We've buttered our bread...

One of the clients of the company I work for is VanderbiltCatholic.org, which just recently had to change it's name to UniversityCatholic.org. Looking into why, I found this article:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/290199/fallout-ichristian-legal-societyi-robert-shibley#

The long and short of it is that organizations must admit members and even leaders without regard to their belief. So organizations which are founded on a belief, cannot exclude someone from leadership if that person holds beliefs diametrically opposed to that organization. It makes utterly no sense. The fallout is that religious organizations are not able to affiliate themselves with Vanderbilt anymore, hence the domain name change.

But what I found absolutely shocking in that article is the transcript on the second page. The vice-chancellor says:

I’m Catholic. What if my faith beliefs guided all of the decisions I make from day to day?

[At this point, the crowd applauds the idea that people should live according to their faith.]

No they shouldn’t! No they shouldn’t! No they shouldn’t! No they shouldn’t! [Disagreement from crowd.] Well, I know you do, but I’m telling you that as a Catholic I am very comfortable using my best judgment as a person to make decisions.

If your faith beliefs shouldn't guide your decision making what is the point of said faith beliefs? I guess maybe they are just there to give you some good feelings about the afterlife? But that is not what really hit me after reading the article.

This is a great example of the privatization of religion, mostly Christianity, that has been going on. Keep your religion private, so private it has no bearing, even on your own personal life. It seems to be an unfair imposition, and certainly it is, but at the same time, it appears to me that we've buttered our bread and now it's time to eat it.

We profess belief in Christ, who said in no uncertain terms to feed the hungry, shelter the homeless, let the children come to me.... But when was the last time you did that? When was the last time you stood outside an abortion clinic and offered the women going in help so they don't feel the need to have their inconvenient baby put down? When was the last time you physically helped a homeless person? When was the last time you visited someone in prison? Granted we can't do everything, and most of the time our immediate surroundings provide us outlets to feed the hungry, but when have you gone above and beyond, stepped out of your comfort zone, out of your neighborhood and did that?

Rodney Stark offers a compelling theory of how Christianity spread in his book, The Rise of Christianity. It is truly inspiring to read how heroic virtue allowed Christianity to conquer Rome. But in America, the State is conquering Christianity. Why? Because we've kept our religion private. We've voted and lobbied to have someone else care for the poor and dispose of the unwanted. We've abandoned the poor and outcast to the world and in doing so abandoned Christ. And now the world is demanding we keep our religion private and we don't like it.

What is the solution? Lawsuits, protests for religious freedom, political activism. For short-term gains, perhaps, but the victory cannot be won by worldly means. Ultimately the real solution must be a renewal and a living out of our Faith in public the way it was meant to be.

We played the flute for you, but you did not dance

The Gospel reading today was from Matthew:

Jesus said to the crowds
"To what shall I compare this generation?
It is like children who sit in marketplaces and call to one another,
"We played the flute for you, but you did not dance,
we sang a dirge but you did not mourn."
For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they said,
"He is possessed by a demon."
The Son of Man came eating and drinking and they said,
"Look, he is a glutton and a drunkard,
a friend of tax collectors and sinners.'
But wisdom is vindicated by her works."

It made me think of the atheists that I've run into. The run of the mill atheists don't seem to get religion, in spite of their many of them being a part of religions in their past. It's not that the concepts are too deep. At it's root, I would dare to say it is simply that they don't want to get it.

When I went with my cohorts from Ask A Catholic A Question to the Aggie Athiest club, the host/president girl generously made the topic for the night the good things about religion. She volunteered something she liked about religion, but the other couple dozen atheists could only come up with some snide remarks or blank faces. I volunteered something I admired from the Mormons, to try and spark things, but to no avail.

I would venture to say atheists don't get it, not for lack of evidence, but simply because they don't want to.   Jesus makes 2 points about "this generation." 1) They demand God dance to their tune and 2) regardless of how they are approached they only have ad hominem attacks. This is not to say Christians (Catholics) are above criticism, but it is striking how true this rings for so many of the atheists' criticisms. Their main beef is that God doesn't run things the way He ought if He does exist and that Christians do mean things. But neither attack holds any water, any more than an attempt to disprove Heliocentrism by digging up dirt on Copernicus.

In his book Authenticity, Fr. Dubay points out that while we assume the biggest reason people don't follow Jesus is because they just don't know all the facts, the Gospels don't present it this way. In fact, in the face of Jesus bringing Lazarus' to life, the powers that be decide they have to do away with both of them. They don't want proof, they just want to continue living life the way they want. It is a question of conversion of life. Repent and believe. Repentance comes before belief.

But I digress. It was just a striking point that 2000 years ago the same type of thing was happening then that is going on now with all our "progress."

You can't force your morals on others

"You can't force your morals on others!"

How many times have you heard this? It's a pretty common retort when talking about moral issues, like abortion or sodomy. (This is especially true on matters relating in any way to sex. See Peter Kreeft's Sexual Reconnection.)

It seems to carry weight, and put people in their place, but it's just about as vacuous an idea as you can get. Before we look at the statement itself, let's look at a few of the violations of that statement that we routinely accept:

• parents telling their children right and wrong
• teachers doing the same
• governments dictating things like the speed you can drive, which side of the road you can drive on, alcohol limits, what you can and cannot own, etc., etc.,
• doctors telling you how you should eat

Pretty much anyone in an authority position, not only tells us how to behave, but if they didn't they would be negligent. It would be harmful for them not to force their morals, their set of behavioral rules on their respective subjects. Along this same line, if you saw someone beating a child, abusing the elderly, or taking advantage of a friend's financial ignorance (stealing), wouldn't you (had you the means) be expected to step up and stop the injustice, i.e. force your morals on the aggressor?

But let's take a look at that what that statement is saying. You can't, or shouldn't force your morality on others. But that itself is a behavioral ought, a moral rule. Whoever says it, is trying to foist their moral norm -that telling others what to do is wrong- on you. It violates the same principle it is purportedly trying to protect.

The long and short of all of this is, the question shouldn't be about whether or not a certain set of morals should be forced on others. The question is which morals should be setup as the norm.