Safe Haven

Our friend Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez got in a few mocking cracks about this, and while society at large is apparently pleased with themselves in deciding that any and all sexual activity has the same moral value and meaning, it raises an interesting question: Should the rest of us--especially faithful Christians--celebrate "straight pride" in response? I say "no." I have a couple reasons: Firstly, accepting the "gay/straight/other" taxonomy inadvertently sends the message that procreative sex between men and women is but one valid option among many. We do not celebrate the fact that we are sexually attracted in the normal way, but that this wonderful design is fruitful, intended, and a benefit to all of us. Calling it "straight pride" focuses on our sexuality and pleasure, instead of that sexuality's purpose. Secondly, even as we say that these Pride events celebrate a false anthropology that is contrary to humanity's purpose, the...

Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves wide acceptance: Most of the people who blather on about other people's "quality of life" have never actually lived. I used to be scared to lose my mind, to get Alzheimer's, or some other dementia. But you know what? I don't need my wits; I just need my joy. And if I have no consolation from the gospel, my faith is enough. Faith proclaims what is true, even if it has no companions. If people say of me, "He believed, and he loved, and therefore, he lived," then it'll be a good life, no matter what I suffer at its end.

It is often claimed that individuals have the right to claim absolute sovereignty over their reproductive faculties; it is argued that frustrating, blocking, or even mutilating them is an indispensable part of freedom. Let's simply call this "reproductive freedom." If every man and woman actually chose this option, we would literally all die, and there would be no one to replace us. The human race would not survive. Let's put it in a syllogism:  Reproductive freedom is the right to regulate the natural human capacity for reproduction, up to and including the absolute prevention of conception (or the termination of the products of conception at will); If every person chose to exercise this right--in the direction of prevention of conception or termination--the human race would become extinct; It is not good that the human race should become extinct; Therefore, the right of reproductive freedom as described above is bad.

I don't want to control uteruses; I want us to stop killing people, intentionally and systematically. But do you notice how we can't really have a conversation about anything else important, because the politics of abortion are so stark? Please don't tell me that "Until you..." support all these other policies, you don't trust my motives, because that's no way to have a discussion. Suppose, my liberal friend, that you were right on every other issue you brought up. It would still not be morally acceptable to intentionally kill a child in the womb. That's really the key, and it's why this well-poisoning isn't going to work. And you don't know me, or what I think about all the other issues of concern, because you didn't ask. I'd actually be a "liberal", in many minds. Perhaps you don't actually care, because you've decided that to be a good feminist is to support abortion. I can't imagine why. You know, we...

I need to start in an odd place: Mark Shea. If you talk to some fairly prominent "conservative" Catholics, they'll talk about how "sad" it is now, and they'll pretend that they aren't a bunch of unprincipled tribalists. On the other hand, I've tangled with The New And Not Improved Shea, and it hasn't been fun. Anyway, he still strikes me as that guy who got really justifiably upset at the numerous outrages and absurdities of the GOP primary,--Ted Cruz actually asserted that bombing an entire region indiscriminately based upon their religion was a good idea--and never had someone vaguely conservative go, "Actually, you're right. This is completely immoral and insane. This entire thing." And if someone is angry, and no one cares, they get more angry. I don't know about him, but I can't really think clearly when I'm really angry. I will turn a person I love into Pol Pot, and not even regret it, if no one tries to talk me d...

"At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life."  --- The United States Supreme Court, in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, widely attributed to Justice Anthony Kennedy (Author's Note: I can't find a juicy opposing quote. Find your own! I am neither a trained philosopher, nor an expert in Google, nor do I have an encyclopedic memory, despite some claims to the contrary. Who do you think I am, Bryan Cross? [No one would make that mistake.--ed.] I know, right? [At least you have hair.--ed.] For now.) When you ask a metaphysical realist philosopher--or better yet, someone schooled in the Catholic Philosophical Tradition (CPT) what's wrong with societies today, he or she might point to this quote right here. It's not merely because this case reaffirmed abortion-on-demand in Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton. Look instead at what it says about the nature of reality. We make ou...

We must ask, "What is an abortion?" The reason we have to do this is because the nature of any action determines the licit range of solutions or responses to it. In general, if an action is by its nature immoral, (that is, intrinsically evil) then it falls to every person to oppose it, to understand why it is evil and to show others the truth about it. This means of course that intention or circumstances might change the culpability of a person who participates in the evil act, but an intrinsically evil act can never become a good act, no matter what good is intended from it, or what difficulties surround the commission of the act. Therefore, I propose this definition: "An abortion is the deliberate taking of the life of a human person at some stage of development before birth." Consider also this definition: "Murder is the deliberate, unjustified killing of an innocent human person." The definition of "murder" rules out self-defense, justified...

Let me stop you right there, because I do. You don't have to wonder, or speculate. So you can stop the ad hominem. If we are discussing the deaths of vulnerable people for dubious reasons, I have no other motive, but to make it stop. It's a tactic, you know. It's not really a discussion about the prudent way to solve the problem. Hundreds of thousands of children potentially died yesterday, and the person I'm talking to doesn't favor any restrictions on this practice at all. I'm not the one who feels guilty, and we both ought to know it. But if this person can make you feel like any sort of ethically flawed person, they'll do it. They're participating in a genocide; I don't think who I may have voted for in the last few elections compares with that. But in case it comes up, I didn't vote for Trump, and I can't in the future. I find him so appallingly unqualified to be president that doing anything other than not participating in that decisi...

Some secularists are constantly worried about Christians, and other religious believers, calling down a Dark Cloud of Theocracy over everything. I've seen this for a solid 25 years. It hasn't happened. In fact, it's only some poor beleaguered nuns and other unfortunates in court, fighting not to be told how to live, by the government. At the risk of being glib, I'll say this: Revealed religion doesn't tell you that killing a child in the womb is wrong; revealed religion tells you that you will burn in an unending torrent of flames, for eternity, for disregarding that dictate of conscience. If you wish to ignore the frame story of death and judgment, be my guest. We're still accountable to reality, even if it were safe to ignore what God had purportedly revealed. Which is to say, a great many people are engaged in reality-denial, and somehow need to blame the Jesus people for their troubled consciences. After all, if everything about abortion were perfectly a...

One of the great quotes in any Tom Cruise movie, spoken by Nicole Kidman, trying to convince his character that driving 200 MPH in circles with 42 other infantile egomaniacs isn't maybe the safest career choice. Man, I love Tom Cruise. I just do. Anyway, they say we want to control women's bodies. In fact, we argue that a woman is rational enough to control her own body, up to the moment where she becomes a parent. I don't know why this is so hard for people. Well, I do know why. A disordered sexuality leads people to do almost anything in service to it, including murder. "Uncle Tony" is right this time.

The US Catholic Bishops note , "Catholics often face difficult choices about how to vote. This is why it is so important to vote according to a well-formed conscience that perceives the proper relationship among moral goods. A Catholic cannot vote for a candidate who favors a policy promoting an intrinsically evil act, such as abortion, euthanasia, assisted suicide, deliberately subjecting workers or the poor to subhuman living conditions, redefining marriage in ways that violate its essential meaning, or racist behavior, if the voter's intent is to support that position. In such cases, a Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in grave evil. At the same time, a voter should not use a candidate's opposition to an intrinsic evil to justify indifference or inattentiveness to other important moral issues involving human life and dignity."

I was going to post about the paragraphs in the universal Catechism about murder and abortion. Those paragraphs (say, 2268-2275) will never be a waste of your time. Yet it seemed more important to say this: One cannot actually reason if one's attempts to do so are nothing more than expressions of disdain for someone else's hypocrisy. It may be startlingly satisfying to make broad statements about one's opponents, and their alleged moral inferiority, but that's not an argument. Let's get practical: It is either always morally acceptable to obtain an abortion, or it is never morally acceptable to obtain an abortion. Nuance--for the moment--is for sissies, and sophists. I'll grant you that hard cases exist; that's why they're hard. "Abortion" for this discussion means the deliberate killing, by any means, of a human being in his or her mother's body. Make a choice. If it had to be one or the other, and all the squeamish hem-hawers and ...

People say "political correctness" bothers them. You know what bothers me? A lack of care about correctness in general. Moreover, a lack of care about caring. If you want to talk about how the regime of political liberalism rules certain ideas out of bounds in an allegedly pluralistic society, say that. The funny thing about claiming to "tell it like it is" is that you'd better be right. Too many use an alleged opposition to political correctness as an excuse to be jerks. Racists, religious bigots, whatever else. I still may end up shot against the wall, but these Catholics throwing their lot in with the latest prince (let the reader understand) are a bunch of wimps and cowards. Natural law remains true. It doesn't actually matter how much government-sanctioned disapproval they bring to bear; we've still got the truth, and it's truth that the world wants and needs, even if they make a big show otherwise. I won't sell foreigners and immigrants d...

I got to thinking about this because I have noted my own intellectual journey from one rooted in emotion and tribalism, to one more open to reason, and then as one who sees the possible error of ignoring feelings--from oneself or others--in an alleged devotion to "facts" and "logic" that is in fact another form of emotional tribalism. It's a sobering thing to realize in one's mind, My "enemy" has made an argument, the moral force of which I have yet to take account. The "Left" does this all the time. I had become so adept at expressing outrage against the murder of children in the womb, and the sexual libertinism that leads to it, that in large part I simply ignored whatever a "liberal" said. I sneered at his morality, I seethed at it, I did everything except take his moral claims seriously; that is, as they are offered in good faith. Then I begin to think, "Hey, man, you were just a kid," and yet I answer, "No,...

I saw a couple of news and magazine pieces after his tweet about Mayor Pete’s homosexuality. They all had the same stupid mistake, so let’s address it here: Mayor Pete does not have to repent for “being gay” (whatever that means); he needs to repent for engaging in homosexual sexual acts. I don’t begrudge him at all for attempting to “reclaim” particular issues from the Right, or helping to rebuild an active Christian Left. Well and good. But the worse sin is to lead people to believe that homosexuality is acceptable, ordinary, and good. Lots of conventionally-attracted “allies” may be surprised by this. Read Romans 1:32 closely. Many people desperately want to believe that God doesn’t care what we do with our bodies, especially in regard to sex. Curiously, no one makes this error when there is a rampage shooting. It might as well be Franklin Graham. To say that he is disliked, or that he lacks the diplomatic talent of his father, is probably an understatement. Then again, it mig...

I don't have anything profound to say. It's just weird, which is to say, we're used to death, and it is still fundamentally absurd. I just couldn't get past it, which is not to say I had tears. It's deeper than a feeling; it's a gut conviction: You're supposed to be here, and you're not.  We all have those people, and the list gets longer and longer as we go through life. Christianity is not a bunch of sentimental claptrap about being in a better place. It's in fact a contention that this world we know isn't real in some sense at all, that we feel sadness and sorrow at death because our immortal souls know that the separation of our souls from our bodies is just wrong, and that things won't be right again until that separation is reversed. If you don't believe in the resurrection of the body, you're not actually a Christian. Christ rose from the dead to defeat death itself. This is what Easter is about. Anyway, I had this thought:...

Someone has a ridiculous poll on Facebook, like "Who's The Greatest Country Artist?" and it's ridiculous for 2 reasons: 1. It's like being asked to choose between family; and 2. George is better, and Tim would agree. I actually love Tim McGraw. His music is great, he paid his dues, he's a normal guy who's earned everything he's ever gotten. Hard beginning to life. You can understand that wistful sadness in many songs, knowing his story. I love him. He's the Daryl Hall of country music: We all love him, we know he's underrated, we can't make it up to him, so we just relax and enjoy his gifts. George Strait is arguably the greatest of all time. He's the Roger Federer of country music: the greatest, and still great. He's had so many number 1 country songs that a new release on such a collection became number 1, and screwed up the count. It's 50-something. They put out a companion album of beloved Strait songs that barely missed...

It's asinine to believe we can change genders, or sexes. It just is. If you are struggling with gender expectations/gender dysphoria/wounds from your family of origin, I'd want to actually help you, not mutilate you, first of all. I don't care what Brawny paper towels does with their marketing, in a sense. I don't actually know what paper towels I use. But I won't do a boycott, and here's why: I am not principally a consumer or buyer. I don't want to communicate in any sense that the truths about human sexuality are reflections of merely my preferences; I'm not part of an interest group, and I can't be bought off or pacified. Reality asserts itself, even when it's unpopular. If I'm the only one who says it, what else is new? Maybe I can have a "moment," where the world starts listening to me, as if I have something new. I don't, but our culture is like that. It's actually funny that these unfortunate people keep "di...

Sometimes, people will say, "Unless you do/have/experience X, you don't get to have an opinion." It's a radical subjectivism, from one angle, and a pragmatism, from another. Quite honestly, it's a move people usually make to shut down debate--especially with regard to abortion, for example--most likely because the moral justification for such an act is dubious, and they know it. Funnily enough though, when they are wronged, many people conveniently rediscover their notion of objective truth! The pragmatism is almost centered on the body, as if the actions we take with our bodies are by definition morally neutral. Then again, when someone isn't trying to justify themselves, they are able to see how foolish this would be, applied to all situations. I have never committed adultery in the strict sense, but I can give you all sorts of reasons and examples of its harm. Again, when you're not implicating someone you're talking to, you're a trenchant soc...

One of the arguments in favor of the mainstreaming of homosexual relations goes like this: "It's more than a bit rich for the hypocritical heterosexuals to worry now about the downfall of our society." I agree. Which is why adultery, divorce, abortion, contraception, etc. are all wrong. I find it hard to believe that no gay "allies" could see this argument coming. They may take advantage of the destruction of all the laws and mores with respect to human sexuality, but anyone trying to rebuild the culture would say, "Hypocrisy is still the tribute that vice pays to virtue." That's also why a slippery slope argument isn't always a fallacy. The long form of, "It's a slippery slope" is, "The basis for a principled distinction between a behavior you deem acceptable, and one you deem abhorrent, has been removed." The very purpose of a reductio ad absurdum is to create the conditions where a person of good will will cr...