Fallen Creation

Man abused his creation in the beginning at the behest of the tempter.  Mankind lost out on a good deal, original justice, in which we had full reign over our bodies, innocence, complete satisfaction of our material needs, and life in the garden of eden.  The evil one was able to persuade us to turn our backs on it all.

Paradoxically, we were able to sin because we were created in the image and likeness of God: free.  Sin demonstrates our likeness to God as it demonstrates our freedom to choose good or evil.  Ironically, this likeness to God--free choice, but of evil rather than good--becomes our negation of God as the Creator.

Man wants not only freedom to choose good and evil, but to "be like god knowing good and evil," meaning to determine it.  That is neither our prerogative nor the basis of our relation to God.  Sin is thus a negation of our relationship with him.

What would happen if men lost the sense of sin, which many Popes and philosophers have warned of?  Frankly, we live in a society that doesn't know what a sin is.

Who can believe in it, we ask ourselves?  How can something be a sin if it doesn't hurt anyone?  How can anything between consenting adults be a sin?  How can anything I do in the privacy of my own home be a sin?

Fr. John wryly noted of California that the only mortal sin left there was smoking, but only of tobacco.  (BTW, he's having a good time at the expense of the once Golden State.)  Personally, I think there's another: downloading copyrighted material.

How can missing Sunday mass, for instance, be a mortal sin.  Many get nothing from it, find it boring and irrelevant.  The cost-benefit analysis they apply to it yields the conclusion to ignore it.

Not assisting at mass is easy to rationalize.  It can't be as grave as shooting someone we say to ourselves; they can't both be mortal sins.

Or, the weekly requirement is just an arbitrary rule made by people in power to control our lives.  Indeed, maybe that's true of all morality.

The only way out of this morass is to focus on relationships.  Imagine that I had a girlfriend who professed deep love for me, but because we were both so busy with work, hobbies, friends, activities or even sleeping in, she'd like to limit our time together to just once per month.

I would conclude that her deeds spoke louder than her sweet words, and that she did not love me as much as she loved those other things.  It would kill our relationship.  In other words, it would be mortal.

It's the same way with God.  We can kill our relationship with him by our indifference.  That's why the matter in question is rightly called a mortal sin.

With regard to sexual morality, society considers Catholic teaching--which promulgates the sinfulness of even impure thoughts and glances--neurotic, unhealthy.  But, consider them in the context of a young couple's relationship.

If every, or any, salacious looking woman turned his head when he was with her, she wouldn't like it.  His protests that he wasn't doing anything to hurt her would likely fall on deaf ears.

Every glance would say "You have competition.  And, right now, you're losing."

Our imagination says the same thing to God.  "You're losing the competition right now.  Something else beats you, hands down."  It's a mortal sin because it kills the relationship with God.

The pharisee and the publican are instructive in this regard.  "The Pharisee stood up and prayed, 'God, I thank you that I'm not like other people! I'm not a robber or a dishonest person. I haven't committed adultery. I'm not even like this tax collector."

"But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, 'God, have mercy on me, a sinner.'

Some have identified the pharisee with ethics and the publican with grace.  That doesn't capture the story's significance.

Rather, the pharisee looks to himself, without relation.  He is self sufficient.  The publican on the other hand knows that he draws life from being in relation with God, the font of goodness, forgiveness, mercy and love.

Grace doesn't dispense with ethics.  It liberates it and sets in relation to God.

Conquering sin is not simply a matter of avoiding negatives.  Actually, the positive aspect is primary for relations.

Imagine that our hypothetical boyfriend doesn't look at the attractive woman passing by.  Rather, he turns instead to his beloved and looks her in the eyes.  The message will be clear: he loves me; he only has eyes for me.

God sees these things, too.  He knows how we handle temptation, and what it means to our relationships with them.

One can even learn to view temptation with anticipation, which makes it possible to show love for God with deeds.  Nobody, however, has to look for temptation, which will find us without our help.  But, one can seize it when it arises.

We know the remedy for sinfulness, confession, which we can take frequent and full advantage of.  Proportionality should be our guide.

Mass-on-Sunday Catholics should probably confess monthly for the sake of their relationships with God.  Daily mass goers will want to confess weekly or bi-weekly.

It's a matter of spiritual hygiene rather than of mortal sin.  We bathe and brush our teeth before offending anyone with our odor.  Why wait until the relationship with our Lord is damaged?  We don't want to repulse him.

We cannot be afraid to confront sin, as doing so is the way to our Lord.  By facing it, we overcome barriers and gain greater intimacy with him than we enjoyed before sinning.

We can ask our lady, refuge of sinners, to help us make a concise, concrete, clear and complete confession.  With contrition and reparation for our sins, and those of others, we can rekindle this most important relationship with Jesus Christ.

Solomon Obama Splits the Baby

Eager to achieve universal insurance coverage for health issues caused by illicit sexual behavior, and put an election-season gaffe caused by his disregard for others' consciences behind him, President Obama has proposed to liberate religious institutions from his Administration's demand that they cover sinful behavior.

His Solomonic compromise: make the insurance carriers rather than the religious institutions pay for it.  One still might wonder what business it is of the State to dictate to religious institutions what activity they may meaningfully regard (by not subsidizing it) as sinful, which is the real point of the dispute.

Everyone knows that feminists view contraception, abortion and sterilizations as women's rights and positive goods, not as sins.  Why can the power of the State be used to champion their beliefs and trample on contrary ones, however, when the opposite imposition is viewed as an impermissible breach of the Wall of Separation between Church and State?

Justice Holmes famously wrote in his Lochner dissent, “The Fourteenth Amendment does not enact Mr. Herbert Spencer's Social Statics.”  I wonder what he would say about it's enactment of Simon de Beauvior's Second Sex?

Religious employers will still have to offer sin-care to employees, but somebody else will have to pay for it.  Evidently, the President and his allies think this brouhaha is about the money, not the moral and constitutional principles threatened by the ObamaCare directive.


True, it is repugnant for a person to be made to subsidize behavior he considers objectionable.  Leftists understand this when the behavior is related to national defense and other necessary and legitimate expenditures of public money that oblige the offense.  They're only blind to State overreach when the expenditures in question are about matters truly beyond the State's province, like who should pay for a woman's sex life, and involve expenditures of private money.

I'm not sure which unorthodox imposition thrills Leftists most: the State-mandated inversion of traditional morality--which upholds marriage and family, not sexual activity and baby prevention--or the State's determination of private expenditures.  Both are striking inversions of nature, offenses against justice, and blows against the liberty of many for the supposed rights of women, meaning feminists.

Note also the President's inflexible insistence on this one point: that somebody is going to pay for the woman's sexual activity, and it isn't going to be her.

She has Leftist rights; the responsibilities, even financial, are somebody else's "fair share."  It's important to the President that everyone pay for them so that nobody specifically notices the burden, and everyone's hands are covered in the blood.

Of course, the insurance companies will pass the cost of this additional expense onto policy holders.  So, Catholic institutions, for instance, will still pay more for policies, and their money will still be used to pay for morally illicit practices, just not directly.

President Obama believes that the American people are that stupid.  Maybe we are; this scam of fungible money entering one pocket rather than another has worked for Planned Parenthood for decades.

Not everyone is fooled, however.  Former US ambassador to the Vatican Mary Ann Glendon, Princeton professor Robert George, Notre Dame law professor Carter Snead, Catholic University President John Garvey, and Yuval Levin of the Ethics & Public Policy Center explained their objection in an open letter:

This so-called “accommodation” changes nothing of moral substance and fails to remove the assault on religious liberty and the rights of conscience which gave rise to the controversy. It is certainly no compromise. The reason for the original bipartisan uproar was the administration’s insistence that religious employers, be they institutions or individuals, provide insurance that covered services they regard as gravely immoral and unjust. Under the new rule, the government still coerces religious institutions and individuals to purchase insurance policies that include the very same services.

Had the two women in the bible brought their baby to Solomon Obama's court, how would he have responded?  Perhaps he would have split the baby in half even after determining who the real mother was because, after all, feminists' rights always require that some baby be denied life, or existence.