Recently on a group (which I have since departed) one of the participants posted an argument for the healthiness of pornography in society. The argument was essentially that "in the west" things are getting more and more open regarding sexuality, whereas "in the east" things are still more repressed. The "healthy" argument states that pornography gives a "healthy release" of sexuality, and that all humans are sexual beings so such a release is necessary - be it in a physical sexual relation, or through pornography.
The point this proponent of porn misses is that ALL pornography is misdirected. Why is it so? The sexuality of persons involved in porn are being exploited by the producers of it. Granted, some in the porn "industry" are paid, some quite well, but their bodies are being exploited in an immoral way. Right now I can hear those in favor of porn crying out, "Don't force your morality on me!" Well, "my morality" is not only based upon Judeo-Christian values, but upon the rights of each individual. Let us examine this a bit more carefully.
The rights of each individual do not include the right to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater, where there is no fire. Likewise, no one has the "right" to display their pornography where my 14 year old child can view it. The ease of access to pornography, especially on the Internet, is an exploitation of those who may view it and be influenced by it, not to mention that those who are "viewed" are being exploited - whether they are reimbursed financially for this exploitation or not.
Why is pornography a morally wrong thing? The participation in "the marriage act" by couples who are not married is a corruption of "the marriage act." "The marriage act" is a gift from God, and it's a wonderful gift intended to bond husband to wife as they part from their respective parents.
The physical basis for "the marriage act" is also human reproduction. This too is a wonderful gift from God allowing us to participate in the process of procreation with the Creator. Any deviation from the physical completion of "the marriage act" is also a corruption of that gift. Thus the "self gratification" which often accompanies pornography is itself a corruption of God's gift intended for married couples, not only as an expression of their love for one another - but also for the blessing of children to the family. How many in the porn "industry" are engaging in "the marriage act" with the intent to produce children - or at least not with the intent to prevent the conception of children? Once the intention becomes to prevent conception - or worse to terminate conception, right there the participants and supporters of this production (right down to the consumer) have crossed the line of immorality in regard to "the marriage act."
I have also heard the argument, "What if a husband and wife are using the porn to 'enhance' their own sexuality?" One has to ask what led to this? Why is not a healthy sexual relationship between a husband and his wife enough? What led them to seek out external stimulation? Is it rooted in one or the other seeking such "entertainment" outside "the marriage bed" and perhaps justifying their own guilt by introducing it to "the marriage bed?" Then there's the support of the porn industry by such a married couple - it is a tacit endorsement of the immorality being conducted by the porn "industry." How many of the participants in pornography are married to each other in a monogamous relationship? Yet each time someone buys or rents such, they are lending their support to the porn industry.
What it essentially boils down to is pornography is hedonistic immorality. Those who support porn do so because it pleases themselves, and they basically don't care about the ramifications it has upon others and society and more importantly the eternal well-being of souls. Why should their lack of caring for the eternal well-being of souls (because many of them may not even believe in an eternal soul) be allowed to trample over the rights of those who DO believe in eternity? And then they want the "freedom" to push THEIR morality upon the rest of us! When laws are attempted to restrict the availability of pornography are proposed - the proponents are all over screaming for their "right" to "freedom of expression." Again, I remind the reader, this is like screaming "Fire!" in a crowded theater when there is no fire except this is on a spiritual level. People in the theater may be hurt or even killed by this unordered exercise of what someone may feel is their "right." Likewise, on the spiritual level, souls may be harmed or even "killed" by the actions of the porn industry - and they have NO RIGHT to endanger the souls of others, especially of minors. Non-believers have no right to force their morality on me or my family!
The subject addressed thus far has been "porn" or what some would call "hardcore porn," but this can also be addressed to many of the television shows available to everyone, everyday being broadcast over the air or through cable to the television sets in virtually every household "in the west." These programs (and some commercials too), which may not explicitly show every aspect of "the marriage act" as "hardcore porn" does, still portray non-married couples living together and sometimes even showing them in the bedroom engaging in "the marriage act," (be it under sheets or through camera angles which don't "show anything"). How is this not the pushing of the (lack of) morals by these television producers and actors upon others? Certainly we can exercise our right to change channels, but not always is there a parent around who can enforce such an act within their house. I must admit, there are times when I have been watching television and before you realize it, the scene has changed to something I'd rather not my children see. When one thinks about it, WHY would we not want our children to see such things? The "WHY" there is huge because if it's not "OK" for them to see it, why is it "OK" for an adult to watch it? Simply because an adult can "sort things out better?" Why put such deviancy in our minds to begin with that WE have to "sort it out?"
That being said, one cannot even drive down the road without being exposed to sexually centered advertising. Society "in the west" has become so numbed to the exposure of sexual content in selling just about everything from beer to sex itself - that the reality of this exposure doesn't even register as something wrong, misdirected or immoral.
In short, if it is MY morality to not expose myself and my children to pornography, even the "soft porn" on television or billboard signs, and I have a RIGHT to my morality, then what gives another the "right" to force their more liberal morality upon me and my family?
Qui Locutus - Formerly The CathApol Blog - a Catholic Apologetics Blog Defending the Faith and keeping Catholics Catholic! Scott Windsor, MEd. - aka: CathApol
St. Augustine: Scripture Is Not the Only Source By Which God speaks to Man
ACTS/CathApol recently hosted a debate on "Sola Scriptura" (scroll down the messages to click on the debate here), so I thought this passage from St. Augustine might be appropriate. With so many protestants trying to rewrite the Church Fathers, I thought I'd share some thoughts on one of the leading Catholic Doctors hijacked by protestants today.
One way God has spoken to His people over the course of time is through prophets. Many of the prophecies were written down, many were incorporated in the signs and symbols of our worship (latreia) of Our Lord and Savior. God's word continues to be read and expressed in His Church today.
32. The mystery of Christ's redemption was not absent in any previous era, but it was made known under different symbols
This mystery of eternal life has been made known by the ministry of angels from the beginning of the human race. It was revealed to those who were fit to receive the knowledge by means of signs and symbols appropriate to the times. Later, the Hebrew people was gathered and united in a kind of community designed to perform this sacred function of revelation. In that people the future course of events, from the coming of Christ to the present day, and even beyond, was prophesied through the agency of some who realized, and some who did not realize, what they were doing. In the course of time, this people was scattered among the nations to bear witness to the Scriptures, which foretold the coming salvation of Christ. For not only all the prophesies contained in words, not only all the precepts for the conduct of life which shape men's character and their piety and are contained in the Scriptures, but also the ceremonies, the sacred rites, the festal days, and everything which concerned with the homage due to God (the Greeks call it latreia) - all these were symbols and predictions that find their fulfilment in Christ, so as to give eternal life to those who believe. We believe that they have been fulfilled; we observe that they are being fulfilled; we are convinced that they will go on being fulfilled.
(St. Augustine, "City of God," Book VII)
One way God has spoken to His people over the course of time is through prophets. Many of the prophecies were written down, many were incorporated in the signs and symbols of our worship (latreia) of Our Lord and Savior. God's word continues to be read and expressed in His Church today.
This mystery of eternal life has been made known by the ministry of angels from the beginning of the human race. It was revealed to those who were fit to receive the knowledge by means of signs and symbols appropriate to the times. Later, the Hebrew people was gathered and united in a kind of community designed to perform this sacred function of revelation. In that people the future course of events, from the coming of Christ to the present day, and even beyond, was prophesied through the agency of some who realized, and some who did not realize, what they were doing. In the course of time, this people was scattered among the nations to bear witness to the Scriptures, which foretold the coming salvation of Christ. For not only all the prophesies contained in words, not only all the precepts for the conduct of life which shape men's character and their piety and are contained in the Scriptures, but also the ceremonies, the sacred rites, the festal days, and everything which concerned with the homage due to God (the Greeks call it latreia) - all these were symbols and predictions that find their fulfilment in Christ, so as to give eternal life to those who believe. We believe that they have been fulfilled; we observe that they are being fulfilled; we are convinced that they will go on being fulfilled.
(St. Augustine, "City of God," Book VII)
Wonder and Curiosity
From Dwight Longenecker's book "St Benedict and St. Therese; The Little Rule and the Little Way."
Trick or Treat?
-
A TRICK -
A young man, a student in one of our universities, was one day taking a walk with a professor, who was commonly called the students' friend, from his kindness to those who waited on his instructions. -
As they went along, they saw lying in the path a pair of old shoes, which they supposed to belong to a poor man who was employed in a field close by, and who had nearly finished his day's work. -
The student turned to the professor, saying: "Let us play the man a trick: we will hide his shoes, and conceal ourselves behind those bushes, and wait to see his perplexity when he cannot find them." -
"My young friend," answered the professor, "we should never amuse ourselves at the expense of the poor. But you are rich, and may give yourself a much greater pleasure by means of the poor man. Put a ten dollar bill into each shoe, and then we will hide ourselves and watch how the discovery affects him." -
The student did so, and they both placed themselves behind the bushes close by. -
The poor man soon finished his work, and came across the field to the path where he had left his coat and shoes. While putting on his coat he slipped his foot into one of his shoes; but feeling something, he stooped down to feel what it was, and found the ten dollar bill. -
Astonishment and wonder were seen upon his countenance. He gazed upon the bill, turned it round, and looked at it again and again. He then looked around him on all sides, but no person was to be seen. He now put the money into his pocket, and proceeded to put on the other shoe; but his surprise was doubled on finding the other ten dollar bill. -
His feelings overcame him; he fell upon his knees, looked up to heaven and uttered aloud a fervent thanksgiving, in which he spoke of his wife, sick and helpless, and his children without bread, whom the timely bounty, from some unknown hand, would save from perishing. -
The student stood there deeply affected, and his eyes filled with tears. "Now," said the professor, "are you not much better pleased than if you had played your intended trick?" -
The youth replied, "You have taught me a lesson which I will never forget. I feel now the truth of those words, which I never understood before: 'It is more blessed to give than to receive.'" -
-- Author Unknown
Quran Don't Burn It, Learn It!
With the "Burn the Quran Day" being announced by a small-time preacher in Florida - who is getting an inordinate amount of press for such a small congregation - for this Saturday, the 9th commemoration of the 9/11 attack on the U.S.A. by radical/extremist Muslims (and do note, I do not put all Muslims in that category!), I thought this video I found was quite appropriate. OK, I have to first off admit where I first saw this video, it was on James White's site. One thing I am not ashamed to do with White (and I can't recall him ever making the same gesture) is when we agree on something, it's alright to acknowledge the agreement. White has been engaging in some anti-Islamic apologetics, and thus far (and I haven't read or seen all his anti-Islamic works) I have to say I agree with him! Anyway, the following video would seem to me to make any pro-Islamic apologist cower away and hide. The acting is a bit corn-ball, but wow, how can a Muslim defend against these facts? See if you agree:
Why Do Catholics Call Mary the "Mother of God?"
Lately we've had at least one or two protestants who believe the Blessed Virgin Mary was not the "Mother of God" and that it is blasphemy to call her that. While they are right that God had no beginning, God the Word became flesh in time and space and became one of us. I would agree with their objections if Jesus Christ were just a man. He's not. They, however, are falling into the same trap as Nestorius and his followers--that God was only residing in the body of a man; that He was two persons as well as having two natures. St. Cyril sent at least three letters to Nestorius on this very subject, below I quote from the third, which was read at the Council of Ephesus, 431 AD. [Quoted material in purple]
For we do not divide up the words of our savior in the gospels among two hypostases or persons. For the one and only Christ is not dual, even though he be considered to be from two distinct realities, brought together into an unbreakable union. In the same sort of way a human being, though he be composed of soul and body, is considered to be not dual, but rather one out of two. Therefore, in thinking rightly, we refer both the human and divine expressions to the same person. For when he speaks about himself in a divine manner as "he that sees me sees the Father," and "I and the Father are one," we think of his divine and unspeakable nature, according to which he is one with his own Father through identity of nature and is the "image and impress and brightness of his glory." But when, not dishonouring the measure of his humanity, he says to the Jews: "But now you seek to kill me, a man who has spoken the truth to you," again no less than before, we recognise that he who, because of his equality and likeness to God the Father is God the Word, is also within the limits of his humanity. For if it is necessary to believe that being God by nature he became flesh, that is man ensouled with a rational soul, whatever reason should anyone have for being ashamed at the expression uttered by him should they happen to be suitable to him as man? For if he should reject words suitable to him as man, who was it that forced him to become a man like us? Why should he who submitted himself to voluntary self-emptying for our sake, reject expressions that are suitable for such self-emptying? All the expressions, therefore, that occur in the gospels are to be referred to one person, the one-enfleshed hypostasis of the Word. For there is one Lord Jesus Christ, according to the Scriptures....
Therefore, because the holy virgin bore in the flesh God who was united hypostatically with the flesh, for that reason we call her Mother of God, not as though the nature of the Word had the beginning of its existence from the flesh (for "the Word was in the beginning and the Word was God and the Word was with God," and he made the ages and is coeternal with the Father and craftsman of all things), but because, as we have said, he united to himself hypostatically the human and underwent a birth according to the flesh from her womb. This was not as though he needed necessarily or for his own nature a birth in time and in the last times of this age, but in order that he might bless the beginning of our existence, in order that seeing that it was a woman that had given birth to him united to the flesh, the curse against the whole race would thereafter cease...
1. If anyone does not confess Emmanuel is God in truth, and therefore that the holy virgin is the mother of God (for she bore in a fleshly way the Word of God become flesh, let him be anathema.
2. If anyone does not confess that the Word from God the Father has been united by hypostasis with the flesh and is one Christ with his own flesh, and is therefore God and man together, let him be anathema.
[Third letter of Cyril to Nestorius, read at the council of Ephesus and included in the proceedings. Two of the twelve anathemas proposed by St. Cyril and accepted by the Council of Ephesus are included here.]
This is the whole point of the Church calling the Blessed Virgin Mary the "Mother of God." Our Lord Jesus was one person with a divine nature and a human nature. He was not two separate persons residing in one body. Just as man and his soul are one and inseparable, so God and man in the person of Jesus Christ Our Lord is inseparable. He is God. If you believe that Jesus was and is God, then why would there be an objection to calling Mary, His mother, the Mother of God?
[Added 8 Sep 2010, 9:45AM: Here is an online source of a translation of the documents of the Council of Ephesus, 431 AD: http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/EPHESUS.HTM It looks like the same translation as the hard copy I quoted from here.]
For we do not divide up the words of our savior in the gospels among two hypostases or persons. For the one and only Christ is not dual, even though he be considered to be from two distinct realities, brought together into an unbreakable union. In the same sort of way a human being, though he be composed of soul and body, is considered to be not dual, but rather one out of two. Therefore, in thinking rightly, we refer both the human and divine expressions to the same person. For when he speaks about himself in a divine manner as "he that sees me sees the Father," and "I and the Father are one," we think of his divine and unspeakable nature, according to which he is one with his own Father through identity of nature and is the "image and impress and brightness of his glory." But when, not dishonouring the measure of his humanity, he says to the Jews: "But now you seek to kill me, a man who has spoken the truth to you," again no less than before, we recognise that he who, because of his equality and likeness to God the Father is God the Word, is also within the limits of his humanity. For if it is necessary to believe that being God by nature he became flesh, that is man ensouled with a rational soul, whatever reason should anyone have for being ashamed at the expression uttered by him should they happen to be suitable to him as man? For if he should reject words suitable to him as man, who was it that forced him to become a man like us? Why should he who submitted himself to voluntary self-emptying for our sake, reject expressions that are suitable for such self-emptying? All the expressions, therefore, that occur in the gospels are to be referred to one person, the one-enfleshed hypostasis of the Word. For there is one Lord Jesus Christ, according to the Scriptures....
 |
| Mary, Mother of God, with her Son |
1. If anyone does not confess Emmanuel is God in truth, and therefore that the holy virgin is the mother of God (for she bore in a fleshly way the Word of God become flesh, let him be anathema.
2. If anyone does not confess that the Word from God the Father has been united by hypostasis with the flesh and is one Christ with his own flesh, and is therefore God and man together, let him be anathema.
[Third letter of Cyril to Nestorius, read at the council of Ephesus and included in the proceedings. Two of the twelve anathemas proposed by St. Cyril and accepted by the Council of Ephesus are included here.]
This is the whole point of the Church calling the Blessed Virgin Mary the "Mother of God." Our Lord Jesus was one person with a divine nature and a human nature. He was not two separate persons residing in one body. Just as man and his soul are one and inseparable, so God and man in the person of Jesus Christ Our Lord is inseparable. He is God. If you believe that Jesus was and is God, then why would there be an objection to calling Mary, His mother, the Mother of God?
[Added 8 Sep 2010, 9:45AM: Here is an online source of a translation of the documents of the Council of Ephesus, 431 AD: http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/EPHESUS.HTM It looks like the same translation as the hard copy I quoted from here.]
Sola Scriptura Debate
Feel free to add comments here, or join us in BattleACTS.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Feast of the Assumption
The Feast of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary - another example of "not-so-ordinary" days! These are COUNTING days - and...
