And the two shall not become one

“And the two shall become as one flesh.” These well known biblical words, understood by people of all faiths, beautifully illustrate the reality that occurs between a man and a woman who pursue the life of matrimony. The two sexes, being both different and complementary, unite themselves in the sacred marital embrace to create new life and sustain mankind. Since the beginning of creation this act has been the natural course of procreation for all living creatures, and by no accident. As of late, however, the question of whether two persons of the same sex constitutes a marriage has been fiercely debated, attracting universal attention. Living in a democratic society, one assumes all things are permissible, so long as what one does does not hurt anyone else. Yet is it a matter of justice to allow those of perverse sexual propensity the right to sexual freedom when nature does not intend it to be so? This is the concept people rarely consider when judging the credibility of the gay activists push for same sex marriage. In political commentator Andrew Sullivan’s article “Here Comes the Groom: A (Conservative) Case for Gay Marriage,” (1989) he justifies the legalization of gay marriage as he feels to do so would be humane, practical and truly conservative. Though his intentions are good, he is greatly misled, as there is both logical and medical evidence to disprove his position showing that legalizing gay marriage will not only hurt individuals, but society at large.

Andrew Sullivan’s promotes the legalization of gay marriage as being conservative from the perspective that it offers the most practical means of avoiding the confusion regarding defining domestic partnerships. He states that domestic partnerships undermine the “prestige of traditional relationships,” (1989) though he simultaneously nourishes the position that same sex marriages don’t. Further, he says the ever increasing gay community will not hurt society, but help it by allowing people to be more accepting of the idea in general. Legalizing gay marriage would encourage same sex couples to remain together longer by placing more responsibility on their relationships and thus lead humanity towards a healthy social trend that would potentially bridge the chasm between the traditional and homosexual family worlds.

As humans, we are born with natural law and moral conscience which reveals truths which do not need to be proven, that is, they are self-evident. For example, one knows not to steal food from the local food store or lie to a police officer in order to avoid personal responsibility. It also tells us that two same sex creatures cannot logically or physically constitute a marriage. Since the beginning of man, it has been understood that the purpose of the marital act was for the sole purpose of creating children; medically speaking, that’s the only end it can achieve. Same sex relations however, cannot do this as much as they may try to simulate that bond. Imagine trying to take two female chickens, putting them in a coup for an hour and then expecting them to create a fertilized egg. It is scientifically impossible for such a reaction to occur. Therefore, because it is not natural in our genetic human makeup to have two same sex creatures unite to produce any offspring, it must therefore not be what nature intended and hence should not be fostered.

Sullivan presumes that because his ideals seek a social justice, his case is “de facto” validated. However noble his intentions may be, it must be remembered that not everything one wants is necessarily what’s best or what’s fair. Fairness cannot be used to excuse the moral error enveloping his claim. When a child wants to taste poison, does a mother give it to them even though they throw a temper tantrum and demand that they need it? Of course not; the mother sees it is harmful for the child and out of love tells it no for the well being of that child. Laws, both natural and man made, are likewise there to protect individuals from falling into similar dangers either moral or physical. While homosexuals may have a passion to have a marital relationship with a person of the same sex, it does not reason that they should, merely because they feel the urge to do so. The improper use of the bodily faculties is an inherent evil as it is contradicting its purpose for existence. No law that works towards the destruction of the common good should be supported. Since gay marriage cannot beget children, the relationship it sterile and not conducive to the furthering of mankind. For if all people were gay there would be no children and hence mankind would cease and this is against the true common good of man. This is why gay marriage cannot be viewed as a justice or fair treatment issue.

Elsewhere, Sullivan states that legalizing marriage would decrease promiscuity among homosexuals. Lisa Schiffren (1996), a conservative writer for the American Spectator, makes the point that if the threat of AIDS doesn’t slap the faces of these people, neither will a piece of paper stating that one is legally married. Just look at the heterosexual divorce rates. What assurance is there that homosexuals, whose men are infamous for their number of partners, will be any more faithful than heterosexuals ? They presume that their relationships will last longer but they have no evidence to support themselves, when in fact, research is available to show the opposite. On the flip side, Mr. Sullivan states that lesbians have less of a problem with monogamy; this, however, only goes to support the point that there is no need for a marital law to secure their relationships, when theirs seem to already be lasting without legal marital recognition anyway. His belief that legal martial recognition will secure, encourage and develop gay relationships makes little sense when reviewing the status of lesbian women’s longevity. Also, the statistics regarding truly long term commitment among lesbians need to be further researched; how many “till death do us part” commitments really exist between such couples?

As far as health is concerned, research is showing that nature is taking its course among the homosexual community making it not the “healthy social trend” Sullivan believes it to be. The Center for Disease Control and Prevention (Simao, 2004) has recently showed public health records to demonstrate that “homosexuals, representing 2 percent of America's population, suffer vastly disproportionate percentages of several of America's most serious STDs, with incidences among homosexuals of diseases like gonorrhea, syphilis, hepatitis A and B, cytomegalovirus, shigellosis, giardiasis, amoebic bowel disease and herpes far exceeding their presence in the general population. These are due to common homosexual practices that include fellatio, anilingus, digital stimulation of the rectum and ingestion of urine and feces.” Also, between 2000 and 2003, the increase in AIDS and HIV rose 11 percent in thirty-two U.S. states among gays and bisexuals causing grave concern for its resurgence among health professionals. Is this grounds for a healthy social trend?

Gay marriage is also believed to help “avoid a lot of tortured families and create the possibility of happier ones.” While there does exists a problem among heterosexual families, this does not conclude that homosexual marriages are the solution or that homosexual marriages will be happier. Consider a little five year old girl going to school for the first time. She’s playing and talking to a playmate about her mommies, when her other friend says “where is your daddy?” What is that little girl to say? Reflecting upon the thought of her wondering where her father is and why she doesn’t have one makes the heart ache. As I myself was raised without the influence of both parents, I know the pain of wanting that other half, that other piece of you. A simulation of the missing parent doesn’t cut it when you know they aren’t the true mother or father you were created from. As in the case of divorce, the legalization of homosexual marriages potentially threatens future generations with deep emotional and behavioral disorders. Although there may be temporary superficial happiness, deep down, as I myself know, there lurks a voice that says “something is not right. Although these consequences not are not intended by the gay community, they will never-the-less effect the future both socially and personally if they demand the same rights as the those of heterosexual couples. For homosexuality is not just another step in diversity, it is a breach from what nature demands and, as with divorce, will result in more harm than good.

Looking at the issue from a common sense perspective, the argument held by Andrew Sullivan shows itself as being naturally unsupported. For it is not a matter of legality, but of humanity. The concept of same sex marriage then, cannot be supported when it does not effect the end for which it was creates. Contrarily, society needs to work at saving the traditional heterosexual family in order to cultivate a truly healthy civilization built upon the natural structure of a mother and a father whose sacrificial love and devotion will ultimately produce the greatest gift the world can possess, this being a newborn child, in the most perfect place for it to grow, a traditional family environment; all else proves fruitless.


References

Schiffren, L. (1996). Gay marriage, an oxymoron. In J.D. Ramages, J.C. Bean & J. Johnson, Writing arguments: A rhetoric with readings.(pp.590-591). New York: Pearson
Longman.

Simao, P. (2004). Health consequences of homosexual perversion. Perspectives-U.S. World.Retrieved April 11, 2005, from http://www.perspectives.com/forums/forum4/24314.html

Sullivan, A. (1989). Here comes the groom: A (conservative) case for gay marriage. In J.D.

Ramages, J.C. Bean & J. Johnson, Writing arguments: A rhetoric with readings.(pp.586-590). New York: Pearson Longman.

Mary,True Ark

Anne Skalecki Winter 2007

Throughout salvation history, many images surface within Biblical and pious texts treating the parallels between ancient and modern symbols and their corresponding divine realities. Among those texts are specific types or “Old Testament person[s], event[s], or thing[s] having historical reality and designed by God to prefigure (foreshadow) in a preparatory way a real person, event, or thing so designated in the New Testament and that corresponds to and fulfills the type” (Lewis 98). While a plethora of Biblical types exist which are worthy of exploration, this work will discuss one specific type and its significance in relation to Mary, the Mother of God; this type refers to Mary and her role as Ark of the Covenant. In the Old Testament, the Ark of the Covenant acts as the most revered vessel in the Temple as it contains those sacred objects given to man by God, along with the kebod, or “glory [presence] of the Lord” (Exod 24:16). Upon comparing this revered Old Testament object to Mary, it becomes apparent that she is the true Ark made flesh, the living sacred vessel who possess the true Word made flesh. This Christian tradition of Mary as Ark reveals itself in ancient Christian texts which testifies that this title is more than typological. Indeed, when comparing particular Old and New testament passages, and when studying the writings of early Church Fathers, one can see how the title of Mary as Ark is more than a just type; for in truth, Mary is the living Ark.

The first approach to proving this claim is to look to the Bible. Within the Bible, there are numerous parallels between the Ark of the Covenant and Mary. The first reference is in Saint Luke’s narration of the Annunciation. Saint Luke recounts when the angel Gabriel informs the Virgin Mary she will miraculously conceive and bear the Son of God. To accomplish this, Gabriel tells Mary that the “Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the most High shall overshadow thee. And therefore also the Holy which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God” (Luke 1:35). This language which depicts the Holy Ghost overshadowing Mary, of coming upon her, mirrors the language found in Exodus upon the creation of the Temple:

[Moses] set up also the court round about the tabernacle and the altar, drawing the hanging in the entry thereof. After all things were perfected, The cloud covered the tabernacle of the testimony, and the glory of the Lord [or kebod] filled it. Neither could Moses go into the tabernacle of the covenant, the cloud covering all things and the majesty of the Lord shining, for the cloud had covered all (Exod 40:31-33).

This image of the cloud, and the glory of the Lord hanging over, or descending upon the tabernacle in the Temple, perfectly echoes the language of Saint Luke. Mary experiences the kebod of God within her, since she is created to carry the Incarnate God. God dwells in her just as He dwells in the Ark. Both are holy vessels which God makes holy for Himself.

A second Biblical reference which shows the parallel between Mary and the Ark, is taken again from Saint Luke’s gospel. In this account, Luke shows Mary as Ark when she goes to visit her cousin Elizabeth, pregnant with Saint John the Baptist. He recounts:

Mary rising up in those days, went into the hill country with haste into a city of Juda…And it came to pass, that when Elizabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the infant leaped in her womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost: And she cried out with a loud voice, and said: Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb. And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?… And Mary abode with her about three months; and she returned to her own house (Luke 1: 39-45, 56).

Here again, the images and the language Saint Luke uses reflects back to the Old Testament occurrence when David has the Ark of the Covenant come to him. The scripture reads:

And David again gathered together all the chosen men of Israel, thirty thousand. And David arose and went, with all the people that were with him of the men of Juda to fetch the ark of God… And David was afraid of the Lord that day, saying: How shall the ark of the Lord come to me?… And the ark of the Lord abode in the house of Obededom the Gethite three months: and the Lord blessed Obededom, and all his household. And David danced with all his might before the Lord: and David was girded with a linen ephod. And David and all the house of Israel brought the ark of the covenant of the Lord with joyful shouting, and with sound of trumpet (2 Kings 6:1-2, 9,11, 14-15).

By looking at the language in these verses, and comparing them to those of Saint Luke, it becomes clear that there is a link between Mary and the Ark. Between David/Elizabeth rising to greet the Ark/Mary; David/Elizabeth stating their unworthiness to have Ark/Mary be with them; David/Elizabeth rejoicing in Ark/Mary’s presence; and Ark/Mary staying with David/Elizabeth for three months, it is clear that these passages directly correspond with each other. Mary is the Ark.

One of the last Biblical passages which shows Mary as Ark, comes from the book of the Apocalypse. In this book, Saint John receives the revelation of what will occur at the end of the world. Among the visions he receives, one beautifully demonstrates this relationship between Mary and the Ark. Saint John describes:

And the temple of God was opened in heaven: and the ark of his testament was seen in his temple. And there were lightnings and voices and an earthquake and great hail. And a great sign appeared in heaven: A woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars" (Apoc. 11:19-12:1).

Here Saint John uses language that corresponds to the creation of the temple and its relation to Mary. In this passage, it must be noted that the great sign, the woman clothed with the sun, has a crown surrounding her head. This is significant because when God instructed Moses on how to build the Ark, He said “And though shalt overlay it with purest gold within and without: and over it thou shalt make a golden crown round about” (Exod 25:11). The crown on the Ark is also seen upon the woman in Saint John’s vision, which Christian tradition believes to be Mary. This imagery supports the claim that Mary is the Ark, since both are crowned. Furthermore, because God inspires Saint John to see these two images within the same vision, it is highly probable they correlate with each other. It is not being bold to say that the Ark and Mary are one.

The question now to be asked is, are these ideas purely sentimental hyperboles, or are they veritable truths within Christianity? This can be answered by looking at the writings of the early Church Fathers. The Church Fathers were holy men who carried on the teachings of the Apostles into the first generations of the Christian Church. They prayed, studied, and taught the faith of Christ. They also wrote down the traditions and doctrines of the Church for people to reference throughout time (Fathers). Not surprising then, did these men comprehend the unique relationship between the Ark and Mary in the Old and New Testaments. Looking at certain early texts, it appears that the idea of Mary being the Ark is not merely pious sentimentalism, but is in fact, a justifiable truth.

While there are many ancient texts which relate Mary with the Ark, this essay will concentrate on only three. These texts will include the writings of Proclus of Constantinople, Saint Ambrose, Bishop of Milan, and Saint John Damascus. Through reading excerpts from the aforementioned Fathers, the issue as to whether or not Mary is the Ark is entirely resolved.

One Father who references Mary as the Ark is Proclus of Constantinople. In his Homily 5 On the Holy Virgin Theotokos, he addresses the matter of Mary being the Mother of God. Among other things, he argues for the implementation of a feast dedicated to this title of Mary to emphasize her role as Mother of God against the many theologians who refuted this idea during the time. In the text, he focuses upon the glory Mary possesses which exceeds that of all other saints. After explaining how women of the Old Testament gained veneration for their virtues, he goes on to explain why Mary deserves a status far exceeding these holy women. He states:

“…and Mary is venerated for she became a mother, a servant, a cloud, a bridal chamber, and the ark of the Lord. A mother, for she gave birth to the one who willed to be born. A servant, confessing her nature and proclaiming grace. A cloud, for by the Holy Spirit she conceived him to whom she gave birth without pain. A bridal chamber, for the Word of God pitched the tent of the mystery (of the incarnation) in her as in a wedding hall. An ark, containing not the Law, but bearing in her womb the Giver of the Law. Because of this, let us say to her: ‘Blessed are you among women’ ” (Proclus 263).

Proclus takes the Jewish language and imagery to illustrate how Mary resembles the temple in which the Ark rested. He calls Mary a cloud, a well-understood Jewish symbol (due to its relation with God), and shows how Mary, by becoming one with the Holy Spirit, also becomes intimately united with God. The two cannot be separated. For where one is Mary, there too is the Ark.

Additionally, Proclus brings another Jewish/Old Testament image to the forefront; he cites how God pitches His tent. This reference comes from the book of Exodus when God has Moses pitch a tent for Moses to enter into the tabernacle and converse with God:

Moses also taking the tabernacle, pitched it without the camp afar off, and called the name thereof, The tabernacle of the covenant… And when he was gone into the tabernacle of the covenant, the pillar of the cloud came down, and stood at the door, and he spoke with Moses. And all saw that the pillar of the cloud stood at the door of the tabernacle. And they stood, and worshipped at the doors of their tents (Exod 33:7, 9-10).

Moses pitches his tent, and God descends into the Ark. The Son of God pitches His tent and dwells in Mary upon her fiat at the Annunciation. Furthermore, the image of the tabernacle being worshiped by the Israelites compares with Mary being hailed as blessed among women. And lastly, the image of the Ark containing the Law of God compares with Mary containing the “Giver of the Law” incarnate. These observations well connote that Proclus comprehends the affiliation between Mary and the Jewish references concerning the temple, and how Mary herself is, among other things, the true Ark of the Covenant.

The second Church Father to study regarding Mary as Ark, is Saint Ambrose, Bishop from Milan and Doctor of the Church. Ambrose was a great defender of the faith in the 4th century and is best known for his peacemaking between the Arians and Catholics, and for converting Saint Augustine. In his Sermons number xlii, he harkens back to the Old Testament by his reference to 2 Kings 6, explaining how Mary is the Ark. He comments:

The prophet David danced before the Ark. Now what else should we say the Ark was but holy Mary? The Ark bore within it the tables of the Testament, but Mary bore the Heir of the same Testament itself. The former contained in it the Law, the latter the Gospel. The one had the voice of God, the other His Word. The Ark, indeed, was radiant within and without with the glitter of gold, but holy Mary shone within and without with the splendor of virginity. The one was adorned with earthly gold, the other with heavenly” (Livius 77).

This passage elucidates Ambrose’s knowledge regarding the parallels which exist between Mary and the Ark, justifying the title of Mary as Ark of the Covenant very beautifully. The Jewish people had the Ark of gold, while the Christians had Mary, the pure virgin, made of the gold of divine virtue. Though there is not literal gold within the body of Mary, the symbolism which gold signifies is maintained in the soul and flesh of Mary. She is the immaculate one, the pure vessel free from all stain of sin. Furthermore, as Louis Ginzberg states in his book, The Legends of the Jews:
…the Ark contained the two tables of the Ten Commandments as well as the Ineffable Name, and all His other epithets. The Ark was an image of the celestial Throne, and was therefore the most essential part of the Tabernacle.

This reality that the Ark contained the Ten Commandments, nicely supports the fact that Mary contained the fulfillment of the Law, the Law made flesh, in the Incarnate Son of God. Mary is the “celestial Throne” since she is the Ark, the holy golden throne of God. God dwells in her as upon a throne. She is the most essential facet to God’s Incarnate Tabernacle.

The last Father to be examined in this essay is Saint John of Damascus. Living between the 7th and 8th centuries, Saint John spent his days as a monk, writing about the faith and composing hymns for the Christian Church (“Saint John”). In his text, On holy images, followed by three sermons on the Assumption, he focuses on justifying why the Blessed Mother should be praised by Christians and also explains the events which surrounded Mary’s Assumption into heaven. In the work, he makes statements which support the theme of Mary as Ark. In Sermon II, he writes about what occurred when the Apostles gathered to carry the body of Mary to the tomb. He relates this occurrence to the book of Joshua, when the twelve men from the tribes of Israel carried the Ark of the Covenant on their shoulders through the river Jordon. He states:

The apostolic band lifting the true ark of the Lord God on their shoulders, as the priests of old the typical ark, and placing thy body in the tomb, made it, as if another Jordan, the way to the true land of the gospel, the heavenly Jerusalem, the mother of all the faithful, God being its Lord and architect...(Damascus)

Here Saint John shows the similarities between how the Israelites carried the Ark and how the Apostles carried Mary. Just as the Israelites carry the Ark through the sea, so the Apostles carry Mary through the sea of life, to bring her to the new Promise Land of Heaven. Additionally, Saint John stresses the point that Mary is the Ark when he says:

To-day the sacred and living ark of the living God, who conceived her Creator Himself, takes up her abode in the temple of God, not made by hands. David, her forefather, rejoices…To-day the holy dove, the pure and guileless soul, sanctified by the Holy Spirit, putting off the ark of her body, the life-giving receptacle of Our Lord, found rest to the soles of her feet, taking her flight to the spiritual world, and dwelling securely in the sinless country above (Damascus).

From this passage, Saint John connotes the purity and holiness Mary claims and how she, like the Ark, is the only worthy person to have Him within them, and which also must be hidden from the corrupted world. Mary, the living ark, after fulfilling her mission, rises into Heaven. The body of Mary, the Ark of the Covenant, leaves this world and rests eternally in the presence of God where she will love Him and He her, for all eternity where no one can separate them.

In reviewing Old and New Testaments scripture passages, and in reading works by the early Church Fathers, the question as to whether Mary is the Ark becomes profoundly apparent. Mary is the living Ark which God made for Himself for the Redemption of the world and which He now enjoys tenderly in His throne in Heaven. While the body of Mary is now in heaven, it would not be too bold to say that the missing Ark is there beside her since, Mary and the Ark are, indeed, one.

No One Like You

When I listen to this song, I am reminded of the beauty that can exist, when two people, who have known suffering and desolation of heart, find that someone who they've been waiting to discover, that someone who they feel they've always known. I am also reminded of the power of hope, especially when all hope seems lost, and the promise of our Father, that He will not leave us orphans, but will bring us true love and frienship if we wait upon Him. I ponder over the sweetness of these words, and cannot help but thank God for allowing me to share in the great miracle of Love. It's been one of the most wonderful gifts I've ever received.
Yes, to you sweetheart, I dedicate this post and to you I send this song...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1sSxYtFVHeE

A Critical Review on the Poetic Interpretation of Taylor's "Huswifery"

In Norman S. Grabo’s essay “Edward Taylor’s Spiritual Huswifery”, he poses a questionable argument; he believes that a reader will not fully appreciate Taylor’s intended purpose of the poem “Huswifery” unless looked at in light of all of Taylor’s poems and prose. He also contends that the poem “simply does not seem to need explication”, that its aim is “meaningless” (554), save for the last line of the poem which gives it actual meaning. Spending the majority of his essay examining the phrase “[…] Clothed in Holy robes for glory” (142), he explains how the image of holy robes permeates Taylor’s repertoire, and how collectively, these works reveal the true meaning of this one poem which could not otherwise be attained. By tracing the royal robe theme throughout Taylor’s works, Grabo works arduously to prove that this image has little meaning beyond that which is “self-evident” (554) until one reads it in view of Taylor’s collected works. I argue however, that this interpretation is not altogether true. While yes, one can read the poem and study the various texts written by Taylor to gain a deeper understanding of the poem, it is erroneous to say that the poem is meaningless unless read from this perspective. Grabo errs in saying the “full meaning of its terms is not contained in the poem itself” (554); on the contrary, “Huswifery’s” meaning can stand on its own without the assistance of his other texts. Therefore, while it is true one can find deeper meaning in the poem through reading it as Grabo’s did, it is not true to say this is the only means of reading the text and/ or giving it meaning.

First, one can read “Huswifery” as Grabo suggests and gain a deeper understanding of the poem. Grabo clearly demonstrates this as he takes the reader through the writings of Taylor, showing how he used the weaving theme over the course of his lifetime. Grabo shows the reader texts from various periods of Taylor’s life, noting how the image of weaving developed, built upon, and opened new channels in explaining the importance of the “robe of glory” in the personal life of Taylor. He guides the reader, showing them how, in the mind of Taylor, if a person desired to be holy in God’s sight, they must put on the robe of glory and work to prepare their souls for this relationship with God. This idea is stressed throughout various writings. For example, Grabo explains how in one of Taylor’s most well-known works, Meditations, the themes of “Sanctifying Grace” (556) , “righteousness” (557) and “union with Christ” (557) develop from the theme of weaving and from weaving to the royal robe and from the royal robe to “possesses the heavenly kingdom through its ‘mystical’ union with Christ” (557). From reading these reflections, it can rightly be said that a deeper meaning of “Huswifery” can be ascertained, however, this is not the singular means by which one can know and appreciate this poem’s worth. There are other ways of exploring a text outside of simply reading the author’s other texts.
For, contrary to Grabo’s opinion, one can come to appreciate Taylor’s poem without having to read his entire inventory of literary works. If a person read this poem for the first time, it would be wrong to say that they could find no meaning because they knew not the life, mind and life works of Edward Taylor. Who would ever be able to appreciate any poem with these kind of prerequisites? The poem offers enough imagery and metaphor to make the mind of a reader delve into deep channels of interpretation. Furthermore, Grabo overlooks the fact that there are various levels of meaning to a poem: the literal, the allegorical, the moral and the anagogical, respectively. He focuses solely upon the personal. This is not to say it is an invalid means of interpretation, rather that it is not the only means.
Grabo assumes his approach is the only valid which can give the poem any meaning, when in truth there are other equally valuable and legitimate methods to achieving the same end. He presumes his way is the best and only way which in fact is a debatable point. Thus, to appreciate Edward Taylor’s poem “Huswifery”, one can either follow Grabo’s approach or one can follow an alternative method in attempting to discover a newer, different, and perhaps deeper meaning to this very poignant and pious poem.

“Huswifery”
Make me, O Lord, thy Spinning Wheele compleat;
Thy Holy Worde my Distaff make for mee.
Make mine Affections thy Swift Flyers neate,
And make my Soule thy holy Spoole to bee.
My Conversation make to be thy Reele,
And reele the yarn thereon spun of thy Wheele.

Make me thy Loome then, knit therein this Twine:
And make thy Holy Spirit, Lord, winde quills:
Then weave the Web thyselfe. The yarn is fine.
Thine Ordinances make my Fulling Mills.
Then dy the same in Heavenly Colours Choice,
All pinkt with Varnish't Flowers of Paradise.

Then cloath therewith mine Understanding, Will,
Affections, Judgment, Conscience, Memory;
My Words and Actions, that their shine may fill
My wayes with glory and thee glorify.
Then mine apparell shall display before yee
That I am Cloathd in Holy robes for glory.

The Definition of a Gentleman

Hence it is that it is almost a definition of a gentleman to say he is one who never inflicts pain. This description is both refined and, as far as it goes, accurate. He is mainly occupied in merely removing the obstacles which hinder the free and unembarrassed action of those about him; and he concurs with their movements rather than takes the initiative himself. His benefits may be considered as parallel to what are called comforts or conveniences in arrangements of a personal nature: like an easy chair or a good fire, which do their part in dispelling cold and fatigue, though nature provides both means of rest and animal heat without them. The true gentleman in like manner carefully avoids whatever may cause a jar or a jolt in the minds of those with whom he is cast;—all clashing of opinion, or collision of feeling, all restraint, or suspicion, or gloom, or resentment; his great concern being to make every one at their ease and at home. He has his eyes on all his company; he is tender towards the bashful, gentle towards the distant, and merciful towards the absurd; he can recollect to whom he is speaking; he guards against unseasonable allusions, or topics which may irritate; he is seldom prominent in conversation, and never wearisome. He makes light of favours while he does them, and seems to be receiving when he is conferring. He never speaks of himself except when compelled, never defends himself by a mere retort, he has no ears for slander or gossip, is scrupulous in imputing motives to those who interfere with him, and interprets every thing for the best. He is never mean or little in his disputes, never takes unfair advantage, never mistakes personalities or sharp sayings for arguments, or insinuates evil which he dare not say out. From a long-sighted prudence, he observes the maxim of the ancient sage, that we should ever conduct ourselves towards our enemy as if he were one day to be our friend. He has too much good sense to be affronted at insults, he is too well employed to remember injuries, and too indolent to bear malice. He is patient, forbearing, and resigned, on philosophical principles; he submits to pain, because it is inevitable, to bereavement, because it is irreparable, and to death, because it is his destiny. If he engages in controversy of any kind, his disciplined intellect preserves him from the blundering discourtesy of better, perhaps, but less educated minds; who, like blunt weapons, tear and hack instead of cutting clean, who mistake the point in argument, waste their strength on trifles, misconceive their adversary, and leave the question more involved than they find it. He may be right or wrong in his opinion, but he is too clear-headed to be unjust; he is as simple as he is forcible, and as brief as he is decisive. Nowhere shall we find greater candour, consideration, indulgence: he throws himself into the minds of his opponents, he accounts for their mistakes. He knows the weakness of human reason as well as its strength, its province and its limits. If he be an unbeliever, he will be too profound and large-minded to ridicule religion or to act against it; he is too wise to be a dogmatist or fanatic in his infidelity. He respects piety and devotion; he even supports institutions as venerable, beautiful, or useful, to which he does not assent; he honours the ministers of religion, and it contents him to decline its mysteries without assailing or denouncing them. He is a friend of religious toleration, and that, not only because his philosophy has taught him to look on all forms of faith with an impartial eye, but also from the gentleness and effeminacy of feeling, which is the attendant on civilization.

Not that he may not hold a religion too, in his own way, even when he is not a Christian. In that case his religion is one of imagination and sentiment; it is the embodiment of those ideas of the sublime, majestic, and beautiful, without which there can be no large philosophy. Sometimes he acknowledges the being of God, sometimes he invests an unknown principle or quality with the attributes of perfection. And this deduction of his reason, or creation of his fancy, he makes the occasion of such excellent thoughts, and the starting-point of so varied and systematic a teaching, that he even seems like a disciple of Christianity itself. From the very accuracy and steadiness of his logical powers, he is able to see what sentiments are consistent in those who hold any religious doctrine at all, and he appears to others to feel and to hold a whole circle of theological truths, which exist in his mind no otherwise than as a number of deductions.

Such are some of the lineaments of the ethical character, which the cultivated intellect will form, apart from religious principle. They are seen within the pale of the Church and without it, in holy men, and in profligate; they form the beau-ideal of the world; they partly assist and partly distort the development of the Catholic. They may subserve the education of a St. Francis de Sales or a Cardinal Pole; they may be the limits of the contemplation of a Shaftesbury or a Gibbon. Basil and Julian were fellow-students at the schools of Athens; and one became the Saint and Doctor of the Church, the other her scoffing and relentless foe.

~From _The Idea of a University_ by John Henry Cardinal Newman)

Ironing Out the Problem of Evil

Thoughts, thoughts, I want your thoughts! Here is one of my final drafts for my philosophy term paper. It's close to being done, but thought I'd ask any and all for their opinions. Hope to hear from you :-)

Bomb explodes killing hundreds. Man murders ex-girlfriend. Teacher dies in school shooting. Child drowns by neighborhood bully. In skimming across newspaper postings, such headlines are not uncommon. People are known to commit some of the most heinous acts conceivable to the human mind. Yet, why do such evils exist? How is it that people can be so cruel to each other? For centuries, people have struggled with the concept of the reality of evil and have consequentially used evil as a justification against the existence of an omnibenevolent and omnipotent God. People contend that if God is so good and powerful, than either evil should not exist or God is not what we believe Him to be. For why would a God allow evils to occur if He is all powerful or why would He not stop evils from occurring if He is all good? Does this not infer a contradiction? The short answer to this complex question is no, however this issue requires much explanation. In order to reconcile these apparently contradictory principles, one must understand all the dilemma involves. Therefore, my intention is to explain the nature of evil, the nature of God and the nature of man to prove that it is possible to say that God can be omnipotent and omnibenevolent, while also accepting the presence of evil in the world.
First, before addressing this issue, one must understand the definition of evil if one is to understand God’s relationship with it. According to Aquinas, “evil is not an entity” but “a privation, or absence of some good which belongs properly to the nature of the creature”(63; Sharpe). For example, deafness is not a thing by itself, rather it is the application of loss of hearing upon a person. Similarly, evil is not a thing, but a privation of a good. It is the absence of something; it is the privation of that which should exist. For example, consider the presence of darkness. Darkness is not a thing, but a denial of a thing, namely light. It is the absence of solar radiation/energy and hence is a void, a denial of that which provides visibility. Augustine, using this same analogy, comments that just as “darkness is nothing but the absence of light, and is not produced by creation, so evil is merely the defect of goodness” (Sharpe). Notice, he states darkness is not created, but rather is separate from creation. Similarly, evil, which is outside of goodness, cannot be made by God, who is the sole Creator of goodness, not evil. Thus, if one can say that darkness is outside of God’s creation in a physical sense, then one can also say evil is outside of God’s creation in a spiritual sense. Such is the nature of evil, an absence of good.
Secondly, in order to understand evil, one must consider the nature of God. Now, to be God is to be perfect, for if God is imperfect, then He is not God. Thus, it is illogical to label God deficient in anything. Considering this then, it is not unjustified to say God is omnibenevolent and omnipotent, even with the presence of evil (or the absence of good) in the world. For again, once one understands that evil is outside of God’s creation, the idea that God is all-good and all-powerful is not problematic. One can also consider the nature of God and evil by way of analogy. Take for example the Sun. The Sun, like God, is there, always existing, always beaming its radiance upon the Earth. However, there are days when the Sun is clouded, and darkness covers the land, and storms break and rains fall. However, we know that the glorious Sun, though unseen, still shines, still warms the Earth and still remains that which it is. No one who understands basic concepts regarding the operations of the atmosphere would say because clouds cover the sky, that the Sun stops being the great life-giving star that it is. So it is with God; though evils occur, He does not cease from being the omnibenevolent and omnipotent God which He is. He remains the same God regardless of the absence of goodness in the world.
Also, to say that God is to blame for evils is an injustice to God. How can someone be blamed for something which they did not do? If a little boy is punished for stealing a bike he did not steal, then it would be an injustice to punish him for stealing. So too is it wrong for people to blame God for something He is not the cause of. It is not God who wills evil, since evil is outside of His all-perfect nature. But some may argue, “Although God does not will evil, He does permit it. Why would He do that?” It must be remembered that God is omnipotent and can allow evil for the purpose of taking it and affecting some good from it. As Augustine notes “God judged it better to bring good out of evil than to suffer no evil to exist” (Sharpe). For example, evils, when approached as a means to a positive end, can make people more empathetic, more loving, and more forgiving. That is, God is so omnipotent that he can permit evil so to “further either the general good or man's good” (“The Problem of Evil”). So, although a man loses his job and gets in a car accident, he can learn to work harder, drive safer, and have greater sympathy for those who encounter similar circumstances. The evil can work towards a greater good. Furthermore, it must be stated that in analyzing the problem of evil people must search for God’s goodness coming from the evil because if not, they will perceive only the evil itself (which is the absence of God) and not to the good (God) surrounding the evil, which works to amend all sufferings. In a sense, it would be like looking through large patches of “physical” blackness, deliberately avoiding the light which envelopes it. If one only looks at the darkness, then that clearly will be all they see. Thus, it behooves one to seek the light when dealing with evil, for otherwise, evil appears to be all that exists and this is not so.
Lastly, human nature must be considered when examining evil. Man differs from all other creatures since he possesses free will- the ability to choose what or what not to think, do or say. This freedom is a gift from God, which every human possess to either choose good or evil. Thus, because of this freedom, and the respect God has for it, man can choose to do things outside of God’s will and thus frustrate the manifestation of goodness. But one might argue, “Granted, if God is not the creator of evil, how can man choose to perform evil deeds unless God works through people to perform them? For you say that without God, man can do nothing.” Indeed, this is true, without God man can do nothing. The very ability man has to act is dependent upon God. Just as all plants are dependent upon the Sun for their sustenance, so man needs God for the purpose of living out his existence. However, although God must operate in man to allow Him to act, this does not therefore conclude that He incurs culpability for the free will choices a person decides to perform. Yes, God will work to encourage all people do good, however, He will not force His creators to do His will, for to do so would be denying man of this gift of free will. If God in any way forced a person to choose good, then man would not be made truly free and this would infer that God made us to be as mindless beings who follow only the motions of instinct, as do animals. Still others might argue “If God is omnipotent, why didn’t He make man to always be able to choose good all the time? Why couldn’t their will be fixed to always want to choose goodness?” Here again, if God made man to always choose good, he would not be free. And to not be free would make rewarding those who do good pointless. Man is not a machine, he must act freely if he is to be free.
Thus, in looking at the relationship between the nature of evil, God and man, it can be observed that yes, God can be both omnibenevolent and omnipotent with evil still existing in the world. However, one must approach this with an open mind, for yes, it is puzzling as to why evils would exist if indeed God loved us. But, again, when we see evil for what it is and how God relates to it, and the good that can come from evil, the possibility of the two apparently contradictory statements being reconcilable makes more sense and the problem of evil less troublesome and therefore not an insufferable dilemma with which to wrestle. Vivo Christo Rey!



Works Cited
Aquinas, Thomas. TheDe Malo of Thomas Aquinas. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001.
The Problem of Evil. Traditional Catholic Apologetics

Happy Feast of Saint Gemma Everyone!!!)

Ite ad Joseph

In honor of my blessed and beloved patron, Saint Joseph, I post this blog. He means so much to me that words cannot express how much I love him. And with this being his feast day, I want to encourage all peoples, of whatever faith you possess, to go to him with whatever it is you are suffering through, and I promise you, he will hear your prayers and present them before the throne of Almighty God. We must have trust in the saints intercession for us. They love us, more than we love ourselves. He has shown his love for me and in honor of him I say "Blessed be Saint Joseph" and "Blessed be God for giving him to us!" I want to write more about this topic but it is very late and so I cannot at this time. I think I feel a poem coming...please check back for future postings.
God bless and good night