Geek Theologian

Best. Conspiracy. Ever!

2011-05-09T09:32:00.000-07:00

This is the best conspiracy theory ever! Thanks to Mark Shea and our Lutheran brothers and sisters for this one.

Lust: Is it possible to lust after one's own wife?

2011-05-09T09:12:00.000-07:00

In the bible study that I coordinate at our parish in Takoma Park, Our Lady of Sorrows, we've been going through the book of Genesis. There is a whole lot there to go through, and sometimes our weekly meeting is taken up by the discussion of one chapter, sometimes even one question! That is what happened last week. We were reading chapters 37-42, and this is the question that took up our time:

2 I suppose we can't get through chapter 38, which is a bit of a break in the story of Joseph, which marks the amount of time that he was in Egypt, without addressing Onan and his sin (cf. 38:8-10) .
2.1 What is it that Onan does that is sinful? When we encounter these sins today, how are they justified? Certainly we can counter these by saying that “God disapproves,” yet there are other, empirical arguments against them, as well. What our Pope has called the “New Relativism” seeks to justify them by saying that they don't hurt anyone. Is that true? Are there really any sins that do not cause harm to others?

The question became the focus of the talk when, the session before, I identified sexual sins such as masturbation as the primary point of discussion. I hesitate to say, but that got everyone excited for the discussion.

In speaking of the possibility of a sin that might not hurt anyone else, however, we came to the question of whether it is possible to, and whether it is morally permissible to, lust after our own spouse. In examining this question, we distinguished between "sexual desire" and "lust." Sexual desire for one's spouse, the desire to unite in both pleasure and life-giving capacity, is a good, a God-given pleasure. That desire in other contexts is not necessarily bad, but what we must examine is the attitude and intent of the individual.

Lust, at least sexual lust, is a "disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure." If I desire to unite with someone outside of marriage, outside of the fullness of unity, and/or solely for pleasure, I have closed off part of my person, I have a disordered - something that is not ordinary - not the ideal norm (not that it is not common, but it is not what should be) - desire for inordinate - again, something that is not the best that it could and should be - sexual pleasure.

Now, if I do the same - I close off part of myself by desire something less than full union with my spouse, in this case because I desire her only for my own pleasure, I desire to possess her for my own, simply to satisfy my needs, then I have a disordered desire. Even if what I want is simply our mutual pleasure, I am closing off part of myself - my procreative capacity - from our union, and that is disordered, I am lusting. Now, that doesn't mean that if what I am experiencing primarily is sexual desire, and not thinking about my procreative power, but am open to it, that I am lusting. I don't have to actively consider every aspect of what I am doing with every action I take, but what I can't do is close part of myself off in this union.

So, in a word, yes, I can lust after my own spouse. It is not only possible, but likely, that many of us have lusted in this way.

An Eventful Weekend... to the glory of God

2011-04-29T21:31:00.000-07:00

This is an eventful three days, isn't it?

First, we had the Royal Wedding this morning.

I've been tempted all day to make some snide comment to the effect that the wedding is less important than the beatification (I kind of gave into that temptation in one Facebook post). The truth is, understood correctly, each of the major events this week has a different kind of importance to us. I pray for the royal couple, as I do for any couple who is, or who is getting, married. They are to be a sign of God's love for His Church in a world that barely believes in God, himself. As a 'celebrity' couple, and with Wills as a potential future leader of a nation, they have even more of an opportunity to spread that message, and a greater potential to do harm if and when they do not. Please, pray for them, and all married couples, that they be the sign of God's love that they are meant to be, for each other, and for the world, that they love each other unreservedly, for the rest of their lives.

Next, we have the space shuttle Endeavor's

last mission flight. The shuttle, every space vehicle, and every manned space flight, is a testament to the gift of man's intelligence. Exploration - of the earth, of the sea, of space - of all of God's creation, is a natural desire of man. God tells us to fill the Earth and subdue it - as stewards, rather than conquerors - and exploring the vastness of space is an amazing accomplishment in that direction. Pray with me that we continue to use our God-given intellect, our curiosity, and our reason to the fulfilment of man. This fulfilment is not simply in this world, but in the next. We can't simply work toward the natural fulfilment of man and his desires and ignore the love and desire that we must have for God, our creator.

Third, we have the celebration of the beatification Pope John Paul II

on Sunday - Divine Mercy Sunday, in fact, the feast day that he declared, and on the eve of which, he died. John Paul was beloved by many, and still is. It is a testament to this love and devotion that we are recognising him as Blessed so quickly. Many already declare him "John Paul the Great," and pray to him as a Saint, asking for his intercession with God. He would likewise, I think, praise the two other events that are taking place this weekend, but would also likewise point to what glorifies God in all of the events.

And I think that is the point. We should always remember that everything we do should glorify God... not simply ourselves, not simply other people, or the craftiness of our imagination and our skill, but the One who made all of these things. So... Thank God for married couples, especially the newlyweds, the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, may God continue to bless them. Thank God for astronauts and all of those involved in the exploration of God's creation, may God always keep them safe in their travels. And thank God for our beloved, and soon-to-be beatified Pope John Paul II. May he continue to pray for us and love us, and may God bless all who ask for his intercession.

Whither Gentleness, Patience, and Tolerance?

2011-04-20T15:56:00.000-07:00

I had planned to post every Friday, but I may have to amend that to at least every Friday. If something comes up, I don't want to have to wait! And there are two items in the news to day that make me physically ill. First was the news that approximately 90% of all babies diagnosed in-utero with Down Syndrome are the victims of abortion. Now, abortion itself disgusts and horrifies me. The thought that a parent or physician would kill an innocent child, or that a society would allow it to happen, or even to encourage it, is revolting. I have to believe that they simply don't understand, despite the rash of abortionists, pro-choice leaders, and philosophers who now acknowledge that life begins at conception.

Many different arguents are made to justify their agreement and even promotion of abortion, but a comprehensive review of those justifications is beyond what I want to do here and now. Right now, I simply want to register my disgust for the inhumanity of this behavior. I'm sure that there are individuals who make these decisions, justifying their choice by saying that this is right for them, for some reason. Rather than being "right," this is a symptom of the culture of death that our Catholic church has been fighting against. To believe that these children are "less" in any true manner, that they are "less valuable," should be "less loved," or are "less worthy of life" is simply callous, disgusting, and makes me physically ill.

In a related item, "The Wonkette" decided that they would attack an innocent child, Sarah Palin's son Trig, who suffers from Down Syndrome himself, and on his birthday, no less.

They attack his paternity.

They call him a political prop.

They deride a poem written for the young boy, commenting on the line "Oh, little boy what are you dreaming about" by saying "What’s he dreaming about? Nothing. He’s retarded."

They call him only "somewhat alive."

They attack his older sister, Piper, who licked her hand and cleaned his face. I want to know which mother has not done the same for any child of hers?

I'd like to think that it is a sign of desperation that the Wonkette makes these disgusting attacks on a boy who has truly done nothing to offend, whose syndrome produces symptoms of "Natural spontaneity, genuine warmth, cheerful, gentleness, patience, and tolerance."

Where, exactly, is their gentleness, patience, and tolerance?

National Day of Silence

2011-04-15T09:19:00.000-07:00

Today, regrettably, is the so-called "National Day of Silence," sponsored by the Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network (GLSEN).

As part of this, students in schools across the country are encouraged by their peers to protest the treatment of those who feel attracted to people of the same sex. The stated purpose is to "call attention to the silencing effect of anti-LGBT bullying and harassment in schools." Children are encouraged to wear t-shirts, to be completely silent during the day - not speaking to friends, not answering teacher's questions, not speaking at all. Some even wear tape over their mouths to show their participation in this protest.

Many disagree with this protest, saying that, while the stated purpose of the potest is to spread a message that counters bullying, the protest actually is promoting the gay lifestyle and acceptance of it - demanding that society accept same-sex attraction as normal, along with the sexual behavior that goes along with it. Parents are recommended to keep their children home from school on this day, and teachers and administrators are recommended to carry on with their school lesson plans, treating this silence as they would any other refusal to answer questions or to participate in the class room.

Part of the problem is, however, that the GLSEN is right about one thing. The bullying of people who are different from us in any way MUST STOP!

I am a big guy - fat, if you want to get right down to it. I'm working on it, to various degrees of success, but it is one thing that I have been teased about throughout my life, only twice coming to physical violence. I'm also white, Catholic, redheaded, a geek, a bookworm, and many other things. I should not be bullied for any of them, and neither should anyone else. And no one should be threatened or beaten for being simply "different."

If the message of GLSEN was to stop bullying in general, I would be more amenable to their protest. Yet, it isn't as simple as that. They don't, and we cannot, separate their meassage on the "Day of Silence" from their larger message of acceptance (not tolerance, that is a different thing). While we should have compassion for those who suffer from this same-sex attraction, and any other affliction, true compassion understands that this is an affliction with which they struggle, that their attraction is not the norm, and cannot be accepted as normal, and that they, rather than giving in to their desires, should be using their rational ability to control the same.

This insepparability of message means that we can't legitimately participate in the "Day of Silence" protest, or, morally, accept it. If the stated purpose of the protest could be, and was, separable from the larger message of this "Education Network," it could be considered, but then, the GLSEN might partner with other organizations that are protesting bullying in schools, of anyone, not just those who suffer from same-sex attraction.

We should meet...

2011-03-22T07:54:00.000-07:00

I think that Mark Shea, Jimmy Akin, and I should get together some time.

Happy Thanksgiving!

2010-11-25T06:59:00.000-08:00

As stressed as I am about the end of the semester, I am blessed.

We are helping to feed 500-600 homeless or hungry people with Our Lady of Sorrows Church today -

So many have no place to go today, in the rainy cold near-winter.
Thank you, God, that I have a roof over my head, and heat in my house.

So many do not have enough to eat, not that they cannot feast like I will, but that what they have may not keep them alive for the next few days.
Thank you, God, that I have, not only enough for me, but enough to share with family, friends, and those who need my help.

So many come to us with little more than rags.
Thank you, God, that I have clothes enough that I can choose what to wear on each day, that my clothes are clean and warm, and that I can give some of my clothes to those whose clothes won't keep them warm or dry in the rain and upcoming snow.

So many come to us because they have no where else to go.
Thank you, God, that even though my family is 3000 miles away, I can tell them that I love them over the phone, or by mail, or via this wonderful thing called the Internet!
Thank you, God, that I can know that they love me, too, and thank you for the friends who joyfully ask us to be with them on this day of celebration.

So many have lost their faith, or never knew faith in the first place.
Thank you, God, for You. You give life and You sustain it. You are the source of all of our blessings, and the One who shows us that we must not keep those blessings to ourselves. Bless us this day as we gather around the food that You have so generously given us. May it nourish our bodies, that we may continue to know Your love and share that love and Your blessings of life, family, friendship, food and shelter, and faith with all of those around us.

Happy Thanksgiving, everyone!

Dear Sears: I object...

2010-08-11T09:20:00.000-07:00

Let me start by saying that I have nothing against beautiful art, and certainly appreciate the beauty of the human body. There can certainly be tasteful art that depicts the human form, and, yes, even the nude human form. Yet that is not what Sears is selling on their website.

Thanks to Kathy Vestermark, a very good friend and fellow graduate of Catholic Distance University, I now know that Sears is selling soft-core pornographic posters on their website. Kathy posts on her blog at Faith on the High Wire that Lifesite News is reporting, along with the American Family Association, that several of the "art" posters for sale on the Sears.com website are pornographic, and that Sears is refusing to remove the posters from their website. According to the AFA,

Chris B., a Sears employee, wrote: “We … have reviewed the products in question and found that they do not fall outside our marketplace guidelines.”“Sears is taking their stand. They are going to defend the merchandising of soft-core pornography on their website,” commented Fischer (of the AMA).

I don't know what Sears' "marketplace guidelines" are, but in looking at the posters that they are selling, I would agree that these are pornographic. Certainly some of these posters show partial and even full nudity, but then so do some very famous art works. What, then, is the difference?

True art displays beauty, reveling in the glory of God's creation. St. Thomas Aquinas, the angelic doctor, maintains that the love of beauty is a natural good that brings peace and harmony to the human soul. The pursuit of beauty, albeit one of the highest of natural goods, can, however, be perverted and turned away from its proper end. St. Thomas, again reminds us, that even though "Every one loves beauty, spiritual people love spiritual beauty and carnal people love carnal beauty." (Comm. in Psalmos, 25, 5) Whereas spiritual beauty is ultimately found in its Source, God, carnal beauty can, and often does, lead away from Him. From the very beginning the pursuit of beauty has had its dangers and pitfalls. “And the woman saw that the fruit… was fair to the eyes and delightful to behold.” (Gen. 3:6)

True art, which depicts beauty, leads one's mind, not necessarily away from creation, but toward God, who is the creator. Through art, which depicts the beauty of God's creation, we see the magnificence of that creation, and therefore the magnificence of God, Himself. This carnal facsimile of art is designed to draw the mind only to the creation, not to the creator.

Some of the posters that Sears is selling do not depict people, but other objects - condoms, sex toys, etc. One of the posters even acknowledges the nature of it's subject, "The Sinful Bed." Sears has degenerated from pursuing and selling true art and depictions of beauty, which would give glory to God and lift up not only their customers but their company, to becoming purveyors of pornography.

If you agree, please join me and so many others in making your voice known to Sears' management. The contact information for Larry Costello, Sears' Public Relations Director, is below. I have long shopped at Sears, especially during the shopping season leading up to Christmas Day. Yet, until this is satisfactorily resolved, I will no longer do so. So, to Sears, I say "I object..."

Contact Information:

Larry Costello, Public Relations Director
Sears Holdings Corp.
Phone: 1-847-286-9036
E-mail: larry.costello@searshc.com

It is regretable

2010-08-04T19:12:00.000-07:00

Today, in my home state of California, a judge, who happens to himself be gay, has ruled that Proposition 8, which was affirmed by a majority of the voters in the state, is unconstitutional. It is regrettable that this judge chose to ignore the will of the people. It is regrettable that so many people agree with him. It is not, however, unexpected.

The plaintiffs in the case argue specifically that Proposition 8 violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution in that it:

Discriminates against gay men and lesbians by denying them a right to marry the person of their choice whereas heterosexual men and women may do so freely; and
Disadvantages a suspect class in preventing only gay men and lesbians, not heterosexuals, from marrying.

My initial reaction to these claims is to say "No, what the proposition does is affirm that marriage is between one man and one woman. Any man or woman is free to marry another man or woman. If you are looking to do something else, it isn't marriage!"

Of course, that doesn't satisfy proponents of "same-sex marriage." Really, I don't think that anything that I say will. So, let's address what the judge has done.

His findings of fact, and those are what are important here - the findings of law will be addressed on appeal - are a little bit suspect to me. As I said in the beginning, the judge in question is, himself, gay. I do not want to say that he could not be impartial in this case, but I must say that when his wording regarding the plaintiffs is "established" as opposed to "purports" for the defenders of Proposition 8, I must put forth the question. The judge's brief, like almost every other piece that I have read opposing Proposition 8, reads as if every person supporting the proposition had just escaped from the asylum. Brian Devine at the Proposition 8 Trial Tracker continually comments that supporters are "Losing touch with reality," and "going further afield into crazyland." It seems to me, on reading the judge's ruling, that he had already made up his mind that the plaintiffs' evidence was conclusive, and that the defendants' evidence was suspect.

I understand the desire for marriage. I am married. Part of the reason I am married is to have a life-long bond with my partner, the love of my life, my wife. I love her more than anything. I love her more than I do my own self. It is a natural desire to want to seal that bond. I want that for all of my friends. Yet, what Proposition 8 opponents are asking for is a right to seal a bond for a relationship that is not a natural one for a rational human being. In saying that, I am neither affirming or denying whether the attraction that a person feels is a part of their nature. I am also not making a value judgment about any person qua person. I am, however questioning peoples' values.

I think that several things are going on here. Some of us may be succumbing to a sense of false compassion. In this, I mean that we want a kind of human fulfillment for our brothers and sisters that is "they should get what they want as long as they aren't (directly) hurting anyone." Yet, what we should desire for our friends and family is that they should do the moral and right things. If the theing that they are doing is contrary to human nature, then it is not morally correct.

Some, though, truly believe that there is nothing immoral about same-sex relationships, that, even if this is not their own, personal choice, it is not something that they should restrict others from. Some of these believe that morality is relative to the person - we choose for ourselves what is right and wrong. In this view, there is no objective "right" or "wrong." Yet, that line must be established somewhere, as even those who believe this would agree that murder is wrong.

Others, though, really believe that homosexual relationships are right and good. Whether they base this on wanting everyone to reach their own desired level of fulfillment, to have what they want, or because they do not see any difference between hetero- and homo-sexual relationships. They see no moral problem with homosexuality.

These last two are issues that can only be addressed by continued education. Many will not change their beliefs. No matter what evidence is presented, they will not agree that it has any relevance or bearing on the question. Yet we must continue to educate. If even one can learn, if we can continue to raise our voices loud enough that our children will hear the truth voiced among all of the cacophony, if even only our children's children hear the truth from our own lips, we must not fail to proclaim the truth, whether the courts agree or not.

More than anything else, Nancy Pelosi makes me embarrassed to be from California

2010-03-20T18:15:00.000-07:00

I know that I'm a little late to the commentary party on this one. You can see the always excellent Dcn. Greg Kandra's incisive comment at The Deacon's Bench, Catholic Online has an article, and even the Washington Times noted her errors. But this one has me irritated enough to post to this blog for the first time in almost a year (wow, I've been busy elsewhere!).

On Friday, Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, Congresswoman for California's 8th District, invoked St. Joseph the Worker's intercession to pass the controversial health care bill this weekend. Several things stand out to me. First, of course, is that Friday was the Feast of St. Joseph, the Husband of Mary. The Feast of St. Joseph the Worker is on May 1st. You might expect that someone as Catholic as Nancy Pelosi would like us to believe she is would at least get her calendar right, if not... oh, wait, didn't she say something about St. Augustine recently? Yeah. Great fact checker, she (her problem then was not with the words that she was citing, but with the interpretation she was giving to them).

Now, she could have said that St. Joseph is the patron of workers. That would have worked. But, then, she also would have to contend with the fact that he is the patron of the Universal Church, and most pertinent to this discussion, fathers, families, and pregnant women! I don't know what the Srs. of Notre Dame and the Srs. of Notre Dame de Namur (those whom Pelosi says taught her) have to say about Speaker Pelosi's work to expand abortion, but I do believe I can guess what St. Joseph, who did not condemn Mary when she was found to be with a child, not by him, when it was inconvenient, and difficult. St. Joseph, protector of families, patron of pregnant women, pray for us!

Can't. Stop. Laughing.

2009-03-28T09:06:00.001-07:00

Mrs. Clinton asked “who painted it?” to which Msgr. Monroy responded “God!

One looks for conversion, metanoia, yet Mrs. Clinton received the Sanger award last night in Galveston, Texas. Perhaps we can pray for a little, beginning of a change of heart.

Have we forgotten what prophets are for?

2009-03-26T20:37:00.001-07:00

Austin Ruse is reporting at The Catholic Thing that:

A reliable source tells me that someone representing the Obama administration is about to put pressure on the papal nuncio to the United States to get Archbishop Raymond Burke to be quiet. The Obama complaint is that Archbishop Burke, who is now head of the Apostolic Signatura in Rome, has supported another bishop in his chastisement of Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius for her support of abortion.

Of course, all Catholics, indeed, all the baptized, are properly anointed a "priest, prophet, and king." Prophecy, in this case, is not what it has come to mean in the modern sense. Prophcy is rightly "speaking the truth." A prophet tells society when they are going against the will of God, when they are going down the wrong path. Sometimes, this responsibility means that the prophet must make a dramatic statement. One of my favorite stories is of Hosea, who married a prostitute to tell Israel not only of her infidelity, but to show that God (in whose image the prophet is acting) is faithful and assists the people, calling them back to fidelity.

A bishop is particularly called to teach the truth in all situations. As The Teacher in his diocese or in the area he is responsible for, as prophet to all of the people, the bishop must tell the truth, must tell the people when they are off track. He absolutely must speak the Truth of God, even when it is not popular, even when it hurts, even if the entire world stands against him, HE MUST BE A PROPHET TO THE PEOPLE.

And now there is word that someone who is well known among Republicans, and who has served in previous Republican administrations, is reaching out on behalf of the Obama administration to get the Holy See to quiet Burke, or at least to make it clear he speaks not for the Church, but only for himself.

This effort should go nowhere. If this is even true, it must die at the first contact it makes with the Church. The Papal Nuncio's office should be the ones to listen politely to the request, and then explain to the emissary:

By trying to stop a bishop from commenting on internal Church matters, the Obama administration wades into dangerous waters. Archbishop Burke is the head of the Apostolic Signatura, the Vatican office that is charged with interpreting the Code of Canon Law. The proper reception of Communion is proper to the Code of Canon Law, and therefore proper to any bishop, and especially to Archbishop Burke.

Archbishop Burke is doing exactly what a bishop, especially in his position, is supposed to do. He is commenting on Church matters (whether a professed Catholic should present herself for communion, or receive the Eucharist if she does so), and upon an individual's fitness for an appointed, not elected, office. He speaks the truth of the Church, the Truth of Christ, which will not, cannot be suppressed. Prophets must speak the truth, even if it is unpopular.

Habemus Episcopam!

2009-03-23T08:17:00.000-07:00

I went away for Christmas break (a month!) having a bishop, and came back to school with my bishop (Most Rev. Allen H. Vigneron) appointed Archbishop of Detroit. I certainly congratulated the Archbishop, but that left us in Oakland 'without' a bishop. Well, the very short (primarily thinking of a certain [South Carolina] diocese) dry spell is over:

The Vatican says Pope Benedict XVI has named a San Diego clergyman to be bishop of Oakland, California.
A brief statement by the Vatican's press office Monday said that Monsignor Salvatore Joseph Cordileone has been chosen for the Bay Area diocese.

Cordileone, who is 52, has been serving as an auxiliary bishop in San Diego since 2002.
He studied theology for four years at the North American College in Rome and later obtained a doctorate in canon law at Rome's Gregorian Pontifical University. (AP)

Hooray for us (more commentary to come after classes today)!

Two presidential appointments - a sign of things to come?

2009-03-02T20:05:00.001-08:00

President Obama made two appointments recently which should strike fear in the heart of any reasonable person. First, as has been widely reported, the president has appointed Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius as Health Secretary. Now, some believe that her actions to "reduce the number of abortions" qualifies her as a "good Catholic appointee" and the best person for the job. Yet, she has one of the most radically pro-abortion records of any elected official. Gov. Sebelius, as the Health Secretary, could have an impact on all of the health care provided in the United States. It is entirely possible that, with her record, she could require companies to cover abortions in their health care plans and expand access to abortions.

In a similar, and perhaps no less ominous appointment, Obama has tapped former Clinton head of the office of legal council, Dawn E. Johnsen, who memorably equated pregnancy with slavery and that abortion bans violate the Thirteenth Amendment banning slavery. Johnsen denies that she made this analogy, though it seems clear that, in Webster, she did just that. She also states "categorically: I do not believe the Thirteenth Amendment is relevant at all.” She is, finally, correct in this statement, but the fact that she makes this argument at all both betrays her ideology and her penchant for excess. Certainly a legal brief is designed to persuade, but this excess is, even in the estimation of Senator Specter, incredible. One certainly does not want someone who makes such arguments and then splits hairs in denying the same as the official legislative interpreter for the president!

These appointments, along with the rescinding of the conscience protection rules for health care workers have me very, very worried, even if I know that the forces of evil cannot prevail in the end. I pray that the forces of life might galvanize, gathering together to fight for the life of all, especially those who cannot fight for themselves.

A Just System of Laws Capable of Protecting Human Life

2009-02-18T09:31:00.001-08:00

It isn't all about you, Nancy Pelosi. The Speaker of the House, the Congresswoman from the 8th District in California, met with the Pope today. There was some speculation that she would be getting an honor or award. No. Trust the Pope. He is not unaware that our abortion-supporting Representative, who styles herself a student of Augustine and Aquinas has made her own opinion known. He does not (only) speak for himself, however. From the Vatican News Service:

"Following the general audience the Holy Father briefly greeted Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, together with her entourage.
"His Holiness took the opportunity to speak of the requirements of the natural moral law and the Church's consistent teaching on the dignity of human life from conception to natural death which enjoin all Catholics, and especially legislators, jurists and those responsible for the common good of society, to work in co-operation with all men and women of good will in creating a just system of laws capable of protecting human life at all stages of its development".

Update: Nancy Pelosi's office has issued a statement following the visit. ""In our conversation, I had the opportunity to praise the church's leadership in fighting poverty, hunger and global warming, as well as the Holy Father's dedication to religious freedom and his upcoming trip and message to Israel." CNS has the story here.

Ouch! I don't even know how to describe this...

2009-02-12T18:59:00.000-08:00

From SciFi's DVICE, again - Tip: don't fire a Nerf dart from a real gun. I'm trying to figure out what kind of moral quandry this might be, other than just sheer stupidity. Just how drunk or stupid do you have to be to volunteer yourself to be shot at like this. This rivals the Turtle Man.

Ohhh, Now it's Lust!

2009-02-12T11:31:00.000-08:00

Check out the new Corvette concept car from GM! I've always liked the Corvette (Stingrays, anyone?). I can even apologize for that lackluster '80s body. But this! This is only a concept car, which will appear in the next Transformers movie, and which may never see production, but I agree with the author of the review at SciFi.com's DVICE blog that they could introduce that wrap-around windshield into the design and I would not mind in the least! Excuse me while wipe the drool off my desk. Lust indeed.

No Thanks, I’m Full

2009-02-11T20:26:00.001-08:00

The Ultramontanist commented to me that I hadn't blogged in a while. I thought that I would blog on a theological topic - I'm writing a presentation on Thomas Aquinas' view of the passions in Christ, I'm questioning the definition of virtue in theology and philosophy, and how they might be different - those would be good.

But no, what is fascinating to me today is the "Mound of Cheese" here, and the related gastronomic monstrosities at This is why you're fat… where dreams become heart attacks.

Now a case certainly could be made that we are looking at a case of gluttony, and thus, I am blogging about a topic in Moral Theology, but that isn't why it is here. I just thought it was very amusing!

Thou shalt…

2009-01-05T09:48:00.001-08:00

It seems to me that secular society has developed its own "Ten Commandments," or, at least, a response for each one of them. Just for fun, let's see what those ten might be, paired up with the scriptures and the commandments that do come from them…

	Exodus	Deuteronomy	Commandment	Secular Commandment
1.	1 Then God spoke all these words: 2 I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery; 3 you shall have no other gods before me. 4 You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me, 6 but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments.	I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery; 7 you shall have no other gods before me. 8 You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. 9 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and fourth generation of those who reject me, 10 but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments.	The Lord, your God is God alone, you shall have no other gods before Him.	God, gods, what's the difference? No body really believes, anyway, so what does it matter?
2.	7 You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the LORD your God, for the LORD will not acquit anyone who misuses his name.	11 You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the LORD your God, for the LORD will not acquit anyone who misuses his name.	You shall not use the name of the Lord, your God, in vain.	Don't use the word "God" at all. Especially not in schools, courthouses, pledges of allegiance, or anywhere around anyone else who might be offended by your Christian "God." Now, "Allah," and "Buddha," and such are OK, because, well, they're different.
3.	8 Remember the sabbath day, and keep it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work. 10 But the seventh day is a sabbath to the LORD your God; you shall not do any work--you, your son or your daughter, your male or female slave, your livestock, or the alien resident in your towns. 11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but rested the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day and consecrated it.	12 Observe the sabbath day and keep it holy, as the LORD your God commanded you. 13 Six days you shall labor and do all your work. 14 But the seventh day is a sabbath to the LORD your God; you shall not do any work--you, or your son or your daughter, or your male or female slave, or your ox or your donkey, or any of your livestock, or the resident alien in your towns, so that your male and female slave may rest as well as you. 15 Remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the LORD your God brought you out from there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm; therefore the LORD your God commanded you to keep the sabbath day.	Take care to observe the sabbath - go to church, worship God.	I don't care what you do, or when you do it, as long as you do it over there, in the corner, away from me, I don't have to hear about it, and I certainly don't have to get involved. Go fishing, for all I care.
4.	12 Honor your father and your mother, so that your days may be long in the land that the LORD your God is giving you.	16 Honor your father and your mother, as the LORD your God commanded you, so that your days may be long and that it may go well with you in the land that the LORD your God is giving you.	Honor your father and mother. Keep your family sacred.	"Father and mother?" Isn't that a little gender biased? What about two mothers, or two fathers. Heck, why do we need parents at all? Can't we just have babies cloned, then pick them up when they're potty-trained and cute? Oh, and see #5, below about those parents, by the way.
5.	13 You shall not murder.	17 You shall not murder.	You shall not murder.	Except… if you are a baby that might interfere with my life and I don't want you, or you are ill or disabled and I think you might be a burden to me, like if you are my parents who are getting older and I might have to take care of you.
6.	14 You shall not commit adultery.	18 Neither shall you commit adultery.	You shall not commit adultery.	Just don't get caught at it.
7.	15 You shall not steal.	19 Neither shall you steal.	You shall not steal.	(See #7, above). See, if you are stealing, either you are working for a big corporation, and it's just good business, or you had a troubled childhood, and you need therapy.
8.	16 You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.	20 Neither shall you bear false witness against your neighbor.	You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor (don't lie).	Um, yeah, right… about that, well… only if you need to, and it's important (also, see #6, above).
9.	17a You shall not covet your neighbor's house;	21a Neither shall you covet your neighbor's wife.	You shall not covet your neighbor's wife.	Hah! If you don't covet your neighbor's goods, how are you going to know what cool new toy you need to buy!? 'Cause you just have to have that!
10.	17b you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.	21b Neither shall you desire your neighbor's house, or field, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.	You shall not covet your neighbor's goods.	Oh, and that coveting thing, well, pornography doesn't count, does it? And, besides, what is on the cover of most magazines at the news stands isn't anything like that, is it?

Why not Aquinas?

2008-12-19T08:11:00.000-08:00

A friend and fellow student started a discussion with me the other day on the way to campus. Condensed to a single question, it would be: "Why don't universities teach more Aquinas?" I really don't think that he was speaking of our university, though it was the impetus for his question. Certainly The Catholic University of America is teaching Aquinas. Looking at the Spring, 2009 schedule of classes for the School of Theology and Religious Studies and the School of Philosophy, we find:

The Moral Theology of St. Thomas
History of Medieval Philosophy
Functions of Philosophy in Theology
Virtue and Human Action
Moral Issues in Aquinas
Thomistic Principles in Political Philosophy Today
The Metaphysics of Creation in Aquinas's De Potentia
Divine Foreknowledge and Human Freedom
Metaphysical Themes in Thomas Aquinas
Aquinas on Infused and Acquired Virtue
Aquinas and His Contemporaries on Conscience and Prudence

We certainly have classes on Thomas Aquinas. We are teaching Aquias in several different arenas. Yet I don't think that this is what my friend is talking about.

When he asked why we aren't teaching Aquinas, he was asking why Aquinas' theology wasn't the foundation for all of the teaching at the university. His concern, from our discussion, seemed to be that the overall focus of the teaching in the United States was headed away from one based on objective moral truths. Natural Law and Divine Law seem to be foreign concepts to today's students, and even to their teachers.

Is he right? Is America following our European brothers and sisters into a refutation of Natural Law? Are we going to be scoffing at anything that has the word "objective" in it? Are we now, or soon to be, teaching that everything is subjective, that our own experience is the only determinant of reality? The question isn't only, or even, what do we believe, but what do we teach?

Meeting Margaret Sanger

2008-08-02T23:16:00.000-07:00

With the 40th anniversary of Humanae Vitae, Deacon Greg Kandra has a link on his blog, the Deacon's Bench, to a Mike Wallace interview of Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, regarding artificial birth control. I was particularly... amused by her responses regarding the Church. View his post here: The Deacon's Bench: Meet Margaret.

Welcome and introductions!

2008-08-02T10:12:00.000-07:00

I am a Catholic deacon, ordained for service to the Diocese of Oakland. For the past 3 years, my wife and I have been living, working, and ministering in Modesto, CA, in the Diocese of Stockton, while she completed her Family Practice Residency at Doctor's Medical Center. We are now making preparations for the "next thing," which is a fellowship in Osteopathic Manipulative Medicine at St. Barnabas Hospital for Melissa (my wife), and the Ph.D. program in Moral Theology/Ethics at Catholic University of America for me. This means a cross-country move in the next month, and a lot of work over the next couple of years, but we are looking forward to doing what God has called us to, and we are especially looking forward to the study and work that we have in our future (if not to the train ride between our two locations).

I've called this blog "Geek Theologian" because I... am a geek. I have been a "computer person," a Senior Software Engineer, for over a decade. I enjoy computers, and have been writing software with the goal of assisting people to do their own jobs better for the majority of my career. I am also a student of theology, finishing my Master of Theology degree in the next month, and beginning mo Doctor of Philosophy in Moral Theology/Ethics at the end of August.

I want to use this blog to explore issues of Moral Theology. In particular, I am interested in exploring how we teach Ethics. Are we teaching virtue ethics, or value ethics, and, if the latter, what values are we teaching? If we have no moral absolutes, then value-based ethics can become 'anything I value is worth pursuing.' There are things that are objectively good, and things that are objectively evil, and if we are not teaching this, we are setting ourselves and our children up for failure.

The virtues, the attitudes and sources of action that we should be developing must be taught from an early age - not only by our schools, but by parents, by communities, by our public institutions. Children learn quickly and from an early age by the actions that the people around them take, and by the attitudes that we adopt. We must be virtuous in our actions and examples to our children from their birth if we want them to grow up to lead lives of virtue themselves.