Only one solution?

Ellen Goodman begins her diatribe against the ban on partial-birth abortion by referring to a historical Supreme Court case (under Justice Joseph P. Bradley) that ruled that women are unfit for public life because working outside of the home is contrary to their nature as wives and mothers. She goes on to compare this ruling to the recent Supreme Court decision to uphold the ban on partial-birth abortion, claiming that the Supreme Court is once again trying to legislate what is good for women.

Regulating women (Ellen Goodman ~ Boston... - Care2 News Network

Abortion is inherently harmful to women, their argument goes, because it violates a woman's true "nature," her role as a mother. This would be familiar stuff to Justice Bradley, but Justice Kennedy also wrote about "the bond of love the mother has for her child," suggesting that any true woman would suffer.

I don't deny that some women feel regret as well as relief after an abortion. More than 30 million American women have had abortions since Roe v. Wade. Each unwanted pregnancy comes with its own story of a failed contraceptive or failed relationship, of an economic or a health crisis.

Some women do indeed feel coerced by men or by parents. Surely thousands have suffered from the crisis they faced and the decision they had to make.

But to this range of individual dilemmas, the pro life argument offers only one solution: Criminalize abortion. To this range of life stories, it offers only one kind of "help": Take the decision out of her hands. Now their argument has been folded into a Supreme Court decision. As Yale Law School's Reva Siegel said, "The opinion imagines that the state knows better than women what they really want and need in matters of motherhood."

I want to first focus on the last argument here. Ms. Goodman's argument reminds me of a debate I had with my aunt about the Church's teaching on contraception. She was arguing that contraception must be made legitimate because a woman has the right to protect herself against an abusive husband or boyfriend who pushes sex on her. She argued that in such cases there is no way that Natural Family Planning could work.

My aunt made a very similar argument to Ms. Goodman's, "the only solution the Church offers a woman in such a condition is to get pregnant." The same is true of Ms. Goodman's claim. Is criminalizing abortion really the only solution offered by pro-life groups? Most pro-life groups that I am aware of support a total respect of reproduction, including the promotion of abstinence education (another thing that Ms. Goodman ridicules). Efforts include pregnancy crisis centers, houses for single pregnant mothers, and promotion of adoption. These and other solutions preserve the dignity of motherhood. Far from taking the choice out of women's hands, pro-life groups attempt to empower women to make the best choices, before they choose to have sex and after the natural consequence and purpose of sex occurs in their bodies. It is Ellen Goodman who is removing choice - by narrowing the decision to two options: kill your baby or suffer with an "unwanted baby."

This is exactly the point where Ms. Goodman's modernist philosophy comes to bear. I think I would find my self disagreeing with Justice Bradley's ruling that women should not work outside the home. However, my reason for disagreeing would be very different from Ms. Goodman's. For me, Justice Bradley's argument is a misapplication of a true principle. Women and men are different, and therefore play different roles in society. It does not necessarily follow that they should not be part of the workforce, or that they should not follow careers. In fact, women should be in the workforce precisely because they are different from men. While men approach their careers from the male perspective and in the role of fathers, women approach their careers from a female perspective and in their role as mothers. Motherhood and fatherhood are roles not limited to the upraising of children.

Modernists see Justice Bradley's ruling in a completely different light. Modernists don't believe that there is such a thing as motherhood, or womanhood, or fatherhood, or manhood. For a modernist, his ruling is an imposition of a subjective label (motherhood, fatherhood, male, female) on a culture. Modernists also see his ruling as a power struggle between men and women, in which men try to impose a subservient role onto women in order to keep them under their thumb. They see attempts to interfere with "abortion rights" in the same way.

This viewpoint also feeds into the liberal view of government. For modernists, the purpose of government is to ensure individual liberty, defined as the right to do whatever you want - ultimately, to make up whatever reality you choose to live. If modernists believed in such things, they would have a tough time coming up with any proof that America was founded on this view of government. Contrarily, our country was formed on a much more Catholic view of government. The purpose of government is primarily to protect the common good. The common good includes some fundamental freedoms and rights, but throughout history a society that allowed its citizens to do whatever they wanted whenever they wanted was doomed to failure.

Are gender roles important to the common good? If we examine our culture it doesn't take too much thought to see that our culture is suffering due to the failure of families, higher divorce rates, and lower marriage rates. This is what Justice Bradley was trying to prevent. Keeping women out of the workforce was probably not the way to do it, but a way must be found to bring back parenthood as a value in society and to truly respect gender differences. Government has a stake in this question because how we treat family and gender roles affects all of society.

So what about partial birth abortion? Does government have a stake in the question about whether or not abortion is good for women? Does government have a stake in the question about whether or not a medical procedure should be legal? Clearly, if you consider the purpose of government the protection of the common good, the answer to both of these questions has to be yes. Finally, can somebody please tell me how killing an unborn baby is good for women's health? Let's face it - no matter what your view of gender roles and government, killing babies in order to preserve personal freedom is depraved.

Powered by ScribeFire.

P.S. Ellen Goodman also makes the following claims:

The abortion-hurts-women argument had its first incarnation in repeatedly debunked attempts to link abortion to breast cancer. Now anti abortionists have fabricated an entire mental illness they name post-abortion syndrome, which has been debunked by study after study.

It is my understanding that Ellen Goodman is simply wrong in calling these findings debunked. Notice that she didn't provide any reference for the studies, which isn't absolutely necessary, but it would be nice if she did. A 1995 study by pro-choice researcher Janet Daling identified specific high-risk groups: women under 18 or over 29 had a twofold increase in risk; women with a family history of breast cancer, an 80% increased risk; and teenagers with a family history who had abortions before they were 18 had an "incalculably higher risk." All 12 of the women in this last category of the study contracted breast cancer by age 45. See also the ABC Link home page

I am less familiar with studies on post-abortion syndrome. It seems to me that PAS is simply an application of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, identified more in clinical settings than by studies. Certainly the outcomes of such projects as Project Rachel give credence to claims of PAS. However, it is also possible that pro-lifers are overstating their case by giving feelings of guilt and remorse a label as if it were a legitimate psychological disorder. I think pro-life groups do themselves a disservice if this is the case. We don't need to use deception or exaggeration to win our case, and to do so actually hurts our credibility. If anyone is aware of objective studies that show whether or not PAS is real, please leave a comment with the info!

Facing the Facts and the Hypocrisy

Perhaps you have heard the bru-ha-ha about Randall Tobias. Tobias was the deputy secretary of state and the first global AIDS czar. Appointed by President George W. Bush, his policies concerning AIDS reflected the president's values. The czar's approach was abstinance education first, including marital fidelity, and the use of condoms only as a last resort. Such an approach is largely untested, showing success only in Calcutta, India because it has only been tried there (by Mother Teresa for the sake of family planning rather than AIDS).

It was discovered that Tobias has been ordering the service the services of a local brothel, probably comitting adultery (though Tobias won't admit to anything more than getting massages for $300 a visit). Another politician has let us down. No surprise, there, really - politicians live in a world of power and money and constant temptation and they fall to it no matter what their political bent. Still, it certainly hurts the cause of promoting public morality to have one of its spokesmen fall to sin.

Of course, the modernists jump all over it. Another hypocrite claiming moral superiority while living a secret life of debauchery! Of course, political commentators rightfully should call politicians on hypocrisy. However, modernists are not content to call out a hypocrite. To a modernist, hypocrisy and any failure to live up to an ideal as proof that all ideals are worthless. Take Ellen Goodman's judgment of Tobias' downfall:

ELLEN GOODMAN: It's The Hypocrisy, Stupid

But there's something worse than hypocrisy, surely worse than finding another bureaucrat who can't practice what he promoted. It's an administration willfully rolling out programs that don't work. It's policymaking that's evidence-proof.

Ms. Goodman does not save her venom for the man who falls, but shares it with the entire ideal of abstinance and self-control.

The believers continue to insist that abstinence is the only 100 percent sure way to prevent pregnancy and disease. But 95 percent of Americans have sex before marriage. In real life, that's a 95 percent failure rate.

Let's examine that claim. We live in a culture that promotes recreational sexuality, that ostracizes virgins, that tries to abolish marriage, that holds a pornographic myth as reality, that relegates the practice of chastity to moralizers who are deep down unable to practice what they preach. And the reason that 95% of Americans have sex before marriage is that abstinence education has failed? I would say rather that 95% of Americans have sex before marriage because America has never tried abstinence education.

Goodman says of Tobias,

The price he'll pay for his "gals" is humiliation. But the biggest flaw in the world of this president and his enablers is not hiding their eyes from human frailty. It's refusing to face facts.

What facts are not being faced? According to Goodman, the facts are that human beings cannot control themselves. Human beings are incapable of saving sex for marriage or of remaining faitful to a spouse. I guess, according to Ellen Goodman, we are nothing more than rutting animals.

Modernists need to face the facts. Human beings have an intellect and a will. They are therefore capable of giving sexuality deeper meaning. They are also therefore capable of exercising self-control and self-determination. Another fact that modernists have to face is that failure to live up to ideals does not invalidate the ideals. Ideals call us to become better than we are. When we fail to live up to them, their presence reminds us of our failure to draw us into compunction, and then to conversion. When we succeed in living up to them, they enoble our lives and protect us against sinful desires.

Removing the consequences for our sins and giving up on our ideals does more damage than exposing us to the danger of AIDS. It destroys our humanity - making us into animals that use each other and that live only by the dictates of power. Face the facts - ideals are necessary and good, including chastity.

Why You Can't Always Trust Theologians

Professor Daniel C. Maguire of Marquette University wrote a letter to the bishops of the United States to tell them why they are wrong. He included two pamphlets, one explaining why abortion and contraception are sensible choices and the other supporting homosexual marriage. What ires me more than Maguire's insistence on calling evil good is his underlying claim that theologians know God's mind better than the bishops. Here is part of Maguire's response to the bishops' censure:



Statement of Professor Daniel C. Maguire to American bishops

When I speak I speak as one theologian. When the bishops (who are not theologians; they are pastors and administrators) speak on moral issues they pretend to speak for the whole church. It is arrogant of the bishops to claim a monopoly on insight in the Catholic community. According to Catholic teaching the Holy Spirit does not restrict illumining grace to three thousand bishops and the pope. History shows, as Cardinal Avery Dulles, S.J. has written, that there are multiple magisteria in the Church (including the wisdom of the faithful, sensus fidelium, and the wisdom of theologians) which historically have been mutually corrective.

There are a few basic things that a good theologian should know and internalize. To my mind, the most fundamental knowledge for any Catholic theologian is how the Magisterium works. Maguire's claim that the magisterium is made up of the bishops, the people and theologians is a half-truth that displays confusion over the way Christ chose to guide His Church. Cardinal Dulles' explanation of how the sensus fidelioum, theologians and the bishops work together in a way that is mutually corrective. They sift through Divine Revelation, debate, clarify, disagree, and more carefully define. However, this process is not where the guarantee of truth is found. The Holy Spirit was given to the apostles, and therefore to the bishops in unity with the pope, to lead the Church to truth. The messy, human process of struggling with the truth is authoritatively clarified by the Holy Spirit through the official teaching power of the Church. On their own, bishops may be wrong, as was the case when so many of them embraced Arian heresy. However, united under the pope in the official teaching capacity the cannot err. Such was the case when the Council of Nicaea condemned Arianism and taught authoritatively that Jesus Christ is both God and Man. If the Church really worked the way Maguire claims it does, we would all be Arians today.

Furthermore, Maguire claims that the Church's teachings on sexuality, abortion, contraception and homosexuality are created by the whim of the bishops, who (he reminds us) are not theologians. He seems to assume that there is no theology behind these teachings. He couldn't be more wrong. The works of Saint Thomas Aquinas, John Paul the Great's (who was a theologian and a philosopher) work Theology of the Body, and many more works by great theologians support the Church's teachings, not just by offering some rhetorical support, but by showing that this teaching is the only way that human beings can find true human development and live in the Will of God. In fact, his arguments in favor of homosexual marriages reveals a complete lack of awareness of a teleological understanding of sexuality. In other words, he does not understand sexuality according to its end - the procreation of children and creation of family. To Maguire, marriage is simply a "unique and special form of committed friendship between sexually attracted persons." This is not the way Saint Thomas Aquinas would define marriage.

In the end, Maguire is just another college professor - a person who thinks that his lofty status and his doctorate make him smarter than everyone else, and apparently someone who embraces the philosophical flavor of the decade, be it communism, modernism, or post-modernism. Not all theologians are like Maguire. In fact, those like him seem to be a dying breed. However, the Catholic in the pews must beware. Having a theological degree does not make a person right, or even intelligent.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Theology Loses Face

The May 2006 edition of First Things contained an excellent series of articles under the title, "Theology as Knowledge." The authors of these articles all agree that theology has unfairly been relegated to opinion, emotion, and fancy within the walls of the university. Theology is not considered an examination of truth about God. The authors of these articles are also unanimous in their concern for the detrimental effects such an unfair judgment has on the intellectual life of the university, of politics, or law, and of culture as a whole.

I certainly agree with these theses. However, I have to wonder of part of the blame for the de-intellectualization of theology lies with Christians. How many times have I heard on Christian and Catholic radio something like, "You don't need intelligence to have faith," or, "Intelligent people aren't necessarily holy people"? While these statements are true, there is a boatload of implications underneath them that are very problematic. I even caught Father Corapi exclaiming, "Some people are too intelligent for their own good." Christians have done it to themselves, or at least they have bought into the attitude handed to them by the university intelligentsia. Either way Christians are perpetuating the myth that theology is not intellectual.
Is too much intelligence really a problem? Sure, intelligent people say stupid things. Intelligent people deny truth. Is the problem with these people their intelligence? I don't understand how the virtue of being able to discern truth can be evil, if all truth comes from God. The problem with these people is much more likely pride. Pride can distort and twist any virtue. Intelligence is not the enemy.

Why do Christians vilify intelligence? A large part of it is that evangelists and apologists don't want the intellectual rigors of theology to scare people away. Most people do not feel that they are intelligent enough to handle real theology. They are intimidated by big words and abstract ideas. If evangelists and apologists get too enmeshed in intellectualizing, they run the risk of alienating their audience. So, to keep their audience comfortable, evangelists and apologists trivialize intelligence in the realm of faith. They focus on simple ideas and on a Franciscan style of faith in action. Unfortunately, by keeping their audience comfortable they separate intelligence from theology. They make faith into blind belief and emotional response.
Our world needs St. Francis. However, it also needs St. Dominic and St. Thomas Aquinas. Evangelists and apologists need to find ways to respect their audience's intellectual inhibitions without trivializing intelligence and theology. In fact, an important part of evangelism and apologetics needs to be building respect for the relationship between faith and reason, and building confidence in people's ability to understand theological concepts.

The loss of respect for theology as an intellectual discipline is part of our cultural decline into relativism. However, Christians need to acknowledge their own role in perpetuating the myth. They need to play a key role in reclaiming the realm of the intellect for theology.

Pope Benedict XVI Criticized for Thinking

I know that Pope Benedict XVI's widely criticized statement about Islam is old news already. However, my brain sometimes works like the Church's thought process - slowly and carefully - and I don't always get in my two cents in a timely manner. I hope my comments are worth the wait, but on this topic I'm not sure I offer anything new. Still, it has to be said.

It seemed that everyone needed to jump on the bandwagon to criticize Pope Benedict XVI for his apparent criticisms of Islam. The editors of my home newspaper even felt the need to chime in.

But as the leader of the world's largest Christian denomination, the pope represents all of Christianity in the eyes of many.

He intended only to start a dialog with Muslims, Pope Benedict has said, but inflaming anit-Christian fervor in an area of the world that already feels itself beseiged by teh United States, which has waged wars and now occupies Iraq and Afghanistan, both Islamic nations, isn't the way to begin.

And although the threats of violence are an extreme overreaction, substitute the name "Jesus" for "Mohammed" in the text the pope quoted -- calling him "evil and inhuman" and think about how Christians would react.

Excuse me? We seemed to have missed a couple of key factors regarding this whole situation. First of all, Pope Benedict was not giving some run-of-the-mill political speech. He was talking to intellectuals, offering an intellectual discourse. While politicians and newspaper editors may be unable to handle the truth of history, intellectuals tend to examine (not ignore or shy away from) historical documents and react to them. Just because an intellectual quotes an historical source doesn't mean he is promoting the idea therein. He is much more likely examining the idea. In the case of Pope Benedict, he was examining the idea of coercing people in to a faith. His conculsion was that coercion is opposed to true faith for any religion - Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, etc.

Finally, how would Christians respond to remarks about Christ? We don't even have to ak that question because we know. Christians have to endure downright slander and lies about their faith nearly daily. The crusades, the Inquisition, Galileo, "Hitler's Pope," the Davinci Code, The Last Temptation of Christ, and the list goes on. How do Christians respond? We whine. We write letters. We boycott. Yeah. That's pretty close to "We will break up the cross, spill the liquor, impose the tax, then the only thing accepable is a conversion (to Islam) or (killed by) the sword." Do I sound bitter? I guess I do. I'm just tired of our anti-intellectual media taking potshots at what they don't understand. We need to learn how to think, and we need to let those who already know how to think do it.

Read the Pope's Actual Text

Read an excellent response to the media's criticism by George Weigel

Ugliness and Evil?

A recent study showed that physical attractiveness is negatively correlated to criminal behavior. In other words, the uglier a person is, the more likely he or she is to perform criminal behavior. I discovered this study quite a while ago on "The Right Questions," a radio show that used to be on Relevant Radio hosted by Sheila Liaugminas. Sheila's problem with the study seemed to be mostly her objection to the idea of the researcher’s comment that "people who are below-average attractive" are more likely to commit criminal behavior. She wondered why the researcher couldn't just come out and say "ugly." Sheila was also piqued by the idea of ugliness - who sets the standard of attractiveness and ugliness? Sheila asked some great questions, such as "How did the researchers collect their subjects?" and "Who were the subjects?" I would like to take an even deeper look at this study and others like it (this is actually a very old idea) from a Catholic perspective.

Now, to be fair to Sheila, the segment of her show this story appeared on was the "news language" segment, in which she focuses on the way people use language. I'm not criticizing her coverage of this story in any way. Nonetheless, I think it is important to take a closer look at studies like this and apply some Catholic moral thinking to it.

First, let’s take a look at the implication of the study. There are two ways to read such a correlation. Throughout history, ugliness had been paired with evil and beauty has been paired with goodness. I don’t think anyone has translated this analogy to real-life in such a way that anybody with a big nose and a wart is assumed to be evil. However, a student of mine took issue with Mel Gibson’s use of the ugly = evil motif. The student did not think it was fair to use children who looked mentally retarded to signify Judas’ demonic tormentors. Where does this motif come from? Its roots are in St. Augustine’s definition of evil: a distortion or a lack of a good that should be present. How does an artist show evil defined in such a way? The artist depicts someone who lacks normal human appearance – it’s not even necessarily lacking beauty, but rather a distortion of “normal” human appearance. Is this motif unfair to those who do have birth defects or who are judged to be “ugly” according to societal standards? Perhaps. Yet, I think the motif is instructive and powerful.

Where we need to be sure we do not make the mistake is to reverse the motif and use it as a real standard. If anything can be said about physical ugliness in the real world, it is simply that due to Original Sin the body fails to truthfully reflect the soul. In Heaven, we believe that our bodies will perfectly reflect the soul – the core of who we are.

I think Sheila Liaugminas may have mistaken the point of the study. Why would anybody even bother to institute such a study? My suspicion is that the study was meant to draw doubt on a jury by one’s peers. The point of the study was probably that people are unjustly judged based on their looks rather than on their true guilt or innocence. On one hand, if this is a true problem and if there is a true solution being offered, such a study could prove to be very valuable. Perhaps justice should truly be blind, and a jury should hear the evidence of a case without seeing the defendant.

On the other hand, there is a problematic line of thinking among modernists that tries to prove that no truth can ever be known for certain. Modernists see courts as part of the power structure that attempts to force its version of truth onto the populace. Modernists cast doubt on all claims to objective truth. This study may be doing that in the area of justice. Does justice really exist? Are people really found guilty based on objective evidence, or are we just slaves to subjective perceptions with no basis in an objective reality that probably doesn’t exist anyway?

There are many questions that I would need to ask about such a study in addition to the very good questions Sheila asked. My first question would be, what’s the point? Why was this study done in the first place? Next I would have to ask what cause – effect relationship was actually discovered by this study. A correlation doesn’t necessarily mean a cause-effect relationship exists. There could be a shared cause or the cause-effect relationship could be indirect. For example, is it possible that people who are considered ugly find it more difficult to make it in society because of a cultural prejudice, and are therefore more likely to be poor and are therefore more likely to commit crime. Finally, I would have to ask what conclusions the researchers would like us to draw about this study.

Chances are pretty good that this study will fall into obscurity exactly because the researchers haven’t shown us why it is significant. I sure would like to know what is behind such a study, though.

In the love of Christ,

Brother Thomas
See Also:
"The Ugly Face of Chrime" from the Washington Post
"Ugly Criminals" from Althouse

Evolution debate not an issue in Catholic schools

The Boston Globe reported on President George Bush's comments that public schools should teach both evolution and intelligent design. Bush made a laudable statement: "'I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought,' Bush said. 'You're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, the answer is yes.'"

However, Bush's open-mindedness has its critics. The Boston Globe article quotes the following statement from the National Academy of Sciences: "'The claim that equity demands balanced treatment of evolutionary theory and special creation in science classrooms reflects a misunderstanding of what science is and how it is conducted,' the academy said in a 1999 assessment. 'Creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science.'" This statement is technically accurate, but it betrays the loss of a true conception of science. The reason this debate is even occurring in public schools is because public schools are built on the philosophies of the Enlightenment and, increasingly, Modernism. Contrary to popular belief, science does not have its origins in the Enlightenment. Rather, the origins of science can be found in the Catholic conceptualization of the world, and indeed in Catholic history. That is why such a debate in a Catholic school would be ridiculous.

"Bush endorses 'intelligent design'" contends theory should be taught with evolution" by Ron Hutcheson, Knight Ridder. Boston Globe August 2, 2005.

Let's take a closer look at this debate, then see why you don't (or at least shouldn't) hear it in Catholic schools. The National Academy of Sciences and the American Association for the Advancement of Science both support the idea that supernatural intervention in the creation of life is not provable by science, and therefore should not be presented in high schools as science. We can agree with this statement for the most part. Science is the study of the tangible world, using tools of sense perception and measurement. God cannot be perceived by the senses and so science cannot directly prove or disprove anything about Him. However, while this statement is technically accurate, it is also insufficient for two reasons.

1. First, science is not the only method at our disposal for knowing truth. The Enlightenment did not create science, as is commonly believed, but it did isolate science from the other paths to truth. Before the Enlightenment, scientific exploration occurred hand-in-hand with philosophical and theological investigation. The Enlightenment judged theology as an unreliable tool for knowing truth, based solely on opinion. Modernism threw out Aristotelian philosophy, claiming that it was based on premises that could not be proven. Neither of these judgments is fair. Theology and philosophy are strict disciplines that are extremely useful in pondering truth. The only "problem" is that these disciplines help us to ponder truths about aspects of the world that are not tangible and measurable, so they are less acceptable to people who believe only what their eyes can see. However, does it take much to prove that there is more to this life than can be detected by the physical senses? Moreover, philosophy and theology provide theories (and the tools to test those theories) about how the scientific facts fit together, what they mean, and why they are significant. Without such an exercise, science can do no more than present us with meaningless digits of information. In the exploration of creation, ignoring philosophy and theology would be foolhardy. No, supernatural considerations are not science. But they are valid approaches to the discovery of truth.


2. Second, there seems to be an assumption that only provable science is taught in high school science classrooms today. This assumption is disingenuous at best and dishonest at worst. The Boston Globe article states the common misconception that the theory of evolution was "first articulated by British naturalist Charles Darwin in 1859." This is not accurate. In fact, Saint Augustine talked about creation as an act of God that slowly unfolded in history. He was probably not the first to do so. What was articulated by Charles Darwin was the atheistic notion of natural selection, the idea that evolutionary changes were passed through history by a process of mutation and competition for survival, all without the guiding hand of a Creator. While evolution and genetic mutation can be studied and measured by science, natural selection cannot. Even to the extent that it can, the claim that no Creator guided the process can be proven by science no more than the claim that Creation had supernatural origins. So, science classes are already teaching unscientific beliefs. Make no mistake about it, atheistic natural selection, known as Darwinism, is being taught in our schools. Look at any of a number of science videos for proof, or read a Biology textbook.

Of course, President Bush's statement is not above reproach either. Don't get me wrong, I am all for a multiplicity of ideas being presented to high school students. However, before we do that, we really need to give high school students the tools they need to analyze various theories and to judge where the truth lies. In other words, we need to teach high school students how to think. This is not a focus in public schools. Unfortunately, President Bush's educational policies, which emphasize standardized testing, do not promote teaching students how to think either. Until students are taught how to think critically about various theories, to judge their strengths and weaknesses, presenting them with multiple theories does nothing more than cause them to despair that truth can ever be known. Of course, this is an outcome that Modernists and Post-Modernists would applaud, but most Americans don't want tax dollars paying for schools that do nothing but confuse our children.

Why should this debate be foreign to a Catholic school? The immediate sardonic response would be that Catholic schools can get away with brainwashing students with propaganda, and therefore do not have to teach evolution at all. Catholic high schools do teach evolution. However, if a Catholic school is true to Catholic intellectual tradition, it does not isolate science from philosophy or theology. So, while students are learning the scientific facts about the origins of life, they are also learning critical thinking so they can explore the various philosophies that try to explain how the scientific facts fit together and what they mean. Catholics have nothing to fear from the truth. All truth comes from God, and therefore all authentic exploration of truth leads to God. Catholic schools should explore science, philosophy, and theology with the sole objective of discerning the truth. If Catholic schools were to do that, we would be able to offer the world a solution to this tired debate.

In the love of Christ,

Brother Thomas

Trying to Understand: the Catholic Answer

Summary: Overreaction and over-correction have led us from one intellectual dead-end to another. Truth has slowly slipped through our fingers. Now we are stuck with an intelligentsia that enjoys entertaining thoughts that they don't really exist, and with a culture that enjoys playing fast and furious with truth in the name of "toleration," "feminism," and "modernism." The sad irony is that the very truth avoided by each of the philosophies that have led to post-modernism is the answer each philosophy was groping for. It may sound egotistical coming from a Catholic, but Catholicism holds the balance of Truth, offering each philosophy of the modern world what it seeks without falling prey to the excesses that have increasingly obscured the truth and trampled on reality.

Modernism and post-modernism formed as philosophies because we were unable to reconcile the human ability to know ideals such as justice, order, truth, and beauty and the human inability to realize those ideals. Modernism’s response was to get rid of the ideals. Postmodernism got rid of everything else. The Enlightenment did not take into account human weakness in its dreams of the perfect society. Between these two extremes lies the tension of Truth held by the Catholic Church. The Church supremely believes in the ideals of the Enlightenment. These transcendent goods come from God, who made human beings to enjoy all goods including the ideals. However, because of fallen human nature our ability to fulfill these ideals has been damaged. We are still called to strive for these ideals, but we must realize that we will never fully realize them. Life for a Catholic is a constant process of reconciliation and growth. We grow toward perfection in the ideals. But when we fail to meet them we seek forgiveness, make plans to grow in our efforts and try again. We don’t have to fall into the disillusionment that ideals don’t exist just because we struggle to meet them. We have the assurance that ideals exist because they are an expression of God’s truth and perfection, He who is the rock and anchor, the way, the truth, and the life. Ideals are not dependent on human frailty. They are grounded in Truth.

The Enlightenment sought to exercise human intellect and free will in order to create a society of justice. However, in their hubris the Philosophes forsook the very source of all truth - God. How can we study Creation without acknowledging the first cause of Creation? The Philosophes' assumption that religion and faith are contrary to enlightened thought was not a reaction to Catholicism. It was a reaction to Nominalism and superstition. The Catholic intellectual tradition has always embraced rationality, science, philosophy, and intellectual rigor. Saint Thomas Aquinas, Saint Albert the Great, and Saint Dominic are just three of the revered saints who saw great value and had great skill in the natural sciences and in philosophy. Catholicism gave rise to universities, rediscovered the works of the ancient Greeks, and gave birth to the liberal arts education. Today, the Catholic intellectual tradition is among the only havens for reasoning and logic. Many believe that the Church is against science. They cite Galileo; stem cell research, and cloning as evidence. However, the Church is a true champion of science because it realizes that science is at the service of true human growth. True science must never be allowed to denigrate human nature or to enslave us to our base desires.

Finally, the beginning of it all was when Protestants broke away from the Catholic Church in response to the abuses and theological error found within Her people. The abuses and errors that Martin Luther and other Reformers reacted against were not actually Catholicism. They were rather erroneous and sinful manipulations of Catholicism that needed to be rooted out. The problem was not the theological beliefs in indulgences or works righteousness, but the sin of Simony - a sin that the official teaching authority of the Catholic Church has always decried. Neither was the problem the hierarchy, established by Christ Himself through the apostles. Rather, the problem was clericalism - ignoring Christ's injunction that His priests were not to lord it over their followers. The problem was not that Sacred Tradition was leading people away from Scriptural truth - the Scriptures came to us through Tradition, Tradition always serves the Scriptures, and both Tradition and Scripture are guided by the Holy Spirit as Christ promised. Rather, the problem was the error of Nominalism allowing ignorant believers to fall into superstition in the name of false “traditions.” Not one of these problems was true Catholicism. They were all errors of a sinful world that got a foothold in the Church due to moral laxity. This happened again in the recent sex scandals when our seminaries became morally lax, encouraging seminarians to explore their sexuality and to embrace homosexual tendencies. Just as human inability to meet the ideals does not mean that they don’t exist, because they are grounded in God, so the sinfulness of the Church's members does not detract from the legitimacy or the holiness of the Church. The Church's holiness and legitimacy comes from Christ and the Holy Spirit, not from any human members. Through the Church, Christ continues to offer His grace to sinners.

Throughout history, the Catholic Church has been the steward of the Truth that humanity seeks. While her members are sinners, and many of them led people astray, the Church is grounded in the Truth and Goodness of Christ. For example, it amazes me that with all of the corrupt and sinful popes in the Church’s history not one of them used the teaching authority of the Church to teach error. Amazing!

Today most people assume that the Church is old fashioned and out of touch with the reality of modern life. However, science is slowly and quietly proving the Church right on her teachings on contraception and abortion. Modernism and Post-Modernism consider Catholicism barbarous. Is love barbarous? Is reason barbarous? These are the things that Modernists and Post-Modernists have sacrificed. In their place they have put power and tolerance. Power defines all relationships in the Post-Modern world. Tolerance blindly accepts all differences, even the criminal and disordered. So I ask you –which philosophy is really barbarous? Isn’t it time we took another look at what we believe?

Trying to Understand 6: Post-Modernism

Summary: Post-modernism follows the degeneration of thought to its logical conclusion. Protestantism forsook the anchor of truth that Truth Himself gave to us in the Church. The Enlightenment went a step further and forsook God as the source and end of truth. Modernism took the next logical step and concluded that if objective truth had no First Cause, then it must all be relative. There is not basis for transcendent truth without God. Finally, post-modernism brings us to the logical end. If all truth is relative, then there is no reason to believe in objective truth at all. In fact, we have no basis for even believing that we objectively exist as persons. If we don’t exist as persons, then subjective truth cannot exist either. Therefore, post-modernism makes the claim that no truth exists at all. The “person” must let go of the restrictions of personal identity that can be used for control in order to become free.

Click the link below to read the rest of this post

Many Catholics assume that anyone who believes in modernism or post-modernism must be insane, lacking basic logic, or politically driven to ignore the obvious truth. However, I have found that the “Fathers of Post-Modernism” are actually quite intelligent. Neither do I believe that they are consciously ignoring reality. Post-modernists are intelligent and aware enough not to try to define reality in a vacuum. In fact, the theories/models that they developed to support their viewpoint are wondrously complex and deep. They could only have been developed by very intelligent thinkers. The problem with modernism and post-modernism is that they begin with a faulty premise (actually, a number of them, as we have seen). If your premise is faulty, your theory is faulty. Modernism’s main battle cry was the dissolution of the ideals of transcendent truth. Modernists blamed these ideals for all of the ills of the 20th century world – world war, poverty, exploitation of the poor, urbanization, pollution, and intolerance. Eradicate these ideals and you avoid these problems. As the 21st century approached, the intellectual world pretty much considered the ideals of transcendent truth dead. Literature, art, architecture, and politics had all embraced the idea that truth is relative and situational. Tolerance had become the new Golden Rule. Victory was theirs, right? There is only one problem. The very nature of modernism meant that intellectuals could not rest. The goal of the intellectual life was no longer to discover truth – that would be to admit that there was such a thing as objective truth. In fact, for Foucault and others, the goal was to never cease moving. The moment you stopped changing your thought system, the cultural powers would catch up to you and try to make your thought process “normative” of their power structure. So once the goals of modernism were fulfilled, new ideas needed to be created. New thoughts needed to be generated. New theories needed to define who we were. Despite their desire to think up something utterly new and unexpected, these new ideas followed a logical progression.

The “fathers” of post-modernism have constructed thought systems to explain the logical conclusion of what has been handed down to them by their intellectual predecessors.

Tree of Knowledge vs. Rhizome of Ideas
For the sake of simplicity, I’m only going to describe one post-modernist theory, the one I consider central to understanding post-modernism as a whole. The model for knowing truth that stems from Catholic and even enlightenment understanding is often represented by a tree. The root of the tree is the Principle that tells us what is fundamentally real. The trunk of the tree is the route through which truth becomes known to us (I would consider the trunk to consist of philosophy, science, and divine revelation). The branches of the tree represent the many areas of study that lead us to the truth. The leaves of the tree represent our many ideas about what the truth is. Therefore, according to this model every idea is ultimately rooted in the fundamental Truth.

A rhizome is a plant system with a network of roots. There is no beginning and no end. A rhizome spreads randomly, flowing here and there at whim. Most grasses are rhizomes. Post-modernism uses the rhizome as their model of “truth.” Truth is a collection of ideas that spread randomly, flow here and there at whim, and are not rooted to any transcendent standards of truth.

The key is that all ideas are rhizomes, including our very sense of self. Post-modernists do not believe that our sense of self is real. In order for it to be real, it would have to be rooted in a transcendent principle of personhood. Since there are no transcendent principles, even the self must be up for interpretation and re-interpretation.

So, let’s say you’re walking through the woods and you see a tree. You put your hand on the tree and an ant walks onto your hand. According to post-modernism, the idea of “you” walking through a “forest,” putting your “hand” on a “tree” and having an “ant” crawl on it is only one way of organizing the constituent ideas. We could conceivably rearrange these ideas in such a way that completely disassembles the idea of the “self.” For example, we could regroup “hand,” “bark” and “ant” in to a single unit. The self is no longer relevant. The experience becomes simply “hand-ant-bark.” I’ll explore ideas about the “self” in a later post. The main point here is that the idea of “self” is not necessary according to post-modernists. In fact, it can be an impediment, or even dangerous. The “self” is used by the cultural powers to track and control ideas and not allow new organizations.

To me, the logical problems with this argument are obvious. If we get rid of the self, then who is the agent doing the rearranging of ideas? In fact, post-modernists go to great lengths to prove that there is not such thing as a moral or intellectual agent. Then who decides how packets of ideas are arranged? What makes up the power that tries to control the ideas? Without a “person” to analyze and arrange ideas, their theory makes no sense. Unfortunately, such appeals to logic fall on deaf ears when it comes to post-modernists. After all, they have thrown away the very basis for logic. Logic doesn’t matter to a post-modernist.

I’m guessing that most Catholics have never heard the complete post-modernist theory, even though they may have heard the terms “modernism” and “post-modernism” berated in Catholic media. However, the effects of modernism and post-modernism are everywhere. Why has modern feminism rejected the idea of gender roles? Gender roles assume that the ideas of “male” and “female” are rooted in transcendent principles that tell us what it really means to be a man and a woman. Why do reconstructionist historians think that they have the right and duty to reinterpret history even if the reinterpretation ignores or distorts certain facts? Historical “truth” is not rooted on any transcendent truth that allows us to interpret historical facts in any “real” way. Therefore, historical facts should be interpreted in a way that denies the cultural powers the ability to manipulate facts in their favor. Morality, art, and literature have also been greatly affected by these thought systems. At some time in the future, I’ll explore each of these areas. We’ll look at the development of thought in each area and explore how the issue came to its current thought.

My next post will be the last in this first string of “trying to understand” posts. In it, I will explain how the descent to subjectivism could have been avoided, and how we might reclaim our grasp on truth.

Trying to Understand 5: Modernism

Summary: Protestantism untethered the anchor of truth by discarding the Holy Spirit's guidance of Christ's Church as a whole. The Enlightenment discarded God as the source and point of reference for truth. Communism cast a shadow of doubt on the truth of "ideals" - the idea that there is a truth that measures how things are supposed to be. After the World Wars, cynicism and pain gave rise to a number of philosophies that carried this line of doubt toward its logical conclusion to discard truth altogether. However, modernist philosophies did not yet carry things that far. They were a step in the direction. For the most part, modernism does not doubt the existence of objective truth. However it casts doubt on any attempt to claim that objective truth carries with it objective meaning.

Click below to read this log entry:

The Enlightenment promised that human reason had the ability to create an ordered society wherein everyone would have the opportunity to prosper. It promised that holding onto ideals that tell us how things should be (moral law, virtue, freedom, etc.) would eventually bring these ideals into the realm of reality. Communism shed doubt on Enlightenment idealism. The two World Wars blew the Enlightenment myth apart. Never before in history had humanity's potential for death and destruction been so clearly demonstrated. Furthermore, it could be claimed that both wars were caused by adherence to ideals. World War I was caused by the ideal of patriotism and nationalistic pride. World War II was caused by the same ideals, mixed with ideals of racial identity. Modernist thinkers decided that ideals were not only impossible to realize, they were dangerous.Modernists certainly bring up points that are worth contemplating. Ideals are difficult to realize. Some are impossible. Ideals do cause conflict, as do various interpretations of ideals. As modernism is actually a group of similar philosophies, it must also be acknowledged that each of these philosophies carries ideas and warnings that are worthy of contemplation.

Deconstructionism: Language has a powerful effect on our understanding of objective truth. Politicians are certainly aware of this fact, and often use it to great effect, despite the stereotypes that paint them as empty liars. Deconstructionism asks the question, “Can objective truth really be known at all, given our dependence on language to communicate and understand truth?” For example, what gives a "table" its identity? Isn't its identity dependant on us naming it a table? What would reality be like if we had no name for table, but instead had a specific name for the space between the table legs? The surface on top of the table would be virtually ignored, while the space underneath would take on special meaning. If language can play such a powerful role in our perception of truth, how do we really know what is objectively true? Deconstructionism gets its name from its tendency to look carefully at our perceptions of truth and "deconstruct" by unpacking how language influences them.

Structuralism: Relationships between things also strongly affect our perception of truth. Very often, we see the world through the perception of relationships of opposites. Males are opposite of females, and defined by not being females. Such a distinction ignores the incredible individuality of each human being by focusing only on the differences between the two groups and forcing each individual to be in one category or the other. This is a main tenant of modern feminism - the subject of a future blog. Take another example - this time not dealing with opposites.

What is this symbol?

Is it a letter?

Is it a music note?

Or is it something completely different?

Its identity depends on its relationship to other symbols. Don’t so many other things in our lives depend on their relationship with other factors? Don't we define ourselves in relationship to others? I am a husband in relationship to my wife, a teacher in relationship to my students, a child in relationship to my parents, a friend in relationship to my friends, and a stranger in relationship to those who do not know me. In fact, without these relationships, do I have any more meaning than the symbol above when taken out of context?

Panopticon / Power Theory: The Panopticon is actually a very relevant and fascinating concept. The “Panopticon” itself refers to a tower in the center of a prison complex wherein the guards could watch all of the prisoners in their cells, but the prisoners could not see the guards. The prisoners would never know when the guards were watching them so they would need to behave in a way pleasing to the guards at all times just in case they were being watched. Eventually, you really wouldn’t need to put guards in the tower at all, as long as the prisoners did not become aware of their absence. The prisoners would never know they weren’t being watched and would behave as was expected of them. More than a possibly effective model of prison management, the Panopticon is a metaphor.

The argument of the metaphor is that modern culture is a Panopticon. The “guards” are the cultural powers that determine what is acceptable and unacceptable in society. Cultural constructions such as media, and especially psychology, create the sense that we are always being watched and evaluated, that reward or punishment is always imminent. In this way, the powers of our culture are able to keep the populace in control.

When modernists use the word “power,” they do not necessarily mean political power. They are usually referring to cultural powers that set societal expectations. Religion is one of the primary suspects here. In a capitalistic society, the media and marketplace are also key players in the power structure. Though “freedom” is exactly the kind of ideal that modernists pride themselves in rejecting, the modernist assumption seems to be that such powers need to be resisted.

Modernism has some valid points worthy of contemplation. We do take the meaning of certain concepts for granted without realizing the effect of language on our understanding of them. Does this mean that language creates all meaning, that concepts only have the meaning given to them by our particular use of language? This conclusion seems like quite a leap. We do need to realize that some concepts gain their meaning from their relationships with other concepts. However, is this true of all concepts so that no concept has meaning in isolation? Again, that conclusion seems quite a stretch. Finally, our media-saturated, psychology-burdened culture does indeed have elements of the Panopticon. However, can we conclude that all of society is therefore evil, slavish, and enslaving? Should we resist all expectations put on us by society? Does society have no value or meaning other than to control people for the good of those in power? What a myopic view of the purpose of society! We do have to be careful about what influences get hold of us, especially in a materialistic, media-centered culture such as ours. However, are all expectations to be resisted? It is evil to conform to standards set by others just because they come from someone other than yourself? Why do I assume that expectations that I set for myself are any better? What would life be like not to strive to meet any expectations at all?

Finally, many people wonder how anyone could be foolish enough to reject objective truth. Modernists did not necessarily set out to do so – they are not insane for the most part. Rather, they became disillusioned with the overconfidence that enlightenment thinkers had in the human ability to meet ideals such as “human nature,” “freedom,” “goodness,” “loyalty,” “integrity,” “patriotism” and “human dignity.” The two World Wars showed beyond a doubt that human beings are not capable of living up to the ideals that gird human moral life. Modernists assumed that the human inability to meet the ideals indicated that the ideals themselves were nonexistent. The rejection of these ideals in turn led to a de facto rejection of the realities rooted in them.

The spread of subjectivism into the culture of the everyday citizen has been slow and for the most part unobvious. Humanistic psychology and New Age philosophy have done a lot to spread subjectivism in ways that seem wise, useful, and acceptable. Morality seems to be the man area subjectivism has been widely accepted. Moral arguments in our society do not tend to center around true moral reasoning. Rather, the “arguments” tend toward the mantra, “Who are you to force your morality on others?” The assumption here is that morality is subjective, having various meanings according to various contexts (Structuralism) or falsely created through the command of language (Deconstructionism) or for the sake of controlling others in order to maintain power (Panopticon).

One way to view morality is a response to objective reality. Morality is also our guide to living the human life well and ultimately living according to our ultimate end, union with God. The abandonment of morality is the abandonment of human life. Modernists explicitly state that they reject the idea that there is a standard for what human beings are “supposed to be.” What is the logical conclusion of this line of thinking? Post-modernism (our current social philosophy) follows it through: rejection of the belief in the human person altogether.

Trying to Understand 4: Communism

Summary: The Victorian Era, building on the ideals of the Enlightenment, had a lot going for it. Human virtue was publicly supported and encouraged. Human development in science, art, literature, and philosophy flourished. Industry and trade benefited from benevolent laws protecting their profit. Technology and transportation boomed thanks to industrial revolutions. European countries prospered and the ideal of civil societies definitely seemed to be realized - at least for some people. In 1848, Carl Marx and Frederick Engels joined other thinkers in criticizing the abuse of the working class, who were sacrificed for the sake of this prosperity. Their famous “Communist Manifesto” did more than criticize the abuses of the day; it called for a complete revolution that rejected the very ideals the Victorian Era was founded on. While the criticisms were largely justified, once again we see the pattern of “throwing the baby out with the bathwater.” Communism threw out all that was good about the Enlightenment in order to correct for its evils.

Don’t take my word for it! Read the “Communist Manifesto” for yourself! Click the link below.

Click below to read this log entry:

The Victorian Age was the age of fulfillment for the Enlightenment. Enlightenment ideals fueled free trade and continuous progress. Enlightenment ideals and the search for profit also fueled expanding globalization. Globalization began to transform nationalistic one-sidedness and narrow-mindedness. It also had a civilizing effect on many nations, offering the promise of prosperity and progress to all. Great cities developed. Culture was cultivated. The Victorian era became a time of great literary and artistic growth. The Enlightened civilization seemed to be reality – at least for some.

The problem, pinpointed by Marx and Engels in the Communist Manifesto, was that all of this progress was accomplished through the exploitation of others, motivated by an insatiable lust for profits. To ensure a constant stream of profit, the Bourgeoisie created need and constantly sought new markets. To ensure a cheap production and high profit margins, they created a working class, the Proletariat, whom they kept poor and dependant on the small salary earned in the factories. Urbanization consolidated power into the hands of the few and made people dependant on the cities for survival instead of being self-sufficient. The working class worked hard to make money, only to spend it on Bourgeoisie products and services that the Proletariat needed for survival.

During the Middle Ages, the Bourgeoisie (the middle class merchants and skilled labor) had battled against the oppression of the monarchy and aristocracy to ascend to dominance. Once dominant, the Bourgeoisie became the oppressors by turning all of society into commodities to be exploited. They stripped “of its halo every occupation hitherto honoured and looked up to with reverent awe.” Human labor was stripped of its dignity. Individuality, so prized by Enlightenment philosophy and still actively expressed in art, literature, and music, was destroyed for the poor workers who became just another “cog in the wheel” – replaceable and unsubstantial.

Progress created the crisis of overproduction. This crisis is solved by increasing demand and finding new markets. A short-time solution, expanding the markets only led to greater potential for overproduction and for crisis. This crisis only made matters worse for the Proletariat. Labor layoffs and factory closings were very hard on families who were barely scratching out a living the way it was.

In fact, Marx and Engels believed that the Proletariat could not take much more. They would inevitably revolt, at first against their local oppressors, but eventually as a united class against the entire Bourgeoisie – against the very system that kept them poor and dependant. This revolution would require the dismantling of all of the oppressive structures that kept them in chains. The system of free trade and monopolistic power needed to come down. The means of production should be shared by all. The power should be shared by all. Everyone has the right to benefit from their own labor – to not be exploited, used and discarded. To make capital public is to free it from class distinction, to use it to enrich the persons of all. “Capital is a collective product” and can only be “set in motion” by all members of a society.

When the revolution happened, the Communist Party would offer the needed support to organize the world-wide effort to change society. The Party would unite the Proletariat, representing their common interests. This party did not base its actions on ideals or principles, but on actual relations existing from a real class struggle. Herein lies the over-reaction that seems concomitant with every reaction against abuses.

The Communist Party put to death the belief in transcendent ideals. Complaints against unbridled greed, unilateral materialism and exploitation were justified and well-grounded. However, Communist philosophy fought these evils by eradicating all of Enlightenment philosophy and of what they considered “Bourgeois” principles. Since progress, globalization and urbanization were used for exploitive purposes, all of these things were considered evil despite the good that these trends can bring. Nationalism was also judged to be evil. Nationalism leads to conflict and competition. It should be replaced with a worldwide community of workers with no competition, since there would be no private goods to compete over. Next, families were reduced by greed and materialism to relationships of extortion. Proletariat families existed only to produce new workers. Bourgeois families were the only ones who were able to enjoy the civilizing benefits of family life, but their business-oriented relationships didn’t allow for true love. Therefore, Communism promotes the abolition of the family and the legalization of “communities of women” – shared sexual relationships without long-term, “controlling” commitments. Finally, Communism viewed all “eternal laws of nature and of reason” with suspicion, if not contempt. “The ruling ideas of each age have ever been the ideas of its ruling class.” Whenever ideas changed in history, according to Communism, it was the effect of change in concrete socioeconomic conditions. Religion, philosophy, natural law, morality, ideas of human nature, and ideas of virtue were all to be cast off.

Accompanying such a radical rejection of the past is a flat, black-and-white view of reality that Christians are often blamed for. Once the Enlightenment eliminated God, Nietzsche’s maxim became relevant: without love, the only thing left is power. For Marx and Engels, all of history was a history of class struggle. The struggle between the Bourgeoisie and the Proletariat was a struggle between good and evil. Communism correctly identifies the evil aspects of Bourgeoisie society, but completely ignores the beneficial aspects of Enlightenment thought. It throws away faith and morality despite its goodness out of paranoia that it is the brainwashing tool of entrepreneurs.

Perhaps this simplistic tendency is the reason Communism rarely works as an actual governmental system. The revolution Marx and Engels never happened. It probably never will. The solution to poverty and exploitation is not to throw away everything that makes human life great out of philosophic paranoia. The solution is to embrace those ideals and to work toward making them a reality. Catholics understand that realizing those ideals completely is not possible in a fallen world. However, we also understand that realizing those ideals is possible to some degree, and the degree to which we can do so will make the world a better place. However, it was the failure to realize these ideals, especially during World War I and World War II that gave rise to the next step toward subjectivism: Modernism.

Trying to Understand 3: Enlightenment

Summary: The Enlightenment took another step toward subjectivism by sacrificing God as the source and foundation of truth. The focus of the Enlightenment was the ability for human reason to create ordered society. This focus preserved the ideals of truth, reason, and virtue. However, it began the modernistic and post-modernistic rejection of ideals by throwing out what the Philosophes considered the superstition of religious beliefs and practices.

Click below to read this log entry:

Nominalism continued to be a problem, in the Catholic Church and among Protestant denominations as the Reformation continued. Superstition continued to seize hold of many Catholics, despite the renewals enacted by the Council of Trent. Charlatans promising miracles and wonders continued to take people's money and their devotion, though much less prevalently than before the Council. Nominalism among Protestant denominations did not usually take the form of superstition, but it had an even greater effect. Religious truth was suddenly up for grabs. The various denominations held opposing views, and even violently opposed each other. Martin Luther fought against Zwingli, who taught for the first time that Christ was only symbolically present in the Eucharist. Anabaptists battled against the idea of infant baptism while other denominations continued to accept the practice. Observers of the chaos began to wonder if theological truth was possible at all.

Desire to nail down objective truth led some seventeenth and eighteenth century thinkers to reject religion and instead embrace only empirical knowledge. Enlightenment thinkers made human knowledge and reasoning into a god. Nothing was considered outside the reach of scientific or rational inquiry. Whatever was not explainable by the human mind was not considered real. Additionally, the "Philosophes" of the Enlightenment believed that all knowledge was derived from sense-experience and from the ability to examine our experiences through reasonable reflection.

For the "philosophe," reason was not only a tool for finding Truth. It was the central principle of life. P.N. Furbank's biography of Diderot points out that Diderot's Encylopedie explains that a philosophe took civil society as his god and saw reason the same way that Christians see grace (23).

To be fair, I must acknowledge that the Enlightenment was not only a response to nominalism. It was also in part a reaction against the intellectual tradition that grew out of the Middle Ages that was centered on the use of knowing the authorities on a subject. It became a matter of pride for the intellectuals of this tradition not to think for yourself, but to know what the geniuses of the field have "always taught." Even before the Enlightenment, Sir Francis Bacon criticized this intellectual tradition as pompous and empty. He believed that intellectuals should only be praised for being able to think for themselves. Enlightenment Philosophes took criticisms like Bacon's even further, and cast into doubt nearly all knowledge that was obtained through tradition - especially in the area of religion. Diderot wrote an essay called "Letter of a Deaf and Blind Man" in which he presents the problem that an intelligent blind man can speak intelligently about mirrors despite lacking accurate personal experience. His perceptions may be completely false, but he may not realize that he is in error, and those who listen to him may not realize his error either because of his eloquent speech. Diderot draws the parallel to theologians, who are blind about life but are able to eloquently speak about it and convince others that their teachers are true (Furbank 60).

It doesn't take too much imagination to see a parallel between the Enlightenment's rejection of established authorities and the Protestant rejection of the authority of the Church. The Protestant Reformation left finding theological truth up to each individual. The Enlightenment left finding all truth up to the individual.

Furthermore, once the Protestant Reformation let go of the Holy Spirit's voice through the Church as the anchor of truth, it wasn't a large step for the Enlightenment intelligentsia to let go of God as the source of truth. Diderot decided to organize his Encyclopedia with humanity as the organizing principle. "Encyclopedia" means "circle of knowledge," signifying that truth has no beginning and no end. Diderot claimed that any system of knowledge or scheme of classification must be arbitrary because the universe merely offers various manifestations of truth that can be approached from various points of view (Furbank 130). Humanity was a logical scheme since human life and society makes use of truth in order to perfect society. Diderot's choices was very pragmatic, but his philosophical rationalization appears very subjectivist. Of course, his thinking is only the logical conclusion of denying God as the beginning and end of truth.

Partial Truth The Enlightenment served the world by reclaiming the tradition of using human reason and scientific method to discover the truth, as the Catholic Church has always encouraged as evidenced by great scientists such as Saint Albert the Great. It put emphasis once again on classic Greek scholars such as Aristotle, the philosopher favored by Saint Thomas Aquinas. Enlightenment philosophers reclaimed traditional Catholic ideas such as natural law, human dignity, and natural rights, which had been neglected or even rejected by Solo Scriptura-believing Protestants. Finally, the Enlightenment's criticism of the overemphasis on memorizing authorities was probably valid. There is nothing wrong with appealing to the experts who have already done the rigorous work of truth finding for you. However, even the authorities could be wrong, and true scholarship means applying the rigors of truth finding for yourself.

However, the Enlightenment placed their hope in the wrong place. I find it interesting that the common assumption is that the Philosophes became atheist because human intelligence somehow finally "outgrew" God. The truth is that Voltaire, Diderot, and many other Enlightenment philosophers rejected God for personal reasons that had nothing to do with intelligence. For example, Diderot was locked in a monastery by his father to keep him from marrying below his station. His brother also joined a monastery and died there, presumably from the poor living conditions of the austere life (Furbank 30). Ironically, while the Philosophes tended to view religion in opposition to true thought, in rejecting God they also rejected the intellectual tradition that developed many of their main ideas. Philosophes replaced God with civil society - the expectation that human reason and virtue could create a perfect society. This false optimism fed Victorian values. Modernism formed after World War II in reaction against the unrealistic ideals of the Victorian era.

[Furbank, P.N. Diderot A Critical Biography. New York: Alfred A Knopf, Inc.l, 1992.]

Trying to Understand 2: Protestantism

Summary: By sacrificing the teaching authority of the Church, Protestant reformers ignored Christ's promise that the Holy Spirit would guide his Church, founded on Peter, to all truth. The Protestant focus on individual interpretation of the Bible paved the way to modernistic subjectivism, as witnessed by the myriads of new denominations popping up every time a pastor develops a new theological bent. I hope any Protestant readers of this blog will consider the ideas in this post - knowing that I mean these words in Christian love - in the spirit of intellectual honesty.

Click below to read this log entry:

The Protestant Reformation began as a reaction against two main problems in the Church. First of all, the Church had been seduced by the secular world, and corruption abounded. Positions in the hierarchy came with rewards of private property in a time when land was the key to power and position in the secular social structure. As a result, key positions were often granted as favors, or given to family members. This practice was called nepotism. Because hierarchical positions were sought for reasons other than service to God and man, they were often neglected. Bishops would leave their dioceses in order to live where the weather was nicer, or where they could escape the pressures of their office. Some bishops were able to gain more than one bishopric, and the land that came with it, but ruling two or more dioceses was not an efficient way to serve. Furthermore, some Church officials attempted to improve their secular well-being by selling spiritual favors, a practice known as Simony. This form of corruption was the first problem against which the Reformation rebelled.

The second problem was the heresy known as Nominalism. My understanding is that Nominalism wasn’t a formal heresy, with teachers spreading it and writing down its tenants. Rather, it was an informal heresy that rose out of an uneducated and neglected laity. Nominalism was the reduction of truth to personal revelation. The Faith was full of superstitions and “mystical” ways to earn God’s favor and to win salvation. When Protestants claim that Catholics believe in earning salvation through works, the kernel of truth to that claim can be found here. The belief that salvation could be earned just by wearing certain medals or scapulars was very popular.

The problem of Nominalism corrupted doctrines that were at their core sound. The most well-known example is the use of indulgences. Indulgences have been part of the faith since the very beginning of the Church, when martyrs and confessors (those who suffered for the faith but did not die) would offer their sufferings for the salvation of others. The Church, with its power to “bind and to loosen” would apply the graces of their suffering to those who needed it (usually those who were in the catechumenate, waiting to be baptized). An indulgence usually came with a spiritual practice – a set of prayers, a pilgrimage, etc. – designed to turn the recipient’s heart away from sin and toward love for God. Unfortunately, Nominalism perverted this practice into the belief that indulgences could automatically send someone to heaven. Some corrupted Church leaders took advantage of the over-emphasis on indulgences and saw an opportunity to raise some money. While giving money can be a virtuous act worthy of an indulgence, grace can never be sold. Martin Luther’s anger against this practice was righteous. Indeed, all of these problems were true problems that needed to be combated.

Unfortunately, the Protestant Reformation overcorrected for these errors. The superstition and theological confusion caused by Nominalism caused a lot of unnecessary paranoia about salvation. What if a person did not do what was necessary to get into heaven? Martin Luther was greatly affected by this paranoia. The Protestant response to this kind of paranoia was the development of doctrines such as solo fide (salvation by faith alone) and predestination. More to the point of this exploration, in their opposition to the human corruption present in the Church, they began to doubt that the Church was divinely inspired and divinely guided. As a result, they embraced beliefs that took power away from the hierarchy of the Church, such as sola scriptura, the belief that the Bible is the only source of divine inspiration. They sacrificed the Biblical truth that the Holy Spirit would guide the Church to all truth and put the task of interpreting Sacred Scripture into the hands of individuals.

Ironically, by sacrificing the assurance of the truth of the Holy Spirit through the Church and placing the onus for interpreting theology on the individual, Protestantism gave free reign to Nominalism even while it stamped out the overt signs of it. Today, Nominalism can be easily found in the myriads of denominations that spring up at the drop of a hat, and in the myriads of contradictory theological beliefs that are glossed over, if not outright ignored, for the sake of “Christian unity.” The Bible is the Word of God, but how is it to be interpreted? Who has the authoritative interpretation? The faithful are left with no solid way to know the objective truth about God. If we cannot know solid objective truth about God, then we cannot truly know solid objective truth about anything. Our journey toward subjectivism begins with the Protestant Reformation.

Trying to Understand

Summary:This past semester, I took an English class called “Seminar in Literature: Revolutionary Fiction.” The class was a survey of literary pieces that shared the “revolutionary” theme, whether they were actually about war or not. More specifically, the course was about the group of philosophies that have become to be known as “Theory.” These philosophies have in common the rejection of the Socratic and Platonic concept of the “ideal.”
Click below to read this article:

To make it short and simple, they reject transcendent truth. If it doesn’t exist in the here-and-now experience, then it doesn’t exist, or it is at least not worth thinking about. You can just imagine what these theories do to the concept of God. The philosophers range from Enlightenment philosophers like Voltaire, Diderot, and Montesquieu to the subjectivist theorists like Foucault and Barthes. In between lies the likes of Marx and Engels, and Sigmund Freud.

As we studied the theory of Michel Foucault, who questioned the existence of all truth, even the truth of our individual existence, I couldn’t help but wonder how philosophy ever got to this point.

We begin with the assumption that the fullness of truth lies in the Catholic faith. If you do not share that assumption with me, then the rest of this may not make much sense, but let me know your thoughts on it anyway. The first step away from reality was the Protestant Reformation. Now, I will freely admit that the Reformation happened in response to some very real abuses. However, it is also true that in many ways it overreacted against these abuses and, as often happens in history, took on abuses of an opposite nature. The Reformation sacrificed the teaching authority of the Church, to which Jesus promised the Holy Spirit’s guidance to all truth. In its stead, the Reformation placed the belief that each individual believer was blessed with the guidance of the Holy Spirit and should interpret scripture for herself. This led historically to such disparate theological views that many people began to wonder if theological truth was possible to know at all.

With the anchor that the Church provided as the arbiter of truth gone, it wasn’t a very large step to lose God as the anchor of truth as well. The Renaissance began this journey, with its focus on human creativity and inspiration often devoid of any connection to God. However, the Enlightenment completed the journey. The Enlightenment philosophers were by and large atheists. What is important here is that up to this point in history, the “starting point” for exploring truth was always God. Truth came form God, and our exploration of truth led us to God. Without God, our attempt to explore truth really does become arbitrary, since truth then has no source and no destination. Enlightenment philosophers acknowledged this fact, and concluded that the anchor point for truth could be anything a scholar wished it to be. These philosophers chose humanity as their anchor to truth. If the anchor for truth is arbitrary, it does not take much of a cognitive shift to conclude that there is no real anchor for truth. Modernism and post-modernism refuted many of the ideals of the Enlightenment, but they also took the Enlightenment's fundamental assumption to its logical conclusion.

Each step along the way of this journey shares some common characteristics with its counterparts. Each step was a reaction against perceived errors and abuses of its predecessor. Each step, in seeking to correct these errors, overreacted in some way and sacrificed some logical beliefs and truths. However, each step also struck on beliefs that are true, or at least useful in the pursuit of truth.

My summer project is to explore each of these steps so that we can try to understand how our culture's views of truth changed, and how we can effectively argue against the errors inherent in our cultural conceptions of truth. It should be fun.



In the love of Christ,

Brother Thomas

TV Bites Back

Summary: Newsweek's online front page for May 27, 2005 featured an interesting story about a program called TV-Watch. It's a program sponsored by members of the entertainment industry to attempt to keep government out of the censorship business. Instead of governmental censorship, it promotes equipping people (especially parents) to make wise media choices.

This program promoted educating parents on how to use devices like the V-chip and strategies such as family TV watching and family discussions about what is watched. The surprise is that this program is sponsored by television network moguls. The key here is that they don't want the government sticking its nose into private business, even if that private business is broadcast on public air waves.

Putting aside my skepticism about big-business, I have to day that at first blush I agree with the tenants of this program. The principle of subsidiarity is too often ignored by the Right and the Left in American politics. Here is a group that is promoting subsidiarity and media morality. It deserves some thought. However, I do have some questions that may just challenge this program.

First of all, the people quoted in the articles seem to assume that government cannot come up with universal standards of decency. Is this because no universal standards for decency exist, or is it just because government is too inefficient to think clearly about it? I may agree with the latter statement. However, my guess is that the article is actually intimating the former. For example, here is one quote from the article:

Why should we trust government to come up with the standards? Standards for who? I can’t even agree with my wife about what we ought to watch on television. Do you really think government is going to be able to come up with a standard for all of us?

This quote seems to reflect the typical attitude of modernist and post-modernist thinkers. These are philosophers that I want to more deeply explore this summer. One of the main assumptions of these philosophies is that no universal standards exist. Standards are personal and are for the most part useless. This is one of the most difficult areas of impasse between Christian believers and "modernist" and post-modernist" thinkers. Catholics especially believe in a universal human nature, and in universal standards that can be drawn out of a careful study of human nature. Universal standards such as "decency" are possible.

However, sin and fallen human nature sometimes make it difficult to judge what those standards are. The documents written by our country's founding fathers make it clear that they expected government to have the ability to make such judgments. However, those same documents clearly show that the founding fathers disagreed about to what degree government should shoulder such a responsibility. It was also up to the people to decide on such standards through the public square and in private settings.

I have no problem putting the responsibility of judging standards of decency into the hands of parents. However, I question how effective such an approach will be without the support of either the government or (better yet) the willing support of the networks. Even with the V-chip and other technologies, even with better education, would we and our children be protected? Would young children be protected against immoral advertisements? Such advertisements come on even during "family-friendly" programming. Would parents be able to know when a certain episode of an otherwise "safe" program may contain offensive material? How would a V-chip or a ratings system have protected young eyes from Janet Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction" during the Super Bowl? No one watching the Super Bowl expected to be subjected to an act - accidental or purposeful - of exhibitionism.

If the answers to these questions would be "no" then this solution is insufficient. When networks are driven to "push the envelope" because of the erroneous yet viral belief that "sex sells," the ability of families to protect themselves from indecency, violence, and harmful attitudes is seriously handicapped. Exploring options such as better parental training and technology such as the V-chip should be the first step. However, as much as I would like to keep government out of it, it is the duty of government to protect our families when private measures are weakened by greedy and unscrupulous media producers.

In the love of Christ,

Brother Thomas

The Truth of Things

Human beings are created in the Image and Likeness of God in such a beautiful way. We are designed to receive as a gift everything that flows from God. We have free will in order to be able to freely choose his love and goodness. We have bodies in order to receive the goodness of creation. We have an intellect in order to receive His truth. The core of moral theology is how we can properly receive these gifts in order to gain the fullness of God's love.

Let's face it - sin and ignorance are frustrating. As a teacher of moral theology, I am variably moved between compassion and vexation as I experience our culture's inability to gain full goodness because it is either blind to the truth or unwilling to live according to it. Of course, I am also bothered by my own inability to live what I know to be true. After all, I teach moral theology. I know backward and forward what is good and what is evil. Yet, I am still unable to fully embrace the good and to get rid of the inferior and false allurements in my life. In part, we humans have to come to peace with the fact that we will never completely be free from the effects of sin and ignorance this side of Paradise. We must be ready to accept God's mercy and to humbly acknowledge our weaknesses. On the other hand, we don't want to bow to defeat either. We must always strive against these impediments to happiness and work toward perfection.

While this Web log will almost certainly deal with sin and moral issues, I would like to focus at least as much on the other effect of original sin. I think ignorance gets short shrift in our current moral dialogues. I grew up in an era that believed that catechesis must focus on the experience of the relationship with God, not on theological knowledge. My catechesis was not quite the cliché of collage and banner making and "Jesus loves you" messages (though I did make my share of banners in my time). However, there were many things that I never learned until I studied for my master's degree in theology - things that I should have learned in high school catechesis classes. What is even more irksome to me is that throughout my high school career, I never really learned how to think. In fact, I only discovered what the term "critical thinking" really means after I had been teaching for seven years and started to do some professional research. Critical thinking too often refers to "creative problem solving" but hardly ever is the term used correctly to indicate methods for clear thinking, careful discernment, and effective argumentation.

As a Catholic school teacher, I have become very frustrated with my students' lack of ability to think clearly. I have to continually remind myself that it is not their fault. We are failing our students as a school system if we do not give them the ability to discern truth, and feed the curiosity that is a natural part of human nature. However, do you ever hear these things mentioned in discussions about the failure of our schools? Don't discussions on school failure usually center around poor test scores? Standardized tests don't measure thinking skills. While they play their role, they should not define the totality of our educational mission. We need to teach people how to think about the multiplicity of facts and claims to truth in our culture and how to discern what is true and how to use that truth. That's true education.

In the love of Christ,

Brother Thomas