Why is prostitution wrong?

Most people in the world either have a job or want a job. Even in the most economically depressed nations, people are looked for work. Why? Often a job will allow them to feed their families, in more fortunate countries like the U.S., a job also allows for luxuries and leisure activities. All of these people (including myself) are attempting to use their God-given gifts to make money.

How is this any different than prostitution? If I can use my mind and my eyes and my hands to write computer programs five days a week, why can't a woman similarly sell her mind and body as a prostitute? Sure she may be hurting her emotions, but my emotions are seldom spared at work. How is she different?

This question has puzzled me for some time. It wasn't until I realized that it's not the use of gifts that makes prostitution wrong, but rather the object of that use. There are some actions which are "greater" than others - at least in a spiritual sense. The consecration comes to mind. Could you imagine a priest demanded payment from each member of the congregation before allowing them to be present for the consecration? Absolutely not.

Similarly, the marital embrace is one of these greater actions- one which cannot be subject to objectification like computer programming or accounting or plumbing can be. This is the bedrock of John Paul II's theology of the body, as expressed in Love and Responsibility.

Most of us would agree that prostitution is clearly wrong, and even fewer of us would participate in it. Yet how many of us objectify the marital embrace on a daily basis? Are we not making the same moral error as prostitutes? Praise God for his amazing forgiveness!

Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, which you have from God? You are not your own; you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body. (1 Cor 6:19-20)

The problem with welfare (it's not political)

For many years, I've thought of the exhortations of the Bible to care for widows an orphans (Exodus 22:22, James 1:27, among others) as rather antiquated. After all, we don't live in a male dominated society any more. We have government welfare programs - and I pay taxes, so I am helping widows and orphans, right?

Two recent events, both in one week, have drastically changed my outlook.

The death of my beloved grandfather and the birth of my beloved son came just four days apart. In one long week I learned that although welfare and other service can provide for the material needs of both widows and orphans, these materials needs are not their primary needs. Their primary needs are spiritual and emotional. These are needs that government cannot, will not, and should not provide. These are needs that people must provide, and as Christians we are called to be those people.

Ecumenism Without Compromise

Speaking of ecumenism, Peter Kreeft has a great talk on his website about how Christians can maybe, just maybe be united again as one body. The talk can be found here.

God can get it done

Today's readings at mass really made an impact on me. I was most moved by the second reading, Eph 4:1-6. Paul tells the Ephesians (and us) that we should strive to "preserve the unity of the spirit through the bond of peace: one body and one Spirit..." But we are not one body, in fact we are far, far from that hope. With something like 20,000 Christian denominations and counting, if Paul weren't in Heaven, he would be turning over in his grave!

A number of years ago I worked for a man who was (and maybe still is) a staunch atheist. He and I would often discuss matters of theology and philosophy. There was one argument he made for which I had no answer. He would often say, "Josh, how can you expect me to become a Christian when Christians can't even define what is means to be a Christian?" Indeed, the disunity of the church is scandalous. How often has it thwarted evangelization?

Paul tells us to be one body, because the Body of Christ is not schitzophenic. It does not have multiple personalities, multiple theologies,or multiple liturgies. Why should it be one? Because, as Paul explains, the call we have received to be Christian is a call to be one body. That is a big part of being Christian.

But how do we become one, now, at this point in time? The denominations are so different, so separated. It seems impossible. Let's forget for a moment about the theological differences, and just look at the practical ones. Different churches have different ordination requirements, how do we reconcile those? How about communion, how often should we have it? We Catholics believe the Eucharist is the real presence of Christ, can Protestants just accept that? What about statues? And the church leadership, bishops, deacons, elders, presbyters - how are these to be joined together? Often in business to corporations of 10,000 people will try to merge and fail, because their cultures are so different. How can over one billion Christians, all with different cultures and beliefs, become one?
At this point during mass, I was really starting to wonder if Christian unity is anything more than a pipe dream.

Then the gospel was read.

I suppose the disciples kind of felt a bit like me, seeing those 5000+ hungry people. How are we going to accomplish this? - they must have thought. Phillip even verbalizes these thoughts to Jesus (not that he needed to) by quantifying the situation. The answer to the apostles implicit question is what struck me: no. That's it. No, they are not going to accomplish this task. Jesus will.

How simple! How beautifully simple! Feeding 5000 with five loaves and two fishes requires a miracle, plain and simple. Now I don't know any human who can perform a miracle, so God has to be the one to do this. And as the deacon at our parish to eloquently pointed out in his homily, if you weren't paying attention, you almost wouldn't know the miracle had occurred. There was no announcement, not even any thunder. Just a miracle, subtle and effective.

I think this is the way the church will be united. It will be a miracle. The task seems (and is) too big for us, for any of us. But I hope and pray, with John Paul II, that while the first millennium was a millennium of Christian unity (despite heresy and persecution), and the second millennium was a millennium of Christian disunity, the third millennium will be a millennium of Christian reunity. Please Lord, make us one!

An argument in favor of arguing

So often it seems that matters of religion and politics spark arguments (that's why these subjects tend to be banned at family gatherings large and small). But what, if anything, is wrong if arguing? At its root, argument is simply speech, and speech is not inherently evil. Certainly the Bible, the Word of God, which is Jesus, is not evil, and just as certainly, it is speech. So like most things of this world, the morality or immorality, or amorality of speech, and therefore of argument, is defined by the nature in which we use it.

In general, the morality of an act depends upon the outcome of three tests. The act itself, the circumstances surrounding the act, and the motive of the actor. We've shown that argument is not inherently evil, since it is essentially speech. Thus argument does not fail the first test.

We cannot make any general statements about the second test, the circumstances of an argument. The mindset of the arguers and the topic of the argument constitute the circumstances of the argument. Certainly these circumstances can make an argument immoral. An argument between Stalin and Mao about the best techniques for running a death camp could certainly be considered immoral based on its circumstances. However circumstances don't make all arguments immoral.

So we're left with the motive of the actor. Why do one or both parties start and continue the argument? In my case, I most often find myself arguing to win. I may be more clever than my opponent, or more knowledgeable about the subject, or I may have truth on my side. In any case, I am arguing to win, as if there is some cosmic scoreboard keeping track of the argument's progress.

For most of my life, this is how I've viewed argument. However I recently listened to one of Peter Kreeft's lectures, entitled Pro-Life Philosophy, and my view drastically changed. Near the beginning of the lecture Kreeft explains that arguing is not about winning, but rather about knowing. The purpose of an argument should not be to win, but rather to test knowledge. Like a science experiment, which tests a proposed hypothesis, an argument is an intellectual experiment which tests a theory. So the motive of the actor, in this case the arguer, can make an argument immoral. If the goal of the arguer is to win, then an argument is really no longer an argument, but a war of some sort (albeit a cold war, hopefully). Thus the principles of just war theory should be applied to determine whether or not an argument is moral.

For a person who enjoys argumentation and usually argues with the intent of winning, this can be a startling revelation. Yet Kreeft's argument about arguing makes sense. A victory in an argument (if such a quantity can be measured) usually accomplishes little more than ego inflation.

However even arguing to win can have some benefit. Throughout college, I participated in Lincoln-Douglas debate. A highly structured argument, the focus of LD debate is victory. Yet in the proper context, we can use this type of arguing to win to train our minds and prepare them for the more important arguments, those which seek knowledge and truth, not victory.

So argumentation is not necessarily wrong, but it must be approached with the proper motives in order to be right.

Is NFP evil?

Oftentimes I find myself falling into the trap of thinking of Natural Family Planning (NFP) as the official Catholic Birth Control. And certainly, NFP, though not illicit in its form, can be used in a sinful way. As I recoil from this thought, I usually bounce to the opposite extreme, thinking that NFP is completely wrong and shouldn't ever be used.

One of the reasons I love the Catholic church is that dilemmas like this have almost always already been solved - we just have to find the answers. Catholic author Thomas Storck has compiled some of the answers into a clear and concise form in his article NFP: A Defense and an Explanation.

As the title of the article suggests, he both explains why NFP is not Catholic Birth Control and defends (as well as defines) the licit use of NFP. Faithful to the Church's magisterium, Storck sifts through church teaching to reveal the nuggets of wisdom already proclaimed by the magisterium, then uses sound reasoning to answer the unexplained questions.

Although Janet Smith's babies and bonding argument has been a staple of the Catholic apologetics diet for some time, I've found that line of reasoning tends to lead to a characterization of NFP as Catholic Birth Control. However, Smith's arguments combined with Storck's elucidation of church teaching provide a potent intellectual defense of the Catholic teaching on birth control.

Yet in this case, I'd be willing to bet the best intellectual defense of the teaching means next to nothing. In matters of birth control, the Holy Spirit certainly earns his keep.

Back Again

It's been a while since I've posted, but I hope to start posting again regularly soon. It's not that I haven't had things to talk about (that may never happen), it's just I keep losing that pesky time.
Hopefully I'll find more of it soon!

Discipleship for Dummies

The readings from the Fifth Sunday of Easter could be the outline for a book entitled "Discipleship for Dummies." Discipleship is a difficult concept for me to understand, since it does not seem to be too common in our culture. I think discipleship can be thought of as a combination of two actions:

1. Imitate
2. Obey

In John 15, Jesus is comparing himself to a vine, and this followers to branches. He says his Father will be glorified when his followers "bear much fruit and become disciples" (John 15:8). This statement leaves us with two questions. How do we bear fruit? How do we become disciples? I think we'll see that these questions really aren't two, but rather one question.

John gives us an answer in the second reading. He says that we know we "belong to the truth" (1 John 3:19) if we "keep his commandments" (1 John 3:22). But what are God's commandments?

And his commandment is this: we should believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ, and love one another just as he commanded us (1 John 3:23).

John lays out two things we need to do to know we "belong to the truth" or in other words, to know we are disciples.

1. Believe in Christ
2. Love others, as he commanded

To truly believe in something is to imitate it. Think about the things you do everyday. Very few of the things we do are original. In most cases, we're imitating something or someone. Take brushing your teeth, for instance. I only know how to brush my teeth because my parents taught me. Suppose they never taught me, and never allowed me to see them brushing their teeth. Then one day, the put a toothbrush in me hand and said "use it." I would have no clue what to do with it.

Now suppose I go the dentist, and the dentist shows me a new way to brush my teeth, which she claims is better then the way I have been brushing. I have a choice. I can continue to imitate my parents, or I can imitate the dentist. I'll probably choose to imitate the method I think is most correct.

Certainly we don't imitate everything we believe (I try not to imitate the law of gravity, although I believe in it). But the things we imitate are things we believe most strongly to be good and true. So to say we believe in Jesus is to imitate him.

But besides imitation, we must obey him. And how does John claim we need to obey? We need to love others.

That's it. Simple, pure discipleship. Imitate and obey.

In the first reading, we get a glimpse of discipleship in action. Saul has traveled to Jerusalem, but he hasn't been accepted as a disciple. So Barnabas convinces the apostles that Saul is indeed a disciple by explaining that Saul has seen the Lord (believed, imitated) and spoken out in the name of Jesus (obeyed).

Discipleship certainly isn't easy, I tend to fail at it everyday. But we are called by Jesus to be part of the vine, to bear fruit in love and to become disciples.

Action-packed with Salvation

I know it has been a while since the Fourth Sunday of Easter, but the readings are so full of salvific meaning (even I can pick it up), that I just have to say something.

The drama starts out with Peter making the bold claim:

There is no salvation through anyone else, nor is there any other name under heaven given to the human race by which we are to be saved (Acts 4:12).

Even in our current day this claim irks many. But far from being a statement of exclusivity, Jesus explains in the gospel that salvation is for all.

I have other sheep that do not belong to this fold. These also I must lead, and they will hear my voice, and there will be one flock, one shepherd (John 10:16).

Now you're probably thinking, what does that statement have anything to do with salvation for all?

1. Immediately after making this statement, Jesus discusses his salvific act, his death and resurrection. So the context of his parable is clearly salvific.
2. The Jewish world-view consisted of Jews (those in "this fold") and Gentiles (everyone who is not Jewish). So when Jesus refers to other sheep not of "this fold" he is really referring to everyone in the world who is not Jewish. Thus his sheep are made up of those who are Jews and those who are not Jews, or in other words, everyone in the world.

So Peter's statement doesn't exclude anyone. But the question still remains, why does salvation have to come through Jesus alone? Why can't salvation come through Abraham or Mohammed or Buddha as well? The answer to that question depends on the nature of salvation. Not surprisingly, in the second reading, John presents us with the most concise definition of salvation in the Bible.

See what love the Father has bestowed on us that we may be called the children of God. Yet so we are (1 John 3:1)

By its nature, salvation is adoption. When we are saved, we become children of God, literally a part of his family. If we're going to be a part of his family, we need to have his permission, right? Suppose I want to be a part of Michael Jordan's family. I could claim to be his son, but unless he, or someone he sent invites me to be a part of his family, I can't really be adopted by him.

As far as I know neither Moses, nor Mohammed, nor Buddha, nor anyone outside of Jesus has claimed to be a messenger from God, inviting humans to join God's family. If someone else has made such a claim, I haven't seen evidence to back up that claim as convincing as the evidence Jesus presented.

You may be able to claim that Jesus was a cook or a con-artist, but it is unreasonable to claim that Peter's statement in Acts that salvation comes through Jesus alone is somehow closed-minded or divisive. On the contrary, it is a natural consequence of the nature of salvation.