Love in the Time of Materialism

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2439522/Davecat-40-shunned-organic-women-marry-synthetic-doll.html

I have noticed a trend wherein most discussion of dualism veers into Gnosticism — the soul trumping the body.  This article is about the reverse problem of dualism where the body trumps the soul.

In this tabloid story, a man considers himself “married” to a doll, and keeps another doll as a “mistress”.  This is a result of his consideration that women are, “an enormous investment of time, money, and emotion, and I’m not interested in having someone in my life who may bail at any time, or who transforms into someone unpleasant.”  In these words we can hear a man too afraid to risk anything for actual love, and so make-believes love with a bit of silicone.

It’s silly to “marry” silicone.

The whole story is quite disturbing because it considers the best woman as one who is without any desires of her own.  The website to order these dolls even boasting, “never complains” and “always available”.  “Marrying” dolls dehumanizes actual women by creating this evil ideal where women are simply the playthings of men.

This contrasts greatly with Catholic teaching on authentic love, which is necessary for joy in life.  A man in love goes so far as to lay down his life for those he loves.  Manly love is about sacrifice to help others and not about using people as things to meet ones own desires.  This is not love:

He stubbornly clings to his own desires and doesn’t sacrifice himself for his wife.  It is not manly love to demand others lay down their hopes for you.  Manly love reaches out beyond oneself to the other.  In doing this laying down of selfish pride to meet the needs of those we care about we paradoxically can find contentment and peace.  This sacrifice of self is why this man learned that his child with down syndrome was “the light in the darkness”, and why he ended up happy his wife had the child despite his pressuring her to abort the child’s life.  The sacrifice of true love brings us to joy.

A tragic fall to heresy.

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/church-dumps-rebel-priest-20130920-2u5jp.html

This article talks about a an ex-priest.  The article is non-chronological, so I’ll discuss the issue in chronological order and some of the important heresy related ideas.

It appears that the priest was laicised because he believed it is possible for same sex couples to engage in marriage and that it is possible for women to be priests.  Both of these misunderstand the nature of male and female, which is one of the major errors of our day.  The core of both heresies held by this ex-Catholic is that male and female are interchangeable, the feminine is no different from the masculine.  Hence male and female aren’t necessary categories for understanding the Sacraments of Marriage or Holy Orders.

Postgenderism as expressed in the TV show Vexed.

In the extreme it means no longer being able to recognize the difference between male and female.  From The Dialectic of Sex, “[The] end goal of feminist revolution must be, unlike that of the first feminist movement, not just the elimination of male privilege but of the sex distinction itself.”  I have reservations about this former priest going all the way into postgenderism and the elimination of all distinction, but he does make the first steps in that direction.

This is heretical because it is a type of dualism that divides the body from the soul.  The body is no longer the instantiated soul, but something set off from and divided from the soul.  In this mindset, the body becomes a lesser thing than the soul, and one might therefore see how the Church would be opposed to such a denigration of the human person as a whole.  Creation is good and sanctified by God himself who stepped into creation.  Jesus shows us the value of the material world by existing as a person, in a physical body.  To deny our physical bodies is to deny the value of the physical world.  To say our masculinity or femininity is not part of who we are as people is to reject the meaningfulness of our physicality.

Humans come in two flavors: Male and Female.

Hopefully there are no priests who deny the value of so great a good as matter.  The fact this ex-priest denied that good by denying the good of male and female bodies shows how rightfully he was laicised and his abilities to effect the Sacraments curtailed.  It is not good to have a pastor who is so far astray himself.  Catholics have a right to authentic Church teaching in the Mass, and this man was unrepentantly no longer doing that.

In addition, this now ex-preist was not satisfied denying the physical world, he proceeded to deny Jesus himself.  As St. Joan of Arc proclaimed, “About Jesus Christ and the Church I simply know they’re just one thing, and we shouldn’t complicate the matter.”  To continue to give homilies and say Mass was to deny the authority of Jesus Christ as expressed through his body, the Church; which took away those privileges in the laicisation process.  The willful denial of Jesus Christ is a very grave matter, because it cuts to the quick of Christianity.  Why masquerade as a Christian if one denies Christ?  The Church codified this rejection of Jesus in an excommunication, so he might more clearly see where his actions were taking him.

St. Mary MacKillop, pray for us.

Far from being excommunicated like St. Mary MacKillop, for false allegations of alcohol abuse; This man was excommunicated for something he admits is true: denying the Church.  His disdain for the Body of Christ oozes through when he says, “In times past excommunication was a huge thing, but today the hierarchy have lost such trust and respect”.  I could understand a non-Catholic or badly formed Catholic thinking such things, but someone with his education should understand how big a deal it is to be cut off from the Jesus Christ himself.  It goes to show how far he has fallen theologically, and it is quite tragic that even the dramatic step of excommunication cannot reawaken his understanding.  It is a pitiable man who leans so firmly upon his own thoughts that he is no longer held up by all the hands of those before us — the continuity of believers. Such a person is bound to fall because we are designed to live in communion.

The communion of Saints who have gone before us.  I want to be like them!

Dear Reader, to close, please pray for Greg Reynolds: that he might learn how wonderful our bodies (both female and male) are, and thereby return himself to Christ present on this earth in the communion of his followers.

Germany: where one can be any religion as long as one is atheist in practice.

All outdoor Christmas decorations banned

The heresy in this article is focused around the following sentence by Social Democratic Party Councilor Martin Becker: “Why should religious festivals be celebrated in public?”  This brings us back to the mystery religions and Gnostics which flourished during the Pax Romana.

A central focus of both the mystery religions and gnosticism is that there is a secret knowledge about faith that is held back from all non-believers.  Scientology is a good modern example of a faith where the truth of their beliefs are slowly revealed over time.  Masonry is another, where each degree progressed grants access to more of the organizations beliefs.

Some see all religion in this same way.  Faith is a secret matter between God and his believers.  From this mindset, it is easy to think there is no reason any religious act should have any component of publicity.

Christianity (as well as Islam and some other faiths) stands in sharp contrast to this.  While in the early years of Christianity it was necessary to keep some secrets (such as the Sacrament of the Eucharist) from unbelievers, this was done out of fear of persecution rather than as a necessary component of faith.  The command of Jesus was for Catholics to make disciples of all nations and to teach them all that Jesus taught.  All of the Church teachings are public, right on the Vatican’s website.  While priests are taught more in-depth (roughly 7 years of schooling, similar to a medical doctor), they are not taught anything different from what the laity are taught (again, similar to a doctor).

This transparency of belief is to be lived out in transparency of life (we aren’t dualists, so belief and action are intertwined).  Our belief in God is the bedrock of who we are, the core definition of ourselves: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free person, there is not male and female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”  The other aspects of our identities become subsumed into our Christian identity.  To not live out ones faith in a public manner would be equivalent to not living out ones gender or race in a public manner.  Our belief is expressed in our actions.

Why should gender of a child be celebrated in public?  Is it time to ban gender reveal parties?

It is a bold claim to state Christian belief is as foundational as gender or race, so let’s look deeper at that claim to see why Christians believe it to be the case.  We believe we have life as a gift from God.  In our sin, we reject God, the source of our life.  Therefore, because we cut ourselves off from the source of life in our sins, we deserve the natural consequence of that, which would be death.  If one cuts a river off from the spring that feeds it, the river dies — so too with our life, we die if we are cut off from the source of life.  Jesus came to fulfill our naturally required death and to therefore restore us to life.  By becoming one person with Jesus, he partakes of the death we deserve and we partake in the resurrection has brought about.  As St. Augustine wrote, “Let us rejoice then and give thanks that we have become not only Christians, but Christ himself.”  The Christian and Christ are made one.

If we are one with Christ, to conceal that oneness would be similar to concealing other core parts of who we are.  Shall we hide wedding rings as we are also made one with our spouses?

Out of concern for offending single people, “Why should marriage be celebrated in public?”

That Christianity is such a core aspect of identity exposes one of the dangers in confusing freedom of religion (where one can be any religion or none at all, and express those beliefs openly) and freedom from religion (where one can be any religion or none at all, as long as one only expresses being none at all).  We should all have a right to express who we are and how we define ourselves, whether that identity be Christian, German, Gay, or Construction Worker — we should be free to express how we define ourselves.  To be forced to conceal our identity out of concern for others opinions is a dangerous precedent to set.

The only acceptable haircuts in Germany North Korea.

Pope Hats

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/08/pope-francis-pontiff-catholic-editorial

This editorial ticked a pet peeve of mine: making comments on the pope’s hat and home: “But the mood music is altogether different and not just because of his personal charm and the decision to eschew all the fancy ecclesiastical haberdashery and grand palaces”.

Only European Imperialists hate this papal haberdashery.

At root of this distrust of papal hats is the heresy of dualism.  The physical world isn’t seen as connected to the spiritual, and the particular heresy in this article has a gnostic bent because it sees hats (which are part of the world) as as bad.

The Catholic lens for seeing these things is that external clothes indicate a spiritual truth.  For instance, the Papal Triple Crown (last worn in 1963):

Rather than a sign of papal opulence, the crown shows how the pope (like all the baptised) partakes of Christ’s triple role of Priest, Prophet, and King.  Historically it was particularly important in showing those with only one crown (Kings) that they didn’t have authority over the Church.  At various points in history, States regularly attempt to dictate to the Church what she should believe or who should be in charge of her.  Even today China suppresses the Church by choosing Bishops instead of the Pope. If Pope Francis met President Xi Jinping wearing the Triple Crown, perhaps it might influence China to restore freedom to the Church because China would see outwardly how important it is to us inwardly.

The pope’s miter also has spiritual significance:

It is a sign of his office of Bishop, and these outward signs are much like how Prince Harry has a hat and clothes to denote his office in the military:

Move along girls, he’s too much of a bad boy to be marriage material.

Using clothes to denote who we are internally has been studied extensively by sociologists.  The seminal work was The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life by Erving Goffman.  We all use aspects of our clothing to tell our life story because we are all human:  our souls and bodies together make up who we are.  This aspect of ourselves is what makes it easy to tell a hipster from a jock, or a cowboy from a gangster.  In our daily life, we don’t live as dualists, so it seems foolish to me that a writer would expect a Pope to live up to a heresy any more non-Catholics live up to a heresy.  The “haberdashery” is an indicator of who the pope is.  Any change is not superfluous or merely external, but an indicator of his nature.

Because the popes nature has been transformed by his ordination to be the very vicar of Christ, he deserves (by his nature, not necessarily by his actions) the best we can offer.  If he chooses anything less than that, it indicates personal humility.  If he chooses to accept our best (and maybe wears that triple crown again!), it indicates to us the change in nature he has undergone.  Either way it is a teaching moment to us.

The PostSecret Confessional

http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/02/us/postsecret-police-search

Used Without Permission From: http://www.postsecret.com/

I enjoy PostSecret quite a bit.  It nicely reveals the deep needs of people.  It’s authenticity of feeling usually provides rich ground for contemplation.  The site in general, and this particular secret, shows the need people have for confession.

Confession is a sacrament that Protestants removed  because of the focus on individualism (brought about by the philosophy of Ockham).  This emphasis worked itself out in a type of dualism that goes back to the Gnostics — the world and physical things are bad, the spiritual is good.  One outcome of this dualism is the destruction of sacred art.  For instance, in all of Scotland all medieval stained glass (excepting four small coats of arms tucked away in a private chapel) was destroyed by Protestant Reformers.  The distrust of physical things works with individualism to remove the physical element of confession.  Confession was reduced to an individual asking pardon from God in total seclusion and even possibly without spoken words.

Web sites like PostSecret show that this extreme individualism isn’t who people are.  We aren’t called to be solitary individuals, but we are called to communion.  We have a longing in our hearts to confess in a physical as well as spiritual form and therefore we need a person to confess to God through.  This urge of communion causes some to confess their sins to others via PostSecret.

Further, confession to others makes sense because we are both body and soul.  Sacraments all have corporal and spiritual aspects because recognize a total person, body as well as soul.  By removing the physical aspect of confession, Protestantism denies our physical body and keeps us from confessing with our whole self.  Any attempt to confess with one’s whole self is, because of our body/soul nature, bound to include a physical component.

Consequently, by attempting to take communion out of the act of confession (by removing the physical element), Protestantism resulted in eradicating wholeheartedness from confession (by allowing only the spirit and not whole person to confess).

The Yuck Factor and Holistic Love

http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/thabitianyabwile/2013/08/19/the-importance-of-your-gag-reflex-when-discussing-homosexuality-and-gay-marriage/

This article above is becoming much discussed around the blog world, so I consider it news.  However, I want to focus on a different part than what everyone else is talking about.  I think the following is more relevant to heresy (it is also not already covered in a thick layer of commentary): “If marriage wasn’t about the conjugal relationship, what was it about? ‘Love and commitment’ we were told. ‘What’s wrong with two people finding love?'”

Indeed, browsing Pinterest the other day, it was easy to find such images as below:

Used Without Permission From: http://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/northernstar.info/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/0/4a/04a69e86-ee32-11e0-af64-001a4bcf6878/4e8a71c57e1f3.image.jpg

and

Used Without Permission From: http://aempix.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/photo-5.png

This idea that love has no gender is a form of dualism.  The body and soul are separated and seen as distinct.  This splitting apart of a whole person can be see even more clearly with this image, which shows what all the fuss is about:

Used Without Permission From: http://itspronouncedmetrosexual.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/1600-Genderbread-Person.jpg

The one human person is broken up into all these bits and then these bits are set against each other.  Expression might be at odds with sex which might not align with orientation.  While there are some cases of intersex (1 in 100 babies don’t appear normally male or female), these are the result of a breakdown in the normal genomic process.  Some children are born with tails:

Used Without Permission From: http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/health/mom-begs-doctors-baby-born-tail-article-1.1379266

And this is not considered an identity but a deformity in how the body would naturally express itself.  Being born with a tail or intersex is a breakdown of the person because of the fallen nature of the world.  The person, according to Catholic teaching, should still be seen as a whole person and not broken up into bits like the ginger bread man image above would suggest.  Dualism’s excessive drive to split apart whole beings into their component parts fuels the idea that love has no gender.  The soul is seen as entirely separate from the body.

Rejecting dualism, the Church teaches that the soul and the body are one person.  If that person is male, that means the soul has a certain “maleness” to it as well.

“The unity of soul and body is so profound that one has to consider the soul to be the “form” of the body: i.e., it is because of its spiritual soul that the body made of matter becomes a living, human body; spirit and matter, in man, are not two natures united, but rather their union forms a single nature.” (CCC 365)

If my nature is female, then my soul and body together are female.  This holistic approach by the Church guarantees the love of the whole person rather than just loving parts of a person.

Which brings us back to the point of the discussion: it is people who love, not merely the soul or the body which loves.  And because people come in two sexes (baring a medical problem) then love also comes in two sexes.  Love is gendered.  I love a woman in a different way than I love a man because I am a whole person, and my body and soul form a unity that has a sex.

This unity of a person, this holistic approach to people, restores the notion that marital love has a component of reproduction.  To say married love is both unitive and procreative is to recognize that love has a gender because people have a gender.

In turn, this walks us back the path laid out by LGBT activists to the “yuck factor” in the article.  There needn’t be a grossness to the external acts (Nothing that enters one from outside can defile that person; but the things that come out from within are what defile), but instead a blanching of the face that people are reduced to mere external acts.  The dualism required to think same sex sexuality is love appallingly divorces a person’s body from their soul.  It is a wretched thing to turn a person against him/her self by introducing a disunity into that person through dualism.  Homosexuality requires that disunity between ones body and soul and that’s why it’s bad.  It hurts a persons communion with themselves.  It is not wrong in the abstract because, “the Bible also teaches that homosexual behavior was wrongdoing or sin” (one might see the Nominalist roots of how the author proclaims it), but it is wrong concretely because it does injury to communion through dualist ideology.

That’s what I was going to say!

http://spectator.org/archives/2013/08/23/christies-shaky-signing

Sometimes my work is done for me, and the above post is one example.  Governor Christie’s signing into law a bill to ban helping those who experience same sex attraction does express our countries increasing fondness for the heresy of gnostic dualism.  As the article states, it “confirms the growing gnostic assumptions about human reality, enshrining feelings and impulses as sacred, while instrumentalizing the human body”.

Gnostic dualism splits the person apart into body and soul.  In this particular article, it sees the soul as “feelings and impulses”, which is a bit different from historic gnosticism, which saw the soul as mainly knowledge and will.  Regardless, the soul needs to triumph over the body, which is why the article talks about “instrumentalizing the human body”.  For Gnostics, the body is a thing to subject to the soul, because the body is material and therefore imperfect.  While I doubt modern dualists would say the body is imperfect, there does seem to be a clear understanding that the body needs to match the soul, and never vice versa.  So with the Pill, the soul doesn’t want children, so the body must be made sterile.  Or with people who are transgendered, the soul dictates what the body should look like.  This even is true with most cosmetic surgeries, which don’t restore damage from an accident but rather take away the signs of how old the soul is.

That said, the article might go too far in their support for conversion therapy.  Science seems to suggest an epigenetic component to homosexuality.  Recognizing what a body is and what its desires are is important.  One shouldn’t follow Marge Simpson’s advice:

Used Without Permission From: http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20130405164550/simpsons/images/4/4d/MargeSimpson.png

“It doesn’t matter how you feel inside, you know. It’s what shows up on the outside that counts. Take all your bad feelings and push them down, all the way down past your knees, until you’re almost walking on them. And then you’ll fit in, and you’ll be invited to parties, and boys will like you. And happiness will follow.”

This would be to take dualism too far in the other direction, where the body dictates everything to the soul.  It is the heresy of Materialism, which places the whole of a person in the body and excludes the soul as a source of truth.

To attain the middle between Gnostic and Materialistic dualism, the Church teaches that “Homosexual persons are called to chastity” (CCC 2359).  They aren’t called to change their attractions, but to have the Courage to live chaste lives, just as all people are.  Priests sometimes talk about the “Sublimation” of their personal desires.  Because priests are people, they have sexual urges.  The approach used is not to push that urge away (which might make the urge express itself in an impure way), but to recognize the urge for what it is, and then use that sexual energy in another and holier way; such as to go for a run, or do some repairs around the rectory, or pray.  In this way, priests can be authentic to who they are while dissipating that energy in a positive way.  The body is recognized for it’s influence, the soul is recognized for its influence, and the person as a whole acts in a pure manner.