Cosmos-Liturgy-Sex

Well, I have just completed my first full week of unemployment.  I think that I had more leisure time while employed.  Unemployment began by waking up to 8 inches of water in the basement Saturday morning before last.  The sumps had stopped running for some reason.  I was able to get them started before heading off to Mass. The water was pumped out by the time we returned.  Tricia spent the morning trying to dry out our files that had been inundated with water while also holding a garage sale.  I spent the morning cleaning up the basement.  We headed out to Chicago to visit some friends in the afternoon and made it back home by 11pm.  That has been one of our more leisurely days.

We are in Dayton for our goddaughter’s graduation, so that is the only reason I have a breather right now.  I thought I would take the time to comment on a topic I have seen in my inbox this  month.  Several articles by several different persons have been forwarded to me about Christopher West and the fallout from his Nightline interview.  He has been taking quite a bit of heat for it.  According to some (Alice von Hildebrand and David Schindler), it is not simply the case that West was taken out of context and misconstrued,  but rather that he has some underlying problems in his anthropology.

First for some caveats and disclosures: I cannot speak as an expert on Christopher West’s interpretation of John Paul II’s Theology of the Body, as I have read and/or heard relatvely little of his thought.  However, I have read and heard some and have found that I share some of the concerns being presented.  I know David Schindler.  I took a course from him at the John Paul II Institute which, by the way, served as the inspiration for the title of this blog.  He was also a reader for my dissertation.  I do not always agree with Schindler’s take on John Paul II. I think it is often too heavily read through his “Balthasarian lens.”  However, I do think that some of Schindler’s criticisms are well-founded, and these criticisms will be the focus of this post.  I don’t claim to be the world’s foremost expert on John Paul II or his theology of the body, but I do consider myself to have an above-average expertise, as this was the foundation of my dissertation, and I have taught undergraduate courses on the theology of the body for several years.

Schindler begins with some apparently rather questionable statements that Christopher West has made.  Oftentimes, these questionable statements can seem to be reconciled with orthodoxy when contextualized, but even in doing so, Schindler says that there is a residual problem.  Schindler lists four issues he sees with West’s approach, and also with the substance of his theology.  These Schindler sees as giving rise to what many find vulgar and prurient in West’s approach.

Schindler first lists West’s underestimation of the damage done to humanity by concupiscence.  Schindler refers to his having brought this up to West a number of years ago.  I recall Schindler’s having mentioned this discussion (back in 2003, I think it was).  He mentioned West’s problematic dismissal of the perduring effects of concupiscence and West’s response.  However, I also recall that I did not agree with the way the Schindler seemed to frame the meaning of concupiscence.  He seemed to reify it as some positive reality then, as something that resides in the body.  His statement in the above linked article also intimates this understanding.  Nevertheless, what I have heard from West seems to suggest to me that he does in fact underestimate the impact of concupiscence on the human person.  Redemptive grace in this dispensation does not remove concupiscence, and concupiscence in sexual attraction cannot be ignored.  West seems to forget this, though “Christopher” of this blog, who has recently taken a class from West, indicated that West is reconsidering his take on concupiscence.

I have the impression of West that he seems to consider puritanism as a greater threat than the sexual libertinism of the sexual revolution.  I seem to recall seeing this written by him, but if I am wrong about this, I apologize.  However, if it is true, it would explain many things about his overemphasis on sex which Schindler thinks arises from his lack of a proper sense of the analogia entis (the analogy of being), which takes its archetype in God but never forgets that the difference between God and His creation is greater than the similarity.  Puritanism is a distortion of chastity.  Libertinism is a rebellion against not only puritanism but also against chaste virtue.

West seems to think that concupiscence can and must be defeated.  This is impossible.  Temptation must be overcome and defeated but concupiscence remains for the entirety of this lifetime.  Concupiscence is not an object to be defeated.  Concupiscence is a privation of integrity between the affects (i.e. emotions and appetites) on the one hand and the intellect and will on the other.  The original state was one of integration among these faculties, which we had only because of original grace–but this is how we were created–we were created for grace.  This integrity can be provisionally restored to a greater or lesser extent by cooperating with sanctifying grace, but the proclivity to sin always remains, and so it must not be tempted.  West can seem to dismiss this.  In doing so, it seems that he is falling into the error of presuming upon God’s grace in order to reject the admonition to avoid the near temptation of sin.  God’s grace can transform us if we cooperate it, but in our fallen state this is not a straight path that one can achieve simply through the force of will or by a quietist presumption on grace.

Schindler criticizes West for a lack of Marian sensitivities in his theology of the body. The way Schindler describes this is pure Balthasar and so it is not fair, I think, to consider this a failure. John Paul’s theology is certainly sympathetic with Balthasar’s Mariology, and good arguments cans be made that he incorporated this to some degree in his own thinking.  At most this should be proposed as a corrective to West’s prurience but not a fault in West’s theology.  Hildebrand argued that West loses the mystery of the person by his lack of sensitivity to the dangers of concupiscence.  This I think I have seen.  It is, I think, the reason behind his inability to discern what is inappropriate or vulgar and what is not.

Puritanism and sexual libertinism are both threats.  The former because it set the stage for justification of the latter.  However, both reject the authentic meaning of the human person and the sacredness of the body.  The danger is (and I think that this is the trap that West falls into) that the response of one who suffers from puritanical thinking can look very much like the response of one who has an authentic anthropology and responds out of a desire for purity.  That is, when subjected to sights that might be a temptation both will turn away.  The puritan because he thinks that the naked body is dirty or evil and the wannabe saint because he realizes that the goodness of the naked body is sacred, and in his fallen state he can be tempted to reduce the other to his sexual value.  Furthermore, there is a stewardship for the weaknesses of others that must be observed in order to protect them from temptations.

When inadvertantly subjected to experiences that can lead to lust, one does indeed have the obligation through self-mastery to overcome the temptation.  However, one also has the obligation to avoid the near temptation of sin.  It is ill advised, indeed it can be sinful, to  subject oneself purposefully to anything with which Satan or our simple fallenness can use to draw us more easily into sin.  Everyone is different.  Men and women are tempted differently.  Men tend to reduce women to their sexual value for the sake of pleasure.  Women tend to reduce men to the latter’s ability to meet their need for complementary bonding and personal fulfillment.  Among men, however, temperament, experience, history of subjection to pornography, etc. all factor into what can lead to temptations and how difficult it is to master oneself in this regard.  One may not sin in a misguided attempt to attain self-mastery. Neither may I assume that what I can safely be subjected to is the standard for everyone.

West’s use of images that offend the sensibilities of many good Catholics seems to be motivated by the fact that he thinks that puritanism is the root cause for their offense.  He needs to be reminded that puritanism is a relatively recent phenomenon and that chastity and purity are age old virtues.  While it is true that some cultures are not offended by things sexual that do offend others (a point I recall West often making), one must not draw conclusions based upon superficial assessments.  Lack of offense does not imply purity in reception.  Cultures in which men and women are both publicly naked must not be assumed to show that public nakedness is a possibility for a society that wants to achieve purity.  In fact, these cultures rarely show a high regard for women and their sexuality.

Ok, enough blathering and back to the question: is Christopher West’s interpretation of theology of the body dangerous?  First, I will say that I wish that this discussion could go on in private because it serves to give comfort and aid to dissenters and can undermine a good apostolate that West has developed, albeit, one that is in need of some course corrections. However, with respect to the question,  I suspect that for some people it can be.   I do think that in many ways he has done very much good, and I have no way of knowing how much that his disregard for concupiscience may have caused damage to those misled by it.  I do hope that he will take the public criticism to heart and find someone who can help him to correct his misinterpretations.  Our culture needs it and so does the Church.

I saw an article today reporting that the University Catholic Center at the University of Texas at Austin was starting a “Gay and Lesbian” support group.  This was confirmed on the Center’s website.

Now it is not clear from the report what this support group will entail.  They interview the Paulist priest who will be leading the group, Fr. Ed Koharchik, who provides some interesting statements as reported by UT’s student newspaper, The Daily Texan:

“We want to provide a safe place for young people to talk about this issue – how does it fit in with the Catholic Church teachings?” said the Rev. Ed Koharchik, associate director at the center. “Whether one is gay or straight, it’s morally neutral.”

In recent weeks, the center has promoted the support group, whose purpose is to shed light on the “misconstrued teachings of the church” with respect to non-heterosexual lifestyles, Koharchik said.

“It’s about this group of people and how to stay within the teachings of the church and yet still identify as being of that orientation,” said Michael Jungwirth, a Middle Eastern studies graduate student. “It sounds reasonable.”

Now what he means by “morally neutral” I suppose depends upon what he means by being “gay or straight.”  Unfortunately, using those terms succumbs  to the mistaken notion that same sex attraction has some ontological basis rather than being a disorder that requires healing.  Fr. Koharchik seems to recognize that the terms refer first to a life style.  In other words, they are forms of behavior.

The comments from the student sound promising I suppose.  It is important to stay within the teachings of the Church.  However, I am not all that confident about Fr. Koharchik’s understanding of Church teaching if some of his interviews have been correctly reported.  For example, in an interview with the Daily Texan, published by Politico before the election he is said to have claimed that social issues like immigration and the death penalty were just as important as abortion…Catholics are not single issue voters.  Some additional comments:

Koharchik said he hopes to deter Catholics from breaking off their relationship with God due to their sexual orientation. He said he wants community members to know that sexuality is not tied to an individual’s personhood and that linking the two together could “cut off awareness to goodness.”

Now this is a troubling, deficient anthropology.  If he said this, he really should learn John Paul II’s theology of the body.  In fact, one’s sex is constitutive, in part, of personhood.  One is male or female and cannot be a human person without being so.  Sex difference establishes the structure by which the individual person exercises his personhood.  The claim attributed to Fr. Koharchik introduces a dualism into the person not unrelated to the body-soul dualism of our post-Cartesian Western culture (often mistakenly attributed to Platonism some would argue).  Teaching young people who are confused about their sexual identity because of some pathology that their sexual identity is not part of who they are as persons is not the solution.  In fact, they will recognize that this is false.

Rather, one needs to help them better understand how in fact their intuition that their sex is an integral aspect them as persons, is in fact valid.  The fact that they suffer from an interior conflict between who they are and how they feel is something they do need to understand.  Otherwise, I do not see how they will ever be able to understand why the Church teaches as She does, that they cannot act on certain inclinations.  If they are given to think that this great drive in their lives is something completely unrelated to them as persons and so acting upon it is sinful then this will appear to be an arbitrary, unfair, and impossible demand…something they already, no doubt, feel.

I am further discouraged by the resource that they have chosen as their guide; the problematic, notorious document released by the NCCB a few years back:

Among other pastoral recommendations aimed toward church ministers, the National Conference of Catholic Bishops suggests in its pamphlet, “Always Our Children,” that religious entities “help to establish or promote support groups for parents and family members” of gays and lesbians.

This document had the overall affect of saying “yes you are gay but you ought not to act upon it.”  A ridiculous proposition from any perspective.  I do hope that the following authentically expresses the teachings of the Church

Koharchik’s goal for the support group is to encourage a chaste lifestyle for every person and to encourage members to “live morally good and make proper decisions.

If the way Fr. Koharchik has been represented in the Daily Texan is an accurate portrayal of his thinking, I am concerned that his group will foster more hurt and confusion among those already suffering from such a difficult disorder that attacks the very center of one’s personal identity.  I recognize that it is possible that they are using terminology that they consider pastorally necessary (the fact that they seem to have asked for the Austin Diocese’s support might support this possibility) but it is also possible that they are getting into something that they are not qualified to do.  I would have to ask why they would not draw upon an already existing and successful program like Courage rather than going it alone with an approach that, as the reporting suggests, is in danger of bearing doing more harm than good.

[This post is a joint effort between Hierothee and David]

Donna Freitas, a Catholic theologian and Assistant Professor of Religion at Boston University, recently published a book on attitudes toward sex among contemporary students at colleges and universities, Catholic and otherwise: Sex & the Soul: Juggling Sexuality, Spirituality, Romance, and Religion on America’s College Campuses.

She found that Catholic college and university students are as prone to contemporary “hook-up” culture as students at secular universities. She found that only strongly evangelical colleges comprise student bodies that reject the hook-up culture: because, she says, in the manner of a liberal protestant, these evangelical colleges encourage a “cult of purity.”

Freitas is apparently not a profound theologian. You can read a little bit about her book and her general take on things at National Catholic Reporter and decide for yourself. Nevertheless, it is useful to learn from her that students at Catholic colleges are as prone as any to engage in thematic “sex parties.” One particularly prevalent type of sex party, Freitas shows, involves young women dressing up as sexual objects (prostitutes, etc.) and engaging in random fornication with their male hosts.

Freitas gives us useful, though somewhat abstract, sociological information in this book. But the whole sordid trend becomes personally shocking when one hears a first-hand account of such a party.

We at C-L-S have been apprised of such an incident. It happened recently off campus at a prominent Catholic university, and involved undergraduate students from the university in a swingers’ game that was prominent in the 1970s. We cannot, of course, give the identity of the person who was brought, unwittingly, to the party and who told us about it. Nor can we disclose the particular university. The student in question left the party, appalled, as soon as it became evident what was going on.

There are many shocking things about all of this. But what is most shocking of all, in our opinion, is the resigned attitude that women who willingly partake in these sordid activities have about them.

We have recently posted on a study revealing the grim fruits of Catholic higher education.  The study indicated that half of the students in Catholic colleges and universities think that it is morally permissible to fornicate.  Most surprisingly, the study revealed that women were more likely (50%) than men (41%) to engage in premarital sex. Troubling as these numbers are, they do not prepare one for arrival of 1970’s swingers’ games that for some, or even many, appear to be what college is all about.

John Paul II was often accused of paying so much attention to women that he virtually ignored men in his theo-pastoral writings. He did, in fact, directly address women much more than men.  He did so because he recognized that a great evil had entered the culture, one that was directly attacking femininity.

What John Paul saw was that modern feminism had adopted Margaret Sanger’s distorted viewpoint that for women to be equal to men they must be able to compete with men in everything.  At the forefront of Sanger’s concern was the ability to be “equal” with men in hedonistic, sexual debauchery, which demands that women be free not simply from any procreative ramifications of unrestrained sex, but even free from any emotional attachments arising from sexual intercourse. Science was to help in the former, but not the latter.

Men and women are both created for complementary, total self-giving.  Sexual intercourse is the most intimate manner of total self-gift, but sex has an immutable, inner structure.  The complementarity of sex is not purely physical.  The natural telos of this physical complementarity points to a greater meaning. Fruitful sexual intercourse results in the unity of persons and, simultaneously, the openness to life-giving love.  This physical structure suggests a metaphysical structure to complementary love.  Namely, masculine love is one of initiating love, and feminine love is actively receptive.

As such, both men and women in their entire make up, physiological, emotional, psychological, and spiritual, are ordered according to this structure of love.  This makeup orients women more toward relationships and, in terms of the sexual act, to experiencing it as the permanent bonding themselves with another person.  Karol Wojtyla indicates this in his book, Love and Responsibility:

The very structure of the male psyche and personality is such that it is more readily “compelled” to disclose and objectivize the hidden significance of love for a person of the other sex. This goes with the relatively more active role of the male in such love, and also imposes a responsibility on him. Whereas in the woman sensuality is as it were covert, and concealed by sentimentality. For this reason she is by nature, more inclined to go on seeing as a manifestation of affection what a man already clearly realizes to be the effect of sensuality and the desire for enjoyment. There exists then, as we see, a certain psychological divergence between man and woman in the manner of their participation in love. The woman appears more passive, although in a different way she is more active. In any case, her role and her responsibility will be different from the role and responsibility of the male (Karol Wojtya, Love and Responsibility, [San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1993] 111-12).

The context of this statement is sexual intercourse. It is so very important, especially for girls and young women, to understand the differences between the meaning which men and women generally attach to the sexual experience. Because of their masculine structure, which is less integrated than women, men generally experience it more in terms of sensuality and enjoyment. Women, on the other hand, because they are more interior and integrated, will see and experience it more in the way of affection and attachment. That is not to say that men and women are not both damaged when this structure is violated.  They are, but in different ways.  Men, in general, experience the inability to form lasting relationships when they regularly fornicate.  Women generally experience emotional trauma.

The resignation of the young women at college sex parties shows that they are getting the message that they should be talking and thinking about sex in a manner more in keeping with fallen masculine habits.  Nevertheless, they still will experience sex as feminine persons. Due to their feminine structure, they generally should be more reticent about engaging in sex outside of wedlock, but in their confusion they are setting themselves, and the rest of society, on a collision course with reality.  They do not experience pre-marital sex in the same way they are told about it and talk about it. We suspect that the epidemic of cutting, anorexia/bulimia, and other psychological ailments that all too many young women are experiencing is due in large part to this confusion. The sage wisdom that says: God forgives always, men sometimes, but nature never, applies here. With religious restraint on social debauchery all but gone, and feminine restraint waning, there is little to prevent the cultural collapse that all societies face when they so reject the order of nature.

If we had a child ready to go to college, we would seriously consider delaying his entrance until we were morally certain that he had the spiritual maturity to weather the storm of hedonism that he will confront during his four years at what appear to have become fornication factories. Certainly this is not the case at every Catholic school, but only at those which take their Catholic identity seriously will there be a likelihood that the experiences of the young student that we mentioned at the beginning of this post will be avoided. Saint Maria Goretti and Blessed Pier Giorgio Frassatti, pray for us!

A couple of days ago, I began what might turn out to be a series of reflections on the anthropology of sex difference as exposited by one of Radical Orthodoxy’s representative thinkers, Gerard Loughlin. Here I am continuing to concentrate on an essay of his, entitled “Erotics: God’s Sex.”

I had mentioned that Loughlin cannot seem to get beyond his reductionist, postmodern concepts. Furthermore, his importation of a world view from morally bankrupt postmodern thinker, Georges Bataille, further exacerbates his ability to understand, and so critique, the Trinitarian theology and anthropology of Hans Urs von Balthasar. In Loughlin’s defense, while Balthasar is dependent upon an Aristotelian-Thomist metaphysics, he is often loathe to acknowledge it. Without recognizing this metaphysical perspective in Balthasar’s thought, his theology can appear to be somewhat arbitrary. Loughlin’s apparent lack of understanding of this metaphysical tradition might contribute to his misreading of Balthasar.

Recall that Loughlin chose to replace theological analogy with a postmodern “parody,” with all of the latter’s attendant vulgarity. Loughlin seems to make the same amoral move with his understanding of eros, blundering into the same irony. Loughlin’s definition of eros is “ravenous desire” (p. 148). Eros for him, as we saw in the previous post, seems solely associated with animalistic desire. It is of interest to note that the meaning of the term ravenous is focused on taking something for oneself in a greedy way, quite antithetical to Balthasar’s anthropology, which requires disinterested and total self-gift as the foundation for an authentic eros. Etymologically, the term “ravenous” arises from the Old French word meaning “to seize,” itself coming from a word meaning “extremely hungry.” This is consistent with Loughlin’s adoption of Batailleian carnal vulgarity.

Loughlin seems to have in his mind when he talks about sex difference that a constitutive aspect of sex must include the various disordered sexual behaviors in which animalistic consumption masquerades as sexual intercourses’ proper telos, a communion of persons.

Loughlin’s obsession with corporal sex betrays an inability to understand the human person as a body-soul unity, a hylomorphic composite of body and soul in which the soul is not joined to a preexisting body, but the soul interpenetrates, gives existence, shape, and animation to the body. The human person is not, therefore, an enfleshed soul or an ensouled body, but a single nature that has two unified aspects, body and a spiritual soul.

Loughlin also seems not to understand the tradition of Trinitarian Persons as subsisting Relations, which distinguish the Persons from the one divine nature and the way that this is analogically manifested in the human person. The category of relation, a sort of quasi-substantial category, is essential to understanding how Balthasar and other personalists think about the human person and the way the human person is differentiated into two different sexes.

Loughlin seems only to be able to think in terms of Cartesian substance, which is simply matter, or – in the case of the human body – corporeality. For non-corporeal beings it is not as clear what his thinking is, but it does not include the category of relation. Thus, when Loughlin reads Balthasar writing of the Processions (the begetting of the Son and the Spiration of the Holy Spirit) in terms of the structure of Self-giving love, he sees this in terms of the movement of some substance from one Person to another. Human persons inevitably “parody” this postmodern monism in Loughlin’s anthropology.

Thus, Loughlin criticizes Balthasar’s concept of unity in difference. For Balthasar the unity in difference, which can be seen in creation (body and soul, individual and community, the Incarnation, male and female), is the created analogy of trinitarian unity (unity in nature and distinction in Persons). Loughlin does not appear to understand relation so he ends up collapsing every characteristic into some sort of substance (read as Cartesian extension).

Without a properly Trinitarian metaphysics, Louglin is unequipped to understand the Processions, the Incarnation, the Church, the Eucharist, or sex difference. It leads him to claim that his “parodic substitution allows Christianity to place at its symbolic centre certain cultural taboos-against cannibalism, incest and homosexuality-and there break them” (p. 152). Loughlin sees the Processions as “the incestuous homosexual coupling of Father and Son” (p. 156). Of course, the Eucharist is cannibalism. The Marian Church wedded to Christ the Bridegroom is incestuous.

Ironically, Loughlin accuses Balthasar of misreading “the flow of the trinitarian parodies” (p. 154) when the latter declares that humanity is primarily feminine. Loughlin claims that Balthasar’s own logic requires human nature to be masculine. His reasoning is that because Balthasar says that the Father is supramasculine in relation to the Son, and because the Church comes through Christ on the Cross, who is male, and that Eve comes from Adam’s flesh, which is male flesh, there is a masculine sexual monism that is later differentiated into male and female.

Loughlin clearly sees matter as the primary reality here, at least for creatures. Substance for him is extended matter. In fact, he does not seem to have any other category. Sex difference for him is real, and so in his limited, modern/post-modern categories, sex difference must be something arising from the flesh alone. This is inevitable without the category of relation, especially in this case, sex difference being a relational category which conditions the relational person (see this metathread for a short primer on these ideas).

Loughlin is not the only RO theologian with these views. Rowan Williams promotes similar thinking in his essay, “The Body’s Grace.” This essay was published in a collection of pro-SSAD articles entitled, Christian Our Selves, Our Souls and Bodies: Sexuality and the Household of God [ed. Charles C. Hefling (Boston: Cowley Press, 1996)]. Hankey (see the previous post) shows that Williams was an original member of the Radical Orthodoxy movement. Hierothee pointed me to a recent article online that shows that Williams’s unfortunately soft thinking in this regard is not at all unlike that of Loughlin.

In conclusion, I would note that it appears to be not so much that Louglin’s and Williams’s distortions/perversions of Christian truth stem from a misunderstanding of classical theology. Rather, the problem begins with their pre-commitment to said perverted notions. Their articulation of an incoherent metaphysics is simply a rationalization for a subversively depraved anthropology. Indeed, with the likes of Loughlin and Williams as guides to the movement, one might argue that Radical Orthodoxy is at root an expression of radical depravity.

In a recent thread, a discussion about Radical Orthodoxy arose. In this discussion, Hierothee mentioned that at least some within the RO movement are able to advocate for unnatural sexual acts as theologically justified. RO arises out of the Protestant ethos and, even though they promote the importance of the authority of tradition, their Protestant ethos still imbues their thinking and so their rejection of the Christian anthropological tradition.

One such RO author is Gerard Loughlin. Loughlin writes a chapter in a volume edited by John Milbank, Catherine Pickstock, and Graham Ward, entitled Radical Orthodoxy. The volume is meant to be a representative summary of Milbank, Pickstock, and Ward’s school of thought. Thus, it would seem, that Loughlin’s essay is representative of RO’s anthropology. Loughlin’s article is entitled: “Erotics: God’s Sex.”

Loughlin uses Hans Urs von Balthasar’s theological articulation of the analogy between Trinitarian Processions and the marital sexual act as his foil, primarily using the second volume from Balthasar’s Theodrama. Loughlin wishes to critique Balthasar (and by explicit implication, John Paul II’s Theology of the Body) by privileging the insights of none other than the French pervert postmodern essayist/philosopher Georges Bataille, who obviously was a bit sick, having volunteered to be a human sacrifice for a group of his friends. Bataille apparently never saw a Rorschach chart that he couldn’t find obscene, finding the mechanical aspects of sexual copulation in almost everything he saw. Bataille’s pornographic milieu, then, is Loughlin’s point of departure for evaluating Balthasar’s analogy.

The main thing he takes from Bataille, perhaps aside from his pornographic obsession, is his attachment to the postmodern literary parody. Loughlin decides that he wants to substitute parody for the theological concept of analogy because it entails the burlesque which “couples [Loughlin is clearly enthralled with the "parody" of this grammatic/logical phrase and the sexual-mechanical inference] the polite with the vulgar, the metaphysical with the indecent” (italics mine, p. 145). To replace parody with analogy simply illustrates either ignorance of the metaphysical foundation upon which analogy stands or an irresponsible disregard for analogy’s metaphysical implications. Wayne Hankey’s insights suggest to me that it may be both.

Loughlin, though a Cambridge scholar, who, I understand, claims to be Catholic, does not seem to have a solid grasp of the Catholic tradition in terms of metaphysics or theological anthropology. He very often appears unable to extract himself from his postmodern categories, which, after all, are ironcially modern distortions that are simply taken in a different direction. This leads him often to accuse his foils of the very faults he himself possesses. For example, he finds that Balthasar falls into a crude biologism (see p. 158). This charge comes from his apparent inability to distinguish between relational and substantial categories.

Perhaps his critique of Sister Mary Timothy Prokes treatment of human sexuality might be sufficient to illustrate what I mean. He says:

Prokes, who with Balthasar, is surely correct in stressing the intimacy of persons in the sexual relation, is nevertheless so concerned to distance human sexuality from the animalistic-from the itch and yearning of sexual organs-that one might think the attraction and desirability of the body-its physical comforts and excitements-had nothing to do with human sexuality. Prokes offers a peculiarly passionless, unsexy, sexuality. In short, she fails to think the erotic (p. 148).

This quotation, it seems to me, is quite revealing. Loughlin seems to want to equate the “animalistic” with eros. He appears to say that without this animalistic “itch and yearning” one cannot have eros. In other words, like many who promote libidinism (a sexual ethic which elevates pleasure to an end rather than accepting it as a secondary, non-essential fruit of the sexual act), he either does not understand or rejects classical Christian anthropology.

The human affects (appetites, emotions, etc.) are good, but they serve primarily the animal aspects of the human person. But man is a hylomorph; he is a body-soul unity and the soul has priority, though this does not diminish the essential (in a metaphysical sense) importance of the body. The functioning of the affects becomes an issue in our fallen state.

Human nature was created for grace. We do not require grace in order to be human, but we do require it in order to function integrally. Our human affects were created to be subordinated to human reason, but our loss of original integrity makes this subordination a challenge and a task. The tradition calls this challenge concupiscence. Too often, post-moderns (or better, late-moderns) emphasize human experience but they refuse or at least neglect to contextualize this experience as fallen. Truth be told, they want to make even their fallen experiences normative.

Loughlin seems to fall into this trap. He appears to want to make his experiences paradigmatic. Thus, he conflates the animal aspect of his experiences with the fallen animalism to which he apparently succumbs. He does not see that eros and the erotic must be purified from concupiscence. Nor does he desire to subordinate sexual urges (which in his thought include the unnatural) to reason. This he finds to be “passionless, unsexy, sexuality.”

Interestingly enough, this leads him in the complete opposite direction of the communion for which the personalistic end of the sexual act tends. In fact, Loughlin, clearly, has chosen his terms wisely. For the sexual act outside of the Church’s understanding of sexual intercourse is a parody, a mocking of its intended personalistic and natural ends-communion and procreation, respectively. These ends correspond to the hylomorphic aspects of the human person. When one severs the unitive from the procreative, one gets neither. We are left with what is authentically animalistic and contra-personal.

Sub-personal animals also reflect divine perfection, but in a lesser way than humans. Like their human counterparts, sub-personal animals also seek a sort of communion. However, without a spiritual soul, this communion is reduced to consumption. It is manifested in eating, in which the animal annihilates an often lower nature and takes it up into its higher nature. It is joined to the other but in the antithesis of personal communion. Instead of self-giving/self-sacrifice, it is the other that is taken/sacrificed. Perhaps this insight can explain why we speak of “comfort foods,” which we seem drawn to, especially when we have relational problems.

The eroticism that Loughlin seems to seek is this mocking parody of authentic, sexy, sexuality. His is the desire to follow his animal inclinations, to reject human reason, and to pursue a fallen, and in his case unnatural, communion with another. Thus he advocates the consumption of another soul for the sake of his pleasure-”the itch and yearning of [his] sexual organs.” Is it any wonder that unnatural sexual acts are “parodies” of eating?

There is much more that can and will be said about Loughlin’s article but this will have to do for now. If he is indeed representative of “Radical Orthodoxy,” then theirs is a most unorthodox and vulgar orthodoxy.

A few days ago someone sent us an e-mail mentioning that they had included C-L-S in a blog listing that they had set up. I recently had a chance to go over and see what this was all about. It seems that a Christian dating service established a page of blogs/websites that in some manner related to Christian relationships.

I suppose that the title of the page, Christians Do It Better, should have been some indication of the thinking of the site’s originators. Given that it was for a dating service, perhaps I should have expected some of what I was to see. A good portion of the listings are what one might expect from a Christian site. However, that is not entirely the case.

There are at least two headings which are largely problematic. Under the Sex section you will find such fare as pornography free sexual positions guides for “Christians”, a blog about a bisexual “Christian” who enjoys open sexual relationships, and “Christian” guides to sexual identity. There is also a “Gay” section which lists a number of websites by self identified Christians who embrace the lifestyle associated with same sex attraction disorder.  I am not sure many of these folks would be comfortable being included in the same category as our blog.

One might say that for a large portion of the entries, this site is not about Christian relationships but a summary of the gamut of relationships engaged in among those who call themselves Christian. This site perhaps is emblematic of the natural conclusion of a Protestant mentality. What I mean is a world view which rejects all moral authority but one’s own. As this coincided with Hierothee’s reminding me about an article that I need to write, I thought I would jot a few quick thoughts on the matter. That will come in a future post.  In the meantime, perhaps we might contemplate the thinking that lies behind a Christian’s coopting the quite pagan claim that they do “it” better.

Tom Wolfe, in his 2004 novel I Am Charlotte Simmons, explores the connection between the mind-brain reductionism of contemporary neuroscience and sociobiology and the moral depravity rampant on contemporary college and university campuses. Philosophical materialists who reviewed the book were, by and large, unimpressed by the idea that mind-brain reductionism should lead to the libertinism endemic to contemporary campus life.

But Wolfe, who is generally more prescient regarding the culture than those purely literary types who review his books, was simply expressing a sense of a connection that honest philosophers since the time of Socrates have recognized as their vocation to articulate. Namely, it is impossible that there should be such a thing as objective moral goodness if reality is nothing more than matter in motion.

Philosophical materialism is the underlying metaphysical presupposition of the contemporary academy. It is a metaphysical position that is thought, by many, to have been put on an unshakable foundation by the findings of modern neuroscience. All experiences and thoughts are capable of being measured in the brain, so it is said by materialists, and we have proven this by our successes in mapping experiences and thoughts to their neural correlates. Certain neural regions, when stimulated, give rise to experiences and thoughts. Many take this to mean that the brain must be wholly causal of psychological phenomena, and this is taken to mean, at least implicitly, that the human person is reducible to his brain. We truly are (on this view), to borrow an image from Descartes, brains in a vat, though the vat in question is simply the rest of the human body. Much of the effort in neuroscience is directed to finding the neural correlates of psychic experience.

Perhaps the best book written on the subject of the relationship of the mind and the brain remains Stanley Jaki’s Brain, Mind and Computers. The book was originally published in 1969, with a second and expanded edition in 1989. Jaki, as many may know, is a Catholic priest, theologian, and perhaps the most important historian and philosopher of science in the past 40 years. In this book, he defends the existence of the soul, whose existence alone, he argues, makes human understanding possible. He makes this defense, in a masterful blend of historical scholarship and philosophical argumentation, against the reigning philosophies that underlie modern neuroscience and especially against those who think that mental processes are reducible to computer models. Jaki considers the relationship of the brain to experience and thought, and he levels a devastating critique of those who champion the existence of “artificial intelligence,” those, that is, who equate understanding with the physical manipulation by pre-established rules of purely formal systems. Especially valuable is chapter V of the book, which Jaki added to the second edition and which gives a very suggestive phenomenology of language.

The book is worth considering in detail, but there is one point that Jaki makes near the end of it that I wish to bring out here, and that gets me to the point of this post. Jaki gives several suggestions, toward the end of chapter 5, for defenders of the existence of the soul to consider in regard to the contemporary debate on the mind and the brain, inasmuch as there is such a debate. One of his suggestions is that defenders of the soul should have the courage to call a spade a spade. By this he means that philosophers who recognize fully the dignity of the human person must be brave enough to stand athwart efforts by neuroscientists, sociobiologists, proponents of artificial intelligence, and the like, to reshape human society according to their valueless science. Jaki explains:

… [society] merrily marches down the road to anarchy. The march is to the brass bands composed of academics who have been busy trumpeting that exclusive attention to quanitatively specificable patterns is the only posture with intellectual respectability. Such a pattern is on hand whenever a behavior, no matter how queer, is acted upon in a statistically significant number. From there it is but a short step to claims to legal recognition and protection, as on the basis of mere patterns, so many pure formalizations, everything becomes a mere machinery, with no allowance for distinctions between the morally good and the morally evil. Hence the steady erosion of sensitivity for hallowed principles, as if they were so many words, and the growing readiness to grant social respectability to any behavior, provided it establishes itself as a pattern. (Brain, Mind and Computers p. 295)

Jaki wrote these words in 1989, and there is little doubt that he did not have the concept of “gay marriage” on his mind at that time. But the basic principle that he brings out here is at play in the ever-greater social acceptance of “gay marriage.”

What he means in this passage is that there are those who hold that behavior is entirely determined by biology. The biological dimension of beings is, in turn, thought to be capable of being mathematically measured. Indeed, the establishment of a mathematical measure to things is the ultimate goal of science. The ultimate reality of things is, on the view of many, that which is quantifiable. Given the advances of twentieth century physics, mathematical science has tended to rest in statistical analysis, especially so in regard to “biological systems.” The statistical is therefore thought to be the real. Statistical significance is the only significance. There is no good or bad, in the traditional moral sense. There are only, for these reductionists, statistically significant occurrences of behavior.

Jaki confines his attention to unmasking the pretensions of proponents of artificial intelligence. They think only in terms of statistical significance. They have no other basis then statistical analysis to uphold or deny moral norms. But, going beyond Jaki’s analysis, it must be recognized that the philosophical position of these reductionists goes hand-in-glove with utilitarianism, which reduces the rational assessment of human action to a calculus of pleasure.

The upshot of this type of moral reasoning is that there can be no standard of moral goodness that transcends comfort and demographic consensus. If a person’s behavior is thought to contribute to his comfort and pleasure then his behavior is acceptable, on the condition that the statistically-verified, consensus opinion of his society is amenable to his behavior.

Of course, this type of reasoning goes against the virtue ethic of the Catholic tradition, for which actions or behaviors are good or bad by their very nature. In regard to the discussion of “gay marriage,” the gap between the Church’s virtue ethic and the materialistic ethos of the wider culture makes it very difficult at present for genuinely Catholic opinion to penetrate public opinion. On the analysis of the Church, it is in the nature of things that male and female are sexually oriented to one another, as is evidenced by their bodily complementarity. It is for the ultimate good of a society that it should encourage a stable ordering of this orientation of one to the other in the socially privileged institution of monogamous marriage.

Scriptural revelation unveils the profoundest depths of the ordering of male and female to one another. Marriage is revealed in scripture in its sacramental profundity. The union of man and woman in the Church, as Saint Paul realized, gives to marriage its full significance as both sign and instantiation of the entire Church’s nuptial relationship to Christ the Bridegroom. Naturally, the Church cannot force civil society to accept the sacramental meaning of marriage. But the revealed meaning of marriage is a perfection of its natural meaning, and it is the Church’s duty to defend this natural meaning even in the civil order.

Ultimately, mind-brain reductionism devalues the body as much as it denies the existence of the mind. The form of the body is of little consequence to an analysis of human action for reductionists. For the virtue ethic of the Church, the sexual act is good inasmuch as it is ordered to the union of husband and wife and the openness to procreation that seals their love most fully. The form of the body and the experience of married love reveal to natural experience the soundness of this teaching. But reductionists cannot see in the form of the body anything that is of its essence, just as they cannot see in concrete experience anything that connects to reality. Male, female, or some combination of the two: it makes no difference. Matter and its statistically analyzed motion is the only reality for reductionists, not the “shape” of the body, not its concrete existence as we experience it. Reality, for reductionists, is ultimately a homogeneous mass of matter/energy in space-time. The things we experience in our everyday life, the basis for the Church’s virtue ethic, are denied reality.

So, the upshot of the cultural dominance of mind-brain reductionism, as Tom Wolfe realized, is the situation of poor Charlotte Simmons, an innocent college co-ed at a prestigious university, who is left to figure out her life in an environment where anything goes. What difference does it make, as long as almost everyone is comfortable and having a good time? In the end, you are only your brain. When it dies, there is nothing left. Why, then, should we not have a culture formed by the ethos of “Girls Gone Wild,” or “Boys Gone Wild,” or “The Jerry Springer Show?”

How do we, as faithful and hopeful Catholics, transform this cultural situation? It can only come through the Church. As the Holy Father himself realizes, it starts with the reform of the Church’s liturgy, where bodily form and symbol have to be valued once again after several decades of anti-religious leveling of the symbols in the Church. And Catholic institutions of higher education have to have the boldness, as Fr. Jaki says, to call a spade a spade. Moral reasoning is impotent if it is based upon the idea that the mind is reducible to the brain. The Church’s intellectual class needs to state it plainly: there can be no such a thing as objective goodness or of “values” that transcend cultural norms if the mind is reducible to the brain. Luckily, we are seeing more and more bishops who are stating the matter plainly, and we must all support them.

A careful reading of Catholic philosophers and theologians in the Thomist tradition, such as Stanly Jaki, has much to teach us as well, and Catholic universities should get back to this tradition of thought. A first pedagogical step would be to teach a sound epistemology to students: one that recognizes that each and every act of understanding transcends the material domain. The brain cannot understand. Computers cannot understand. These cannot understand because material systems cannot, as Thomists have always understood, abstract universals from concrete particulars. And it is only by abstracting the universal meaning of things that any particular thing – whether it be a word, or a symbol, or an animal, or a tree, or a molecule – is understood. Brains and computers are only concrete particulars, or collects of concrete particulars, and only act within the concrete moment. They cannot transcend the concrete moment of space-time because they exist entirely within it. It takes spirit, which is not confined to space-time, in order to abstract the universal from the concrete. It takes spirit in order to understand, for instance, what it means to be a person, or to be this particular person, or to understand any particular thing or general concept that persons communicate. Of course, I mean by spirit, at least for humans as opposed to angels and God, that which is, in the soul, truly united to the body (as the soul was not for Descartes), even though the soul is not reducible to the body. This sound epistemology, which is also the only basis for a sound ontology, is the starting point for a genuinely Catholic and Christian educational perspective. It should be expanded and brought out on many different levels. It is the basis of true philosophy and theology. It is only in recognizing the existence of the soul and the body (both of which are done away with by mind-body reductionism), and their unity, that a truly humanistic form of moral reasoning can be articulated.

Congratulations to Aquinas College, which earlier this month canceled a ‘gay activist” speaker because administrators recognized the fact that Catholic schools should never endorse anything or anyone who directly contradicts and belittles Church teachings. One of the challenges of those with deep-seated homosexual tendencies and who identify themselves as “gay” is they are incapable of recognizing the possibilities of their emotional conflicts having a direct correlation to their homosexual tendencies and attractions.

Despite the cancellation, students helped organize a speech of John Corvino off campus.

“Gay and lesbian relationships make some people happy. And I don’t just mean that they make people feel good. They are an important avenue of meaning and fulfillment in people’s lives,” said Corvino, who teaches at Wayne State University. “If we’re going to deny that experience to an entire group of people, we better have a darned good reason.”

“The way gay and lesbian people are treated in our society is morally wrong. I’m asking people to make moral judgments not on whom they love, but on whether they love.”

“Some people refer to me as a fallen Catholic. I didn’t fall. I leapt. We should not confuse complete faith in God with complete faith in our ability to discern God’s voice.”

“Of course two men can’t make a baby. But is making babies the only legitimate reason for having sex?”

“The usual response to a gay person is not ‘Hey, no fair. How come he gets to be gay and I don’t?’ We can continue to support (heterosexual marriage) while recognizing that it’s not right for everyone.”

For as long as one pursues this type of self-gratifying sexuality which is based on the desire to “love” and to be “loved” on one’s own terms, the more his psychological & spiritual health suffers up to the point of corruptness and spiritual death. Because sexuality forms an integral part of our personality, it makes sense to those who suffer from a wounded sense of sexual identity to believe sexual orientation is tied to something significantly more than the sexual act; consequently; love and acceptance becomes something that must be earned by the other but is a conditional entitlement or right which must be afforded to the self.

“I will lead you into the desert that I may speak to your heart…” (Hos 2:16)

“My grace is sufficient for you, for in weakness, power reaches perfection” (2 Cor 12:9)

“How does it feel to be a pregnant man?”(link to “gay” news website - Advocate) Thomas writes in the article. “Incredible. Despite the fact that my belly is growing with a new life inside me, I am stable and confident being the man that I am. In a technical sense I see myself as my own surrogate, though my gender identity as male is constant. To Nancy, I am her husband carrying our child . . . I will be my daughter’s father, and Nancy will be her mother. We will be a family.”

The fantasy of changing one’s personal meaning by changing one’s gender is derived from the fallacious belief that sexuality somehow frees us from our bondage to fear, inadequacies and despair. There is the tendency among many of us to cling to what can be lost or taken away, but there are those among us who invest their total being into these fears to the point where there can be no rest or satisfaction of ever receiving enough in return. To carry the burden of an external locus of control, one lives life with the constant feelings of being controlled by the actions of others and blown about by the whims of the world – being terrified of the bitter taste of losing or being denied of whatever is held in high value to them, some to the point of life itself.

Gender roles and identities are ultimately formed through the individual mind as experienced within the world which immediately surrounds us; consequently, some of us fail to recognize the potential fraud of assuming an identity in the first place. Constrained by deep insecurities and fears through reacting against the reality of one’s own sexual identity, some cling to a fantasy of there being something “wrong” with the external body vs. something being “wrong” internally, within the heart and mind. Simply speaking, Gender Identity Disorder is more of a rejection and abandonment of who one is, than the adoption of who and what one desires to be.

“Be not afraid,” because “each of us is the result of a thought of God, each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary”. – Pope Benedict XVI

In January, Shelray did a post about a San Francisco man suing a Catholic Hospital in Daly City for refusing to give him a sex change operation. Well apparently the hospital caved under the pressure of a court order according to an EWTN feed from CWN. This is most unfortunate but I suppose that it is encouraging that they resisted to start with. However, what is problematic is that the hospital is said to have released the following statement:

“We regret any confusion that may have come from this situation. We want this patient and her physician to know that they are welcome at Seton Medical Center.”

In doing so they not only have caved into the pressure but they also have abetted this suffering soul’s confusion by referring to him as a woman and seeming to imply that they were wrong to have refused the mutilating procedure (aka breast enhancement operation) in the first place.

Any way, it turns out that the man, “Charlene” Hastings will not have his mutilation done at the Catholic hospital, Seton Medical Center, because he would feel that the hospital “is doing it under duress.” Nevertheless, he is going forward with the civil suit for monetary damages according to his lawyer. That is a surprise.

The local CBS TV news station reports that “transgender Charlene Hastings has claimed moral victory against Catholics.” That after all is what “Charlene” is really after.  I suspect that even in his confusion he still senses that his interior conflict is not the fact that he is a woman in a man’s body but that he is in fact really a man who cannot come to terms with his sexual identity. Thus, he needs continual reaffirmation that he is correct in his desire to reconcile this conflict by mutilating his body such that it makes him look like he feels. Of course, the lawyer’s goal is just as pathological but has nothing to do with moral victories. Nevertheless, perhaps in order to satisfy his victim’s, errr, client’s need for affirmation, he provides the following:

The CBS 5 News station characterized the statement as a “veiled apology.” It said, “transgender Charlene Hastings has claimed moral victory against Catholics.” According to the California Catholic Daily, Hasting’s attorney, Chris Dolan, said that a lawsuit seeking monetary damages would proceed.

“Like any good religious experience, first you need enlightenment and then you need atonement,” said Dolan. “And what we have here perhaps is a glimpse of enlightenment. Has it changed their heart? I don’t think so. Will it change their practice? It better.”

Isaiah 5:20, from the book of judgment, comes to mind here: “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!” Dolan is right about Christian experience, though he forgets about repentance–not a surprise. However, to call what the hospital has “seen” as enlightenment is chillingly satanic. To trade the truth for an attempt at monetary preservation is exactly the opposite.  At best one can call their caving in, material cooperation with evil. If they did release the attributed statement, it becomes more likely formal cooperation with evil which a Catholic can never do, even if it means closing the doors of the hospital.

I hope that Dolan is right that those running the hospital’s hearts have not changed. It is the only chance that they will come to see that giving in to this coercion is harmful to those like “Charlene”, his lawyer, and in the long run to the hospital itself and larger society. If they were to act according to the truth, perhaps through their witness then those who authentically need it may eventually receive “enlightenment and then atonement.”

I came across a story at the Catholic Education Resource Center of which a Canadian psychologist and author argued that biology, and not a patriarchal conspiracy, was reason for a significant disparity between men and women among the high ranking positions of fortune 500 companies. She attributed the “glass ceiling” as being one of choice, based partially on the effects of a hormone called oxytocin. In other words, they had other priorities in their lives other than climbing the corporate ladder. Oxytocin is not only essential for facilitating child birth and breastfeeding, but has also been found to enhance social recognition, bonding, the formation of trust between people and generosity.

A Rutgers University study indicates that the feelings of romantic love are among the strongest drives on Earth –– even more powerful than hunger. Other researchers indicate that oxytocin has other long-range implications –– that individuals develop a “template” for a partner based on their previous pair-bonding.

A study from the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), found that the production of oxytocin varied among women according to the level of distress and anxiety or the degree of security in their relationships. The women who had fewer negative emotional relationships in their lifetime experienced greater oxytocin production. Likewise, they were better able to set appropriate boundaries for their subsequent relationships.

Numerous studies indicate that stress and fright inhibit oxytocin release. In other words, if relationships are not grounded in the kind of explicit commitment evidenced by loving, trustworthy, considerate, selfless behavior, the amount of oxytocin produced by intimacy decreases, and it becomes increasingly difficult for bonding to take place. On the other hand, the researchers at UCSF said bluntly: “[A] close, regular relationship may influence the responsiveness of the hormone.”

In the pursuit of equality and sexual freedom, the liberated women have set themselves up for exploitation by men within their relationships and in many cases, the best they can hope for is the mutated misnomer of love called eroticism. Eroticism is based on the fulfilment of infantile needs which include the need of being received, accepted, and satisfied. Relationships are sustained with acts of “love” (bribes) with the hope of one buying the other’s allegiance and favor. Consequently, those who have the most to lose also have the greatest need to deceive. The more failed sexual relationships one goes through, unless they dramatically change their behaviors, the less likely they will ever have a fulfilling and meaningful relationship in the future. Since the reality of true love is to will the good of the other, it’s not something we can possibly “fall into”, as opposed to falling into desperation, loneliness and selfish needs and desires.

I think the lack of bonding and commitment among couples illustrate why even among those who make it to marriage, a majority of them never make it a life long committment- and those who don’t divorce there seems to be an epidemic of infidelity, competition and hostile relationships. There is little doubt that sex before marriage damages the bond between husband and wife required to sustain a healthy, life long relationship.

“man can build a world without God, but this world will end by turning against him.“- Pope John Paul II

From an early age, we like to formulate our own identities from the world around us and create appearances of how we would like to see ourselves, and we go about making ourselves “seen” in the world through our own personal images reflected back to us through the perceived notion of others. This process of “seeing” ourselves reflected in the world as an adolescent or adult has its problems, based on the premise that we want to see ourselves based on the things which appeal to us in the world, so it’s certainly possible that an undesirable type of self-serving and vanity driven social identity could develop. True encounters in life can’t be manufactured, and since so much of our lives are affected by the subconscious and unexpected, it’s only a matter of time until one is faced with the conundrum of either fighting for or fleeing from one’s own real self.

If our values and motives are based on nothing more than imitations of our own projected self, then in moments of crisis and conflict, we’ll find out (quite shockingly) how empty and impotent we really are. If our values are nothing more than a conformity to peer pressure and vanity, then we find out how easily our desires propel us down into the realm of self-destruction. When unexpected situations force us to look deep within ourselves, what can be revealed can be quite ugly and difficult to accept; and consequently, be the basis for trauma. For those who refuse to re-expose themselves and deal with their own darkness, emptiness and misery will ensue while they hopelessly try to seek fulfillment among the addictive and vain attachments to the world.

Some of the afflictions of those who deny the realities of their true selves will typically confuse pride with love, where they “give” with the expectation of receiving a commodity of greater value with the like of authority, positions of power and vain glory. They may cling to what they fear losing and feel unsatisfied regardless whatever is given in return. They may typically act as pure-bred victims, feeling totally dependent and exploited according to the whims of the world. Some may fantasize that sexuality has some sort of mysterious secret which will somehow relieve their social emptiness and ultimately release them of their fears in life and of their own mortality in death. Among all, is the deep loneliness which accompanies everyone who experiences the spiritual pain of losing one’s true-self.

Image Credit

Last Sunday a young, intrepid FOCUS missionary, Emily, and I headed out into the dark night to engage the UI student group called PRIDE. This group is a consortium of those who struggle with various issues associated with sexual attraction and sexual identity, though of course, they do not see it that way. As I had suspected, we were the only group invited who did not affirm that this group of students were right in pursuing whatever their loins tell them.

I was prepared for an opportunity for white martyrdom and perhaps a little red mixed in. Each representative group was given seven minutes to present and we were the last. The local UCC campus minister, a rabid anti-Catholic, expressed the view that Christian groups who denied the beauty of SSA disorder and the”relationships” that arise from such were evil, to be equated with the evil of Nazi Germany and that she was on a mission to fight and eradicate them. I half expected her to throw something. However, I could share with her the sense of compassion that she felt for these poor lost souls, even if her method of compassion was gravely misplaced.

All of the “death is life” affirming drivel (i.e. your sexual attraction is who you are so embrace it and act upon it) that these suffering young kids (along with the 60 year old guy in the third row with the long flowing black wig) heard left my head spinning. I was asking myself, if these people who are supposed to be “ministering” to these kids and who see their suffering, all are continually telling them they are o.k. and the pain that they feel is the fault of those at the end of the panel (i.e. Emily and yours truly) because they are telling them that they have something wrong with them, then what are the chances of getting the authentic message of healing and hope in Jesus Christ through to them?

It was very fortunate that Emily was there, because when it came our turn to speak my head was still swimming with the overwhelming questions of how to respond to each of these falsehoods that the previous panel members put forth. Emily gave her prepared statement, doing an excellent job by the way. She told the students of their dignity as persons because they were created in the image of God. She told them that no one had the right to deny this dignity and apologized on behalf of the Church for any of her members who might have contravened this truth. She also told them though that the Church has the fullness of the gospel message and is therefore an expert in the human person and that she was there to give them the message and the strength to become the glory of God–man fully alive. She then mentioned to them about the Courage apostolate which was there for any one who was “struggling with same sex attraction.” That final statement got some sneers but no tomatoes.

I answered the questions. One of the questions was about the source of moral rightness and wrongness. I mentioned divine law and natural law and of course spent the most time on natural law. In this I attempted to counter the atheist/unitarian anthropologist on the panel who admitted that we are at a point in human history that for the first time human beings actually consider same sex attraction to be an ontological aspect of their personhood (in so many words any way). But also he also avered to natural law as biologism and the plurality of sexual expression in various cultures and times. It was this I was attempting to counter by telling one questioner that we are body-soul unities and that we can affirm this in part, through universal experience. As such, what we see in our visible bodies gives us insights into what happens in our whole persons–our unity of body-soul.

So in sexual intercourse, we see that the natural telos is procreation–a human person. However, there is more going on in this act. We can and often do get a sense that the marital act tends toward the unification of two people into a moral union, though outside of the proper circumstances this sense is often distorted and even destroyed. So there are two aspects, at least, of the marital act. One is visible and procreative and the other is invisible, spiritual if you will, and unitive. But as the body cannot be separated from the soul without destroying the person (qualifications aside), the visible aspect of the marital act cannot be separated from the whole without destroying it.

Thus, sexual intercourse can be life giving love for the couple who engage in it only if it is an act which is open to and has the structure of life giving love in the whole of it. This means that the two must be in an irrevocable , exclusive, faithful, sacramental if Christian, union and each act of marital communion must be open to procreation. This is why the Church teaches that sexual intercourse is meant only for marriage between two complementary persons (male and female-who alone have the complementary gifts necessary for their personal and the union’s flourishing) and that the act must be open to its life-giving potency.

The audience member responded that he hears about this teleology being an indicator of the order of nature but that this just doesn’t correspond to his experience or reason. Unfortunately, we ran out of time and had to leave so we didn’t pursue this any further. That aside, a concise response showing him how personal experience is not always reliable did not immediately occur to me. However, as usually happens, I think of later what I should have said at the time.

To an earlier question, I had explained that natural law can tell us the difference between the things that “are” but are not as they should be, and those things that “are” and are as they should be. I used the example of cancer to show that while it exists, it does not belong to the natural order in the proper sense because it has no telos and in fact it disrupts the telos of the organism which is afflicted by it. I also indicated that inclinations, even natural inclinations, cannot always be followed but have to be subjected to reason. I gave as an example that when I follow my natural inclination to eat whenever the inclination occurs, I become fat and medically unsound.

If I were quick-witted, I would have immediately gone back to the last example in order to explain to the questioner why he needed to be cautious about what he intuited from his experiences. We are body-soul unities. Much of our natural constitution, we share with animals. However, we are different than the animals. Our appetites, emotions, sense knowledge, etc (let’s call them our affectivities) supports especially that aspect of our nature that we share with the animals. However, the affectivites are not equivalent with those of the subpersonal animals. Our affectivites are ordered to reason, the faculty which distinguishes humans from subpersonal animals. We can easily see from experience they are different because while animals can flourish by following their inclinations, human beings do not. We damage ourselves when we act like animals (i.e. habitually respond to our inclinations as if they were no more than irresistible instincts).

In our fallen state, our affectivities are no longer easily controlled by our rational faculties. The integrity between our sensible faculties and rational faculties that was ours with original grace, is no longer there. And so we experience an interior conflict between what our rational faculties recognize to be the authentic good, and the apparent good that our sensitive faculties present to us. We now experience our affectivities in a way in which they appear to be so insistent, almost (but not) irresistible, that we often choose to eliminate the tension by giving in and “rationalizing” as to why we did so later.

What we must realize is that these human affectivities are goods. They are meant to be, and are, authentic and compelling truth tellers made to motivate us to overcome inertia that might otherwise keep us from acting (e.g. love which allows us to put aside our inclination for survival in order to save our child in danger). But they are suppose to be subordinated to the rational faculties. They tell us the truth about what are goods that deal more (but not entirely) with the animal aspect of our nature and so they are more likely to respond to lower goods, regardless of whether or not pursuing those goods will damage the higher, authentic good. This is what we call concupiscence, or the inclination to sin.

In addition, often in our fallen state we confuse and conflate our experiences. We often confuse pleasure–an affectivity associated with the sensible aspect of our soul, with joy–an experience associated with our spiritual faculties. Pleasure is limited, is reduced when shared, and deals with the immanent. Joy is transcendent of ourselves and in fact, is oriented toward the Transcendent. Joy is the experience of the happiness for which we were created. Pleasure can come from illicit experiences, joy can only come from our authentic human experiences…i.e. our naturally and morally ordered human actions.

In this young man’s case, when he said that his experiences did not indicate to him that same sex attraction is contrary to human flourishing what he meant is that he experiences this interior tension called sexual attraction oriented toward those of the same sex that seems to be a good. When he resolves this tension by engaging in acts that the inclination suggests to him that are a good, the interior tension is resolved, though temporarily. At the same time he experiences pleasure in the act from the affectivities working as they are supposed to act. All of these appear to him to be goods. However, the experience of pleasure and relief of the tension which arises because of unfulfilled sexual desire do not indicate human flourishing–i.e. authentic joy.

If we take the example of eating whenever the inclination arises (though eating is not disordered in itself) we can see that we also experience the same resolution of the interior tension that is drawing us to eat and we experience the pleasure that comes from eating. However, this experience does not tell the complete story. It will only be in the long run that I will come to realize that the habitual giving in to the desire to eat has made me a slave to my passions and that the health implications will begin to take their toll. All of this could have been foreseen and avoided if the inclinations had been subjected to reason in the first place. Thus, in the fallen world, one cannot simply dismiss reason (common sense?) because one’s interpretation of his experience does not immediately accord with the dictates of nature.

This is the problem of the man of concupiscence (see related post). By the way, the new English translation of JPTG’s Theology of the Body replaces “lust” “concupiscence.” While concupiscence is the inclination toward the lower goods at the expense of the higher goods, lust (most often) means that we have interiorly consented to acting on the apparent goods. John Paul actually meant concupiscence.

The man of concupiscence is living east of Eden. He no longer has the inherent integrity that came with original grace. The result is that self-possession is no longer a simple reality but it is a task to be achieved. We have to practice virtuous living if we are to achieve it. The fallen world also leaves open the possibility of disorder, such as we have with SSA. Giving in to disordered passions more quickly and severely damage us and make the recovery of self-possession more difficult.

Because we live in a Freudian culture of death that says resisting your inclinations is the source of pathology and that the way to happiness is to express yourself in whatever way you are inclined. Lust, therefore, is now good our culture tells us. It doesn’t take much to see the satanic origin of this idea. It becomes clear when one sees its trajectory is spiritual, and often physical, death. It is not an easy task to reach the man of concupiscence, especially one who is severely burdened with distorted inclinations, in a culture that encourages him to pursue the way of death. However, I am very grateful that Providence has left us with such a powerful tool for this era of confusion, in John Paul the Great’s Theology of the Body.

These were the options I heard a CNN correspondent claim that college co-eds were going to have to make this year . . . well, o.k., not in these terms. It seems that pharmaceutical companies have had to eliminate the subsidies for oral contraceptives that they used to make to the health departments at schools of higher education due to the apparently unintended effect of a new law (see this WSJ article from July).

Well, the prices are going up from about $20 for a months supply to around $50 for name brands. CNN did not mention the generic options that the WSJ article mentions. This is probably because, as the WSJ article claims, it is unfair to ask women to change from a brand that they are comfortable with. So, CNN asserts, this means that many co-eds will end up having to choose between books, food, or contraception. Hmm . . ., a few thoughts here.

Another option that CNN didn’t mention that was in the WSJ article, is co-eds using their parent’s insurance for this. Perhaps this is unconscionable in the mind of the CNN reporter because, as the WSJ article says, this would require forfeiting the student’s privacy. We cannot have this now can we? After all, this is the foundational principle upon which our most cherished ideals stand . . . the right to off our unborn.

Now, this breathless, “the sky is falling” coverage is par for the course for most television reporting these days. However, the underlying logical contradictions make it noteworthy. You see, co-ed simply have to fornicate. If they meet a guy at the football game or the bar, or perhaps they might even have a meaningful relationship, they do not the capacity to say no to sex. Our media assumes that they cannot decline sex (unless the guy is unpleasing I suppose) because they are just animals who are driven by instinct or, at least, they would develop some sort of psychological complex by not submitting to their ids’ demands. Freud has done his work well.

However, in the same breath, the reporter says that they do have the capacity to choose to eat, or buy books. Abortion was the other option that was mentioned (surprisingly after having the child but I suppose this option was for the dramatic effect of having to destroy your life because you wanted to eat), which again is a choice. But the underlying presupposition is that they will get pregnant. So we are more than animals. We have a choice to eat, or buy books, or purchase expensive contraception, or leave school and have a baby, or simply eliminate the unwanted biological material from the womb. But wait, no we are not more than animals, we must submit to our sexual desires whenever they arise . . . again, unless the guy is ugly. We either have the capacity for self-mastery or we do not. We cannot have it both ways, unless we appeal to sentiment, or science, or medicine I suppose.

How can this be, that one would have to choose between a primary material need (nutrition), the primary reason one is at school (education) . . . or so I once thought . . . , or fornication. Not to worry, CNN reports that Congress is going to put a stop to this madness. However, the crisis will not end this news cycle. Until then, if you see a hungry co-ed hanging around your garbage can, open your charitable hearts and give her something to eat. After all, she will need her energy if she is going to make use of that name brand contraception for which she is now paying top dollar.

California-based lecturer and author Dr. Judith Reisman, who has served as an expert witness in lawsuits involving sex abuse, explains why Catholic clergy and laity have every right to sue for Medical malpractice, all those involved in the promotional use of sex therapy centers to cure the clerics who were accused of sex abuse.

These “sexperts” held themselves out as authorities; bishops and vocations directors listened and commonly followed their directives. Yet, almost all of these “sexperts” built their therapies on the fraudulent research of Kinsey and his disciples.

Susan Brinkman gives the details in her book, The Kinsey Corruption (Ascension Press). Certain Catholic Church administrators hired sexuality educators who taught Kinseyan values. This employment pattern held as well for some selected psychologists who screened aspiring seminarians, many of whom were rejected because they were said to be too sexually “orthodox,” not “tolerant” of homosexuality. Bishops sent pedophile priests for treatment to therapists who accepted pedophilia as an “orientation.”

It’s time for those who contributed to the sex scandal, also share the culpability and responsibility. Unfortunately, they are not likely to admit in their failures, nor are they a popular target of focus by the media or those with an anti-catholic agenda.

California Catholic Article

Disclaimer: I nor this blog take responsibility for anyone offended by the fact that we included a post regarding sex abuse in the Catholic Church that does not vilify priests or the Church . This is NOT to say that all credible accusations made against priests or anyone else for that matter should be assumed to be false, nor should every accusation assumed to be true until a prudent investigation has been completed. I acknowledge the fact that there are real victims who were victimized by Catholic priests and this did damage to those abused, the families, and to the Catholic Church. All of the victims should be treated with compassion and respect. I also acknowledge the fact that some Catholic clergy in positions of authority acted irresponsibly in the sex abuse scandal. I support financial settlements for assistance with psychiatric care/interventions for all victims of sex abuse, not retirement funds and lottery equivalents for alleged victims and their attorneys . I also believe those in the psychiatric industry bear part of the responsibility in the damage done in returning priests who sexually abused children back into the ministry and should publicly issue an apology to the victims of sex abuse as well as apologize to the Catholic Church for their malpractice. I also believe that there are those who exploit the Church and innocent priests for their own selfish desires and agendas and do not take into consideration any damage done to innocent men who are wrongfully accused and that they justify their actions as a legitimate means of weakening the Church and it’s global authority on issues of faith and morality.

The German Federal Health Education Center has two pamphlets called “Love, Body and Playing Doctor” which instruct parents on child sexual development- the first addressing children from 1-3 and the other children from 4-6 years of age. As a prime example of the social contract theory of morality gone wild, one of these pamphlets actually encourage parents to sexually massage their children as young as 1 to 3 years of age.

“Fathers do not devote enough attention to the clitoris and vagina of their daughters. Their caresses too seldom pertain to these regions, while this is the only waythe girls can develop a sense of pride in their sex,” reads the booklet regarding 1-3 year olds. The authors rationalize, “The child touches all parts of their father’s body, sometimes arousing him(?). The father should do the same.”

For kids who like to sing, there’s a sing-a-long song-book entitled “Nose, belly and bum” which have the following lyrics: “When I touch my body, I discover what I have. I have a vagina, because I am a girl. Vagina is not only for peeing. When I touch it, I feel a pleasant tingle.” The booklets are an obligatory read in nine German regions used for training nursery, kindergarten and elementary school teachers and to make matters worse, home schooling is illegal in Germany.

What exactly constitutes pedophilia in Germany? Correct me if I’m wrong, but any person who is sexually aroused by a child’s touch and assumes others feel the same is most likely a pedophile. Any individual who would even consider touching ANY child, let alone their own daughter, with the objective of sexual pleasure should be considered a sexually deviant pedophile. In fact, it sounds as though these pamphlets could be a how to handbook of excuses for pedophilia.

Source: LifeSite

“After severe criticism from German and Polish parents, medical and psychological experts the German government’s Ministry for Family Affairs has pulled two booklets aimed at parents of toddlers and young children which advocated parent-child sexual massage” (more)

The man, who now calls himself Rhiannon O‘Donnabhain, is suing the IRS in an attempt to advocate for those who desire to undergo “transgendering”  surgical procedures with the hope of forcing the tax agency to manage these surgical procedures as any other tax deductible medical procedures. The case is set to go to trial July 24.

The IRS cited a section of the tax code which states that cosmetic surgery or similar procedures are only deductible when they are required to improve or repair a congenital abnormality, an accident or trauma, or a disfiguring disease. The attorney for O’Donnabhain argued that because gender-identity disorderis a recognized mental disorder and is generally treated with hormones and surgery, the costs are legitimate medical deductions. The plantiff believes the motivation behind the IRS is rooted in politics and prejudice.

You would think common sense would dictate that mental disorders would be treated with psycho-therapy and medications, but then again, we’re talking about sex here.  What’s probably most discouraging is that, more often than not, those with sex disorders have a slim to no chance of receiving the appropriate therapy due to the inmates in the psychiatric community who are running the asylum.

The title of this post comes from a book written by retired priest, Father Richard Sipe (site has been take down) , who recently voiced his dissatisfaction with the list released by the Diocese of San Diego that contained the names and parishes of 38 priests who were accused of sexual molestation. He’s challenging the Diocese to release thousands of pages of documents that he insists show a history of lies and cover-up of catholic clergy sexual misconduct. Fr. Richard Sipe who is now an anti-catholic activist, used to be a Benedictine monk, turned Roman Catholic priest from 1959 – 1970. Even more remarkably, he was involved in the psychiatric treatment of many catholic clergy who sexually abused children, during the time when the consensus among the psychiatric community saw this sexual disorder as a curable behavior.

Since “retiring” (but still bound to celibacy) from the priesthood in 1970, he eventually married and blames the tradition of celibacy as the cause of clerical sex-abuse and the source of deception, lies, cover-up. His method of condemning celibacy is justified by bringing into question the celibacy of our Lord:

Whatever we believe about Christ’s divinity, Jesus was a man. He was a perfect moral human being. He was good in every respect. But he was a complete man, fully human, and therefore he possessed sexuality. These are logical deductions. At the very least (however distasteful the thought to Jansanists, Opus Dei-ites and their like) we must admit that Jesus had a penis. Jesus had erections, and yes, he must have experienced ejaculations no matter how deep in sleep.

The scriptures, however, say nothing about Jesus and sex. He is not presented as a married man, but neither is he presented as celibate in the clear terms that St. Paul describes of himself. There is a tradition that Christ was celibate, but that is not based on scripture. Only fourth century documents say that the celibacy of Jesus has been a constant tradition.

Why are questions about Christ’s marital status or his sexual orientation so threatening? If Jesus was married, or if Jesus was a homosexual (or even if he masturbated during adolescent experimentation) in what way would it change his example or his message?

Likewise the idea that Jesus was a homosexual can also be anchored in the bible, specifically in the evidence of his closeness with the Apostle John, and a text in Mark’s Gospel.

His belief that close relationships among men “anchor” the idea of homosexual inclinations tells us a great deal about Sipe and his distorted sense of reality. Thus, while demented, it is not surprising when Sipe preaches that priests assume power in the Church by the mandated rules of sexual morality which include issues pertaining to celibacy, fornication, homosexuality and masturbation. If priests actually believe in and practice celibacy, they abandon their “won judgment and minister without insight or compassion.” If they don’t believe in the system, they must secretly use their own pastoral judgments which bear the fruit of a ministry marked by prudence and compassion.

If there’s any good news in this story, it’s the fact that Fr. Sipe has left the active priesthood. In all that I have read so far about his account of the sex-abuse cover-up, I find that he never points the finger at himself, preferring to assume the role of an impotent spectator. In the reality of Sipe’s world, he is incapable of seeing that it was he, who was in a position to take action and do something, yet he did and said nothing for decades after leaving the priesthood. Judging by hindsight, he condemns just about everyone in The Church among the culpable, except for himself. There’s just something about a prideful heart that is incapable of enduring any feelings of guilt or shame in oneself, leaving one to search out a scapegoat to attain some sense of relief.

UPDATED: Here is a blog of Fr. Sipe and two other priests (site has been taken down) who have joined in his efforts to blaspheme The Church and the sacred nature of human sexuality, where in one section, he actually takes it upon himself to “out” all the Bishops he suspects have same-sex attraction, including those who have since died.

UPDATE - COMMENTS CLOSED: Comments are closed due to the high emotional nature of the subject, which make it rather difficult for some to take an honest and objective look at what is being discussed. This is not productive or beneficial, especially to those who are not open. Thanks for your comments which will stay up, unless you request otherwise.

Well, this week was the annual Sex Out Loud “fair” hosted by the University of Illinios student organization, Feminist Majority.  In response, three student organizations in association with St. John’s Catholic Newman Center brought in Dawn Eden as I had previously mentioned.

There was a very good turn out for Dawn’s talk the night before the SOL fair.  We probably had around 100 students in attendance.  The response was generally very positive to her talk and based upon the sales of her book it seems, very well received.  One student even made the comment that she felt blessed to have been able to hear Dawn’s witness and her description of the joy she found in living a chaste life.

Wednesday morning, Dawn and the students headed over to the student union for the fair.  Apparently the chaste birds are also the early birds as they were the first to arrive and got their choice of tables.  Whether this was the reason or not, their table turned out to be the most popular.  They had copies of Steve Kellmeyer’s book “Sex and the Sacred City” on CD, chastity pamphlets one of the students made up, Dawn’s books of course, cupcakes, and in addition, Dawn had brought with her about 100 miraculous medals.  She gave them all away.

Moved by the grace of the medals no doubt, Dawn led the students in a spiritual assault on the Planned Parenthood table.  They offered each of the PP workers a medal as a “Peace” offering.  I’m sure the PP folks did not recognize the significance of the term “peace” in the context of covenant peace or that they were being quietly evangelized.  The workers accepted them.  I told Dawn at dinner last night, that I expect one day to read a conversion story about how someone gave her a miraculous medal at a sex fair one day…  Hopefully, Dawn will have more to say on her blog.

It was interesting to read some of the reporting on the “fair.”  The front page story of today’s issue of the student newspaper, the Daily Illini, focused on the students’ chastity table (though the pictures they ran along with it showed the infantile displays of feminine genitalia at the fair).  It is interesting to note some of the comments from those who object to the message of chastity.  The former president of Feminist Majority had this to say:

Kristen Rains, University alumna, former president of the Feminist Majority and former Daily Illini employee, said she thinks abstinence-only education is repressive because it is typically only directed toward women. “Personally, I didn’t want to admit them,” Rains said about the pro-abstinence group. “I feel like abstinence only is anti-women, anti-feminist.”

I don’t quite follow her logic.  Besides her mistaken impression that chastity means simply abstinence from sex, it is not clear to me that even if her dubious opinion about its typical orientation toward women is correct, how it could possibly be “anti-women, anti-feminist.”  Perhaps she explained this to the reporter but it did not make it into print?  Who knows.

There was another article in today’s Daily Illini reacting to an op-ed piece by Part-Time Pundit John Bambenek, who plugged Dawn’s talk and the chastity table at the fair.  This young lady’s thinking is even less lucid.  I cannot tell what the author is really intending to say.  Perhaps this is due to a quick deadline?  I dunno.  However, I wonder about the editorial standards at the DI for even allowing this to be published.

Here are some quotes perhaps you can help me with:

Although Bambenek briefly touches on adultery, he discusses it in terms of an emotional consequence, but, especially if you were having “natural” sex, there are potential physical consequences as well.

Unless a couple is trying to procreate, the use of condoms as a means of not only pregnancy prevention, but protection from life-altering STDs is strongly recommended by most medical associations.

Huh?  I suppose the second paragraph is intended to support the first but since I cannot figure out what either of them is trying to say, I can only guess at a relationship.  Here are a few more:

Also false is the contention that the degree of a person’s “sexual freedom” is in any way tied to their emotional growth.

The “sexual empowerment of women” through the advent of contraceptives was not intended to destroy the romantic relationship.

A promiscuous person is as capable of loving (emotionally and spiritually) as a chaste one.

Furthermore, no one has the right to force their views of how a relationship “should be” upon your access to information. Sex Out Loud acknowledges that there are many types of sexuality, including chastity.

Information will be available on each of these choices. Sex Out Loud IS a sexual health fair; what it is NOT is an attempt to control the behaviors of others.

Now I know that in print, stealing extra words is nearly impossible, but there still seems to be no logical argument here, just the spraying of personal feelings in stream of consciousness fashion.  Is this article emblematic of the “rigorous” thinking of those who support cultural hedonism?  Me thinks that it may indeed…

“The Female Brain“, written by the self proclaimed feminist, Dr. Louann Brizendine, is quite interesting in the fact that applying the results of clinical work and scientific analysis, Brizendine was forced to concede that everything she had been taught about gender was wrong. As she put it, “I know it is not politically correct to say this but I’ve been torn for years between my politics and what science is telling us. I believe women actually perceive the world differently from men.” It’s a good lesson to remember that we become who we are and what we believe, partly through the experiences of our lives; but as individuals, there are those of us who seek the truth, and those who reject anything that contradicts what they want to believe as true. Well done Louann!

Source