Concerning Good Government IV

A young man was interviewing for his first job when a rather skeptical employer asked him, “Are you responsible?” “Yes,” the boy replied. “At least, that is what my mom says everytime something goes wrong.”

The concept of responsibility incorporates dual elements: moral judgment and accountability. Everyone is responsible for himself and his actions (for actions are intimately linked to identity, as stated in Part I) in so far as he can make moral judgments. Responsibility is always linked to a moral obligation.

A “right” could mean two things: something the government disallows itself from doing in law and legal proceedings (e.g. the “right” to no self-incrimination), and something that is intrinsically related to the person permitting him to do something specific. The former, which I would call a “privilege”, does not concern us at this time, as it is merely a “rule” the government agrees to follow. We will discuss government and such later. The latter one is the obverse of a moral obligation: When one is morally obligated in a specific case, he has the “right” to fulfill his obligation. This is not a “ends justify means”, for he must be obligated in the specific case considering all the circumstances. Take for instance a teacher. He has agreed to teach students, and therefore has a moral obligation to be there. If someone takes his keys (assuming the one and only way that he might make it is by car) to inhibit him from going, his right has been violated. However, he made not torture the taker of the keys to get them back, for if there is no moral way to get to class, he has to moral obligation to go to class and therefore no right to "do what is necessary" to get to class. Rights are always specific to the circumstance.

Someone may comment that this seems to reject the so-called fundamental right to life, but I would question whether, for instance the Secret Service Detailee has a right to preserve his life if an assassin is unjustifiably shooting the President (not saying there is a justifiable reason or not, just precluding a justified killing for this instance) and his chief means to save the President is to get between the bullet and the President. I would say that because of his job he has a moral duty to do whatever is in his power to save the President in this instance, and it would be wrong for him not to stop the bullet even at the cost of his life. I would suggest that the “right to life” speaks to the general moral obligation that one has to use all that God has given for the Honor and Glory of God. Life is the fundamental premise of this, and so one may never ordinarily take a life and one my only give his life when he is moral obligated to or when it is a moral option. To take a life immorally is to violate one’s right to life, but if one is faced with a death and there is no morally legitimate means of preserving his life, he has no right to preserve his life.

Lastly, authority is the power and duty that comes when one is charged with some interest of another. Authority is the power to command (not necessarily compel) obedience. Obedience is owed in justice to proper commands (something to discuss later) of an authority. However, the power to command obedience is intrinsically linked to moral obligation to treat the interest you are charged with as if it were your own interest. Should one neglect the interest, he in effect renounces his authority.

Concerning Good Government III

Because man is a social creature (he seeks to establish relationships to others as ends or means), he affects and is affected by many who he comes in contact with. His way of thinking, acting, behaving are shaped by the responses or lack thereof of those around him. In addition, man seeks to know truth and he recognizes that others seek to know truth. Because opinions of truth differ and ability to see ‘truth’ differ, man will often seek to convince others of the truth of his perceptions. Insofar as he convinces them, his perception of truth, which they now adopt, may influence their actions, thoughts, behaviors, etc.

The product of this dynamic is a network of people connected by interpersonal relationships often based geographically but also by race, sex, social class, religion, etc., such that people think, judge, and act similarly in what has come to be known as “culture”. Culture is “the (common) way of life” of people of a specific (most generally incorporating a geographic) characteristic. Culture includes similarities both in what is thought and what is not thought about; what is done as a matter of course and what would never be done, as a matter of course. It ranges from (a common practice of) commission to (a common practice of) omission.

A related concept is “custom”, which involves a regular practice accepted by society. The difference between culture and custom is that “culture” incorporates a much more interconnected, expansive, and all encompassing “way of life” that may unknowingly pervade the most fundamental ways of thinking. “Custom” on the other hand is generally a practice that, conceivable, is independent enough to adopted by another group without a submission to the whole culture of the first (not denying the fact that some of the cultural things may come along with it).

Any objections?

Concerning Good Government II

Man is naturally a social creature. By this I mean that in general one will seek to establish relationships with others. These relationships can be a practical end in and of itself in so far as one is seeking to fulfill his natural desire for human intimacy.

Part of this desire is that man seeks a fullness of experience, the “timeless moment”, the “absolute ability”, the “everlasting gobstopper”®. Man finds that he himself is limited, but that he is different than everyone else (not a difference of nature, but a difference of abilities, experience, perspective, etc.). Through relationships with others, he expands the “horizons” of his experience.

However, man also establishes human relations as means. Man is not self sufficient. Although he may be able to provide all his most basic material needs in solitary, such a life is difficult and will only be pursued for some great end. However, man quickly finds that he can fulfill his physical needs much easier and/or more fully by cooperating with others. It is the old, “I make shirts for both of us (since I’m better at it) and you make shoes for both of us (since you enjoy making shoes) and then we will trade” (this principle is called “division of labor”). Thus is the beginning of economics.

Man is also naturally family-oriented. The natural differences in the sexes (and in individual personalities and interests) and the mutual attraction of the sexes is part of man’s desire for human intimacy. The best way I can find to put it tonight is that in human relations (relations as an end), men generally seek respect—a rightful admiration for what they do well. Women seek self-gift—they wish to see people with “potential” do well. (Is it any wonder that men are braggarts and women are naggers?) This might just be a rephrasing of the old “Men are project oriented, and women are people oriented.” Anyhow, the complexity of this dimension is what raises human sexuality above a purely “animal” level—men and women share an interpersonal relationship, a “knowledge” of one another on a deeply spiritual (aka. non-material) level. A man will sacrifice himself when that sacrifice is received and respected. A women respects a man by recognizing his sacrifice and receiving it. (This is not to say that women don’t sacrifice or don’t sacrifice for men. Because women are “people oriented” they are often much quicker to give of themselves for others in need. However, I think the converse of this is that men tend to insist upon doing what they think they should do not for the respect others give them but because they need to do it for their self respect.)*

This mutual attraction reaches its fullness in the total self gift of conjugal union (to see this explained, see Theology of the Body of course). By nature, this union can become the source of a unique form of a human relationship, the family.

Any objections?



*Footnote* Is it any wonder that couples face so many difficulties? The man’s “pride” that bugs a woman so much is his implicit desire for self-respect (‘rightful’ admiration of self—The conformity of what he would like to say about himself with what he really is) in conflict with the woman’s wider view. She sees many people with needs that the man ‘should’ focus on, and whom the woman does focus on. A perfect setting for conflicting priorities.

C.f. Eph 5:33 (NAB) “In any case, each one of you [husbands] should love his wife as himself, and the wife should respect her husband.” (Why the difference, why are husbands commanded to “love” (i.e. give of themselves for another) and women to “respect” (i.e. “Willingness to show consideration or appreciation”)). Anyhow, I am sure if I continue I will not only face the criticism of every member of this blog, but someone will also challenge my credentials by pointing for better or for worse that I do not have nor have ever had a girlfriend. As they say, for what it’s worth.

Concerning Good Government

First, do you agree with what has been call the theory of rational self-interest, namely: That human choice/intention can be characterized in terms of a description of self in relation to a project, where a project is either an end or means to a practical end that the individual desires. That project can either a project solely of the will (e.g. I hope Geoff agrees with me) or outside the will (e.g. I will write this post so that he does). All of the later types contain or can be written to contain one of the “being” verbs, where the subject of the verb is the individual willing. All of the former can also be written such, (i.e., I will hope…, I am hoping…, etc.). Thus even the most selfless acts include this personal dimension that makes them acts of the individual. Furthermore, that the ends of human willing are specific and practical. For example, projects are chosen for the sake of conformity intellect and reality, for the sake of conformity of what one communicates to others and one's intellect, for the sake of friendship (what I would call human intimacy), for the sake of play, for the sake of life, etc. These are not only personal goods, but also things that you can desire for another. Thus I will write this article for the mutual conformation of our intellects to reality.

Now, to take a normative step, do you have any objection to this: Because these are the natural and common ends of human action, when we in the ordinary course of our lives must make choices about ourselves and others, we ought to pursue these ends for others as for ourselves?

Concerning Libertarianism

Properly speaking this may belong under the Beginning at the Beginning post, but considering the volital nature of these discussions, it won’t hurt to have it as its own post.

Now, I respond to Geoff’s posts in particular because I have to say that like the majority here I disagree with the majority of what he is espousing. Unlike the majority here, I imagine I agree with a substantial part of what he is saying.

The chief area I disagree with Geoff on (as I have told him before) is Libertarianism. For example: the illegitimacy of civil prohibitions on prostitution, homosexuality, assisted suicide, drugs, etc. Geoff is of the opinion that such prohibitions are “unenforceable”, impossible to have “unless you are knocking on bedroom doors”, and “should be legal”. These comments are derived from Geoff’s general precepts that “an unenforceable law is not a law at all”, that a “ ‘community’ does not have any new or special rights, or more rights than each and every individual in society has”, such evils “should be tolerated, for fear that more and greater evils would ensue”, and that “legislating against something…won’t work unless there are actual concrete [i.e. unconsenting] victims.” These are ultimately summed up in his belief that “you can only legislate against something if it is a violation of another person’s will or property”, and his position that such immorality can only be fixed through convincing someone that it is bad. As he describes it, “Otherwise it ultimately boils down to ‘Why shouldn’t I do this?’ ‘Because it’s illegal.’ ‘Oh. Well that’s not a very good reason. It’s penal law. Great.’”

To begin with, I believe that Geoff misevaluates the place custom has in what he describes. He writes:


In the past, it was not law that kept people from committing suicide, performing homosexual acts nor contracepting. The laws existed, yes, and were patently unenforceable. But such behavior was ultimately prevented by the overwhelming understanding by the individuals who comprise society that these actions were grossly immoral. One should also note that when the laws prohibiting these practices were finally lifted, these actions had been accepted, almost openly, for the decade preceding the repeal of the laws….

When it comes to pornography, #1 U.S. industry as it is, the only way to get people away from it is convincing them of why it is evil. We had laws against it before, and it was unenforceable then. The only reason it was not the biggest industry then was because people recognized why it was evil and abstained from it. Changing someone's mind has to come from convincing, not force. Otherwise, it ultimately boils down to "Why shouldn't I do this?" "Because it's illegal." "Oh. Well that's not a very good reason. It's a penal law. Great."Prostitution also violates "intrinsic human dignity." Both St. Augustine and St. Thomas said that prostitution should be tolerated, for fear that more and greater evils would ensue. I believe the unending "war on drugs" is similar. If not for the artificial shortage of these chemicals that drives prices up and makes illicit drug dealing lucrative, there would not be such widespread turf wars and violence, not only by dealers, but their users who rob and kill to get money to buy it.Prohibition is similar. They were passing a law ultimately intending to curtail the abuse of alcohol. A good end, yes? Alcohol abuse actually went up during prohibition. Sts. Augustine and Thomas were right: you need to allow certain evils in order to prevent greater evils. That is why God allows moral evils on earth: because it would be a greater evil to crush our free will.


Later on in the same string he writes


You could have a law against major distributors and pornography stores, but this stuff can be made by any Joe with a $600 camera and transmitted via the internet. You're not going to be able to achieve your ultimate end of getting rid of pornography. There will always be a demand, and the demand will be satisfied. The prices will go up, but it will be satisfied. We need to go after the root cause: why do people want this garbage? We need to convince them of the reasons they shouldn't. Get rid of all the demand, and you'll get rid of all the supply. Curtailing some supply does not eliminate demand.


Now consider the following: we agree that such things as prostitution, pornography, etc. ought not be practiced. Geoff admits that “such behavior was ultimately prevented by the overwhelming understanding by the individuals who comprise society that these actions were grossly immoral.” In other words, Geoff admits that, historically speaking, such evils have been minimized by the presence of a strong custom against it. He also says, “When the laws prohibiting these practices were finally lifted, these actions had been accepted, almost openly, for the decade preceding the repeal of the laws.” In other words, according to history, the laws have out-lived the customs. And yet he proposes to eliminate all laws prohibiting homosexuality and pornography (except maybe the distribution of pornography) even though many of our communities still retain an “overwhelming understanding…that these actions were grossly immoral.” Now remember, these prohibitions are not all ancient ones. Pornography could hardly pre-exist photography, and drugs did not enter America to a significant degree until after the Civil War, becoming most significant after the World Wars when they were used on the battlefield and such, causing a explosion of addictions. Apparently Geoff does not consider the possibility that such prohibitions, while they do not and cannot eradicate the evil, helped to establish and preserve the custom that does minimize the evil until other factors destroyed the custom. He sites Aquinas and Augustine—“ you need to allow certain evils in order to prevent greater evils”--but Aquinas and Augustine were speaking in a time when the “unenforceable” laws against prostitution were present and did help to keep prostitution a “dirty” crime on the outskirts of town. They did not speak against the laws, but the absolute enforcement of the laws. In their opinion, too strong of enforcement of these laws would drive the prostitution underground, allowing it to slip back into the city where it could threaten to undermine the established socio-moral order. Thus they tolerated it on the outskirts of the city where the evil was contained, where the effects of the evil lifestyle were more apparent, and where the prostitutes could be better ministered to by religious and lay people who understood that even prostitutes had souls to be saved.

In other words, basically argue that such laws are totally ineffective. They are like the Prohibition you even say. I remind you that United States still has the most stringent of laws on drinking in the world. Why? Because the movement that helped establish prohibition have created a “overwhelming understanding…that these actions were grossly immoral.” And they used the law to do it.

There is much more I could say regarding your position, but this post is long already. What I propose is this: I challenge you to start with human nature and the nature of the created and Uncreated order, and I want you to demonstrate that libertarianism is the best political philosophy. Or conversely, I will start with human nature and the nature of the created and Uncreated order and posit what I believe is the best political philosophy. Whoever does so should take it slowly and step by step so that he can easily respond to critiques. He would have to define such things as “freedom”, “authority”, “rights”, etc., and be able to defend his position with a proper argument.

If you would like to begin, go ahead. If you would like me to try, I will.

I await your response.

On a lighter note

Top 10 Reasons to wear a chapel veil.

10. They look cool

9. Your boyfriend can find you in chapel simply by seeing the back of your head. Boyfriends of bare-headed women wander in vain.

8. They cover up bad hair days.

7. And days when you didn't have time to wash your hair.

6. And curlers.

5. If you need to create a diversion, you can lean too close to a candle and light it on fire.

4. They were recommended by St. Paul and made mandatory by Pope St. Linus.

3. They double as garrotes.

2. They are just soooo fascinating. Right up there with polkadots.

1. They honor the Real Presence in the Blessed Sacrament

The Purpose, End, and Means of Society

Trick questions are fun.

You ask: "Do we have any alternatives to defining society, the common good, the whole project of human life as lived in common, on the basis of individual liberties?"

I ask: do we have a need to? Why would we? What would be the end of doing so?

Any societal structure, including the family, is not an end in itself. Nor (except for the family) does it have a teleological end that is distinct from the individuals that give it structure. Societal structure of any kind is the product of freely-willed human interaction, and is formed by the free actions of the individuals within it.

The family is an institution formed by God: it is a voluntary society of a man and a woman, and any children with whom God chooses to bless them. The children are naturally bound to obey the parents. No one outside of a family is naturally bound to obey anyone besides God. The family received its order from God: love and support each other, and be fruitful and multiply.

A particular society of man is not instituted by God. It is instituted by men who freely choose to cooperate with others. Therefore, no one in society has a natural right of authority over another person. That is why I believe that government is an unnatural institution: governments exist to enforce an already extant order. Because there was no disorder before the fall, there was no reason for any institution to preserve order. I know I'm going to catch a lot of flak for believing that, and I know I am once again disagreeing with St. Thomas, but I'm throwing it out there to see if I can defend it.

Society is a natural, free association of individuals. The purpose of society is therefore synonymous with the purposes of the sum of the individuals who comprise it.

A prison camp could be called a society, but only if the prisoners decided to interact with each other. Individual freedom is a basic and necessary aspect of any society.

Should society help us get to heaven? Yes. Because society (individuals) should be good, because being good and a good example is conducive to getting to heaven. But you can't force society (individuals) to be good. You can only punish actions that are manifest violations of the equal rights of other individual human beings.

Society is only as good (or as bad) as the sum of the individual people that comprise it.

By freedom, I assume we all mean "the right to pursue that which we ought." Now certainly, nobody ought to pursue working on a Sunday. In the sense of our duty to God, we are not "free" to work on a Sunday. Hence, a law against working on Sunday would only be trying to uphold the rights of God, not man. Again, you would need a theocracy to enforce that, because it would be an attempt to force people to believe something/be morally good. Such a law would not protect the equal rights of individuals within a society. People should be free from constraint of other individuals with equal rights: free to enter into whatever voluntary contracts they choose.

If people really wanted it, there is no law stopping them from forming supra-natural societies of their own. A gated community. A morally "safe" place, where everything from mail, to television, to the internet, to speech, to behavior, is centrally monitored and screened for that which is immoral. Where people volunteer to be punished for any infringement of any of the commandments. Even hard-core Catholics don't form this totalitarian kind of community. Why not?


-Geoff

Beginning at the Beginning

I see I opened a whole can of worms with my "trick" question. In fact, I meant to and I think trick questions are sometimes fun!

However, if we are going to talk sensibly about these issues, we have to get a few things straight to begin with--define some terms, so to speak. Sadly, I'm not a very good philosopher, because while I think we should start at the beginning, I'm not quite sure where the beginning is! My best guess, however, is that we have to discuss a bit what we mean by "society" and "common good." Now, Geoff has stated that the common good is nothing more than the sum total of all the private goods of the individuals that comprise a society. Indeed, a society is merely a collection of individuals. What is central here? The individual, it seems. This is clearly reflected in the ideas of liberalism as well. Do we have any alternatives to defining society, the common good, the whole project of human life as lived in common, on the basis of individual liberties? Would it necessarily pierce a shaft into our freedom if we did not talk about it as the main purpose of societal structure? And what do we mean by freedom? This last is a big one, and for now I am just throwing out some questions for consideration. More later!

Pax +
Sylvia

Law and Morality

Concerning government and euthanasia.

Geoff said:
"Government is an instrument of force that exists to ensure that every individual respects the equal rights of every other individual in society."

and

"I think you can only legislate against something if it is a violation of another person's will or property."

I would be interested to hear how you connect these two statements. It seems to me that if the purpose of a government is to keep some from violating others' rights, and it can only do this if another person's will or property is violated, then people only have rights concerning property and what they desire. I don't want to put words in your mouth, however, so please clarify if this does not suffice.

It is true that law cannot change people's minds. Converting hearts is the ideal, and this the government cannot do, but it does have other (though lesser) duties. John Paul II in Evangelium Vitae spoke on this. He said:
"Civil law must ensure that all members of society enjoy respect for certain fundamental rights which innately belong to the person, rights which every positive law must recognize and guarantee. First and fundamental among these is the inviolable right to life of every innocent human being. While public authority can sometimes choose not to put a stop to something which--were it prohibited--would cause more serious harm, it can never presume to legitimize as a right of individuals--even if they are the majority of the members of society--an offence against other persons caused by the disregard of so fundamental a right as the right to life. The legal toleration of abortion or of euthanasia can in no way claim to be based on respect for the conscience of others, precisely because society has the right and the duty to protect itself against the abuses which can occur in the name of conscience and under the pretext of freedom."

I would like to emphasize the section in which he says even toleration of an evil cannot be legitimized as a right. This seems to directly contradict what you are saying. You say civil law can only interfere when a person's will is contradicted. However, John Paul II teaches that humans have certain inviolate rights from God that must be protected by law, that even the individual does not have the right to deny. Do you agree that men have such rights?

John Paul II continues:

"The doctrine on the necessary conformity of civil law with the moral law is in continuity with the whole tradition of the Church. This is clear once more from John XXIII's Encyclical:
'Authority is a postulate of the moral order and derives from God. . .'
Now the first and most immediate application of this teaching concerns a human law which disregards the fundamental right and source of all other rights which is the right to life, a right belonging to every individual. Consequently, laws which legitimize the direct killing of innocent human beings through abortion or euthanasia are in complete opposition to the inviolable right to life proper to every individual; they thus deny the equality of everyone before the law. It might be objected that such is not the case in euthanasia, when it is requested with full awareness by the person involved. But any State which made such a request legitimate and authorized it to be carried out would be legalizing a case of suicide-murder, contrary to the fundamental principles of absolute respect for life and of the protection of every innocent life. In this way the State contributes to lessening respect for life and opens the door to ways of acting which are destructive of trust in relations between people."

Government is a human institution, and thus is bound to follow and promote the natural law. It is true that it must decide how to prudently do this. You belittle an imposed morality, but I don't see why it is such a bad thing that the government tries to prevent people from commiting evil acts of a grave and harmful nature that contradict the natural law. (Please note the word "grave"--I am not saying the government should control everything.) Frankly, I think that it is a good thing even if the individual doesn't understand why, for two reasons: first, it stops a crime, and second because it will be easier for the person to develope a sense of morality if they are living in conformity with the natural law. Law is supposed to make people good. How can it do this if it contradicts the natural law?

Baudelaire and King David

Folly and error, avarice and vice,
Employ our souls and waste our bodies' force.
As mangey beggars incubate their lice,
We nourish our innocuous remorse.

Our sins are stubborn, craven our repentance.
For our weak vows we ask excessive prices.
Trusting our tears will wash away the sentence,
We sneak off where the muddy road entices.

Cradled in evil, that Thrice-Great Magician,
The Devil, rocks our souls, that can't resist;
And the rich metal of our own volition
Is vaporised by that sage alchemist.

The Devil pulls the strings by which we're worked:
By all revolting objects lured, we slink
Hellwards; each day down one more step we're jerked
Feeling no horror, through the shades that stink.

Just as a lustful pauper bites and kisses
The scarred and shrivelled breast of an old whore,
We steal, along the roadside, furtive blisses,
Squeezing them, like stale oranges, for more.

Packed tight, like hives of maggots, thickly seething
Within our brains a host of demons surges.
Deep down into our lungs at every breathing,
Death flows, an unseen river, moaning dirges.

If rape or arson, poison, or the knife
Has wove no pleasing patterns in the stuff
Of this drab canvas we accept as life —
It is because we are not bold enough!

Amongst the jackals, leopards, mongrels, apes,
Snakes, scorpions, vultures, that with hellish din,
Squeal, roar, writhe, gambol, crawl, with monstrous shapes,
In each man's foul menagerie of sin —

There's one more damned than all. He never gambols,
Nor crawls, nor roars, but, from the rest withdrawn,
Gladly of this whole earth would make a shambles
And swallow up existence with a yawn...

Boredom! He smokes his hookah, while he dreams
Of gibbets, weeping tears he cannot smother.
You know this dainty monster, too, it seems —
Hypocrite reader! — You! — My twin! — My brother!

--Baudelaire, "Au Lecteur," tr. by Roy Campbell

What a scathing presentation of ennui, and how accurate. The vice of sloth, who swallows "existence with a yawn," is one of the most difficult vices to resist, perhaps second only to pride. As I read this poem, though, it occurred to me that this is the inverse of the praises of God. Compare it with the psalm, "Miserere Mei Deus."

Have mercy on me, O God, according to thy great mercy. And according to the multitude of thy tender mercies blot out my iniquity.
Wash me yet more from my iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin.
For I know my iniquity, and my sin is always before me.
To thee only have I sinned, and have done evil before thee: that thou mayst be justified in thy words and mayst overcome when thou art judged.
For behold I was conceived in iniquities; and in sins did my mother conceive me.
For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.
Thou shalt sprinkle me with hyssop, and I shall be cleansed: thou shalt wash me, and I shall be made whiter than snow.
To my hearing thou shalt give joy and gladness: and the bones that have been humbled shall rejoice.
Turn away thy face from my sins, and blot out all my iniquities.
Create a clean heart in me, O God: and renew a right spirit within my bowels.
Cast me not away from thy face; and take not thy holy spirit from me.
Restore unto me the joy of thy salvation, and strengthen me with a perfect spirit.
I will teach the unjust thy ways: and the wicked shall be converted to thee.
Deliver me from blood, O God, thou God of my salvation: and my tongue shall extol thy justice. O Lord, thou wilt open my lips: and my mouth shall declare thy praise.
For if thou hadst desired sacrifice, I would indeed have given it: with burnt offerings thou wilt not be delighted.
A sacrifice to God is an afflicted spirit: a contrite and humbled heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.
Deal favourably, O Lord, in thy good will with Sion; that the walls of Jerusalem may be built up.
Then shalt thou accept the sacrifice of justice, oblations and whole burnt offerings: then shall they lay calves upon thy altar.

Baudelaire lived a profligate and hedonistic life, hounded by moods of severe melancholy, and died of disease. He writes from his experience. In his poem on sloth, he speaks for all those who are trapped in vice but cannot escape, who feel themselves yanked down towards the devil with every move. The gates of hell and the yawning maw of boredome are the same for him.
All the while, the words of the Psalmist are sung by the Church every week, repeating that the heart can be clean, and begging God to open our mouths to praise.

I know we have all felt the emotions of Baudelaire, and have known the salvation from the futile ways that David sings of. I guess the only point I'm trying to make is that it is very good to be Catholic.

Law, Prostitution and Pornography

Emily, I'm not saying you are one of the "force people into believing" folks. I thought it would be helpful to point out the consequences of going down this particular idea road, however.

In the past, it was not law that kept people from committing suicide, performing homosexual acts nor contracepting. The laws existed, yes, and were patently unenforceable. But such behavior was ultimately prevented by the overwhelming understanding by the individuals who comprise society that these actions were grossly immoral. One should also note that when the laws prohibiting these practices were finally lifted, these actions had been accepted, almost openly, for the decade preceding the repeal of the laws.

Many laws are only enacted when society as a whole recognizes something as a manifest evil. It's why slavery wasn't abolished in 1791. The public sentiment has to be fully behind it. And public sentiment can't be imposed by a law.

You cannot objectively quantify or prevent "an intrinsically evil act against nature" in itself. You have to quantify empirical acts that have been of detriment to non-consenting individuals. In this case, the two parties have consented to an action, evil as it may be.

What is the "common good?" Is it not the sumtotal of the good of each individual in society? Now, you can take "Common good" in a spiritual or a physical sense. Laws exist to uphold the physical "common good." The Church exists to uphold (not through violence, like the state upholds its laws) the spiritual "common good," through teaching and good example.

The "community" does not have any new or special rights, or more rights than each and every individual in society has. I do not have a human right to not have homosexuals performing unnatural acts two doors down. I do have a human right to my property and bodily integrity. If spiritual integrity is upheld, it can only be through protecting individual property and individual human rights. Otherwise, you need virtue police. How can you have laws against homosexual behavior unless you are knocking on bedroom doors? An unenforceable law is not a law at all, I'm sorry. No matter what natural law such a civil law proposes to uphold.

If someone is committing a purely spiritual/natural evil that does not violate the will against another person, nor quantifiably harm another person, how can you punish it? (Remember, laws backed up with force can only exist to uphold the rights of men, not the rights of God.) The Jews had such rules imposed by God. You were also free to leave the Jewish faith whenever you wanted. If every country in the world had such laws, would we be morally able to leave the world?

When it comes to pornography, #1 U.S. industry as it is, the only way to get people away from it is convincing them of why it is evil. We had laws against it before, and it was unenforceable then. The only reason it was not the biggest industry then was because people recognized why it was evil and abstained from it. Changing someone's mind has to come from convincing, not force. Otherwise, it ultimately boils down to "Why shouldn't I do this?" "Because it's illegal." "Oh. Well that's not a very good reason. It's a penal law. Great."

Prostitution also violates "intrinsic human dignity." Both St. Augustine and St. Thomas said that prostitution should be tolerated, for fear that more and greater evils would ensue. I believe the unending "war on drugs" is similar. If not for the artificial shortage of these chemicals that drives prices up and makes illicit drug dealing lucrative, there would not be such widespread turf wars and violence, not only by dealers, but their users who rob and kill to get money to buy it.

Prohibition is similar. They were passing a law ultimately intending to curtail the abuse of alcohol. A good end, yes? Alcohol abuse actually went up during prohibition. Sts. Augustine and Thomas were right: you need to allow certain evils in order to prevent greater evils. That is why God allows moral evils on earth: because it would be a greater evil to crush our free will.

-Geoff

My latest project

Well, I just started a message board for Catholic Homechooling Parents as my latest project. The news story was picked up by the Catholic PRWire

http://www.catholic.org/prwire/headline.php?ID=3665

Catholic Home School Network of America Launches National Catholic Home School Message Board

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
MEDIA ADVISORY
Catholic PRWire

CHANTILLY, VA, JUNE 12, 2007 - On Friday, June 8th, The Catholic Home School Network of America (CHSNA) announced the creation of a new website and message board designed to connect thousands of Catholic homeschooling parents from across the country. The announcement took place at the Immaculate Heart of Mary National Home School and Parent Conference, which has become the largest Catholic homeschooling conference in the country.

Dedicated to supporting parents in their role as the primary educators of their children, the new www.CHSNA.net website was envisioned to become a focal point for information about Catholic curriculum providers and home study programs as well as a place for parents to exchange information and advice. Perhaps more importantly, it will be a place for Catholic homeschooling parents to establish friendships based upon shared values and goals.

According to Draper Warren, Vice-President of Communications for CHSNA, “There is a wealth of knowledge and experience that veteran homeschooling parents have and can pass on to those who are new to homeschooling. An online community of this sort establishes a regular way to share practical experiences about what works and what doesn’t.”

In creating this message board project, CHSNA joined forces with the technical team of BoredOnline.net, where Mr. Warren also serves as senior administrator. BoredOnline.net is a large message board for Catholic homeschooling students which has 2,485 registered users and has almost one million posts. Mr. Warren expressed the hope that the new CHSNA.net message board would surpass the great success of the BoredOnline.net website, and that it would afford the same benefits to parents which the students on BoredOnline.net are currently able to enjoy.

The Catholic Home School Network of America has been involved in advocating parents’ rights to homeschool their children, publishing a booklet in 1998 entitled “Responsibilities and Rights of Parents in Religious Education.” More recently, CHSNA President Dr. Catherine Moran, together with CHSNA Vice-President of Operations Mrs. Virginia Seuffert, and Dr. Mary Kay Clark, President of Seton Home Study School, traveled to Rome to meet with Roman Curial officials such as Francis Cardinal Arinze and Archbishop Michael Miller, Secretary for Catholic Education to better familiarize them with the important role homeschooling holds in American Catholic education.

For further information, please contact Draper Warren by email at CHSNA.net@gmail.com, or visit the CHSNA website at www.CHSNA.net.

Discussion Point

Do you agree with the following statement: Economic life must be considered and treated as altogether free from and independent of public authority, because in the market, i.e., in the free struggle of competitors, it would have a principle of self direction which governs it much more perfectly than would the intervention of any created intellect.

Blue Blog

Hi everyone, I have made the blog blue! I hope that is okay. What are you all doing?

Men, Consider Your Posterity

A note arrived at home today from my great-aunt, and enclosed in this envelope were some photos of my dad when he was in his early 20's. His hair just screamed "70's!" Now, at the time I'm sure he wasn't thinking about his progeny seeing him in that photograph and thinking he looked like a water spaniel, but this doom eventually came upon him. His only comment today was, "Goodness gracious. I had no idea I looked like that."

We should judge fashions wisely, for our lack of taste will eventually find us out.

Torture Definition

Well, I'm glad everyone (so far) is against torture. I believe I need to defend the definition I used in the article, however. Without an objective, clear definition of the essence of torture, (and you admitted the Church definition was flawed,) the term can be twisted to suit even the objectives of the Bush administration. Because with that definition, you can use violence to extract information from someone.

Based on the responses I received, I found that this definition was the only one that I could use to fend off attempts to justify torture under "coercion of obedience." St. Thomas was pulled into their arguments to justify torture.

As one person said, "That's why I believe it certainly isn't as cut and dried as the pope condemning contraception, which has ALWAYS and everywhere been condemned. In this case, we have a LOT of people saying that this is OK, including Thomas: "On the other hand, there are unbelievers who at some time have accepted the faith, and professed it, such as heretics and all apostates: such should be submitted even to bodily compulsion, that they may fulfil what they have promised, and hold what they, at one time, received."

My response was

"Thomas, great as he was, was still wrong in some areas. I believe this is one of them. 
He says “Bodily compulsion.” Does this mean compulsion of the will through the body,
or does he mean that compelling the body is the same as compelling the will?
I do not think he means the latter. But consider the ramifications of either 
understanding."

Another grad brings St. Thomas into it: You say that "The will is formed, not coerced, through threat of the
consequence of evil actions." Well, Thomas says exactly the opposite:

"The greater power should exercise the greater coercion. Now just as a city
is a perfect community, so the governor of a city has perfect coercive power:
wherefore he can inflict irreparable punishments such as death and mutilation.
On the other hand the father and the master who preside over the family household,
which is an imperfect community, have imperfect coercive power, which is
exercised by inflicting lesser punishments, for instance by blows which do
not inflict irreparable harm. (http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3065.htm#2)

My response:

If I may be so bold, St. Thomas seems to define coercion as
"the environment     that exists when people choose not to commit an evil act
due to the knowledge that punishment will be meted out for a choice contrary
to the purpose of free will." Coercion in the physical realm, such as forcing
a cork into a bottle, or forcibly disarming a madman, is a different entity
than coercing self-free-willed human behavior, freely willed behavior being
something that necessarily comes from within.

Any coercion of a human act is intrinsically a directly willed
attempt to force the will or intellect. Creating an environment where people are
accountable for their actions is not a coercion of free will. We were born into
such an environment, and it is necessary for every legitimate government, and its
laws, to reflect this universal order of nature. As I said, torture, by its
definition, is not used as punishment, but is always a means to an end.

As you can see, if torture, as the Catechism (not the Church) says, includes
"The use of physical or moral violence [what about psychological violence?]
to punish the guilty," then there is no legitimate use of corporal or capital
punishment for any crime. (Both of these punishments are allowed by the Church.)
Thomas' definition of coercion seems really to be a definition of "correction" or
"punishment."

Semantic arguments are necessary. Without them, heresies get started. Without them,
heresies are never overturned. I will send the anonymized dialogue to you, Colin,
and to anyone else who solicits it. It offers a view of what kind of things people
are saying, and why this definition is necessary. I'm not using this definition
to be anal-retentive, to take a jab at the Church, or to be "holier-than-thou."
I'm using this definition because I believe it is the only accurate definition.
Because I believe it is the truth, and the truth needs to be embraced whenever it is
found.

                            -Geoff

On Torture

For one thing, I think torture is wrong. I also think that the Catholic Church says so.

I, like Geoff, am very disturbed but not necessarily surprised by the poll that suggests that "72% of Catholics approve of torture in certain cases". We as Catholics end up being shelved with the fundamentalist Protestants and other "lite" social conservatives, often to the point of a contempt for the admonitions of Church leaders. I think that we've been called "the religious right" for so long that we've become ok with the idea that to be "Catholic" is to be "right-wing." This is a tragedy.

But enough on that. While I totally agree with the end result of Geoff's article on torture (i.e., torture is always morally wrong, and Catholics who disagree should reexamine Church teaching), I believe Geoff ends up harming his point by engaging in a semantic discussion of the Catechism's wording. My apologies, Geoff, if I misread you.

While I think discussion of the Catholic Catechism's word choice remains a pertinent and interesting topic for debate, I do think that Geoff's argument is necessarily based upon a moral high ground. This is as it should be, since he is reprimanding Catholics for their moral blind spot in reference to what should be clear Church teaching. This moral high ground is lost, however, when Geoff seeks to replace the Catechism's definition of torture with his own. I think the article would have been better served by explaining why the Church's definition of torture, while inadequately phrased, reflects her emphasis on the Culture of Life and the dignity of the human person, both of which are violated by the use of torture.

That being said, I applaud you, Geoff for having the courage to stand for right on a topic which, especially among Catholics these days, is a sadly difficult one to approach. As Catholics, we stand for life, and desperate times never call for desperate measures. This is not our weakness, but our strength, for it is what separates us from our enemies. At least, that's the way it should be.

Sometimes loving America means taking that stand that nobody else wants to take. Kudos to you, Geoff.