IN AETERNUM NON PECCABIS

Addictions and Complusions

2011-12-24T06:46:00.000-08:00

The subject of the addiction or compulsion is the object of this post. Addictions in themselves are not the subject.

The required elements for a mortal sin can cause problems in examining oneself when influenced by habit.

All humans have habits and are subject to concupiscence, but there is a special disease which not all share, and that is compulsions, which are also the subject of medical treatment. In the realm of chemical substances, the term "addiction" is used to describe compulsive use of substances which are often harmful, serve no purpose, and yet, which are are used because of a very strong compulsion to use them.

Addiction has been used to describe other behaviours, particular behaviours which involve distinct chemical responses in the human brain. Whether it is appropriate to call such behaviour "addictive" is not important. The fact that certain, normal, activity can create a pathological pursuit which is never actually sated. That is, there is an intense feeling of need (like hunger) which cannot be satisfied. We get hungry, we eat, and we are not hungry. This is natural. Likewise, the human sex drive, survival responses, and other activities which are biologically rewarded can become severely disordered beyond concupiscence. There is a lot of science and chemistry behind how it works, but it is very clear that one's normally rebellious flesh can become severely diseased by having a very strong, unrestrained, unsatisfiable, and harmful perversion of an essentially good appetite.

Most "addictions" are not that obvious and may confuse the people who have them. Regardless of the medical classification, it is important to identify any behaviour or drive which is a result of an abnormal condition. If one suffers from a psychological or biological addiction or compulsion, if it is not identified, it may lead one to despair at one's inability to exercise one's will as one wishes.

Some times of actions which may commonly become the subject of compulsive behaviour would be (in no particular order):

Internet use, video games

Gambling, risk taking behaviour

Eating, drinking

Exercise, grooming, and activities related to one's appearance

Shopping, collecting, hoarding

Drug use (including legal drugs, or drugs found naturally)

Self harm

Sexually stimulating activity including pornography and self-abuse

Other behaviours

These activities are based on a good desire when ordered and can be influenced by concupiscence. However, our flesh is rebellious. Our biology may develop an inordinate desire to satisfy the desire, and lead one to be driven to satisfy it. Temporary relief does not satisfy the desire. People may end up spending an extremely large amount of time looking at pornography with no end, or hoarding certain items, or any item, without restraint, or doing some activity without mind of limits, etc.

It is probable most addictions and compulsions are started in ignorance or even in sin and develop into a greater disorder. It starts in satisfying the urge or in a choice to start. People who start these activities do so lawfully or unlawfully. But, whatever the action, once there is a disordered desire for it to this degree, it is by natural harmful. Exercise, dieting, shopping, and the like are all relatively normal good things. It is good to keep one's body healthy and to obtain what one can use for a good use, but they are also activities which if done out of compulsion will result in harm. A person with a disordered urge to exercise will do so to one's detriment. Normally, people exercise because they enjoy it, they improve their physical abilities, or to reach a certain goal. Abnormally, it is done because one is compelled to, even if one does not enjoy it, one is physically harmed or degrades in ability (one of the reasons why people start using performing enhancement drugs without any logical incentives), or it otherwise becomes a problem in one's life.

Some activities may be more likely to result in compulsions than others, and some people may be more likely to develop compulsions. What matters to individuals is if one exists or not. How common or probable it is is not important.

There are two responses a rational person could have to such a disease:

Accept it

Resist it

People may accept the disorder and defend it. This is common in activities where the harm is not obvious or the addiction is very common. I have seen this in people who have addictions to tobacco or pornography. Since the object is common and not illegal, it is mentally easy to accept it and cooperate with the disorder. Any resistance would be external. One may not use the drug at times because of other people, but not because one has chosen to reject it in oneself. This may result in obvious problems with other people (hiding, lying, stealing, etc) yet the object of the disorder may be embraced.

Or, a person can resist the disorder. Setting the will against the flesh is what we are all called to do, and it is not easy. Addictions and compulsions are much harder to resist to the extent where they may be overpowering and one cannot see how to resist. If one has never experienced this, one may think to deny such a thing exists, but it certainly does exist even if one has not experienced it. These are temptations which are beyond normal to where I think it is possible they are in fact not something which one could resist fully.

The cost of accepting is death. The reward for resisting is life:

James 1:12-15
Blessed is the man that endureth temptation; for when he hath been proved, he shall receive a crown of life, which God hath promised to them that love him. Let no man, when he is tempted, say that he is tempted by God. For God is not a tempter of evils, and he tempteth no man. But every man is tempted by his own concupiscence, being drawn away and allured. Then when concupiscence hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin. But sin, when it is completed, begetteth death.

Given that a mortal sin requires knowledge and will as well as the meeting the grave matter, it is probable that many acts done out of compulsion are not mortally sinful even if they be a grave matter.

Compulsion is not an excuse for sin. It is commonly mentioned in people who have a habit of self-abuse, but the act is still as disordered as it ever was and if the act is accepted, then one sins to the extent one cooperates with the disorder.

We cannot know our judgement, but from Faith, we are given Hope by God. If this Hope is rejected, then one has despaired, which is against God.

Resisting compulsions may seem to be futile. One feels distressed and not particularly happy when it is resisted, and if one falls, one may feel even worse. This "pain" or "greater pain, but with a disordered temporal satisfaction" is not something which one can naturally overcome. We easily resist doing something that hurts, such as touching fire. There is no need for reward of any sort to not touch fire. However, if one is in cold water, then running onto the hot sand may seem like a good idea and bring a little satisfaction at least. Such is the resistance against addiction and compulsion. Ideally, one could fully will not to engage the activity and live in accordance with that choice. But that is not the way it usually is. After rejection, the compulsion remains. I cannot help but think of this "super concupiscence". It is the same battle, on a different scale, but the price is the same.

Because it is essentially the same, the ways of overcoming are similar.

The importance of avoiding the Occasion of Sin is paramount. If one cannot restrain oneself with using a credit card, shopping by some means, or collecting an item, etc, then it is better to completely forsake it.

Mark 9:46
And if thy eye scandalize thee, pluck it out. It is better for thee with one eye to enter into the kingdom of God, than having two eyes to be cast into the hell of fire:

This is not always possible (see the part on the inability for most to actually avoid all proximate occasions of sin and the example used in scripture is supposed to show the importance forsaking the object of sin not a call to self mutilation), but the extent to which it is avoidable may be underestimated. We often view things which we have often had available as being necessary. Most of the time, we can forsake something without any issues except for the resistance to giving up the object. For example, for people who habitually watch TV shows, there will likely be no problem if the ability to watch the TV show is completely removed after it is removed. It is the removing that is the problem. How many sins would we avoid if we just were able to avoid the occasion?

One should seek spiritual direction and, if useful, psychological or medical help for overcoming these sorts of problems.

However, the price is high and easily forgotten. The prize is large, but out of sight. The action may be forsaken, but the compulsion remains. It is not pleasant, but this pain will be worth it. How many think it would be good to be a martyr, yet find it difficult to accept the discomfort, pain, and trials which do not get such acclaim?

The Occasion of Sin

2011-11-25T01:38:00.000-08:00

An "occasion" is "A particular time or instance of an event". It is merely an opening to do a certain act. Since we do not sin except by our own will (however slight), an occasion of sin is a circumstance may be a cause of sin.

When it comes to sin, the occasion can be complex. Given that sin is an inward act, anything can be an occasion of sin and this will be addressed shortly. However, there are two general types:

Remote Occasion: An occasion of sin which is merely an occasion and does not entice or appeal in any way to an individual (ie, being in the presence of another person is an occasion to commit murder, because without another person, the act of murder cannot exist)

Proximate Occasion: An occasion of sin which particularly appeals or entices one to commit a sin (ie, reading overtly blasphemous works for the sake of entertainment)

Whether a given sin involved a remote or proximate occasion can be debated. Also, the necessity of being in a given possible occasion of sin complicates the matter. One can easily deceive oneself and self analysis cannot be addressed by a third party perfectly. The guidance of a spiritual director is necessary to resolve specific questions or concerns one has.

What is clear is that easily avoidable proximate occasions of sin are to be avoided. To do otherwise is extremely foolish and dangerous and it is a grave matter and a potential mortal sin. That is an easy thing to write, but it is not so easy in practice most of the time. Except for those able to withdraw from the world to a degree to which most are not called, we have necessary situations which may be proximate occasions of sin. Therefore, we cannot fully avoid them all.

Dealing with unavoidable proximate occasions of sin is a troublesome issue we must constantly face, but the biggest danger is when we are blind to them.

That is the first important thing: to be mindful of occasions of sin and to treat them as such and avoid all proximate occasions of sin which we can avoid according to our state in life.

When one examines one's life, examining occasions of sin and our responses to them will be necessary. Willfully and knowingly subjecting oneself to a proximate occasion of sin without necessity should be treated as any other potentially grave sin: it should be confessed, absolved, and one should resolve to do penance and to amend one's life. As one improves one's awareness and will to avoid sin, one will be able to prune occasions of sin, and therefore many sins, from ever being potentially committed. And for necessary occasions of sin, such as being around the increasingly pervasive immodest and blasphemous elements of this world which are found in all aspects of the worldly life, one should strive to properly prepare oneself to avoid sinning as one cannot avoid the occasions.

As we work towards avoiding sin in response to unavoidable occasions of sin, the second important thing naturally arises: to be mindful of oneself being an occasion of sin for others and conduct oneself properly to avoid being an occasion of the spiritual ruin of another. This subject is another topic, that of scandal. There are two types of scandal and the distinction between them is extremely important.

A scandal can be an active scandal or a passive scandal. Concisely defined:

Active scandal is when a person’s evil acts or evil words or words or acts which appear evil are the occasion of sin for another.

Passive scandal is when a person’s acts or words are an occasion of sin of another because of the other person’s evil disposition.

Passive scandal is a sin in the person scandalised and active scandal is a sin in the person causing scandal. Those who are scandalised by Christ’s words, the teachings of the Church, or people following them are sinning by their own will. Distinction between active scandal and passive scandal is important for understanding the scriptures.

As written, anything is an occasion of sin. Even Christ is an occasion of sin:

Romans 9:33
As it is written: Behold I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and a rock of scandal; and whosoever believeth in him shall not be confounded.

Matthew 18:7
Woe to the world because of scandals. For it must needs be that scandals come: but nevertheless woe to that man by whom the scandal cometh.

The word is from the Greek and it just means a thing which causes another to stumble. That is, it is a thing which impedes another. The impediment is to Spiritual Perfection. Anything which is a scandal is a potential impediment to someone's spiritual perfection. The difference between the two types is that an active scandal is a sin for the person committing the act which is the cause of spiritual ruin and a passive scandal is a sin for the person who stumbles. To do, encourage, glorify, or otherwise appear evil in a way which may lead another astray is to commit an active scandal and it is a sin. However, to do, encourage, glorify, or otherwise appear good in a way which another uses as an occasion of sin to reject God, blaspheme, or otherwise be evil is a sin for the person who has found scandal.

For us, this means that we will be occasions of sin for others. If we are holy, the world will reject us in some fashion and use our holiness as the occasion of many sins. If we are evil, then we are occasions of sin for those who would not otherwise be potentially endangered by our conduct. It is also important to note that committing an active scandal is still a sin even if no one sins because of it. Committing an evil act is a sin. Having that sin be an occasion of sin for anther is another sin.

The importance of being holy not only for our sake, but for the sake of others, is high. Every being is responsible for their own actions and by the grace of God salvation is possible and when we fall the offense against God is greater if we are an occasion for others to fall as well. We are to pray for our own salvation and by charity for the salvation of others, not impede what is holy.

Is X a Mortal Sin?

2011-11-17T18:17:00.000-08:00

It is common to wonder if a given act, whether committed or not by anyone in particular, is a "mortal sin". The importance of this question is grave:

Baltimore Catechism #3:

Q. 280. What is mortal sin?
A. Mortal sin is a grievous offense against the law of God.

Q. 281. Why is this sin called mortal?
A. This sin is called mortal because it deprives us of spiritual life, which is sanctifying grace, and brings everlasting death and damnation on the soul.

So, asking if a given act is a mortal sin is very important, but it is easily forgetful of the definition of a mortal sin:

Q. 282. How many things are necessary to make a sin mortal?
A. To make a sin mortal, three things are necessary: 1.a grievous matter, sufficient reflection, and full consent of the will.

A given act therefore can only be a grievous matter. Many things can be grievous matters. A mortal sin can be committed with a thought as well as an action. It can be known by others, or others may never be affected by it.

QQ. 284. What does "sufficient reflection and full consent of the will" mean?
A. "Sufficient reflection" means that we must know the thought, word or deed to be sinful at the time we are guilty of it; and "full consent of the will" means that we must fully and willfully yield to it.

This is a tricky thing to answer for another, and sometimes for oneself. Therefore, the best and surest thing to do is confess the sin and give all necessary facts to the priest. A trusted spiritual director should also be obtained if possible.

If we will it, we can easily deceive ourselves. So, if we wanted, we could convince ourselves that the will or knowledge was deficient to commit a mortal sin. Now, individually, dealing with ourselves varies. Some people may be prone to deceiving themselves they have not committed a mortal sin, and others may fear that all imperfections were mortal sins. It is not my place to even pretend to be able to answer such questions specifically. I barely answer themselves for myself even though I do not have major problems with any spiritual reflection on my acts (for which I am grateful).

A general rule I find is that is one is actually distressed at one's sins to any degree, that one probably is suffering from a bad habit, scruples, or another distress and it is not a case of a purposeful commission of an a known evil act. If one is looking for justification for an evil act, seeking to be comforted for acts which one chooses freely to commit, or trying to find an excuse, then one should change the behaviour.

But whatever the case, following the instructions of an authority in spiritual matters should resolve most conflicts within oneself.

Living in this world is not joyful, and often sorrowful. We may be tormented by bad habits, social or personal rejection, mental, physical, and spiritual weaknesses, or even harm, but our bodies are mortal and the soul is immortal. God is all knowing, all powerful, merciful, and just.

We are told to strive, to persevere, to constantly pray, not to find a level and stay there. A constant improvement, a constant striving, and a constant grace is necessary. It is not what our flesh desires, but it leads to Eternal Salvation.

The Crucial Difference Between Feeling and Being

2011-11-02T05:57:00.000-07:00

We feel happy. We feel guilty. We feel safe. We have many feelings, and they change as easily as we get them. While the purpose of feelings are to give us feedback on our state, ie, if we did not feel hungry, tired, scared, we would have to commit eating, sleeping, and protecting ourselves to a fully rational decision, which takes time and would likely result in one's death. We feel, we act. Then we think. That is the easiest process we follow. Most of the time, we justify past behaviour, not choose future behaviour. While this is not a problem for individual acts usually, our overall direction should not be based on feelings, but on a rational choice to accept Truth. If we enslave ourselves to our feelings, we are led by the flesh alone and are living a futile life.

In regards to sin, we may feel joyful, innocent, hopefully, and secure, but that does not mean we are. Likewise, we may feel miserable, sorrowful, isolated, and alone, but that does not mean we are. God is not a sensory experience, but He Who Is, the all-powerful, all-knowing, and perfect One who is the Beginning and the End, who created all so we may be able to love and be happy with God forever. A biological/psychological state in the mortal body is a passing and ultimately futile guide. If we expect to feel the grace of God, then we will fall victim to illusions, and many do. The most perfect state of life, the ascetic consecrated life in accordance with the Evangelical Virtues does not usually bring pleasure to the flesh, but the unspeakable joy in the soul exists. The worldly only see the mortification and how limiting that is!

We may deceive ourselves, and others, but ultimately, what we are is what we are, and what we feel will pass with our flesh.

Do we seek the perfection of God, who is beyond this world and in whose image we were created, or do we seek the passing illusions of the flesh?

No wonder we were so strongly warned to be vigilant to avoid being lead astray. We are pulled by our fallen nature in all directions, but only the will cooperating with the grace of God can find happiness.

The Crucial Difference Between a Vice and a Sin

2011-10-27T05:58:00.000-07:00

"Vice" and "Sin" seemed to be used without distinction sometimes. Understanding the simple difference is useful in understanding one's spiritual struggles and successes.

The Force of Habit is a human characteristics. We tend to do things by habit. Directly ourselves, and our habits, is part of overcoming sin. To direct oneself towards what is good is to develop good habits, that is, virtues. Removing and overcoming bad habits, vices, which are opposed to good, is essential to living in the spirit. It is in our choices and efforts that we find merit or sin. If we will to do good, but struggle in overcoming our bad habits, that is a sign of reduced guilt in the individual sins. Bad habits, vices, plague us, they cause us much grief and frustration at times, but we have to understand that we are sick in the spirit as well as in the flesh, and we need to be healed. God is the source of all that is good and all healing. It is by God's grace, and our cooperation with it, that we find eternal joy.

Vices are like spiritual allergic states. In the flesh, an allergy is something one has in reaction to an allergen. A person can be allergic to nuts for instance, making the mere physical contact with nuts or the oils of nuts dangerous. But, a person with such an allergy is not actually physically harmed by the allergy itself. It is only when triggered is it dangerous. Such people take extra care in avoiding whatever could cause dangerous and even lethal reactions. Likewise, a person with a vice, such as one of the most common (and least realised) vice of being prone to gossip and idle speech, is not actually committing a sin, ie, being spiritually interiorly harmed, unless one is given, and then takes, the chance to complete the sin.

That is why avoiding and removing all possible sources of temptations of a particular bad habit (of all sorts, but especially vices) is one of the first and most basic steps to overcoming. Removing the ability to complete the sin shows one's will and intent to do good and it prevents the sin from occurring at all in the future. Naturally, it is not always so simple, especially with some vices which are easily activated. Choosing to put oneself in danger is a cooperation with the vice and clearly indicates more guilt. We will look for excuses to retain the temptations, especially if they are common. If the temptations are found in unimportant social events, entertainment (especially movies), online browsing habits, etc, we will find reasons to retain the acts because the acts may be "normal" and not harmful in themselves. But remember, nuts are not harmful either in themselves, but they can kill those who are allergic to them. The defect is not in the object, but in oneself.

And then there are many times were we cannot avoid the temptations completely. This is especially true of those which mainly originate in one's own passions or in social situations and one cannot withdraw from the world completely (a rare vocation). In these times, one must be vigilant and extra prayerful. One is in "enemy territory" and we do not know what will happen. This is brought to light in the Lord's Prayer. "Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil.". God has pleaded for us to pray for protection against temptation, because God knows the dangers we will face if we rely on our own selves.

One last point is that removing the possibility of completely the vice does not result in much gain. A person who avoids nuts is still allergic to them (as far as I know). A person who removes the ability to complete a sin still has the vice. It is by replacing it with a good habit, with the corresponding virtue, that one grows in holiness. Prayer is especially essential for this because even though we can (to a degree) avoid the sin, we need God's grace to fill us. Any person who is unable to commit a particular sin is not necessarily holy. Even a person who desires to complete the sin would be unable to do so in such situations. It is by growing in virtue that we grow closer to God.

We are human; we have vices. What are they? The most harm comes from vices we fail to recognise in ourselves.

Reprobation and Predestination

2011-10-24T09:32:00.000-07:00

The relationship between Grace and Free Will is difficult for the human intellect. The mysteries concerning predestination, which we are about to partially address here, are not suitable for any sort of speculation. Study of it should be done with love of God and Truth and with humbleness because it is something we can grasp in part, but not perfectly, which leaves much potential for errors.

The main issue, if you have never considered it is: God is omniscient and omnipotent. God knows everything, including what we call the future (although I am not sure sure "future" is a word which truly makes sense in light of God's Nature). God knows, therefore, what choices we will make and how we will act and whether we are saved or not. God knew since the beginning. We have free will, and are able to choose God or reject God. God is all good and does not cause any to sin. We need God's grace to overcome sin and be saved.

Those facts are simple, the problem occurs when we try to "be like God" and how it all works. How can God be the means of salvation, while knowing our fate, and us having free will.

The problem is only when we try to be like God. It disappears when we trust in God. It is still difficult for the intellect, but it is not a problem any more than anything else our minds cannot grasp.

The term "reprobate" and "elect" are used used to describe those who are damned and those who are saved. We are not God therefore it is not for us to know who is which. That is why we are given "hope". Imagine if God revealed a future sin to us, would we do that sin because we knew it was inevitable anyway? Would we despair knowing we are foretold to sin? In general, we do not know. But we can see instances where such knowledge is revealed to man:

Matthew 26:34-35,75
Jesus said to him: Amen I say to thee, that in this night before the cock crow, thou wilt deny me thrice. Peter saith to him: Yea, though I should die with thee, I will not deny thee. And in like manner said all the disciples....And Peter remembered the word of Jesus which he had said: Before the cock crow, thou wilt deny me thrice. And going forth, he wept bitterly.

Matthew 26:21-35
And whilst they were eating, he said: Amen I say to you, that one of you is about to betray me. And they being very much troubled, began every one to say: Is it I, Lord? But he answering, said: He that dippeth his hand with me in the dish, he shall betray me. The Son of man indeed goeth, as it is written of him: but woe to that man by whom the Son of man shall be betrayed: it were better for him, if that man had not been born. And Judas that betrayed him, answering, said: Is it I, Rabbi? He saith to him: Thou hast said it.

In this chapter, Jesus reveals to Peter that Peter would deny Jesus three times that night. Peter does not believe this and declares his intention never to do such a thing. Judas, who had already conspired to betray Jesus, also hears that Jesus knows of the deceit and that the fate of that person was horrible. Peter of course soon after denies knowing Jesus and weeps when he remembers what Jesus had said to him. Judas goes through which the plan to betray Jesus, despairs, and hangs himself. Now, it is improper to say that Jesus caused Peter to deny Jesus and caused Judas to hang himself. This revelation, public, of the future choices and fates of others is rare. The mystery of exactly what happened with Peter and Judas during their temporal lives during these events is difficult to comprehend. But it is not so foreign to us. We just do not realise it, much like Peter did not remember what Jesus said while he was denying him thrice.

Peter apparently did not realise he was denying Christ while he was doing so. Why? He was not prepared for what happened, that is why. He had good intentions, but he was human and either did not prepare for what happened, was caught up in the moment, did not envision denying Christ would be so mundane, and was generally lacking the vigilance of which Christ had repeated warned him during praying in the garden. This is one of the reasons why we need continual replenishment of God's grace. It is not because God is lacking, but because we are lacking. We need a daily examination of our life, a renewal of our commitment, and a constant feeding of our soul. If we deny our bodies food in life, the body suffers. If we deny our soul the grace of God, then our soul suffers. We are temporal and only in the end will we find eternity.

Consider what Jesus told Peter. Peter did not intend to deny Jesus and when he did, he wept, that is, he repented. Now, if Peter had not been to blame for those acts, he would not have wept. If God told me that because of a mental defect, I would lose all rational thinking and I would say words without knowing what I was saying and those words would be blasphemous, I would of course be sorrowful for the affliction, but I would not be concerned for the sin of blasphemy. One cannot sin without knowledge and intention and if I am irrational, then it is not my choice. So Peter repented for a choice he made, a choice he knew he was going to make, and a choice Jesus knew he was going to make. Yet, he was able to repent and receive forgiveness. What about Judas? Was his damnation his fault or God's? Logically, it must be his fault. But, Jesus himself told him he would be lost. Did Judas carry out the plan because of this? Why then did he despair? Anybody committed to sin usually does not despair like that. Most people know in their hearts fornication is wrong, but they overlook that and continue in their sin. They make excuses, they are presumptuous, and they are in sin. Judas knowing he was lost despaired, that is, he lost hope in God and denied himself the grace of God. He did not ask for forgiveness nor did he seek to amend. God knew this ultimate end of Judas. What is the exact relationship between Jesus's revelation to Judas to this sin is difficult to comprehend although it is clear that Jesus could not have caused evil and Judas's sin was his own choice.

Since we do not generally know, and we cannot know due to our human nature, what God knows, we have hope for salvation, but we do not have knowledge of it. In fact, if God were to ask me if I wanted to know my fate, I would say "no". If I knew I was elect, I could not stand it properly and would not be able to avoid sin therefore committing sins and the sin of presumption and therefore could not be saved, therefore I could not be elect, but reprobate, which would cause me to lose hope and despair. I cannot have that knowledge because it is not good for me. If I had perfect charity, love of God, I could have it. In fact, it is in cultivation of charity and prayer for increase in charity, that we find that most certainty of salvation. I do not know knowledge of my fate, but an increase in the love of God so I may more fully do what is good.

There is a reason why God is unable to be grasped by our minds. We say God is great, but we often expect God to be within our reach. A true understanding of God is not possible, but one can be more aware, therefore, understand to the extent we are capable, of the glory of God. God's love, justice, mercy, anger are infinite and we cannot grasp them. Contemplation of God's love should fill us with a never ending joy. Contemplation of God's justice should fill us with a fear only restrained by knowledge of God's mercy to those who show repentance. Are we filled with an urgency to repent and reform? Or are we content to be as we are?

Why would God give us so many opportunities for grace if we did not need it and what would be our fate if we rejected those opportunities by our own free will?

Acts of Reparation

2011-10-17T13:08:00.000-07:00

Reparation can be a complicated theological consideration because it involves many mysteries of the Faith. Instead of trying to completely understand the concept, it is better to first accept it because even if we do not understand it, God has willed it.

In the human sense of justice, "reparation is replenishment of a previously inflicted loss by the criminal to the victim". This is often quantified in terms of monetary value. So a person who has caused harm to another which is estimated to cost a certain amount to repair, that person would be responsible for giving that person that amount to cover the wrongdoing. There are problems with this as some things cannot easily, or at all, be given a monetary value. What is the proper reparation for the loss of life, physical ability, or time itself? Reparation is imperfect most of the time unless the loss was monetary only. But such is human justice.

In the theological concept of reparation, the same problems infinitely magnified occur. What can man give to God for our sins against Him? What can the human race do to repair the irreparable harm we have done to ourselves through Original Sin? We cannot add to or subtract from God. God is omnipotent and omniscient and without time. God is the beginning and the end. Our beings cannot begin to comprehend God.

This leads to the conclusion that there is nothing man can do to make reparation. Only God could make reparation. This leads to the mystery of the Incarnation and Passion. This profound act of love was able to satisfy the ineffable Will of God concerning Justice. But was it necessary? It is only necessary in the sense that since God willed it, it must be necessary. However, we have no reason to think God was bound to save us. It is only because of God's Love that this was done.

This magnitude of love is beyond our understanding and should be constantly considered.

Consider Genesis 22 where Abraham is asked by God to sacrifice his son Isaac. Abraham was stopped by God who revealed that it was a test and that because of Abraham's act of loving God more than his son, Abraham would be blessed (which we know to have been completed in the birth of Jesus and the founding of the Church for all people). Furthermore, God provided a ram to be sacrificed.

This event has all the characteristics of the mystery we consider here. All that was sacrificed to God was in fact provided by God. Furthermore, God had no need of any of the sacrifices. God only accepted them in light of the person doing the sacrifice and that was only so because God loved that person and wanted good things for that person.

Psalms 50:19
A sacrifice to God is an afflicted spirit: a contrite and humbled heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.

This relationship is of a parent to a child. I have seen a child desire to make some work of art for her mother. This child was greatly frustrated by the lack of ability to make what she considered to be a suitable work for her mother. As people who are older, we recognise that the mother would have probably appreciated anything given because the value is not in the objective quality of the art, but of the child's love. Furthermore, the love of the mother for the child is not dependent on the art or the love it reflects. This relationship is very much like the relationship of God to us, but on an infinitely perfect level.

Reparation therefore is not just justice, but love. It is not necessary, but that is what makes it so pleasing. God does not need it. We do.

Consider what St. Paul wrote to the Romans, and to us:

Romans 12:1
I BESEECH you therefore, brethren, by the mercy of God, that you present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, pleasing unto God, your reasonable service.

All sacrifices and reparations to God are part of the Will of God because of God's Love.

The profound act of reparation and the highest sacrifice was God the Son taking on flesh and dying so we may live. This sacrifice was given to us so we may be saved and it is the center of our worship of God through the institution of the Eucharist.

Furthermore, we can make acts of reparation for our own sins and for the sins of others. These acts are allowed by God to satisfy the punishment due for certain sins. This mystery of Divine Justice should not be taken as a completely legalistic phenomenon. It is intensely intertwined with the mystery of the Love of God.

Specifically, reparations should be made:

For personal sins

For insults and blasphemies against God, especially particular ones against the Trinity and Jesus

For insults and blasphemies against the Blessed Virgin Mary, the handmaid of the Lord

Acts of penance and reparation should not be dismissed. It was the penance of the people of Ninive which caused God to spare the city.

Jonas 3
And the word of the Lord came to Jonas the second time, saying: Arise, and go to Ninive the great city: and preach in it the preaching that I bid thee. And Jonas arose, and went to Ninive, according to the word of the Lord: now Ninive was a great city of three days' journey. And Jonas began to enter into the city one day's journey: and he cried, and said: Yet forty days, and Ninive shall be destroyed. And the men of Ninive believed in God: and they proclaimed a fast, and put on sackcloth from the greatest to the least. And the word came to the king of Ninive; and he rose up out of his throne, and cast away his robe from him, and was clothed with sackcloth, and sat in ashes. And he caused it to be proclaimed and published in Ninive from the mouth of the king and of his princes, saying: Let neither men nor beasts, oxen nor sheep, taste any thing: let them not feed, nor drink water. And let men and beasts be covered with sackcloth, and cry to the Lord with all their strength, and let them turn every one from his evil way, and from the iniquity that is in their hands. Who can tell if God will turn, and forgive: and will turn away from his fierce anger, and we shall not perish? And God saw their works, that they were turned from their evil way: and God had mercy with regard to the evil which he had said that he would do to them, and he did it not.

How much more just is punishment when the people who do evil are knowledgeable about good and evil? How much more efficacious is the penance of those who are mindful of God?

The Easiest Deception

2011-10-13T18:53:00.000-07:00

The ease of deception varies a lot. Even if one is able to fool many, one cannot fool all, and not forever.

It is difficult to overcome the intelligence and skepticism of others. However, there is one person who can be consistently deceived without any other person being aware of it.

That person is oneself. One can deceive oneself with ease and without much impediment. Nobody is immune to this. It is a matter of free will coupled with the weaknesses of human psychology.

Because we do not have such insight into any other people, we can effectively close our mind to certain aspects of ourselves without anyone ever knowing. We have complete deniability, or so we think.

Psalms 7:10
The wickedness of sinners shall be brought to nought: and thou shalt direct the just: the searcher of hearts and reins is God.

God has complete and perfect knowledge of all.

While we cannot perceive God with our senses, we can rationally know this and it is possible to be closer to God in the soul. However, it is a wonder that we spend so much effort to concern ourselves with how others perceive ourselves, but we do not act like we know that God, the all powerful all knowing creator of all, is watching. That is the source of the deception: we deny God exists.

It is a fool who does something in sight of others, with knowledge that others see, and then denies doing it. The only two recourses are to call the others liars or to accept what one has done. But this is what we do when we deny our sins: we call God, The God of Truth, a liar.

This is why we admission of sins is good. There are some who say "I am a sinner, therefore I sin" as if that removed guilt (it does not). Admission of sins is an admission of one's need of grace and of desire for forgiveness and strength to not to sin again. We must remove our old nature, the nature into which we were born, and put on the new. That is, to put aside the flesh and live in the spirit:

Ephesians 4:24
And put on the new man, who according to God is created in justice and holiness of truth.

Finding perfection in this world cannot be done absolutely, but the striving and the yearning can bring us closer to it. What joy is found at the end for the faithful servants who do the will of God?

Mortality and Eternal Salvation: The Inconstant Mind

2011-10-13T18:14:00.001-07:00

Imagine wanting two things which cannot be obtained together, yet working towards both. What does scripture teach?

Luke 16:13
No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or he will hold to the one, and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon.

James 1:8
A double minded man is inconstant in all his ways.

A person who is undirected wanders aimlessly and never gets anywhere except temporarily and by chance.

We may find ourselves overly distracted in mundane affairs. A person may have health goals, but a habitual lifestyle which is incompatible with those goals. A person may have personal and professional goals which are difficult to reconcile. A person may have productivity competing with recreation. It happens in life and managing our temporal affairs is the focus of many self-help works and courses. However, much of those aspects are merely distractions. No matter our health, we are mortal. No matter our finances, we are mortal. No matter our achievements we are mortal.

We are mortal.

This mortality puts a very firm limit on our ability to value vanity. Those who do live in the flesh die with it.

The single fundamental End is simple:

Why did God make us?
God made us to show forth His goodness and to share with us His everlasting happiness in heaven.

That is the simplicity of it. Our End is happiness and this is found in God alone. All else is passing. To be able to have everlasting happiness, we need to be immoral, which our spirits are. We also need free will, which we have. Since God desires us to be happy, the only true obstacle to salvation is our own will. Ultimately, once God has offered us salvation, it is up us to accept it.

Due to sin, we are impeded, but in the end, this will be removed from us and there will be perfection.

All we do must be ultimately aimed at this one End in some fashion otherwise we risk losing it. Due to our mortality, this may be, and will be, a constant reform in our lives as we approach the unapproachable. Removing sin from our lives may uncover lesser sins, and combating those may reveal other weaknesses. We may grow more aware of the glory of God and seek it more fully in our lives. Exactly what our individual callings are in this regard are individually given, but we can be sure that if all is done for the glory of God it is good.

This blog reflects the thoughts of a single man, myself, and the changes in my life may be reflected in this blog. The assessment of music methods as being incapable of being inherently evil was reformed by the voluntary rejection of my habit of indulging in music. My political thoughts were slightly reformed with a recognition of the authority of civil authority being from God and my previous statements were not worded carefully. With each change made with the grace of God, one moves closer to God. How can we anticipate the future? We may, in our current state, fear the future for it may call for a reform for which we are currently unprepared. This rejection of a greater grace from God is dangerous and should not be resisted.

Trust in God and live in accordance with the will of God in all things because it leads to the only thing which matters - Eternal Salvation - which is the eternal happiness for which we were created.

Asceticism and Christian Perfection

2011-10-08T19:13:00.000-07:00

Asceticism is the way of "exercising" oneself to be more perfect.

Consider the following:

Matthew 19:16-21

And behold one came and said to him: Good master, what good shall I do that I may have life everlasting? Who said to him: Why asketh thou me concerning good? One is good, God. But if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. He said to him: Which? And Jesus said: Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness. Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. The young man saith to him: All these I have kept from my youth, what is yet wanting to me? Jesus saith to him: If thou wilt be perfect, go sell what thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come follow me.

Asceticism can be seen as the completion of a process. The following of commandments and not committing mortal sins is the first step of this process. The second step would be striving not to commit any venial sins. The third, and last, would be to continually grow closer to God in all things even without any sins to overcome. This mastery of self goes beyond what is necessary for Eternal Salvation, but, if one considers it, it is wholly good for those who are able to do it.

Luke 9:23

And he said to all: If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me.

It is important to remember that the motivation for this is not merely natural virtue but a love of God. It is the giving up one's life to God. The giving up of things and mortification of the flesh are the most visible aspects of asceticism, but that is not the goal of it.

The ascetic seems to be very wrong to the worldly. Those who are worldly, living in the flesh, cannot comprehend what is to be gained by giving up what seems to be "good". In terms of relative values, the ascetic is "evil" to the hedonist and materialistic. Likewise, to the faithful, the ascetic seems to be strange at the least and people are suspecting of the outward signs of asceticism because they are seen, they are easily thought to be the only aspects of the ascetic. The ascetic, by definition, has reduced care and attention to worldly things, so what is a major difference for the more worldly is probably a very insignificant difference to the ascetic. The non-intellectual find the intellectual pursuits to be boring and unfulfilling, yet the intellectual person finds great satisfaction in intellectual pursuits. Likewise, the ascetic can find great joy in the inward life that is not readily communicated to others. This inner life is where joy is found even when sorrow is found elsewhere:

Romans 7:22-25

For I am delighted with the law of God, according to the inward man: But I see another law in my members, fighting against the law of my mind, and captivating me in the law of sin, that is in my members. Unhappy man that I am, who shall deliver me from the body of this death? The grace of God, by Jesus Christ our Lord. Therefore, I myself, with the mind serve the law of God; but with the flesh, the law of sin.

This is the effect of sin. While one may will to be good, one must always in life resist evil and sin and the corrupted nature of oneself. The flesh is mortified not for its own sake, but because it is necessary. It must be controlled so one is not drawn away from God. But that is all. Mortification of the flesh and denial of oneself are very apparent as part of the ascetic life, but in reality, they are not essential to it.

A real mystery is why people are ascetic. Are they called to it by God? Is it a choice? What is the motivation? The motivation is charity: love of God. But why is it not a precept then? It is difficult to consider. Perhaps the ascetic would in fact sin by resisting the call and those who are called are ones that that need such a calling for salvation. Or perhaps it is never necessary.

Matthew 19:12

For there are eunuchs, who were born so from their mother's womb: and there are eunuchs, who were made so by men: and there are eunuchs, who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven. He that can take, let him take it.

But it is clear, those who can accept the calling benefit from accept it. Why would a person called to perfection resist and how could resisting be chosen without great sadness as the rich man?

The Force of Habit

2011-10-08T18:02:00.000-07:00

What is a habit?

A habit is inertia in human life.

Sir Isaac Newton defined "inertia" as:

The vis insita, or innate force of matter, is a power of resisting by which every body, as much as in it lies, endeavours to preserve its present state, whether it be of rest or of moving uniformly forward in a straight line.

This is a physical law which is well observed. Things maintain their state unless acted upon by a force. This remarkably aligns with human behaviour and choices. We tend to do things in the same situations the same way without being entirely in control of our actions. This is necessary. If we had to commit our reason to every act, we would not be able to function. The importance therefore of understanding habits and their effects on us should be evident. If one has a habit which inclines one to evil acts, a bad habit, then it should be removed. If one has a habit which inclines one to good acts, then it should be encouraged.

Most studies of habits deal with mundane physical or psychological habits. Habits of diet, activity, entertainment, personal relationships, etc. The moral aspect is what concerns us most.

The Morality of Habit

Morally, habits reduce the will and intention at the time the act is committed. That means, that for individual acts, the sinful nature of a bad habit is reduced because even though it may involve a grave matter, it is not done with full knowledge and intent. Indeed, many times when will be unaware of it being an issue for quite some time. It is for this reason that one should carefully examine one's life and choices often. Everything we choose to do, may become the basis for the development of a habit.

Bad habits are vices. Good habits are virtues. We want to be good, that is, by nature, directed towards what is good. To be good means to charitable, joyous, peaceful, patient, benign, modest, and chaste among other attributes. To be evil means to be hateful, spiteful, envious, ravenous, lustful, immodest among other attributes. Bad habits are the symptoms of a disease which infects this world and our being. We hope to be cured, now and forever, but if we contribute to the disease, then we are lost.

There are some very important sinful parts of bad habits which should be carefully considered. Even though an individual act done habitually may not be gravely sinful, there are a few things which are:

The first act or acts which lead to the habit may be done with full knowledge and intent. If they are, then they are mortally sinful if it is a grave matter. Many habits start by accident, without full knowledge or intent. This is not sinful.

Accepting the bad habit with knowledge of its nature and with intent to accept it is mortally sinful because one is committing one's will to the sinful act. If one is not particularly steadfast in the faith, this is very easy to do. Usually, one will be inclined to justify or rationalise the habit. This takes very little effort so one just has to deceive oneself.

Refusal to consider one's life may be entirely sinful because one is intentionally being ignorant of oneself. When we examine ourselves in the light of God, we will find faults, sometimes grievous ones to which we were previously unaware. Fear of finding these faults may lead one to avoid finding them. God knows they exist regardless of our acknowledgement and our culpability should be carefully considered before rejecting an examination of one's spiritual state.

A habit is like inertia: it takes force to change. We tend towards habits because of our nature. In fact, we must have habits in almost all aspects of our lives. Managing and directly our habits is a moral priority above many others. If we aim our lives towards evil, then that is where we will find ourselves at the end.

If one does find a bad habit, then one has to reject it and make an effort to remove it. Hopefully, one will triumph over it, but even if one cannot completely overcome it, one still must reject the habit and attempt to change.

While the acts which are part of the habit are not given our full attention, the act of accepting or rejecting the habit and the effort in removing or encouraging the habit do have the support of our will and reason.

James 1:12

Blessed is the man that endureth temptation; for when he hath been proved, he shall receive a crown of life, which God hath promised to them that love him.

Temptation, including bad habits, are a way to "prove" ourselves. Prove means a test. Back when plate armour was at its peak, the armourer would fire a musket at the finished piece. If the armour were strong, it would only have a slight dent which would then be embellished by the armourer to show that the armour has been proven to be protective. This proof mark was visible to all and undeniable. Overcoming temptation and bad habits are proof marks of the soul. They show that we do not merely do what is convenient, ie, we did not end up where we were just because we happened to be aimed in that direction, but that we indeed made a choice for good (or evil).

What value is this? God is the searcher of hearts, omnipotent, and omniscient. But, we are not. We change, we try, we struggle, we succeed, and we fail. It is by the opportunity to make the choice that we make it.

Controlling Habits

The breaking of habits and the formation of them seem to follow a few simple principles. The formation of a habit does involve the act done without the force of habit. This can take time, and the danger of the formation of a habit is present. This should be a major reason for not committing evil acts for any reason. Furthermore, it is a major reason why one should commit good acts whenever possible. We need habits and they form regardless of our will. If we do not foster good habits, then we will inevitably develop bad ones.

So, the first step to controlling habits is to make choices consistent with one's intentions. Evil acts should never be tolerated and good acts should be done at all times. Likewise, in mundane affairs, one should be careful to do things which one wants to be the basis for future acts. Our minds do not distinguish between situations. If we incline ourselves to be impious, then we will be drawn to impiety in all things.

The second step is recognising existing habits. This should be part of a daily examination of conscience and reflection on our actions during the day. The advice and guidance of a spiritual director should be used as much as possible. It is easier for people to recognise the habits of others rather than their own. This applies for all people.

The third step is the feeding or starving of a habit. If we do anything to encourage or discourage a habit, then we are giving it our will. This is where sin comes into effect. If we choose to do anything which encourages a bad habit, then we are sharing in the evil and increasing our culpability. Any denial of the nature of the bad habit, or justification of it lends our will to it. We should do everything we can to direct ourselves away from the bad habit, and for those habits which we cannot avoid the occasions of sin, we should make a special effort to exercise the corresponding good habit. If we find ourselves drawn towards certain impious modes of speech in social interaction, and we cannot avoid social interaction to the extent necessary to remove the act of the habit, then we should make an effort to form a good habit of the same kind. Here is a list of vices and their corresponding virtues:

Vice | Virtue

Lust | Chastity

Gluttony | Temperance

Greed | Liberality

Sloth | Diligence

Anger | Patience

Pride | Humility

Envy | Kindness

If one has a habit which reflects a certain vice, then one should choose to commit acts which are virtuous whenever possible. These acts will take effort and we may find ourselves failing to control the habit completely, but that should not be reason for despair. If we are choosing to do good, but find ourselves doing evil against our will, then we have proven ourselves. However, if we give into the bad habit, then all is lost.

Hopefully, one will overcome the bad habit, but our spiritual journey's in this life do not end in this life so the failure to completely remove a bad habit is not a major concern as long as we have not been a part of its retention.

The last, and first, step is prayer. We must pray for grace and strength and wisdom to overcome and find bad habits. While our will is a major part, without God, we cannot succeed to do good.

Conclusion

Jesus stated that a good tree would bear good fruits. A good person will do good acts. We must not fail to remember our fallen nature. We will find hints of inclinations to evil no matter what we will. This is not something which should support the notion we are without free will or that we cannot do good at all. A priest centuries ago who examined his life, probably found some bad habits, gave into those habits by denying his ability to do good. His actions, his choices made out of free will, have caused much harm in this world. Finding bad habits should be a cause for resolution to do good. That same priest could have chosen otherwise and perhaps then he may have been venerated as a saint and been an occasion of the salvation of many by showing heroic virtue in overcoming sin.

We will find that the most persistent and vexing sins are done out of habit most of the time. The time and effort to overcome these habits are great but also correspond to great graces and joy. We must never cease to struggle against evil.

Pride and Obedience

2011-09-28T18:32:00.000-07:00

The role of Pride in sins of all sorts is particularly noteworthy. Pride is what leads us to doubt God's grace, to think we have the means of salvation in our own will, and in all sorts of sins. When analysing a sin, we may find that pride is often at its core. The variable manifestations of pride make it difficult to find our own particular weakness to address. Pride is very broad.

However, there is a more particular sin, which is from pride, but more precise and more useful to identify. This sin is disobedience. Naturally, disobedience to proper authority, which stems from God the highest authority, is a sin. This issue of authority is what causes most problems with most people I suspect. Natural law is often self evident. It is natural to obey it, and we find it easy to question authority because we are only seeing the person giving the command. Why should one follow the commands of a particular individual or institution? Is not the God the only authority? That is the reasoning. It is easy to be mislead into believing one is virtuous in disobedience because one ignores a very important fact: all authority comes from God.

Romans 13:1
Let every soul be subject to higher powers: for there is no power but from God: and those that are, are ordained of God.

It is this: that those with authority have responsibility that makes authority just. It is a sin to misuse authority, for one's own purposes, but even so, that is a sin against God and will be judged in time. It is not an excuse for one to sin in response. If obedience to a particular authority would not require disobedience to a higher authority, then willful disobedience would be a sin. This includes things which are mundane.

Being self-willed is not a virtue, but it is lauded by the world. In response to proper authority, demands of explanations, of compromise, and the like are common. Questioning authority, appealing to higher authority when there is no conflict, and plain refusal are improper responses to authority.

The Fall of Man is literally the first act of disobedience of Man. The command was repeated by Eve to the Serpent, and Adam chose to disobey God. It is a sin of pride, but a sin of disobedience in particular.

Obedience to superiors is the mark of a Christian. It is only in the gravest of circumstances can one no act in accordance with an authority's command and this requires that obedience itself to contradict higher authority. Our own will is never the higher authority.

In the scriptures, we can see Our Lord Jesus Christ directly teaching obedience, and even setting several examples, the highest being the lack of resistance to death.

John 13:14-15
If then I being your Lord and Master, have washed your feet; you also ought to wash one another's feet. For I have given you an example, that as I have done to you, so you do also.

Romans 5:19
For as by the disobedience of one man, many were made sinners; so also by the obedience of one, many shall be made just.

The the Purification of Mary, the Circumcision of Our Lord, the following of the Law, even as it was fulfilled, show virtue of obedience. It is not utilitarian.

Obedience is a matter of will and act. It is not only words. It is one thing to profess belief, but another to act in accordance with that expression of belief.

Matthew 21:28-31
"But what think you? A certain man had two sons; and coming to the first, he said: Son, go work today in my vineyard. And he answering, said: I will not. But afterwards, being moved with repentance, he went. And coming to the other, he said in like manner. And he answering, said: I go, Sir; and he went not. Which of the two did the father's will? They say to him: The first."

There is a danger of lawful authority, civil and ecclesiastical, being a danger, but the greater danger has always been in disobedience.

The lives of the saints show this virtue. How many great members of religious orders were "restrained" by their superiors? How many people given great graces were silenced by ecclesiastical authority? How many were persecuted by governments?

The draw to opposition against "organised religion" is a direct result of disobedience. How many people claim to be religious, but not in "organised religion"? This organisation they defy is what they see as mere man, humans telling others what to do. They see greater grace in being their own master, and that is the error. The fact we are drawn towards thinking we can better be good if we are left on our own is what causes death. To think we can reach God by defying authority is like a child thinking he knows better than his parents. This world is passing and the justice of God will be shown before all, but obedience is our calling now.

Vanity

2011-09-19T02:16:00.000-07:00

Many times one will wonder if something is vain, and if it is, is it excessively so, or sinful.

This is a common question, especially given the relative luxury available to most these days compared to historical situations.

There is one crucial element I see missing in almost all discussions, what does "vanity" mean?

Vanity seems to be used modernly to mean "excessive concern for one's appearance to others" and is often very close to "immodesty". That is not what vanity means.

Vanity, in English, meant "futility". That is all. In all cases of where "vanity" or "vain" is used in English texts that are not from the last few decades, one can replace them with "futility" and "futile" and get the intended meaning more fully.

Consider the Douay-Rheims English of Psalms 4:3:

O ye sons of men, how long will you be dull of heart? why do you love vanity, and seek after lying?

That is vanity. Appearance to others is vanity, as we are mortal and we will age and die (at least), but that is not the extent of vanity.

So, we are mortal, and we encounter "vanity" all the time. Many things we do are futile. Very little of what occupies our time is eternally meaningful. Vanity, in itself, is not evil. It is evil to value what is vain over what is not however. Our very lives are a vanity because of mortality. What does good health matter by itself? We are mortal.

Man is like to vanity: his days pass away like a shadow. Psalms 143:4

All things can be futile if not done for the sake of something not futile.

So, in asking yourself (which you should do constantly), "Is this vanity?", the answer is probably "yes", however, that question is not as important as "How much do I esteem this vanity?". Remember, being able to say something is not the same as being willing to do. We must do, mortify, and prepare ourselves. We may scoff at people who perish foolishly in re-entering burning buildings to retrieve things of sometimes even little material value, but how much more foolish is it to consider the opinions of others, or our own comforts, above that of what is perfect and eternal?

Vanity of vanities, said Ecclesiastes vanity of vanities, and all is vanity. Ecclesiastes 1:2

Non Peccabis: New site, new content

2011-09-14T17:53:00.000-07:00

My last post has been expanded to my new website, NonPeccabis.com, which is my new domain and will replace my old site which was originally made for giving away free rosaries.

There are priorities in life, and the highest priorities should be emphasized above others.

The overview of Sin has been expanded into several articles on sin.

This blog will have topical posts on matters of sin when they are completed to my satisfaction in content.

What Is "Sin"?

2011-09-04T00:45:00.000-07:00

The question "What is sin?" may appear to be unnecessary, but understanding the nature, origin, and end of something is necessary in combating it.

From a common catechism, one gets the definition of sin (the sort one would commit) as:

Actual sin is any willful thought, word, deed, or omission contrary to the law of God.

This is something which is analogous to crime. Having remorse and making restitution for that crime would fulfill justice.

This is how many view sin in entirety, but it is not necessarily so complex, but simple in ways which may not be immediately obvious.

Sin is not just a crime. It is a pervading effect of the Fall. It infects all of our existence.

Let us examine the beginning of sin.

Romans 5:12

Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world, and by sin death; and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned.

We know that this one man is Adam and this causes Man to be deprived of the pure goodness of the original state of Man. As it says in Genesis 1:31 "And God saw all the things that he had made, and they were very good.".

This sin caused an evil, the lack of good, to enter into man and since it was the in the beginning, all was affected. Our nature is injured and it cannot be repaired by its own means. Even after the grace is restored in Baptism, the effects remain. The damage caused that which was once directed only to what was good is now confused and prone to error. Saint Paul writes of this in his letter to the Romans.

Romans 7:21-24

For I know that there dwelleth not in me, that is to say, in my flesh, that which is good. For to will, is present with me; but to accomplish that which is good, I find not. For the good which I will, I do not; but the evil which I will not, that I do. Now if I do that which I will not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.

I find then a law, that when I have a will to do good, evil is present with me. For I am delighted with the law of God, according to the inward man: But I see another law in my members, fighting against the law of my mind, and captivating me in the law of sin, that is in my members. Unhappy man that I am, who shall deliver me from the body of this death?

This evil within us is not an actual sin, it is not a crime. Saint Paul refers to it as a "sin that dwelleth in me" that constantly battles against his will. One sins by consenting, even a little, to this inclination.

This makes sin more than just a crime that one chooses to commit. It is a pervading inclination which infects our being. Furthermore, it pervades everything of this world. Despite the grace of baptism, our bodies still physically become injured, we still become sick, we still die, and we still struggle against ourselves.

In this sense, sin is a symptom of a disease. The Penitential Psalms (Psalms 6, 31, 37, 50, 101, 129, and 142) reflect his nature of sin in their constant pleas for mercy and healing. They acknowledge the sins, but they also acknowledge the need for assistance and one's weakness.

Psalm 6:3

Have mercy on me, O Lord, for I am weak: heal me, O Lord, for my bones are troubled.

So what is sin? It is both a crime and a disease. It is something which infects our mortal existence but it is also something we must strive against. It is an imperfection which excludes us from being holy.

What is the end of sin? The end of sin is death. This is not just death of the body, but death of one's being by permanent exclusion from happiness. It is like a physical ailment which ends in death of the body.

James 1:15

Then when concupiscence hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin. But sin, when it is completed, begetteth death.

This is why sin must be resisted and why we need the grace of God.

We cannot fix ourselves. To attempt to do so is futile. It is like attempting to pick oneself up or to instruct oneself on what one does not know.

Sin is also something we cannot avoid entirely in our mortal lives. We can however strive to be holy, closer to God, because that is the will of God and also because that is the only source of happiness, the satisfaction of our desires.

Consent to sin is never appropriate despite this nature. God is the source of the grace, the healing, and of the perfection we seek.

This life will therefore be unpleasant and unfulfilled no matter what. Even the most contemplative person living God's will will fall short of perfection, however, this life is short and eternity awaits.

Anarchy Revisited

2011-02-13T03:04:00.000-08:00

Previously, I had explained my thoughts on why I had considered myself an anarchist.

After further reflection, this idea must be revised. Anarchism is not compatible with the Church.

My previous thoughts were based on ideals, and I had found the existing description of a form of anarchist thought to fit ideas on the subject.

However, anarchism is fundamentally against the Church. The ideas outlined in the previous post, A Catholic Anarchist, are largely the same, except that government is fundamentally necessary. How this government is organised does not matter as long as it fulfills its purpose.

Here is an excerpt of the Catechism of Saint Pius X‎ about the Fourth Commandment:

8 Q. What is Civil Society?
A. Civil Society is the union of many families under the authority of one head for the purpose of assisting each other in securing their mutual perfection and temporal happiness.

9 Q. Whence comes the authority which rules Civil Society?
A. The authority which rules Civil Society comes from God, who established it for the common good.

10 Q. Are we under any obligation to obey the authority that governs Civil Society?
A. Yes; all who form part of Civil Society are bound to respect and obey authority because that authority comes from God and because the common good so demands.

11 Q. Are all laws imposed by the Civil Authority to be respected?
A. Yes; in accordance with the command and example of our Lord Jesus Christ, all laws imposed by the Civil Authority are to be respected, provided they are not contrary to the law of God.

12 Q. Have those who form part of Civil Society any other duties besides respect and obedience to the laws imposed by authority?
A. Besides the obligation of respect and obedience to the laws, all those who form part of Civil Society are bound to live in peace, and to endeavour, each according to his means and ability, to render that society virtuous, peaceful, orderly and prosperous.

Modern Concerns of Theft Concerning Replicated Media

2010-12-06T02:00:00.000-08:00

In most legal systems, theft and the fruits of theft are illegal. Receiving stolen property and stealing (by various means) are legally forbidden. These laws are just.

"Thou shalt not steal." Exodus 20:15

"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife: nor his house, nor his field, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is his." Deuteronomy 5:21

"And when her husband heard it bleating, he said: Take heed, lest perhaps it be stolen: restore ye it to its owners, for it is not lawful for us either to eat or to touch any thing that cometh by theft." Tobias 2:21

Theft itself is not only condemned, but also covetousness, the desire to possess what another has. The ownership of things, of family members (although, we rarely think of it that way, we do express relationships as saying "my child", "my wife", "my friend", etc) and of the rights to use things of this world (land) is lawful. To deprive another of what is lawfully possessed, or even desire to do so, is unlawful. Failure to give what is another due is also forbidden (Deuteronomy 24:15).

These laws are ingrained in humanity and rightfully so. However, in this modern day, we are confronted with a new type of property. Intellectual property. While the ads and media would have us believe that "pirating" is "stealing" and the interested parties do their best to get laws in their favour, it may not be the same as traditional understandings of property and theft.

In this post, "media" refers to written works, spoken works and visual and audio performances and creations. It also concerns software and ideas. Furthermore, the words "artist", "author" and "creator" all refer to the same thing when it concerns the above works.

In determining the morality of such concepts, to determine whether acquisition or use of media not acquired in the way the publisher desired is sinful, we must examine it closely and not mindlessly believe propaganda. While it may be wrong, the mere fact that we are told that downloading or copying various media is stealing. In addition to the sinfulness of stealing, we have the issue of lawful authority. If certain acts are morally wrong, then they are sinful when done with knowledge and intent regardless of the legal status. However, breaking the law of the nation could be sinful as well, even if its object is not.

The reality of the law is diverse. Laws vary all over the world and even within governments. There is some international cooperation, but this is only between a few nations.

Copyright law, which covers the "set of exclusive rights granted by the law of a jurisdiction to the author or creator of an original work, including the right to copy, distribute and adapt the work." (Wikipedia.org) is incredibly diverse. However, it is very modern. In the history of the world, such laws did not exist in areas where there was much writing and publication. The Romans, Greeks and others did not have any sort of law concerning this matter despite extensive publication. The technology at the time made print very expensive and difficult to distribute. In this sense, stealing was possible if one actually stole something. Stealing the means to create printed work, or stealing the copy itself, is immoral and a theft like any other. However, what about the words, sounds and ideas? Is it possible to steal those?

There is historical concern of the content of media. The Church, and various legal entities, have had extensive rulings on publication because of the content, but these laws were not concerned with the rights of the publisher or author, but those of the state and Church. The states had interests in controlling what was printed after the printing press was widely used for political reasons. The Church had a moral responsibility to examine what was (at the time) easily mass produced and spread. In a way, the Church was not prepared for the ideas of any person with the means to get something printed to be spread. It is no surprise that the rants of troubled priest with various personal and spiritual problems could become widely heard and accepted instead of being a local infestation because of the ease of mass production. These laws concerning the legal status of printing could be just, but they did not concern the idea of theft. During this time, one did not become rich by writing works, but by selling books. One did not become rich by writing plays, but having them performed. Musicians, composers, writers and artists received money either by pre-arranged commission (agreement to be paid a certain amount for a given work) or by doing something for which they were paid. Payment was not by royalties or by rights, but by action. In this, it would indeed be theft to deprive an artist or writer of agreed upon payment. If one agreed to pay someone for an act or thing, then failure to pay as agreed and retaining the work or fruits of the actions would be a sin. For printed works, the only people to get paid per works sold was the person distributing or making the books. It was not easy, it involved physical labour and items, and the object sold was a thing. However, another issue arises. Attribution. It would be possible to claim responsibility for a work another produced. This would directly concern the content or idea. Would this be stealing?

Regardless of it being stealing or not, it can be wrong because it is a lie. Knowingly and intentionally supporting falsehood is directly against God. This does not mean attribution has to be accurate, only that intentional deception is wrong. Anonymous works, works attributed to others because of their great content, lack of certainty of the writer or because the creator of the work agreed to attribute to another and the other agreed to be responsible for the content are not lies. Attributing the Psalms to David even though it is nearly certain he did not compose them all, commissioning a work to be written for publication in that person's name, and other cases of factually incorrect attribution are not sins in themselves.

Given no other data then, it would indeed be wrong to intentionally and knowingly deprive a creator of a work of attribution for a work. Claiming authorship when one has no lawful way to do so is against God because it is a lie. I do not think it is stealing by itself. It would be stealing, depriving another of what is their due, if the attribution directly concerned expected gains from the work. If a literary agent took credit for a work one was representing, it would be stealing to profit from its publication because one was supposed to do this for another and any gain would have been rightfully another's in the same circumstance (note, this is not a realistic situation. Literary agents have no financial interest in doing this for any reason and it would be in fact financially and legally unsound. It is however the best example I could make where one could in fact steal from another in this manner).

We can then assume that attribution is in fact a right of a creator of a work assuming this information is known and not waived. It would not be deception for an artist to refuse public credit for a work because the work stands on its own. Words and art do not need attribution to exist. Directly lying about it would possibly be sinful. An author does not need to put his name on a work, but if asked if he were the author, denying it would be a lie given no other facts. Denying credit for a work would not necessarily be deceitful if one did not identify with the work. A sinful man could write a spiritual work of great value and feel that his person is not worthy to be recognised as the source of that work. God created all, so matters of truth and nature are God's.

So far, we know that lying and stealing are sins.

What other rights would a person have concerning a created work? None, I think. All else is directly tied to the laws of a nation and of personal integrity. If a person agrees to something, it could be sinful to violate that agreement. Such consent has to be real. If I wrote at the top of my blog that "reading my words, including these, indicate agreement to my words", it would be laughable. Continuing to read my works would not be sinful even if you disagreed. If however, I agreed to give you access to my words on the condition you agree with them, it would be immoral to agree (in theory, immoral to agree with the condition, and then to disagree with my words) because we are forbidden to forswear ourselves. (Matthew 5:33) We are morally bound not to forswear ourselves. Intention to break a swear or a oath made foolishly are sinful. (Note, knowledge that we will violate it, such as when we promise God to follow Him, without intention to violate it, is not sinful but human. Resolving not to sin is not a sin unless one intends at the time of that resolution to sin. Knowledge that one will sin in some way however slight is nearly certain, but as long as one does not intend to, then it is a holy oath).

This brings up another facet of our modern lives. Often times, use of software or other media is preceded by an agreement to which we must actively or passively consent. Passive consent is difficult to find binding. Actively indicating agreement however is not. If we actively indicate agreement, then we are morally bound to it. However, this requires knowledge and intent. One is not bound to the contents of a license file shown if one just clicks "I accept" without reading it. Perhaps that is sinful in some way because one agreed to something which one did not know, but violating the terms of agreement in this case would not be sinful. It is however legally binding. If a software package requires you to agree to something before using it, and you agree to it, you have given the software publisher the right to take whatever course of action they are legally given in that agreement.

It is important to understand the relationship to various works before considering it to be theft. It is not theft to take what one already owns. One cannot steal from oneself. Also, it is not possible to steal what one cannot own. If one cannot possess something, then theft is futile. One can claim to own the sun, but this is impossible, so another claiming the same is not stealing. For modern works, we do not actually buy them. We buy the physical thing and the legal right to use it. Tim Paterson was given the compensated task of developing software eventually called "86-DOS". The ownership (as far as I know) was given to Seattle Computer Products. This was lawful. The software writer was paid for work he agreed to do, and the company owned the product. It would be sinful to falsely attribute that work to another. However, Microsoft paid SCP for all rights concerning 86-DOS. SCP legally sold what was theirs to another. Legally and morally, Microsoft now owned attribution for this work. Would it be intrinsically sinful to gain a copy of it without paying for it? One would not be lying by obtaining a copy of it and one would not be depriving the owner of anything if one had a copy of it and one would not be falsely attributing its creation. So, unless one expressing agreed to the contrary, one could not sin regardless of Microsoft's wishes by having or using a copy of this work without paying.

In the interest of prudence, do not agree to which you do not agree. Read and understand before accepting. This is legally important and morally important. If one does not agree, then one can return it for a refund (in theory) if you do not accept the agreement.

The only concern after this is the law. It may be in violation of the law. To what extent are we morally bound to follow the law? The diversity of law is another important matter. A work in the "public domain" such as the Douay Rheims text is legally determined by the state. It is possible for public domain works in one country to be copyrighted in another. Copyright law is extremely complex and there are many things which are not legally clear. Modern law in my country is determined by the intent and wording of the statutes and court cases concerning it. If something is not tried in court and not clear in the statute, then it is legally unknown. This state is extremely common for most users of media. It violates the law to attempt to break the encryption of works (in certain cases), but it is not clear if it against the law to use the product of such work. Furthermore, the laws of one country do not apply in another. The law of the USA forbids attempting to break encryption of encrypted works (even if the encryption is extremely weak). If a person in another country breaks it, then it is not breaking the law of the USA. Would it then be unlawful for a person in the USA to use software which includes the decryption algorithm? The law does not answer this.

So, regardless of propaganda, some things are not sinful and are not unlawful.

How are we to act then? Would it be sinful to watch a movie on Youtube which has been converted, split and uploaded by an individual against the technical laws concerning that particular media? What if the publisher does not act? Could their lack of action be considered consent or indifference? Would it be sinful to actively seek out a copy of a given work and download it? I cannot answer this. It is a very complex situation. I do think that content which is openly available is not sinful even if it technically against the law if one has a reasonable belief that if it were objectionable to the creator of the media, it would have been stated. One can find videos of comedians and old TV shows on Youtube quite easily. This videos may be official uploads of the copyright holders, but usually, they are of fans. While it may be technically against the law, and copyright holders do sometimes request works to be removed or altered (and Youtube does comply quickly), I see no principles which would make such passive choices sinful. The law is extremely complex and enforcement varies. We are called to be holy, not lawyers. It is technically against the law to casually touch co-works in my area also. It can be considered harassment or assault (yes, assault), yet, we do not anguish over whether violations of written laws in such a manner are sinful. So, would finding streaming content on the Internet or downloading works in part of in full be sinful?

Let it be clear: such things do not typically deprive a sale. A person who watches videos online would probably not pay to watch it, and many works which are freely viewed online cause people to buy what they would not have bought before. It greatly aids a comedian to have videos of his act online for free because it greatly expands the audience and paying audience.

However, we must not be surprised when we are held to the law. I do not actually know the penalties, civil or criminal, of such acts.

Another issue is the morality of the law itself. Many acts of the interested parties are very greedy and immoral. They are interested in profit for things they do not have to produce. If examined closely, it could be considered stealing (in this case, from us). If one buys a disk containing a video, would it be immoral to require you to pay to watch it without your previous consent? This is actually the law. You probably did not know it. While it is obvious we need a means of reading such works and that is not sinful, what is not so public is that we need legal decryption methods and we need to pay for them. Those DVD players in stores have price tags which would be lower for you if the company which supplied them did not have to pay for the right to decrypt DVDs. This encryption is weak, but again, because of the law, it is illegal to attempt to decrypt it. We are stuck with a situation where we can easily decrypt the movies we bought, but have to pay for the right to watch it. This is immoral. libdvdcss is software which is freely available. It only decodes DVDs so they can be watched. The act of breaking the encryption could cause a person to be deprived of money or be imprisoned. How is this moral? Note, no person has ever been in trouble for using this. It is one of those legal areas which is not defined. It is also impossible, given that it is so widely used (VLC, the popular media player, uses it).

In short, the legal entity under which I live would take my money and put me in prison if I were to develop a means of breaking this encryption so I could watch a movie on my computer. Note, this encryption does not serve any function other than to force drive builders and their users to pay for the right to use it. Such disks are easily accessed and copied. Even if they were not, there is the Analog Hole (which you can research on your own).

The situation of is very complex. Naturally, unless we are morally bound to do something contrary to the law, following the law is the safest choice morally and legally. However, it is very difficult to judge instances of breaking the law in this area because of its complexity, its immoral facets and the fact it is not easily known when it is knowable.

Is it immoral to download media contrary to the wishes of the interested parties? Is it immoral to use legally obtained media in a way contrary to the interested parties? Is it immoral to lend a book for another to read instead of making them buy their own?

These are not questions St. John would have had to have answered, but I think the content of the media would be vastly more important for moral judgement than the means of obtaining it when it was copied so effortlessly without depriving another of it.

The laws are complex, hard to follow and not clear about many things. They are made by people more interested in greed than in God, despite the foundation of the law being in natural law. If one has doubts, avoid it so it may not distract you from God.

For me, I read the agreements and only use software which has terms I accept. For content which is "encrypted", I find it no sin to use free means of decrypting it. I do not think we have to pay to use certain file formats merely because the creator of that content wishes people to pay extra for using it (yes, file formats can be "patented", so even though the file itself is openly distributed, it can be against the law to interpret this file without paying, even if the means of interpreting it are openly available as well). I think freely available content is not immoral as long as I do not violate any agreement I made.

I do think it is wrong to agree to something which one intends to violate, to agree to something which is immoral in itself or to lie and steal.

If the media of this world is too distracting to us, we should forsake it and devote ourselves to God more fully.

The Intellectual and Theology

2010-10-15T19:22:00.000-07:00

For the intellectual, studying and learning the matters of one's life is common. One's mind may be tempted to analyse all things equally. When it comes to matters of God, all are called. In fact, to approach God, one must be as a child:

"Amen, I say to you: Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a child, shall not enter into it." Luke 18:17

The great saints are so because of their virtue, not their intellect. Many great saints were illiterate and never studied formally. Working hard for a good purpose and exercising the virtues are the marks of a saint. Seeking the acclaim of this world is against God.

"Better is the poor man, that walketh in his simplicity, than a rich man that is perverse in his lips, and unwise." Proverbs 19:1

However, the gift of reason and free will are given to us. The abilities of all vary. These abilities must be used fully in the service of God. One's physical, mental and spiritual gifts are to be used fully for God, not ourselves, if we wish to follow God. Failure to exercise all of one's abilities fully is usually unavoidable, but in following God, we are all called to be perfect. It is the endeavour to be perfect....

"Be you therefore perfect, as also your heavenly Father is perfect." Matthew 5:48

Using the Pain of Sin to Avoid Sin

2010-10-10T02:41:00.000-07:00

The end effect of sin is death.

For God created man incorruptible, and to the image of his own likeness he made him. But by the envy of the devil, death came into the world: Wisdom 2:23-24

Then when concupiscence hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin. But sin, when it is completed, begetteth death. James 1:15

Death of body is now necessary because of sin (Ecclesiastes 3:19, Romans 8:10), but the spirit is eternal.

Sin appeals because of our concupiscence. All God made is perfect, and it is by the perversion of the sins of those with free will which can be disordered, unnatural and evil. The goodness of God's creation coupled with a fallen will results in things which are sinful being somehow attractive based on what was good. It all started with pride, which is a choice in a being with free will, even ones without sin. The appeal of sin lies in a perversion of goodness. Usually, this appeal is based in the flesh. A person wanting to avoid sin is drawn to sin by their own flesh and mind:

But every man is tempted by his own concupiscence, being drawn away and allured. James 1:14

This is a very frustrating experience for those wanting to live without sin, because one is unable to avoid oneself. However, one can use the appeal of such sin against itself. It appeals to be angry, lustful, gluttonous, worldly and lazy because of the immediate reward we experience (which, for those who do not care for God, is a primary reward and enjoyable for its own sake), however, for those with the will to live without sin, there is often a strong remorse and self-loathing after committing such sins. This pain of sin results in the inability to truly rest or be at ease. The pain of a penitent person is a grace from God. It allows us to recognise our sins and to seek healing. This grace can be withheld, and a person must repent solely by one's own will (which is a punishment from God, and noted in Exodus 7:3, where God states He shall harden the heart of the Egyptian, and it was then only the choice of the Egyptian to do what was right, which he could have done), but while we have this grace, we should use it. It allows us, imperfect sinners, to avoid sin with the most basic functions. If it hurts, we will not do it. Sin hurts. If we remember this, we will not sin. Frequent sins will numb us to this effect and harden our hearts. Frequent confession, even when there is no grave need, will aid us in avoiding sin.

For those who may feel no effect, the choice is still to be made, by will alone. The grace from avoiding sin or repenting sin based only on a decision to turn to God is greater. We may feel differently over time. We may feel close to God or feel nothing at all. This is given to us by God to aid us. For it when we feel nothing, that the greatest grace may be granted. Steadfastness in the work of the Lord is the goal of the faithful:

Therefore, my beloved brethren, be ye steadfast and unmoveable; always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that your labour is not in vain in the Lord. 1 Corinthians 15:58

The perfection of God is what God wants for us. To overcome, we must struggle. God will aid us in avoiding sin, but we must make the choice and do what must be done.

Witchcraft and Fantasy

2010-09-25T06:02:00.000-07:00

I was thinking during some Harry Potter discussion that some do not see "magic" as presented in many fantasy settings as anything particularly harmful. People as a whole do not really grasp the danger of such things. This isn't about Harry Potter, but the lax attitudes about magic without a clear source in fantasy. Books like the Lord of the Rings, the Wheel of Time, Chronicles of Narnia and even the wacky Sword of Truth series all have magic and stories intended to entertain while showing the particular authors message. Magic is not just something that is. It has a source. It can be bad or good, but it is a story with background. This doesn't make the story good, just less dangerous. Why? Because why do we engage in fantasy stories? One part is just entertainment, but the other is fantasy itself. We put ourselves in the story to some degree and that is why the fantasy elements appeal. It is fun to imagine something that we cannot experience in real life. This is why people read fantasy novels, play World of Warcraft and watch special effects heavy fantasy films. Addressing the benefits if any of such methods of entertainment is another issue. The issue here is presentations of magic.

A quick definition of "magic" can be "the use of means (as charms or spells) believed to have supernatural power over natural forces". This can be extended to include all things which show a seemingly normal human being having unnatural power of some kind. This can be the main characters in Harry Potter, the Jedi in Star Wars or Gandalf from the Lord of the Rings. The magic as presented by these fictional characters is not only a story telling device, but a source of entertainment and fantasy. This is the potential danger to the faithful.

In reality, the source of "magic" is from demons. This is rare, as beliefs contrary to truth are enough to satisfy the demons (ie, a demon will never compromise its mission to destroy by revealing itself to those who do not know it exists), but there is one aspect where this can be dangerous: when a person knows the truth and the demon offers its service to tempt that person. We read of demons tormenting saints. They only do this because they can't do anything else. The saint has too much faith to be tempted by material offerings. We do not read of these things typically working (they don't very well; they are a last resort, so most people will never experience an actual physical involvement or manifestation of a demon). What we do not read about is those who accept the demon. This can be an acceptance of some evil of this world or more directly related to "magic" in an acceptance of the demon itself knowingly. This is the source of "magic". The power from a preternatural source being given for the use of a human being. This is the only way a person can willingly get such power by their own will. The dangerous of it are beyond the actual ability of the demon. The will to receive such power is enough to damn a soul. So, demons do not need permission or the ability to act to get what they want. They only need a person to choose something contrary to God. In some cases, they will have this ability and they will use it. If it could be described as a conversation, the offering would be much like:

Demon> "I know you know I exist and you follow God. However, I noticed you wanted , and I can give it to you...it is free if you want it."

This can be a lie, but it can also be the truth. It is a small thing for a demon to destroy the entire universe. It is merely energy/matter and the demon is a spirit and is not bound by time and space (in that it takes no time; they do not know what has not occurred any more than it can be determined from available data) and destruction of the universe would be as simple as kicking a sandcastle. They are only limited by God in what they can do. It is not that God desires evil; He does not interfere with free will and certain acts of demons are allowed if it would not over power us. So, whatever we could possibly want in this world is probably in the power of demons to give to some degree. It would be corrupted and limited by our lifespan at the best though, but it is there. Demons cannot interfere with free will, so they have to use human vices to get what they want (they can't make a person fall in love, but they could create the opening for lust). For things which are entirely material or person, it would be even easier. Want to get good grades? Want more money? Want knowledge? Want evil to happen to another? It is more likely the demon will not do anything and just laugh at its easy victory while the human wanders in darkness, but the demon could do it. A misplaced "wish", willing evil to others, engaging in something contrary to God for "fun" may just be answered by a demon. Even if it is not, it is still in our mind and our soul. It is something which needs to be washed away. It is something we need guarding against.

So, when engaging in fantasy entertainment, care is very important. Anyone who uses such entertainment will have some fantasy about it. People try to use the "Force" or entertain thoughts about having abilities they witnessed in some story in their current life. Everyone does it.

The danger is not in the creation of actual witches, a person knowingly getting power from a demon (which is not satisfying to the person, it will be a constant struggle with oneself until death), but in being open to improper fantasy inspired by the particular fantasy work. It is in our passions and our desire to be entertained that we can find the most danger. A relaxed mind is open to much. It is of great importance to first judge the source of this relaxation. Would one relax to the hypnotic song of a deadly creature (a common fantasy element)? Why would one relax to a story (in print or film) which imprints future fantasies on us?

We must discern the spirits to determine their nature before listening to them, but we also much discern the sources of entertainment. We will judge a person before letting them into our house. We will judge a person before listening to their testimony. We will judge an alleged apparition before taking it to heart. Why do we not judge our entertainment before opening ourselves up in its fantasy?

It is very important to discern the source of magic and the framework of a particular story before opening oneself up to it. The background of the fantasy is just as important as the individual instances of fantasy. Just because a character does something that is superficially similar to another, it does not mean it is the same. The background elements will be very important when the mind attempts to fantasise. Also, there is no moral obligation to engage in such entertainment at all, so forsaking it entirely will eliminate any potential danger.

It may be just a story, but it is just our soul. Discern carefully.

UT IN OMNIBUS GLORIFICETUR DEUS

2010-08-03T04:05:00.000-07:00

The purpose of my writing here is the avoidance of sin. In a previous post, Matters of Music and Entertainment, I closed with "If one can enjoy Metal without sin, how is it wrong?". The aim of that post was to show that certain things were not inherently sinful, using the form of music known as Metal as the primary example.

Another recent discussion I had with others involved the use of non-nutritional substances which contain drugs (tobacco and marijuana in particular) and alcohol. The use of alcohol is common in Christian history and inebriation was always condemned. Indeed, forsaking the "fruit of the vine" was a holy act (see Numbers 6). In that discussion, I admitted I believed the use of alcohol without good reason was as sinful as any other drug. More precisely, I found alcohol and other drugs, even ones culturally acceptable, to be a "grave matter". Intent and knowledge is another matter. My rejection of drugs in all but the gravest situations was a choice I made a while ago (this does not include substances found in negligible amounts in natural food sources, but the consumption of such things must not be for the drug itself, otherwise, it is just an excuse and we cannot fool God). This discussion had some interesting moments, one of which involved being accused of being a "Puritan" and that there was nothing wrong with enjoying certain things even if they can be harmful. Certain scripture verses were cited which showed Jesus drinking or otherwise approving the drinking of wine (including His first public miracle).

However, upon further reflection on this and other discussions, I also see the subject matter of my previously referenced post to be similar. While the substances I reject are not sinful by nature, their use is only non-sinful (assuming full knowledge and intent) when necessary. It is their effects on the body and will which make them dangerous. The use of alcohol was common and allowed throughout the Church history because it was one of the few substances safe to drink in urban environments and would not spoil (well, vinegar has the same properties). If this property is not especially useful, then why would not the use of alcoholic beverages be sinful? So, while the matters of entertainment about which I wrote earlier are not sinful by themselves, their effects are real (and subject to individual reactions, however, the types of music to which one listens normally have similar effects on the individuals, regardless of the different styles of music) and over indulgence of them would be the same as the universally condemned inebriation.

Furthermore, Jesus Himself justifies the merriment in which He found with this:

"And Jesus said to them: Can the children of the bridegroom mourn, as long as the bridegroom is with them? But the days will come, when the bridegroom shall be taken away from them, and then they shall fast." Matthew 9:15

Is the time for fasting not now? Is now the time for rejoicing? It is only the short time of the public ministry where merriment is approved in any way. At the start of the Passion, Jesus commands those with him (and those to follow):

"Watch ye, and pray that ye enter not into temptation. The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh weak." Matthew 26:41

It would seem that given this admonishment, that our choices which enhance the weaknesses of the flesh would indeed be sinful, at least, to those who should know better.

If now is the time for vigilance and fasting, then it is certainly not the time for rejoicing and merriment.

Here are a few passages from the Rule of St. Benedict concerning the behaviours of those who are living "for the greater glory of God" (monks and nuns, but the Rule does not address things which apply only to them):

"Although we read that wine is not at all proper for monks, yet, because monks in our times cannot be persuaded of this, let us agree to this, at least, that we do not drink to satiety, but sparingly; because "wine maketh even wise men fall off" (Sir 19:2). But where the poverty of the place will not permit the aforesaid measure to be had, but much less, or none at all, let those who live there bless God and murmur not. This we charge above all things, that they live without murmuring." CHAPTER XL

But coarse jests, and idle words or speech provoking laughter, we condemn everywhere to eternal exclusion; and for such speech we do not permit the disciple to open his lips. CHAPTER VI

But let all except the very weak and the sick abstain altogether from eating the flesh of four-footed animals. CHAPTER XXXIX

So, avoidance of sin as I have previous described is not enough. We cannot just live in avoidance of sin, but live for God. This is more active than "not sinning". Perhaps, failing to live for the greater Glory of God is sinful when God calls us to certain tasks. The fact I refrain from listening to blasphemous music is good thing, but it is much better I listen to music which does nothing for the glory of God and distracts me from praying (a beneficial act which is glorifying to God)? How many holy people were visited by an angel of God while engaging in such indulgence of the senses? I missed a phone call while listening to music yesterday and the phone was in my pocket at the time because I using ear buds. Did I miss any grace of God because I was so distracted?

Therefore, I resolve to not only live by avoiding sin, but to live for the greater glory of God.

A Catholic Anarchist

2009-09-26T10:10:00.001-07:00

This post has been revised in Anarchy revisited

"Anarchy" is from the Greek, ἀναρχίᾱ, which means "without rulers". It is a vague term used to describe many different things. It is generally perceived negatively because of some uses of the word and in particular its connection to those who reject all authority, including God's. The St. Peter writes of such people:

"And especially them who walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise government [authority], audacious, self willed, they fear not to bring in sects, blaspheming." Peter 2:10

This part of the letter describes then current false teachers and those who were to come. In fact, that letter describes many of the false sects of every age since it was written up to this current day. Its reference of despising authority and government seems to condemn any form of advocation of anarchy by definition. Indeed, if taken literally, being without rulers of any kind would be against the natural order and against God. However, the term as a political label covers many diverse groups. So, I am an anarchist, yet, that alone does not reveal any practical political belief.

For those willing to research it, I am what is called a "philosophical anarchist". This covers a few types of thoughts (anarchists are not very united). The thoughts of mine described here may probably be found in a variety of sources, but they are not from any one school of thought. If one were so inclined, one could call it "Catholic Anarchy" as described by J. F. O'Neill.

The basics of my political beliefs, which I have determined to be most perfect in describing the fundamental ideas of human government are as follows.

First, the Church is established by God and people were given the explicit authority over others. This authority is from God and guided by God. The authority of God is not the domain of political thoughts. Political concerns are only that of human government and human authority, which is shown to be untrustworthy in scripture:

"Praise the Lord, O my soul, in my life I will praise the Lord: I will sing to my God as long as I shall be. Put not your trust in princes: In the children of men, in whom there is no salvation." Psalm 145:2-3

"It is good to trust in the Lord, rather than to trust in princes." Psalms 117:9

The weakness of Men is hopefully known to us all clearly. We can only have hope and trust in God. Relying on others or ourselves is folly. Indeed, one of the other descriptions of falsehood is being "self willed".

With this in mind, governments are tasked with a divine purpose as much as individuals are. To do the will of God on earth as it is in Heaven is the purpose of all human trying. Governments do not exist for their own sake. Any authority they have is from God or Men. The authority of Men is fallen, weak and should not be trusted.

In an ideal world, the world in which most writings on forms of government take place, government is not necessary. Natural Law and Divine Law would be infused in creation without being rejected in any way and a human government would not be necessary or useful.

The world in which we live is not ideal. It is fallen and ever changing. The reality in which we live shows that governments can change as rapidly as any person. The more power a government possesses, the more good or evil it can do. Invariably, it is perfect in neither and will do good and evil.

Anarchy is not a type of government. It is, in this case, a fundamental idea of the nature of government. The nature is that government can easily change and will inevitably reflect the imperfections of the humans who designed it and operate it. Because of this, there is no reason for government to have more power than it needs. Its authority comes from God only for the purpose for which it was created. While a powerful benevolent government may not be undesirable at the time, there is no reason to think it will remain benevolent.

Government is necessary because of the fallen state of Man and government is undesirable for the same reason.

So, in short, as a person who holds a type of anarchist political thought, governments are not desirable because they are subject to the weakness of Men, but they are necessary because of the weakness of Men. The authority of the government is bound by the purpose of the government and any authority exceeding this purpose is not legitimate. Whether such government abuse should be resisted and how it should be is another issue.

Many humans in this world have authority such as parents and those in government. This authority ultimately comes from God to be used for the purposes it was given. Abuse of authority is a sin against God and will be judged by God at the End.

There is very little about my decisions which can be determined from my political thoughts. How and whether I vote, pay taxes or deal with the fruits and devices of government are not a part of this political view. The morality of supporting or resisting various governmental actions is also not a part.

The government is not God. Trust in God and follow His Will regardless of the failings of Men.

I do not have much association with government. God is always first and regardless of the governments under which I live, my obligations are clear.

Overcoming Sins Against Purity

2009-08-01T14:55:00.000-07:00

The virtue of chastity is perhaps the most fragile in this day. For many, it is a constant struggle, as it is attacked externally and internally by this world, "but he that shall persevere unto the end, he shall be saved". Matthew 10:22 (Note, the full verse refers to persecutions in the world, of all types).

The sins against purity are numerous in origin, which makes it very hard to avoid any temptation. This danger should be kept in mind. However, the other danger is the despair which can arise when one fails in some way. Both dangers should be kept in sight at all times.

"But I say to you, that whosoever shall look on a woman to lust after her, hath already committed adultery with her in his heart." Matthew 5:28

"Fly fornication. Every sin that a man doth, is without the body; but he that committeth fornication, sinneth against his own body. Or know you not, that your members are the temple of the Holy Ghost, who is in you, whom you have from God; and you are not your own?" 1 Corinthians 6:18-19

This book, (Amazon) Clean of Heart: Overcoming Habitual Sins against Purity, is great, even for those who do not have habitual sins against purity. I have only read excerpts from it and the first half of it, but it is very soundly written and should be on hand for anyone who has struggles in any way against purity.

The most effective way of avoiding sin is to pray. We are told Pray without ceasing. (1 Thessalonians 5:17). A constant prayer life is essential for overcoming any sin. Some devotions focus on chastity, such as:

St. Joseph's Cincture. Not only do they have benefits associated with them, including some indulgences and graces, but they are a very physical object. (Amazon) Obtain here. They are quite light and soft and discreet.
Frequent confession (weekly, or more)
Chaplet of the Immaculate Conception (Prayer Guides and chaplets available on my site)
The Rosary (also available on my site)

We have our entire lives to overcome sin. For many, sins against purity are the hardest, and I'm convinced the loss of most souls is due to this sin. Our bodies, this world and the wills of others are set against this virtue. We can only overcome with God's grace.

Matters of Music and Entertainment

2009-07-20T09:03:00.000-07:00

Music is very diverse and hard to define, but it, and all forms of entertainment, are the subject of this post.

The questions have probably been considered by any person of faith, what sort of music can we, without sin, enjoy? The question seems to focus on rock and metal, with some rap. It also includes the "what is music" question. One could easily use Ecclesiasticus 32:5-9 to support either side, one could say that metal is not music and thus the verse doesn't apply, and one could say metal is music and say the Bible supports it. Saying what is "music" is usually silly, because it relies on only personal opinion. "I don't like [style], therefore, I can dismiss it as music". Also, it is very easy to focus on examples, rather than the concept. I could post the lyrics of many Metal songs which support condemning or supporting Metal. I'm not going down that road, and I'm going to focus an all entertainment, but for most examples, I'll use metal as the example because I am more familiar with it, but any form of entertainment will be the focus of the overall conclusion of this post (which I have already formulated before writing this).

A verse we all would be well off following is:

"In every work of thine regard thy soul in faith: for this is the keeping of the commandments. He that believeth God, taketh heed to the commandments: and he that trusteth in him, shall fare never the worse." Ecclesiasticus 32:27-28

A person of God will follow God's law in all aspects of life. There is no "self time" and "God time". All is focused on God, even in the mundane. This is not to say a person will fall at least occasionally, but that they don't want to fall and repent for the times they do.

Clearly, a person will be following God at all times, and on its face, anything contrary to the faith will be excluded from a person's life. In the context of this subject, that means at least metal, which is not a form of music for worship, cannot be enjoyed by a person of God. But does it? Does living properly mean excluding all non blessed things from their lives? Perhaps it does, at least for some people. Also, no one ever went wrong by not listening to Metal, and for all people of either side, refraining from a preferred form of entertainment is good for mortification and increasing strength in faith. So, in such discourses, it usually arises that one will conclude that eliminating all non holy things from one's life is ideal, and metal is highly not essential, so no person should listen to it all. This however avoids the question: is it sinful? A few facts:

Metal is highly diverse, so discussing it as a single entity is very difficult. In some styles, the only common element is the label"metal".
Metal focuses on many themes, so the themes can't be used to condemn or support it holistically.
The personal lives of Metal fans and band members are also too diverse to use.
Metal is never essential, like all forms of art outside the liturgically approved forms.
Most fans are not like the stereotype says, and most actively like other forms of music especially Classical and Opera. Most are entirely open to any form of music, even genres they may personal not like as a whole.

While one can never go wrong with excluding something which is not particularly holy from their lives whether it be a form of sweet, entertainment or other personal pleasure, in the end, I would put forth that it depends on the individual:

"And if thy right eye scandalize thee, pluck it out and cast it from thee. For it is expedient for thee that one of thy members should perish, rather than that thy whole body be cast into hell. And if thy right hand scandalize thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is expedient for thee that one of thy members should perish, rather than that thy whole body be cast into hell." Matthew 5:29-30

If one can be exposed to something without fear of sin, then how is it sinful to expose oneself to that thing? If one had a sinful reaction to the sight of a certain thing, then it would surely be sinful to willingly expose oneself to it, but if there is no knowledge of the reaction, or if one knows they won't find it to cause scandal, then how can it be sinful to expose oneself to it?

For many things, the issue is focused on sexual urges. Most people can handle watching simulated violence without fear of becoming violent, or other sinful acts. Also, the people simulating it are usually not breaking any commandments. A violent movie, The Predator, does not involve any killing or violence in real life. The body parts, the weapons and the Predator itself are all models and illusions. This is quite different from simulated sex, as even though they are not actually engaging in sexual intercourse, the primal urges in humans will react to the site of potential mates, or even the thought of them, in a negative way. Also, the actors involved will probably not be able to avoid sinful thoughts, let alone actions, either. The fact something is "not real" is only part of the equation. A person simulating sexual assault in a movie is not really committing that sin and crime just as Arnold Schwarzenegger has not killed hundreds of people, however, the effect of the entertainment is just as important to consider. One can simulate theft, murder, war, treason, and infidelity without sinning, but can one view it without sinning? I think most can, if they are mature enough. However, some things are almost universally unacceptable, which can cause forseeable reactions in people. Some claim Metal is "sexual", however, only those who want it to be ever make that claim. The only people who want it to be sexual are individuals trying to find a reason to condemn it, or perhaps there are individuals who do have sexual reactions to Metal, although I've never heard of them, they may exist (Rule 34...). If those people condemning metal for causing sexual reactions, genuinely believe that, one must conclude they are forseeing sexual reactions in themselves when exposed to Metal, however, in reality, they seem immune to it, and it is only those who like Metal who have such problems, according to them.

Another facet is the personal lives of the people involved. Most metal bands are rather normal in real life. Drugs and other harmful substances may or may not be involved. Some bands members have heavy drug use, some are promiscious, some are violent, some are blashphemous, but most are just making music they like. It stands to reason that most band members are muscians. Even a band which openly tries to shock, Cradle of Filth, has their central member, Dani Filth, living married life. His public antics are quite objectionable to a Christian, such as the design of a particular shirt and statements in some songs, but as a person, he is probably a better model of how to live, based on my knowledge, than many families. So, a shocking band has a rather normal person behind it without any publicly known unique immorality. On the other hand, in the Predator movie, of the actors was a porn "actor" before his acting career. Do the personal lives of the cast, which is not part of the movie, matter? Movies involve many people, and if one uses their personal lives, even if publically known, to make a judgement, almost all productions are to be avoided (obviously, one should avoid directly supporting immoral things, like if a movie is being used to fund something objectionable, no matter the content of the movie).

Demanding perfection in others is easy, but hardly fruitful. All people have flaws, some more than others. If something does not cause scandal, then how it can be wrong? I once let a person listen to a song I liked in the Metal genre, and they didn't like it and found it to be ugly. Obviously, I have a different opinion, but it seems in the end most who condemn metal condemn it because they don't personally like it. Using their logic, one could condemn lima beans (which I like) because they don't like them and thus, must be harmful. Entertainment is highly personal. One cannot say another has a "wrong" opinion about something which can't be wrong. Is Metal an ideal of beauty? No, it isn't. However, most things aren't. Most things only have elements of beauty in them, which are perceptable to those open to them. Interestingly, those who like Metal are able to perceive this beauty, which would make them more sensitive to beauty than the average person.

If one can enjoy Metal without sin, how is it wrong?