What Ruins Society

I have began writing notes on the nature of society and the impact of allowing homosexual marriages as being legal on a society at large.

This has me contemplating as I know there is various "anthropological stamps" on society as they are based on the social nature of Man.  The concept I have been contemplating most is the concept of "nuptial stamp" on society, that society is in a certain sense nuptial.  If it is, then nuptiality is based on the necessity of the difference of sexes, and if that is essential in the nature of a society, then homosexuality itself can never be seen as a society.  At best it could be seen as a partnership, but partnerships have no legal (or social) rights to marriage.

This is all in the preliminary stages and so will require more reflection and study, specifically in the realm of social and anthropological philosophy.  

What got me thinking about this is why civilizations in the past have fallen.  It has been on what I call the 4 pillars of the death of a civilization, which are abortion, homosexuality, infanticide, and promiscuity/destruction of the idea of the family.  All 4 are attacks on the nature of what we see society being.  But why is it that these are seen as the essentials for destroying a civilization?  If a civilization is destroyed, it is because the structure of society has fallen apart, so, logically, these 4 pillars of death really would be the antithesis of a free and virtuous society.  And they are all inherently social.  So, they must be the cause of the fall, but why is it that they have such a detrimental effect on society?  This is what I hope to research, and any suggestions on this would be greatly appreciated.

-Harrison

On the Nature of Societies

I received a few comments by e-mail on my post on the USCCB. Without divulging what people said to me in private, needless to say I was a bit saddened by the fact that people think that, in this case, the conference is identical with its members. This is not the case, a society, by definition, is fundamentally different from the members which make it up. The society is, if you will, its own person with its own will, rights, and dignity. It is what Maitland calls an "N + 1 Unity". It is a person unto itself which consists of n number of individuals plus itself, with its own distinctive individuality.

To understand this, there is the need to distinguish the idea of what persons are. At the core, a person is someone who is, according to St Thomas, "distinct by reason of dignity". I will not go into the history of the word persona here and now, though I encourage researching it as it is quite fascinating.

Taking this definition of a person, we have 3 categories of persons; natural, fictional, and real.

Natural Persons

Natural Persons are those who, according to Prof. Hittinger (and the entire Christian tradition), possess a unity of rational substance. That is to say, it has a substantial nature which is expressed primarily through reason. This has within itself 3 categories; Man, Angels, and God, God being the most distinct in dignity of Natural Persons because of the infinite nature of His reason.

Fictional Persons

Fictional Persons fall under the nature of the law. Virtually anything can be a fictional person. Essentially, the best way to explain this is through example. Let us take, for example, that Joe leaves his dog Spot everything in his will. Joe has every right to do this and, 10 years after writing his will, passes away. Spot now is a legal entity bearing rights and interest by virtue of law. They thus receive a legal dignity necessary to make them distinct under the eyes of the law so as to legally receive that which has been given to them under the law. This is not something they receive because of their nature, but because of the structure of the law.

Real Persons

Real persons are defined by what they are not; they are not a substantial unity nor are the a fictional creation of the law. This is the realm in which societies fall under. This comes from the Thomistic Tradition in his idea of the unity of order. Thomas states that this unity of order is not absolutely one, but that its unitive actions are fundamentally different from the actions of its parts and visa versa.

Let us take an example. Say, for example, that you have a soccer team. The action of the team is to win the game. This is only something a team can accomplish as a team, as a society of persons. The goal of the society is to win the game. However, this is distinct from the role of the individual members. The role of the goalie is to stop the ball, the defenseman to ensure the ball is away from his side of the field and so on. These are activities that are distinct to the members and do not belong to the whole. It is not the role of the entire society of the team to be a goalie.

And the same goes the other way around. It is not the role of the goalie to win the game. By the very definition of team sports, this is contrary to their purpose. Of course, the goalies goal is to win the game and he will do his part to ensure that the societal person attains its goal.

Let us, then, apply this example to what I was saying yesterday. When I am talking about the USCCB, for example, I am talking about the real person that is that society, I am not talking about its members.

Again going back to the soccer example (and taking the hardcore nature of soccer fans into effect to a certain degree), I may hate Arsenal because they beat Manchester United, but this is not going to mean I am going to hate each individual player on the team. Rather, I am referring my hate towards the real personal entity that is the society of the team Arsenal. (Qualification, I am not actually advocating hate towards any persons, real or natural!).

So, if I am talking about the USCCB , I am not talking about its members, but about the society itself. I am addressing concerns I have with the actions taken by the real person known as the USCCB. These actions are distinctive to the society and not the individual bishops. Now, there are members of the society who will take a role in ensuring that the society itself takes certain actions. I am not going to agree if it is in regards to something such as to what I posted yesterday. However, my criticism does not have anything to do with the particular members, but the unitive whole that is distinct in being and nature from its members. That is what I mean.

I could honestly post a lot more on this, but I won't because this is a very complicated (and interesting!) topic, one in which I would only too happily talk on and on about.

I also encourage checking out material by Russell Hittinger on the subject. He was my main source for this as this was his main focus in his lectures at the Tertio Millennio Seminar.

-Harrison

Monday, July 9th

Hey everyone.

So today was another awesome day (would any day be NOT an awesome day here?).

The morning started off slow. I was really tired. It seemed a lot of walking tires you out and so, even after 8 hours of sleep, I was exhausted when I woke up and REALLY didn't want to get out of bed. But I got up anyways (yes, FJ, be surprised).

Anyways, I skipped breakfast this morning and went straight to class. Today was Prof. Hittinger's last lecture which was really sad because his lectures are outstanding, though, to say the least, quite dense (in a good way, there is a LOT of content). He talked about JP II and Social Doctrine. Essentially what he was arguing was that JP II saw the shift in the world's point of view. Before the war there was a false understanding of the State and Society, and the Church responded to that with her Social Doctrine, hence why every Pope since Leo XIII and onwards have started their pontificate with a Social Encyclical. But JP II didn't do that, he broke the trend. He started off his Pontificate with "Redemptor Hominis" - Redeemer of Man. What JP II saw was a shift in the modern problem. The biggest danger was no longer the State and societies (what Hittinger calls N+1 unities, oh, and by the way, societies are persons).

Anyways, the modern problem was now anthropological, that there was a false understanding of man that came from the enlightenment. He made a great point (one that I know I have held as well as most here) that JP II was a Pope who understood the implications of ideas. They seem abstract but they really do effect things. The Englightenment took up the Creation story from Genesis and stated that what man did to distinguish himself was not something that was given to him a priori, but was something he willed for himself. He willed to be different from the animals, it was not something universal that God gave him and this trickled all the way down to our modern times and so JP II answered that with his definition of man. This is why you can't read JP II without understanding in its fullness the Theology of the Body.

Quick sidenote, Hittinger argued that Humanae Vitae is not first and foremost about contraception, but about whether or not man has dominion over his own body. Really interesting stuff. Anyways, I talked to Hittinger after class and we were discussing a few things and he told me he had a zip drive with a couple of .PDFs on it. One is his book that is being published in September, the other is an article he published. I am still going to buy the book when it is released, but he said these 2 .PDFs have EVERYTHING he said in class and more so I am really looking forward to looking them over.

The second lecture was by George Weigel on the 2 notions of freedom and it was excellent. He got to the root, and it was an affirmation of what I was reading into when I was reading the Free Society Reader in preparation that, essentially, the modern struggle about who man is is rooted in the Ockhamist Thomistic debate of the 13th and 14th century. Thomas had a "freedom for excellence" ideal in which reason/truth are the root of God and man, while Ockham had a "freedom for indifference" idea in which will and powerful assertion of the will is primary in God and man. Again, fascinating, though I noticed traces of stuff he had to say in Victoria.

After that it was lunch and I had it by myself today. After that I came back to the priory and hung out with some of my friends for a while. We then had discussion groups which were OUTSTANDING today. We went over time and the discussion was really excellent and I really enjoyed it. I noticed most of the problems the Pope is pointing out in Centissimus Annus are really apparent in Canada and that if we want Canada to survive in is in desperate need of change.

After that was Mass in which Fr. Maciej gave a great homily about how we ought to be joyful everytime we hear the words "the Word became flesh", just like the women who touched the cloak of Christ and was in fear and trembling, we should have the fear of God in us, and that if we don't jump for joy everytime we hear this, we have something wrong and really need to change.

Dinner was good. To be honest, I didn't enjoy the food that much and so ate very little. But the discussions were great. Steve White, George Weigel's assistant, myself, Ryan, and Brian were have a great discussion about the nature of vocations in which Steve told us how he finally came to discern marriage. Excellent discussion. Then we went into the next room to see everyone singing and we stuck around for about an hour singing a bunch of songs and having just an outstanding and amazing time. Everyone had huge smiles on their faces and enjoyed the company a lot. I have some video to show upon my return.

And now I've returned from yet another excellent day to prepare for tomorrow. Tomorrow is the trip to Auschwitz in the afternoon after the 2 morning classes and a quick lunch. To be honest, not looking too forward to it, it's a pretty depressing place, but the group is going and so I will go again.

God bless you all!

-Harrison

Priority of Culture

Last night I had dinner at a family's house whom I try to go to whenever I can. The family is great and loving and the discussions are lively.

Well, my friend Madeleine suggested to her dad that we discuss the ideas of socialized vs. public health care, based on a discussion her and I had about a month earlier.

I was a BIT unwilling, only because the position I seem to be leaning towards is something that still requires much research so that I may form a proper opinion of such a position. I must back it up with statistics, a proper anthropology, a proper understanding of the true role of the state, and so forth. I have a base understanding of my position, but not enough to be able to dialogue about it in great detail at this moment in time. I was very happy to hear other opinions on the subject and appreciated the input into the subject I was given.

The reason I bring this up is because we all agreed on what needs to happen. Culture, not politics, is the driving force of history.

It just so happens, too, that this is a section in the book I'm reading for Tertio Millennio that I have just begun reading.

It has made me think about how the Church adapts to various political situations. She deems some political systems completely contrary to man's dignity (ie Communism and Socialism), while the rest she embraces in what they offer for a positive role in society.

It used to be that the Church was a "Church of Power" before the idea of the modern state came about. It used to be that the Church dictated where society would go based on its position of power and not on its evangelical nature to bring the Gospel to all through her example. This isn't wrong per se, it is just the political climate through which the Church had at the time.

Now, however, Democracy is a "theologically-free" system. That is to say, it is not the role of Democracy to take on a position about Who God is. Democracy can claim where its authority comes from, but that is about as far as it goes.

In this new political system, the Church adapts to it so that she can bring Christ to others.

It seems to me, that in Democracy, the political nature of things are in fact secondary to the cultural nature of things. People make political decisions only based on their cultural heritage in which they have been exposed to. They see that this cultural heritage, which ought to instill a sense of virtue and respect for man's dignity, is what forms them to be the social person they are.

So, it seems to me, that in order to bring about proper political decisions, we need to evangelize a culture of virtue to the people.

It seems to me that it is evangelization, a deeper sense and understanding of the Church as "missio", that our culture can be renewed.

The only way to do this is to challenge our culture and the way many people live their lives. We must enter into dialogue and bring ideas to the public square for dialogue and discussion. If we are able to express the reasonableness of our Christian idea of virtue, even for those who aren't Christian, then I believe we can bring a cultural, political, and, most importantly, anthropological revival to our country, in which man is seen for the greatness that God has created Him for.

How, though, do we do this? How do we enter into dialogue with the country?

I think there are many ways. It is, I think, perhaps the greatest thing our country is lacking. It is lacking an intellectual bend to itself. There are very few "think tanks" in Canada, and the Universities, in my opinion, are a sad example of intellectualism. It is ideas that create change. For example, look at Descartes and his dualism. His idea of separation of body and soul has had profound effects on culture and the way we think about the world that are still having their effects on us all today!

It is ideas, proposed through dialogue and not imposed by will, that will begin change. Yes, it is slow, but it is possible. Look at Poland, what an example of a cultural revolution that came to such great force in their understanding of who man is that they were able to make proper political action based on their cultural heritage.

So, we create those opportunities for dialogues. I think the place to start is by re-introducing the University not as training ground for employment, that is what a trade school is for, but for creating an authentic intellectual atmosphere in which all ideas are discussed for the pursuit of truth, not the pursuit of our own truth. Through a re-claiming of a proper ideal for the University, authentic dialogue can begin.

I think the same can be said for think tanks. It is through them that papers and books are written which are discussed and read in the popular media, newspapers, are analyzed by other think tanks and also make their way into the University.

I think these two things, in which an idea of a true understanding of man can be proposed, is where the culture can begin to turn around.

This, of course, is not the only means. I think the simple idea of example is key to this. The Opus Dei ideal of "sanctifying your work" is essential. Bring Christ into all that you do, so that others can experience the joy you bring, and it will help them yearn for such a joy as well. They may not accept Christ immediately or at all, but it will at least plant a seed for them to hopefully yearn to live a life of virtue based in truth and not their own will

To bring this full circle, I was discussing "Jesus of Nazareth" with Madeleine's dad last night and I said that the metaphysical conflict of the Middle Ages is still having its impact today. William of Ockham argued that what had primacy in God was His will, while St Thomas Aquinas said it is His intellect.

This is the battle that is still being hashed out today in each and every person. What defines man? How does man exercise himself in the world? Is it through the ockhamist imposition of the will, in which it is will that creates the individual to be free against other wills? Or is it the Thomistic idea that reason, and truth in which reason is based on, that helps us define who we are, in which we search for the truth and see if it is reasonable and live a life according to it?

I argue that the Thomistic view is the proper view. It is through this view that we yearn to enact our will based on Truth, which we search for through reasonable dialogue with others. Reason, and not will, is what is primary in a person. Will is the ressulting actions based on a conscientious discernment of truth.

-Harrison

Frustrations Part 3 - Irrational

So far we have discussed the frustrations of the terms applied to religious believers as "fanatics" and "fundamentalists". The third issue I would like to now confront is the label of "irrational".

Before I get started on that, I would like to state that it seems that these are labels that can be applied to a small minority. Unfortunately, however, it seems that such terms are then labelled on all religious believers because there is a minority of them.

Now, I cannot speak for all faiths in this regard. However, Catholics, I can guarantee, are incredibely rational.

If you look at the history of Western thought, it is largely dominated and guided by the thought of Catholic greats. The first and foremost is St Augustine who guided the ideal of faith seeking understanding that has taken root and has since been a staple of Catholicism.

From there we can go into greats such as Boethius, St Thomas Aquinas, St Bonaventure, Bl. John Duns Scotus, and so on and so on. I know I'm only naming a couple, but the fact of the matter is that the list is endless.

Even in our modern times we have great thinkers like the Servant of God, John Paul II and Benedict XVI.

The idea that people of faith are irrational utterly confounds me to be perfectly honest. It is a result of great Catholic thinkers that we think the way we do about the world! The Empiricist ideal of "There is nothing in the mind that is not previously perceived through the senses" is essentially a scholastic principle.

Pope Benedict XVI has been confronting the idea of irrationality in religion head on. One need only read his Regensburg lecture to see this.

However, I may like to throw the challenge the opposite direction. Many claim that all religious believers are irrational because of the idea of faith in their lives.

The Pope's Regensburg lecture, however, seems to turn the table around. He is not stating that all secularists, for example, are irrational. What he is claiming, however, is that the West is losing "faith in reason".

You see, faith is an essential property to reason. I would argue that there is a hierarchy of faith. We all have faith in the world, some are more basic and less "risky" then others. The highest form of faith is of course faith in God.

However, there are lower forms of faith as well. Faith, for example, is present in reasoning. We have to have faith in Logic. That is to say, stating that "Logic is true" is an axiomatic belief we must all hold. You see, the value of "true" is a logical statement. Thus to say that logic is true, and to try and prove that through reason, would be circular because it is logic that we use to make reasonable arguments. Hence, one must accept as an axiomatic belief that "Logic is true".

Instead of people in the West saying why religious people are irrational, it seems instead, unfortunately, that many are angry at religious people. Look no futher then the writings of Richard Dawkins and company. I am yet to see reasonable argumentation in their writings. Instead, I see anger and contempt, which is unfortunate.

And so this is happening more and more as relativism and the socialist ideal of man slowly seeps its way into way man thinks of the world. Trying to convince someone who is a relativist that the Principle of Non-Contradiction is an essential principle to stand by is like pulling teeth. Because they are a relativist, they see that anything can contradict anything, because there is no universal truth.

This brings me to the absolutely frustration position of relativism. They claim that truth is relative. Following that, then, so is language. Language is built upon the nature of logic, and so if truth is relative, then logic is relative, and thus language is relative. This leaves us with no universal language in which to communicate our ideas because words can mean whatever one "feels they ought to mean". Thus, there is no way to discuss because "chair" (yes, I am using the chair example, you can tell I got a Philosophy degree) can mean "something in which someone uses to sit on and is built specifically for that person" for one person and for another can mean "a person who is sleeping". Chair can mean whatever one wants it to mean. Language becomes obsolete, and so does the human person.

This post is more of a vent against the world who claims that religious people are irrational. I ask, however, why the many in the west are irrational about things.

Faith is something that is inharent to the human character. It is not something that we can deny. For some it is simply stating "I have faith that my experiences are true", for others, such as myself, it goes deeper, to the claim that the Nicene Creed and all that follows from that is true.

I would like to end with a quote from St Anselm, one of my favourite quotes:

"I believe so that I may understand, for this too I believe, for unless I believe, I cannot understand".

-Harrison

Veluti si Deus Daretur

I just began reading "Christianity and the Crisis of Culture" by BXVI (Just finished "On the Way to Jesus Christ, it is amazing, READ IT!)

Anyways, I just read the introduction and Marcello Pera, the person who wrote the introduction, comments on one of the things the Pope says. Back in the day, it was said that we should act in a way even if God did not exist, but that we must now live as if God did exist.

The former is a Pascalian view of the world...it is better to act even if God does not exist, it is a better wager.

But the Pope challenges us differently because the world has changed since the time of Pascal. The Pascalian view is no longer valid in a world that no longer believes in God. If you tell them to act even if God did not exist, they would put you to the side, because they would say that God indeed does not exist.

This new proposition being made now is fundamentally different. The challenge to the world is "Act as if God does exist". This is a more positive view of Pascalian way, but does have it's subtle differences for the better.

Mr. Pera puts the challenge that this is what we are to propose to the world, that they ought to act in a manner as if God does exist, and that this is the proposition to make to those outside the Church.

My question is, however, how is this possible? How can we convince people that this is a proper view of the world and one that is reasonable enough that one would be willing to live by it regardless of what they believed.

Please let me know what you think.

Christianity in Society

I have been doing some reflecting lately on the role of Christianity in Society.

I have been wondering what it is that is the fundamental thing that people have problems with in Christianity. Is it the morality? Is it how we feel about the role of faith and reason? Is it our view of the dignity of the value of the human person?

I think Pope Benedict gives us a good hint in Deus Caritas Est. He states

Being Christian is not the result of an ethical choice or a lofty idea, but the encounter with an event, a person, which gives life a new horizon and a decisive direction.

People love attaching themselves to Christianity in a fuzzy sort of way. People have no problems with lofty ideas or value systems in essence really. The reason why that is is because it falls into the realm of tolerance and relativism. A value system is fine when there is no motivation for it to convince others, it is good for you, and people appreciate that. People feel nice when they have something to guide their life and their actions. It is the same with the lofty ideas. Prayer is fine when it doesn't intrude on others, when it is only personal and internal, where you and God can relate in a way that is appropriate to you only and not to others. Prayer, of course, is certainly very personal, but we know from our Christian experience that this is not the case.

You see, it is the second line of what Pope Benedict says that makes Christianity unique and unpopular. Christianity is not about values, lofty ideas, mystical experiences, at least not in and of themselves. In and of themselves they do not bring meaning to life. Instead, they just give direction, but direction and meaning are two totally different things.

What Pope Benedict is suggestion is that we have faith in a person, in Jesus Christ, in that faith, the reason for our humanity will be made clear. Our life will be given direction and meaning and purpose.

So, there is a reason why Christians get sick to their stomachs when they see books about Christianity, but only go so far as to say that Christ was a good man, but He wasn't God, and He didn't resurrect from the dead. It is simple, without the resurrection, then our faith is a dead faith, with nice ideas, but nothing convincing to it.

People have no problem saying "I like Christianity, but I can't claim Christ to be my Lord and God because He isn't, that is just too much for me". It is the truth.

I came to realize this past Triduum the true awesomeness of the Resurrection. He is not dead, He is indeed risen. Christians who are convinced of that see that Christianity is meant to inform and change their lives. It is part of their very being because they encounter the risen Christ in everything.

People don't like Christianity because they can't come to believe that Christ is truly present in the world. But He is, He is a reality to the world. And that is why people shy away from it. If one takes Christianity seriously, they have to accept the fact that Christ is alive and well and His love is being poured out to those who accept it. Christ becomes a part of their life and they come to discover Christ in their life on a day to day basis for the rest of their lives.

Those who like Christianity as an idea or a way to encounter God whom they feel transcends religion and is the same for all don't go to the extent that a Christian does. They can't get past the idea that Christ is truly risen.

Without the resurrection, our faith is dead. Thanks be to God that He is truly risen!

-Harrison