Lead Us Into Temptation: American Materialism

To speak of American "materialism" is...both an understatement and a misstatement. The material goods that historically have been the symbols which elsewhere separated men from one another have become, under American conditions, symbols which hold men together. From the moment of our rising in the morning, the breakfast food we eat, the coffee we drink, the automobile we drive to work--all these and nearly all the things we consume become thin, but not negligible, bonds with thousands of other Americans. -- Daniel J. Boorstin

What's wrong with American culture? This question has become prominent in Christian circles as the moral course of the United States becomes more and more frightening. The answer, in one respect, lies in the materialism of the American people. This is not materialism, in the philosophical sense, where all that exists is matter and one denies the existence of God -- though that sort of materialism easily establishes this second sort. This materialism is the fruit of avarice and greed. It's a common mentality -- we're all guilty of it -- that we don't really care about things per se; we know who we are without our possessions. Our sense of self is not bound to the material world. Of all the so-called "-isms" of our time, none has ever been more misunderstood, more criticized, and more relevant than materialism. Who but fools and the occasional nutty libertarian rise to its defense? It's safe to say that while materialism may not be the most shallow of all the "-isms" plaguing the world, it certainly is among those that have triumphed.

There are two questions that come to mind. Both are profoundly interesting. (1) Why are we so materialistic? (2) Why are we so unwilling to acknowledge and explore what seems to be one of the central aspects of modernity?

This consumerism is not forced on us. We're just overwhelmingly attracted to the world of goods. That's why we call them "goods" and not "bads." Perhaps we should call them "bads." Across the ocean, American culture is criticized for being too materialistic -- we're only 10% of the world's population and yet we're leaders in the consumption of the world's resources. While percentage may shift, the shame remains. Its been said that Americans aren't materialistic, if anything, we are not materialistic enough. If only Americans desired objects and knew what they meant, there wouldn't be signifying systems of marketing, packaging, fashion, and branding to get in the way. Theoretically, Americans would collect, use, dispense, etc. based on some inner sense of value. It is precisely that inner sense of value that we don't have.

In many ways, consumption of goods and their meanings is how most Western young people cope in with the existential anxiety that is only more acute since "modernity" has dismissed traditional religious meanings. The culture of America is one in which most people can have practically anything. The common sayings "use it up, wear it out, make do with, or just do without" don't exist anymore. Thanks to credit cards and installment debt, we can be instantly gratified and all before middle age -- no need to work for it, no need for a sense of value or meaning, no need for accomplishment.

It's fairly simple. Play by the rules and you'll have a lot in life. What are the rules? They're fairly simple. Finish high school, go to college (maybe), get a job, don't get pregnant or get someone pregnant -- luckily, we have abortion now, right? -- don't become addicted to drugs and you'll make it in America. The dramatic change in American culture in large part has something to do with the fact that in the last thirty years -- for the first time in Western culture -- lower economic classes have had access to "goods" that were previously reserved for the wealthy. It's a gift so great that we've lost all sense of personal responsibility.

Humans, by their nature, are consumers. Humans use tools because what they create with the tools are useful. In other words, tools are not the ends but the means. If "modernity" tells the story, materialism does not destroy one's sense of spirituality; spirituality, rather, is the substitute when "goods" are lacking -- what else are humans to do? When you don't have anything, you sit around and "invent" a life to come that is rich and splendid because it's the obvious psychological projection man would make. Heaven is just mythical nonsense, isn't it? On the other side of the coin, when you possess plenty, the "goods" began to enchant you. The life to come is obscured by the here and now. "I deserve richness now, not in the life to come." Right? This cycle is self-nurturing. There is a circular route from desire to purchase to disappointment to renewed desire. It's in fact what advertisers want. After all, we are consumers of everything--of health services, education, political representation, and the list goes on.

Given all this, is it worth it? Does it make us happy? Do some suffer inordinately for the excesses of others--does it even matter? Why should we care? The more relevant question, perhaps, is what are we going to do with all this stuff we have bought when it becomes junk? What's the link between our rate of consumption and thus our culture with the fact that America leads the industrialized world in rates of murder, violent crime, juvenile violent crime, imprisonment, divorce, abortion, single-parent households, obesity, teen suicide, cocaine consumption, per capita consumption of all drugs, pornography production and consumption?

There is yet another consideration. Given this unquenchable desire for goods, we can only appreciate how poverty can be so crippling in the modern world. Since meaning derives from owning and possessing, it logically follows that poverty is not just a lacking of things, but meaning as well -- the exclusion from the most important aspects of modern life. When one hears that some young African American male has killed someone over a pair of name-brand sneakers or a monogrammed athletic jacket, it becomes painstakingly clear that the chronically poor, unemployed youth are living the absurdist life described by modern existentialists. It, too, becomes clear that such people are after what all people want: association, affiliation, inclusion, and purpose; the problem lies in the fact that they are being bombarded, as is everyone else, with commercial promises of being "cool," etc. Meaning is added to objects by advertising, branding, packaging, and fashion because that meaning--which should be called "status"--is what we're after. Why else would some woman spend thousands for Prada besides the mere possession of such a product "says" something about her? She's a woman of status. Right?

Social identity by means of consumption can be summarized in the popular catchphrase "you are what you eat." In the same way, Americans are what they wear, what they drive, how they spend their vacations, where they live, and what they watch on television. In these terms, what's being packaged is not the goods as much as the buyer of the goods -- man is looking for an identity because in a godless world, there is no such thing. In an open market, we consume both real and imaginary meanings, fusing objects, symbols, images, and ideas together, and so rather than living lives, we live lifestyles. For good or for ill, lifestyles are more or less secular religions and consistent patterns of valuing objects. One's lifestyle is not related to how much one makes, per se, though that's part of it -- it has more to do with what one buys.

One reason (and this is my personal opinion) that we use terms like "hippies" or "Generation X" is that we don't understand social class anymore -- what we understand is lifestyle. It seems that we might not be able to say how much money it takes to be a hippy, or how old you have to be, but we all know where hippies gather, how they dress, what they play, what they drive, what they eat, and what their general worldview as a group is. The same is true of nerds, jocks, druggies, etc. In a movie, we immediately can identify a person with such a stereotype simply by their dress and by their action. These images imprint upon us and in many ways, we attempt to live them out. We conceptualize everything, which is not a bad thing; the problem is that we seem to have programmed ourselves to live up to conceptualized models instead of toward the fulfillment of our human nature.

Given that this is the age of empiricism and data, a marketer can easily chart your shifting purchases. If a consumer specialist knew, say, your purchases for the last year, they might -- with some accuracy -- be able to predict what you'll buy in the next year and attempt to sell it to you. This is both good and bad depending on their intention and the effects of such action on society. People are "labeled" -- we're a nation that conceptualizes and puts people into groups using models. Therefore, to a consumer specialist, an American consumer fits into a group and not a social class -- we're beyond class barriers, remember? This means that the group you affiliate yourself with, in many ways, has more to do with the brand of computer you bought last week and how expensive it was than with your income, age, education, job, or religious views.

In many respects, commercial culture is playing out the historic role of "organized religion." The daily concern for piety has been replaced by daily concern of consumption. The concern is pocketbooks and not prayer books. The concern is not for the priest who preaches about God and heaven, but the salesman who talks about "goods" and services -- which will, of course, bring us the same joy. The language of community and shared values is now on the package, in the brand, and in style. All one has to do to confirm this is argument is turn on the television and watch the flood of commercials -- sitting before the electronic altar that owns the souls of millions of Americans, we immediately began to take in the sermons of corporations on how to get the "most out of" their products. The organization and swiftness in which they evangelize should be of concern to Christians trying to "sell" the Gospel of Life to sinners. What is most concerning is that the marketing industry has little moral taste in how they make their money, e.g. half-naked women on a magazine cover. (On a brief tangent -- often enough the cover of a man's magazine is a beautiful woman, yes? She is lovely and there is a sense that one must live up to a certain identity to have a woman like that. This is especially the thinking of younger men. If you look at the cover a woman's magazine, often enough it's a woman. She's so slim and beautiful. What does a young woman think? "I have to look like her and act like her for a man to notice me." At least that's how I perceive it).

The real work of advertising is subliminal. What's so fascinating is not only do we lend ourselves to the creation of advertising, but we proceed not only to buy the products but the aura around it. The great irony of the American culture of individualism is that it's profoundly a culture of conformism. Fit in, don't stand out, be cool, chill out. Does the current identity you have conformed to not work anymore? Well, that's no problem! You are not what you make, you are what you buy. Don't like who you are? Buy different brands. Shop for a new lifestyle. American youth, don't like the Abercrombie & Fitch image and lifestyle? Visit Hot Topic -- be "emo" and gothic. Nevermind the two stores have the exact same owner. If you don't like either of those, you can go buy saggy jeans and let them hang down to your knees.

Another problem is that these images are delivered to us in abundance by the mass media. Think of the show Beverly Hills 90210. Perhaps, you haven't watched it. God has blessed you if that's the case. Nevertheless, the audience is invited to experience the lifestyle of affluent Southern California teenagers. But is the show's portrayal how California teenagers really are? It doesn't matter really, one might say, so long as the fictional characters are somewhat congruent with the audience's expectations. Regardless, the image now imprinted on America is that the life of a teenager in California involves trips to health spas, wearing midriff-exposing t-shirts, and driving fancy cars. Would it surprise you that people try to live out that image? Strangely enough, the desperation to become some image -- not the image of God -- actually gave rise to "knock-off" brands. If you can't have the real thing, there's always the next best thing. But doesn't that involve a risk of rejection? People who wear "knock-off" brands aren't good enough for the real thing; often enough, they aren't real supposedly. They're fakes, or to use the common term of American youth, they're posers. Realness is allegedly based on how well one sells an image and not having the right brand can be a bad start--it has nothing to do with the interior self, whatever that is.

This all presents a profound challenge to say the least. All of this demonstrates all the more, the necessity and urgency for Catholics and people of good will to live moral, upright lives in accord with the will of God and not that of this world. The eternal words of God's Wisdom is ever more revelatory in light of this reality: Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and decay destroy, and thieves break in and steal. But store up treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor decay destroys, nor thieves break in and stea. For where your treasure is, there also will your heart be. (Matthew 6: 19-21).

Note: Here I argued that Americans divide themselves into subcultures that in many ways become monolithic. Might there be some connection between consumerism, identity, and the socio-political groups in which we divide ourselves? Thoughts?

Catholic Teaching, Homosexuality, and American Life

Many facets of American secular culture is contrary to basic Christian ethics, which as a consequence, requires a response on the part of the faithful. One of these issues is "tolerance" and homosexuality. The Christian committment to protecting marital dignity and the family is absolute. The profound temptation in politics, given the "us" versus "them" mentality, is to lose a sense charity that is due to our neighbor, even those with whom we disagree. It happens all the time. Just this week, one of my roommates -- who is entirely oblivious to my sexual orientation -- made a discourteous statement about "fags." It was hurtful. Given our friendship, if he knew I am homosexual, perhaps he wouldn't have said that. But that's not sufficient. I would rather he -- because of interior conviction -- would refrain from such comments, not simply because of his audience. This should be true of all Catholics.

There is no disagreement here on the sanctity of marriage and on the disharmony of homosexual acts with the complementarity of the sexes and the sexual design itself. The point of interest here is the approach one ought to take to the debate about marriage, family, and the rights of homosexual people. Unfortunately, it is almost impossible to speak about homosexuality without stirring up preconceptions or emotional reactions. Nearly everyone comes to the subject of homosexuality with some agenda -- often enough, their position is non-negotiable. Perhaps, it shouldn't be. After all, what does the other side possibly have to say that is relevant? Nevermind the sarcasm. This is often how we think. The problem with agendas is that they can take on an importance and value that closes us off from empathy, compassion, and understanding.

The fundamental question I'm concerned about is this: how can Catholics be faithful to the constant and clear teaching of the Church on the issue of human sexuality and still be inclusive and sensitive to the plight of homosexuals, both in the Church and American life? Let's move past the basics. No, homosexuals cannot marry. No, homosexuals should not adopt children. No, same-sex sexual activity is not equal or comparable to marital love. Despite these moral truths, most Americans have a profoundly different view of human sexuality than the Catholic Church. There must be dialogue with those who disagree with us and we have to educate our Catholic brothers and sisters, as well as everyone else with the authentic Catholic view.

There is yet another question. How did this "hot-button" issue become the problem that it is? This is a question that often goes unnoticed and unanswered.

Many gays and lesbians drift away from their faith. Often enough, a sense of alienation or hurt isn't traced to a particular event or person, but it's there nonetheless. Personally, I am friends with many homosexuals, both male and female. I'd say less than half of them believe in God; I've discussed sexuality with many of them and have listened to stories of their quiet drift away from faith into skepticism and their sense of liberation away from religion and religious people. The others who believe in God, particularly those who are in some sense religious, do not share my view on living the Christian life as a homosexual person. But is this really surprising? What my friendship with them has offered me -- which I hope to share with everyone I can -- is profound insights that have formed my views and approach to homosexuality, marriage, and family life.

In my discussions with other homosexual men and women, there is a single reality that we all unfailingly describe. It has effected all of us -- regardless of our experiences or views -- and that reality is silence. People often talk about what is important to them. Given this, silence can have many meanings. It can be perceived as a form of denial of another's presence or existence in the community. This silence to many homosexuals means "you don't matter." In a debate about whether the Church loves gays enough to support those who live chastely, a homosexual Catholic said to me, "Eric, never once is a prayer uttered for homosexuals -- for their souls, for their struggles, or for their concerns -- in prayers of intercession during Mass." I haven't forgotten it and I think about it daily at Mass during the prayers of the faithful; it's always the prayer I hold in my heart that the priest commends to God with all others. But truly, such an omission is especially noticeable because we usually pray for literally everything else under the sun.

Back to the theme of silence -- what does a homosexual person do in this silence? He or she typically internalizes the negative messages they hear. I've always found that the so-called "gay lifestyle" people talk about, which encompasses a subculture of anonymous sexual encounters, sex clubs, pornography, drugs, and an overidentification with one's sexual orientation, to be grossly applied to all homosexual people in an unfortunate generalization--especially by fundamentalist, conservative Christians. This is not the experience or way of life for many gays. There's not a moment of my own life when I wasn't aware of "being different" and in my adolescence, this view deeply upset me. I've never been promiscous. Many homosexuals aren't, but admittedly, the danger to be promiscuous is there. Never once in my life have I attended a gay pride parade. I thought the entire idea was stupid. To say "I'm a human being with equal dignity, deserving of rights and respect" seemed dubious if one is willing to stand on floats cross-dressed, often enough half-naked, behaving in a flamboyantly sexual manner with people of the same-sex. It was ridiculous. I never once wanted to flood the education system with programs to teach children that homosexuality is a normal, acceptable alternative lifestyle and violate others' rights to have their view on homosexuality. Surely, more gays and lesbians than we imagine simply want to be able to visit their loved ones in the hospital and make decisions for them when they're dying without being prevented from seeing them or making health care decisions solely because they aren't married and as well enjoy other benefits -- that don't necessarily require the status of 'marriage' or undermine marriage -- while living quietly and peacefully without disturbing anyone.

Much of the talk about homosexuality and generalizations made about us often don't take into account or reflect our actual lived experience. Even within the Catholic Church, the talk about homosexuality hardly ever has anything to do about homosexuals themselves. There is hardly a word uttered about our pain, our journeys in faith, the hard questions we face, and so much more. I'm saying we're more of an abstract subject than people. We're also spoken to (don't act out on your sexual impulses) or about (homosexuals in general). But no one hardly ever speaks with us. Listening is not always about agreeing with all that one hears.

I mentioned that there isn't a moment in my memory of consciousness when I wasn't aware of a "difference" and it didn't take me long to realize what it was. This isn't the case for all gays as individual testimonies will affirm; some realize it later. But for some reason unbeknownst to me is that I never dared to mention it to anyone. It was a secret. In fact, the complete absence of any note of the subject in my family, in school, in television, in newspapers, or in books I could get a hold of, made the reality much more interesting and more difficult to deal with. I wondered if this curious reality -- this unmentionable fact -- had any physical manifestation. This in many ways deeply shaped my views later when I was certain there were others like me and how negatively society seemed to view us and treat us.

I remember reading a letter written by a homosexual Catholic quoting Will Rogers who once said, "An Indian always looks back after he passes something so he can get a view of it from both sides. A white man doesn't do that. He just figures that all sides of a thing are automatically the same. That is why you should never judge a man while you are facing him. You should go around behind him like an Indian and look at what he is looking at, then go back and face him and you will have a totally different idea of who he is." The Catholic in question practices his faith, loves God, and is deeply religious. He also dissents on the issue of homosexuality. From his perspective, most Catholics don't take the time -- and aren't interested -- in learning about the lives of their homosexual brothers and sisters, or imagining what it is like to walk in their shoes. "Look and listen before you judge and speak," he said.

What is the experience of gays?

The "gay experience" is the experience of being different. Long before I was conscious of sexuality, I was different.

The "gay experience" is one of being bad. The topic is often avoided all together. It's discussed in hushed tones or it's discussed angrily. Often enough, the whole experience is reduced to genital acts. Regardless of sexual orientation, sexuality is an important element of human personality, an integral party of one's overall consciousness. It is both a central aspect of one's self-understanding and a crucial factor in one's relationships with others and influences how one relates to others. The common expression "homosexuality is a sin" can be very misleading and easily misinterpreted by a homosexual person, particularly an adolescent struggling already in the period of their life where the focus is self-identity and that is even more difficult with a powerful sense of difference that in our society they feel they cannot talk about. In listing homosexuality -- "the sin of homosexuality" -- in a list of sins, without explanation or clarification that is found in Church teaching can be simplistic and again, misleading. This is not just for homosexuals, but for everyone. All Catholics can misrepresent the Church's teaching without proper clarifications being made. But all of this is especially harmful for homosexuals who recognize their sexual orientation as a discovery of an already existent condition.

The "gay experience" is the experience of secrecy. Don't ask. Don't tell. Nevermind the interior destruction it may cause you. All that matters really is that others are uncomfortable with it -- the homosexual condition is inconvenient and disturbing to them, so keep it to yourself. In essence, keep it quiet and in the closet. Become two people. Live in two worlds. Why reveal it? Who wants to be called a "fag" or "dyke" anyways? This may not be the intention of others, but it is often enough how it's experienced and in many respects what it translates into in practice. Demanding hiddeness and secrecy is truly a type of rejection. Additionally, this isolation inflicts further damage and hurt on homosexual people who already by their condition have lost capacity to fulfill the desire for marital love and intimacy that is wired into human nature, which includes all that comes with it: family life with a spouse, children, grandchildren, and so many other blessings that most people simply take for granted. Some people choose to become priests and religious, others choose to stay single; for homosexuals, there doesn't seem to be much of a choice on the road to Heaven and alienation only makes it more difficult.

The "gay experience" is the experience of loneliness. Years can be spent carrying a secret that cannot be shared. This reality creates a rift in even the most profound and closest of friendships. Everyone knows the "façade-me," but not the real me. The problem goes beyond sex because sexuality is not only about sex. All humans are sexual beings and the real challenge for homosexuals, practicing and non-practicing, is intimacy, self-disclosure, acceptance, and love. This sense of loneliness is the breeding ground for dysfunctional lifestyles, compulsive sexual behavior, depression, and even suicide.

What is often the result of this experience?

The "gay experience" is the experience of freedom -- transcendence, may be a better term. Homosexuals can make a clear analysis of what others often take for granted because they, at times, look from the outside. But this is not all that "freedom" means. In modernity, this "freedom" is a movement away from the rigid definitions of manliness and womanliness because to abolish this, seemingly, is the only way for homosexuals to gain recognition and acceptance. What do they want this for? Peace. A chance at not living a fragmented, broken life -- showing one face to the world and living with another. This is the heart of the "gay movement." Years of loneliness and isolation -- that should and could have been avoided -- brings gays together in a sometimes nihilistic movement for self-affirmation.

The "gay experience" is the experience of compassion. How can anyone who experiences so much exclusion not become experts in inclusion? Since it is traditionally conservatives who oppose homosexuality (in the broad sense), this movement often manifests itself as opposition to anything conservatives support. The gay rights movement links itself to the "pro-choice" movement because allegedly all pro-life conservatives care about is unborn babies -- what about everyone else?

The "gay experience" is one that is paradoxically and ironically open to God. Homosexuals can be deeply religious. Jesus of Nazareth is a misunderstood, alienated figure. He is the "suffering servant" that the prophet Isaiah talks about. Suffering is an experience that homosexuals easily identify with. But homosexual religiosity is often done in a free form way, away from organized religion, away from structure because homosexuals don't feel that these communities are very welcoming. If it is done in a religious community, it usually occurs in one that is politically liberal and affirmative of gay rights.

We all know that gays "come out." But what we all don't realize is that "coming out" is not a once in a lifetime thing. It's a daily task. Gays live out their lives in a predominantly heterosexual world. It's always presumed that everyone is heterosexual. Often enough, gays are faced with the question of whether or not this or that occassion calls for revealing one's sexual orientation and it always involves risk -- risk of alienation, rejection, misunderstanding, violence, loss of a job, or a rift in a relationship. When a gay person "comes out," often enough, the most difficult person to tell is their own self. Homosexuals condition themselves to not accept and recognize who they are. The false identity, in a way, becomes their identity because no one can simply "act" for so long without the false realities imprinting on them. It's the worse kind of sin, the worse kind of oppression. Self-deception. It opens millions of doors to other vices, particularly moral compromise. In such dire circumstances, one might do anything to gain the approval of others.

This is fundamentally the story of homosexuality in the lives of many men and women. It begins as considerable time and effort doing everything possible to rid themselves of any outward sign of one's own homosexual desires, that is, by crafting an elaborate system of hiding true feelings and acting "straight." Some even attempt marriage and even parenting, which only ends in heart break or a life of self-deception and internal destruction. The energy it takes to hide and pretend is too costly: ruined marriages, disrupted relationships, double lives of secrecy, loneliness, internal conflicts and isolation.

It makes sense then that after experiencing such isolation, homosexuals often have an overidentification with their sexual orientation. They finally can "be themselves" and that "self" that they never were, is a homosexual and it maintains a lot of their attention.

Gay subcultures don't exist to ensnare people into a certain way of living. To be sure, there are destructive elements to such environments. But most certainly, it is more liberating and comparatively a more safe environment from the perspective of a homosexual who has lived in silence, in a heterosexual world. I can easily see why one would choose such a path. The reason homosexuals seek out each other is not because of in-built pervesion, but from misunderstanding and an often a lifetime of loneliness and a universal need for intimacy, and for that embrace they feel they never had. The sense that no one in the world cares nor understands, can lead to in the long run compulsive tendencies (after you've revealed yourself), to rebellion, and to the pull of homosexual company where one is at home with people who care and people who understand -- away from a lifetime of gay jokes and haunting words like "fag" and "dyke."

The public debate on homosexuality leads to a more fundamental question. What is the origin of homosexuality?

It's the age-old question: is homosexuality the result of nature or nuture? Truthfully, little is known or understood about the origin of homosexuality with any kind of certainty. The fact that certain theories are politicized makes answering this question all the more difficult.

Again, when you think about it, what do we know about the origins of heterosexuality? Sure, it is evident that is apart of the creative order, but children generally show a "repulsion" ('eww girls!') or uneasiness about the opposite sex at a young age. Why the shift for the majority? And how do we accomodate this or that theory when even with modern knowledge, we don't know what over half of the human genome actually does, that is, what 'this' or 'that' gene is for. It seems that what is normative is taken for granted. And while this question doesn't bear the same urgency that homosexuality does, I think it's a humbling question. There is much to learn about human sexuality.

I certainly have my views on the origin of homosexuality and I have no interest in trying to make a case for them. Several studies, including one by The Kinsey Institute, reported that no one knows what causes homosexuality. In fact, they argued, scientists are more clear on what does not cause homosexuality. Parenting in itself doesn't cause homosexuality. Children raised by same-sex parents are no more likely to grow up homosexual than children raised by heterosexual parents. This isn't to deny other ill-effects of having same-sex couples parenting, but to show that homosexuality is not solely caused by "bad" parenting.

Homosexuality possibly has a genetic foundation. Many Christians don't like this idea because it seems that God causes homosexuality. But it doesn't mean that God actively intends it rather than passively allows it. The same is true for a person who may be genetically inclined toward alcoholism or aggression. These things wouldn't be termed "good," but they certainly have a biological foundation. In a fallen world, Dawkins' idea of "selfish genes" is not entirely impractical. Moreover some things don't make sense in solely genetic terms. It doesn't make sense in terms of pure biology for a person to use contraception, since their genes lose out due to this decision. In certain circumstances, it doesn't make sense for organisms to act altruistically -- e.g. humans sacrificing their lives for others -- in terms of reproduction. Even then, a biological foundation doesn't make alcoholism moral -- no matter how strong the inclination. In the same way, a biological foundation of homosexuality wouldn't change the morality of homosexual sexual behavior. Why? Free will doesn't change. Metaphysics doesn't change. Men and women would remain complementary to one another based on their ontological, metaphysical differences and their union would reflect the inner unity of the Creator. This would occur still in their striking way of cooperating with God in the transmission of life and still remains that choosing a partner of the same-sex would be to annul the rich symbolism and meaning, not to mention the built-in goals of the sexual design. That is to say, ultimately, human nature does not evolve. It is objective and shared in common by everyone. It's not based only on genes because genes vary person to person.

A genetic inclination toward homosexuality is an example of what may be a fundamental, universal cause of homosexuality. If homosexuality doesn't have a biological foundation, it is more difficult to account for. Why? If homosexuality is entirely, say, psychological, then one of the challenges any theory would have to meet lies in the fact that there is no one way that all homosexual men and women feel and act. All homosexuals have entirely different life experiences, which leads to different psychological experiences. Arguably the rift in parent-child relationships between homosexuals and their parents may not be the cause of homosexuality, but a result of homosexuality--the "rift" is due to the secret that you can't share, that disables you from in some sense from identifying with things masculine and feminine, etc and maybe not the other way around. It could very well be the former. Nevertheless, to accomodate this position, I've seen many make the case (which I'm not arguing for or against--here, at least) that there are probably a number of "homosexualities" -- since human beings are multidimensional (more than just biology), situational (unique in their own life experience and interpretation of it), and contextual (in a particular culture at a specific time). Homosexuality then is compromised of a variety of experiences and expressions. This view, potentially would even include a possibly genetic inclination toward homosexuality as well as other types of conditions that result in same-sex attraction. Given this complexity, it seems that speaking about a "homosexual lifestyle" can really be unfair at times because what one is trying to conceptualize in such a phrase may be grossly inaccurate.

Given that the genesis of homosexuality is obscure, it is increasingly more difficult to define it. So then what is a homosexual person? "A homosexual person is a person who sustains a predominant, persistent and exclusive psychosexual attraction toward members of the same sex. A homosexual person is one who feels sexual desire and a sexual responsiveness to persons of the same sex and who seeks or would like to seek actual sexual fulfillment of this desire by sexual acts with a person of the same sex." That's the best definition I've ever encountered and it includes pretty much all we know about homosexuality and homosexual people -- very little.

How are Catholics to respond to homosexuality?

When gays rebel, or "act out" -- particularly when they do something religiously offensive, e.g. dress up like nuns -- there is an immediate temptation to respond to such outrageous behavior with divisive comments that are just as outrageous that accomplish nothing and fuel the fires of hatred against the Catholic Church. When rage meets rage, the Devil has met his goal. How can we be proactive and not reactive?

The scriptures give a clear and consistent condemnation of same-sex sexual activity. However, the research of the natural and social sciences and the lived experience of ordinary Catholics should all play a part in how we approach the issue of homosexuality -- particularly in subjective culpability and how the truth is to be preached. I find that a rigid and coldly objective application of the Church's teaching can be most discouraging. The least effective way is to be stridently objective, not taking into account the spiritual journey of the person you are advising. When we focus on the homosexual orientation, we're ignoring the whole of the person. Each human person is a story in his or her self. A person that is thrown into the mystery of life, trying to uncover its meaning, living in a world with all its unanswered questions of history, of competing philosophies and religions with even more stark differences in how they view the human person, as well as with different life experiences that influence how we respond to the question of what it means to be human. Sexual orientation does not encompass the entirety of humanity, but it does play a vital role and this needs to be taken into account, not just in the Church but in American life, particularly in our public policies.

In dealing with the complex issues surrounding homosexuality, it is very easy to give simple and at times caustic answers. It is more difficult and more rewarding to travel the road less traveled and to listen with an open heart and apply objective moral norms sensitively to basic human needs, concerns, and aspirations. Conversion is normally not something that happens in an instant or overnight, it is an ongoing process; we grow only gradually.

A simple insight into the general Catholic response to the "problem of homosexuality" lies in parish life. When one thinks of ministry that involves "family life" how quickly do we think of homosexuality? Not very quickly, I'd imagine. Why isn't homosexuality considered a part of family life ministry? Homosexuals have families, are apart of families, and parents often have a hard time dealing with the revelation that their son or daughter is homosexual. It's a family issue. So why do we hardly talk about it? In fact, how frequently does one see a ministry in support for homosexual Catholics trying to live in accord with the Church's teaching in parishes? In the U.S., the sole ministry to homosexual Catholics, Courage, has about 100 chapters. This is good news and bad news. It is good that there are so many chapters. It is bad that there are so few. Only about half of the dioceses in the country have a chapter. In most dioceses, only one parish has one. What does that say about the Catholic Church in America? In my view, Courage does not get remotely the support it should from bishops and clergy.

It seems that homosexual Catholics hardly get the support they need from their Catholic brothers and sisters. It is absolutely true that Catholics have an obligation to build a moral and just society. However, there seems to be a hypocrisy in the way Catholics and other Christians make extraordinary demands on homosexuals in American life on the basis of "loving them", yet the amount of effort spent in offering support and educational awareness of the plight of homosexuals and how to accomodate them sensitively within a Catholic moral framework is very disheartening. How many chastity resources for homosexuals can one think of that is secular, that may appeal to homosexuals who have struggles with approaching anything religous? What are non-religious homosexuals to do? Moreover, just how much do we actually think of the concerns and journey of homosexual people when considering public policy?

Much more can be said. But I think one thing is clear: before we, as Catholics, critique the moral inadequacy of society, perhaps we should reflect just on how much we contribute to and perpetuate that inadequacy. By reflecting on the common experience of homosexuals, we can take it into account as we develop our views of public policies about family life, particularly in terms of marriage and homosexuals in America.

The American Identity Crisis

Now that America is post-Election 2008, the news media and political pundits -- as well as both the Democratic and Republican parties -- busy themselves with a host of questions. What went wrong? What went right? What could we have done differently? How can loss ground be made up in the 2010 Midterm Elections and again in the 2012 Presidential Elections? In many ways, people are baffled by the outcome of this election. A few people claimed that there was no way Barack Obama could win as he is the most liberal candidate to run for the United States' highest-ranking office. Obama not only won, he carried the three major swing states: Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida and topped it off by turning Indiana, North Carolina, and Virginia from "red" to "blue." Clinton made the argument in the primary season that no Democrat since 1916 has made it to Pennsylvania Avenue without winning West Virginia. Obama didn't carry West Virginia. It isn't conclusive yet, but it seems that he even loss Missouri by a small margin -- a state virtually no president (except one) has made it to the White House without winning for over a century.

The election is over. But what's striking to people is the electoral map. It changed. Have the demographics altered or is there something else? I think the "new kind of politics" movement -- which is essentially old politics calling itself something different -- and "Change You Can Believe In" really begs a more fundamental question. What does this "new kind of politics" consist of? What are its moral values? What will the government be like and how will the American people reach common ground ? The more specific you get with these questions, the more you realize that the Democratic President-elect Barack Obama is only delivering the Democratic Party's platform and nothing else -- nothing new, nothing wide-ranging, and nothing bipartisan.

But back to the fundamental questions that the notion of "change" brings to the table, there is a more fundamental reality that often goes unnoticed, that is at work that needs our attention. I've said before that as a Catholic Democrat, I can't help but notice the hyper-liberal, pro-sexual revolution and radical feminism movement in my party and how it has managed to silence the rest of us. To this day, I agree with Democrats often enough on policy, e.g. universal healthcare, but not always on principle, i.e. the view of the human person, of marriage, of society, and on the nature of morality and thus the content of those policies. Modern liberalism is deeply influenced by Enlightenment thinking. The human person is an arbitrary being with no real "nature." Marriage is nothing but a legal contract recognizing that two people are committed to one another -- if anyone cares -- that want government benefits. Society has no real standard or moral objective norm to live up to because human's have no inherent nature and because this is so, society is something that evolves -- it is artificial and arbitrary -- and thus it can be influenced as we see fit. This view is not the liberalism I subscribe to as it is not compatible with my Christian faith.

Though in realizing this, it strikes me that the "culture wars" in America and the political divide that is even finding its way into our churches all point to one fundamental reality: identity. In the modern world, as is held by contemporary liberalism, the notion of God is both arbritrary and dubious. Supposedly, the presence or absence of God from one's life has no substantial bearing on that person. An atheist is just as moral as any Christian. That may be well and true, but from a Christian perspective that atheist is majorly lacking. An atheist may be say "pro-life," but if human beings are nothing but a random meaningless arrangement of matter in motion -- no different in substance than a chair or a tree -- on a tiny dot called earth in a sun-beam, in a vast, cold purposeless cosmos, the idea that human beings have some sort of "dignity" or "value" is questionable. Why not destroy a few tiny cells or abort a baby? Why not kill a criminal? What really is "justice?" Why should murder be wrong, if there is no universal reason as to why it should be so? Without God, there is no objective giver of the moral law, thus no moral laws. Morality collapses on itself and becomes truly relative. But how an atheist, whose mind is composed of only matter and whose thoughts are the results of the random interaction of atoms, with no objective end or goal in mind (thus not concerned about the subject knowing any objective truth because no such reality exists), comes to any conclusion about truth, about God, etc, presupposing their views are true is beyond me. It's logically impossible.

Back to the notion of identity, America has no cultural identity. What does it mean to be an American? What are "American values?" It seems to me there are as many answers to this question as there are American people. "We the people..." as our Constitution reads have never ever been a monolithic in our way of life. This is both good and bad. Another point that is particularly relevant, especially from a Catholic perspective, is that the American political experiment in which has set the structure and molded the society in which we carry out our daily lives is wholly and entirely a Protestant experiment. In Europe, Protestantism had to establish itself within a society and culture dominated by over a millennia of Catholic intellectual, spiritual, and moral influence. Protestantism in the "new world" from its beginning did not share this dilemma, which is a manifest uniqueness to America. While Protestants share with Catholics a love of God, acknowledgement of sin and the need for conversion, a biblically-based moral system, and the necessity of family and community, Protestants also have given this country a radical emphasis on freedom, individualism, personal conscience, self-determination (versus discovering), etc. It is self-evident that the American notion of "freedom" is profoundly different than the Catholic understanding of freedom. The radical individualism, which is a result of a "sola scriptura" faith and a break from authority, imprints upon us -- I think -- a tendency to have concern only for ourselves.

Samuel Huntington, a political scientist wrote a book entitled Who Are We? He basically asserts that American identity has become increasingly more obscure. He stridently attempts to address the question in the terms of what he calls "the American Creed," which encompasses the values present in the debate that shaped America’s founding—"the essential dignity of the individual human being, of the fundamental equality of all men, and of certain inalienable rights to freedom, justice, and fair opportunity." Huntington -- before he starts making claims that I disagree with and won't go into here -- believes a central problem with American political identity is the growing immigration challenge. I agree with this to an extent. The decisive turn around in American sentiment on immigration is the composition of the American immigrant populace—for the first time in our history, the majority of immigrants in the United States speak one language and are from one country—Mexico. This unprecedented reality presents a real challenge to the question of American cultural identity.

Immigration in itself naturally leads to the development of subcultures that assimilates into some larger culture. But since those subcultures are so many, so large and so dramatically different in the United States, the larger culture is simply mere co-existence, usually with a lot of tension. There was a point in early American history where people believed in manifest destiny—the notion that the United States was destined to span from the Atlantic seaboard to the Pacific Ocean. The people of the United States, while not monolithic, really shared a common experience; this is especially true for the immediate generations after the American Revolution. But in modern America, there is no singular national destiny. Huntington says that "Americanization" -- which means things such as making English the national language or requiring that everyone at least know how to speak English -- of these groups are now-a-days really "un-American." Any attempts toward "Americanization" in Huntington's view are easily dismissed as connotative racism, sexism, class domination, religious intolerance, and so on. In essence, contemporary political correctness and cultural thinking by its design complicates attempts not only to lay down defining parameters of American identification, but toward the unity of American subcultures versus the tension of co-existence.

Most recently, I read a book called The Big Sort by Bill Bishop which I can't recommend enough. He is more on point than Huntington in my view. Bishops' thesis is simple: Americans have segregated themselves both politically and culturally. It is a natural human tendency to gravitate toward like-minded individuals. Given that at the social level, humans seek those whom they can identify with and given that the ownership of private property is a right, it follows that, if possible, people will move to places where there are people like them, which naturally makes them more comfortable. However, the often unseen consequence is that America has divided itself into communes which are entirely culturally and politically conservative or liberal. Bishop puts it this way:

America may be more diverse than ever coast to coast, but the places where we live are becoming increasingly crowded with people who live, think, and vote like we do. This social transformation didn't happen by accident. We've built a country where we can all choose the neighborhood and church and news show — most compatible with our lifestyle and beliefs. And we are living with the consequences of this way-of-life segregation. Our country has become so polarized, so ideologically inbred, that people don't know and can't understand, and can barely conceive of "those people" who live just a few miles away.

This evident tendency is self-reinforcing. The more a specific region is monolithic politically, the more extreme the group can get. This, of course, turns-off people of the opposite view or those of a more moderate view, which allows the region to be even more monolithic. At the political level, local election between two parties is absurdly non-competitive. Depending on the demographics and thus, the political orientation, one party usually wins the area in a landslide. Local, or even state parties have enough support to tackle virtually every issue. As can be seen, political party primaries are dominated by partisan, party activists. At the national level, this reality translates into the non-existence of moderate candidates, a partisan nightmare, and an eternal gridlock of legislative action in Congress, a war for the presidency, and most troubling of all, the Supreme Court has become a pantheon of nine gods who we fight over to ensure they share our views. [This cannot be over-emphasized!]

This living dynamic reaffirms the tendency to only listen to opinions one agrees with, have little tolerance of other views, and to become all the more extreme in one’s own perspective. A simple glance at a presidential electoral map -- broken down into county, city-wide, state, and regional patterns -- confirms this observation (view the map and click state by state and look at the breakdown by counties.) Urban areas vote dramatically different than rural ones. People at the bottom of the socio-economic scale vote dramatically different than those at the top of the socio-economic ladder. The differences in these groups matter because if like-minded people flock toward one another, prosperity can be found at its highest where the most socio-economically advantaged reside. Bishop notes that education had always predicted city growth and after the 1970s the cities that grew the fastest and the richest were the ones where people with college degrees congregated. It's not really news that intellectual elites tend to vote Democratic and not so surprisingly, the most esteemed universities and colleges in America are in areas where the wealthy and well-educated commune.

This dynamic has found its way into American churches. Many evangelical, fundamentalist Christians – in concert – enter the world of politics with concern for abortion, marriage and family issues as top priorities – none of which are negotiable. They are the current base of the Republican Party. Other Christian denominations may emphasize a "social gospel" which entails social justice, fighting oppression and bigotry, promoting personal "choice" on abortion, and accepting gays and lesbians, which leaves them in the Democratic column. In essence, religion in America is now being interpreted through the framework of political concepts, i.e. secular schools of thought. There is "liberal" Christianity and "conservative" Christianity. Many churches have become monolithic in their political views because people even prefer to worship in like-minded congregations. It's why many Protestants "church hop," particularly if they are say, a pro-choice liberal, and the pastor consistently condemns abortion and gay rights. They'll find a church that shares their view. It seems then that the measure for the "true" church or a "good" church is how it lines up with our own political views. The use of religion as political mechanism has only deepened the divide between the people and it's alienating people from God.

Just recently in listening to two political analysts debate, one of them made the comment "the values of Republicans and Democrats [the mainstream base of both parties] are very much at odds. We do not agree about the most fundamental issues." The fundamental issues are many: abortion, birth control, gay unions, guns, education, and the environment, and many more. The parties (and the people) not only disagree on policies, but on principle. The fact that the country segregates itself into isolated communities reaffirming their own beliefs versus having a meaningful dialogue only deepens the problem. It's a spiraling cycle.

Americans have arranged themselves geographically in terms of economics and politics in the last thirty years. While the free choice of where to live is wonderful, it also naturally generates economic inequity, cultural and social misunderstandings, and political gridlock. Bishop wrote an interesting line in his book: We have created, and are creating, new institutions distinguished by their isolation and single-mindedness…we have worked quietly and hard to remove any trance of the ‘constant clashing of opinions’ from daily life. It was a social revolution…entirely unnoticed.

Fundamentally, the American people isolate themselves into groups that inevitably become partisan, political think tanks form with whole, entire comprehensive agendas that are often not open to debate or revisions by opposing groups. The question of American identity, I think, is fundamental to how the country moves forward. The question of identity must be answered before you can decide what direction you need to go. A world without God is a world without an identity. American cultural identity is one of clashing and disagreement about what America is and what she should be. In some sense, that has been America’s identity since the days when the Founding Fathers debated over the Constitution of the United States and the role and structure of the government. Today, even, that same question is still being debated.

As Roman Catholics, we may not all agree with everything I've said -- all of which are not necessarily my own view, but it should give us pause. If partisanship and factions, even within the Church, is the norm of our "culture," it is ever more pressing that we be counter-cultural. We can't ever fully support secular schools of thought because they can never, no matter how well reasoned they are, encompass the fullness of truth that is in the Gospel. It's easy to fall into the temptation of partisanship, of cultural divides, and accepting the status quo, but that's not how we're called to live. Let's hold each other accountable. It's been said that because we've been conditioned by our culture, American Catholicism is -- and I quote -- "nothing more than another form of Protestant Christianity." Let's pray that the thinker who made this claim is wrong in the long-term. If we're going to advocate social change, insight as to how we have decided to arrange ourselves may prove to be useful.

The Pro-Life Movement On The Left

Most Americans who are pro-life don't experience it from the left side of the political spectrum. Without a doubt, it is terribly difficult to be pro-life on the political left. The current political landscape in America presents a dire problem for "pro-life progressives," even more so if they're Catholic and observe the Church's teachings. Pro-life progressivism is a growing, still voiceless, movement in the Democratic Party. There is a sense of alienation from pro-choice Democrats in regard to "women's issues" (abortion) and "life-saving scientific research" (embryonic stem cell research) as well a sense of being out of place amongst conservative Republicans whom we might agree with on a few issues, but disagree with on a host of others and perhaps fundamentally on political philosophy. This movement (I think) is really reflective of many American youth, who not only oppose abortion and euthanasia, but would like to see "life issues" extend to the 30,000 children who die globally each day from poverty and preventable disease, issues of genocide in places like Darfur, human trafficking, healthcare, foreign policy issues of war and peace, and even to environmental stewardship. Many Catholic Democrats see this as what the late Joseph Cardinal Bernardin coined as the "consistent life ethic."

While I personally hold this view, I think there are two fundamental tendencies of this approach to politics ("the consistent life ethic") that presents a profound challenge, particularly to Catholics. The first is the prevailing tendency to make all political issues morally equal, i.e. fighting abortion is morally equal to providing universal healthcare. This is a tragic intellectual mistake. In the current election season this sort of thinking hasn't gone unnoticed with the wave of pro-life Americans voting for Sen. Barack Obama despite his radical abortion stance because "there are other issues." Indeed, I'm not one to deny that there are other issues that I care deeply about, but not even a monolithic committment to all these other issues in a "pro-life" way can draw attention away from the insurmountable horror of Barack Obama's hyper-liberal abortion agenda.

The second tendency of this group (this is just modern "progressivism" in general) actually causes the first. This tendency is toward moral relativism; the absence of an objective standard of good and evil easily allows for a pro-life individual to see reforming the American healthcare system as "more pressing" than stopping the genocide of 1.2 million unborn children every year. And the tendency toward this kind of thinking is more deep-seated than we like to realize. The American political tradition (and therefore the thinking of American citizens) is deeply rooted in legal positivism, which as a philosophy sees a disconnect between law and morality. This theory fundamentally presupposes moral relativism because allegedly the only way to maintain order in a secular society is not to affirm moral truths, which in itself establishes a false sense of peace, which begins to dissipate into what Princeton law professor Robert P. George calls the "clash of orthodoxies," i.e. secular humanist-moral relativists vs. Judeo-Christian moral conservatives.

It's safe to say then the fundamental problem is our moral thinking. Consider what C.S. Lewis coined as the "abolition of man." If God created us and endowed us with our human nature, then we can be assured that our nature is in harmony with His good purposes. Given that we have a nature, certain things go against it, won't fulfill us, and this is what we Christians call sin. But what if we could alter our nature? We live in a society where we create life in laboratories, can alter genetics, and implant embryos. This invokes to my mind a looming possibility of Huxley's Brave New World. The fundamental question is: is this in accord with our nature? Are humans meant to be created in this way? Whether or not a person believes in God will profoundly shape their conclusion to this question. There is no natural law without God and the fundamental notion that follows the absence of God is that our humanity is not a creation and therefore, there is no reason why we should not create embryos in laboratories for medical research nor for mothers who want a baby as if it were a consumer product.

How is this relevant to "pro-life progressives?" This group sees why abortion is a repugnant evil, which is wonderful. This movement may be key in ending the horror of abortion in America if they are successful in reversing the Democratic Platform and align themselves with pro-life conservatives. However, the mordern notion of "progress" may inevitably be their (and everyone else's) downfall.

In a recent political debate with a friend of mine, who like me, is a pro-life Democrat, except I'm Catholic, the fundamental difference is just as I described. He is voting for Obama and I'm voting for McCain. My friend sees it this way: American healthcare reform, namely universal healthcare is a "pro-life" issue, McCain won't do anything about abortion, and healthcare will help reduce the abortion rate. Perhaps he's right. But what about the fact that Barack Obama said that his worse choice in his senatorial career was his vote to save Terry Schiavo (he doesn't oppose euthanasia) and his expression at the "Compassion Forum" that he thinks people should have the choice to end their lives and their suffering if they choose to (physician-assisted suicide)? Or what of his remarks about funding abortion through his healthcare plan undermining the Hyde Amendment?

It doesn't matter. For my friend, healthcare reform is a pivotal issue that we cannot miss this time around. "Love your neighbor," he cited as his reasoning for voting Obama. But modern, hyper-liberal, pro-sexual revolution thinking doesn't really include God. The notion of the natural law is godless (because we have to include the atheists) because we cannot affirm the existence of God and without God, we cannot recognize our neighbors, whom we're supposed to love, for what they are. To be a person, according to the natural law, is to be a proper subject of absolute regard—a "neighbor"—it is persons whom I must not kill, must not steal from, etc. What is a person? A person is a creature made in the image and likeness of God.

The problem with losing sight of God is this: we don't lose sight of killing our neighbor as wrong, more than we don't recognize our neighbor when we see them (e.g. the unborn). In contemporary secular ethics, the ruling tendency is to concede that there are such things as persons, but to define them in terms of their functions or capacities—not by what they are, the image of God, but by what they can do. Therefore "personhood" is defined in terms of consciousness, reasoning, self–motivated activity, the capacity to communicate about indefinitely many topics, and conceptual self–awareness. If you can do all those things, you're a person; if you can't, you're not. The functional approach to personhood seems plausible at first, just because—at a certain stage of development, and barring misfortune—most persons do have these functions. But to think that they are their functions blows the core right out of the moral code.

This is often used as a justification for abortion. The slogan of pro-choicers is heard loud and clear: "every child a wanted child." But, by this logic, an unwanted child is not a child…so kill it? Obviously, unborn babies are not capable of reasoning, complex communication, and so on. If they cannot perform these functions, then by definition they aren't persons, and if they aren't persons, they have no inherent right to life. The real question is a philosophical one and it's undoubtedly moral. One might say, "surely a collection of tiny cells don't constitute personhood in such a way that trumps a woman's right to personal autonomy."

That's the mindset. But it cannot end with abortion. If unborn babies may be killed because they lack these functions, then a great many other individuals may also be killed for the same reasons—for example the asleep, unconscious, demented, addicted, infants, toddlers, someone in a coma on life-support (euthanasia), not to mention sundry other cases, such as deaf–mutes who have not been taught sign language. In such language, none of these are persons; in theological language, this is clear denial of the human person coming from God.

The cure for such blindness is not to tinker with the list of functions by which we define persons, but to stop confusing what persons are with what they can typically do. Functional definitions are appropriate for things which have no inherent nature, things whose identity is dependent on our own purposes and interests.

If I am a person then I am by nature a rights–bearer, by nature a proper subject of absolute regard—not because of what I can do, but because of what I am. Of course this presupposes that I have a nature, a "what–I–am," which is distinct from my present condition or stage of development, distinct from my abilities in that condition or stage of development, and distinct from how this condition, stage of development, or set of abilities might happen to be valued by other people. In short, a person is by nature someone whom it is wrong to view merely as a means. If you regard me as a person only because I am able to exercise certain capacities that interest you, then you are saying that I am not a person. And so the functional definition of personhood does not even rise to the dignity of being mistaken, it is just irrational and incoherent. With each different criterion of personhood, a different set of beings is welcomed through the gates of others' regard. This is the same rule of all oppression. Those who supported slavery were free and those who support abortion are born. Personhood is defined at our convenience.

It is clear then that moral principles are more important than policies. Moral principles gives us the capacity to priortize our political agendas accordingly and with a sense of how policies should be shaped, i.e. why abortion is a paramount issue. Much more can be said of this, but given the broad set of political issues, the pro-life movement (this is especially true of Catholics) has constantly faced a fundamental question often heatedly debated that I'm not at liberty to answer authoratatively. I have my convictions about if or when a pro-life Catholic could ever (if possible) vote for a pro-choice candidate, but I believe people of good will may disagree with me and I place no judgment on them. Honest disagreement can only lead to a healthy debate.

But we cannot avoid the question that often divides us: Can someone who is pro-life and Catholic vote for candidates who are not only pro-choice, but who promote policies such as universal healthcare that is accompanied by an unquestionably flawed approach to bioethics, which inevitably creates more problems? That is, can we argue "proportionate reasons" when the principles of one side is based on a terribly flawed view of the human person and society? It is striking to me that many pro-life Americans, even Catholics, go to great lengths to defend or qualify a pro-choice candidate's position, or even worse make them out to be more "pro-life" than the person who opposes abortion (Doug Kmiec).

I understand their argument and in all truthfulness, I don't disagree with them entirely, but I do think it gets so casual that one may vote consistently for pro-choice candidates without discerning the issue of abortion. Moreover, I don't think any of these same people would vote for a racist candidate no matter what that candidate said or how good, say, their economic plans are. No one would vote for Hitler because he supported universal healthcare (he did; Germany was the first nation in the world to have it) despite the fact he supported the genocide of 6 million Jews as well as nearly 6 million others who died along side them. Genocide would disqualify him from receiving our votes, period.

Yet when a candidate supports the systematic, public funded genocide of 1.2 million unborn children in America as well as subsidizing abortions overseas (e.g. not giving foreign aid unless they provided abortion facilities as was done under the Clinton administration) and below the border in Mexico, contributing to the over 45 million abortions that occur within 365 days worldwide, there are suddenly "other issues." Sometimes it is argued that overturning Roe v. Wade will not do anything, so we should leave abortion legal. Should we have left slavery legal and only sought to reduce the number of slaves? Such argument is incoherent. It's even argued that social programs will lead to less abortions. I think this is true to an extent, but on some level we (all) should agree that citing evidence from Europe is not convincing because Europeans are contracepting themselves to death and don't have nearly as many children to be carried by the safety net of social programs, hence, less abortions.

I won't objectively say a pro-life American, Catholic or otherwise, cannot (ever) vote for pro-choice candidates. Should they? That's another question and I think good Catholics may come down on both sides. Pro-life progressives, particularly Catholics ones, need to stop accomodating pro-choice candidates. Why should the Democratic Party feel any need to change its position on abortion, if they realize they will receive our uncritical support anyway, even while we disagree?

Pro-Choice vs. Pro-Abortion

It’s often said that “nobody is pro-abortion.” In fact, this was uttered by Senator Barack Obama at the last presidential debate. Perhaps no one is, though admittedly people’s political actions make a hard case for this proposition. Nevertheless, I think a careful distinction needs to be made between ‘pro-choice’ and ‘pro-abortion.’ It isn’t bogus to think so, either.

These are two distinct positions, both of which are contrary to Catholic teaching on the matter of abortion. The ‘pro-choice’ position is rooted in moral relativism and thus, posits no judgment on the moral good or evil of the act of abortion. At best, a ‘pro-choice’ position will concede that grappling with the decision to have an abortion, or worse, having one is a position no woman desires to find herself in, thus we should reduce the number of abortions. This is the point where their argument breaks down. The lack of objectivity hinders a ‘pro-choice’ individual from framing in any meaningful way their personal opposition that cannot be imposed or any reason why we should really commit ourselves to limiting the number of abortions. Either way, this position holds abortion should be left legal so that those who choose it may do so.

The ‘pro-abortion’ position views abortion not only as a legal right, but as morally good either as a means or an end in and of itself. Margaret Sanger is arguably pro-abortion because it was the mechanism by which she wished to eliminate black people. Someone who is ‘pro-abortion’ may see it as a means of population control, which is allegedly a problem, and so forth.

Both positions are absurd, but there is a subtle difference between the two and perhaps the fundamental difference is one’s intention, though the end often remains the same.

I think any good Catholic should be aware of this, particularly in dialogue with someone who is pro-choice. Christ preached charity and compassion. If we cannot dialogue with our brothers and sisters who are profoundly mistaken without labeling them as ‘baby killers’ or ‘pro-abortion’ explicitly (though it may otherwise be true), we are in some ways alienating those who may be receptive to the pro-life message if it is presented in a kind, understanding way, e.g. understanding a ‘pro-choice’ person’s concern for the woman involved, but calmly (I can’t emphasize this enough) explaining why being pro-woman is truly to be pro-life and that society should be pro-motherhood so that no woman feels she is incapable of welcoming her child into this world.

This is a fundamental element missing from the abortion debate. There is profound temptation to attack the other side or worse, respond to their attacks with even more disdain. A house divided against itself will not stand nor will it save unborn children. Are we in this for our pride or to save unborn human life?

Christian Ethics and American Law

The American political debate is a heated landscape—a landscape that is not at all lacking in general presuppositions, that are undeniably philosophical in nature, that are scarcely brought to intellectual scrutiny. One might declare that some law is ‘unjust,’ or that this law in favor of the ‘common good.’ Another person may say certain public policies violate basic ‘human rights.’ Each of these claims presupposes that there is some universal norm by using words such as 'justice' and 'common good' that everyone is aware of, that has moral implications, and that we all have an obligation to uphold.

What is most concerning is the post-modern tendency to say that moral principles and the law should not be connected. Morality should not be legislated. This is a common American notion. While this problematic assertion can be approached in many ways, I think the most fundamental question that should be asked is, what is law?

It seems to me that the common American idea of law is a set of rules set forth by the State that are enforced by a credible threat of force and punishment. There is something undoubtedly true about that proposition, but does it fully capture the essence of the law? Are we prepared to accept that the law is merely a matter of obedience and control? Sure, obedience and control have something to do with effective laws, but do they adequately define the nature of the law? If so, what distinguishes the ‘just’ laws from ‘unjust’ laws? Perhaps nothing. Perhaps all laws are simply expressions of the will-to-power of an individual or a group. But if this is so, what are we really saying when we complain about ‘unjust’ laws? Is it merely anger because our self-interests have failed to win over the self-interests of others?

That may be so, but it would be undeniably strange. Why? Because the human experience has shown us that there is a difference between asserting our own wants and true ‘justice’—whatever that is. Children and adolescents commonly accuse their parents of being ‘unfair’ for not giving them something they want. But is that the same as, say, Martin Luther King saying that it was ‘unfair’ for the State of Alabama to refuse to allow African Americans to enroll in its universities? Both statements involve a claim on others. It seems safe to say that we are fooling ourselves if we think that there is no substantial difference between the two.

When parents deny children something they want, there is no universal moral reason as to why a child must have, say, a particular toy. The only reason a child may have to claim ‘unfairness’ against their parents is their own desires. Martin Luther King in his Letter From Birmingham Jail argued that rights due to him by virtue of the natural law, by virtue of his humanity were unjustly denied him and any laws protecting this injustice are not laws at all.

It is clear that Dr. King believed that laws are designed to protect justice. He also presupposes a natural moral order that we humans can know and must conform ourselves to. Is he right? I think so. What if he isn’t? What would that mean? Consider this. Adolf Hitler legalized every action he made while in power in Nazi Germany. Does legal status, morally qualify his actions, particularly the 6 million Jews that perished at his command? Did the legal status of slavery make it morally acceptable? It strikes me that most Americans would agree that Hitler did immoral deeds and slavery is immoral. But that same majority of Americans accepts the horror of abortion as the status quo and often cites that it won’t be illegal anytime soon. Or, they claim that the legality of abortion won’t stop women from seeking abortions. So why stop it?

The problem is abortion is murder. Take for instance the act of murder. Why is murder against the law? There are two reasons. One, to allow citizens to kill one another would produce anarchy and is against the interest of the State. Two, murder is an objective moral evil that is contrary to human nature. It is self-evident that the second reason has more bearing than the first. The convenience of outlawing murder for the State to maintain order is a by-product of the reality that the act of killing innocents is contrary to the moral order of the universe and that the endorsement of the action itself cannot yield any good or productivity for any human society.

One might ask, what does it all matter? It matters because it affects each and every individual in society. Why might we say that African Americans have a right to liberty over slavery? One might argue that slavery—free labor—is beneficial to the American economy and thus, the ‘common good.’ So why not allow slavery? Are there really any inviolable human rights that cannot be gone against no matter what profit or convenience doing so may yield? I certainly think there are.

We live in a society of ‘rights.’ We all have a right to something and we’ll be damned if anyone takes those rights away. But where do rights come from? In the modern, agnostic, morally relative world of scientific materialism all we are, is a collection of atoms no different in substance than that of a desk or a television. The universe in itself has no meaning and no purpose, which logically means that there is no meaning or purpose to our lives. If that’s true, what are ‘rights’ especially if we arguably have no meaning, and therefore, no dignity?

The notion of ‘natural rights’ was developed in the Catholic intellectual tradition in contribution to the philosophy of law. A fundamental concern for America is whether or not it is possible to preserve the notion of ‘natural rights’ without the Judeo-Christian understanding of the human person and of human nature which the notion of the natural law has been traditionally based. Can the idea of a natural law stand if we’re nothing but a random assortment of matter on a tiny dot that we call earth in a vast and meaningless cosmos? The short answer is no.

These questions are pressing. Western society is dominated by moral relativism, which leads ultimately to moral decay. We have come to idolize the biblical figure Cain in not wanting to be our brother’s keeper. America is in dire need of a strong, vibrant Christian presence to transform this debate and give it moral clarity. It is an imperative that there is an awareness of the origin of laws and a proper understanding of the moral and intellectual principles of interest in the American legal system—inalienable rights, civil liberties, federalism, separation of powers, etc.

This is why it upsets me that some Christians pull their children out of the public schooling system—still leaving millions of other children to go through the broken system—and refuse to be at the front of the campaign for American education reform so that Christian moral principles are not disregarded or given merely lip service. We need to return philosophy to our education system and instill moral values.

More importantly, Christians must be more than a force to illegalize abortion in the public square. It is vital that we are able to articulate our Christian moral perspective through rational and philosophical discourse because this vital tool (philosophy)—has been virtually eliminated and trivialized in western society—is the only way we may help America rediscover those human and moral truths that are written into the nature of the human person.

Christians: Why Are We Absent In Hollywood?

Typically if one discusses the reflection of American culture in mainstream entertainment, there are very little positive things to be said—especially in Christian circles. But there is rarely a clear solution to the problem. Some discussions of the issues, in my experience, fail to reflect the gravity of the matter. I think it matters, more so than just casual condemnation in conversation. The entertainment center in America—Hollywood—matters because it is the global center of art and entertainment. Art is the way we humans respond to the cosmos. Every generation delivers something beautiful for future generations to brood over and take delight in. Storytelling is the way human beings learn. It is the way we define our values. It gives us heroes and noble dreams. Entertainment is the way we stretch beyond the limits of our day to day work to experience the depth of our human nature. Entertainment should lead us to laugh hard, to cry with empathy, and to feel exhilaration and wonder.

It is frightening to think that Christians are missing from this unbelievably influential and urgent landscape. Christians have something to offer that is direly missing from Hollywood. We bring hope, the mandate of concern for the world, and most importantly, the glory and creative energy of the Holy Spirit.

This is needed terribly in movies, television shows, videogames, and the Internet. We need not only to be donating to and praying for organizations such as ActOne, which has a Christian vision for entertainment, we need to encourage faith-filled artists and professionals to be writers, directors, actors, and so forth, in order to change the landscape and give our youth better idols to look up to. This is a moral imperative for all Christians.

We also need to realize that American culture has deeply shaded Christian religious practice for the worse. It is a current trend to “switch” between denominations to find what “feels good” and not what is the truth. There is an emphasis on finding a church that gathers everyone together in a false sense of unity—a church without dogma, without a clear moral framework of life, no political declarations, etc—that makes us all feel good. We want to be comfortable in our sins.

It seems to me that an authentic Christianity is going to make us uncomfortable, it is going to make us cringe as we follow our moral conscience to the point of receiving ridicule from others. That’s why I’m Catholic and why I chose it over every other religious tradition I looked at, even over Protestantism and Eastern Orthodoxy.

I find that even amongst Catholics, many wish we lived back in the 1830s when everyone was supposedly devout and attended a Tridentine Mass jovially. Not quite. The Church has faced challenges to life, to the family, and not so surprisingly for those of us who are catechized, there has always been dissent. The Gnostics, the Arians, the Nestorians, the Quietists, and the list goes on. There has always been those people unlearned in their faith, hypocrites, and people who use religion for personal gain. Forget living in this past. This is our time. This moment with its post-modern confusion, with its 24 hour chattering news cycle, its post-sexual revolution cynicism, vulgarity, morally-unbounded liberalism.

The Lord proclaimed, “Do not weep for Me, but weep for yourselves and for your children. For indeed the days are coming in which they will say, ‘Blessed are the barren, the wombs that never bore, and the breasts that have never nursed.’” I think we’ll be better off when we face the fact that we live in a dark world which is locked in a struggle with very high stakes. We should not be surprised by the ravages of sin. Only fools are scandalized. And those who have not been enlightened by the Gospel are susceptible to relativism, to so-called sexual freedom, to contraception, to legal and recreational drugs, to senseless wanton violence and if we fight it, we have to do so through their mechanisms—the entertainment media.

Secular Messianism, On the Left and Right

This article entitled Secular Messianism, On the Left and Right by Mark P. Shea is a really good read and I commend it to all faithful Catholics. It warns us against love affairs with partisan politics whether on the Left or on the Right. In particular, it is reaffirmed that neither of the two political parties in America conform to the fullness of the Gospel truth and Christians on both sides of the aisle should be working with one another, not contradicting each other, and more importantly not at war with one another. All I can say is "Amen."

The Romantic Perspective of American Culture

William Blake's London paints a vivid picture of a city teeming with poverty and adversity. Blake makes a sincere effort to dispel any lofty, esteemed images of London and replace them with a cold, heartbreaking truth. Blake portrays the real London as a city of social oppression, loose morality, and imprisonment. This poem is unmistakably a sorrowful work. In the first two stanzas, Blake establishes a grief-stricken mood. Halfway through, in the third stanza, Blake talks of the abandonment of true religion. In the final stanza, Blake solemnly reveals to his readers that the mistakes of the current generation will continue into the next generation.

In four simple stanzas, Blake gives us a political analysis from a Romantic perspective. In the first stanza, the narrator of the poem wanders through the "charter'd" streets of London not far from "where the charter'd Thames does flow." The opening two verses suggest oppression, as the streets and a river were privately, rather than collectively, owned. The narrator continues and observes "marks" on the oppressed: "And mark in every face I meet; marks of weakness, marks of woe." The choice of the word "mark" obviously implies a visible impact; in this case, "marks" signify the misery of the common people. The second stanza makes evident the universality of those who are oppressed. Blake uses the term "every" to highlight that the majority of London’s population suffers:

In every cry of every Man,

In every Infant’s cry of fear,

In every voice, in every ban,

The mind-forg’d manacles I hear.

Blake makes it irrevocably clear that no one is unaffected. The swiftness, in which the reader is invited to face this reality makes a profound statement. In the first stanza, it is manifest that by walking along, one sees suffering and by the second stanza, it is also manifest that one sees it everywhere and in "every" person. Thus, it is unavoidable reality that cannot be ignored and because this is so, Blake makes a powerful statement about those in power who do ignore it. And the metaphor "mind-forg'd manacles" describes the literal reality of psychological imprisonment that has plagued the people in their ill-fated sufferings.

Craftily, Blake combines the "infant's cry" and the "cry of every man" as a reality that he will later affirm, that is, the figurative mental chains remove hope and that no one will ever be able to wake up from—and rise above—this inescapable nightmare. The fiery tone and outright condemnation of this reality come in the third stanza:

How the Chimney-sweeper's cry

Every black'ning Church appalls;

And the hapless Soldier's sigh

Runs in blood down Palace walls.

The narrator informs the reader of the plight of the "chimney sweep" and the "hapless soldier" who represent all social classifications—all together—who are oppressed. In this, Blake reveals that the Church is fraudulent in ignoring the plight of the weak and powerless. The Church that Blake depicts in this poem is arguably no Church at all—it refuses to help those "blackened" by oppression. Arguably, a "black'ning church" would get dirty helping those in needs, but since in this is not the case, there is apparently corruption within the Church. Furthermore, Blake highlights the meaninglessness of military service to a country that does not protect its own citizens. The "sigh" of men drafted into the military is evident as it "runs in blood down palace walls." They have no choice but to fight for their crooked country.

Ultimately, Blake presents the idea—based on his own experience—that corrupt institutions of power are devastating blows to the very heart of society. The fourth and final stanza ends the day, as it becomes midnight. A harlot gives birth to a baby whom she will never be able to love because the child was conceived as she was working for profit to survive in such a wretched society. Therefore, the misery of her life is passed down, as it were, to her child. And if nothing is done, it seems that her child will continue this pattern.

The curse of the harlot goes further. She perpetuates sickness and disease. From her, men contract diseases and pass it on to their wives and to her, other diseases are given. Her "sigh" unlike that of the soldier has a real, tangible effect. And this is what narrator means when he writes in the very last line that she "blights with plagues the Marriage hearse." Similar to the metaphor, "mind-forg’d manacles"—referring to psychological imprisonment—the metaphor "Marriage hearse" is very rich symbolism. The two terms are staunchly opposed, one which reflects a life-giving union and the other, death. This reveals a state of family-breakdown—the reproductive foundation of society is broken. The end is fitting, as it illustrates profoundly for the reader a continuous vicious cycle. Thus, the final stanza disentangles the underlying meaning of the poem. The harlot symbolizes how current transgressions transmit into the future. It reiterates the ageless saying, "the sins of the father reigns down upon his children." The tears of the newborn infant embodies the troubling reality that each coming generation will have to work to heal the mistakes of their ancestors—mistakes that are deep, deep wounds.

The essence of London is widespread societal economic hardship that ultimately reflects an internal battle—psychological imprisonment, moral deterioration, and a sense of hopelessness. This poem seems to lack in romantic vision, but the vision is there: a vision is needed. This hope, this realization is what Blake wants to make clear, so that people may be lifted from this despair. The anger in the tone, the bitterness, is like a war trumpet or a battle cry. It is a mission to save men and women who have loss sight of their dignity in a well-crafted system of profit-reaping exploitation.

Personal Insights: William Blake is by far one of my favorite romantic writers and this specific work I personally enjoy nearly as much as The Marriage of Heaven and Hell (in which my favorite Christian apologist, C.S. Lewis replied to with The Great Divorce—though Blake’s work is not nor is it meant to be any work of theology). Along side Blake's other famous works Songs of Innocence and Songs of Experience, London is definitely one of my favorites. It richly describes a society with terrible errors. And in my interpretation of this poem, I could not help but identify the situation, at least in part, with America.

Certainly, I am an American patriot. I hardly could imagine myself living in any other country in the world. As a patriot, I'd be one of the first to admit that my country isn't perfect, but there is much I love about her and I have hope in her and her promise to humanity based on the wonderful principles she was founded upon. I believe in America. I have confidence that she will soar beyond the crises that she faces right now, those of my time, and journey to prosperity.

The image of London that Blake attempts to say is not the real London for me translates into the ideal America that we dream of versus the terrible realities that are easily ignored in our everyday lives. The immense moral and social dilemmas we face require much of us, but I think it would be universally agreed upon that we do not respond properly and swiftly to this vocation. In America today, I see a religious emphasis on individualism. Faith is private and personal. We set our own standards, charity sounds nice, but we don't do it. We pass homeless people on the street, lock our doors, roll up our windows, and occassionally someone asks: why doesn't the government do something about this? Since when the government is the sole organization for charity? We all have our part to play.

The privatization of faith is a common among Protestant Christians with their emphasis on a personal relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ. From a Catholic perspective, they missed the memo from the Lord when he said "what you do the least of my brethren, you do to me." Therefore, we are called to transform the world, to be true disciples who produce abundant fruit for as St. Paul said, faith without works are empty. But this sort of individualism has found its way into the Catholic Church. There are a number of dissenting Catholics who defend their positions with the clause of "primacy of conscience," citing the catechism out of context and mistaking conscience for simply a personal preference or desire. I think another form of this individualism exists in the "LifeTeen Mass." What these people seek to accomplish (reaching out to Christian youth) is wonderful and beautiful, but I disagree on how to achieve it. From my perspective, I believe they are watering-down the liturgy and making it wordly. The songs you hear on the radio, you hear at Mass. Even in the attempt to make actual liturgical hymns into "LifeTeen" songs, the emphasis on pop culture-sounding music makes experience almost the entire purpose of the liturgy—what can I get out of this? A few times before I came into the Catholic Church, I attended an Eastern Orthodox divine liturgy and the one thing that was clearly manifest: it was not of this world. The chant, the ancient language (the Our Father was said in Greek and then in English), the psalms, the incense—it really brought to life the Book of Revelation, the wedding feast of the lamb, the eschatological end of humanity, the Judgment. It was all there. What has happened to our churches?

To another point: I talk about politics a lot. I sometimes can sense that people are getting tired of it. I'll bring up the presidential elections and they disengage quickly. But, later in the conversation, they'll talk about gas prices, the economy, immigration, and abortion. I could, say, explain how all the immense problems we face, sometimes, begin in the political arena. We elect the same people again and again and again, we don't monitor what they do, we get bad policies, we complain, and then don't do anything about it. They'll suggest (I'm talking about my Catholic friends in this example) that we get make a third political party that is rooted in Catholic Social Teaching or say that more Catholics should run for office, but what of the point of orthodoxy? If no one monitors the new party, how will it stay true to its principles? I think it's clear that it is not the political parties, it is the people within them and the voices that shout the loudest. The country is shaped by those who are politically active who have special interests and they often don't look to compromise or have dialogue, politicians are purchased and the needs of the citizens ignored.

Where is America during all of this? The people you see in America suffer the same psychological imprisonment as those in Blake's poem London. The woes of the people, they hang together and these social vices are "complex" because they feed off of one another and they ultimately rely on apathy to override social activism to survive. In a world of radical individualism, even religiously, and political apathy (and thus a corrupt government), the "marks" of oppression that Blake described is everywhere in America: on the unborn, on the condemned, on the poor, on the marginalized, on the immigrants, on the elderly and vulnerable, and the list goes on.

The heart of this is in our lifestyles. We have come to see ourselves almost solely as consumers and the free-market economy must work, not even at the expense of human life and dignity. I can hardly go an entry without saying that I am a Democrat, but even in my defense of those enduring poverty, we should be asking: what is poverty? Many in my family don't make substantial incomes. Most don't prosper well. Some do. They buy winter clothes in the summer for cheaper and the vice versa. They buy food in bulks and often during sales using coupons. Most importantly, they learn to do without, cut back, and sage for rainy days. This sort of responsibility is not the practice of most Americans and it is these same people who vote their pockets (you can't blame them). They vote for the Democrat for lower taxes and social services. I'm not a Republican because I would rather have a safety-net; unfortunately (I'm rambling now) in our politically apathetic country, the social net is imperfect because people don't make a concerted effort to reform them and close loopholes to prevent abuse of these services. Thus, you get a political war of liberals trying to expand these services and conservatives trying to cut them.

This is what I see in America. And I believe Blake's world is present to us today. We must do something. I don't have the answers. I believe I see the problem. Whatever we do, it will take all of us. A few people cannot build a better world for all people, it would result in a cage. We need everyone's participation. How do you accomplish that? My reply to that questions has yet to change: Lord, have mercy.