Morals are not some arbitrary rules imposed by an "oppressive" Church, or things God established at random to prevent us from being happy. Rather, they are rules for avoiding harm, both of the physical and spiritual sort.

Physical ones are rather easy to intuit for most people - obviously, killing people, stealing, coveting your neighbor's things, lying, and cheating tend to be things that shorten one's life span, result in a beating, imprisonment, or other losses. Plus, it's easy to identify a victim in these circumstances, be it oneself or others. The big problem element has been sexual morality, since from time immemorial, people have been trying to get around the rule that sex in any situation outside of a husband and wife open to kids is harmful.

Then again, this is also a harder sin for which to identify the potential harm. The most obvious ones that comes to mind are STDs, particularly those which cause discomfort in the genital regions, a rather unpleasant situation which no doubt would remind the offenders of the transgression from the earliest of times. In modern times, HIV/AIDS has replaced them as the primary harm. There is other collateral damage involved, such as the suffering of illegitimate children, the feelings of betrayal from the spouse, divorce in this day and age, broken families, feelings of emptiness, the prevalence of contraception, abortion, objectification of women, and so forth.

God tries to spare us from all of that, but ends up in the position of a frustrated parent whose children think that, contrary to the parent's advice, they are being kept from something fun. And so, like ignorant kids, we do what we've been warned will bring suffering. Unlike the kids, who might actually get the message that touching a hot iron indeed burns them the first time around, we get burned, but don't seem to grasp why. It certainly doesn't help that there's a whole gang of professional idiots who say that the burning pain is all an illusion or is just a conditioned response to our ignorant parent saying it would burn. So many come to everything but the obvious answer that THIS REALLY HURTS YOU! STOP DOING IT TO YOURSELF! This may be why God says to be like children - they're more intelligent about these things than the so-called adults.

On a related note, this is why moral relativism is so deadly, because morals by their very nature cannot be relative. Moral systems, and morals in general, have one main goal in mind - to keep people out of peril, both of body and soul. These in turn are based on general principles of human nature and of the world in general. As God knows these best, having created them, He chose to be merciful in revealing them to us.

The moral law is not, however, ultimately based on the times, but on human nature. The essentials of the moral law were not changed by God because human nature itself, in particular the laws governing it, did not change with Christ. To argue otherwise is to say that God was deceiving people by giving them a moral code not in harmony with human nature.

The law was reestablished, not because God was changing his mind or the laws of human nature, but because there was a change in the quality of human nature. It went from fallen to redeemed; it was elevated by God sharing in it. This elevation did not call for a lessening of the preexisting moral law, but rather its elevation as well. Things which had been lessened by the nature of being a fallen race, such as marriage, were restored. Things proper only to a fallen race, like sacrificial animal sin offerings, were ended. Some things proper only to a redeemed race, but not to a fallen one, such as the requirement to receive the Lord in communion, were added.

All around, the moral law experienced a step up, proper to humanity's redemption, and designed to be the optimal way for humanity to live. There can't be any relativism about that - either the Church's moral law, as revealed by Christ, is the best way to go about life, or it isn't. Heavenly or diabolical, to borrow an idea from Scott Hahn. There's no middle ground here, no maybes, and definitely no nonsense about different moralities for different people.

N.B. - Moral theology is not a strong suit for me. Knowledgable people are urged to correct errant ideas.

- Posted by at 2:27 AM

From Touchstone Magazine comes an article which illustrates the social disaster that has arisen from contraception and divorce. Citing studies done by social scientists who weren't gunning for these sort of results, Bradford Wilcox shows that science has lately been vindicating the warnings of Humanae Vitae that the contraceptive mentality would precipitate a social disaster. Divorce, additionally, has been shown to have negative effects on children, which are not mitigated by a remarriage.

The best line comes from Sara McLanahan, Princeton sociology professor:

If we were asked to design a system for making sure that children’s basic needs were met, we would probably come up with something quite similar to the two-parent ideal. Such a design, in theory, would not only ensure that children had access to the time and money of two adults, it also would provide a system of checks and balances that promoted quality parenting. The fact that both parents have a biological connection to the child would increase the likelihood that the parents would identify with the child and be willing to sacrifice for that child, and it would reduce the likelihood that either parent would abuse the child.

Perhaps the most ironic part of the outcome is that the poor are disproportionately affected by the effects of the sexual revolution, given that the proponents of such policies often hold up the poor as a group they are trying to help. The primary beneficiaries, however, tend to be the rich and men.

Via LifeSiteNews

- Posted by at 9:00 PM

A movement bent on revenge, not equality, according to the Winnipeg Sun's Lydia Lovric. Most of what she says is just plain common sense, at least in this article, though common sense is lacking today.

- Posted by at 3:44 AM

A study found that binge drinking is more frequent on college campuses than previously supposed.

Duh? I really think if any researchers had a real inside look at how much drinking goes on over here, there wouldn't be any doubt. It goes on not just on weekends, but every night of the week. Bill Cosby's satire about people destroying themselves on weekends through drinking doesn't apply here - it's just worse on weekends, that's all.

I'm not so sure that the answer is educating kids on the risks of large amounts of drinking. I'm sure they've heard it many times before. Colleges might want to look more into the fact that most people think themselves immune from such disasters and try something which works against that trend.

- Posted by at 1:27 AM

One of my chat buddies reminded me of an old problem in reasoning. When asking why he supported a particular position, it came back to me in the form of why not.

It's a rather effective turning of the tables, since the situation goes from asking someone to build a positive defense of a position to trying to build a negative refutation of the same position. It can also shield the one being asked from thinking about why they believe what they do, tacitly challenging someone else to convince them wrong.

Why not is also used sometimes as a reason in itself. Sometimes people will believe something simply because they can not see any possible reason not to believe it. Contraception and gay marriage strike me as two big issues which a lot of people will go along with simply because they can't find any reason why they shouldn't.

But people should really be prepared to defend their positions when asked why. It's a poor reason to do or believe something simply because you can't see why you shouldn't. There should always be a positive reason behind actions and beliefs.

- Posted by at 1:14 AM

The push for gay rights has been quite heated over the past year. However, the granting of such rights is counter to reason and also would set a bad precedent.

Unlike race or gender, both of which are physical qualities and easily verifiable by almost anyone, being gay is not a physical quality and isn't something most other people are going to know. Unlike gender and race, there aren't any known scientific tests to test if someone is gay. Statistically, the greatest predictor of being gay is a self-report of such inclinations several years before a person considers themself to be gay.

It's a rather bad precedent to grant rights to any group whose makeup is entirely determined by self-identification. The reason is because anyone, even if not the least bit gay, can claim membership in the group with no way to refute the claim. This is why, unlike the Civil Rights movement, the push for gay rights may well lead people to falsely claim to be gay to reap the benefits.

The logical implication of granting such rights are also not good. It would mean any group which claimed its defining characteristic was innate, but of which there was no refutation, could also clamor for rights. The example which comes to mind is that of the polygamists, who can argue quite easily that they are innately drawn to love many others, and should thus have the right to marry them all.

Other potential groups to watch out for are the pedophiles, pederasts, polyandrists, nudists, and vegans. After all, their reasoning would be the same as that of gays - these are their natural inclinations, and they might want benefits/protections to be able to engage in their lifestyle. As with gays, there is no way to prove their behavior is a lifestyle choice as opposed to something innate.

Pray that our elected representatives will save common sense from going into cardiac arrest. They will listen if they can be convinced the people at large matter more than a small group of activists.

- Posted by at 8:44 PM