Russian Orthodox Church Elects New Patriarch

Folks, I note that the Russian Orthodox Church elected the locum tenens or acting Patriarch, 62-year-old Metropolitan Kirill of Smolensk to serve as its Patriarch three days ago. The Russian Orthodox Church has traditionally been suspicious of the West, particularly Roman Catholicism. The mistrust dates to the split between Eastern and Western Christianity split nearly 1,000 years ago. While Kirill has criticized Catholic attempts to proselytize in Russia, analysts say he could eventually meet with the Pope in what would be an unprecedented meeting between the two churches. Patriarch Kirill's installation as Patriarch will be broadcast live on Russian State television on February 1, according to the Voice of America.

I want to extend my respectful and fraternal congratulations to our brethren in the Russian Orthodox Church and hope and pray that Patriarch Kirill's election beckons a new era of better relations between our Churches.

"Father, I abandon myself into your hands"

Father,
I abandon myself into your hands; do with me what you will.
Whatever you may do, I thank you:
I am ready for all, I accept all.
Let only your will be done in me, and in all your creatures.
I wish no more than this, O Lord.

Into your hands I commend my soul;
I offer it to you
with all the love of my heart,
for I love you, Lord,
and so need to give myself,
to surrender myself into your hands,
without reserve,
and with boundless confidence,
for you are my Father.

- Brother Charles de Foucald

Another blog slowdown

Folks, I've entered another busy season and blogging will slow down to a crawl. I appreciate your patience and hope you explore the available contents. May the Lord bless you all richly.

Pope John Paul the Great’s Theology of the Body Series

Courtesy of EWTN.

1. Of the Unity and Indissolubility of Marriage
On 5 September 1979, in the first of his General Audiences on the Theology of the Body, the Holy Father expounded the words of Christ, "In the beginning the Creator made them male and female."

2. Biblical Account of Creation Analysed
In his General Audience of 12 September 1979, the Holy Father compared two accounts of man's creation from Genesis, establishing basic principles for his study of the Theology of the Body.

3. The Second Account of Creation: The Subjective Definition of Man
In his General Audience of 19 September 1979, the Holy Father examined the account of man's creation in the second chapter of Genesis, observing its profundity in revealing the subjective side of creation in the image of God.

4. Boundary Between Original Innocence and Redemption
In his General Audience on 26 September 1979, the Holy Father considered a continuity between man's state of original innocence and the state of original sin, which left him open to the grace of redemption.

5. Meaning of Man's Original Solitude
In his General Audience on 10 October 1979, the Holy Father examined man's solitude, not as male, distinct from female, but in his nature as distinct from other living things, his difference in superiority, revealed to him in his self-consciousness.

6. Man's Awareness of Being a Person
In his General Audience on 24 October 1979, the Holy Father linked "man's original solitude," as different from and superior to other living creatures, with consciousness of his body.

7. In the Very Definition of Man, the Alternative Between Death and Immortality
In his General Audience on 31 October 1979, the Holy Father addressed again the solitude in which man was created, in relation to other creatures, but also with regard to his freedom of moral choice. The alternatives of death and immortality lay with him.

8. Original Unity of Man and Woman
In his General Audience of 7 November 1979, the Holy Father continued to lay groundwork for his Theology of the Body, meditating on Adam's "sleep" from which the division of the sexes emerged.

9. Man Becomes the Image of God by Communion of Persons
In his General Audience of 14 November 1979, the Holy Father located the image of God, in which man was created, not only in the solitude of his humanity, but also in the communion of persons, in the creation of the first man and woman in relation to each other.

10. Marriage One and Indissoluble in First Chapters of Genesis
In his General Audience of 21 November 1979, the Holy Father spoke on the communion of the first man and woman, how it renewed their original unity before separation in creation, and revealed the meaning of their bodies by their complementarity.

11. Meaning of Original Human Experiences
In his General Audience of 12 December 1979, the Holy Father observed that, in the Genesis account, the shame at their nakedness, experienced by the first man and woman after the Fall, contrasts with their original innocence, which invites further study of their original consciousness of their bodies.

12. Fullness of Interpersonal Communication
In his General Audience of 19 December 1979, the Holy Father continued his series on the Theology of the Body, analyzing the absence of shame in our first parents, despite their nakedness, and its bearing on their communication.

13. Creation as a Fundamental and Original Gift
In his General Audience of 2 January 1980, the Holy Father continued his study of the Theology of the Body, analyzing the consciousness of our first parents, in how they perceived each other, without shame in their nakedness, as good, and a mutual gift, part of the good gift of God's creation.

14. Revelation and Discovery of the Nuptial Meaning of the Body
In his General Audience of 9 January 1980, the Holy Father explained the "nuptial meaning" of the body as first experienced by Adam and Eve. Man, both male and female, realizes his essence only in living with and for someone else. The possibility of this mutual self-gift is manifested in the bodies of male and female, which gives them their nuptial meaning.

15. The Man-Person Becomes a Gift in the Freedom of Love
In his General Audience of 16 January 1980, the Holy Father continued his series on the Theology of the Body, by examining the "nuptial meaning of the body." Through self-mastery, by which the purely physical side of sex was restrained, the first man and woman were free to give themselves totally to each other, and thereby discovered their true selves.

16. Mystery of Man's Original Innocence
In his General Audience of 30 January 1980, the Holy Father pursued his examination of the Theology of the Body by dwelling on the mystery of man's original innocence, that purity of heart which enabled Adam and Eve to give themselves to each other in love, as the effect of grace.

17. Man and Woman: A Mutual Gift for Each Other
In his General Audience of 6 February 1980, the Holy Father reexamined the nuptial meaning of the body, in the mutual gift of self by our first parents, in the context of their original innocence.

18. Original Innocence and Man's Historical State
In his General Audience of 13 February 1980, the Holy Father reexamined our first parents' original innocence, as their nature was originally graced, how it affected their relationship to each other and the nuptial meaning of their bodies as male and female.

19. Man Enters the World as a Subject of Truth and Love
In his General Audience of 20 February 1980, the Holy Father continued his series on the Theology of the Body. Created in the image of God, man (Adam and Eve) entered the world as a primordial sacrament, a sign to the visible world of the invisible mystery hidden in God, the mystery of truth and love, the mystery of divine life, in which man really participates.

20. Analysis of Knowledge and of Procreation
In his General Audience of 5 March 1980, the Holy Father continued his series on the Theology of the Body, by examining the meaning of the biblical statement that "Adam knew Eve his wife" (Gn 4:1-2).

21. Mystery of Woman Revealed in Motherhood
In his General Audience of 12 March 1980, the Holy Father further examined the concept of mutual "knowledge" between the first man and woman. The woman is brought to full awareness of the mystery of creation, in its renewal in human generation.

22. Knowledge-Generation Cycle and Perspective of Death
In his General Audience of 26 March 1980, the Holy Father continued his catechesis on Theology of the Body. He further examined biblical "knowledge," as the nuptial relationship before the fall, a mutual, disinterested gift of self between spouses, contrasting it with the same relationship as a remedy for death after the fall.

23. Marriage in the Integral Vision of Man
In his General Audience of 2 April 1980, the Holy Father continued his series on Theology of the Body. Only by going back to the "beginning," as Christ did in answering the Pharisees on divorce, can we get a total vision of man, male and female, and only so can we adequately understand marriage and procreation.

24. Christ Appeals to Man's Heart
In his General Audience of 16 April 1980, the Holy Father continued his catechesis on Theology of the Body by turning to Christ's teaching, in the Sermon on the Mount, on adultery in the heart.

25. Ethical and Anthropological Content of the Commandment: You Shall Not Commit Adultery
At his General Audience of 23 April 1980, the Holy Father continued his series on Theology of the Body. He examined the meaning of adultery, which is a breach in the unity of husband and wife, even if only by an interior act ("adultery in the heart"). He cited the case of David and Bathsheba.

26. Lust is the Fruit of the Breach of the Covenant With God
In his General Audience of 30 April 1980, the Holy Father continued his catechesis on Theology of the Body. He examined the three-fold lust, of the flesh, of the eyes, and the pride of life, by which man broke God's original covenant.

27. Real Significance of Original Nakedness
In his General Audience of 14 May 1980, the Holy Father continued his series on Theology of the Body, explaining the nakedness of man after the fall as not merely physical. "...this man was deprived of the supernatural and preternatural gifts which were part of his endowment before sin. Furthermore, he suffered a loss in what belongs to his nature itself, to humanity in the original fullness of the image of God."

28. A Fundamental Disquiet in All Human Existence
In his General Audience of 2 June 1980, the Holy Father continued his catechesis on Theology of the Body. The shame experienced by man after his fall expressed a deeper shame, called "cosmic," reflecting a new disorder in his nature, by which not only was the relationship between man and woman affected, but the relationship between body and spirit.

29. Relationship of Lust to Communion of Persons
In his General Audience of 4 June 1980, the Holy Father continued his catechesis on Theology of the Body. He examined the radical transformation wrought by lust and shame in the original relationship between the first man and woman.

30. Dominion Over the Other in the Interpersonal Relation
In his General Audience of 18 June 1980, the Holy Father continued his series on Theology of the Body. Because of their sin, the man and woman feel shame toward each other, their communion is weakened, and he will exercise dominion over her.

31. Lust Limits Nuptial Meaning of the Body
In his General Audience of 25 June 1980, the Holy Father continued his catechesis on Theology of the Body. The sin of Adam and Eve distorted the "nuptial meaning of the body," its masculinity/femininity, which was meant to shape their communion. Their relationship was corrupted by lust, which includes the desire to possess the other, rather than receive him/her as a free gift.

32. The Heart a Battlefield Between Love and Lust
In his General Audience of 23 July 1980, the Holy Father continued his catechesis on Theology of the Body. After the fall, human sexuality was marked by a certain "coercion of the body," which subverts the expression of the spirit seeking the communion of persons, male and female, through a mutual gift of self. "The more lust dominates the heart, the less the heart experiences the nuptial meaning of the body."

33. Opposition in the Human Heart between the Spirit and the Body
In his General Audience of 30 July 1980, the Holy Father continued his catechesis on Theology of the Body. The nuptial meaning of the body is destroyed when man or woman seeks to possess the other as an object, but not when each belongs to the other through self-giving.

34. Sermon on the Mount to the Men of Our Day
In his General Audience of 6 August 1980, the Holy Father, continuing his catechesis on Theology of the Body, examined the the "hardness of heart," which all men share with Our Lord's auditors, and its connection with the three-fold lust which is our heritage from Adam.

35. Content of the Commandment: You Shall Not Commit Adultery
In his General Audience of 13 August 1980, the Holy Father continued his catechesis on Theology of the Body. He presented Our Lord's teaching against adultery "in the heart" as a return to the spirit of the law, whose letter had been stretched to allow polygamy.

36. Adultery According to the Law and as Spoken by the Prophets
In his General Audience of 20 August 1980, the Holy Father continued his catechesis on Theology of the Body. He examines the emphasis of the matrimonial law on the "procreative end of marriage," and of the prophets on the uniqueness of the spousal relationship between God and Israel, contrary to the prevailing polygamy.

37. Adultery: A Breakdown of the Personal Covenant
In his General Audience of 27 August 1980, the Holy Father continued his catechetical cycle on Theology of the Body, on the subject of adultery. Adultery is a sin of the body, violating exclusive matrimonial rights between a man and a woman, which constitutes a breakdown of the personal covenant between them.

38. Meaning of Adultery Transferred from the Body to the Heart
In his General Audience of 3 September 1980, the Holy Father continued his catechesis on Theology of the Body, focusing on adultery, its place in the Wisdom tradition, and the change in emphasis introduced by Christ.

39. Concupiscence as a Separation From Matrimonial Significance of the Body
In his General Audience of 10 September 1980, the Holy Father continued his series on Theology of the Body. He gave a description of the inner effects of lust from the Wisdom tradition and then compared it with the teaching of Christ on "adultery in the heart."

40. Mutual Attraction Differs from Lust
In his General Audience of 17 September 1980, the Holy Father continued his analysis of adultery in his series on Theology of the Body. The mutual attraction between a man and a woman, encompassing a "gamut of spiritual-corporal desires," to which a "proportionate pyramid of values" corresponds, differs from lust, in that the latter reduces the pyramid to one level, sex, as an object of gratification.

41. Depersonalizing Effect of Concupiscence
In his General Audience of 24 September 1980, the Holy Father further examined "adultery in the heart," spoken of by Our Lord in His Sermon on the Mount. When a woman is looked at lustfully by a man, she ceases to be regarded as a subject of personal attraction or communion, but only as an object of sexual satisfaction. And when this "intention" reaches the will, the man himself becomes enslaved.

42. Establishing the Ethical Sense
In his General Audience of 1 October 1980, the Holy Father continued his analysis of the words of Our Lord, in His Sermon on the Mount, concerning adultery in the heart. It is not merely a matter of lusting after a woman who is not one's wife, but of looking at her in a way dismissive of her dignity as well as of one's own.

43. Interpreting the Concept of Concupiscence
In his General Audience of 8 October 1980, the Holy Father concluded his analysis of adultery in the heart, by observing that it is an attitude of a man toward a woman (or vice versa) which reduces the communion of persons to satisfaction of an instinct. One may be guilty of this attitude towards one's own spouse.

44. Gospel Values and Duties of the Human Heart
In his General Audience of 15 October 1980, the Holy Father continued his analysis of "adultery in the heart" by distinguishing condemnation of lust from a condemnation of the body.

45. Realization of the Value of the Body According to the Plan of the Creator
In his General Audience of 22 October 1980, the Holy Father clarified the meaning of lust, in his catechesis on Theology of the Body. Christ warned against lusting after a woman, not to condemn the body as evil (Manichaeism), but to condemn the devaluation of the body in its nuptial meaning, i.e., the manifestation of communion in spirit.

46. Power of Redeeming Completes Power of Creating
In his General Audience of 29 October 1980, the Holy Father continued his catechesis on "adultery in the heart" by examining the three forms of lust ("of the flesh," "of the eyes," and the "pride of life") spoken of by St. John (1 Jn 2:15-16), in relation to the skewed pictures of man presented by Freud, Marx and Nietzsche. The truth of his humanity, the ability to love, is deeper than the three lusts.

47. Eros and Ethos Meet and Bear Fruit in the Human Heart
In his General Audience of 5 November 2004, the Holy Father explained that the warning of Christ against looking lustfully at a woman is less an accusation than an appeal, that what the heart desires (eros) should also be what is right (ethos).

48. Spontaneity: The Mature Result of Conscience
In his General Audience of 12 November 1980, the Holy Father continued his catechesis on Theology of the Body by examining the notion that subjection of an erotic attraction to an ethical form deprives it of its spontaneity.

49. Christ Calls Us to Rediscover the Living Forms of the New Man
In his General Audience of 3 December 1980, the Holy Father continued his catechesis on Theology of the Body, with regard to adultery in the heart, by focusing on the ethos of redemption, which calls for temperance in the natural erotic attraction between a man and a woman.

50. Purity of Heart
In his General Audience of 10 December 1980, the Holy Father completed his study of adultery in the heart with a consideration of purity of heart, and how the Lord distinguished this from mere ritual purity.

51. Justification in Christ
In his General Audience of 17 December 1980, the Holy Father continued his catechesis on Theology of the Body by examining the conflict between "flesh" and "spirit" in the teaching of St. Paul. The lusts of the worldly man can be overcome by his spirit when empowered by the Holy Spirit.

52. Opposition Between the Flesh and the Spirit
In his General Audience of 7 January 1981, the Holy Father continued his catechesis on Theology of the Body by examining St. Paul's doctrine of justification, and in particular the opposition between life according to the flesh and life according to the Spirit (of God).

53. Life in the Spirit Based on True Freedom
In his General Audience of 14 January 1981, the Holy Father continued his catechesis on Theology of the Body by further examination of St. Paul's teaching on life according to the Spirit. It is purity of heart, which is the necessary condition for charity and true freedom.

54. St. Paul's Teaching on the Sanctity and Respect of the Human Body
In his General Audience of 28 January 1981, the Holy Father continued his catechesis on Theology of the Body by examining St. Paul's teaching on purity, in 1 Thessalonians 4, that we should control our bodies in holiness and honor.

55. St. Paul's Description of the Body and Teaching on Purity
In his General Audience of 4 February 1981, the Holy Father continued his catechesis on Theology of the Body by examining St. Paul's teaching on the body from 1 Corinthians 12. The human body is more than the sum of its biological characteristics. It is permeated by the "whole reality of the person and of his dignity."

56. The Virtue of Purity Is the Expression and Fruit of Life According to the Spirit
In his General Audience of 11 February 1981, the Holy Father continued his catechesis on Theology of the Body, by further examining St. Paul's teaching on purity. It is identifiable as the virtue of temperance, but includes an element of respect for the body, as a temple of the Holy Spirit.

57. The Pauline Doctrine of Purity as Life According to the Spirit
In his General Audience of 18 March 1981, the Holy Father continued his catechesis on Theology of the Body by further examination of St. Paul's teaching on purity. This virtue is reinforced by piety, a gift of the indwelling Holy Spirit, by which God is glorified.

58. Positive Function of Purity of Heart
In his General Audience 1 April 1981, the Holy Father gathered the main threads of his teaching on Theology of the Body, as based on the words of Christ on man's creation as male and female, and his warning against adultery in the heart. Lust can be displaced only by purity of heart, which, in the teaching of St. Paul, is a gift of the Holy Spirit.

59. Pronouncements of Magisterium Apply Christ's Words Today
In his General Audience of 8 April 1981, the Holy Father concluded his reflections on the words of Christ, in the Sermon on the Mount, on adultery in the heart. These words are key to the Theology of the Body, which underlies the thinking of many recent magisterial pronouncements.

60. The Human Body, Subject of Works of Art
In his General Audience of 15 April 1981, the Holy Father continued his catechesis on Theology of the Body, laying groundwork for a consideration of the human body in aesthetic experience, and how it relates to Our Lord's warning against looking with lust.

61. Reflections on the Ethos of the Human Body in Works of Artistic Culture
In his General Audience of 22 April 1981, the Holy Father continued his catechesis on Theology of the Body, examining the implications of exposure of the human body in artistic culture for the mutual donation of husband and wife.

62. Art Must Not Violate the Right to Privacy
In his General Audience of 29 April 1981, the Holy Father continued his catechesis on Theology of the Body by examining the limits beyond which art must not go in depicting masculinity or femininity.

63. Ethical Responsibilities in Art
In his General Audience of 6 May 1981, the Holy Father concluded his reflections on the Sermon on the Mount, concerning adultery in the heart, with respect to artistic depictions of the human body.

64. Marriage and Celibacy in the Light of the Resurrection of the Body
In his General Audience of 11 November 1981, the Holy Father began a new segment of his catechesis on theology of the body, basing his talk on the words of Christ to the Sadducees on the general resurrection. "These words are of fundamental importance for understanding marriage in the Christian sense and also the renunciation of conjugal life for the kingdom of heaven."

65. The Living God Continually Renews the Very Reality of Life
In his General Audience of 18 November 1981, the Holy Father continued his catechesis on theology of the body, by returning to the words of Christ to the Sadducees on the general resurrection. They deny the resurrection because they doubt the power of God.

66. The Resurrection and Theological Anthropology
In his General Audience of 2 December 1981, the Holy Father continued his catechesis on Theology of the Body, by addressing the teaching of Christ on the relationship between male and female after the general resurrection.

67. The Resurrection Perfects the Person
In his General Audience of 9 December 1981, the Holy Father continued his catechesis on Theology of the Body, with particular regard for the general resurrection, in which the body will be spiritualized, and both body and spirit divinized, in the vision of God.

68. Christ's Words on the Resurrection Complete the Revelation of the Body
In his General Audience of 16 December 1981, the Holy Father continued his focus on Christ's words about our condition after the general resurrection in his catechesis on theology of the body. Each person sharing in the beatific vision will have his own subjectivity perfected, and yet, in view of the Communion of the Trinity, experience a new depth of intersubjectivity which is the Communion of Saints. It will be virginal, and yet reveal the full nuptial meaning of the body, as a gift to God first, and through Him to others.

69. New Threshold of Complete Truth About Man
In his General Audience of 13 January 1982, the Holy Father continued his exposition of the words of Christ on the general resurrection, as applied to Theology of the Body. In some way difficult to imagine, the meaning of the human body will be revealed as the means of mutual self-giving in the communion of Saints.

70. Doctrine of the Resurrection according to St. Paul
In his General Audience of 27 January 1982, the Holy Father continued his catechesis on Theology of the Body by further examining St. Paul's teaching, in 1 Corinthians 15, on the general resurrection. The resurrection of the body completes man's redemption from the effects of sin.

71. The Risen Body Will Be Incorruptible, Glorious, Dynamic, and Spiritual
In his General Audience of 3 February 1982, the Holy Father continued his catechesis on Theology of the Body, by describing the body, at the general resurrection, as the fulfillment of the human aspiration to glory. This aspiration reflects the potentiality with which we were created to become conformed to the risen Christ.

72. Body's Spiritualization Will Be Source of Its Power and Incorruptibility
In his General Audience of 10 February 1982, the Holy Father continued his catechesis on Theology of the Body by concluding his study of St. Paul's teaching on the general resurrection. Resurrected man, no longer weakened through his resistance to the Spirit, will be fully vivified, attaining the fullness for which he was created.

73. Virginity or Celibacy for the Sake of the Kingdom
In his General Audience of 10 March 1982, the Holy Father began a new series on virginity/celibacy for the kingdom of heaven, in furtherance of his catechesis on theology of the body. A vocation to celibacy is an anticipation of that eschatological state when men "neither marry nor are given in marriage."

74. The Vocation to Continence in This Earthly Life
In his General Audience of 17 March 1982, the Holy Father continued his talks on celibacy/virginity for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. This new ideal, though a departure from the Old Testament tradition of marriage, shed light on the theology of the body.

75. Continence for the Sake of the Kingdom Meant to Have Spiritual Fulfillment
In his General Audience of 24 March 1982, the Holy Father continued his talks on celibacy/virginity for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. It is a charismatic sign that in heaven people will no longer marry, because God will be everything to everyone. Departure from the Old Testament tradition of marriage and procreation was effected especially by the example of Christ himself.

76. The Effective and Privileged Way of Continence
In his General Audience of 31 March 1982, the Holy Father continued his talks on celibacy/virginity for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Marriage is not depreciated, but continence has an exceptional value, when chosen with a supernatural motive.

77. Superiority of Continence Does Not Devalue Marriage
In his General Audience of 7 April 1982, the Holy Father continued his catechesis on theology of the body, addressing the superiority of continence. It is superior to marriage, not based not on any devaluation of sexuality or of the human body, but on the motive for which continence is chosen, viz., the kingdom of heaven.

78. Marriage and Continence Complement Each Other
In his General Audience of 14 April 1982, the Holy Father continued his instruction on the relationship between marriage and continence. Those called to either state fulfill their calling in a spiritual paternity or maternity toward those in their care. And the nature of both is conjugal, being expressed in the total gift of oneself.

79. The Value of Continence Is Found in Love
In his General Audience of 21 April 1982, the Holy Father continued his catechesis on Theology of the Body, with regard to the choice of virginity or celibacy. Continence for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven is the nuptial gift of self to Christ, the Spouse of the soul.

80. Celibacy Is a Particular Response to the Love of the Divine Spouse
In his General Audience of 28 April 1982, the Holy Father continued his catechesis on Theology of the Body by further explaining continence for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven as the particular response of virginity/celibacy to the self-gift of the divine Spouse in the Paschal and Eucharistic Mystery.

81. Celibacy for the Kingdom Affirms Marriage
In his General Audience of 5 May 1982, the Holy Father continued his catechesis on Theology of the Body, by concluding his considerations on Christ's words recommending continence for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven. Renunciation of marriage for the sake of the Kingdom affirms the value of what is renounced, in the gift of self to God.

82. Voluntary Continence Derives From a Counsel, Not From a Command
In his General Audience of 23 June 1982, the Holy Father continued his catechesis on Theology of the Body, by addressing St. Paul's treatment of virginity and marriage. Consecrated virginity is a matter of counsel, not command, so that marriage is no sin, though voluntary virginity is better.

83. The Unmarried Person Is Anxious to Please the Lord
In his General Audience of 30 June 1982, the Holy Father continued his catechesis on Theology of the Body, by examining St. Paul's statement in 1 Corinthians 7, that one who marries does well, but one who chooses continence or virginity does better. Continence makes more room to be anxious for "the things of the Lord," to please the Lord and work for the growth of His Church.

84. Everyone Has His Own Gift from God, Suited to His Vocation
In his General Audience of 7 July 1982, the Holy Father continued his catechesis on Theology of the Body, by further examination of St. Paul's statement that it is better to choose continence than to marry. While the gift of continence allows an undivided love for God, the grace of marriage is a true gift, suited to that state in life.

85. The Kingdom of God, Not the World, Is Man's Eternal Destiny
In his General Audience of 14 July 1982, the Holy Father continued his catechesis on Theology of the Body. He further examined St. Paul's teaching on the complementarity of continence and marriage, both vocations having in view the future life.

86. Mystery of the Body's Redemption Basis of Teaching on Marriage and Voluntary Continence
In his General Audience of 21 July 1982, the Holy Father continued his catechesis on Theology of the Body. The eschatological redemption of the body, in victory over death, is the inspiration for man's victory over sin in daily life, whether in marriage or in celibacy.

87. Marital Love Reflects God's Love for His People
In his General Audience of 28 July 1982, the Holy Father continued his catechesis on theology of the body by laying the groundwork for an examination of St. Paul's teaching on marriage in the fifth chapter of Ephesians. Marriage, as a sacrament, signifies the relationship between Christ and His Church, and before that, the spousal love between God and his chosen people.

88. The Call to Be Imitators of God and to Walk in Love
In his General Audience of 4 August 1982, the Holy Father continued his examination of the fifth chapter of Ephesians as part of his ongoing catechesis on theology of the body. The prescriptions for family relationships should be understood in light of the Apostle's teaching on the Christian vocation.

89. Reverence for Christ the Basis of Relationship Between Spouses
In his General Audience of 11 August 1982, the Holy Father continued his catechesis on theology of the body, by examining more closely the right relationship between husband and wife as described in the fifth chapter of the Letter to the Ephesians.

90. A Deeper Understanding of the Church and Marriage
In his General Audience of 18 August 1982, the Holy Father continued his catechesis on theology of the body, looking more closely at the two-way analogy found in Ephesians 5, between the relationship of husband and wife and the relationship of Christ and His Church.

91. St Paul's Analogy of the Union of Head and Body
In his General Audience of 25 August 1982, the Holy Father continued his catechesis on theology of the body, by further examination of Ephesians 5. He focussed attention on the analogy of head and body, as analogous to both the Christ-Church relationship and the husband-wife relationship.

92. Sacredness of the Human Body and Marriage
In his General Audience of 1 September 1982, the Holy Father infers the sacredness of the human body from the analogy of love in Ephesians 5, between Christ for His Church and a husband for his wife.

93. Christ's Redemptive Love Has Spousal Nature
In his General Audience of 8 September 1982, the Holy Father continued his exposition of the fifth chapter of Ephesians, focusing on the meaning of the word "mystery," as it applies to God's plan, its revelation in Christ, Christ's relationship to the Church, and the sacraments of the Church.

94. Moral Aspects of the Christian's Vocation
In his General Audience of 15 September 1982, the Holy Father continued his exposition of the fifth chapter of Ephesians, by showing how the mystery of God's love, hidden for ages, was revealed in Jesus Christ, with an emphasis on his spousal donation of Himself to the Church and His members' participation in the mystery.

95. Relationship of Christ to the Church Connected With the Tradition of the Prophets
In his General Audience of 22 September 1982, the Holy Father, in light of Ephesians 5, compared the relationship of Christ with His Church to the relationship, described by the Old Testament Prophets, of God with Israel. Whereas, in Isaiah, God is Israel's spouse as her Maker, in Ephesians, Christ is the Church's spouse as her Redeemer.

96. Analogy of Spousal Love Indicates the Radical Character of Grace
In his General Audience of 29 September 1982, the Holy Father continued his catechesis on theology of the body by further examination of the spousal relationship between Christ and His Church in Ephesians 5. Of the various biblical analogies of the mystery of God's love, the marriage analogy most emphasizes God's gift of Himself to His people.

97. Marriage Is the Central Point of the Sacrament of Creation
In his General Audience of 6 October 1982, the Holy Father continued his exposition of fifth chapter of the Letter to the Ephesians, for the light it sheds on marriage as the "primordial" sacrament in the state of man's original innocence.

98. Loss of Original Sacrament Restored with Redemption in Marriage-Sacrament
In his General Audience of 13 October 1982, Pope John Paul II continued his exposition of the fifth chapter of the Letter to the Ephesians, by relating Christ's redemptive love to marriage as instituted in the beginning, when it was a sacrament of God's gift of Himself to man and woman at their creation.

99. Marriage an Integral Part of New Sacramental Economy
In his General Audience of 20 October 1982, the Holy Father continued his commentary on Ephesians 5, to give further insights into his Theology of the Body. Marriage is so fundamental to the order of redemption established by Christ that "all the sacraments of the new covenant find their prototype in marriage as the primordial sacrament."

100. Indissolubility of Sacrament of Marriage in Mystery of the Redemption of the Body
In his General Audience of 27 October 1982, the Holy Father continued his catechesis on marriage in light of Ephesians 5. Man and woman becoming one flesh in marriage, as signifying the relationship between Christ and His Church, is a sign of the redemption of the body at the end of time.

101. Christ Opened Marriage to the Saving Action of God
In his General Audience of 24 November 1982, the Holy Father reexamined Ephesians 5 in light of the words of the Gospel, in which Christ, speaking to the Pharisees and in the Sermon on the Mount, confirmed marriage as a sacrament instituted by the Creator at the beginning. It is the sign of God's original covenant, according to which man, both male and female, would be sanctified and adopted by God.

102. Marriage Sacrament an Effective Sign of God's Saving Power
In his General Audience of 1 December 1982, the Holy Father drew together texts from the Gospel, Romans, and I Corinthians to shed further light on marriage as presented in Ephesians 5. This primordial sacrament prepares for the eschatological hope of the general resurrection in procreating sons and daughters who are to participate in the resurrection, and thus experience the redemption of the body.

103. The Redemptive and Spousal Dimensions of Love
In his general audience of 15 December 1982, the Holy Father continued his commentary on Ephesians 5, for further insights into marriage and the Theology of the Body. The original structure of marriage, as a sacrament of creation, "is renewed in the mystery of the redemption, when that mystery assumes the aspect of the spousal love of the Church on the part of Christ."

104. The Substratum and Content of the Sacramental Sign of Spousal Communion
In his General Audience of 5 January 1983, the Holy Father continued his catechesis on Theology of the Body by analyzing the sign (form) of the sacrament of marriage into two aspects: the expression of the will to be united (the wedding vows), and the actual union when the marriage is consummated.

105. The Language of the Body in the Structure of Marriage
In his General Audience of 12 January 1983, the Holy Father analyzed the sacramentality of marriage under the aspect of a sign. The sign is expressed in the language of the body, in its masculinity or femininity, as a personal gift to its spouse.

106. The Sacramental Covenant in the Dimension of Sign
In his General Audience of 19 January 1983, the Holy Father explains that the sign of the Sacrament of Marriage is constituted by the words of matrimonial consent, "because the spousal significance of the body in its masculinity and femininity is found expressed in them." In giving their consent, the spouses confirm their participation in the "prophetic mission of the Church received from Christ."

107. Language of the Body Strengthens the Marriage Covenant
In his General Audience of 26 January 1983, the Holy Father continued his analysis of the "language of the body" as expressed in the marriage covenant between spouses. They "reread" the language of the body in their living together as a communion of persons.

108. Man Called to Overcome Concupiscence
In his General Audience of 9 February 1983, the Holy Father continued his analysis of the "language of the body," expressed in the marriage covenant, but now with consideration of its misreading in the man of concupiscence. He/she is called by Christ to return from sin to chastity in rereading the truth of the body in the mystery of redemption.

109. Return to the Subject of Human Love in the Divine Plan
In his General Audience of 23 May 1984, the Holy Father (after a hiatus devoted to reflections on the Holy Year) resumed his treatment of the topic of human love in the divine plan. He began an analysis of the Song of Songs, situating it within the tradition of marital love reaching back to Genesis. It is the sign of the covenant made by God with man in the beginning.

110. Truth and Freedom the Foundation of True Love
In his General Audience of 30 May 1984, the Holy Father continued his analysis of the Song of Songs for further examination of the sacramental sign of marriage. It is expressed in the "language of the body," which begins in the heart. It reflects the familiarity of friendship, but also the mystery of a woman's interior inviolability, which is freely given to the man.

111. Love Is Ever Seeking and Never Satisfied
In his General Audience of 6 June 1984, the Holy Father continued his analysis of the Song of Songs in connection with his catechesis on Theology of the Body. On the basis of a love which is both spiritual and sensual, the significance of the body is reread, and their union becomes the sign of the mutual gift of self.

112. Love Is Victorious in the Struggle Between Good and Evil
In his General Audience of 27 June 1984, the Holy Father examined the Book of Tobit for the light it sheds on Theology of the Body. Here the devotion of the spouses is expressed not in words of loving transport, as in the Song of Songs, but in the "choices and the actions that take on all the weight of human existence in the union of the two."

113. The Language of the Body: Actions and Duties Forming the Spirituality of Marriage
In his General Audience of 4 July 1984, the Holy Father continued his catechesis on Theology of the Body. He returned to the fifth chapter of Ephesians to examine how the "language of the body" is elevated by the language of liturgy to a "great mystery," the Sacrament of Matrimony.

114. Morality of Marriage Act Determined by Nature of the Act and of the Subjects
In his General Audience of 11 July 1984, the Holy Father turned to reflections on Paul VI's Humanae Vitae as an application of his catechesis on the theology of human love in God's plan. He spoke on the inseparable connection "between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act."

115. The Norm of Humanae Vitae Arises from the Natural Law and the Revealed Order
In his General Audience of 18 July 1984, the Holy Father continued his exposition of the Encyclical, Humanae Vitae, observing that its moral norm--marital openness to procreation--not only accords with natural law (reason) and the revealed moral law, but finds support in the Theology of the Body.

116. Importance of Harmonizing Human Love with Respect for Life
In his General Audience of 25 July 1984, the Holy Father continued his reflections, linking Humanae Vitae with the theology of human love in God's plan. The Theology of the Body, offering confirmation of the moral norm in the Encyclical, prepares us to consider more deeply, from a pastoral perspective, the difficulty of complying with the norm.

117. Responsible Parenthood
In his general audience of 1 August 1984, the Holy Father continued his analysis of Humanae Vitae in light of Gaudium et Spes, underlining the principle that, while responsible parenthood follows the dictates of conscience, conscience must conform to the "objective moral order instituted by God."

118. Faithfulness to the Divine Plan in the Transmission of Life
In his general audience of 8 August 1984, the Holy Father continued his analysis of Humanae Vitae, in comparing natural regulation of fertility with contraception. There is an essential difference between the two, the former following the lead of nature, the latter obstructing it.

119. Church's Position on Transmission of Life
At his General Audience of 22 August 1984, the Holy Father continued his reflections on Humanae Vitae, by focussing on the "essence of the Church's doctrine on the transmission of life." The language of the body, in order to be true, as conforming to the moral order, should signify not only the unitive aspect, but the procreative aspect, of marriage.

120. A Discipline That Ennobles Human Love
In his General Audience of 28 August 1984, the Holy Father continued his reflections on Humanae Vitae, turning his attention to natural regulation of fertility, which is consistent with responsible parenthood, though artificial contraception is not.

121. Responsible Parenthood Linked to Moral Maturity
In his general audience of 5 September 1984, the Holy Father continued his exposition of the Church's teaching on natural regulation of fertility, in light of Humanae Vitae and Familiaris Consortio. It is the ethical dimension, in the virtue of temperance, that prevents this method from becoming just another form of contraception.

122. Prayer, Penance and the Eucharist: Principal Sources of Spirituality for Married Couples
In his General Audience of 3 October 1984, the Holy Father continued his exposition of Humanae Vitae, showing the relationship between the "honest practice of fertility regulation" and the "Christian spirituality of the conjugal vocation and life."

123. The Power of Love Is Given to Man and Woman as a Share in God's Love
In his General Audience of 10 October 1984, the Holy Father continued his exposition of Humanae Vitae, as it bore on his Theology of the Body. The love that God gives to husband and wife is a supernatural power enabling them to coordinate their actions toward the good of marriage, a communion of persons, while safeguarding the connection between the "two meanings of the conjugal act," the unitive and the procreative.

124. Continence Protects the Dignity of the Conjugal Act
In his General Audience of 24 October 1984, the Holy Father gave close examination to the virtue of continence, in light of the teaching of Humanae Vitae. Continence in marriage not only resists concupiscence, but enlarges the capacity of husband and wife to love each other.

125. Continence Frees One from Inner Tension
In his General Audience of 31 October 1984, the Holy Father continued his treatment of the virtue of continence in light of the teaching of Humanae Vitae. He distinguished between excitement, which tends toward the conjugal act, and emotion which is an affectionate response to the masculinity or femininity of the marital partner. Continence gives direction to both.

126. Continence Deepens Personal Communion
At the General Audience on 7 November 1984, Pope John Paul II continued his analysis of the virtue of continence in light of Humanae Vitae. The virtue of continence has "not only the capacity to contain bodily and sensual reactions, but even more the capacity to control and guide man's whole sensual and emotive sphere."

127. Christian Spirituality of Marriage by Living According to the Spirit
In his General Audience of 14 November 1984, the Holy Father continued his exposition of Humanae Vitae for the light it sheds on the role of chastity in married life. The virtue of chastity not only regulates manifestations of affection, but opens the couple to the gifts of the Holy Spirit, by which they are enabled to achieve a communion of persons.

128. Respect for the Work of God
In his General Audience of 21 November 1984, the Holy Father traced an outline of conjugal spirituality, based on the teaching of Humanae Vitae. He explained the gift of piety, respect for the work of God, with particular reference to the significance of the conjugal act, "its dignity and the consequent serious responsibility connected with it."

129. Conclusion to the Series: Redemption of the Body and Sacramentality of Marriage
In his General Audience of 28 November 1984, the Holy Father concluded his four-year catechesis on Theology of the Body with a summary of his conclusions. His catechesis was divided into two parts: the first was a study of Christ's words on marriage and their implications for the redemption of the body, and the second, an analysis of the sacramentality of marriage as presented in Ephesians 5, with added insights from Humanae Vitae.

The Gospel and Human Rights: The Road Ahead

Seventh and last in a series.

We’re entering a decisive period of human history. Here in the United States, a President and a political party has been brought to power in part by a coalition of interests seeking to impose their “post-modern” rights through agitation, policy, and legislation. These coalitions are now expecting payment for their support to the new President.

Now more than ever it is incumbent on every Catholic, Christian, believer of any religion or none, of all men and women of good will, to take a stand and demand policies respectful of the full spectrum of human life. We all need to be cognizant of what is at stake and be ready to verbalize, express, defend and pursue such policies that reaffirm rather than weaken the Right to Life. Conversely, we need to be ready and willing to question, challenge, and ultimately resist through any means respectful of the Right to Life, the slide into moral anarchy that the ascent to power of these anti-Life coalitions portend.

Catholics who belong to either of the majority political parties have the moral obligation, under pain of sin in my lay opinion, to bring their respective parties in line with the Ethics of Life. For Democrats that means shedding their support or their tolerance to expanded abortion rights, generalized contraception and other so-called “reproductive rights,” drop their support for “gay rights” and stop funding to certain kinds of stem-cell research, among other things. For Republicans this means to stop victimizing the alien among us and rewarding only the successful, to protect the rights of the weak and the powerless and to restore hope to those that, either because of choice or imposition, are needy and at disadvantage.

The threat is not unique to the United States. The whole world groans in anticipation for a better life, where people can breathe easier, enjoy the fruit of their labor, and live in peace with each other. However, the forces of Death even now are working to sell the children of men a counterfeit facsimile in the form of promises of an utopian future if only more people of this or that nation were to die. The forces of death that threaten our nation have already imposed their will upon many countries in the West. Catholic and other Christian believers have already been forcefully pushed from public life in France and Canada and are in the process of being marginalized in Ireland, Spain, Mexico and Venezuela, not to speak of places like Burma, China, Cuba and North Korea. The threat against Life is real.

Awareness starts at home, then in neighborhoods, schools and churches. Write letters to the editor and to every elected official. Form your conscience and then vote your conscience. Elect individuals avowed to protect what the late Cardinal Bernardin described as the “seamless garment” of the consistent ethics of life. Make yourself heard and be neither cowed nor intimidated by those who shout the louder. Respect their right to shout but exercise your right to speak.

But above all, be at peace for He is with us until the consummation of the world. Victory is already His and in Him, we have already overcome.

Post-Modern Rights vs. Gospel Rights: Critical Judgment

Sixth in a series.

Now that we have the elements of judgment, we can readily see how subversive, how dangerous this notion of "Gospel Rights" must be to today’s academic, cultural, media, and political elites in Western countries:

The core Gospel value is that of Life and its principal right, the Right to Life, the source and first principle of all other rights. There is no inherent parallel right to “un-Life.” Therefore, so-called rights to abortion, assisted suicide, and euthanasia lack substance and therefore, objective existence as far as the Gospel and its Author are concerned. The post-modern constructs are empty contradictions, notions devoid of any affirmative content and mere negations of the objective Right to Life.

Same-sex marriage partners lack true biological and psychological complementarity and the inherent sterility of such unions make them unable to communicate the love between the partners and orient this love to the creation of Life. Furthermore, these unions deprive the children under the custody of same-sex parents of their right to be raised, nurtured, formed, and enjoyed by their biological, heterosexual parents. As such, there is no fundamental, inalienable, or natural, no Gospel-derived “right” for people of same-sex to marry another. Here right and duty converge: men and women have a right to a monogamous marriage with members of the opposite sex or a right not to marry; men and women have the duty to marry a member of the opposite sex if they choose to marry; children have a right to be raised by their biological parents. So-called same-sex marriage violates these rights and duty and therefore, as far as natural law and the Gospel are concerned, same-sex marriage is a fundamental contradiction with no objective existence. Its existence in positive law is indefensible and lacking an intrinsic right to exist.

"Transsexualism" and "Transgenderism" are further contradictions of facts. Although men and women suffering from the obsesive-compulsive delusion that they belong really to the opposite sex may in fact not be "sinning" - for where there is compulsion, there is no freedom and where there is no freedom there is no grave personal sin - healthcare providers are fully and morally imputable when they, in a misguided attempt to make transexuals happy, enable their delusion through mutilation, hormonal therapy, and plastic surgery. Men and women suffering from this disorder have a right to be treated with exquisite respect and also have a right to live their lives in harmony with their biological sex; efforts to the contrary entail a violation of this fundamental right to the harmony between mental and biological sexual identity.

Multiple, polygamous marriage is foreign to the one man, one woman bi-unity envisioned in the Gospel. Such unions dilute the love that the husband could only channel effectively to only one wife and also dissolves his presence among his potential brood. Therefore, in this day and age and absent dire survival conditions, a man's marriage to multiple wives is contrary to the Gospel and in no way to be called “a right.” Men have a right to marry one wife or to marry none; women have a right to marry one man, or to marry none. There's no middle ground for happy-go-lucky merry-go-rounds as far as the Gospel and its author is concerned.

Polyandrous or polyamorous unions are, as far as the Gospel and his Author are concerned, weak excuses for thinly organized unions condoning serial adultery and fornication; these are unstable and ultimately a violation of the bodily integrities of all involved. There is no “right” to polyandry or polyamori. These are to be rejected on the same grounds that polygamy, adultery, and fornication are to be rejected.

Unions between people of close consanguinity – previously known as “incestuous” – threaten the very viability of the human species. These unions have been forbidden by law, tradition, custom, and taboo for untold generations, no doubt due to the evident, observed consequences of such unions. Activists for these sort of unions, often agitating in the heels of same-sex marriage activists and borrowing the latter arguments, should be ostracized and their views unheeded by society at large. Human beings have a right to the moral and biological integrity of their monogamous, marital unions.

Animals and plants have no intrinsic rights, only the protections that human beings may grant them. And protected they should be, particularly those that demonstrate advanced sentience and consciousness of pain and suffering, both for the good of all humanity, for the good of the animals and plants themselves, and for the glory of He who multiplied the loaves of bread and the fish. Extreme eco-activist views seeking to exclude the children of men from their rightful place in the biosphere and from the food chain lack ground on natural law and on the Gospel and are to be summarily rejected. Human beings have a right to live in this world.

The right to scientific research unfettered by any view of ethics is what brought us the atom bomb, in fact all sorts of bombs, mines, aircraft, and instruments of either mass or “pinpoint” and “smart” destruction. The line between science pursued in the interest of self-defense and in the interest of war and wanton destruction is fine indeed. Science should affirm life, not deny it. The people of the world have a right to a humane and ethical exercise of science.

It follows too that, although scientific research holds the promise of a better, healthier, longer, and dignified human life, science, always in the service of Life, should not utilize human beings as means to these ends. Unrestricted biological research into the mechanisms of human life using aborted fetuses or embryos created for this purpose is execrable, and contrary to the Gospel of Life. All scientific researchers must conform their consciences to the imperatives of the Right to Life and publicly promise to not do any harm; they should be held to that promise by regulatory mechanisms under the threat of punishment under the law. The Right to Life does not yield to the needs of medical or biolagical research.

The Gospel does not countenance any absolute right to war, even to the waging war in self-defense; the Gospel only grants enough moral freedom so that those who govern may exercise their fully informed consciences to pursue the latter while shunning the former in case of extreme necessity. The obligation to pursue peace is paramount and trumps every right until the exercise of military might becomes the only possible tool left to defend human rights, protect citizens from intolerable tyranny, and restore the rule of law. War is never a “right,” but a duty and only a duty to be exercised under the right conditions enunciated in the classical “just war” theory. War is always a moral evil perpetrated by those who wage it and suffered by those who endure it. Civilians who live in a warzone have an absolute right to live in peace.

The alien among us, even the illegal alien, in fact, particularly the illegal alien, has an absolute right to be welcomed, loved, nurtured, and treated with dignity. No one is exempt from the Gospel duty to offer hospitality, no one is to be turned away from food, clothes, and shelter by reason of race, sex, nationality, or immigration status.

I am convinced that Christians in general and Catholics in particular are at any liberty to pick-and-choose from among these rights that have their basis in the Gospel and that doin so is to imperil one’s salvation.

Rights carry with them corresponding duties and responsibilities forming a sphere of action that every Christian, every Catholic is compelled to pursue. Let me put it bluntly and borrow from an ancient and today mostly disfavored form of solemn expression: those Catholics who fail to honor these Gospel Rights, or presume to divorce them from the fundamental Right to Life, or who recognize or give priority to only certain rights at the expense of others, or believe that by defending a few rights while paying lip service to the defense of others satisfies the moral demands of the Gospel and its Author, anathema sit.

The series will conclude with the last post tonight at midnight.

The Gospel: Subversive to Post-Modern Culture

Fifth in a series.

We can already appreciate the basic incompatibility between the Gospel’s notion of rights and the one proposed by the guardians of our post-modern culture. But before we launch into a compare-and-contrast exercise where these differences and the subversive character of the Gospel will become obvious, we need to dispatch one common objection which may be phrased like this:

Jesus of Nazareth – if he existed at all – was a marginal Jew who grew up without any formal education as then available, who only received a simple and imperfect Jewish religious education befitting a provincial man from remote Galilee, who never traveled outside his homeland, and whose immediate sources of knowledge were his parents, his limited experiences, and the general unchallenged assumptions held as common sense in a country mired in superstition and hopelessly captive to a pre-scientific worldview. So were his early followers, the ones who started the Christ myth after the ignominious death of their itinerant teacher – again, if he existed at all. Since, for example, neither Jesus nor his followers encountered homosexuality as we’ve come to know it today, nor were they even able to conceive of advances in the sciences that would result in the emancipation of women from the burdens of motherhood and housekeeping and free men from the oppressive notion of a God whose whims seem to us moral imperatives, the Gospel – a true hodgepodge of disparate oral traditions gathered together by anonymous writers with their own, self-serving, power-grabbing agenda in the early “Jesus movement” – do not contain any perpetually binding standard of morality aside from its best sentiments of universal tolerance and fraternity. Therefore, the Gospel is for all practical purposes irrelevant as an information source to today’s moral debates.

I prefer this other explanation: it doesn’t really matter to us that the Gospel is silent about cleverly manufactured post-modern moral dilemmas. This silence is not merely due to the Gospel’s antiquity or to its Author’s alleged ignorance of the intricacies of the biosphere or of human nature in particular. Rather, it is due to Jesus’ conviction that outside of a consistent ethic of life, where human life itself is the highest value, contrary values are unworthy of consideration. Outside of Jesus’ own values there was only contradiction and contradiction is nothing in itself but only the absence of something, in this case, the absence of reason. To put it bluntly, outside of his ethics of Life and Love, Jesus only saw foolishness leading to self-destruction, dehumanization, and ultimately, death, of the body as well as of the spirit.

Jesus was not interested in debate, but in affirming the preciousness of human life and in showing us how to really Love. Jesus didn’t come here to debate with those held to be as wise and powerful, but to proclaim the absolute value of Love and Life and to back up his words with his own death, and to certify their truth with his rising from death.

We have seen the consequences of our rejection of Jesus’ wisdom and the exaltation of our own: since the birth of the nation state and the subsequent espousal of the worse attitudes from the Age of Enlightenment that grew up to be today’s post-modernism via all those other “-isms”: laissez faire capitalism, Marxism, Leninism, fascism, Nazism, atheism, etc. have led to wanton exploitation, death, and destruction. The age of our suppose “enlightenment” has been an age in which more people have died on the altar of secularism than in all previous crusades, jihads, and pogroms put together, down to the continuing holocaust of abortion and today’s rise of individualized moral systems tailored to one’s whims and of “alternate lifestyles” practiced by damaged men and women unable to live fully human lives, but under the illusion that they do indeed live full human lives.

The Post-Modernists and their "rights"

Fourth in a series.

Let us talk about “post-modern rights.” I call “post-modern rights” those constructs that have been formulated from a prior “deconstruction” of earlier “right-speak,” particularly from the classical natural law tradition. These include: the so-called right to unrestricted abortion and other “reproductive rights”; the right to commit suicide, to help others commit suicide, or to engage in euthanasia; the right to marry a person of the same sex or to marry more than one person of the same sex or of the other sex in polygamy, or to mix and match one’s preferences in extended polyamoric relationships and even lately, the right to marry a person without regard to blood relationship; also, the supposed rights of animals and vegetation; the right of scientists in general to conduct unrestricted research or of biological researchers in particular to conduct unrestricted biological research using aborted embryos developed in vitro solely for this purpose; or simply the “right” to invent rights, whatever they may be, as long as a judge or a legislature construct them for this purpose and recognize these synthetic “rights” as such. As a consequence, everyone will owe anything to everyone else, however underserved, with the full power of the courts of law standing behind every claim, however farfetched.

Such a deconstruction, along the lines proposed in the last century by the French philosopher Jacques Derrida and other “post-modern” philosophers, seeks to strip all “meta-narratives” underlying all philosophical propositions, including ethical and legal propositions, in favor of new language constructs which reduce all such metaphysical formulations into linguistic propositions to be advanced or pulled back, by the force of positive legislation.

Thus, for example, the meta-narrative underlying our notion of “natural rights” is the existence of an Intelligent Creator endowed with knowledge and will who established a natural order from which moral obligations derive. Post-modern thinkers readily abandon this notion as oppressive, patriarchal, limiting and ultimately false, since the notion of God can be rejected a priori — as thinkers like Richard Dawkins would have it. Since, according to them, trauma occurs when a person or group of persons are denied their right to define themselves in whatever way they see fit over and against the good of society, all objections based on “meta-narratives” are to be repudiated in favor of positive affirmations of self-identity based on unbounded human autonomy that disregard any notion of entelechy or ultimate finality to human moral acts. Only then, once free of these traditional restrictions, could individuals be truly free and happy.

Following this view, rights may then be invented for any occasion, temperament, or personal choice and preference. Activists imbued with this worldview make it their priority business to codify their preferences as rights under the law and to protect and enforce these rights with the coercive powers of the state. Tenured classes spouting these views organize themselves and seek mutual protection within our institutions of higher learning to teach the new orthodoxies and to ostracize those who dare question them, because only in this manner their ideas can perpetuate themselves, all debate notwithstanding.

According to the guardians of these new orthodoxies, immoral acts are those which the guardians themselves deem to be restrictive of a person’s sense of self-identity or that derive from any notion of entelechy. Since, according to these thinkers, there is no Intelligent Creator and therefore no ultimate finality for human beings, it logically follows that human beings “create” provisional and even opportunistic codes of morality as they go, their only check being other’s individual pursuit of their own perceived goods. Those who oppose the new post-modern morality they deem “evil patriarchal oppressors,” and whenever possible they empty good ideas of any transcendental contents and adapt them to the post-modernist mould, as they seek to marginalize religious believers, expel them from the public arena, and confine them to their churches, mosques, and synagogues where they can only hurt themselves, always under the watchful eyes of more enlightened institutions of social control ranging from “human rights commissions” to fashion-setters, “hate-speech” watchdogs, progressive student or political organizations, the authority of particular talking heads from the entertainment classes — read “Oprah” — and the like.

The post-modern, post-moral frenzy has transmogrified our sense of morality, of right and wrong so profoundly, that recently a young woman decided to sell her alleged virginity to the highest bidder in an attempt to earn enough money to pay for her graduate studies. In the past such an act would have been labeled as prostitution, her attitude as debased, and her open solicitation of sexual favors in exchange of money considered a crime. However, these moral objections have been deconstructed and rebuilt into affirmations of sexual autonomy, reproductive freedom, and female liberation from antiquated, patriarchal sexual roles. Today, this young woman is extolled and admired and the media gushes over her unconventional college-financing scheme in which her own bodily integrity becomes a commodity to be freely transacted in the open market.

Ironically, the moral revolution proposed by the post-modernists has freed women from being toys for the consumption of men in order to make them toys for the consumption of men, again – but this time with a price tag attached. This is how low we have descended in our grandiose affirmation of self-autonomy, much to our shame.

These are the dominant ideas of our age and those who hold them, are either seeking to increase their political power, or already wield it to our collective detriment.

Deriving all other Human Rights from Gospel Rights

Third in a series.

I have said that the Gospel can be used as a first principle from which to derive other rights familiar to us such as the freedom to worship and to assembly peacefully and the freedom of the press and to preserve privacy of our papers and properties. Let’s see how.

To satisfy the needs of the hungry, the thirsty, the dispossessed, the sick, and the imprisoned one person can do much, but more than one person can do better. Therefore, human beings must enjoy an unencumbered freedom of association if they are to organize themselves to relieve the needy. Similarly, as it pertains to Christians, it is the Gospel of Jesus Christ who call us to assembly, that is, to ecclesia to “church” to address these needs, satisfy these obligations and guarantee to those who are “the least” the free exercise of their rights to eat, drink, be sheltered, clothed, etc. Therefore, since this is essentially a religious call, the freedom to assemble peacefully to worship, or to do so individually is a natural demand, secondary “freedoms” derived from the Gospel Rights.

Nor is this duty to organize ourselves to meet the rights of those who are “the least brothers” restricted to Christians, but it is also an obligation to be exercised by believers and even unbelievers to hold to any one of the many versions of the Golden Rule: do unto others as you would like to be unto you (Matthew 7:12).

We can conclude that adherence to the Gospel principles and its notion of human rights logically leads to the development of free societies as we know them.

We can also conclude that the core human value of the Gospel is the dignity of human life and of the person who receives this life in all its manifestations, from the most exalted human being to the most wretched, in all stages of its development, a dignity that is axiomatic, inalienable, and absolute.

If you think about it, this is a very subversive thought, well understood as such in nation-states that persecute Christians and that lack a civil society independent from mass organizations under total state or oligarchical control. But Gospel rights are also subversive to materialist, consumerist Western societies such as our own that see themselves as tolerant and egalitarian. These societies see the Gospel as subversive not because of what the Gospel says, but because of what it doesn’t say, as we shall see.

The Meaning of "Gospel Rights"

Second in a series.

We don’t think too much of the Gospel as a source for human rights and yet, a convincing case can be made that the ethical imperatives contained therein may be seen as first principles for which an ordered reflection regarding the nature and object of human rights can proceed.

Nothing in the Gospel contradicts the findings of the classical “natural law” reflection regarding human rights and the Gospel’s Author fully assumes the binding force of the moral law as revealed in the Old Testament. But it would be wrong to assume that the Gospel is but another source of law to be held alongside all others as equal sources of human rights, at least not to the Christian. Instead, the Gospel transforms all ethical imperatives leading to the formulation of particular human rights arrived at by human natural reason alone. The Gospel effect is prismatic in its quality: just as white light is revealed to be composed of seven primary colors when it passes through a prism, the conclusions of natural reason regarding human rights transform themselves into heretofore unimagined tapestry of rights and duties.

Let’s start our own reflection by reading Matthew 25:34-40:

34"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.' 37"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?' 40"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'

From these verses we can gain the following insights upon how Jesus conceived of “rights”: if the “least brother” of Christ himself is hungry, he or she has an inalienable right to eat. In the same way, those who thirst have the right to drink and those who are dispossessed and considered “strangers” in our societies have, without qualification or judgment of their personal responsibility a right for shelter; those who are sick have a right to be attended to and all those who are imprisoned without qualification and regardless of guilt have the right to be visited. These rights levy the concomitant obligations to those who are not hungry, thirsty, dispossessed, sick or imprisoned to honor the rights of those who are.

These “Gospel” rights do not deny natural rights and in fact, builds on some of them such as the right to eat, drink, be clothed and dispose of shelter. But what Jesus does is to give these rights of those who are the “least” of his brothers an overarching priority over all other rights.

We also need to recognize that these Gospel “rights” imply the recognition of a fundamental primary right, itself preceding all of the above. This right is the Right to Life. The rights to eat, drink, be clothed, sheltered, receive medical attention and cared for while imprisoned, are all meant not only to sustain human life, but also to nurture and sustain that life and respect its inherent dignity until its natural death.

The Gospel rights seem to rule out all actions that can terminate a human life through its whole lifespan. Killing a human being, even a wicked human being, is always an evil in itself and although the moral responsibility of the one who takes a human life may vary according to circumstance, the act itself of taking a human life remains an evil to be avoided, as far as the Gospel and its Author are concerned.

Similar Gospel rights may be derived from other verses of the New Testament, for example, the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:1-12). Therefore we can speak of the right of those who are “poor in spirit” to receive the Kingdom, the right of those who mourn to be comforted, and the right of the meek to inherit the earth. We can also speak of the right of those who hunger and thirst for justice to receive it, the right of the merciful to receive mercy, the right – and what a right! – of the pure in heart to see God, and the right of those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake to receive the kingdom of heaven. Similarly, rights may also be derived from the other version of the sermon (Luke 6:17-23) as well as from the Church’s summary of Jesus’ teaching as expressed in the list of Corporal and Spiritual Works of Mercy.

The Gospel and Human Rights - What is a "right"?

First in a series of seven posts.

Folks, one of our national pastimes – a pastime which has become a global pastime, really – consist in the discovery, definition, and defense of new human rights. Often this process entails redefining or shelving older and long-established human rights. Activists galore fight and agitate to push for new legal mechanisms to defend these newly synthesized human rights and without relent seek to marginalize any one daring to question their motives.

The matter has acquired a new nuance. In a recent key article, a Newsweek magazine journalist has attempted to justify same-sex marriage by a direct appeal to the Bible. Using the latest deconstructive techniques commonly applied to all literature and popular in our institutions of higher learning, the writer claims to have found a religious justification for same-sex marriage and also to have found serious ground to set aside all of the negative things that the different biblical writers had to say about same-sex genital activity. Similar appeals to the Bible or to various religious principles to justify abortion, euthanasia, assisted suicide, stem-cell research have been put forward at various times with the intent to decrease the Christian believer’s skepticism toward these notions and therefore, either earn their support to enact favorable policies or to at least decrease their resistance to them. Activists for these “rights” understand that an apathetic believer who becomes apathetic and indifferent to these policy debates are almost as good as a convert to their cause.

These efforts, which have met with varying degrees of success, lead me to share with you this reflection on the notions of “rights” in the light of the Gospel. My purpose in this series of posts is threefold: to present a summary view of the notion of “rights” in the sayings of Jesus Christ and, to undermine all appeals to the Bible to justify the practices mentioned above, and to set a direction for further activism in the cause of Life.

The series consist of seven parts, published at 12-hour intervals from now until January 24th. I hope you enjoy the series and pray that, in a small way, these posts help you shape your conscience in the light of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

What is a “right”?

The 1909 Catholic Encyclopedia provides a great definition of the concept of “right” followed by a detailed discussion. I will only quote the definition:

Right, as a substantive (my right, his right), designates the object of justice. When a person declares he has a right to a thing, he means he has a kind of dominion over such thing, which others are obliged to recognize. Right may therefore be defined as a moral or legal authority to possess, claim, and use a thing as one's own. It is thus essentially distinct from obligation; in virtue of an obligation we should, in virtue of a right, we may do or omit something. Again, right is a moral or legal authority, and, as such, is distinct from merely physical superiority or pre-eminence; the thief who steals something without being detected enjoys the physical control of the object, but no right to it; on the contrary, his act is an injustice, a violation of right, and he is bound to return the stolen object to its owner. Right is called a moral or legal authority, because it emanates from a law which assigns to one the dominion over the thing and imposes on others the obligation to respect this dominion. To the right of one person corresponds an obligation on the part of others, so that right and obligation condition each other. If I have the right to demand one hundred dollars from a person, he is under the obligation to give them to me; without this obligation, right would be illusory. One may even say that the right of one person consists in the fact that, on his account, others are bound to perform or omit something…

… Rights are divided, according to the title on which they rest, into natural and positive rights, and the latter are subdivided into Divine and human rights. By natural rights are meant all those which we acquire by our very birth, e.g. the right to live, to integrity of limbs, to freedom, to acquire property, etc.; all other rights are called acquired rights, although many of them are acquired, independently of any positive law, in virtue of free acts, e.g. the right of the husband and wife in virtue of the marriage contract, the right to ownerless goods through occupation, the right to a house through purchase or hire, etc. On the other hand, other rights may be given by positive law; according as the law is Divine or human, and the latter civil or ecclesiastical, we distinguish between Divine or human, civil or ecclesiastical rights. To civil rights belong citizenship in a state, active or passive franchise, etc…

The emphasis is mine.

Most Americans are familiar with this notion of “right” as “something one is morally or legally authorized to possess and use as one’s own.” It is probably the best known sense of the word “right.” We tend to say “I have a right to that” or “Don’t trample upon my rights.” We understand we have the moral or legal authority to exercise a right and that a right, once recognized as such, becomes inalienable. The best example with which most Americans are familiar with are those detailed in the Bill of Rights as well as in the famous statement found in the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Although seldom acknowledged publicly by specialists and popular historians, the similarity between the Catholic notion of “right” and their expression in the American founding document is due a common origin. The notion of “right,” particularly of “natural right” had been worked out intensely by theologians and philosophers of the late Middle Ages and the Renaissance. Definitions became acute during the Age of Discovery as the colonial powers debated the rights and even the very humanity of the aboriginal peoples of the Americas. Following the initial work by the Franciscan Blessed Junípero Serra and the Dominican Bartolomé de las Casas in defense of Indian rights, works later systematized by Jesuits in the XVI of whom the Spanish theologian Francisco Suárez was an outstanding example, the theory of natural law and human rights began informing European intellectual life. From there, it began to inform the American Founding Fathers and our basic documents of government.

Today’s Events

Folks, I am not indifferent to today’s inauguration of President Barack Obama. I recognize the uniqueness of the event and all it entails. You must pardon me if I choose not join the personality cult surrounding the man.

Mr. Obama’s address was inspirational and well-delivered. I particularly liked these lines:

To those leaders around the globe who seek to sow conflict, or blame their society's ills on the West: Know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy. To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist. (Source: CNN)

I hope Mr. Obama meant it. I am sure that the likes of Ahmadinejad, Chávez, Putin, Kim Jong Il, etc. were listening and even now are wondering if they should take President Obama seriously. Bin Laden and company will soon take the measure of President Obama. Let’s hope that he stands up to the challenge.

Aside from this basic recognition of this momentous occasion and its meaning, a number of coalitions that put the Democrats back in power seek after nefarious things that will bring ruin on our families and upon the most vulnerable members of our society – the unborn. We should be ready to talk and to persuade but when necessary, resist the onslaught of the newly-empowered harbingers of the Culture of Death, and their facilitators in academia, the media, and the churches, even within the Catholic Church. A lot work remains to be done if we are to protect what the late Cardinal Bernardin once called “the seamless garment” of a consistent ethics of life.

As for George W. Bush, I wish him and his family well. I voted for him twice. He did the best he could. He made mistakes but did other good things for which he has been “misunderappreciated.” Mercilessly mocked and belittled by our great and compassionate “progressives,” time and distance will provide the right balance to judge his presidency fairly and then, we will truly appreciate him. I hope he lives to see that day.

One more thing. Noticed how the Chief Justice asked President Obama “So help you God? at the end of the Presidential Oath? This action really put the lie to atheists who objected to this line and revealed the futility of their arguments. They should go ahead and sue, or wait for the next time and complain again.

I wish Mr. Obama well for as he goes, the country will follow. But he’s not getting any blank checks from me. I know better than that. I learned that during the last 8 years, much to my chagrin. Let us pray that the Lord enlighten him and guide him in the tough job he has ahead of him.