Traditional Thomistic Catholic

Tag: Human weakness

  • Understand-ing the 10 Command-ments: Catholic and Protestant Views

                      

          At first glance the differences on how Catholics and Protestants number the commandments seem insignificant or possibly nonsensical especially between non-Catholic Christian sects.  The case is similar for atheists and non-believers for different reasons   This is a chart comparing Catholic and Protestant numbering of the Commandments is from the Word of Mercy website specifically the URL at Catholic vs Protestant Ten Commandments: What’s the Difference and Why It Matters – Word of Mercy.  If you are a catechist and want a copy for your classroom, click here for a downloadable PDF.

    A chart comparing the Catholic and Protestant numbering of the Ten Commandments, highlighting differences in how they are grouped and interpreted.

          Some of the differences are covered in the aforementioned website. But let us start with the first commandment.  The fact is that the protestants in the fifteen-hundreds had an agenda. Before that, since Roman Catholics and Greek/Russian Orthodox were the only recognized Christian sects, their numbering of the commandments were the same.  One of the first things, if not actually the first sold thing, to be printed on the newly invented Gutenberg printing press was the Latin Vulgate version of the Bible. The content of the Old Testament section of this Bible was almost identical to the Greek Septuagint.  It was Martin Luther, based on the canon most recently approved, in the fifteen hundreds by the Jewish rabbis of Jerusalem. These were the Jews, whom it is recorded that Martin Luther disliked, and whom (the rabbis that is) literature relates had tried to down play any scripture relating to Jesus Christ to the point of not discussing Isaia Chapter 53. This being the case why would they include anything they thought might point to Jesus being the Messiah or his message that would lead to the salvation of the most souls if they could use any justification to eliminate them.

          A clearer explanation of why the Rabbis would try to downplay or downright refuse to talk about the most world changing prophecy of the Bible, Isaia 53? Well, the following is a quote from the Google AI Overview:

    AI Overview

    Isaiah 53 is called the “forbidden chapter” because it describes a suffering servant, which Christians identify as Jesus, but which many Jewish people do not. The chapter was once read in synagogues but was later removed from the weekly readings because its interpretation led to significant theological arguments and confusion, as it was used by early Christians to argue that Jesus was the Messiah. Many modern Jews believe the passage refers to the nation of Israel, Isaiah, or another Jewish figure, rather than an individual Messiah. 

    Reasons for the “forbidden” status

    • Christian interpretation: 

    Christians believe the chapter is a clear prophecy of Jesus’s suffering, death, and resurrection, as it describes someone being “pierced for our transgressions” and “crushed for our iniquities”. 

    • Jewish interpretation: 

    Many modern Jewish interpreters believe the “suffering servant” refers to the Jewish people as a whole, or a righteous figure like Isaiah or Moses, and that a suffering Messiah is not a Jewish belief. 

    • Historical context: 

    Ancient Jewish sages once agreed the chapter was a prophecy about the Messiah. However, after the rise of Christianity, the chapter became a source of controversy because of its perceived connection to Jesus. 

    • Change in synagogue readings: 

    To avoid the resulting arguments and confusion, rabbis decided to remove Isaiah 53 from the weekly Haftarah (prophetic readings) in some synagogues, leading to its reputation as a “forbidden chapter”. 

        But surely like most prophesies (think Nostradamus) its pretty vague. I don’t know, it seems pretty clear to me, a traditional practicing Roman Catholic that it must be referring to Jesus Christ, but you decide (taken from the Douay-Rheims Catholic version of the Bible the following is Chapter 53 of Isaias in its in its entirety):

    1.Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed?  2 And he shall grow up as a tender plant before him, and as a root out of a thirsty ground: there is no beauty in him, nor comeliness: and we have seen him, and there was no sightliness, that we should be desirous of him:  3 Despised, and the most abject of men, a man of sorrows, and acquainted with infirmity: and his look was as it were hidden and despised, whereupon we esteemed him not.  4 Surely he hath borne our infirmities and carried our sorrows: and we have thought him as it were a leper, and as one struck by God and afflicted.  5 But he was wounded for our iniquities, he was bruised for our sins: the chastisement of our peace was upon him, and by his bruises we are healed.

     6 All we like sheep have gone astray, every one hath turned aside into his own way: and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.  7 He was offered because it was his own will, and he opened not his mouth: he shall be led as a sheep to the slaughter, and shall be dumb as a lamb before his shearer, and he shall not open his mouth.  8 He was taken away from distress, and from judgment: who shall declare his generation? because he is cut off out of the land of the living: for the wickedness of my people have I struck him.  9 And he shall give the ungodly for his burial, and the rich for his death: because he hath done no iniquity, neither was there deceit in his mouth.  10 And the Lord was pleased to bruise him in infirmity: if he shall lay down his life for sin, he shall see a long-lived seed, and the will of the Lord shall be prosperous in his hand.

     11 Because his soul hath laboured, he shall see and be filled: by his knowledge shall this my just servant justify many, and he shall bear their iniquities.  12 Therefore will I distribute to him very many, and he shall divide the spoils of the strong, because he hath delivered his soul unto death, and was reputed with the wicked: and he hath borne the sins of many, and hath prayed for the transgressors.

        Lets take the Catholic numbering of the commandments one by one comparing them to how they were combined or split up by the protestants after 1500 (a millennia and a half after the catholic church came into existence with its originator, Jesus Christ). Once again lets start with a look at the actual scripture taken from the Douey-Rheims Bible.

    [1] And the Lord spoke all these words: [2] I am the Lord thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. [3] Thou shalt not have strange gods before me. [4] Thou shalt not make to thyself a graven thing, nor the likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or in the earth beneath, nor of those things that are in the waters under the earth. [5] Thou shalt not adore them, nor serve them: I am the Lord thy God, mighty, jealous, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me:

    [6] And shewing mercy unto thousands to them that love me, and keep my commandments. [7] Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain: for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that shall take the name of the Lord his God in vain. [8] Remember that thou keep holy the sabbath day. [9] Six days shalt thou labour, and shalt do all thy works. [10] But on the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: thou shalt do no work on it, thou nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy beast, nor the stranger that is within thy gates.

    [11] For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them, and rested on the seventh day: therefore the Lord blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it. [12] Honour thy father and thy mother, that thou mayest be longlived upon the land which the Lord thy God will give thee. [13] Thou shalt not kill. [14] Thou shalt not commit adultery. [15] Thou shalt not steal.

    [16] Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour. [17] Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house: neither shalt thou desire his wife, nor his servant, nor his handmaid, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is his. [18] And all the people saw the voices and the flames, and the sound of the trumpet, and the mount smoking: and being terrified and struck with fear, they stood afar off, [19] Saying to Moses: Speak thou to us, and we will hear: let not the Lord speak to us, lest we die. [20] And Moses said to the people: Fear not: for God is come to prove you, and that the dread of him might be in you, and you should not sin.

    Now to be fair it can be seen how they might logically say that: “Thou shalt not have strange Gods before me.” And “Thou shalt not make to thyself a graven thing, nor the likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or in the earth beneath, nor of those things that are in the waters under the earth.” But that being the case why is “Thou shalt not adore them, nor serve them.” This is logical but Catholics (the only recognized Christians before Martin Luther, others were labeled heretics by the Catholic Church including protestant sects after Martin Luther), as others before Martin Luther all the way back to the 3rd century for Christians, referred to them as the 10 commandments (in fact they are popularly referred to as the Decalogue) and in the original Hebrew culture referred to as the “Ten Words.” To have added Thou shalt not adore them, nor serve them would have made them the 11 commandments and that of course would not have played well with cradle Catholics Martin Luther was trying to convert to his new religion. The Google AI overview is quoted as follows:

    These are results for When Did the commandments first come to be identified as “the 10 commandments.”
    Search instead for When Did the commandments first come to be identified as “the 10 comandments.”

    AI Overview

    The name “the Ten Commandments” originated with the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, which occurred 

    between the 3rd and 2nd centuries BCE. The original Hebrew texts refer to them as “the ten words,” which was later translated into the Greek deka logoi, or Decalogue. 

    Development of the name

    • Original Hebrew: “Ten Words”: In the Hebrew texts of Exodus and Deuteronomy, the laws are called ʿĂśéreṯ had-Dibbərôṯ, which translates to “the ten words” or “the ten sayings”. This phrasing was repeated in the books of Exodus (34:28), Deuteronomy (4:13), and Deuteronomy (10:4).
    • Greek translation: Dekálogos: The Septuagint, the Koine Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, translated “ten words” into dekálogos. This is the origin of the term “Decalogue” used in theological and academic settings.
    • Early English translations: In the 16th century, early English biblical translations, such as the Tyndale and Coverdale versions, used the phrase “ten verses”.
    • Widespread use of “Ten Commandments”: The title “Ten Commandments” gained widespread recognition through later English translations, including the Geneva Bible and the King James Version (Authorized Version). 

    Clarifying the term

    It is important to note that the biblical texts themselves refer to the commandments as “ten words,” not “ten commandments.” This linguistic detail highlights that the popular title is an interpretive development over time. The exact numbering and division of these commandments differ slightly among Jewish, Catholic, and Protestant traditions, demonstrating that there is not a single, universal version.

          But why split it up this way, Martin Luther must have been aware of how the Catholic Church had always divide up the 10 commandments.  But he was trying to drive a wedge between the common people and the Catholic church and propagated the lie that Catholics worshiped the statues of saints, the chief of whom had been the Virgin Mary – mother of God (Jesus Christ), that were in almost all Catholic churches at the time.  The point is that Catholics never worshiped those statues, but merely saw them as people who had lived exceptionally holy lives, and “prayers” used in this context was the term used to ask these dead saints to appeal to almighty God, since they were thought to have lived lives holy enough (and previously confirmed by 3 miracles and a devil’s advocate to insure no “cheating” as to determining their holiness) to have good assurance of being in God’s presence, in heaven, and able to add their prayers for the petitions of the one “praying” (not worshipping the saint, since God Almighty – the Holy Trinity, alone is worthy of worship). The Apostles Creed (according to google AI Overview), was created about the second century AD, some 12 centuries before the protestant reformation, speaks of the communion of saints.  The communion of saints assumes 3 groups of Catholics: the church militant (those on earth that have not yet died), the church suffering (those in purgatory undergoing purification to become perfect as required in Matthew 5:48) and the Church triumphant (those humans who are already acquired heaven). Those who are assumed in heaven are those who we ask to pray for us (that asking is what Catholics sometimes referred to as “praying” to the saints).

          This is my argument for why protestants split this commandment into two. But what is my argument for them staying together as Catholics propose? Once again according to an AI overview searching on the phrase “what is a graven thing as described in exodus in the bible,” and alternate translation of Exodus 20:4-5 is “You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth. You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God.” Using this translation you have the word idol. Some irreverent people feel that this being the first commandment shows pride or conceit on God’s part making his worship more important than not murdering your fellow man which should be first.  But the minor argument is as Jesus Christ, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, saying he was God is not blasphemy because He is God, God the Father, the First Person of the Blessed Trinity requiring worship is not conceit because He created everything including the one with this opinion.  The fact is, that the admonition to worship God with your whole being and not idolize anything else, necessarily needs to be first. Why?  If God is the most important thing in your life, and you “idolize” God, you will make sure to follow His commandments.  That why the admonitions to worship God and have no Gods or idols beside Him should be together.  Hitler idolized power instead of God and it led to violating the 5th commandment, “Thou shall not kill,” causing the deaths of millions (to include his own suicide). Bill Gates Idolizes wealth/money which led to violating the 8th commandment “thou shalt not bear false witness against they neighbor” (saying potentially harmful vaccines or medicines had no harmful effects, despite knowing the fact that myocarditis might be a side effect of some widely touted vaccines, and should be used by everyone to hopefully make him money) conceivably causing the illness of millions. Bernie Madoff idolizing greed, leading to breaking the 7th commandment, “thou shall not steal.” Finally, Jeffrey Epstien idolizing lust, which led to violating the 6th commandment, “thou shall not commit adultery (Ghislaine Maxwell, Jeffrey Epstein’s girlfriend, was secretly married to tech CEO Scott Borgerson in 2016, Epstein died by suicide in 2019).

          The fact is when you idolize someone or something other than God you face unhappiness in this world and the next. Hitler and Epstein committed suicide, Madoff is in jail and Bill Gates is ostracized and divorced. All the commandments are really summarized in Luke 10:27: “And he answered, ‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength, and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself.”  If you love God you respect him and keep his commandments. It makes logical sense that the first 3 should be for God and that His worship goes with those commandments which apply to only Him. One, love God with your whole being, two, respect his name out of reverence to him (I think He also made this number 2 as a concession to the souls that are damned to have the almost non-existent satisfaction of cursing His name as against his second commandment for all eternity, though their skin be on fire and worms consume them constantly).  This is an easily recognizable quality showing your mindfulness and love of God.  Commandment number 3 is the transition from love God with your whole being and love your neighbor as yourself.  If you attend Sunday mass as honoring the new lord’s day (established since in Matthew 28:18 Jesus said: All authority has been given to me in heaven and on earth and his church started this custom shortly upon his resurrection), which occurred on Easter Sunday), you learn what the lord requires of you in the Epistle and the Gospel and the sermon or homily.

         Commandment number 4, “honor thy father and thy mother” is the segway from the commandments purely about God in that God is the ultimate father and emphasizes that authority is given by God to all legitimate governments (John 19:11).  The last two commandments were real tripping point, supposedly, for Martin Luther.  In reading about him He asks what man does not covet and that no man can do that so God could not have meant us to actually do it, and that our sins can only be covered, that we cannot actually avoid sin and purify ourselves.  But as great saints have agreed with him, alone we cannot, but with prayer and the power of God supplying the help we need we can, as all the great saints have shown and have been able to purify themselves.  For in John 15:5 Jesus Himself tells us: “I am the vine; you the branches: he that abideth in me, and I in him, the same beareth much fruit: for without me you can do nothing.” [emphasis mine] We must pray always and work with our Lord Jesus Christ to be successful in purifying and perfecting ourselves. In Matthew 5:48 Christ tells us that we must “Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.”  This is how we know we can achieve this but if we can get close, there is purgatory, where the bad is burned away, to bring us the rest of the way (1 Corinthians 3:10-16) so that we may be saved.

            Thanks to Martin Luther, protestants run the last two commandments on covetousness together into one commandment. But coveting another’s goods (commandment 10) is, in my opinion, is at the heart of the scourge of communism/socialism and that is why these 2 government systems have failed 20 out of the last 20 times they were tried, Germany, Russia and Venezuela being some of the most recent failures. But the story of Helen of Troy shows us how coveting another’s wife, commandment 9, is a totally different situation from commandment 10, which can, in its own way, separate from property, cause the death of thousands. So in my opinion commandment 10 and commandment 9 should be separate in that each can cause great damage by its own “merits.”

        Hopefully, I have made my point that commandments one and two in the protestant enumeration of the 10 commandments should be combined to make the first commandment strong enough to command its first priority in the list of commandments and that their combination as the first catholic commandment makes sense. Additionally, I also hope to have shown how the last 2 commandments should be seperate, since one focuses on jealosy and greed and the other focuses on jealosy and lust.

  • [Warning: Adult Content] Why Contraception and Sexual Self-Abuse is harmful Psychosocially and Spiritually, Part 3 of a 3 part book review of ” Contraception and the Natural Law”

            The following is an argument against contraception as well as self-pleasuring based on the perverted-faculty argument given in the book Contraception and the Natural Law by Germain G. Grisez, Copyright 1964 by the Bruce Publishing Company:

    “      A fortiori, the suppression of the effect of the generative function seems legitimate provided that the remaining exercise of the function and the suppression itself yield an overall benefit to the whole. If the common good is invoked at this point, the arguments previously presented may be reviewed.

           Apart from these theoretical considerations, the major of the perverted-faculty argument is open to numerous objections drawn from exceptions. Walking on one’s hands interferes at least temporarily with their proper function.  Similarly, to hang rings in one’s ears or nose, by stretching them out of shape, may lessen their effectiveness.  But no one objects in such cases that the faculties are being perverted. . .

          If these examples are not sufficiently analogous to the phenomenal pattern of contraceptive behavior to satisfy someone who cannot grasp the application of a principle except it e verified in imagination, he might reflect on the conduct of women engaged in lactation.

          In many cases there is excess milk and it is pumped out of the breasts and thrown away, the infant may be fed artificially during a temporary separation from his mother while she continues to regularly to empty her breasts artificially and to waste their product. No one condemns this conduct not even demands that there be a serious cause to justify it.

          Yet lactation is the essential end of a very important natural faculty.  And, like sex, it depends upon depositing a valuable glandular secretion in the appropriate natural receptacle. But mere convenience is a food enough reason for interfering in the process.  Hence if contraception really is seriously wrong there must be some reason for its malice that has nothing to do with what these two cases have in common – i.e., preventing and important faculty from attaining its natural end.  

          The defender of the perverted-faculty argument may insist that even this analogy is inadequate to illustrate the mode of frustration exemplified by the practice of contraception. . .

           Due to these difficulties, the Roman vomitorium has played a large role in statements of the perverted-faculty argument.  This repulsive practice, presumably, is a perfect parallel to contraception, since the natural function of nutrition was frustrated while the faculty was exercised for sheer delight to such an extent that periodic induced vomiting was necessary to make room for additional courses.  But the analogy is unsound on two counts.

         In the first place, eating cannot occur normally without reaching its nutritive end, but sexual relations most often are not generative.  The user of the vomitorium hardly can have any motive other than gluttony, while the person who practices contraception can have the good reasons for intercourse which usually justify engaging in it during naturally sterile periods.

         In the second place, as soon as there is any good reason to induce vomiting, no objection is made to doing so.  For example, even a small danger that one has consumed poison or a moderate discomfort which may be relieved by vomiting are sufficient justifications for inducing it.

         Indeed, in such cases no moral issue even is raised, and this fact shows that gluttony rather than induced vomiting is what was immoral in the Roman practice.  If the perverted-faculty argument only proves contraception immoral when intercourse is had out of sheer lust, however, either the argument is question-begging or it is inconclusive.  In the latter case, there is room for reasonable exceptions here, just as there is in the case of induced vomiting.

          From all of these arguments it clearly follows that if the major premise of the conventional argument is understood in the strong interpretation, which yields the perverted-facility argument, that premise becomes an indefensible proposition. As a rule we rightly consider the claims of the natural ends of our various faculties only in subordination to our well-being, on the whole. We shall see later why this is so, as well as how the principle of perverted-faculty argument can be vindicated in the unique case for which it was designed -the reproductive capacity.  .  .

          From our examination of arguments, we also can elicit a certain methodological moral. One who wishes to show the intrinsic malice of contraception must bear in mind that the alternative to the practice he condemns is abstinence.  Contraception is not intrinsically evil if it is not evil in every instance, and the instances which are most plausibly defended are those in which there are very serious indications against conception.  To prove contraception intrinsically evil is much more difficult than to prove permanent sterilization intrinsically evil or to prove contraception generally evil.

          Often, especially in popular writings, reasons such as the following have been given for not practicing contraception.  It is said to be a violation of God’s will, a contamination of one’s bodily temple, a practice amounting to mutual masturbation or the use of one’s partner as a mere device, an intrinsically shameful practice having no reasonable end in view, a practice which will harden heats and blind minds to higher things.

          It seems to me that all these condemnations are correct and that consideration of them may provide motives for avoiding the evil of contraception.  But none of them is an argument showing the malice of contraception, for every one of them presupposes that it is intrinsically evil.

        Like them id the statement that contraception is wrong because it is against the natural law. This is not completely uninformative, since it asserts that the practice is immoral in itself rather than by mere imposition of authority.  However, this classification, like that of contraception among sins against nature, presupposes rather than proves its immorality.

        To show that contraception is against natural law we must show that it is immoral in itself.  The opposite course is not open to us since natural law cannot be consulted except by examining the morality of various species of human action. Like civil law, natural law can be violated only by violating a specific precept of it, so that a violation is against the law only by being against a law.

        The question also is begged if one asserts that contraception is wrong because it separates sexual pleasure from reproduction.  The assumption here either is that sexual pleasure as such is evil of that the pleasure of contraceptive intercourse is evil.

         The former is indefensible.  In practice it leads to the conclusion that since this evil is necessary one may as well enjoy it.  Moreover, any sound theory will hold that the pleasure of sex has the same mora quality as the act to which it belongs, and do the very pleasure of good sexual activity itself must be considered good.

         It is true that one should not seek sexual pleasure for tits own sake, and this is equally true of all other kinds of pleasure – they should be sought only in subordination to the functions which they perfect.  However, those who defend contraception claim that contraceptive intercourse can have the same good purposes as other licit though unfruitful sexual relations.

          On the other hand, to assert that the sexual pleasure of contraceptive intercourse is evil is simply to assume what needs to be proved – that contraceptive intercourse is evil.  If it is so, no doubt its pleasure and the enjoyment of that pleasure also is evil. Partly because of dissatisfaction with the arguments examined above, various authors to recent years have proposed an altogether different mode of argument against contraception.  The new approach has ben called “phenomenological” because it proceeds by describing the experience of Marital intercourse and then by analyzing this description, rather than by arguing from the end of the sexual function.

        Presumably this argument will show that contraception involves the violation of the intrinsic meaning of sexual relations. Its proponents sometimes have contrasted their way of arguing with the conventional way, claiming that the latter reduces sexual activity to the status of a mere function performed in view of an extrinsic goal.   

         The gist of the phenomenological argument is that sexual intercourse reveals itself directly as an act in which man and wife cooperate in personal immediacy to accomplish in fleshy union the most perfect possible expression of their special conjugal love.  Ghis love primarily is a special mode of mutual benevolence, a wish to perfect one another in every possible way.  Human sexual intercourse represents objectively the mutual, total self-giving of man and woman.

         No reservation and obstacles must be allowed to interfere with the definitive and exclusive surrender of man and wife to one another.  But contraception introduces such an obstacle, for it represents a limitation on the giving and receiving of selves.  Hence the practice is an offense against the very meaning of the conjugal act, and for this reason it must be avoided.

         One way to understand this argument is to assume at the beginning that the withholding of one’s effective generative power, whether or not one’s partner approves, is a withholding of part of what ought to be given in the mutual self-giving. If the argument is understood in this way, however, it will not prove that contraception is immoral, for it proceeds on the supposition that it is.

         However, this argument gives a persuasive reason for avoiding the practice of contraception if one admits it to be immoral, because it describes in concrete form how such immoral behavior corrupts the natural beauty and even the deepest satisfaction of the marital act.  One who believes that contraception is wrong could hardly engage in contraceptive intercourse as an expression of genuine benevolence and affection for his partner.  Cooperators in sin are not true friends, because the same selfishness which leads to sin also precludes genuine mutuality.

        A second way to understand this argument is to take it as an effort to emphasize the personal and interpersonal psychological and moral function of sex apart from any direct reference to its reproductive function.  Mature sexuality is a expression of the transcendence achieved in sound interpersonal relationships.  It is not merely self-indulgent pleasure-seeking.

         If this theory is not pushed to extremes, we must concede that it has a certain value.  It illuminates and aspect of sexuality which was largely neglected until this century.  The psychological function of sexual activity can be of value in itself.  It can render worthwhile the conduct of sexual intercourse by married couples during times of natural sterility.  Moreover, the satisfaction for psychological rather than reproductive needs is the reason that human sexual associations tends toward the normal pattern of permanent and exclusive union of one man with one woman.

               The psychological aspect of sexuality also seems to me that source of one of the pillars on which a reconstructed sexual ethics might rest.  Loveless indulgence in sexual release is mor directly opposed to the psychosocial function of sex than to its procreative value.

          The inherent malice of masturbation, for example, is that it reduces the only bodily capacity which naturally leads one out side himself into complete and fruitful cooperation with another person to the status of a mere device for supporting self-enclosure in isolation against any genuine mutuality with others.

          Masturbation, having this psychological significance, naturally accompanies a childish reluctance to assume the risks and responsibilities of adulthood.  The adolescent naturally undergoes a conflict between felling and intelligence, fear and aspiration.  This conflict is a moral one, because it occurs in consciousness and must be resolved by self-commitment.

          The habitual practice of masturbation generally is a clear sign that this conflict has not yet been faced squarely and resolved properly.  The end of the habit is in sight when a meaningful alternative is developed to the device of diverting tension into sexual channels to be released in a displacement activity whose only satisfaction is the very release of tension itself.

           The normal, mature alternative to this childish device is generous cooperation with others in a serious commitment of effort to the pursuit of values transcending the self.  This “sublimation” should not be regarded as a mode of draining off into other channels energy of itself sexual, but as a return to purposeful use of the intrinsically indeterminate energy which a kind of error of psychic control often concentrates too heavily in sexual channels.

           This discussion of masturbation is not irrelevant to the morality of contraception.  As we saw earlier, if it is shown on other grounds that contraception is intrinsically immoral it will be clear that contraceptive intercourse between persons aware of its immorality never could be a genuine expression of love.  While still pretending to express and communicate love, such perverse activity will in reality represent a kind of selfish indulgence.  This experience will them substitute for real cooperation in the work and real sharing in the responsibility proper to the married state.

          In other words, to those aware of the immorality of the contraception, contraceptive intercourse clearly appears for what it is – a device employed by married couples which is related to their resistance to continued growth as the adolescent’s masturbation is related to his resistance to adulthood.

          This is not to say that contraceptive intercourse, even for those who know it to be wrong, has the same psychic quality and effects as solitary masturbation.  No, an interpersonal relationship is never the same as no relationship at all.  Instead, this kind of sexual experience among adults is similar to and continuous with adolescent heterosexual activities such as petting.

         In such relationships there is a certain reciprocity – of exploitation.  Each uses the other both as a masturbatory instrument and as a social tool.  The boy’s attentions prove the girl’s popularity while the girl’s concessions prove the boy’s masculine prowess.  This whole relationship, of course, also is dignified with the name “mutual love,” since mutual exploitation demands the romantic mask of sentiment in order to allow each partner to feel that he is successfully exploiting without himself merely being exploited.”

         The essence of the above argument is that if you are using contraception, you are using your partner as a masturbatory tool, not expressing your deepest love for the other person through allowing him or her to possibly assist in God’s will to produce another human being, an immortal being and candidate to be a citizen of heaven. If you time your sexual relations to coincide with a natural cycle, not intentionally putting some additional “insurance” in to proactively. prevent conception, and assuming a good reason such as maybe an economic downturn inhibiting the possibility of raising the child in a more ideal environment, the wife’s period could still be off and God could exercise His option to use this. With timed abstinence people are effectively working within Gods natural law to influence the best outcome.  God is in control and if He decides you should have a child, He will give you what you need to raise that child well enough to become a good citizen of heaven.

           The other argument is that God could get pass that anyway if He wanted too because He is all powerful.  This is true but your soul puts itself in danger of damnation for purposely trying to interfere with the natural law, assuming that you are unable to go to confession.  A woman’s cycle is part of the natural law and to use timing to take advantage of that, something anybody from any time, of any economic strata, could do (assuming they had the rudimentary knowledge of a woman’s natural cycle, knowledge which has been known for a long time, at least since the time of Christ), could likely successfully implement this for a good reason such as the one mentioned above.

          The above also hints that masturbation is wrong because it is a misappropriation of man’s procreative power.

          As one can see again from the above quote, the book is very meticulous in covering every angle and objection that might have bearing on the reasoned argument the author is using. This book appears to be very through in its covering of why contraception is wrong, appearing to leave almost no stone unturned!!!

         This book has a 9 November 1964 Imprimatur.

  • Part 1 of a of 3 part book review Contraception and the Natural Law by Germain G. Grisez

         The next 2 parts of this book review will carry quotes that contained adult content and a warning in the title.  This review has nothing I would consider objectionable to someone of any age to read and indeed it is merely the table of contents, the summary from the dust jacket on the book, and amazon review and some notes on the author. The book is very detailed oriented to the point that some might label it pedantic, but in my opinion is only very through and written by a professor that wants to ensure his arguments are logically “tight.”  If you want strong well thought out logical arguments, of the ilk of Thomas Aquinas’,   with regard to contraception, this is your book. The dust jacket reads as follows:

     “   One of the most explosive, crucially important issues of our day is that of contraception.  And this is the issue forthrightly examined in this challenging and deeply probing work.  The author, a Catholic layman and a father of four, is associate professor of philosophy at Gerorgetown University.  His purpose is to open to critical examination both the traditional teaching of theologians on this question and the views recently expressed by those who argue that this teaching is inadequate for contemporary man.  The author probes in detail the arguments customarily advanced to support the authoritative teaching of recent pontiffs, concluding that these arguments are unconvincing and based on an inadequate theory of natural law.  He likewise takes issue with arguments of the revisionists, and his brilliant and enlightening critique of the philosophical presuppositions underlying their suggestions does much to rid the air of specious rhetoric and errant nonsense. He then proceeds to set forth a challenging, dynamic theory of natural law and, in the light of this soundly based foundation, faces the central question: is contraception intrinsically immoral?  In addition, the author offers illuminating comments on the morality of the “Pill” and on the subjective factors that must be considered in any adequate moral theory.

        Although Dr. Grisez position will be unpopular in many quarters, his courageous, rigorously reasoned arguments will be of tremendous help to many faced with the present dilemma.  No one concerned over this burning issue can afford to miss this important new Impact book.”

    On the author:

    “Germain Grisez, Ph.D . . . an associate professor of philosophy at Georgetown University, received his doctorate in philosophy from Chicago University after completing undergraduate studies at John Carroll University.  A guest lecturer at the University of Virginia in 1961 and 1962,  Dr. Grisez has contributed articles in The Thomist, the Journal of Religion, and the New Catholic Encyclopedia.  Dr. Grisez is married and the father of four.”

    The contents page of this book reads as follows:

    FORWARD BY BISHOP JOHN WRIGHT                                  vii

    ACKNOWLEDGMENTS                                                             xi

    I    INTRODUCTION                                                                   1

    II   INADEQUATE ARGUMENTS                                                19

    III  THREE THEORIES OF MORAL LAW                                    46

    IV  WHY CONTRACEPTION IS IMMORAL                               76

    V   THEORETICAL OBJECTIONS                                                107

    VI  “DIRECTLY WILLED, POSITIVE ACT”                                   129          

    VII  PROBLEMS IN THE USE OF DRUGS                                   171

    VIII THE SUBJECTIVE MORALITY OF CONTRACEPTION         179

    Epilogue:  REFLECTIONS OF A BELIEVER                                 209

    APPENDIX: CONCEPTION PREVENTING DRUGS                     215

    INDEX                                                                                            233        

    This book is available on Amazon in either hardback or paperback. A review by Michael Pakaluk on Amazon reads as follows:

    Whatever one’s opinion of the so-called “New Natural Law,” one must be deeply impressed by this treatise, which is its origin and source. Grisez shows himself to have a masterful dialectical mind. He immediately sees the crucial importance of contraception as an ethical issue. He sets about founding an ethical theory which gives a plausible (if not ultimately satisfying) account of the wrongness of contraception, while also vindicating the reality of moral absolutes. His treatment is thorough, fairly exhaustive in its treatment of objections and alternatives, and fair. Every thoughtful Catholic should read this book, and form an opinion about it — indeed, every thoughtful and open-minded person disturbed by the consequences of the sexual revolution should read it.  The book identification on amazon is:

    ASIN ‏ : ‎ B000EIKBFM

    Publisher ‏ : ‎ The Bruce Publishing Company (January 1, 1964)

    The approbations are as follows:

    Nihil Obstat: John T. Twomey, S.T.L., Ph.D

                           Censor Librorum

    Imprimatur: + Roman B. Atkielski

                              Vicar General of Milwaukee

    November 9, 1964  

      The final 2 parts of this review will give quotes from the book to show examples of the authors writing style and will show how he thoroughly structures his answers to questions.  To get more in-depth answers with clarifying arguments, you of course will have to read the book!    

  • The Blueprint for Hell and Who Will Create It. Hint: God Will Not Create It.

             In my second blog I posited that those in hell would create it themselves by their disobedient nature. I also tried to show how this is not an impossible outcome by the example of NAZI Germany and how it became basically a hell on Earth. Similarly, the godless communist philosophy of the former Soviet Union turned Russia in a hell on Earth. But those not acquainted with the Bible will say, God’s book, the Bible, never says anything close to: God will let the people He judges as not suitable for heaven create hell. Some will say, in fact, the Bible never even implies it. To that I would say take a look at Romans 1:16-32. They are as follows with commentary after each verse or group of related verses.
             Verse 16:
    “For I am not ashamed of the gospel. For it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth, to the Jew first, and to the Greek.”
    Commentary: this indicates that what follows is for eternal salvation of all that believe – both Jew and gentile.
             Verse 17:
    “For the justice of God is revealed therein, from faith unto faiths it is written: The just man liveth by faith”
    Commentary: God’s justice is meted out, in the next world, in its fullness, but as we saw in my second blog, the lesson, as to what results in not following God’s law is seen to be true in this world, so that it can be extrapolated as a natural result, if the behavior discussed is carried into the next world. In other words, God lets us see, in this world, that what he says is true for human nature in general and, though Catholics know God is incapable of lying, so that those reading the gospels will know what He says is true.
            Verse 18:
    “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and injustice of those men that detain the truth of God in injustice:”
    Commentary: It does not say God’s wrath is visited on man from heaven, it says “the wrath of God is revealed from heaven.” I see this as meaning God built his eternal punishment into man’s choice to eat of the tree of good and evil in the garden of Eden. His and her pride in thinking that they could understand things better than God from the knowledge they gained would be their downfall. The Truth (John 15:6), God’s Word (John 1:1) – Jesus Christ who is synonymous with the example of his life, is the only way man has to keep from destroying himself, by creating his own eternal torment in hell. Those that hold themselves to the Truth and are loyal to the Truth are kind to each other, loyal to one another and God and show mercy as God shows mercy and thereby follow the Path and maintain the heaven established by the Truth. In heaven there is no need for police because each person polices his or her self. In hell there can be no effective police because everyone is corrupt, without fidelity to the law, without affection for their fellow man and without mercy for anyone.
           Verse 19 and 20:
    “Because that which is known of God is manifest in them. For God hath manifested it unto them.”
    “For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable.”
    Commentary: As is pointed out in books such as C.S. Lewis’ Book Mere Christianity, God’s moral law, our sensitivity to injustice, the wrongness of going against the commandments (invisible to the eye) is written on our hearts (we know intuitively). We also have the reasoned facts that 1) God created us from nothingness 2) that He is all mighty and that 3) the success/stability of a society following his “rules” is the reasoned result of Him being all knowing and all good and in addition to “writing it on our hearts” revealed it in the Bible.       
           Verses 21-23:
    “Because that, when they knew God, they have not glorified him as God, or given thanks; but became vain in their thoughts and their foolish heart was darkened.”
    “For profession themselves to be wise, they became fools.”
    “And they changed the glory of the incorruptible God into the likeness of the image of corruptible man, and of birds, and of four footed beasts, and of creeping things.”
    Commentary: see the truth of this in Luther’s revolt against the Catholic Church and the wars it spawned and the thousands of martyrs that were killed because of accusations of disloyalty when certain countries went protestant. The stealing of cathedrals and universities built by the Catholic Church was also a result of the revolt. We also see the truth of this from the results of the writings of Voltaire and Rousseau which spawned the bloody the French Revolution and the Masonic order which arguably has done much to destabilize the Catholic Church as well as foment revolutions in Mexico etc.
             Verse 24:
    “Wherefore God gave them up to the desires of their hearts unto uncleanness, to dishonor their own bodies among themselves.”
    Commentary: Read closely in the verse above that “. . .God GAVE them up to the DESIRES OF THEIR HEART” [emphasis mine]. People who are hellbent on uncleanness and dishonoring their own, bodies God let them have their wishes, He did not force it on them. Hell is created by the people that will be there, NOT BY GOD!!!. As one example we see those who do not accept God as creating them “male and female” (Genesis 1:27) and because of this, these young girls and young women are being cheated out of their self-worth and scholarships in things like swimming competitions by transgender athletes. They are discriminating again against women by forcing them to compete against biological men.
             Verse 25:
    “Who changed the truth of God into a lie; and worship and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.”
    Commentary: The creature in this context is clearly the devil. Because the devil is an angelic intellect and those in hell will be forced to worship him due to his cunning and lack of Gods push back in hell because all there, by definition, have rejecting God. Because those in hell chose to reject God in life he is giving them all their wish. The lack of the love of God  – the rejection of God, and by extension His precepts, is the cause of hell.
            Verse 26 [and foot note  for this verse from the TAN edition of the Douay-Rheims Bible]:
    “For this cause God delivered them up to shameful affections. For their women have changed the natural use into that use which is against nature.”
    [Footnote – “God delivered them up” Not by being author of their sins, but by withdrawing his grace, and so permitting them, in punishment of their pride, to fall into those shameful sins.]

    Commentary: These sins like abortion (murder destroying possible citizens of heaven) and against the natural law seen in the attraction of man to woman and stated as the first command by God after creation (Genesis 1:28 “Increase and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it. . .”), and the use of contraceptives.
             Verse 27:
    “And, in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of the women, have burned in their lusts one towards another, men with men working that which is filthy, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error.”
    Commentary: The natural “use” of women is to work with God to produce possible citizens of heaven – children. Man to man sex cannot produce children and is for that reason is unnatural. Man to man attraction cannot necessarily be prevented, and is not in itself evil or bad, but the man-to-man interaction as with premarital heterosexual sex before marriage is something that will create hell. The thing in this life that they are most susceptible to is “. . .receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error.”  We can see from the CDC that this “recompense” can be, at least partially, Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STDs) of not only HIV but also Syphilis and gonorrhea. There is also evidence that psychological anomalies seem to be connected to those engaged in same sex activities (for some information see the article explored in the abstract https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S135311319890133X, for an actual internet posted article more in depth mentioning possible secular remedies see https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01506/full  )  
            Verses 28-31:

    “And as they liked not to have God in their knowledge, God delivered them up to a reprobate sense, to do those things which are not convenient;”

    “Being filled with all iniquity, malice, fornication, avarice, wickedness, full of envy, murder, contention, deceit, malignity, whisperers,”

    “Detractors, hateful to God, contumelious, proud, haughty, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,”

    “Foolish, dissolute, without affection, without fidelity, without mercy.”  
    Commentary: Those in hell (this group also, as in above cases, include those who reject God on Earth and is essentially a warning to those to change their ways to save themselves not only on Earth but in the next life) “liked to not have God in their knowledge,” which is to say they did not want to think about God and by extension what He labeled as right and wrong. In delivering them up to a reprobate state He let them be and do what they wanted. “Inventors of evil things” includes things like novel torture, eliciting extreme fear, attacking a country in the vanity of national pride etc. to be “without affection” is to be without charity or love. To be “without fidelity” is to have loyalty to nobody and basically creates a world where nobody can trust anybody else. Finally, to be “without mercy” is, for example, to be able to torture or assault someone either sexually, physically, emotionally or mentally without pity or respite simply for one’s own pleasure or entertainment.
           Verse 32:

    “Who, having known the justice of God, did not understand that they who do such things, are worthy of death; and not only they that do them, but they also that consent to them that do them.”
    Commentary: This is why those that do not positively follow the commandments and hold others in their care or authoritative influence such as children, family, employees or political constituents are condemned also. If you do not, in justice, stop evil you cannot be expected to be spared it. There is an adage that “silence implies consent” but whether or not you are in authority if you do not stop evil or say something about it (i.e., stay silent), you allow it, and in essence consent to evil and its consequence of hurting others. In addition, you will likely, given enough time, probably subject to that evil. And remember time in hell is infinite.

           Just as God gives free reign to our desires here on earth He will give the same freedom in the afterlife, but those in hell will be on their own, rejecting God and is all knowing wisdom as our creator. God will not be in hell to judge or enforce justice, He lets the avarice, murderous intent and malice in hell, allow its inhabitants take care of their punishment. So, the way those in hell create its punishment lie, for the most part, in the lack of compassion there.  It is clear to me that this excerpt from Romans is a blueprint for not only hell in the afterlife but also to create a hell here on Earth.

           But in heaven, these types of things will not be a problem because original sin will be removed as to our revealed desire to have it removed in living our lives committing to follow all of  God’s law (consenting to God’s will without reservation in all things) and thereby giving our consent to change us, to heal the wound of original sin, to allow us to once again use our intellect to do the right thing. Things like concupiscence will be permanently remove or otherwise suppressed by our reason and intellect. In Mark chapter 12 verses 24 and 25 he speaks of God using his power to make those that rise in the glory of heaven “as the angels in heaven.” In our life we must trust God in all things and believe all Jesus Christ and Christ’s church requires us to believe and make our will one with His to desire all He wants for us..

           “Have confidence in the Lord with all thy heart, and lean not upon thy own prudence.” (Proverbs 3:5 Douey-Rheims)

  • Human Weakness is part of why we can be happy

                In the catechism, as Catholics we learn that God made us .to “know love and serve him in this life and to be happy with him forever in the next life” If we think about it we can easily see that God specifically made us to be happy. What a normal person might see as a human “deficiency” (in comparison to God) only seems that way due to the fact that they don’t understand that to have all of God’s attributes we could never enjoy the most satisfying features of this life. What exactly do I mean by this?

                Let’s take the fact that God is all-knowing as a starter. If we were all knowing, we could never be surprised by, for instance, getting a brand new car for graduation.  We could not have a sense of humor since a sense of humor, as we see in the case of a comedians stand up performance or in a joke of a buddy, the thing that makes something funny is the unexpectedness of a different point of view or the use of a word or seeing a situation in an unexpected way or from a different point of view. Anyway how boring would life be for humans if we knew everything ahead of time? God expects everything since He knows all and “sees” all points of view.

                Next let us look at the fact that he is all powerful. If we were all powerful we could never have the exhilaration that is the result of accomplishment.  Our limitations mean that it is possible that we can fail at things.  When the Wright brother worked to invent the airplane, at the start they were not sure that they would accomplish that feat.  The fact is that when they did they experienced the thrill of accomplishment.

                There a few other “alls” that can be attributed to God like all-present, all seeing etc. but I will only cove one more, that is he is all-just, to make 2 points.  First, we can forgive someone for something they do not deserve forgiveness for (and if this were the end of their life and they were not Catholic, did not have perfect contrition for something they did or did not go to confession God would not forgive them because he is all-just), and because of this it may influence them to completely change their life (e.g. Alexsandro and Saint Maria Teresa Goretti).  I see this as part of why God came as Jesus Christ and Jesus formed his mystical body – the church, on earth.  We, as part of the mystical body of Christ, have the opportunity to save a soul from an eternity of horror and suffering.  This is how the mystical body allows God to give humans another possibility for mercy.  This is in addition the opportunity to appeal to our blessed mother to pray for help for us.  Unlike the myth that out lady can somehow let us into a back door to heaven directly, the back door she allows us is here on earth – an experience that will allow us to see the error of our ways on earth, help in our emotions to find true contrition and go to confession.   Second, If one is not in some way a part of the catholic church and/or fails to properly repent of a mortal sin, God is all just and will condemn that person to hell.  Am I saying God has no choice? No what I am saying is in the creation of the concept of justice God “locked in” His choices on what he would do at the instant of creation. How he created the world could have conceivably been different but this was the best way to create the world to maximize the happiness we could enjoy in heaven.  Maximizing the possible happiness of individuals in heaven is the reason God created everything the way He did.  Before God created us He knew us and for the benefit of all those in heaven He created the universe the way He did (Jeremiah 1:5).

               The fact is, as I read the bible, that God does not create the pains and horrors of hell, as I discussed in the previous blog. Now I did not say hell does not exist, because it does exist.  I did not say most people do not go to hell because our Lord said “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it.  But small is the gate and the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.” (Matthew 7:13-14 From the new international version of the bible) And therefore most people go to hell.  I also did not say hell is not as horrible as some, if not most, fear it to be because our Lord said “If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off, it is better for you to enter life crippled than to have two hands and go into hell, into the unquenchable fire.” (Mark 9:43-48). It is my opinion, from reading the bible, that the unspoken truth is it is probably worst that you can imagine. If God had created it you could imagine that there might be an end to the cruelty and horror there.  But God neither creates it nor is he there to moderate it in any substantive way.  His only commitment to them is to keep them in existence.  Once again in my opinion, from reading the bible, is the ultimate irony for those in hell’s rejection of God is that God will create hell the same as heaven, with the only real 2 real differences being 1. God grants those in hell their response of “no” to repair of original sin in our beings brought to us by our redeemer whose face they spat in and 2. Their response of “no” to God to bring the order he tried to teach them in their earthly life.  Now, who then creates hell? Where does it come from? The people like Hitler, Stalin. Pol Pot that are there as well as the devil and his demons.  And like many people in 2021 America the people that “aren’t so bad” will not try and stand up for what is right and things will get worst.  But, you say how could they let it get so bad? How did Cambodia under Pol Pot get so bad? How did the Soviet Union under Stalin get so bad? They got so bad because there was ultimately no outside source of moral rightness – no God or ultimate immutable law giver i.e. ultimately no ultimate law.  In other words it was an anything goes society with no limits on what you could do up to and including murder and torture people at your leisure if you were powerful enough. Until these totalitarian governments were forced by there economies and dearth of people to collapse, they simply, In my view, continued to get worst.  Without good people, all of whom will be in heaven there will be nothing to keep hell from getting worst and worst into infinity and that is the unspoken truth, that all should be able to deduce, about hell.

              A perfect God on the other hand, unlike what Martin Luther proposed in his doctrine about humans being irretrievably rotten and Christ’s death covering over our sin with a white sheet, created us to be perfect.  Part of being perfect of course is having free will. Adam and eve had everything to make them happy and had only really one law: do not eat the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.  In heaven people will have free will but they will become “as the angels in heaven (Mark 12:25). But this will be because in saying “yes” to all God wanted for us in life and “yes” to all his precepts, we give are complete and unqualified assent to “fixing” the wound of original sin any way He wants to and in so doing will make us like angels.  This being the case, since from all the bible passages I have seen, their appears to be no strife among the angels still in heaven, this means that there would be no strife among humans and no need for either police or soldiers. We could pursue our now ordered wants and desires anyway we wanted to and would always be mindful and practicing providing for the rights of all others, something that is totally foreign in our world.