science Unite to Exterminate the World's Poor] http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/jul/08071007.html

[2] [Cardinal Christian Wiyghan Tumi, Archbishop of Douala, Cameroon] continued, referring to North American society, "And since the families here have two or three children that already is (considered) much. In our Third World we have families with 12, 13, 14, 15 children and these are young men and women growing up. So, I have the impression that the West is panicking because their population is becoming old." And the reason for that panic, explained the Cardinal, is that "they are afraid that other countries might invade the West and reduce their standard of living." [an interview with LifeSiteNews at the Eucharistic Congress in Quebec City on June 21 said the West is afraid of population growth in Third World nations.] http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/jul/08071010.html

The secular West is dying out and Christian Africa is growing.

Cardinal Tumi continued on Lifesitenews.com.

With the spiritual dimension, he indicated, true seekers of justice can have a substantial positive affect. He stated, "The Eucharistic person is a dangerous person, burning with the fire of the spirit and whose only purpose is to extend that fire and to become fire for others. This person is a person of daring, a person of confrontation, a person of radicalism, gospel radicalism, and of the absolute."

Tumi stated, "The person of the Eucharist who loves, disturbs everybody, shakes everybody and might even give them a bad conscience or the feeling of a bad conscience. Our vocation as witnesses to the gospel is to give others a bad conscience so that the other person knows how to distinguish bad from good, evil from good and when a person does evil their conscience accuses them."

May all Christians be a person of the Eucharist and destroy "the Eugenics Mandate in Reproductive Rights Agenda"!

May God's Will be done as it is in Heaven.

What's the Future of the American Dream?

I posted the following on Bill Moyer's Journal blog here. I know it's a little idealistic, but what the hey. Keep in mind the thought is mostly for the masses who do not blog as often as us. Also, I tried not to add that there are many obstacles that stand in the way of the view below. What do you think of the idea?

In order to achieve the American Dream, Americans must have the attitude of the immigrant. The American dream of most second, third, etc. generations of Americans is to do as little work as possible to gain the most benefits. Most immigrants know they must work and pray hard for a better life.

Old Americans must get off their bottoms and work for a better tomorrow. Most Americans talk about doing or wanting work, but work we must do; most work is honorable and imparts dignity.

What is the work that we must do? First, American’s must get beyond their fear of looking stupid due to ignorance. Read, talk to people, and read some more. Without knowledge of the problems, Americans can’t solve them. Second, Americans must work hard at what ever they do to gain a good reputation and see the inequities in the living wage. Third, Americans must talk and gain a relationship with their political representatives, especially if they’re corporate junkies.

If enough Americans start on the path above, the people will regain *their* respect of the government and begin to sway the politicians. Without the politicians seeing the caring and interest of the American people, they will flock to the lobbyists who really care about themselves.

The New Evangelization Contrasted

“I think the greatest sin in the world is bringing children into the world–that have disease from their parents, that have no chance in the world to be a human being practically. Delinquents, prisoners, all sorts of things just marked when they’re born. That to me is the greatest sin — that people can — can commit…” Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, during an interview with Mike Wallace.

“Given my background, the Catholic idea that we are always to treat the sexual act with awe and respect, so much so that we should simply abstain if we are opposed to its life-giving potential, was a revolutionary message. Being able to consider honestly when life begins, to open my heart and mind to the wonder and dignity of even the tiniest of my fellow human beings, was not fully possible for me until I understood the nature of the act that creates these little lives in the first place.” Jennifer Fulwiler, she converted to Catholicism from atheism in 2007

While reading the First Things blog, I was struck by the contrast between the two above quotes. May Catholics, Protestants, other religious, and Atheists be converted by the new Evangelization to a culture of Life. John Paul the Great pray for us.

The abortion debate will go nowhere until we all revisit the consequences of using the contraception poison that M. Sanger pushed in her eugenic agenda.

This black genocide continues with Obama.

"The New Faithful"

Tonight I am glad I live in Baltimore. I went to a lecture at the Baltimore (Roman Catholic) Basilica of the Assumption where many people, old and young attended including Cardinal Keeler, the former Archbishop, Archbishop O’Brien, my current Archbishop, and George Weigel, whom I respect greatly as a faithful Catholic intellectual (He presented the second lecture in the series of three). The lecture I attended was the third in a new series entitled, “The John Carroll Lectures”. The presenter was Ms. Colleen Carroll Campbell, author of “The New Faithful: Why Young Adults are Embracing Christian Orthodoxy”.

In this post, I’ll present a couple sound bites that I found interesting. If you would like to view the entire lecture, it will most likely be posted here officially.

Many of the “new faithful” (NF) are not happy with the “God substitutes” of post-modern baby boomers. Being no strangers to scandals in the general culture and in their own lives, they know heartbreak and despair: they deeply believe in the presence of sin.

The NF ask tough questions regarding the beliefs of traditional religions in their quest for meaning. They have what is described as an “early mid-life crisis”. Coming out from this crisis and into a traditional faith, they seek not to escape from the word but to have a vision to transform it.

Many go to fashion shows with modest clothing while older parishioners call them a “bunch of old fogies”. Most of the people at John Paul the Great’s funeral were the NF.

The NF wished that youth pastors did not just entertain young adults but challenge them with the radical message of the gospel. They feel that the youth pastors strip the truth from the faith.
They try not to be privately pious but desire to change the culture (to a culture of life). A young nun wanted to be a nun because God “…demands everything of me”. They are sustained by a shared faith.

I encourage you to especially listen to the account of David who was a lawyer in the US Justice Department who graduated from Yale and became a (Roman Catholic) priest. It’s at the end of the lecture.

God to Make Dawkins Hypothesis

This is part three of a series on Richard Dawkins The God Delusion. I am writing a running commentary on the book as I read it, more or less.

Part I: Starting "The God Delusion"

Part II: A Deep Atheist

In the second chapter, Dawkins explicitly sets out his two alternative hypotheses in the God debate (p. 31): (1) “there exists a superhuman, supernatural intelligence who deliberately designed and created the universe and everything in it, including us. (2) “any creative intelligence, of sufficient complexity to design anything, comes into existence only as the end product of an extended process of gradual evolution.” This dichotomy does not seem extensive enough. Of course, it is expected that the following argument would stem from Dawkins’ hypotheses, but the hypotheses are not on the same physical plane. The phrase “comes into existence” is the kicker. I would expect to think that most theologians would define God as “existence” itself. Without God as the creator, without God’s existence, nothing would exist, or be created. God does not “come into existence”; He/She/It is; as in Abrahamic religions put it, God is “I am”. If there is no “am”, no other thing exists.

Further in definition (2), evolution is a process that results in an end product. Without a first cause, an end product is not possible. God is that first cause that has always existed within and without of our limited time referencing. The complexity argument will come up again in a future chapter (at this point I have read into Chapter 5).

The supposed progression from polytheism to monotheism is discussed (p. 32-36). Gods were seen to be contained in many facets within nature at first. Later, God was seen as an overall creator.

I would say that first in polytheism, people naturally found gods to be part of all the wonderful things of nature; nature was personified. From this, fantastic folk stories were made up to describe how the gods interacted with humans and between themselves. Later within the Abrahamic religions, real people were portrayed as interacting between themselves and with the one Creator of all things. These personal religions are more believable since they are mainly based on facts of the history of man rather than on fanciful stories (of course there are exceptions to the rule to make it more interesting; obviously, history can be boring).

He then goes back and forth between mono- and polytheism at will. “[St. Gregory’s] words [on the Trinity] convey the characteristically obscurantist flavour [sic British] of theology, which – unlike science or most other branches of human scholarship – has not moved on in eighteen centuries.” Revealed Truth of religion doesn’t “move on”; it can only deepen in meaning (as in a reflection on the Trinity). There’s one major difference between science and religion (not that they’re “non-overlapping magisteria, or NOMA, p. 54-61) in terms of the here-and-now. Revealed Truth of religion deals with historic revealed Truth, or past evidence and science deals with falsifiable data in the present. One cannot “move on” from the past evidence of revealed Truth, one either believes it or not. That’s where faith comes in. However, faith’s necessity does not diminish the significance of the past facts.

Dawkins said previously that he hated that religions were a socially unchallengeable topic. From this, I suppose, the impetus to write this book was brought about. In response, Dawkins says, “I am attacking God, all gods, anything and everything supernatural, wherever and whenever they have been or will be invented.” (p. 36) Of course, he assumes God is invented in our mind: we material humans materially made an immaterial ‘man in the sky with a long white beard’ (p. 36) or something along the same lines in our head. So we have as seen in the polytheistic religions. However, Abrahamic religions suggest that God is external to our minds; I suggest that he made our minds, though whatever physical process (which is irrelevant), in order to seek Him via faith and in reason. We just need some revealed historical Truth to help us along.

Ultimately, Dawkins will predictably reject any historical facts that are not explicit unless it fits his model of the world (such as the fossil record or letters by Jefferson). However, what if his model is wrong, especially if he does not let some relevant historical data into it. He will not ultimately reach one of his revealed goals: to find the truth about the world. I respond that without God, there would be no world, no matter what dimension, multiverse, or whatever we’re in.

Next, the Founding Fathers of the US were discussed. (pp. 38-46) In my opinion, it is irrelevant what the Fathers thought about religion. What matters is what made the Constitution and Declaration of Independence. Dawkins is ultimately complaining that the religious of America are too influential. Well, we (including myself) are because we have numbers that stick together in general, at least more than atheists.

In the next section (pp. 44-45), the poor atheists are lamented. What does this have to do with the topic?

Next (p. 47), he interestingly discusses the end-Permian extinction of the dinosaur age in relation to “The Poverty of Agnosticism”. The evidence in extinction is inconclusive in terms of the cause of extinction: there is no definite answer. I would say the same is true of religious history. There is evidence for religious facts in history, but one cannot definitely come to a conclusion. This is where faith is needed to believe.

However, on the other end, there are different forms of agnosticism, PAP (Permanent Agnosticism in Principle) and TAP (Temporary Agnosticism in Practice) (p. 47). Dawkins believes, “agnosticism about the existence of God belongs firmly in the temporary or TAP category. Either he exists or he doesn’t. It is a scientific question; one day we may know the answer, and meanwhile we can say something pretty strong about the probability [in the “Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit” (p. 113 et seq.)].” Of course, the answer will be revealed if Jesus shows up on the last day or we die and see God. Until then, we can use faith and reason to come to an intermediate answer. Also, how can one prove that they saw God in history? I’d say that if many people saw Him (raised from the dead), changed their behavior as if they did (after Pentecost), and had a consistent message, I’d be more likely to believe it. Later, I’ll show with some help that the existence of God is not as improbable as Dawkins posits in the “747 gambit”.

I wonder if Dawkins really believes that “[if God] existed and chose to reveal it, God himself could clinch the argument, noisily and unequivocally, in his favour [sic British].” (p. 50) I wonder what God would do to prove that He existed and if that proof would really convince Dawkins. Since Dawkins believes that God is a delusion of the mind, I wonder if he’ll just think that he’s having a delusion of God. Maybe that is what hell is. Atheists and agnostics just won’t believe that God is trying to speak to them; they’ll walk themselves to hell on God’s left with the goats in their disbelief.

Dawkins presents 7 “milestones” of personal belief in the existence of God. (p. 51) Dawkins writes, “I count myself in category 6, but leaning toward 7 – I am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden.” (See the fairies in the garden quote of Douglas Adams in the “Starting The God Delusion” post above.) In other words, Dawkins is an agnostic, not an atheist. Do his followers know this? (I’m sure (all) the cats disagree.)

A Bertrand Russell quote (p. 52) is used to make a comparison between an unlikely appearance of a teapot in outer space to the existence of God. This story quote is the problem with fiction: one can make comparisons between a made up story and real life that are not in sufficiently parallel realms of reality (same goes for the Flying Spaghetti Monster comparison of p. 53). Further, showing the existence of the teapot and Flying Spaghetti Monster in time-space is a different realm of comparison with something that defines a system in which everything exists, i.e., God IS the creator the system, or of the system as a whole, not part of the system, or a finite entity of the system (teapot and Flying Spaghetti Monster).

The Bertrand Russell quote reminds me of the dichotomous philosophical idea of (1) sitting in a room as apposed to (2) experiencing the system to prompt philosophical theory genesis. We can think of all the possible teapots out there, but shouldn’t we also consider that we simply exist in the room too? The fact that our finite corpus exists means that some infinite entity exists that formed the finite. That infinite entity simply exists and nothing created it. Finite creating finite shouldn’t make sense as Dawkins says, “What created God?” But if infinite created finite, God is not created.

On page 54, line 9, the linking of God and “politics” is mentioned again (pp. 4-5).

Regarding NOMA (“non-overlapping magisteria”) of science and religion (pp. 54-61), of course one can have a discussion which links God (theology) and science. This topic (NOMA) for Dawkins all comes down to the following view. “Martin Rees [said,] ‘The pre-eminent mystery is why anything exists at all. What breathes life into the equations, and actualized them in a real cosmos? Such questions lie beyond science, however: they are the province of philosophers and theologians.’ I would prefer to say that if indeed they lie beyond science, they most certainly lie beyond the province of theologians as well. … I am tempted to go further and wonder in what possible sense theologians can be said to have a province.” (pp. 55-56) Does Dawkins know what theologians do? They attempt to explain and reflect on revealed Truths and events with the language of philosophy. Of course Dawkins would have problems with theology since He doesn’t believe in the historical events and revealed Truths (his fairies). I discussed his fairies above.

On page 56, he discusses the role of why and how questions relating to theology and science, respectively. I can say that if we continue to ask either how or why, we’ll eventually need to answer, “Because God wanted to do it”. Not because, as I’ll propose later, God needs to fill the gaps of our ignorance, but that God fills the role of ultimate answer. I call this the Toddler Theory and Modified Toddler Theory: if we continue to ask why and how, respectively, we will eventually have to answer with “God”.

“Perhaps there are some genuinely profound and meaningful questions that are forever beyond the reach of science. Maybe quantum theory is already knocking on the door of the unfathomable. But if science cannot answer some ultimate question, what makes anybody think that religion can? … I have yet to see any good reason to suppose that theology (as opposed to biblical history, literature, etc.) is a subject at all.” First, did he say that some questions “are forever beyond the reach of science”? What are they? Are they materialistic questions? Is there such a thing as a non-material question that can be answered with a universal truth response, i.e., not dependent on the perspective of the answering sentient being? Second, the last Templeton Prize was won by Fr. Dr. Heller of Poland. He proposes that God is indeed possible in the science of quantum theory. Yes, he is biased, but he uses science as a guide to Truth, not the ultimate Truth. Third, if theology weren’t a subject, no one would study theology.

Dawkins quotes Stephen Jay Gould (p. 57), ‘We neither affirm nor deny [God’s existence]; we simply can’t comment on it as scientists.’ Dawkins states (p. 58), “It implies that science cannot even make probability judgements [sic] on the question. This remarkably widespread fallacy – many repeat it like a mantra but few of them, I suspect, have thought it through – embodies what I refer to as ‘the poverty of agnosticism’.” We’ll get to this probability later with the “Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit”. (p. 113 et seq.)

Regarding testing theological propositions, “The methods we should use to settle the matter, in the unlikely event that relevant evidence ever became available, would be purely and entirely scientific methods.” (p. 59) Oh really, it would be settled? One would need to believe the scientists and their finding. How about if a test was not repeatable due to lack of sampling (singularity)? If it were not repeatable, how would the scientist interpret the data (similar to fossil record interpretation, even if it were more “complete”)? The topic is not that simple. What if the end time came? Possibly no scientific inquiry could be done in the time available.

The last topic on which I’ll comment regards scientifically testing the effectiveness of prayer. (pp. 61-66) Yes, prayer doesn’t work the majority of the time. So what, Jesus didn’t get the Father to take His cup either: Jesus still suffered to the cross. Also, the widow didn’t get her prayer answered except in persistence (Luke 18:1-8); even then, it may not come, or come as we expect it to be.

Finally, Dawkins quotes Micheal Ruse, “When John Paul II wrote a letter endorsing Darwinism, Richard Dawkin’s response was simply that the pope was a hypocrite, that he could not be genuine about science and that Dawkins himself simply preferred an honest fundamentalist.” Then from Jerry Coyne, “To scientists like Dawkins and Wilson, the real war is between rationalism and superstition. Science is but one form of rationalism, while religion is the most common form of superstition.” Maybe Dawkins doesn’t understand the debate as he thinks John Paul the Great (JP2) doesn’t understand Darwinism. Most Christians I know, including myself, are not superstitious. We just believe that there is a God that is good, God is historically revealed in Jesus the Christ, and not that salt should be thrown over one’s shoulder for good luck. The former is not superstition; the latter is. To the pope, Darwinism does not destroy Christianity; it partially explains how material processes develop in nature. (Of course the letter of the pope is not cited.)

In the next chapter, “Arguments for God’s Existence” are presented and critiqued by Dawkins. I’ll again comment on some of his critique.