Year: 2004

John Paul II Speaks On Nutrition and Hydration

You may have read press accounts a few weeks ago of a recent address given by the pope on the subject on the necessity of administering nutrition and hydration (i.e., food and water) to individuals in persistent vegetative states. I read these accounts, too, and since then I’ve been trying to locate a copy of the full text of the address. (The press accounts are too sketchy for serious analysis.)

Well, I finally located it! Unfortunately, as usual, the Holy See has given it a absurdly long title that nobody will ever refer to it by (Address of John Paul II to the Participants in the International Congress on "Life-Sustaining Treatments and Vegetative State: Scientific Advances and Ethical Dilemmas"–Man! What is it with Italians and the titles they feel compelled to give ecclesiastical documents?). To get around this unweildy tongue-twister, people have to make up their own names for it, so I’m going to call it the Address on the Vegetative State (AVS).

You can read the whole thing at the address above, but here is some analysis:

The address is encouraging for the pro-life movement. It contains three particular points of encouragement. The first is a section in which the pope takes on the term "vegetative state" and notes its dehumanizing sound. He forcefully states:

I feel the duty to reaffirm strongly that the intrinsic value and personal dignity of every human being do not change, no matter what the concrete circumstances of his or her life. A man, even if seriously ill or disabled in the exercise of his highest functions, is and always will be a man, and he will never become a "vegetable" or an "animal".

Even our brothers and sisters who find themselves in the clinical condition of a "vegetative state" retain their human dignity in all its fullness. The loving gaze of God the Father continues to fall upon them, acknowledging them as his sons and daughters, especially in need of help `(§3, emphasis in original).

The second is the section that attracted the most notice from the press, in which the holy father stated:

I should like particularly to underline how the administration of water and food, even when provided by artificial means, always represents a natural means of preserving life, not a medical act. Its use, furthermore, should be considered, in principle, ordinary and proportionate, and as such morally obligatory, insofar as and until it is seen to have attained its proper finality, which in the present case consists in providing nourishment to the patient and alleviation of his suffering. . . .

The evaluation of probabilities, founded on waning hopes for recovery when the vegetative state is prolonged beyond a year, cannot ethically justify the cessation or interruption of minimal care for the patient, including nutrition and hydration. Death by starvation or dehydration is, in fact, the only possible outcome as a result of their withdrawal. In this sense it ends up becoming, if done knowingly and willingly, true and proper euthanasia by omission (§4, emphasis in original).

The same section also provides papal endorsement of a point that pro-lifers have sought to apply in other areas:

[T]he moral principle is well known, according to which even the simple doubt of being in the presence of a living person already imposes the obligation of full respect and of abstaining from any act that aims at anticipating the person’s death.

All of this is great, and I hope that the pro-life movement, Catholic physicians, and Cathoic medical-ethicists fully assimilate what the holy father has said. At the same time, there are some limitations to the document that need bearing in mind.

The first is that as an address, as an address, does not have that high an intrinsic level of authority in the spectrum of papal pronouncements. The points named above would have much more weight if they were included in an encyclical, and it would have been great if they were included in Evangelium Vitae. Perhaps soon they will be worked into an encyclical, depriving opponents of a point that they might try to argue.

The second limitation is that the address does not answer all the questions that can be posed in this area. For example:

  1. What about situations in which a person’s body has lost its ability to assimilate food and water, so that they do not "providing nourishment to the patient and alleviation of his suffering" but are actually harmful?
  2. What about situations in which a person is not in a persistent vegetative status but finds the administration of food and water burdensome?
  3. What about situations in which a person refuses the administration of food and water? What obligations do his caretakers have?

The answer to the first question is the best worked out. If a person cannot assimilate food and water and is being harmed by them (e.g., the fluids he is fed intravenously go out and collect in his tissues, causing them to swell and eventually burst open and weep) then it is licit to discontinue them. However, it would be very helpful to have guidance from the pope regarding the conditions that must be met for this to be legitimate, particularly regarding the nature and degree of harm that a person must experience.

The answer to the second question is less worked out, but the address helps. If the burden is of a physical nature then the conditions pertaining to the first question would seem to apply. If the burden is non-physical (i.e., psychological) then the person would seem called to offer up the suffering and accept nutrition and hydration. If the burden is a combination of the two then the solution would seem to be to factor it into its physical and psychological components and apply the above results.

The answer to the third question is something that the address does not deal with. While it would seem that a person is obliged to accept nutrition and hydration as long as the conditions pertaining to the first question are not met, the address does not tell us whether caretakers have a right or an obligation to force nutrition and hydration on a person who has expressly refused it.

While one can’t hope to have all possible questions answered at once, further guidance from the holy father on these questions would be very helpful. As long as they are not expressly addressed, anti-life forces will continue to use them as loopholes though which to pursue their agenda.

The Gravity of Penance: Follow-Up II

Another reader writes:

So that we, the readers and commentators on this topic, "Meat On Lenten Fridays: A Mortal Sin?" all are all ‘on the same channel,’ would you please define ‘mortal sin’?

According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

Mortal sin destroys charity in the heart of man by a grave violation of God’s law; it turns man away from God, who is his ultimate end and his beatitude, by preferring an inferior good to him. Venial sin allows charity to subsist, even though it offends and wounds it.

For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: "Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent" [CCC 1855, 1857].

According to Paenitemini, the substantial observance of the Church’s days of penance is grave matter. This means that if one fails in this regard with adequate knowledge and consent, a mortal sin is committed.

The reader continues:

Once, at a CCD teacher’s meeting, I flew through the ceiling when one of the Catholic teacher-participants said she thought the Eucharist was only ‘symbolic’. My explosion amounted to a hill of beans. Her calm retort was, "Why does everything have to be so technical?"

Somewhat in sympathy with her I must ask, where does all this legalistic niggling regarding rules go?

According to John Paul II’s apostolic constitution Sacrae Disciplinae Leges :

[T]he writings of the New Testament enable us to understand even better the importance of discipline and make us see better how it is more closely connected with the saving character of the evangelical message itself.

This being so, it appears sufficiently clear that the Code is in no way intended as a substitute for faith, grace, charisms, and especially charity in the life of the Church and of the faithful. On the contrary, its purpose is rather to create such an order in the ecclesial society that, while assigning the primacy to love, grace and charisms, it at the same time renders their organic development easier in the life of both the ecclesial society and the individual persons who belong to it [here, but you’ll need to scroll down].

What the pontiff says regarding the Code is true of the Church’s laws in general. They are not a replacement for faith, grace, and the charisms of the Spirit, but are intended to create an order in the society of the Church that facilitates the development of these.

If you don’t like the way the law is presently written, that is your prerogative. To tell you the truth, I wouldn’t have a problem myself if the Church decided to change the grave matter of the law in question. But I’m simply trying to represent the Church’s law accurately.

The reader continues:

I drew the line at symbolism vs. Real Presence.  (My mistake was to think this lady had actually thought things though. She hadn’t and she is forgiven.) Are you ‘drawing the line’ at a sausage topping or animal fat in the four-cheese pizza dough?

No. Please read the blog relevant entries on this subject. Cheese and animal fat are do not violate the law of abstinence. Whether the amount of meat on a sausage pizza would violate the substance of the observance might be a debatable matter. (However, there are limits. A "meat-lover’s pizza" certainly would.)

The reader continues:

Are you asserting that ‘deliberately violating the law of abstinence is…’ on a par with the grave matter of the denial of God, blasphemy, adultery, fornication abortion, murder, rape, child sex abuse, calumny, drunkenness, devil worship, infanticde, suicide etc.?

Depends on what you mean by "on a par." If you mean "Is it also grave matter?" then yes, that is what the Church’s law provides. If you mean "Is it as grave as the other matters you name?" then no, clearly that is not the case.

The reader continues:

For example, are the Catholic attendees at our Benedictine run Catholic high school who blithely chow down on the pork chop sandwiches proffered by the booster club on Friday night football games really consigning themselves to hell?

Are not these the same sheep that are being led by the shepherds, i.e., the priests who head their parishes?

I’m afraid that I don’t understand your remark regarding sheep, so I can’t respond to it. I can only tell you what the law says.

If someone knowingly and deliberately fails to observe the substance of the Church’s penitential requirements by violating the law of abstinence then, since the law itself states that this is grave matter, the person will commit a mortal sin.

However, if people are "blithely" chowing down on pork chop sandwiches on Fridays during Lent (which is when the law of abstinence binds in the United States) then their blithe-ness may be evidence that they may not be aware of the law or its gravity and so may lack the necessary knowledge to commit a mortal sin in this matter.

If your Benedictine-run Catholic high school has such poorly catechized Catholic attendees at the sports games it sponsors that they don’t know the law in question, that would seem to be the fault of the shepherds who head their parishes.

If people don’t know what the law says, don’t blame the messenger who finally tells you. Blame the ones who should have told you in the first place and didn’t.

Hope this helps!

The Gravity of Penance: Follow-Up I

A couple of follow-ups on the recent entry on the gravity of Friday penance. First, a reader writes:

Doesn’t the 1983 Code of Canon Law operate to repeal and replace the previous norms set forth by Pope Paul VI? Shouldn’t you be looking only at what the Code of Canon Law says? (And it doesn’t mention the gravity of the obligation.)

Good question! The answer is no, the Code does not repeal and replace all prior norms.

First, there are some norms that, although part of universal law, simply are not part of the Code. The largest body of norms that are not found in the Code are the Church’s liturgical laws, a fact of which the Code itself takes note:

For the most part the Code does not define the rites which must be observed in celebrating liturgical actions. Therefore, liturgical laws in force until now retain their force unless one of them is contrary to the canons of the Code (Can. 2).

There are also other parts of universal law that are not contained within the Code, for example most of the norms that are to be observed in electing a new pope are not found in the Code but are contained in another document. The one presently in force in John Paul II’s apostolic constitution Universi Dominici Gregis. There are thus certain documents that contain norms complimentary to those in the Code. One of these is Paenitemini. In fact, it is one of the oldest such documents currently in force.

Second, the Code makes the point that it does not repeal all other norms. For example:

The canons of the Code neither abrogate nor derogate from the agreements entered into by the Apostolic See with nations or other political societies. These agreements therefore continue in force exactly as at present, notwithstanding contrary prescripts of this Code [Can. 3].

What the Code does say lapse are the following:

When this Code takes force, the following are abrogated:

1° the Code of Canon Law promulgated in 1917;

2° other universal or particular laws contrary to the prescripts of this Code unless other provision is expressly made for particular laws;

3° any universal or particular penal laws whatsoever issued by the Apostolic See unless they are contained in this Code;

4° other universal disciplinary laws regarding matter which this Code completely reorders [Can. 6 §1].

By this standard, the norms of Paenitemini are not abrogated. These are not part of the 1917 Code (1°), they are not en toto contrary to the prescriptions of the 1983 Code (2°), they are not penal laws (3°), and–although they are universal disciplinary laws–they do not regard matters which the 1983 Code completely reorders (4°). Therefore, Paenitemini stands except where specifically modified in the new Code.

In fact, the Code has so little to say about penance that one cannot determine what the Church’s law is without consulting Paenitemini. For example, the Code does not provide any explanation of what the law of fast entails. It states who is subject to it (Can. 1251), but it does explain what the law itself is. To find that out, you have to consult Paenitemini (Norm III §2).

"You're no friend of mine!"

There’s a line in Ecclesiastes that says:

with much wisdom comes much sorrow;
the more knowledge, the more grief (Eccl. 1:18).

I don’t know how much I wisdom I’ve accumulated in my short span of years, but I have accumulated knowledge of certain subjects, and it can indeed cause grief. This frequently comes home to me when I am at Mass and listening to the way the standard American liturgical translation butchers what is said in the Scriptures. A few years ago, this really drove me nuts, and every time I would go to Mass (which was basically daily), I would tense up at the readings, waiting to see what would be translated wrong this time.

But I got over it.

I realized with time that God doesn’t want us to give away our peace to others, including incompetent translators. Getting mad has a purpose if there is something one can do about it, but if one can’t do anything to bring about positive change then it only hurts oneself. God doesn’t want that. So I chilled out, and these days it takes a bit more to rattle me. But it does happen from time to time.

Yesterday, Palm Sunday, it did.

You may recall how a few years ago a new lectionary for Sunday Mass and there was a big hullabaloo about the use of gender-revisionist language in it. The Holy See appointed a commission of three American cardinals to go over the text and strip out the revisionist language. This they did–almost. They left in some allegedly "minor" instances of "horizontal" revisionist language, such as representing St. Paul as having said "brothers and sisters," where in fact he said "brothers."

I’ve never been happy with this. Any tampering with Scripture to suit a social-political agenda is sacrilege, as far as I’m concerned. The text should be translated as faithfully as possible, given the capacities of the receptor language, and any needed side explanations (like the fact that Paul includes female Christians when he says "brothers") should be made as needed in the homily. It is, after all the function of the homily to explain the readings (not to share jokes and anecdotes and bland exhortations to niceness).

Well, yesterday at Mass I ran into another–particularly inept–manifestation of gender-revisionism in the readings at Mass. Here’s the relevant passage:

They lit a fire in the middle of the courtyard and sat around it, and Peter sat down with them. When a maid saw him seated in the light, she looked intently at him and said, "This man too was with him."

But he denied it saying, "Woman, I do not know him."

A short while later someone else saw him and said, "You too are one of them"; but Peter answered, "My friend, I am not."

About an hour later, still another insisted, "Assuredly, this man too was with him, for he also is a Galilean."

But Peter said, "My friend, I do not know what you are talking about." Just as he was saying this, the cock crowed [Luke 22:55-60].

When I heard those "my friend"s in the text, I said to myself, "There’s no way that that’s what’s in the Greek," and indeed, it’s not. What Peter says is anthrōpe (pronounced AN-throw-peh), which is a form of direct address translating as "O man" or just "man." There is no way it means "friend," much less "my friend." That’s simply not what Peter said (and if he had, the guys might have turned to him and said, "You’re no friend of mine!"–not wanting to be associated with a follower of Jesus).

What makes this instance of revisionist language particularly inept is that the text has not been consistently gender-sanitized. Notice that Peter is left saying "Woman" to the maiden, which is what he does say in Greek (gunai, pronounced GOO-nai). This suggests that the gender revisionists who were at work on this text had a specific agenda. They weren’t trying to bring about gender "neutrality" in the texts, but to eliminate references to men.

The final twist in this is that there is another gender bungle in the text. You will notice that Peter is twice identified as "this man." Yet the word "man" is not in the Greek. The word is the pronoun houtos (HOO-toss), which just means "this." It’s true that this is the masculine form of the word, so you’d use it for a man (or a boy, or a thing referred to by a noun of the masculine grammatical gender), but the word "man" isn’t there. I’d want my Greek students to translate it as "this one" and save the word "man" for when the word anthrōpos or anēr is in the original.

What a mess. Too bad the cardinals didn’t get it completely cleaned up.

"You’re no friend of mine!"

There’s a line in Ecclesiastes that says:

with much wisdom comes much sorrow;
the more knowledge, the more grief (Eccl. 1:18).

I don’t know how much I wisdom I’ve accumulated in my short span of years, but I have accumulated knowledge of certain subjects, and it can indeed cause grief. This frequently comes home to me when I am at Mass and listening to the way the standard American liturgical translation butchers what is said in the Scriptures. A few years ago, this really drove me nuts, and every time I would go to Mass (which was basically daily), I would tense up at the readings, waiting to see what would be translated wrong this time.

But I got over it.

I realized with time that God doesn’t want us to give away our peace to others, including incompetent translators. Getting mad has a purpose if there is something one can do about it, but if one can’t do anything to bring about positive change then it only hurts oneself. God doesn’t want that. So I chilled out, and these days it takes a bit more to rattle me. But it does happen from time to time.

Yesterday, Palm Sunday, it did.

You may recall how a few years ago a new lectionary for Sunday Mass and there was a big hullabaloo about the use of gender-revisionist language in it. The Holy See appointed a commission of three American cardinals to go over the text and strip out the revisionist language. This they did–almost. They left in some allegedly "minor" instances of "horizontal" revisionist language, such as representing St. Paul as having said "brothers and sisters," where in fact he said "brothers."

I’ve never been happy with this. Any tampering with Scripture to suit a social-political agenda is sacrilege, as far as I’m concerned. The text should be translated as faithfully as possible, given the capacities of the receptor language, and any needed side explanations (like the fact that Paul includes female Christians when he says "brothers") should be made as needed in the homily. It is, after all the function of the homily to explain the readings (not to share jokes and anecdotes and bland exhortations to niceness).

Well, yesterday at Mass I ran into another–particularly inept–manifestation of gender-revisionism in the readings at Mass. Here’s the relevant passage:

They lit a fire in the middle of the courtyard and sat around it, and Peter sat down with them. When a maid saw him seated in the light, she looked intently at him and said, "This man too was with him."

But he denied it saying, "Woman, I do not know him."

A short while later someone else saw him and said, "You too are one of them"; but Peter answered, "My friend, I am not."

About an hour later, still another insisted, "Assuredly, this man too was with him, for he also is a Galilean."

But Peter said, "My friend, I do not know what you are talking about." Just as he was saying this, the cock crowed [Luke 22:55-60].

When I heard those "my friend"s in the text, I said to myself, "There’s no way that that’s what’s in the Greek," and indeed, it’s not. What Peter says is anthrōpe (pronounced AN-throw-peh), which is a form of direct address translating as "O man" or just "man." There is no way it means "friend," much less "my friend." That’s simply not what Peter said (and if he had, the guys might have turned to him and said, "You’re no friend of mine!"–not wanting to be associated with a follower of Jesus).

What makes this instance of revisionist language particularly inept is that the text has not been consistently gender-sanitized. Notice that Peter is left saying "Woman" to the maiden, which is what he does say in Greek (gunai, pronounced GOO-nai). This suggests that the gender revisionists who were at work on this text had a specific agenda. They weren’t trying to bring about gender "neutrality" in the texts, but to eliminate references to men.

The final twist in this is that there is another gender bungle in the text. You will notice that Peter is twice identified as "this man." Yet the word "man" is not in the Greek. The word is the pronoun houtos (HOO-toss), which just means "this." It’s true that this is the masculine form of the word, so you’d use it for a man (or a boy, or a thing referred to by a noun of the masculine grammatical gender), but the word "man" isn’t there. I’d want my Greek students to translate it as "this one" and save the word "man" for when the word anthrōpos or anēr is in the original.

What a mess. Too bad the cardinals didn’t get it completely cleaned up.

A Hard Spanish Lesson

As I’m sure y’all know, the Spanish recently suffered the tragedy of a terrorist attack on their rail lines, killing hundreds of people. As a result, some are now referring to the event as "Europe’s 9/11," though the comparison is somewhat inappropriate. The American 9/11 was larger by a factor of ten. As tragic as the Spanish event was, it is not on the same plane. Let’s hope that Europe doesn’t have to feel the pain of a true 9/11-size event.

As I’m sure y’all also know, the Spanish then responded very inappropriately in the wake of their attack, when came just before a national election. The Spanish electorate kicked out their incumbent government, which had supported the War on Terror and the liberation of Iraq, and chose an appeasement-oriented government whose prime minister-elect promptly took to scolding the U.S. and promising the withdrawal of Spanish troops from Iraq.

This was criminally stupid for all kinds of reasons.

What did the Spanish get for their efforts in sending appeasement signals to the terrorists? More terror. How they could have expected anything else? Did they think that the terrorists would say, "Oh, now that the Spanish have turned tail and shown their cowardice, we’ll leave them alone"? Couldn’t they see that instead the terrorists would say, "Now that the Spaniards have shown they are cowards, let us press the advantage"?

You can’t play appeasement games with such people. All it does is embolden them. They want you to be afraid. That’s why they’re called terror-ists. If you give in to the terror then all you do is turn them into successful terrorists, and that will encourage them to keep going after you so that they can get more concessions from you.

What is jaw-dropping about this situation is how the Spanish, of all Europeans, thought appeasing Islamic terrorists would work. Don’t they know their own history? Don’t they know that their land was under Muslim rule for centuries until it was taken back shortly before the discovery of the New World? Don’t they know that Usama bin Laden has referred to "the tragedy of Andalusia"–by which he means the fact that the Spainiards’ ancestors kicked out the Muslims occupying the country–as one of the things stuck in his craw about the way the world is right now?

Spain, of all places in Europe, is the part Muslim Fundamentalists most want back in their hands, because it is an embarrassment to them. They had it, and they lost it. In their view, it is by rights part of Muslim territory, currently occupied by Christian infidels. As a result, the Spanish need to show more strength and resolve of will in dealing with Muslim Fundamentalists than other Europeans.

But apparently the Spanish do not realize this. They have been lulled into the same lazy stupor of fear and appeasement as the rest of Europe.

This creates problems, and not just for them. For us. The reason is that the terrorists don’t understand the difference between Europeans and Americans, and they are likely to try the same tactics on us that they tried on the Spanish. These won’t work. Americans have more resolve in dealing with the problem than Europeans, and attacks on us will only serve to further enrage us and redouble our efforts against the terrorists. But the fact is that the terrorists aren’t very bright guys. If they were, they would realize that there are better ways to get what you want in life than what they’re trying. Terrorists are just violent criminals with an ideology, and criminals in general aren’t a bright sort. As a result, terrorists are likely to try the tactics on us that worked on Spain.

We must now be extra vigilant.

Thanks for nothing, Spain.

Meat On Lenten Fridays: A Mortal Sin?

A common question at this time of year is whether or not deliberately violating the law of abstinence is a mortal sin. It is. The relevant law is found in Paul VI’s 1966 apostolic constitution Paenitemini, which provides that:

The time of Lent preserves its penitential character. The days of penitence to be observed under obligation through-out the Church are all Fridays and Ash Wednesday, that is to say the first days of "Grande Quaresima" (Great Lent), according to the diversity of the rite. Their substantial observance binds gravely [Norm II §1, emphasis added].

That the keeping of abstinence (and fast on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday) is part of the substantial observance of these days is evident from the fact that the second half of Norm II names this as the chief requirement of observing these days:

Apart from the faculties referred to in VI and VIII regarding the manner of fulfilling the precept of penitence on such days, abstinence is to be observed on every Friday which does not fall on a day of obligation, while abstinence and fast are to be observed on Ash Wednesday or, according to local practice, on the first day of ‘Great Lent’ and on Good Friday [Norm II §2, emphasis added].

The faculties mentioned "regarding the manner of fulfilling the precept of penitence on such days" have to do with the ability of pastors to dispense the faithful from the obligation of abstinence and fast or commuting it to something else. If such dispensation or commutation is not obtained then "the manner of fulfilling the precept" is abstinence.

Thus one must substantially observe the law of abstinence on such days, and the obligation to do so is a grave one, meaning that it satisfies the condition of grave matter required for mortal sin. If one knowingly and deliberately fails in this obligation then one has committed mortal sin.

As to the reason for this, the Code of Canon Law notes that:

The divine law binds all the Christian faithful to do penance each in his or her own way. In order for all to be united among themselves by some common observance of penance, however, penitential days are prescribed on which the Christian faithful devote themselves in a special way to prayer, perform works of piety and charity, and deny themselves by fulfilling their own obligations more faithfully and especially by observing fast and abstinence, according to the norm of the following canons [Can.  1249, emphasis added].

It is thus a matter of divine law that the faithful are to do penance (a fact we could have determined from Scripture), and the regulations regarding fast and abstinence are simply the Church’s specification of this divine requirement, made in keeping with Jesus giving the church the power to bind and loose (Matt. 16:18, 18:18).

Curse of the Black Widow

Participated in a debate today. It was a tightly-structured panel discussion at Southwestern College here in the San Diego area. The topic was homosexual "marriages," and the participants were me, a law instructor, a psychology instructor, and a lawyer from the ACLU who was also a lesbian. The debate largely turned into a discussion between me and the lawyer lady, with a little input from the others.

It went quite well. The main arguments of both sides got put forward, we had a chance to rejoin each other’s arguments, threw in some humor, and got the audience engaged (as illustrated by their applause after telling points were made). I’m going to try to contact the lawyer lady and thank her for a good debate. (She got out of there very quickly after the event.)

In preparing for debates and major interviews, I try to "game out" the discussion ahead of time in my mind. (This can cause problems, because it can leave me awake in bed at 2 a.m. twisting arguments around in my head, but that’s an occupational hazard; it’s what you have to do to get the job done right.) Today’s debate was the first one I’ve done on homosexual "marriage," and the first occasion I’ve had to debate homosexuality in a number of years, so for a day or two ahead of time I gave myself a mental workout on the subject.

One of the arguments I was particularly concerned to have a solid, snappy answer for is the claim–which was sure to come up–that homosexuality exists in the animal world and that this makes it "natural" for humans as well. This is an argument that must be convincingly rebutted, because otherwise it undermines the natural law argument against homosexuality, leaving only a religious argument, which in the present, secular public sphere is doomed to fail.

Since it is true that animals do sometimes display homosexual behavior, the obvious rejoinder to the "animals do it too" argument is that just because animals do something, that doesn’t mean it’s good for humans to do. This answer has the benefit of being true, but stated in that form it has the detriment of being boring. It’s not a "grabber," and it smacks too much of your parents saying, "If all the other kids wanted to jump off a bridge, would you jump off too?" That kind of argument probably caused you to stop paying attention when you were a kid, and the same danger presents itself here. It doesn’t matter how true the rejoinder is; if it isn’t presented in an arresting manner then the audience will stop paying attention and won’t take it seriously.

So I ruminated on the charge, and in the wee morning hours, the answer revealed itself to me. I had a good, snappy way of presenting the argument that would grab the audience’s attention and force them to take it seriously. Here’s what I came up with, and ended up using in the debate:

It’s true that some animals do display homosexual behavior, but that doesn’t mean that it is morally justified for humans to engage in it.

Black widow spiders try to kill and eat their mates after copulating, but I assume that you’re not in favor of that among humans.

Further, in many species copulation amounts to rape. A male will capture and force himself on a female. Or sometimes a group of males will do it. I also assume that you’re not in favor of that among human beings.

The fact is that humans, of all the creatures on earth, are rational beings aware of the moral dimension of their actions. For this reason alone (and there are other reasons), you cannot point to the existence of something in the animal kingdom and say that it is therefore justified among humans as well.

The audience really responded to this. The black widow line alone got a huge laugh. I think even people on the other side of the issue were laughing. After the point was made, there was a big round of applause in acknowledgement of its force.

There was no judging of the debate and no announcement of the winning side, but after the event a gentleman from the audience came up to me and said that he overheard some in the audience who were in favor of "gay marriage" saying of me "Man, he’s killing them (the folks on the other side) with these arguments." Perhaps that was one of the ones they were thinking of. . . . (Shrug.)

Learning Jesus' Native Language

I’m getting a number of requests these days, inspired by the movie The Passion of the Christ, for language learning resources for Aramaic.

I’ll be happy to oblige to the extent that I can, but unfortunately there aren’t a lot of good resources out there, especially for self-teaching. The problem is that there isn’t a lot of demand for knowing Aramaic in this country, and so few resources have been developed. Many of the resources that do exist can be expensive and often presuppose that you already know Hebrew, since in biblical studies one usually learns Aramaic after one already knows Hebrew.

There’s just a dearth of good, self-teaching Aramaic resources. I’m hoping to help correct this with several projects that I have in the works, but they aren’t close to being ready yet.

What I generally recommend in the meantime is that someone who wants a little exposure to Aramaic get a copy of Classical Aramaic: Book 1 by Rocco Errico and Fr. Michael J. Bazzi. This is published in workbook format, so it’s suitable for self-study, and it is very basic, so it won’t be too hard. It will teach you how to read the Eastern Aramaic script  and give you about a hundred word vocabulary, with many of the terms related to the faith.

Now, let me pose a question to you, the reader: Just how interested are you in learning Aramaic? Would you be interested, for example, in a two or three tape set that taught you how to both say the Rosary in Aramaic and understand it? How interested would you be in similar sets for saying the Rosary in Latin, Greek, and Hebrew? Would you like to use it for yourself or with your homeschool kids or your study group? If you have thoughts on any of these questions, e-mail me. I’m doing a little market research. (And note: This isn’t one of the secret projects. Those are still secret.)

Learning Jesus’ Native Language

I’m getting a number of requests these days, inspired by the movie The Passion of the Christ, for language learning resources for Aramaic.

I’ll be happy to oblige to the extent that I can, but unfortunately there aren’t a lot of good resources out there, especially for self-teaching. The problem is that there isn’t a lot of demand for knowing Aramaic in this country, and so few resources have been developed. Many of the resources that do exist can be expensive and often presuppose that you already know Hebrew, since in biblical studies one usually learns Aramaic after one already knows Hebrew.

There’s just a dearth of good, self-teaching Aramaic resources. I’m hoping to help correct this with several projects that I have in the works, but they aren’t close to being ready yet.

What I generally recommend in the meantime is that someone who wants a little exposure to Aramaic get a copy of Classical Aramaic: Book 1 by Rocco Errico and Fr. Michael J. Bazzi. This is published in workbook format, so it’s suitable for self-study, and it is very basic, so it won’t be too hard. It will teach you how to read the Eastern Aramaic script  and give you about a hundred word vocabulary, with many of the terms related to the faith.

Now, let me pose a question to you, the reader: Just how interested are you in learning Aramaic? Would you be interested, for example, in a two or three tape set that taught you how to both say the Rosary in Aramaic and understand it? How interested would you be in similar sets for saying the Rosary in Latin, Greek, and Hebrew? Would you like to use it for yourself or with your homeschool kids or your study group? If you have thoughts on any of these questions, e-mail me. I’m doing a little market research. (And note: This isn’t one of the secret projects. Those are still secret.)