If I could but etch in stone one of the most prominent, yet unspoken,
mores of our age, this would be it.

I’m always on the lookout for new and provocative content to read.  I like to keep abreast of the vast number of moral and social issues that emerge in our world.  This incredibly interesting article that I stumbled upon recently had an interesting biological perspective on pregnancy, an interesting look into sociological factors contributing to society’s changing mores regarding pregnancy, and interesting and important moral components as well: all components integral to the functioning of our world at large as well as for my enjoyment of a piece.

The article talks about how women are attempting to “beat biology”—their biological clocks in regard to their fertility—by freezing their eggs so that they can become mothers later in life: an interesting concept for sure and one with many dimensions.  The first that springs to my mind is the moral dimension and the practice’s obvious flaw: it is deeply offensive to and beneath human dignity.

The eggs will need to be thawed out, and the impregnation process will require in vitro fertilization, a practice the Church condemns.  The action is contrary to natural law, for it separates the gift of husband and wife, sex, from the natural fruit of the act, a child.  A child is created, yes, though not in an intimate exchange of total, self-giving love, but in an economic transaction.

It prompted thought about our world’s perception of pregnancy, motherhood, and family.  That women feel the need to advance their careers at the expense of a fulfilling family life because of a so-called “pressure” is shameful.  The feminism of yore and in our own day has degraded the mystical quality of femininity and swapped it out for a cheap view of woman as an organism that must choose between society and family—children or success in the workplace.  Oftentimes, however, the choice is framed so negatively against domestic life and motherhood that these incredibly fulfilling options are shunned outright, though perhaps chosen begrudgingly—as a mere after-thought—if they are ever chosen at all, that is.

Perhaps one of the greatest joys of this life.

It is indeed a testament to the branding power of this movement—as well as the incredible fumble by Catholic leadership for the last several decades—that this procedure is quickly gaining credibility.

I will not be discussing the moral, social, or political factors as they relate to this procedure; rather, I would like to make a simple connection between the growing legitimacy of this procedure and our everyday lives—what this procedure says about us as a society and as people, more simply.

Fact of the matter?  We are paralyzed by indecision.  Our modern world offers so many enticements and pleasures and distractions and whatnot that, in the pursuit of “keeping our options open,” we never actually make a single meaningful decision.  We are not decisive.  We are wishy-washy and weak.  Don’t get me wrong: I’m all for keeping my options open as much as the next guy.  What I am not for, however, is a society that so praises and enshrines and validates keeping our options open—of living in a potential state, rather than in a determined and convicted state—an actual state—that we never actually shape our lives and destinies.  We live in a dimly real present, saturated with visions of future pleasures and advancements and improvements.  We live passively, and, in waiting for, as the first article says, “Mr. Right” to come along, we lose our nerve, our grit, or whatever you want to call it, to actually do something meaningful.

I keep hearing that he may fit the bill, but I don't know to be honest.

We freeze our eggs, waiting for the “perfect moment” in which to take the plunge of motherhood, fatherhood, parenthood. We live in extended adolescences, never truly rising to the occasion of our destiny to be providers and nurturers—adults. We cohabitate, a fanciful euphemism for “extended dating,” never biting the bullet (so to speak) of finally admitting that this person is “the one.” We contracept away our most fruitful child-bearing years, in favor of frivolous, and, ultimately, unfulfilling sex. We abort away our futures willy-nilly because we cannot face the fact that our actions (sex) have consequences (babies and diapers and formula).

As Pope Francis said to a crowd of millions of young people while in Rio de Janeiro for the World Youth Day 2013: “I am asking you to rebel against this culture that sees everything as temporary and that ultimately believes that you are incapable of responsibility (emphasis mine).”

Now, what does authentic Catholic Christianity have to do with this shameful paralysis of our culture, of our world?  A paralysis so gripping it threatens to destroy everything it touches? It means living with conviction! With purpose, with drive, with that mystical something that changes potentiality to actuality, inaction to action, fear of acting and messing up to courage in the face of doubts about the outcome of our actions. In essence, indecision and the endless trope of “keeping our options open” and “waiting for something better to come along” are incompatible with an authentic Catholic life.

Look to the Apostles, the early Church Fathers, the martyrs, the saints, our recent popes: all are men and women of conviction, of resolve, of determination, of grit, of action!  They see the will of God, and they do it.  Sure they are afraid, or feel that they are unworthy, and yes, even they hesitated, but they ultimately acted, and when they acted, they acted decisively.  They saw the goal, and when they had brought themselves to act, it was with purpose, with a single-minded dogmatism that is one of the most glorious attributes of a true Catholic.  The ability to pursue any number of tasks, all for a single end—the further glorification of God Almighty—is a characteristic of the greatest men and women of the Church.

But no: our culture praises the floater, the one who can do all things at all times because he has never chosen anything to the exclusion of anything else.  He has never started to truly live!  We are creatures of potential.  We are always moving from one state to another.  We are either advancing or falling back, improving or devolving—this is our nature.  As such, choices must be made, otherwise, we do not truly live and reach our goal.  And what is our goal, ultimately?  To reach God!  To come to the Beatific Vision in fulfillment of all of our desires.  We are to be partakers in the divine nature, to return home to our Father and His Son, Christ Jesus.

Trust me; this picture doesn't do Heaven justice at all.

So get out there people! Live with fire! Run reckless through life and make decisions as if your eternal futures depended on it—because they do! Because as St. Augustine said “Love God and do whatever you please: for the soul trained in love to God will do nothing to offend the One who is Beloved,” and as Christ says in Revelation 3:16, “So, because you are lukewarm, neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth.”

A wispy, weak, and undisciplined will is our worst enemy.

tl;dr Carpe Diem!

Follow @DeionKathawa

The homosexual lobby, in response to Christian’s labeling homosexual acts and unions (so-called “marriages”) as unnatural, often fires back with their own claim that the Catholic tradition and discipline of a celibate priesthood is just as “unnatural”—if not more so.  Man, they claim, has sexual organs, and it is Man’s right, his duty, to use them to fulfill their obvious purpose: sex.  It is “unnatural,” in light of this readily present fact, for him to forgo sexual pleasure and fulfillment, these same people say.  It is especially unnatural, they further claim, for males to do this.  Because men are, after all, no more than insatiably red-blooded beasts when confronted with the slightest sexual provocation.  They almost never use their heads (the one perched atop their necks) and prefer to listen to the one between their legs (or at least, the popular media likes to portray them in this way).  I think that this is a disingenuous claim by the homosexual lobby.  The claim devalues the institution of the priesthood, males, and Man himself, all in the name of sodomy legitimization.  Not a very good trade-off in my opinion.

Now, I believe that it is both legitimate and sensible to stake the claim that Man is a composite of the natural and the supernatural.  There is no need to appeal to religious texts, clerics, or divine revelation to see this.  Now, for those who reject this assessment of the anthropology of Man, allow me to offer a few examples that will demonstrate strongly, though not prove outright, this reality.

Man creates music.  There is no animal on this earth that could create the glory of Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven’s symphonies.  Their music is beautiful in every sense of the word and seems to transcend this world and lift us up to something more.

Man creates art.  The beauty of the masterpieces of Michelangelo, Raphael, Donatello, da Vinci, Picasso, van Gogh, and many others is utterly astounding: show me an animal that can come even remotely close to producing anything so awe-inspiring and stir in us such powerful emotions!

Man can reason.  I have yet to encounter an animal which could deduce the laws of mathematics or logic.  Could a mere animal look up into the night sky in all its beauty and even wish to understand it, let alone devise an entirely new branch of mathematics to do so?  (Sir Isaac Newton invented calculus to do just that… then he turned 23.)

Man has a powerful intellect.  This intellect is similar in kind, though not in degree, to certain animals in the world.  Show me a single species of animal which can create an airplane, set-up a modern civilization, economy, or land on the moon: let alone all of these—and much, much more!

Lastly, and most importantly, Man can will.  Man can choose to love or to hate.  A man may remain in his anger, his addictions, his optimism, simply because he wills it.  He can choose to do that-which-is-detrimental-to-himself.  He can choose to starve himself, forgo meat, go without sleep, hold his breath indefinitely, or hop on one leg in the middle of a grocery store simply because, well, “why not?”

Another example is in order: no animal chooses to rock climb simply because it relishes a challenge.  With animals, as evolutionary biology tells us, there is always a concrete and immediate purpose in performing an action.  Animals go out to hunt because they want food; they compete for mates in order to reproduce; they sleep because they are tired.  No animal abstracts a meaning onto its hunting trip.  The purpose is food, plain and simple.  The over-arching purpose to which all of these actions lead is for one purpose and one purpose alone: the transmission of advantageous traits based in an organism’s genetic code.  Man, on the other hand, can choose to climb that same mound for no other reason than because the climb in and of itself is valuable to him.  The climb—during which he might die or become grievously injured—is its own reward!

It cannot then be argued that since animals can do these things to some extent, Man is suddenly not special.  Nonsense!  Of course animals can do some of the things that Man does to a lesser degree: I never claimed that Man was a completely supernatural creature; I said that he was a unique fusion of the natural and supernatural, the material and immaterial.  We too must eat, sleep, exercise, and keep hydrated.  Man is a part of the natural world.  It would be exceedingly odd, given this obvious scientific fact, if Man did not share certain qualities and characteristics with animals. But that’s the point: Man merely shares a portion and degree of these qualities with the animal kingdom.  His dominion over the animals in his possession of these qualities is not a simple 10x10 increase; it is more akin to a quantum leap: a 10¹⁰ increase in ability is more accurate.

In light of this assessment, I think it reasonable to state two things.  One, that Man is indeed a fusion of body and soul in psychosomatic (soul-body) union.  And two, that a Catholic priest is well within his rights to forgo sexual pleasure for a deeper union with and conformity to Christ, the first High Priest: He who was both priest and sacrifice upon the Cross.  The Catholic priest forsakes a wife and natural fatherhood for the privilege of wedding the Bride of Christ, the Church, and of being a spiritual father.  He has no earthly children to care for and devote his energies to so as to more readily nurture the spiritual children entrusted to him and to spend his days building up the Kingdom of God.

I think that it is quite safe to say that the homosexual lobby’s vicious assaults on the “perverse” nature of a celibate priesthood are unfounded and should not be heeded in light of this complete (though brief) anthropology of Man as a combination of spirit and matter.

And thank God for that.

Follow @DeionKathawa