H & R Block’s Dehumanizing Upsell

While I was doing my Monday blog posts on Saturday morning, I got a message on my voicemail that started like this:

Hello, this is <NAME> with H & R Block. We did your taxes last year at our <LOCATION> office, and I was calling to set up an appointment.

Now, not everyone may see it this way, but this kind of thing really rubs me the wrong way. It’s a sales technique that involves a dehumanizing form of upselling. Upselling is a sales technique whereby the salesman offers the customer goods, services, or options that the customer hasn’t requested but might want (e.g., "Do you want fries with that?").

When done in a humane manner, this technique can actually provide the customer with things that they wanted or would have wanted to know about (many people do want fries with their burger), but upselling can also be done in a dehumanizing manner that treats the customer like an object to be exploited (e.g., making your first question to the customer "Do you want our Bacon Cheddar Jack Number One Extra Special Value Meal?"–which is just trying to push something on the customer before he can tell you what he really does want).

H & R Block’s phone message to me is a dehumanizing form of upselling. It’s upselling because it’s offering me a service that I haven’t requested (they called me; I didn’t call them), and it’s dehumanizing because of the assumption that I’m even going to use them again this year.

Maybe I had such a bad experience with them last year that I want to go somewhere else. Maybe one of their competitors is offering a service that I find more attractive. Maybe I recently noted a tax preparer whose office is more conveniently located for me. Maybe I’m one of the millions who’s bought TurboTax. Or maybe I’ve simply decided to do my taxes the old fashioned way with pen and paper.

There are a lot of options out there for people to get their taxes done.

Yet because I happened to use H & R Block as my tax preparer last year, they feel entitled to phone me up out of the blue on a Saturday morning and tell me that they’re calling to schedule an appointment.

I, apparently, have no choice in the matter. It’s a given that they will do my taxes, and they have determined that the time has come for me to make an appointment.

That’s why this is dehumanizing.

It doesn’t respect the free will of the customer. It treats him as an object to be exploited.

The way to respect the customer would be to say

Hello, I’m <NAME> with H & R Block, and we did your taxes last year at our <LOCATION> office. We’d really like to do your taxes again this year, and I was wondering if you’d like to set up an appointment.

How hard would it be to say that?

Abortion & Excommunication

A reader writes:

Recently I fell into grave sin.  I had sex with a woman who I am not married to.  Soon after that I repented and went to confession.  I confessed having contraceptive sex with a woman I was not married to.  We used a condom, but she was also on the pill at the time.  Since condoms don’t always work, and the pill could potentially cause an abortion, or fail completely, she could have potentially conceived, and the baby could have been killed.  The thought of this happening crossed my mind before going through with it.  Also, I doubt the woman is pro-life at all, and if the baby was conceived and survived, she could have gone and had an abortion without me even knowing.

Since I knew that this sin could potentially cause an abortion, am I now excommunicated?  I hadn’t thought of this until recently, and it’s really affecting me.  Do I need to go to confession again and explain this aspect of it?  Thank you.

First, I want to offer thanksgiving that you cooperated with God’s grace and were willing to recognize the moral character of this course of action and to repent of it and seek reconciliation. This is a cause for rejoicing, and Jesus was clear on the joy that there is in heaven when someone returns to God from a state of sin. We should share in that joy.

Regarding the excommunication that canon law provides for procured abortion ("A
person who procures a completed abortion incurs a latae sententiae
excommunication," can. 1398), I am pleased to say that you have not incurred it. There are several reasons for this:

1) Canon law presupposes that the fact of the abortion is verifiable, or at least knowable.  In the case of her suffering an early miscarriage following a double-contraceptive failure, this would happen at such an early stage of pregnancy (a week after conception) that it would be completely unverifiable and unknowable. It also is very unlikely to occur. In these circumstances, you cannot be said to have procured an abortion in the sense envisioned by canon 1398. As a canon that establishes a penalty, 1398 is subject to the interpretive norm of canon 18, which is that "Laws which
establish a penalty . . . are subject to strict interpretation." 1398 is simply not intended to apply to unverifiable, unknowable abortions that are unlikely to occur in the first place.

2) In addition, your actions do not fall under 1398 because you did not intend to procure an abortion. You may have foreseen that an abortion would result spontaneously, but that is not the same thing as deliberately procuring one. What you intended was to have sexual relations with the woman. That was the object of your action–what you were intending to do. To procure an abortion the abortion has to be sought as a means or an end, and this is not what was happening here. Once again, canon 18’s requirement of strict interpretation applies.

There are other reasons why you are not excommunicated as well, but the reasons why get rather technical and go beyond what can reasonably be done in a blog post. The bottom line, though, is that you simply aren’t excommunicated. 1398 is simply not intended to cover the kind of situation that you describe concerning an unknowable, unintended early miscarriage following double contraceptive failure.

1398 is designed, however, to cover abortions procured by going to an abortionist, so we have to consider that case. What would the effects be for you if she did–against high odds–become pregnant and then decide to go to an abortionist without your knowing?

You would not be affected canonically. You do not support her action. You have to be more than just the father of a baby that someone else chooses to abort (can. 18). Specifically, you would have to cooperate directly in the procurement of the abortion itself, which would mean something like driving her down to the abortion clinic or giving her the money for the abortion. Just being the father isn’t enough.

As to what should be done in confession, there is an argument that what you have already said is sufficient, but to be safe I would do the following: The next time you go to confession, simply say "I have previously confessed that I had sex with a woman I am not married to, but I neglected to mention that before I did so the thought that the act might lead to an abortion crossed my mind and I did it anyway. I wish to confess this circumstance as well for the additional moral coloring it gave to the act."

And that (or an approximation of it) is all you need to say.

Let’s pray that an abortion does not result from this (and it’s the vast likelihood that it will not). Let’s also not forget to pray for the woman in question. And let us rejoice that you have cooperated with God’s grace and been reconciled with him.

20

JA.O Brainstorming Bleg

Howdy, folks!

I thought I’d harness the power of the Internet by asking y’all if you could help me brainstorm something.

Currently my square dance club is starting a new class for beginners. We dance on Friday nights in Lakeside, California, and the thing about square dance classes is that you need to get all your new students right at the beginning. Unless someone is already an experienced dancer, it’s not really possible for people to join in mid class.

Given this, we’re trying to find as many new students as we can, and I’m trying to find as many new promising techniques for getting students as possible.

We’re already asking friends and co-workers if they’d like to learn and leaving flyers at local businesses. Those are standard methods of finding potential students.

I thought of doing PSAs on local country music stations, posting ads on CraigsList, and calling local churches (church folks are always looking for good, clean fun–and that’s exactly what we’ve got). Another club member thought of e-mailing our flyer to the local freebie papers.

But I’m in the market for ideas, and I thought I’d ask y’all if you had any!

The two key criteria are:

1) It has to be free (or at least very cheap) and

2) It has to be something that can be done quickly. We only have the next couple of Fridays to get new students in.

Can the ultra-intelligent readership of JA.O come through with good suggestions?

Lemme know in the combox!

BTW, I know I’ve got readers in the San Diego area. If y’all’re looking for something FUN to do on Friday nights, come by! It’s tons of fun–for singles, couples, or whole families! I’ll be there, and we’d love to have you give square dancing a try! (MORE INFO & DIRECTIONS.)

Moon To Explode And Fall Out Of Sky!

Explodingmoon
IT’S TRUE!

I mean . . . it’s not scheduled to do that tomorrow or anything, but one day.

Yes, our moon–"Luna" as some people want to call it (though anyone who’s ever lived there just calls it "the Moon")–it’s going to blow up and rain down out of the sky.

You know what they say, "No boom today. Boom tomorrow. They’re always a boom tomorrow"–only the tomorrow in question is a ways down the road, long after all of us should have pushed up all the daisies that we’re going to.

Here’s the idea:

[T]he Moon is being pushed away from Earth by 1.6 inches (4 centimeters) per year and our planet’s rotation is slowing.

If left unabated the Moon would continue in its retreat until it would take bout 47 days to orbit the Earth. Both Earth and Moon would then keep the same faces permanently turned toward one another as Earth’s spin would also have slowed to one rotation every 47 days.

[But billions of years from now . . . ]

The Sun’s mutation into a red giant provides a huge stumbling block to the Moon’s getaway and is likely to ensure the Moon ends its days the way it began; as a ring of Earth-girdling debris.

‘The density and temperature both increase rapidly near the apparent surface (photosphere) of the future giant Sun,’ Willson explained. As the Earth and Moon near this blistering hot region, the drag caused by the Sun’s extended atmosphere will cause the Moon’s orbit to decay. The Moon will swing ever closer to Earth until it reaches a point 11,470 miles (18,470 kilometers) above our planet, a point termed the Roche limit.

‘Reaching the Roche limit means that the gravity holding it [the Moon] together is weaker than the tidal forces acting to pull it apart,’ Willson said.

The Moon will be torn to pieces and every crater, mountain, valley, footprint and flag will be scattered to form a spectacular 23,000-mile-diameter (37,000-kilometer)  Saturn-like ring of debris above Earth’s equator. The new rings will be short-lived. Theory dictates they’ll eventually rain down onto Earth’s surface.

GET THE (EXPLOSIVE!) STORY.

Prayer, Conversion, & Free Will

A reader writes:

I’ve been struggling with a question regarding prayer for some time now, and I’m not having much luck finding an answer. The qestion is this: what exactly are we praying for when we pray for someone else’s conversion & salvation – i.e., what exactly are we asking God to do?

The difficulty I’m having with this question stems from the following:

a) God will give sufficient grace to each person to enable him to get to heaven; and
b) God will not infringe on man’s free will and force him to accept the graces He offers.

Given the foregoing, it would seem (to me) to be illogical to pray for someone else’s conversion and salvation. Yet, we see St. Paul praying for the salvation of others in Rom 10:1.

Any help you can give me (or source to which you can point me) on this would be very much appreciated.

Several different resolutions to the dilemma you pose suggest themselves:

1) The Efficacious Grace solution:

According to the Thomistic point of view, while God gives sufficient grace to all for salvation, for a person to actually turn to God and be saved the person must be given a special kind of grace that is by its nature efficacious. Those who get this efficacious grace are saved, those who don’t, aren’t. The bestowal of efficacious grace is entirely a matter of God’s choice, and it accomplishes its goal of bringing a person to salvation without violating his free will.

A Thomistic solution to the dilemma thus might say that what we are doing in praying for someone’s salvation what we are asking God to do is to give that person efficacious grace–thus going beyond the sufficient grace he gives to all while (on the Thomistic understanding) not violating his free will.

Whether this solution works is dependent on whether it is possible to give someone a grace that intrinsically (by its nature) brings a person to salvation without violating free will. Non-Thomsits commonly dispute that this is possible.

2) The Middle Knowledge solution

Middle knowledge is a somewhat tricky concept (MORE HERE), but the basic idea is that God knows the truth of things that are not determined either by necessity or his own agency. Thus he knows what our free will decisions will be in all situations, including those we haven’t been put in. (The latter is a class known technically as free will counterfactuals).

If it’s true that God knows what we will freely choose to do in all possible situations then it would be possible for him to put us in the situation where we freely choose to act on the sufficient grace he has given us and thus achieve salvation.

On this account, what he would be doing in asking God to save someone would be asking him to put that person in a situation in which he knows that the person will freely choose to respond to sufficient grace.

There are at least two possible difficulties for this view. First, in order to engineer the situation in which person X freely chooses to respond to the offer of salvation, God might have to override the free will of other people–either on matters connected with salvation or with respect to neutral matters (e.g., causing me to choose to share the gospel with the person or causing me to choose to stay at a bus station long enough to meet the person and choose to share the gospel with him).

Or maybe he wouldn’t. He might be able to manipulate non-volitional nature such that he sets up a cascade of free will decisions among different people leading a particular individual to choose salvation, not violating the free will of anyone in the cascade. Since we don’t have a God’s-eye view of reality, we don’t know whether this would be a real difficulty for God or not.

Second, whether God has middle knowledge is disputed, the chief part of the dispute being whether this kind of knowledge is possible in situations that are not actual.

Note that middle knowledge solutions are commonly appealed to by Molinists, though they are not exclusive to Molinists.

3) The Easier Influence solution

On this theory we would be asking God to give a person more than just sufficient grace but less than the efficacious grace envisioned by Thomists.

While receiving sufficient grace means that a person receives enough grace to embrace salvation, it does not mean that it will be easy for him to do so. One could thus ask God to give him additional graces that influence him by making it easier for him to embrace salvation yet not override his free will.

For example, he might encounter an evangelist capable of giving an extra-clear and winning presentation of the gospel or he might be in a particularly good mood when he hears it or he might be shielded from evil influences while he’s considering the question of whether to embrace the offer of salvation.

It seems to me that, whatever else is the case, God ought to be able to do at least this solution, and thus we have at least one way of making sense of what we’re asking God to do when praying for the salvation of others.

4) The Redundant Prayers solution

It is, of course, possible to pray for things that God is going to do with or without our prayers. Thus I could pray for God to give a particular person sufficient grace to embrace salvation, even though (as an informed, theologically orthodox Catholic) I already know that he’s planning to do that.

This solution is certainly possible, but it raises the question of whether it’s a good use of our time to pray for things God is determined to do independent of our prayers and why God would set the example for us in Scripture of praying for the salvation of others. Why would he want us to pray redundantly?

5) The Extra Chance solution

It is Church teaching that God gives sufficient grace to a person at some point during his life, but it is not Church teaching that he does this on more than one occasion. We don’t know whether a person has sufficient grace for salvation at every point in his life or only at some points. (It is common teaching that the baptized who are in mortal sin always will always be given sufficient grace to repent before the end of their lives, but that teaching does not apply to the unbaptized.)

If somone has already had–and missed–whatever receptions of sufficient grace God would otherwise give him then praying for the person’s salvation might be construed as asking God to give him sufficient grace once more or even many more times–in other words, giving him extra chances.

6) The Whatever Possible solution

The above solutions represent theoretical answers to the question of what one might mean when asking God to grant salvation to someone. This solution is different: It represents something I suspect is more like what most people actually do mean in asking this.

Most people don’t have in mind the theoretical answers provided in the preceding solutions. They haven thought through the mechanics of how God giving salvation works in that kind of detail, they just want the person they’re praying for to be saved. So in praying for the person they would like God to do whatever is possible to help that person to be saved.

On this understanding, you don’t have to know which options are possible. There just has to be something that’s possible, and I suspect that at least some of the above explanations fall into that category (and probably others that my tiny human intellect isn’t even capable of comprehending). We can thus leave up to God what, in particular, is possible and just humbly request that he do it.

That’s how I tend to think of it when I pray for others.

Prophecy

A reader writes:

I was hoping you could discuss St. Paul’s teaching on the spiritual gifts in 1 Corinthians 12-14.  In particular, I’m wondering about the emphasis St. Paul places on prophecy.  He tells the Corinthians to be especially eager for prophesying, indicating its superiority over the gift of tongues.  In chapter 14 verse 31, he says that all can prophesy, though they should do it one at a time.  He warns against pride (Ch 14 v 36) and disorder (v 40).

Now I am wondering what he means by prophesying in this case; are we to assume that all the men (women are excluded in verse 34-35) are receiving messages from the Lord, to be spoken to the community, one at a time? 

No. When Paul says you can all prophecy, he’s restricted his universe of discourse to those people who are able to prophecy. He’s giving an assurance that those who have the prophetic gift will all be able to just it, but they must do so in an orderly manner. He is not saying that all have the prophetic gift, as is clear from his rhetorical question in 1 Corinthians 12:29, which in context has the implied answer "No, not all are prophets." This is also implied by the fact that he encourages the Corinthians to desire this gift.

Also, women are not excluded from prophesying. They are excluded from teaching in church, but they can prohesy, as illustrated by his reference a few chapters earlier in 1 Corinthians 11:5 to women praying or prophesying with their heads covered.

And why is it that women are to stay silent? 

They didn’t have to be absolutely silent. They could pray or prophesy in Church. They couldn’t then teach or interrogate teachers (hence the reference to them asking their husbands at home if they want to know something). The reason for this had to do to a considerable extent with the culture of the early Christian community and was to a considerable extent of disciplinary rather than doctrinal force. It does, however, have a doctrinal nucleus that is reflected in the fact that the Magisterium is capable of being composed only by men (who have been ordained to the episcopacy). Today women can teach in religious settings (though they cannot give the homily) but they cannot teach magisterially.

I have gone to charismatic prayer meetings in the past, where indeed some people had messages from the Lord.  However, I always had doubts as to whether they were genuine prophecies or not.  How do you tell?

In general terms, if the messages contain predictions that come true then this is a sign that they are genuine; if they contain statements of a theological nature that are false then it is a sign that they are not genuine. In general, the same kinds of criteria that apply to discerning private revelations would apply here.

The spiritual gifts, in particular the gift of tongues and the gift of prophecy, were obviously of some importance at least from within the context of the Corinthian community at the time St. Paul was writing, since he devotes a good chunk of his first letter to the Corinthians to them.  In the Church today, they don’t really seem that important, except from within the charismatic movement.  I’ve often wondered why that is.  Any thoughts?

The development of Christian history revealed that the miraculous spiritual gifts began to appear more rarely than they appeared in the first century. This is consistent with the history of the Old Testament, in which prophecies seemed more common in some periods than in others. While God has never completely stopped giving private revelation, it seems that the initial intensity with which it was given at the beginning of Church history was something to help the early Church get off the ground. Afterwards, as the Church became firmly established, the granting of miraculous gifts and private revelations became less common, though it has never completely ceased.

In the second half of the 20th century, the Catholic Charismatic movement developed, and many more reports of this type of activity began to be made. The Church thus far has not attempted to make a systematic determination of how many of these reports are genuine, and it is likely to do so given the overwhelming number of them. Instead, it has allowed Catholics (in general) to make their own assessments of how common these phenomena are at present. I would characterize the Church’s attitude in this matter as cautious but open, which incidentally reflects St. Paul’s instructions:

Do not quench the Spirit, do not despise prophesying, but test everything; hold fast what is good (1 Thess. 5:19-21).

Secret Agent Super Pope

CNS reports:

Pope John Paul II made more than 100 clandestine trips to ski or hike in the Italian mountains and was rarely recognized by others on the slopes, his former secretary said.

Polish Cardinal Stanislaw Dziwisz described the secret outings in a book of memoirs, "A Life With Karol," which was being published in late January. An excerpt appeared Jan. 23 in the Rome newspaper Il Messaggero.

The cardinal, who was Pope John Paul’s personal secretary for 38 years, wrote that the pope, an avid skier and hiker in his youth, often felt pent up inside the Vatican.

In the winter of 1981, the pope, his secretary and two of his Polish aides decided to make a "getaway" to the mountains from the papal villa in Castel Gandolfo.

They packed into a car owned by one of the priests, in order not to raise suspicions, and when they passed the Swiss Guard post one prelate opened wide a newspaper to hide the pontiff in the back seat.

Then they drove to the central Italian ski town of Ovindoli without an escort, winding through mountain towns and carefully respecting the speed limits.

Once they arrived, they chose a deserted slope and the pope was able to ski all day long. On the way back, the pope smiled and said, "We did it!" It was the first of many such escapes, the papal secretary said.

MORE.

I’ll be looking forward to getting Cardinal Dziwisz’s book when it comes out in English!

MORE HERE, ALSO.