The Vatican: Exponent Of Free Trade?

One doesn’t normally get the impression that many high churchmen are committed exponents of the free market.

Even when the free market is circumscribed by laws safeguarding fundamental moral values (like: You can’t buy and sell intrinsically immoral goods and services), and while John Paul II acknowledged that the market is able to do better for man than Communism, the impression is still given that many churchmen are somewhat uncomfortable with the idea of the free market.

But there seems to be an evolution of thought occurring on this subject. As the economies of the world have developed, it has become more and more clear what works and what doesn’t, and the reputation of the free market seems to be improving in at least some ecclesiastical circles.

One recent sign of at least part of this is a March 9th position paper issued by the Holy See for the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization’s conference on agrarian reform and rural developement.

Unfortunately, I haven’t been able to locate a copy of the document, but from what can be gleaned of its contents from the news, it appears that at least some folks at the Vatican appreciate the fact that protectionistic farm subsidies and trade barriers in the developed world hurt farmers in the developing world.

Thus, according to the Catholic News Service (EXERPTS):

Justice requires that wealthy nations reconsider the level of subsidies they offer their own farmers and the barriers that countries place on the import of agricultural products from developing nations, the Vatican said.

While developing countries have to take responsibility for their own agrarian policies, the Vatican said, rich countries cannot ignore the impact their internal policies, particularly farm subsidies and trade barriers, have on the poor.

"Correcting this situation means appealing for a concrete concept of justice capable of being realized in policies, rules, norms and acts of solidarity," the Vatican said.

What you’ve just heard is the sound of one shoe dropping.

The other shoe–if it is to drop–is the recognition that what’s good for the third world in this respect is good for the first.

The fact developed countries are as economically developed as they are is no accident: It’s because they developed a legal and cultural environment in which economic development could take place, and that has been helped along by refusal to engage in economic protectionism and thus have free markets.

True, Europe is presently in the grip of a wave of protectionism that has hampered its economy, and even here in America there are protectionist elements (like all the farm subsidies the government gives out), but an important part of our economic development is that our markets are free-er than they could be.

It’ll be interesting to see how thought on these matters evolves in ecclesiastical circles in the future.

GET THE STORY.

Jesus Decoded

The US Conference of Catholic Bishops’ communications department has released a web site responding to the claims made in The Da Vinci Code.

The site–www.jesusdecoded.com–contains articles by various people on various aspects of the book, as well as the upcoming film. Amy Welborn is one of the folks contributing it.

The site doesn’t have an overabundance of info at this point, but it is a good effort that should help a lot of people. It also may grow substantially over time. There is a Q & A section where readers can submit questions and get answers.

There is also a "Jesus Decoded" TV special that will be available on DVD next month.

GET THE STORY.

VISIT THE SITE.

Literal Vs. Literal

Down yonder, a reader (quoting me) writes:

Maybe, though the literal sense of those texts is that God will send a great age of peace, during which it will be as if all strife–even between animals–will be eliminated.

Er. No. What you mean here is that the meaning of the passage is certainly metaphorical. Which, to be sure, it is. Lions, leopards, lambs, kids — even if the beasts will literally exist, they will be part of, and symbolically represent, that peace.

The literal meaning is what the passage actually says not what it actually means, even if that meaning is demonstrably false or makes no sense.

Er, yes, actually.

This may be a case of field-specific jargon.

In biblical studies the "literal" sense of the text–in the proper sense of the word–is what the author meant, not what his words say.

Thus when Jesus tells the parable of the Prodigal Son, the literal sense of the text is not that there was this son who demanded his inheritance and went and spent it on loose living and came back to his father, who received him.

The literal sense is that God is always willing to take back a sinner, no matter what he has done.

I know it’s paradoxical to call this the literal sense, but this is the sense in which the term is used in classical exegesis (e.g., in the dictum that the literal sense of the text is always the foundation of the spiritual and you can’t play the spirital against the literal.

Thus the Catechism of the Catholic Church explains:

115 According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two senses of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. the profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.

116 The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal."

Unfortunately, there is no word that has become firmly established for what you are calling "literal," and someitmes biblical scholars casually speak of it as literal, too–leading to confusion.

To avoid this problem, in what I originally wrote I contrasted literal with "even more literal." In other places, I’ve used the terms hyper-literal or literalistic.

In any event, the contrast remains between the surface meaning of the words of a text and what the author intended to communicate by them. In biblical studies–as paradoxical as it sounds–the latter is properly considered the literal sense of the text, not the former.

Mystery food! What is it?

I happened to see this while I was shopping today at the San Diego Mitsuwa Japanese market, where I had gone in pursuit of tofu & shirataki noodles. This isn’t either one of those, though.

Sorry for the poor picture quality. I only had my camera phone with me, and it looks like I got it a little too close to the camera.

Answer to what the mystery food is tomorrow.

Galactica Leaving?

Given what folks have said in the comboxes, I’m sure many are jazzed about tonight’s season finale for Battlestar Galactica.

It’s apparently got so much story in it that the show’s creators convinced the network to allow them to break out of the hour-long format and do a 90-minute finale (airing from 10-11:30 Eastern & Pacific).

I’m expecting a major clifffhanger at the end–if not a major rolling cliffhanger (that is, multiple cliffhangars involving different plot lines, piled on top of each other).

Last season we got a cliffhanger involving the sudden self-outing of Sharon as a Cylon in an out-of-the-blue act of extreme violence.

This year the cliffhanger may be even more intense. (The show’s creators like to top themselves.)

But it appears we’ll have to wait even longer to find out what happens on the other side of it.

And we may not find out on the Sci-Fi Channel at all.

Huh?

Here’s what’s going on: Normally Sci-Fi’s shows run 20 episode seasons, divided into two blocks of ten. The first 10 episodes air as a "summer season" and the second 10 episodes air as a winter season, starting in January. That’s the way SG-1 and Atlantis work, and it’s the way BGS has . . . until now.

Word is that Galactica will skip the "summer season" and will not start showing new episodes again UNTIL OCTOBER.

I am majorly unhappy about this.

I also wonder what it’ll do to the ratings of Sci-Fi’s Friday night lineup. Despite being last in the lineup of shows for that night, Galactica pulls higher ratings than SG-1 and Atlantis. That’s the OPPOSITE of what normally happens on a network: The lead-in shows get higher ratings, which then fall off as the evening wears on.

Galactica has been so good that it’s done the reverse. I’m sure that SG-1 and Atlantis have benefitted from this, with viewers deciding to tune in early since they’re committed to be there to see Galactica. But without Galactica in that 10 p.m. slot, the ratings for SG-1 and Atlantis may suffer, with viewers having less motivation to tune in.

(I know I’ll be less motivated to rush home after Friday night square dancing and tune in, meaning that I may not stay up for the replays of the Stargates and may instead just wait to see them on DVD.)

Why would Sci-Fi do this?

I don’t know. They may be trying to bring Galactica in line with the way TV series normally air their new shows, which have a fall premier and then play through spring, with a summer hiatus.

But there may be more to it than that.

SY-FY PORTAL IS REPORTING THAT NBC UNIVERSAL, WHICH OWNS SCI-FI, MAY BE MULLING WHETHER IT WANTS TO YANK GALACTICA OFF SCI-FI AND PUT IT ON NBC.
(CHT to the reader who e-mailed.)

That’s a prospect that makes me distinctly . . . nervous.

Many have called BSG the best show on television, and I certainly think it stands up against the junk normally airing on the Big 3 networks (none of which I tune in to watch).

It’d be nice to see Galactica get the mainstream success that its quality merits.

But.

You need much bigger ratings to stay on the air on a major network than on a cable channel, and if Galactica’s ratings don’t take off fast, NBC could decide to pull the plug on the show . . . whereas it could have stayed on Sci-Fi for years and years and years. (Like SG-1.)

Also: NBC network executives could "take more of an interest" in BSG if it were promoted to the bigtime, meaning more interference with the way Ron Moore and his team have been running the show.

And since the suits at NBC don’t understand science fiction the way the suits at Sci-Fi presumably do, that could mean a lot of idiotic, ham-fisted interferences in the show . . . like the ones that killed Crusade.

So I’m nervous, and we’ll have to wait to see what happens.

Looks like there’s more than one Galactica-related cliffhanger afoot.

A Small Rebel Force…

Just as pro-lifers begin to find themselves tempted to despair over the Empire of Death that is ever more quickly strangling our society comes a message of hope from the Rebel Alliance for Life:

"A seven-month pregnant woman — her belly vast — was at a supper with a friend. He, being of the family type, told her she was very lucky to be expecting a baby. He was the first person who had said such a thing, she told him.

"It’s a jarring anecdote because it so sharply puts into focus how pregnancy has become the occasion not for congratulations, but for anxious questions about childcare, leave and work. Watch how the announcement of a pregnancy among women is followed within minutes by the ‘What are you going to do?’ question. We’ve replaced the age-old anxiety around life-threatening childbirth with a new — and sometimes it appears just as vast — cargo of anxiety around who is going to care.

[…]

"The painful paradox is that while women have liberated themselves from being defined by their biology — the fate of the girl in many African and Asian societies who is not truly a woman until she has given birth — mothers have ended up relegated to the status of constant abject failure in a culture driven by consumerism and workaholism. There is no kudos in being a mum, only in being other things — such as thin, or the boss — despite being a mum. Motherhood is a form of handicap.

"The fact that we still have as many births in the UK as we do is extraordinary. Some cynics would say it’s the triumph of biology over culture — we are programmed to reproduce regardless. I prefer a more romantic notion: that it’s a form of popular rebellion by which the prevailing anti-natalist mores of a manipulative consumer capitalism are trumped by the innate understanding of millions of women (and men) of what really constitutes love and fulfilment — dependence, commitment, the pleasure of guiding enthusiasm and, above all, the privilege of nurturing innocence."

GET THE STORY.

(Nod to the reader who sent the link.)

"It’s a … popular rebellion by which the prevailing anti-natalist mores … are trumped by the innate understanding of millions of women (and men) of what really constitutes love and fulfilment."

I like that. Now I just have to find the rebel base so I can join the alliance being formed to restore the culture of life…. Oh, wait! I’ve already found it.

Ectopic Abortion

A reader writes:

I recently had a relative who had an ectopic pregnancy that was terminated by using the drug Methotrexate.  Everything that I have read says that ectopic pregnancy cannot deliver the baby alive.

I believe that from reading the Catechism that this was an abortion and that this person has excommunicated herself by submitting to the abortion?  I have not spoken to her and do not know how or if I should bring up the subject of what happened and what it means to her relationship with God.  I have prayed much for her and her aborted baby, but any advise you could offer would be greatly helpful.  This is a horrible situation for any mother to be in.

It is indeed. Discovering that you are experiencing an ectopic pregnancy is horiffic.

First, some (partial) good news: Your relative may well not be excommunicated.

Although canon law provides an automatic excommunication for procured abortion, it also includes a number of exceptions which keep this excommunication from being triggered.

Among those exceptions is not knowing that a particular action would incur a canonical penalty. If your relative did not know that procured abortion carries a penalty under canon law then she is not excommunicated.

There are also several other exceptions that might pertain to her state and keep the excommunication from being triggered.

In view of this, I would not raise the possibility of excommunication to her, especially at this time, when she is still recovering emotionally from the ectopic pregnancy.

Now: What about the use of the Methotrexate?

I assume from the way that you present the matter that this drug was used while the child was still alive.

That may not be the case, however. If the child was already dead then its use would not have been immoral. If they knew that the child was dead then it would have been morally legitimate to use this drug to remove the child’s body from the mother.

If you address this situation with your relative then you should first verify that the child was still alive before telling your relative that what she did was wrong. (I’d also verify that Methotrexate was used. Always verify your facts rigorously before accusing someone of a grave sin.)

Now: What if the child was alive?

In that case, what she did was a procured abortion and it was gravely immoral.

Although there are ways of dealing with ectopic pregnancies that many orthodox Catholic moral theologians regard as morally licit, use of an abortifacient drug like Methotrexate is not one of them. The reason is that Methotrexate directly kills the child, and it is never morally permissible to directly take the life of an innocent.

If the child was alive then this was an abortion. It’s too bad your relative did not know about or did not pursue methods of dealing with her situation that are potentially morally licit.

Given what happened, it would in principle be a spiritual work of mercy to alert your relative to the moral character of the act she performed so that she knows that she can take the appropriate steps to deal with it (going to confession).

Your job in delivering such a message to her would be to do it in the way that has the best chance of actually prompting repentance, meaning not only using the best words but also doing it at the best time possible.

When and whether such a time might be, I can’t say. I don’t know how long ago this occurred, what your relative’s state of mind is at present regarding the abortion, or what your relationship with her is.

Ultimately, the decision of when and how to broach the subject is a judgment call, and you just have to make the best decision that you can and trust God with the results.

(You also do not have to assume that you are the only instrument God has to work with your relative. He’s got lots. So don’t think this all hinges on you. In fact, depending on what your relationship with your relative is, you may simply be the wrong person to deliver this message. That’s something that has to be considered.)

If you do decide that it is opportune to discuss this with your relative, what words should you use?

Myself, I tend to be direct about the evil involved, while trying to frame the subject in as compassionate way as possible.

If I were in your position and decided that the moment to talk about it had come, I would probably say something like:

<massively compassionate tone of voice>I just wanted to let you know that I feel really horrible about what happend. Having an ectopic pregnancy is a nightmare that no woman should have to go through. It must have hurt you tremendously to have to go through that, and I want you to know that you and your baby are in my prayers.

That being said, I understand that you used Methotrexate to deal with the situation. While it’s understandable that you felt the need to do something, and while there are potentially moral ways to handle an ectopic pregnancy, this was not one of them. Methotrexate directly brings about the death of the child, and it is never morally licit to directly bring about the death of an innocent.

I don’t know how much you understood about all this at the time. I’m not judging you AT ALL. I know this was a horribly shattering experience for you, and I don’t want to do anything but offer my support for you.

I also don’t want to pry into this matter. I respect your privacy. But I hope that you’ll consider going to the sacrament of reconciliation to make sure that you’re square with God about this. He loves you even more than I do, and I know that you will find healing and relief in the sacrament.</massively compassionate tone of voice>.

That’s what I’d be inclined to say, but others may be able to propose better words.

(NOTE: Exhortations to approach the relative before she had a chance to recover from the event emotionally and exhortations to read the relative the riot act will be deleted.)

I’d also be prepared to answer questions about what alternatives to the use of Methotrexate that she could have used.

READ ABOUT THAT HERE.

You could also e-mail her that link if she wants rather than try to explain these things in the discussion.

Spend No $10K Bills

Tenthousand

A U.S. bill with a face-value of $10,000 has been moved to a more secure location for safekeeping and historical archiving:

"The $10,000 bill bears the likeness of Salmon P. Chase, for whom the bank was named. Chase was a U.S. senator who served as treasury secretary under President Lincoln.

"The large bill was discovered in a bank customer’s safety deposit box after the owner died 20 years ago. The woman’s family exchanged the currency at face value, and the bank stored the bill in a plastic sleeve for protection.

"But bank officials decided the bills would be safer at the JP Morgan Chase & Co. corporate office in New York. The bank sent the bills there last month by armored truck.

"The government stopped printing bills larger than $100 in 1945 and hasn’t issued any since 1969. The Green Bay bills were printed in 1934."

GET THE STORY.

But, Is It Art? Part III

Hey, Tim Jones, here.

It has been several weeks since my last post in this series on art, but my schedule was cruelly interrupted by some paying work. Things have slowed just a bit, so I want to encourage all of you to VISIT MY WEBSITE.

Idle hands are the devil’s workshop, y’know.

In my FIRST POST, I offered a framework for thinking about the different aspects of man-made objects (design, decoration, illustration and fine art).

In the SECOND POST, I broadly defined some categories of visual art (realism, abstraction, non-objective and non-representational art).

Now I want to talk about the implications of these categories for artists, offer some views on the opportunities that visual art presents, as well discuss the problems and strengths of different kinds of art. This time we’re talking about realism.

THE GREAT THING ABOUT REALISM

– I love impressions. One of my favorite TV shows (briefly) as a kid was called Copycats and starred impressionists like Rich Little and Frank Gorshin. Not long ago, I caught part of a TV bio of Dean Martin, and saw some old footage of Frank Gorshin doing an impression of Martin. It was a really good impression. Not just kinda good, but dead-on, scary good, which made it hilarious. Gorshin (who played the Joker The Riddler on the original Batman TV series) could do that. Dean Martin was entertaining to watch, but Gorshin’s impression showed everyone what it was that made him entertaining to watch. Gorshin studied, analyzed and practiced Dean Martin until he was almost more Martinesque than was Dino himself.

This is the kind of power that realism can have, whether we are watching an impression, or looking at a work of art. Great realism can grab people and stop them in their tracks. At an art exhibit, you might hear people saying things like, "Wow. How do they do that? I can’t even draw a stick man.". This is perfectly natural, and nothing to be ashamed of. People admire great skill, whether they see it in art, hear it in music, watch it demonstrated in dance or in any other human endeavor.

Neither artists or art lovers need to apologize for appreciating, or striving for, a high degree of realism. It not only can have great visual power, but is one of the few ways of actually measuring artistic skill (gasp!!). Oddly, this makes it seem both controversial and dangerous to some. Though most people readily acknowledge that not everyone can be a great musician (just watch American Idol), or dancer, or athlete, there are those who behave as if everyone is born an artist, and the one thing we must never talk about is whether they deserve the designation.

I earlier offered a very broad definition of abstraction, saying that every piece of art, even the most "realistic", is to some extent an abstraction. I will add to that a very broad definition of realism as any faithful representation of the physical world. This doesn’t necessarily mean expressionless copying, or one-to-one reproduction of every detail, but simply art that is inspired by and faithful to the physical aspects of reality. This broad understanding of realism can include a wide range of styles, from hyper-realism up to and including impressionism.

Realism can be quite expressive. Simply in the selection of the subject, the composition, the lighting, or the surroundings, a straightforward realistic depiction can express quite a bit of subtext. In other words, a lot of the artist’s self expression can be present before the brush ever touches the canvas. A good deal of it can happen at a subconscious level. This is one reason that I tell my art students please not to worry too much about self expression, as it will happen on it’s own as they mature and develop their skills.

Goingspie The work of Ralph Goings (left) is a good example of highly realistic art that functions effectively as an authentic artistic expression. In his obsessively observed and subtle renderings, we can get a sense of why he paints the things he does. He finds great beauty and interest in the most mundane objects and settings. He apparently loves to hang out in diners, and that means he can’t be all bad. His stuff is just fun to look at, and you get a sense that in his work he celebrates his fascination with everyday life.

In terms of learning, realism is by far the best way to start developing the physical and perceptive skills that a good artist needs. For this reason, there was for a long time a strong emphasis on realism in academic art training. Not that realism ought to be an end in itself, but it is a natural starting place for visual art. Every discipline has rules, and you need to know the rules before you can meaningfully break the rules.

Nfechin1_1 The work of Nicolai Fechin (left) is a good example of art that is faithful to reality, but also ventures into meaningful abstraction, and even a kind of expressionism. A typical Fechin painting includes interesting abstract passages, highly energetic brushwork, bold use of color and an obvious love just for the paint, itself. But holding all that together and transcending it, is Fechin’s clear understanding of light, space and physical form. A study of his work reveals a deep knowledge of anatomy and the subtleties of the human face. Frequently in his work, the realism of the face serves as an anchor for the rest of the piece.

THE PROBLEM WITH REALISM

– Realism is this property of faithful representation, but if that is all that realism is (in other words, if it is only the work of a highly trained copyist) then it will fall short of what art should be. If the artist is not capable of infusing into the image some sense of how they think or feel about the subject, then it does indeed fall flat. If this is the case, then all painters could be replaced by photographers, and don’t let the door hit you on the way out..

A painting can be a very realistic representation and still be trite, silly, dull, or in any number of other ways, just bad art. There is such a thing as an accurate, but lifeless, representation.

A great deal of 19th century academic realism was bad art. It sometimes seemed to be a cold, academic exercise. At the opposite end of the spectrum, it was just as often the victim of maudlin sentimentalism. The same problems plague artists to this day, and are hardly unique to realistic art. Modern art suffers much from the same diseases. There is such a thing as calculated spontaneity, and manufactured angst.

Hirschwelles Great realistic art doesn’t just give us a dry representation of the subject, but also highlights and enhances what is unique about the subject, as well as offering some insight into the artist’s feelings about it. The caricature of Orson Welles (at left), by the famous Al Hirschfeld, is a great example. Hirschfeld had a wonderful knack for reduction, simplification and enhancement. If Welles’ head were really shaped like that, of course, he would be in a long-term care facility. No one’s head is really shaped like that… and yet, somehow the drawing looks just like Orson Welles. Hirschfeld departs from strictly literal realism in order to emphasize the most Welles-ian aspects of Mr. Welles. He distorts, but (and this is important) it is a lovingly faithful distortion that draws its inspiration from Welles himself. Hirschfeld studied Welles… in a way, loved Welles. It seems a simple drawing, but I guarantee that it was not simple for Hirschfeld

In addition to what the image says about Mr. Welles, though, we have the delightful calligraphy of the drawing itself, the crisply rendered shapes, the flowing lines… overall, an elegant simplicity combined with an exuberant energy and humor that begins to tell us a great deal about the artist. This is art (simple as it is) that is firing on all cylinders. It is the result of preternatural giftedness (talent), combined with careful study, hard work and enthusiasm.

This highlights the important distinction between a work of art as a representation of something else (subject), and a work of art as an interesting and beautiful object on its own. Great art is both.

Next: "Modern" Art, and Why Art is Important.

Party Lifestyle Syndrome

A reader writes:

I just wanted to know what is your opinion on people going to "Clubs?"  With Clubs, I mean dance clubs that are everywhere.  Many young adults in my generation seem to be enamored with the "Party" lifestyle, and that includes going to clubs, drinking, etc.  Do you think as Catholics, that is a particularly good place to be, or would it be wise to stay away from those places alltogether?  My priest said that sometimes the Devil is in there.

I’m afraid that in answering this question I’m hampered by a lack of data. Although I attend multiple dance clubs every week, I suspect that I’m attending a very, very different kind than the ones you are talking about. (SEE HERE.) The clubs that I attend do not serve alcoholic beverages, do not engage in sensual dancing, and on the whole are far more wholesome than the kind that I suspect you are talking about.

I can’t recall ever having been to a club of the kind that you seem to have in mind, and so I don’t really have a good handle for what goes on in them. I can use my imagination, but imagination is not a substitute for knowing the actual facts.

What I can do is break the question into its component parts and address them:

1) Drinking: Drinking in moderation is not immoral. Therefore, it is not intrinsically immoral for a business to serve alcoholic beverages or for people to patronize such a business.

If, however, one will be tempted to abuse alcohol in a particular setting then one should avoid that setting.

Due to the impairment of judgment that alcohol can cause, one should especially avoid settings in which alcohol is being served and other immoral activities are going on, like . . .

2) Sensual dancing: Young, unmarried people should not be engaging in dances that are deliberately intended to arouse sexual feelings. Young people have plenty of sexual feelings already and do not need to arouse more of them. Doing so constitutes a direct danger to their chastity.

I’m not saying that one cannot make dancing an occasion of romance–historically dancing has been a particularly noteworthy element of romance and courtship–but I am saying that dancing that is engaged in for purposes of arousing sexual feelings between people who are not married is intrinsically immoral.

It and the occasions of it are to be avoided, because they lead to . . .

3) "Hooking up." Now, I’m from a generation in which "hooking up" did not mean anything sexual, but from working with chastity speakers, I’ve learned that this phrase has a whole new signification among young people today and refers to intrapersonal contact (other than dancing) designed to arouse sexual feelings.

See previous notes about the lack of a need that young people have for additional sexual feelings and their responsibility to avoid deliberately arousing them.

"Hooking up" can, in turn, lead to or involve . . .

4) Outright sex.

I’m guessing that almost nobody reading this blog is going to be unaware of what Catholic moral theology would have to say about people who aren’t married having sex, so we needn’t dwell on the matter.

There are other elements of the "party lifestyle" to which you refer, including the use of illegal drugs, underage drinking, and the neglect of important duties (like schoolwork)–as well as the corollaries that tend to accompany unmarried sex (contraception, pregnancy, abortion, venereal disease).

There is also the issue of people getting emotionally involved with people (friends, girlfriends, boyfriends)  who are wrapped up in the party lifestyle. This is a problem in and of itself, for as St. Paul says: "Do not be deceived: ‘Bad company
ruins good morals’" (1 Cor. 15:33).

There is also the fact that environments such as this are bad places to meet good spouses. (They are, of course, good places to meet bad spouses, but those are by definition the kind of spouse that it is bad to have.)

Taken together, all of these things form a syndrome. Call it "Party Lifestyle Syndrome,"or PLS, if you want.

PLS is a bad thing to have, and one is morally obliged to avoid contracting it. One therefore needs to avoid the circumstances that might infect one with it.

This is not to say that one can never go to a dance club. I wouldn’t say that any more than I’d say that one can never go to a bar or a rock concert.

Moral theology does not require us to be stay-at-home, prudish wallflowers, but it does require us to recognize that patronage of places like these can pose a very real danger to our morals and we must take steps to avoid that danger.

Whether to go in a particular case is a judgment call, but young people in particular are well advised (wise) to err on the side of caution.

That being said, not all dance clubs are equal, and some out there are quite wholesome.

May I suggest square dancing?