How to Set Up Human Civilization

                Let us pretend for a moment that we are the architects of human civilization.  God has created Adam, the first man, and Adam is lonely.   God has thus given us Eve, the first woman, to keep Adam company.  But let us pretend that he left us with purely the biology and the sociology was completely up to us.

                So where do we go from here?  How do we fill out our blank sheet of paper?  Well, logically, if man was lonely, and woman was the answer, do we not want to give them some kind of long-term security?  After all, what could is curing loneliness if it is replaced by a fear of loneliness because you do not know how long this relationship will last?  So we will institute something called marriage, by which each partner commits to be with the other, for better or worse, until death. 

                Okay, but can anybody get married?  Can two men or two women get married?  Well, to answer that question, we have to look at the purpose of marriage.  Is it just to provide relationship security?  Can another man do as good a job of that as a woman for a man?  Well, let’s think about that.  A woman’s body physically compliments a man’s.  A man is tough, rugged, physically strong, and able to provide in numerous ways for a family.  A woman is nurturing, soft, gentle, compassionate, a natural teacher with the caring disposition of a nurse.  It seems like putting a man and a woman together, gives them a unique and complimentary set of tools to use in meeting life’s challenges.  We should seek to encourage as many of these male-female combinations as we can and in order to do that, we should set them apart.  Thus marriage should be a designation only used for these desirable male-female combinations.    

That is settled, but we have this other thorny problem to deal with.  That is, we’ve started with Adam and Eve, but how do we keep the human race going?  They need to reproduce.  Well, biologically, only a man and a woman can produce children.  Assuming many children enjoy knowing their fathers and mothers personally, if not growing up with them, then perhaps children should be part of marriage?

                Okay, if children are part of marriage, if the husband and wife as part of their married life will naturally conceive of children, then the children have a stake in the marriage.  You could even argue, that given children are the future, they may be the majority stakeholder in the marriage.  Okay, so what do children need from this marriage?

                Well, we don’t know if the children will be boys or girls until after they are born.  I point this out because if we keep marriage to a man and a woman, then a child of either gender would have 1 parent of the same gender to serve as a role model and 1 parent of the opposite gender to balance them out.  That seems ideal. 

                Now, we know biologically that it will take between 18-23 years for children to be ready to step out on their own.  That is a long-time and we will need to be able to provide stability for the children.  The key to any good mentoring relationship is trust.  Fortunately, we have already covered that with the, “til’ death do you part” clause in marriage.

                Children will need to be educated, oh, got that, the woman is naturally suited to the task and the man can also impart some wisdom.  The children will need to learn how to manage a marriage and run a family of their own.  Maybe we should develop some kind of internship or co-op program?  Oh, wait, what am I thinking?  By growing up in a functioning family, they will learn those things.  Even if the parents don’t do everything exactly right, they can learn from those experiences as well. 

                Okay, I think we are all set.  We marry Adam and Eve, a commitment for life.  As part of living out that commitment they will most likely conceive children.   Although, even should they not be able to, as already noted, there is great benefit in not needing to fear loneliness and knowing you have someone you can always count on (also reduces the number of home health aides we will need in society if people go ahead and double up in living accommodations).

                Children will be provided for based on the complimentary pairing of a man and woman together (we will call them mom and dad to make the language more kid friendly).  They will always be able to count on mom and dad, per the marriage commitment.  Also, due the complimentary nature of the skillsets mom and dad possess as well as the 18-23 year apprenticeship the children will have, they should be well suited to run their own families. 

                I dare say, if we had to design a model for humanity, we have found the ideal.  It just would have been nice if God had given us the right answer to begin with instead of forcing us to work through a century of gender bending, divorce, and gay marriage before arriving at this answer.  Oh wait, that was our doing, not his, He did give us the right answer from the very beginning. 

Romney Divide is About Values Not Class

                 A Wall Street Journal column today discusses the “Romney Divide”, something that is likely to be a growing topic of conversation.  Interestingly, this has only been raised since it has become clear that he will be the Republican nominee, but we will set that aside for now. 

                Mitt Romney wins with college graduates and those with higher incomes.  Since these people are found in bunches in big metropolitan areas, not surprisingly, that is where Romney is winning.  He won in Michigan because of the Detroit suburbs and it was Cleveland carrying him to victory in Ohio.  But just as there is a clear profile of where Mitt Romney does well, there is a clear profile as to where he does not.

                In short, it is basically any state in the middle of the country without a large metropolitan area.  So he lost in Iowa, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and somewhat surprisingly even Missouri.  He loses in the south as well.  The conventional wisdom is rushing to chalk this up to his failure to connect with blue collar voters, to make it about class, but I think that is both too simple and a mistake.

                The winner in the aforementioned states has largely been Rick Santorum.  The same media floating class as the cause of the divide is also the same media who tells us that Rick Santorum only talks about social issues.  So logically, if Romney is losing in the middle of the country and Santorum is winning, would it not be because of values?  

                That is the correct answer.  What we are facing in America is not a class divide based on wages, but a values divide.  The problem is that the people covering the story are so driven by materialism this possibility never occurred to them.  But I have lived among both camps. 

                Four years ago, I was living in rural southwestern Michigan.  I worked with people who made good incomes, but had a sense of practicality, of humility about them.  It was family first. It was about having mom at home, lower home prices, short commutes without headaches, and a different pace of life. 

                About 18 months ago, I moved with my family to Naperville, Illinois.  We have not changed, but we are surrounded by a different group of people.  Even among stay at home moms who could choose to do something else there is a need to project “angst” or the notion that you are something more.  We are surrounded by dual income couples and everything that comes with that:  Stress, less attention to children, affluence, varying commitments to faith. 

                These are broad sketches to be sure, but it is a very quantifiable phenomenon.  The moral relativism I wrote of the other day is concentrated in the Republican party in these affluent, big city circles.  These are the folks who want to keep social issues out of the public square.  They don’t want to tell anyone else how to live their lives because frankly, they don’t think it matters.  They will impart their values to their kids and choose to ignore the fact the world may be crumbling down around them.

                They do this because it is easy.  They have a good life, a nice house, a nice car, and they don’t want to have to take the time to become a social activist.  Even voting for a candidate with values has become too taxing.  But let me be crystal clear, this is not about class.  Because there are people in the states that Santorum is winning who have nice homes, drive nice cars, but are voting based on values.  Maybe they have stronger faith, maybe they feel compelled to do right by the nation, maybe they want their kids to grow up in a better world, or maybe they even understand that without morals and values we cannot sustain economic growth.  Whatever the attitude, it is about commitment on social issues.

                So how does Mitt Romney solve the “Romney Divide”?  The answer is with stronger positions on social issues, a stronger commitment to personal freedom.  This is where his wishy-washy record of moral relativism hurts him the most.  Long-term, the GOP needs to heed the message.  If the battle is over the apathetic affluent, the Democrats will win every time.  The Democrats offer the more carefree lifestyle and no guilt.  The GOP has to make it a fight over values.

                But longer-term, this is more than a fight over political demographics or electoral votes, this is a battle for the soul of our nation.  Our nation is going further and further down a path that is contrary to Natural Law.  There will be a correction.  We can either willfully make the correction or one will be made for us.  Naturally, one that is made for us would involve an economic collapse that would cause all to understand the linkage between social ills and economic ills.

                I, like all of us, would prefer to avoid this foreseeable consequence.    So we must work to reach our neighbors, our friends, even those in the pews next to us on Sunday.  Gone is the day when we can take for granted that just because someone is at church on a given Sunday that they are living their faith the other 6 days. 

We need an American renewal.  A re-evangelization of this country, a return to Judeo-Christian values.  We need a government that makes plenty of room for the family.  Only then, can we return to sustainable economic prosperity.  The first step is understanding the Romney divide is about values, not class.

               

               

Catholics Keep Fighting, Support the Bishops

                I wanted to take a moment to offer a word of encouragement to all Catholics out there who support the Bishops in the fight over the HHS regulations and have spoken out about it.  And be speaking out about it, you have perhaps said something to friends, family, maybe posted something on Facebook.

                If you are like me, no matter how tight the circle you have voiced your views in, you have likely gotten pushback.  I am a convert to my faith, and my family is split between Protestants and cradle Catholics.  I have received encouragement from no one.  My Protestant relatives are firmly entrenched in moral relativism and do not believe these issues belong in the public square.  Apparently they do not realize that it was President Obama who put these issues in the public square and not the Catholic Church. 

                The response from my Catholic relatives has been no better.  In supporting teachings of the Catholic Church on this and other issues I have been called a “bigot”, “close minded”, and asked, “Who died and made you Pope?”  I find that last take particularly ironic because I am supporting the teachings of the Pope. 

                Obviously, these are incredibly difficult times personally for devout Catholics.  Never has there been so much at stake, never has the issue been so immediate, and never have so many Americans been so indifferent to an attack on religious freedom.  But we must not and cannot give up.  Jesus, the Pope, the Bishops they do not want our faith to cause conflict with our friends and family.  Our faith should unite us, not divide us.  But we also must stand up for our faith, for our Lord, and for the teachings of the church.

                The critical message I would impart to you is that do not think you are not doing any good.  By raising these issues, by talking about what the church teaches, even to Catholics who may not agree with us, we are scattering seeds.  Just as in the parables in the Bible around seed sowing, sometimes those seeds land on fertile ground, sometimes on rocky soil.  Sometimes we may see them take root instantly, in other cases our seed may take time to germinate.  But we must not give up.

                It has been too easy for too long for many Catholics to live a double life.  They claim the faith, perhaps even meeting the basic precepts of the faith, but have not supported the full teaching of the church.  Our call is not to root them out, expose them, and drive them from the Church in some bid for ideological purity.  Indeed, at various times in our lives, we may all struggle with some aspect of Church teaching or the Catholic faith. 

But they key word is struggle, an active verb.  We should not be content to be in conflict with Church teaching, because we all know what happens in that situation.  We substitute our will for the will of the Magisterium.  We should actively strive to reconcile our view of the issue with that of the Church.  We should pray about it.  We might be able to resolve these differences in days, some might take years, but the point is we are working on them.

I’ve been amazed how many times I have heard someone give a shout out to the idea that there should be women Priests.  It happens not infrequently, yet I have not encountered anyone who supports this idea who has actually read Pope John Paul II’s letter on the subject and addressed his argument.  That is not how we are called to live as Catholics.

We are in this situation as a faith, as a nation, in no small part because we have been silent for too long as faithful Catholics.  The result is there is an incredible amount of ignorance about the Catholic faith in this country, despite the fact we are the largest religion and our institutions (educational, medical, and charitable) dot the landscape.    

                What we need is our own version of a national awareness campaign.  If it were a TV campaign it might be called simply, “We are Catholic”.  A montage of typical American Catholics talking about what they do, what they believe, showing the world that we are not just a big fancy Cathedral in Rome. 

                So far, the Catholic Church has not taken to overt marketing, so we must do it as individual Catholics through our outreach, our interactions, our daily life.  We should never apologize for being Catholics who actually believe what the Church teaches.  The irony is the more society goes astray, the more evidence we have that the Catholic Church is right. 

                So keep talking to your friends, your family, and your Facebook contacts about the HHS mandate.  I know I will.  It will be in a respectful manner, but I will not shirk from supporting Cardinal Dolan and the other Bishops in this fight.  I hope you will join me.  Oh, and if you should find yourself “unfriended” on Facebook as a result of any of this, I’ll be happy to friend you.

The Cancer of Moral Relativism and the Presidential Election

                Moral relativism is the cancer that is killing our nation.  They talk about cancer touching every family, think about moral relativism.  As my wife and I went through it last night, more damage has been wrought on our respective families from moral relativism than cancer ever could.  It has invaded every major religion and both political parties.  The question is why and what does it mean for this year’s Presidential election?

                Let’s start with a brief history of moral relativism, going back to the beginning, to Adam & Eve.  Did Satan use the introduction of sin to bring down mankind or was he using guilt, which was the end result?  Eve committed the sin, Adam felt shame.  Shame is a symptom of guilt.

                I ask this question because for most of human history, human beings have done really, really awful things to each other.  War, murder, rape, genocide, these are not modern inventions.   Yet it seems like only the events of the past couple of hundred years have shaken mankind’s faith.  Germany was crippled by the Holocaust, they stopped going to church.  Ireland, rocked by the sex abuse scandal, quit going to church.  In America, we cannot seem to shake the scars of the racism that came with slavery, even 150 years later and after electing a black President.  The question is why?  Why do the events of the past few hundred years seem to have elicited a different reaction from mankind?

                Let’s go to the 1500s, to the Protestant reformation.  The initial response of the Lutheran and Anglican breakaways was to retain a high degree of Catholicism.  Even in the mid-1600s, the Anglican Church still believed in things like the real presence of Christ in Eucharist.  But the Protestants were off of their moorings and drifting.  Eventually most similarities to Catholicism fell by the wayside, including…confession. 

                So we evolved from the 1500s on into a world without confession.  Even now there are 1.3 billion Catholics in the world, and many of them do not go to confession regularly.  This is a fatal shortcoming of Protestantism.  The Protestant faiths removed themselves from God, from an absolute truth, and in effect made man their god.  Whatever man decided was right or wrong was the law. 

I can offer no better proof of this than the Anglican Church.  Read the evolution of the “39 Articles” of the Anglican Church or the Wikipedia account of the Lambeth Conferences.  At the 1920 conference, contraception was not okay, but in 1930 it was.  1930!  What cultural event happened between 1920 and 1930 that caused this change? 

So why is this devolution to man as god in Protestantism significant?  Because the one thing that man cannot do sufficiently for another man, is offer forgiveness of their sins and absolution.  One man looks at another man as his equal, someone equal to you has no power to forgive you, only one above you does.  The Catholic sacrament of Reconciliation works because it is God working through the Priest.  This is not semantics as anyone who has been to confession can attest. 

So what happens in a world without forgiveness, repentance, and absolution – a world without confession?  Man is confronted with two logical choices.  Number one, they can pretend it does not matter they have sinned.  This is the Protestant doctrine that says faith alone is adequate for salvation.  The problem with pretending it does not matter you have sinned is that it is just that, pretending.  You still have the shame and the guilt (as St. Paul wrote, God’s laws are written on the heart of man).  You just have no way to remove the guilt because you do not have confession.  As G.K. Chesterton once wrote, “Being a Christian without confession is like having a debt you can never repay”. 

Your other choice, the choice the modern world has made, is to say that you have not sinned because there are no sinful choices.  Rather than say that it is of no consequence that you have sinned, take it one step farther and say there is no such thing as sin.  All choices are equally valid.  Sound like moral relativism?  Bingo.  It is an answer devised by those who live without confession, although sadly it has been adopted by those who have trouble living with confession.  As Cardinal George wrote so eloquently recently, “there will always be those whose faith is not adequate to the faith of the church”.

So what does this have to do with the Presidential election?  The Democratic Party was lost long ago to moral relativism, I think we can all agree on that.  The Democratic brand of moral relativism says there is no such thing as sin because every choice is equally valid.  Birthing a baby or aborting a baby are both the mother’s choice, neither is right or wrong.

But what has been missed is that there is a Republican brand of moral relativism.  The Republican brand of moral relativism says I do not want to have to have moral judgments, so let’s keep these issues out of politics.  They seek to say sin is of no concern, the Protestant version.  Encapsulated in both parties are the two possible human responses to sin.  Say it does not matter (Republicans), say it does not exist (Democrats). 

So Republicans push “social conservatives” into a corner.  They want them to vote come the general election, but not have any real authority in the party.  This is incredibly ironic considering that Ronald Reagan was a social conservative.  He had great economic policies, but they were born of a moral conviction that big government was immoral.  Not amoral, immoral. 

But since Reagan, the GOP has nominated a steady stream of milquetoast conservatives:  George H.W. Bush; Bob Dole; George W. Bush; and John McCain.  They then pair them with social conservatives, but the social conservatives are always number 2 on the ticket:  Dan Quayle, Jack Kemp, Sarah Palin.  Even when the milquetoast conservatives are elected, taxes go up, government expands, because they lack the moral conviction.  Social conservatism matters when it comes to gauging commitment to fiscal conservatism.

This brings us to Mitt Romney versus Rick Santorum.  Mitt Romney will be the GOP nominee, his victory in the Michigan primary virtually ends the race.  But, I can also tell you sitting here in March, that Mitt Romney will in fact lose in November.  It is because of moral relativism. 

Why?  Let’s take two key states that have held primaries thus far, Michigan and Florida.  In Florida, the counties that Mitt Romney carried were in south Florida.  It is a virtually identical footprint to the one that won Florida for Barack Obama in 2008.  The same thing is true in Michigan.  The Detroit suburbs that carried Mitt Romney to victory were the same ones that helped Obama capture 57% of the vote in Michigan in 2008, even as a Republican was being elected Governor.  The counties that are being used to hand Mitt Romney the nomination are counties that he will not win in November. 

What is the implication we can draw from this?  Republican moral relativists and Democratic moral relativists are neighbors.  They are two sides of the same street.  On one side, the neighbor who believes there is no sin (the Democrat), on the other side the neighbor who doesn’t want to get involved (the Republican). 

The battleground then becomes the rest of the state, the rest of the country, the rest of America.  It is outside the big metropolitan areas.  These are the values voters, these are the people who want to see meaningful change in this country, a reduction of the size of government, not just tax rates.  But when the GOP nominates someone like a Mitt Romney, they are not given a choice.  So what happens?

What happens is it becomes purely an economic game.  Nobody does a better job of promising money and handouts to the middle class, to the working class, than the Democrats.  Left without the chance to vote on a meaningful difference in values, these voters vote based on their wallets.  Why does the Obama Administration want to face Mitt Romney?  Because he leaves these voters up for grabs and they can pander to them.  Republicans lose, not win, when they fail to offer the voters a meaningful choice in values.

To take back this country, we need to fight the cancer of moral relativism.  In our families, in our churches, and in our political parties.  If the people who believe that real faith in God is a pre-condition for freedom cannot win in the Republican Party, then we cannot win in America.  What the results of Tuesday suggest is, we have a lot of work to do.