A Conversation with Peter Kreeft

I was really touched by this interview with Peter Kreeft. Some of you might recognize that name as the author of many of the books that we young adults recommend you to read.

As usual, Kreeft is extremely thoughtful and accessible at the same time. Sure, you might have to set aside 10 minutes to read it, but it's definitely worth it. I love how he doesn't always answer the questions posed to him in its immediacy, but takes time to look behind the assumptions. If you don't have time to read all of it, make sure to check out his response to the questions about cafeteria Catholics, reconciling the Church's teachings with personal beliefs, hook-up culture, and gay marriage.

Proverbs 29

If a wise man disputes with a fool,
he may rage or laugh but can have no peace. ~ Proverbs 29:9

This verse made me think of all the different debates going on in American society right now, particularly the gay marriage vs matrimony and pro-life vs pro-choice debate. For some reason, I took "wise man" and "fool" to be from the perspective of the "wise man."

For example, a "wise" Christian disputing with a relativistic pro-gay marriage and/or pro-choice believer might consider them to be a fool because how can they not see God's greatness and goodness? On the flip side, a "wise" post-modern, liberal, and enlightened person disputing a blind faith, religion enforcing yes-on-prop-8 and pro-life monotheistic believer might consider them to be a fool as well because their religion is clouding their ability to see clearly and being able to act on the inclusion they so loudly tout.

Without getting into the debates, I find it to be my experience that if a "wise man" is in the act of disputing AND if he sees the one he is disputing with as a fool, there is no peace to be had. Regardless of which side you're on, I find that it is easy to rage against the other side ("How can they not see what we believe?? ARGHHHH!") or to just laugh ("Ha Ha. They're so stupid that they think they know everything when really they don't!"). Either way, at the end of the day there's no peace.

Something seems so wrong about that. How do you approach these disputes such that at the end of the day, you can walk away with peace? Where does Jesus fit in with all of that?

non-Christian thoughts on Prop 8

This is from Sandy, a YAG that's not baptized, looking at it on a non-religious level.

What's in a name?

This November California voters are being asked to DEFINE what marriage is. Proposition 8 defines marriage as 'only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California'.

The current ballot is titled, "Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry Act", originally titled, "Protect Marriage Act". (Side note: Proponents of 8 wanted the original title, but you can read more to find out why: http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Proposition_8_%282008%29)

The origins of marriage

The marriage tradition dates back to the beginning of mankind. Its role in all cultures has financial and conjugal implications as the husband and wife is seen as a family unit (one household), and has the expectation of bearing children. And generally, marriage is seen as a positive ceremony in societies.

Marriage exists in virtually every known human society. . . . At least since the beginning of recorded history, in all the flourishing varieties of human cultures documented by anthropologists, marriage has been a universal human institution. As a virtually universal human idea, marriage is about the reproduction of children, families, and society. . . . marriage across societies is a publicly acknowledged and supported sexual union which creates kinship obligations and sharing of resources between men, women, and the children that their sexual union may produce."

WILLIAM J. DOHERTY, WILLIAM A. GALSTON, NORVAL D.GLENN, JOHN

GOTTMAN ET AL., WHY MARRIAGE MATTERS: TWENTY-ONE CONCLUSIONS FROM THE

SOCIAL SCIENCES 8-9 (Institute for American Values) (2002)

Historical Legal Perspective

In a society where the man was the breadwinner, and the wife was at home to care for the children, marriage laws were historically created because of the husband's responsibilities to support his wife and children.

As a result, it was never the will of the government to define what marriage was. The government's role in governing its people was to deter and protect spouses, mainly the women and children, from potential financial/economic hardships. In fact, until recently, no one ever questioned what marriage was.

'Legal preferences for marriage are justified by the underlying purposes of marriage: to regulate the sexual relationships that produce children in order to (a) discourage men and women from having children in fragmented families and (b) encourage the creation of children under the conditions in which they are most likely to flourish, and pose the least burdens to the community.'

Modern Times

Today, we are being asked to redefine marriage to be beyond what has been distinctively reserved for a man and a woman. We've been told that anyone who supports prop8 is being unfair and taking away the rights for all. But, we've already established in California since 2000, that civil union partnerships get the same rights as married couples- meaning, same-sex unions already get the same financial benefits as marriage.

Unfortunately, it's not enough for the same-sex communities to get the same tangible rights. 'Marriage in the United States is a civil union; but a civil union, as it has come to be called, is not marriage,' said Evan Wolfson of Freedom to Marry

'It is a proposed hypothetical legal mechanism, since it doesn't exist in most places, to give some of the protections but also withhold something precious from gay people. There's no good reason to do that.' (source WIKI on civil unions)

However, if there is 'something precious' being held back, what is it? Are they asking government to give them a nod for having such a different relationship? If we assume the role of government is to protect and not infringe on people's personal beliefs (separation of church and state), how is this "precious" recognition protecting and not infringing? If anything, it's asking (popular) government to extend and redefine an ancient institution that has been around in all parts of the world since the beginning of mankind. Are Californians really representative of the entire world? One might sarcastically say "yes", and try to compare this definition alteration to ending or abolishing something like slavery - in the name of civil rights!

However, one must recall slavery and genocide were government condoned systems – and just like the way the government tried to regulate the lives of its inhabitants, attempting to change the definition of a universally accepted institution would be likened to saying someone is " THREE FIFTHS OF A PERSON ". Sound familiar? It was in once written (by popular sentiment at the time) that blacks were not full persons. If man could believe another human to only be part human, it shouldn't be shocking opponents of prop8 claim a "right" is being taken away, even though the intangible right to define marriage was never available to "give" in the first place.

Future Precedence

So, what's wrong with trying to preserve the definition? Why should we even bother to protect the definition?

For the Social Good

Population – We already know that disrupting the natural growth of societies via population control (e.g. China, Japan, and Europe) is not sustainable nor even makes financial sense long term. And we know, same-sex couples can't sustain humanity.

Once a population has disconnected marriage and childbearing, and the norms supporting marriage as a procreative union have weakened or disappeared, there is little political leaders can do to improve the situation for young families without creating enormous resistance.

[Practically speaking] Coming up with the necessary resources to keep pension promises becomes a central preoccupation. Even as Europe begins to dwindle, "European governments were for the most part ignoring the problem, 'In practical terms nothing has been done, or just very, very marginally,'" said Dr. Carlo De Benedetti, an Italian financier who created a foundation to study the effects of aging in Europe.74

Thomas Fuller, Low Birth Rates Pose Challenge for Europe: The

Depopulation Bomb, INTERNATIONAL HERALD TRIBUNE, December 12 2002 at 1.

Separation of Church and State

We are going to be legally reprimanded if we teach children that marriage is between a man and women. This has dire consequences for private schools and perhaps even home schooling- parents will not be able to dictate morals to their children. The government will have even more control in our lives.

"...because public schools are already required to teach the role of marriage in society as part of the curriculum, schools will now be required to teach students that gay marriage is the same as traditional marriage, starting with kindergarteners. By saying that a marriage is between "any two persons" rather than between a man and a woman, the Court decision has opened the door to any kind of "marriage." (sounce protectmarriage.com)

Opening the flood gates for legitimizing other unions

I need not add more.

Bishops can er in teachings?

This article is interesting.

It shows that bishops not in communion with the Pope can make errors in faith and morals! As was demonstrated by the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, the highest Church authority in Canada for Canadians. And no, it's not because they're Canadians! Even though it was authoritatively given by the rightful shepherds of Canada, it was made in error.

So in 1968, after Pope Paul VI issued Humae Vitae, an encyclical that had authority over the Universal Church that made the final definitive statement on the morality of the use of contraception (if you don't know what it said, basically: artificial contraception is intrinsically evil), the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops got together for a Plenary meeting and issued a statement called now the Winnipeg statement, and in it contained parts (paragraphs 17, 25, 26, 34) that spoke quite contrary to the clear teaching in Humanae Vitae . The statement itself along with highlights.

And now, after 40 years, we can take a look back at the aftermath and the prophecies that Pope Paul VI predicted a whole generation ago. The Canadian Catholic Church has had to recover and even supercede the original Winnipeg statement with one on the 40th anniversary of the prophetic Humanae Vitae.

Read the article!

Let's get political

yeah (from www.catholicvote.com)



And some bad news: Google has turned it's back on it's unofficial slogan "don't be evil." Is it even POSSIBLE to boycott Google??

Google comes out against traditional marriage

Catholics as outlaws?

It may seem far fetched, but I think we're really moving in that direction, where our position against homosexual unions as "marriage" can be seen in the future as hate crimes and priests that chose God over the law may be seen as criminals because of their faith. This article makes an interesting connection.

http://www.catholicexchange.com/2008/07/25/113294/

What do you guys think?