Upcoming

The big thing is that our fifth baby is on the way.  As in about five weeks left on the way.  Naturally, I don't expect I'll be blogging much more than I have been.  However, I do have a few things drafted that I'll try and get out between now and then.  I'm also going to try and post some Tolkien related stuff in the near future.  It only seems right since the name of the blog is taken from the coolest fictional battle ever.

More Christian Art That Doesn't Suck

I strongly recommend you check out Marian Grace at Mysterium.  Just as with L'Angelus, I first heard them on Life on the Rock and quickly got some of their music.  They do many of the same songs as L'Angelus but with a slight pop flavor as opposed to Cajun.   In any case, the lead singer's voice is great and combined with the lyrics may threaten to bring a tear or two to your eyes.  Go and buy their stuff now!

My youngest boy...

...getting dangerously smart.  Very dangerously.  Case in point, a couple of days ago, I noticed him pulling a plug out of an outlet in the kitchen and then trying very hard to put it back.  Naturally, I stopped that.  However, the next day, he pulled an electric mixer out of the kitchen and started pulling it - by the plug - straight to the same outlet.  He knew right where that thing went.  My wife and laughed a lot, as I pulled the mixer away from him of course...

New Blog

A new blog just started over at kofcculture.blogspot.com. It's main purpose is to promote a conference in Grand Rapids, MI entitled the 1st Annual Culture of Life Conference: The Dignity and Value of Human Life. There will be plenty of updates concerning the conference and various culture of life issues, so visit often.

My kids...

...are awesome.  Case in point.  During Father's Day weekend, I took the two oldest to Chicago to go to a Lego convention.  Other than the fact that they really did great with all the driving and walking we did, they really touched me with their gifts.  On Father's Day morning they gave me little things that they had made themselves.  The oldest gave me note telling me how great she thinks I am and the boy gave me a little shaker thing so we can make music together.  But what really got me was that they both gave me part of their allowance.  Why?  So we can afford a bigger house.  I almost cried.

It's Back!

The Natural Law series is returning.  To honor this momentous event, I am re-posting what has been done so far, with a few minor edits.  And the complete version of an essay that someone got cut short earlier.  Anyway, here you go.  More to come soon!

Natural Law

Introduction

      If you spend any time reading about the many social controversies of the day, you will sooner or later run into the term natural law. Usually, it is used to highlight the fact that opposition to things such as abortion and homosexual sex are not due exclusively to religious reasons. Yet, rarely do any of the vast number of articles and essays on these subjects attempt to inform the reader as to what the natural law is or what it entails. This essay is the first of a series will seek to aid the reader in cutting through the philosophical fog.

 Natural law – From the ground up
  

Okay, so what is natural law? For starters, if may be helpful to restate the term “natural law” as “the law of nature.” This makes it easier to see that at the most basic level, natural law means that all things follow, or should follow the pattern nature has set for them. All this means is that when an electron and a proton are attracted to each other, when the presence of water, sun and soil cause a plant to grow and the apple falls from the tree rather than flying off into space they are simply following the dictates of the natural law. In the same way, when dolphins swim, dogs mate and a lion runs down a gazelle, they are all following the natural law.

     Naturally, you may be thinking that since all of these examples differ so much they cannot possibly be an example of a single natural law. In a way, this is true.  There is not a single natural law that applies in the same way, to all things. However, what the examples do point to is not that the natural law dictates the same actions for all things but that each thing does what it does to fulfill its nature. So as the electron spins around the nucleus of the atom it is fulfilling its nature as an electron and the lion is fulfilling its nature as a lion as it brings down the gazelle.

     This represents the ground floor, the lowest common denominator if you will. Having established that the natural law implies different actions for different orders of creation and different species within those orders, how does it apply to us? After all, that's what we're really interested in isn't it?

     First, we must do those things that are in accord with our nature as human beings.  And what is in accord with our nature is good and what is contrary to it is evil.  This brings us to St. Thomas Aquinas’ first principle of natural law, “we are to do good and avoid evil.”  Of course, that is a little abstract, so let’s flesh it out a bit. 

     Starting again at the most basic level, this refers to those things or inclinations relating to preserving our life and that of the species.  This of course means that self defense and sexual intercourse are in accord with the natural law.  But as Aquinas again points out there are other inclinations unique to man due to his capacity to reason.  These things include our inclinations to live in an ordered society, to create (or sub-create if you prefer) and to seek to know the truth about the world in which we live and above all to seek the truth about God.  Incidentally, some will say that this last bit gives away the fact that natural law is merely dogma dressed up as philosophy.  This question is beyond the scope of this short article so I will simply say here that the idea that we are inclined to seek the truth about God doesn’t actually say anything about His nature or even whether or not He exists.  We’ll go more in depth on this particular question later in the series. 

   

  In short, all of our natural inclinations, provided that they are ruled and guided by reason are considered to be part of the natural law.

Natural Law – From the abstract to the particular

      We are still dealing largely with abstractions, so let’s keep fleshing out the particular injunctions of natural law, especially as it relates to our daily lives.  Here, we find that the cardinal virtues of prudence, temperance, justice and courage serve as invaluable guides to conform our actions to the natural law.  To understand that the virtues are themselves part of the natural law, simply take their opposites, addiction/fanaticism/licentiousness, rashness, injustice and cowardice and try to build a life with these anti-virtues as your guides.  And then imagine the long term effects of their practice on the individual and those around him.  I think most people would agree that this would be an unmitigated disaster.
      Now, let’s take a look at how those virtues help guide us in particular actions and behaviors, especially when we find ourselves swimming in somewhat murky waters.

      Naturally, the injunction to avoid evil acts prevents things like lying, cheating, stealing etc. as they are contrary to justice.  Other things like gluttony and substance abuse offend against temperance.  Yes, this means getting drunk is bad, even for Catholics.  Excessive gambling or telling people every bad thought you have about them are contrary to both prudence and temperance.  And a tendency to avoid any and all conflict is of course contrary to courage.  This means that there is a difference between turning the other cheek and being a doormat.
    

On the more positive side of things, donating time, talent and treasure to your parish or some sort of charity, simply performing our daily jobs to the best of our ability, telling the truth, not eating four doughnuts at the morning meeting, are all in accord with the virtues and thus with natural law. 

    

Now, this may give you the impression that there is some sort of natural law checklist or flow chart tucked away in an appendix of the Catechism.  For better or worse, there is no such thing.  One reason is that the combination of actions, virtues, intentions and circumstances results in an infinite number of possibilities.  This is one of the reasons why we have been given the ability to reason (and incidentally, why we are obligated to use this ability) so that we can determine how to apply the concepts outlined by the cardinal virtues to the particular circumstances that we come across in our daily lives. 
   

  Let’s take a couple of examples.  Say a person has some spare money that he want to give to an organization that relies on donations for support.  This organization provides counseling and cancer screening services which are both matters of particular concern to our generous donor.  However, the organization also performs abortions.  According to the natural law he can’t give to this organization since they are engaging in an activity that directly contradicts the injunction to preserve the species as well as the injunction to avoid killing innocent life.  But what if the circumstances are somewhat different?  Say, the organization is perfectly fine.  Rather than abortions, the organization provides material aid to single mothers?  But now our would-be donor has had to take a severe pay cut and to donate the money he was planning on would mean that he cannot provide adequate food for his family?  The virtues of prudence and justice would require our generous donor to hold off for a while, or at least donate a smaller amouint. 
    

These examples are fairly simple and certainly one can imagine more complicated scenarios.  Yet, they do indicate how the application of basic principles can help us navigate particular circumstances. Of course, one can also imagine people reaching different conclusions in these and other circumstances.  In fact, there is even a large amount of disagreement about the principles themselves as well as the methods we should use to apply them.  How then can we say that there is a natural law that can be known by human reason without the aid of revelation?  This question will be explored in the next article. 

Natural Law
Part 1.5
Levels of Being

“Man fully alive is the glory of God” – St. Irenaeus

In Part 1 on natural law, or the law of nature, Mr. Postma, indicated that plants,
animals, and man are all created and fulfill their nature by the actions of their lives. For
plants, animals, and I will add rocks and minerals, this is facile because they lack
something that man has, self-awareness.

We have to understand that there is a natural progression of being in all of creation.
Rocks and minerals hold the lowest level of being. They are entirely inanimate and
completely contingent upon outside influences for their physical position and use.
Plants, although being mostly inanimate do possess at the lowest level the quality of
subject. Plants possess vitality, which allows them to lead their roots toward moist soil
and bend toward the sun’s light. Animals, like plants, are made up of what would be by
itself inanimate matter, possess vitality, but also are conscious creations. Animals have
the ability to move freely, organize, and even give an impression of emotion, such as the
purr of a cat or a dog appearing to be scared by a loud noise. Animals act out of instinct
rather than free thought and reasoning.

This is what separates man from the rest of creation mentioned. Man possesses all of
the above qualities, and also has been created with self-awareness. He is the only
creation that possesses a soul (vitality) that is also a spirit; and it is this spirit that allows
him to know himself, to know that he knows, to think about his thinking, to think about
others thinking; and to act based upon this knowledge of self and the world around him.
Mr. Postma discussed some examples of how man fulfills his nature. He writes,
“Here, we find that the cardinal virtues of prudence, temperance, justice and courage
serve as invaluable guides in conforming our actions to the natural law.” Man, unlike
minerals, plants, and animals, can decide to not live according to his nature. He can
choose the opposite of virtue, the opposite of order. He can ignore the cosmic order of
life and creation and choose to live merely in the here and now. By solely living in the
here and now he ignores the reality that a particular level of being can only be understood
by a higher level of being. A plant is incapable of understanding itself, but an animal has
a basic understanding of the use of plants for itself. Man of course, is capable of
understanding minerals, plants and animals to great extends. However, man is unable to
understand himself completely without a higher level of being. This will be the concern
of further articles after this series on natural law.

Now, back to the quote pulled from Mr. Postma’s essay. Man needs guides, lights
along the path, because he is self-aware, he can imagine outcomes. He can imagine past
circumstances, imagine future possibilities; and create scenarios for real time decisions
that must be made based on this. Man’s memory can aid him to be raised up to the
fullness of his nature, or be the curse that holds him down to the level of an animal, living
on impulse and instinct where he changing his mind as often as the situations he is in and
the different people he converses with.

Man’s ability to be aware of his thoughts and actions then require the following
of natural law, otherwise total despair in inevitable. If he cannot recognize certain
lights along the path that must be followed, he will be swallowed up by his pride, being
forced to deal with his own mirrored image each day, wandering in the cloud of
confusion with apparent dimmed light all around him, but with no distinct direction to be
followed.
-Mr. Mark A. Postma, M.A.
Director of Catechetical Foundations
Questions for further understanding
1. How are minerals and plants different?
2. What makes an animal different from a plant?
3. What does man possess that animals, plants, and minerals do not possess?
4. What higher level of being is needed to understand man?
5. How has your own imagination/memory held you back from living more fully
in accordance with natural law?

It is also important to recognize here that others, long before Christ figured this out. Aristotle (whom Aquinas draws on heavily) called this first being the Prime Mover and before him Plato called it the Form of the Good, that form from which all other things proceed. And they both regarded the contemplation of this first and highest Being as the greatest good that men could aspire too. It is true that they certainly were not proto-Christians, but they were certainly on the right track.

For the third commandment, it is again logical that a person should set aside time for the gaining of wisdom concerning that which is of greatest importance. So, following the sports analogy, the devoted basketball fan makes time to watch his favorite team on the court. He will also follow the players’ careers, who the team is likely to pick during the draft, what are coach’s favorite plays, etc. The philosopher will in turn ensure that he has time every week for the contemplation of the nature of the universe, hoping to arrive at a deeper knowledge of the first being. The Jew will hear the Scripture and pray in a community on Saturday to draw closer to God and the Christian do the same on Sun

Natural Law - How do we know?

How do we Know?

Last time, we left off wondering just how it is that we can know that there is a
natural law, much less what it may entail. This is an enormously important question since many
people deny not only the specific content of the natural law but also its very existence.

Main Objections

Ever since the dawn of recorded philosophy, the primary objection to the
existence of a universal natural law has been the differences between the codes of law and
moral standards of different cultures. This was first articulated by the ancient Greek
sophists who argued that the differences in laws and morals between the various city-
states (for example, the democracy of Athens vs. the totalitarian Sparta), precluded any
possibility of an objective and universal morality.
The other significant objection is simply that the many proponents of natural law
have been unable to agree on its specific content, leading to the conclusion that even if
there is a natural law, its content is unknowable to human reason.

These are powerful objections and have to be dealt with. How shall we do this?
.

Universal Principles, Particular Expressions

If you remember the last article, we touched on the fact that the basic and
universal principles of the natural law can be applied in different ways when we get down
to the particular situations of our daily lives. The same thing applies on a larger scale to
cultures. Just as our own circumstances can affect how we apply the natural law, so
various circumstances such as geography, climate, custom and technology can affect how
different cultures in different times and places how those cultures understand and apply
the natural law.

For example, whereas theft is universally proscribed by the natural law, the
availability of certain resources could affect how this particular crime is punished. For
example, a desert tribe is likely to treat the theft of water very harshly due to its scarcity.
Conversely, a tropical tribe may treat it less harshly since it is readily available. In fact,
theft of water likely would not even exist among them. However, a different tropical
tribe may come to treat water with a deep religious significance, treating it as a life-giver
or even a creator (I don’ t know if this has ever happened, this is just a thought
experiment). This tribe would treat the theft of water or perhaps specific reserves of
water very seriously indeed but for very different reasons than our fictional desert tribe
would.

Respect for human life is another universal principle of the natural law.
Normally, this is codified in law with injunctions against murder. However, it is
interesting to note that often certain classes of people, such as slaves are often excluded
from a given society. In such societies, it may not be considered murder for a person to
kill his own slave. It is not that the society does not respect human life but rather that it
fails to recognize certain classes of people as human and worthy of respect and protection
under the law.

This principle has other applications as well. In India for instance, the eating of
certain animals is prohibited because they believe that those animals may harbor the
reincarnated spirit of their ancestors.

Another more modern example demonstrates how technology has affected our
application and consideration of the principles of theft and also the rights of people to be
rewarded for their work. The example I have in mind concerns the way that
developments in digital technology have affected the transmission and sharing of music,
books and movies.

Most people will remember the battles surrounding Napster, Limewire and other
music sharing services of several years ago, as well as the constant campaigns against
digital piracy. Studios complained of lost profits and artists that their work was being
distributed and manipulated without any consent on their part. People who engaged in
these activities argued that they were simply sharing music or making copies and new
versions of different media solely to amuse themselves and others. After all, no one ever
had a problem with making copies of albums or recording TV shows with cassette and
VHS tapes.

The difference of course is the significant change in technology. Using the old
methods, copies were relatively expensive, difficult and time consuming to make, as well
as being of lower quality than the original. With digital technology, making and sharing
almost exact copies of different media became fast, simple and cheap. While the
fundamental actions of recording and sharing media remained the same, the technology
change forced a reevaluation of how these activities affected the creators of the various
movies, books and music that could now be transmitted almost instantly around the
world.

None of this should be taken to mean that all applications of natural law principles
are equally legitimate or legitimate at all so long as one can articulate the reasons for the
particular application. As we shall see, it is always possible to interpret a principle in way
that either contradicts itself, or more commonly, another, more fundamental principle.
Ancient Sparta provides us with a very clear example of this kind of misapplication of a
natural law, in this case, the principle that we should seek the good of the community of
which we are a part. Believing that the communal good relied largely on the ability of the
community to defend itself from invasion, Spartan society became focused on the
development of physical prowess to the exclusion of all else. They carried this so far that
if children, even infants showed any sign of weakness, they would be left to die. While
the good of the community is important it should be clear that the Spartans pursued this
good at the expense of the greater good of respect for human life, without which there is
no community to defend.

Opposing Versions

Another significant objection to the existence of the natural law is simply that
many different versions of it exist. Much like arguments against the existence of God,
the multiplicity of views is taken as evidence that there is no such thing as natural law or
that if there is, it is unknowable.

The clearest modern examples of different and even opposing views of natural law
lie in the battle over the meaning of human sexuality and the respect of human life. At
first, it may seem like this fight is not a fight between different versions of natural law.
This is for two reasons. The first is that the views are so incredibly different and the
second is that only one side actually claims the term natural law. The other side of these
debates uses the term human or civil rights. However, while superficially different, these
alternative terms both rest on the notion that are certain universal principles that should
govern human behavior and even legislation in the public square. One revolves primarily
around the existence of a natural order to which we ought to conform and the other
around the principle that it is our ability to choose that defines us. In either case we are
dealing with opposing views of human nature, of what it means to be human. How can
we be sure which is correct? To explore this, we’ll use the modern battles over abortion
and homosexual sex/marriage as test cases.

A first principle that everyone can agree on is that we all seek fulfillment. What is
more, we can agree that should seek our greatest fulfillment. Now, regardless of what we
believe that fulfillment to consist in, an undeniable prerequisite of reaching or even
seeking that fulfillment is being alive to do so. It also stands to reason that we should not prevent others from having the same opportunities for fulfillment. Therefore, it is obvious even at this early
stage that abortion, as the ending of a human life, violates this first principle by preventing the unborn child from pursing any sort of fulfillment. .

There are other indicators as well. Abortion, for example has well documented
negative effects on women’s mental health afterwards. There are also strong ties between
abortion and breast cancer, the link being that the interruption of the body’ s natural
development during pregnancy results in a flood of hormones that the body no longer knows how
to handle.

In the matter of homosexual sex, it is well documented that diseases are more
easily transmitted, suicide rates are higher among the homosexual population and certain
physical injuries may result as well. It is also common knowledge that homosexual
relationships are generally more unstable than traditional relationships. All of these are
indicators that homosexual relationships are not conducive to the best fulfillment (again, whatever one reasonably considers that to be) of human life and are therefore contrary to the natural law. This also points to the answer to our initial question of how we can know that there is any such thing as natural law? The
answer is simply that there are certain principles that if followed will lead to the highest
fulfillment of human life. Conversely, we see that there are certain actions that lead us
away from that fulfillment. Later in the series, we’ll attempt to explore exactly what that fulfillment consist of.
So, if all of these different objections are so easily dealt with why is it that so many people have such a hard time recognizing the natural law and adhering to it? We
will look at this question next time.

Natural Law
Part 1.5
Levels of Being

“Man fully alive is the glory of God” – St. Irenaeus

In Part 1 on natural law, or the law of nature, Mr. Postma, indicated that plants,
animals, and man are all created and fulfill their nature by the actions of their lives. For
plants, animals, and I will add rocks and minerals, this is facile because they lack
something that man has, self-awareness.

We have to understand that there is a natural progression of being in all of creation.
Rocks and minerals hold the lowest level of being. They are entirely inanimate and
completely contingent upon outside influences for their physical position and use.
Plants, although being mostly inanimate do possess at the lowest level the quality of
subject. Plants possess vitality, which allows them to lead their roots toward moist soil
and bend toward the sun’s light. Animals, like plants, are made up of what would be by
itself inanimate matter, possess vitality, but also are conscious creations. Animals have
the ability to move freely, organize, and even give an impression of emotion, such as the
purr of a cat or a dog appearing to be scared by a loud noise. Animals act out of instinct
rather than free thought and reasoning.

This is what separates man from the rest of creation mentioned. Man possesses all of
the above qualities, and also has been created with self-awareness. He is the only
creation that possesses a soul (vitality) that is also a spirit; and it is this spirit that allows
him to know himself, to know that he knows, to think about his thinking, to think about
others thinking; and to act based upon this knowledge of self and the world around him.
Mr. Postma discussed some examples of how man fulfills his nature. He writes,
“Here, we find that the cardinal virtues of prudence, temperance, justice and courage
serve as invaluable guides in conforming our actions to the natural law.” Man, unlike
minerals, plants, and animals, can decide to not live according to his nature. He can
choose the opposite of virtue, the opposite of order. He can ignore the cosmic order of
life and creation and choose to live merely in the here and now. By solely living in the
here and now he ignores the reality that a particular level of being can only be understood
by a higher level of being. A plant is incapable of understanding itself, but an animal has
a basic understanding of the use of plants for itself. Man of course, is capable of
understanding minerals, plants and animals to great extends. However, man is unable to
understand himself completely without a higher level of being. This will be the concern
of further articles after this series on natural law.

Now, back to the quote pulled from Mr. Postma’s essay. Man needs guides, lights
along the path, because he is self-aware, he can imagine outcomes. He can imagine past
circumstances, imagine future possibilities; and create scenarios for real time decisions
that must be made based on this. Man’s memory can aid him to be raised up to the
fullness of his nature, or be the curse that holds him down to the level of an animal, living
on impulse and instinct where he changing his mind as often as the situations he is in and
the different people he converses with.

Man’s ability to be aware of his thoughts and actions then require the following
of natural law, otherwise total despair in inevitable. If he cannot recognize certain
lights along the path that must be followed, he will be swallowed up by his pride, being
forced to deal with his own mirrored image each day, wandering in the cloud of
confusion with apparent dimmed light all around him, but with no distinct direction to be
followed.
-Mr. Mark A. Postma, M.A.
Director of Catechetical Foundations
Questions for further understanding
1. How are minerals and plants different?
2. What makes an animal different from a plant?
3. What does man possess that animals, plants, and minerals do not possess?
4. What higher level of being is needed to understand man?
5. How has your own imagination/memory held you back from living more fully
in accordance with natural law?

Natural Law: Why do we ignore the natural law?

Natural Law – Why don't we follow it?

So far, we have seen that natural law can be described as the set of principles that guide us to the best possible natural life for man. We have also seen that there is no shortage of disagreement about its content and even whether or not is exists. However, we have also seen that the use of reason and observation of the results of different modes of life show us that natural law does exists and that we can also determine much of its content, even as applied to individual lives and circumstances.

The question naturally arises, if we can know so much of natural law from reason alone and if it truly does lead tot he best natural road map for our lies, why do so many people deny or ignore it?

Digression

Before delving into this question I think that some clarification is in order. I have emphasized that natural law provides the best natural road map for life for a reason. Natural law is just that, natural. It consists of what we can know about the good life based on what we can see, experience and determine through our every day lives and the use of our reason. It points toward and is compatible with, but does not include what we learn about the life of holiness through revelation. Thus, natural law points us toward the life of natural virtue but is does not consist of all that is necessary for the best possible life, that is a life lived in service to and imitation of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Much could be and needs to be said about the life of grace but that is beyond the scope of this series, at least so far. Going forward, we will touch on matters of revelation but even then the focus will be on its relationship to the natural law, rather than the specific issues of revelation itself.

The Difference of Man

We return to the question, “Why do we ignore the natural law?” Two significant reasons for this have already been touched on in previous articles. These are our reason and free will. It is these two capacities, unique to man that on one hand allow us to contemplate what the natural law is and on other what make it possible for us to ignore it. Why the paradox?

Concerning reason, we are given different capacities for recognizing and applying universal principles. That is, some men are simply wiser than others. Some, such as St. Thomas Aquinas and Blessed Mother Teresa are simply better able to understand and apply the natural law better than you or I. And even those two giants did so in very different ways. The causes of this variable capacity for reason are many. One is plain old genetics, whereas others include how we were raised, what books we read, our local environment and the customs of the community we grew up in. All of these and no doubt many other factors combine to form our intellects and personalities, resulting in different levels of ability to apply our natural reason.

Our free will of course allows us the ability to reject or accept the conclusions of our reason. The animals of course do not have this ability and simply follow the course that nature has laid out for them. We however, can ask the big questions and accept or reject the answers to those questions. Still, is this really an explanation? Granted that free will allows us to reject the good, why on earth would we?

This brings us to the single biggest reason that we ignore the natural law, sin. Or more specifically, original sin.

Now, I know I just said that these articles would not, as a rule, concern themselves with revelation. So, what am I doing dragging in the concept of original sin? First, it really is the only explanation for the utter insanity that seems to infect most of us. As Chesterton said, it is the most self-evident of all Christian dogma.

Second, it is not only a Christian dogma. Most, if not all religions of the world have some story of a fall, a story that attempts to explain why it is that man seems to be less than he should or could be. In a way, this is true even of the modern secularist who follows the lead of Rousseau and other philosophers of the Enlightenment in believing that man's first sin was to form laws and institutions to regulate property and behavior. Certainly, this differs in many ways from the Fall related in Genesis but on one essential point there is agreement, man is broken. I argue then that because this brokenness is almost universally recognized, it is itself part of the natural law.

It is this essential brokenness that has corrupted our wills such that we are the only members of the material world that rejects the natural law. Our reason is often clouded by emotions or self-interest. Or our pride simply causes us to reject anything that would seem to reduce our station. This in particular is the disease of modern man. Enamored of our own achievements, modern man is extremely resistant to anything that suggests that there is an authority or standard of behavior above our outside of our own wills. And thanks to free will, we can reject such standards even when they are obvious and we know exactly what we are doing. The abortionist, for example knows full well that the unborn baby he kills is alive and that he is killing that child. He cannot help but know that it is wrong. Yet, in his pride, he chooses to ignore his conscience. In fact, there has been a growing number of pro-abortion advocates admitting that they do know the child is alive, some are even willing to recognize the child's person-hood. While this is chilling enough, their argument for justifying the killing is even more so as it amounts to little more than stating that a child doesn't fit into their plans.

Such all-encompassing pride is not that only result of broken nature. The intellect of the woman having the abortion may be darkened and her will stunted by fear, ignorance and a number of previous bad decisions in her life. Such things can combine in such a way that person becomes virtually blind to the natural law.

For another example, think of child soldiers in the developing world. From an early age, they are surrounded by violence and are instructed in how to kill almost as soon as they are strong enough to hold a weapon. This creates an environment in which it would become almost impossible to recognize the most basic of principles.

Such situations give rise to question of whether or not people can be rendered completely incapable of following the natural law. The answer, according St. Thomas Aquinas is “not quite.” Essentially, our ability to recognize and apply to the natural law to various circumstances can be blotted out but the law itself remains. For example, the same child soldier may be utterly merciless to those he is told are his enemies and completely selfless in the care and protection of his tribe. Or think of the well known example of Hitler who, in addition to being a monster was also considered to be a loving father. Or, somewhat more pointedly there is the case of the moral relativist who suddenly cries out for justice when his car is stolen. While he chooses to ignore the natural law in every day life, he cannot help but appeal to its universal principles when their violation affects him.

Next time, we'll begin to explore another guide to help us discern the natural law, the Ten Commandments.

Natural Law – The Commandments (Part 1)

When I first began to be acquainted with the natural law, I found myself frustrated by the lack of concrete content and definitions associated with it. Almost everything simply mentioned it as being the basis of some teaching or other but without going into what this law is or how it related to the particular teaching at hand. In short, the natural law seemed to be taken for granted.

I expressed this frustration to my priest who replied simply that the Ten Commandments provided a good guide to the content and application of the natural law. This in turn raised other questions. “How are the Ten Commandments related to the natural law?” “Why did we need to receive them via revelation if they are knowable by reason alone?” “How is that the first three commandments, ‘Honor the Lord thy God, Thou shalt not take the Lord’s name in vain,’ and ‘Keep holy the Sabbath’ can be considered part of the natural law at all?”

During the next portion of this series of essays, we’ll attempt to resolve these questions. We’ll begin with the theistic commandments which directly concern man’s relationship to God. Then we will move onto the other seven, or the social commandments which deal most directly with man’s relationship to his fellow man.

The First Three Commandments

As there are three commandments there are at least three ways of looking at them in a natural law light. We’ll call them the subjective, the philosophical objective and the Judeo-Christian objective.

The subjective is simply based on the experience of all men and focuses on certain qualities and patterns of behavior that we cannot get away from.

The philosophical objective is the outlook of the intelligent and truth seeking agnostic, or that of the ancient Greek philosophers. These are men who through their reason come to realize that there is some sort of ultimate god-being and who also are genuinely trying to learn more about him.

The Judeo-Christian objective of course is that which sees the Decalogue as it really is, a catalogue of the most basic behaviors needed to maintain a good life, handed down by God to direct our lives toward Himself; revealed to us because we do so frequently need to be reminded of the basics.

The First Commandment: “I am the Lord thy God, Thou shalt have no other gods before me.”

How do we understand this commandment in the subjective sense? The clearest answer is that we all have some sort of god in our lives. Whether that is the God, or Brahman, CNN, Glen Beck, Barak Obama, football, or a prize music collection, we all have something or someone in our lives that we consider to be the most important thing in the world, something that our lives revolve around. This is true even if the center of your universe is yourself. It is logical that whatever this subjective god is, that we treat it as such. If a person says that football is the most important thing in his life then one would expect that he would build his schedule around the game on Sunday, even that he would save money every year to go see at least one game in person, a sort of pilgrimage. You would not expect this person to decide to go shopping instead of watching the big game, all the while maintaining that football is more important to him. Anyone would accuse such a person of hypocrisy.

It is important to point out that a person could violate this principle and actually be right in the objective sense. For example, if a workaholic were to refuse overtime to spend time with his aging parents. The job may be important to him, but objectively he is doing right by spending time with his parents.

The second or philosophical objective sense was articulated by St. Paul. St. Paul, in one of his letters noted that all creation points to the existence of God, leaving pagans, who worship many gods without a valid excuse for their idolatry.

St. Thomas elaborated on this in his proofs for the existence of God, most of which can be boiled down to the simple fact that matter does not move by itself. A rock will not suddenly fly through the air unless someone picks it up and throws it. It would not fall again except for the forces of friction caused by the surrounding air and the gravity caused by the mass of the earth. Follow this chain of cause and effect back far enough and one finds the first bit of matter, hanging motionless in the void, or rather the primordial universe, just sitting there waiting for the Big Bang. But what made it go bang? If there was no matter outside of the embryonic universe, what acted on it? Or if there were other matter, what caused it to start moving and so come into contact with our little universe? For that matter, where did this tiny universe come from? After all, matter does not create itself.

The only answer is that there must have been some sort of immaterial being outside of the universe to bring it into being, or as Peter Kreeft puts it, “someone had to bang out the Big Bang.” Incidentally, this happy correlation of scientific theory and Thomistic philosophy is why the Church enthusiastically embraced the Big Bang and did so unusually quickly.

It is also important to recognize here that others, long before Christ figured this out. Aristotle (whom Aquinas draws on heavily) called this first being the Prime Mover and before him Plato called it the Form of the Good, that form from which all other forms come. And they both regarded the contemplation of this first and highest Being as the greatest good that men could aspire too. It is true that they certainly were not proto-Christians, but they were certainly on the right track.

This brings us to the Judeo-Christian objective sense. Naturally, this is to be considered the true sense of the Commandment, that the one true personal God is to be worshiped and Him alone. Not football, not sex, not some abstract philosophical ideal but God the Father (for the Jews and Christians), the Son and the Holy Spirit (for Christians). But how does this relate to the natural law? As Charles Rice points out in his book, 50 Questions on the Natural Law, it matters where the natural law comes from because this affects how we interpret both the content and authority of this law. For example, if it is simply the natural emanation, or rather how material beings best respond to the far off existence of a prime mover there is little reason that we should care to trust or follow it. After all, if this unmovable being does not care about us, why should we care about contemplating it? However, if the law is the result of a personal God who loves us, there is a much greater incentive to respond with love in return.

The Second and Third Commandments – “Thou shalt not use the Lord’s name in vain,” and “Keep Holy the Sabbath.’

Following the same pattern, it should be easy to see how these two commandments can be applied in a strictly natural sense. Concerning the second commandment, it is logical that one does not speak of that which is most important in a flippant or disrespectful manner. This holds true if you look at things subjectively or in either of our two objective senses. That is, if you worship your iPad, the Form of the Good, or the Triune God.

For the third commandment, it is again logical that a person should set aside time for the gaining of wisdom concerning that which is of greatest importance. So, following the sports analogy, the devoted basketball fan makes time to watch his favorite team on the court. He will also follow the players’ careers, who the team is likely to pick during the draft, what are thee coach’s favorite plays, etc. The philosopher will in turn ensure that he has time every week or even every day for the contemplation of the nature of the universe, hoping to arrive at a deeper knowledge of the first being. The Jew will hear the Scripture and pray in a community on Saturday to draw closer to God and the Christian do the same on Sunday.

An interesting and perplexing fact is brought out by this discussion. For the subjective applications of these first three commandments, there would seem to be little difficulty in following them. Yet, as we move up the ladder to their true end, that is to direct us towards the one true God, obedience becomes far more difficult. Why is this? After all, isn’t God real? Hasn’t He created us? Hasn’t he placed a desire on our hearts that only He can satisfy? Why then is it so difficult for so many to make it to Mass for an hour on Sunday morning but so easy to watch the Lions lose for three hours on Sunday afternoon?

The ultimate answer of course has its roots in original sin. As such, similar temptations have always existed but this does not answer why such things are so much more prevalent today.

These are all weighty questions and we shall do our best to answer them soon. Next time however, we will continue our survey of the Ten Commandments as guides in understanding the natural law.

Natural Law – The Commandments Part 2

The last time, we took a relatively in-depth look at the first three, or theistic commandments and just how they can be understood from a natural law perspective, or rather three different natural law perspectives. Today, we continue with a brief survey of the next seven or social commandments. Since they all have a fairly obvious relevance to the well-being of society our procedure will be somewhat different here. Instead of looking at them from the material/subjective, philosophical and theistic perspectives as before, we will mostly confine ourselves to a relational perspective, looking at the basic meaning of each commandment in our daily lives and what sort of situations each relates too. So, let’s get started.

The Fourth Commandment – Honor Thy Father and Thy Mother

This commandment is certainly not a favorite today but it is absolutely essential. First,
it is necessary because it is through the action of our mothers and fathers that we exist at
all and their subsequent care and sacrifice that get us through our most vulnerable years and
teach us how to be responsible adults ourselves. And responsible adults are responsible
citizens who are a benefit to their society rather than a burden on it. Even if there were
no commandment, a very basic material sense of justice would require that some sort of
recompense be offered.

`Through this sense of honor and respect towards those who have come before us, we also
learn to respect and honor employers, elected officials and the laws they make. Without
this basic respect, the rule of law would itself be called into question.
It should be noted that respect, honor and obedience only go so far. If any authority is
attempting to abuse its power to contravene higher law, then it is not to be obeyed. For
example if you were required to kill your ailing grandmother for the good of the state.

The Fifth Commandment – Thou Shalt not Kill

Most people do not question the validity of this commandment. After all, it is difficult to
disagree with a commandment that prohibits the taking of human life for anything other
than purposes of defense. Still, let’s clarify that a little bit. First of all, the intent is not to
prohibit killing in every instance, but rather to prohibit the taking of innocent human life.
Meaning that killing to defend yourself, another person or your country is permissible if
there is no other alternative.

Included as innocent human life are also the unborn (the most innocent of all) and
the elderly. Both abortion and euthanasia are prohibited simply on the basis that human life is
unique and a gift not to be squandered or taken from anyone else.

The Sixth Commandment – Thou Shalt not Commit Adultery

It is obvious how adultery can affect a marriage, but how does it affect society? Simply
because of the fact that is affects the marriage. When one spouse cheats, the trust
of the other spouse and that of any children involved is greatly damaged. That loss of trust can affect not only how the individual adulterer is viewed but also all members of his or her gender. This can
color all future relationships to the extent of doubting the validity of marriage and of
wanting to avoid children so they may not suffer similar pain. This obviously affects the
development and even the existence of future generations and so of society.

The Seventh Commandment – Thou Shalt not Steal

This is another easy one. Theft, of money, property, goods, ideas, etc deprives a person
of what is rightfully theirs, undermining basic motivation for work as well as fostering a
culture of fear and suspicion that can contribute to a sense of isolation from other people,
thus fragmenting society.

The Eight Commandment – Thou Shalt not Bear False Witness

Again, most people would certainly agree that lying should be avoided, certainly in the
case of falsely accusing people of action that they have not committed. But beyond such
obvious injustice, lying in general (to our spouse, to our employer, priest, friends, etc)
is yet another action that can undersmine the basic fabric of society. This is because our
laws and even daily interactions assume that most people have a basic concept of truth,
that it is important. We simply could not function if we always assumed that everyone
was out to swindle us, from the stock broker to the mechanic changing our oil. We trust
them to do their job. That is we trust them to not bear false witness as the nature and
quality of their work. Without this basic level of trust we all would soon be nervous
wrecks constantly looking over our shoulders for the next person trying to put one over
on us and possibly become just as bad ourselves.

The Ninth Commandment – Thou Shalt not Covet thy Neighbor’s Wife

Alright, the other commandments all involve certain actions, even honoring our mothers
and fathers, while beginning in the mind certainly must result in some sort of concrete
action. So, it’s easy to see how these have an effect on the stability of society and thus
reflect the natural law. But how does coveting play into this? After all doesn’t it simply
happen in the mind? The answer of course is no. True, initially certain thoughts may
enter the mind and then leave; a situation that simply reflects the human condition. Even
the greatest saints suffered temptations. However, once those thoughts are entertained,
they can fester and eventually may come out in various little ways. One may begin
treating one’s one wife poorly, or seeking to undermine your neighbor’s marriage in
subtle ways. All of this violates the natural trust that one’s spouse and one’s neighbor
has a right to. And it goes without saying that if things continue in this direction then
violation of this commandment can result in the violation of the commandment against
adultery.

The Tenth Commandment – Thou Shalt not Covet they Neighbor’s Goods

This one of course works just like the ninth commandment. “I like my neighbor’s table
saw,” a thought which is harmless enough. However, this thought can eventually morph
into envy and now I find myself angry that he has one and I don’t. If unchecked, such
an attitude can damage one’s relationships not only with one’s neighbor but one’s
family as the thought grows into an obsession. Naturally, this situation could lead to violation of the
commandment against theft, or even against killing in certain circumstances.

We’ve completed our brief survey of the seven social commandments and how they
relate to the stability of society. The implicit assumption is that the stability of society is
bound up with the natural law and is itself desirable from the perspective of the natural
law. But is it? And if so, what sort of society? Is the natural law as reflected in the
commandments the only guarantor of a stable society? We will begin to explore these
questions in the next essay as we look at the place of the natural law in the public square.

Sports, Movies and the End of Western Civilization

Sports, Movies and the End of Western Civilization

We hear a lot today about how civilization is in decline. This is typically based upon a general lowering of moral standards, the coarsening of the culture and the apathy of so many in the West. Parallels are often drawn between us and Rome. These parallels include the fact that it was when they thought that they had reached the peak of human achievement that they began to decline and like us, their morals were flagging, the public was ambivalent about a growing government and the empire was being pecked to death by many small enemies and its frontier. But there is one parallel that I have yet to see made explicit and that is the role of sports, or more broadly, the role of entertainment in both cultures.

Now, before you engage in the time-honored and highly entertaining sports of jumping to conclusions and hurling accusations, I am not condemning sports or entertainment in general. While there are elements that are worthy of condemnation, both are overall good things. My purpose is rather to point out that the way we talk about and experience these things is another, under-analyzed symptom of our cultural degradation.

So, what is unique about our dialogue on these subjects and what is its relation to ancient Rome before its fall? Let’s start by looking at the first part of that question.

To being with, ask yourself how much time people spend talking about things like sports and movies. Quite a bit. Now, ask yourself on what level are they discussed? Usually, the topics include the quality of the ref, stats, and who’s in jail this seek. That covers sports. Concerning movies the topics of conversation revolve around the attractiveness of the women, special effects and action scenes. In short, they are discussed on the shallowest possible level. Discussions about how sports can provide a means of drawing out the best of human courage and determination or on how movies can be an important art form that explores the human condition in unique was rarely happen. The exception is when the two come together in a Disney produced “based-on-a-true-story” sports movie. However, while movies are generally well-received they are usually forgotten about as soon as the summer blockbuster season starts.

These topics lead into weightier matters, matters concerning just what it is that makes us human, matters that explore our essential nature, matters that sooner or later get us into the discussion of religion, or at least of politics (and often both). And as everyone knows, religion and politics are not supposed to be brought up in polite conversation.

Why is that? The answer typically given is that such topics are controversial, divisive, contentious, etc. That is, religion and politics involve questions of right and wrong, how we should live our lives. And given the number of competing religions and philosophies out there today it seems impossible that more than two or three people are likely to agree on what is right and what is wrong. Such topics are considered divisive and alienating and as such are left alone.

This reluctance to discuss the big questions of life has increased to the point that many even fail to acknowledge that these questions are important. The result is that our society is no longer held together by commonly expressed notions of truth and goodness. In fact, it isn’t even held together by the search for these things.

And yet, society does go on and even appears to be held together. The loss of a sense of truth hasn’t yet led to atomized individuals racing away from each other like galaxies. Clearly, we are still forming and maintaining relationships with various people and maintaining those relationships; which means that we are still able to find some sort of common ground.

So far as I can tell this new common ground is based on our shared commitment to entertainment. As I write this, I find myself remembering a magazine cover that touted that FUN is the “new core value.” Apparently I’m the not the first one to recognize this trend. The entertainment and pleasure involved can come from many things, sports, movies, music, pushpin, chess or sex (which society has basically reduced to a form of entertainment). To prevent this essay from turning into a book, I’ll focus on the discussing the two that I began with, sports and movies.

They both form a large portion of our common experience as a culture. Both provide a spectacle that excites and entertains, that pulls us out of our daily lives for at least a little while. And whether we admit it our not, they both call to deeper parts of our nature, the parts that cause us to exult when a team comes back from twenty point deficit to with the Super Bowl or that makes us teary eyed when Andy gives his toys to the girl at the daycare. I think that this ability to call out to our better natures is what allows us to elevate these things (sports in particular) almost to the level of a religion.

Think about how much time and energy we invest into these things. We research information about favorite players or upcoming movies on the internet. We purchase special clothing that identifies with our favorite teams, rotating our jerseys based on which sport is in season. We our over biographies of coaches and players, we set aside specific times each week to immerse ourselves in the football game on Sunday or Friday night for movies. We divide ourselves into particular cams and attack those who support others. We set particular foods and engage in specific activities (hotdogs and beer for tailgate parties, popcorn and soda for movies). Or to put it another way, we study our faith, where liturgical vestments, designate holy days and rituals, study the lives of the saints, practice ritualistic feasts and argue about the validity and worth of other denominations.

Or to put it another way, they have taken up the central place in our lives that once was taken up by religion. But now, despite or perhaps because of this investment, it seems that even this common ground is beginning to shake. Think of the people who get trampled to death at soccer games in Europe. Or the occasional fist fight over which sports team is better. Or just the pettiness that fans of rival teams (or movie franchises) will treat each other with. Such incidents are not extremely common yet but they do exist and may be indicating that sports and movies may become as contentious as religion and politics.

It is also possible that the general malaise of our day, brought about by the various stresses of the culture wars, economic and political conditions is beginning to make people search for deeper things than ERA’s and box office tallies. But what will happen should the idea that our entertainment culture isn’t providing the answers we need? That at the end of the day it only (and only at its best) points to things deeper and is not an end in itself? Will we seek another substitute? Return to true religion? Or will we simply give up?

Such concerns are beyond the scope of this essay. Still unanswered is the question of what the relationship to ancient Rome is. The answer begins with the phrase “bread and circuses.”

As already stated, towards its end ancient Rome was experiencing many of the same things we are now. These indicators of decline include social and moral degradation as well as military confrontations that individually were insignificant but cumulatively were a drain on the wealth and morale of the empire. Such things tend to make a populace restless. So, how did Rome address this restlessness? They did so with entertainment or rather, “bread and circuses.” This included the various games of the Coliseum and other arenas throughout the empire as well as a presumable transformation of Rome into a welfare state to ensure that the people were fed. The games and plays of the arena provided a spectacle that emphasized the wealth, culture, technology and military superiority of Rome which served to distract people from the fact that all of these were slowly deteriorating. While it is likely that this was not the original purpose of the games, it seems clear that the “bread and circuses” approach was eventually used to dull the populace through distraction and self-satisfaction, making them much easier to control.

In similar fashion, the modern West is full of varying degrees of welfare states and saturated with non-stop entertainment of virtually any kind, entertainment that is at times subsidized by the government. Just recall things like the mandated shift the high definition broadcasting and the vouchers so that we could all by a nice new converter box. Or, even more telling let us turn back to just a few weeks ago when our President postponed a speech explaining our involvement in Libya so as not to interrupt Dancing with the Starts. What does it say about our culture when our leadership fears to interrupt a dance show with news of a war (even if only one on the fringes of the empire) lest he upset the populace?

Yay China!

I was reading in the latest issue of Columbia the other day about the glories of the one-child policy in China.  I'd heard some bad things but the story told was basically of a woman being forcibly dragged to the "hospital," having her child aborted by C-section and then sent home with the dead child in a garbage bag.  Yep, a shinning example of civilization those Chinese.  Such nice communists.  And to think that I've had people tell me that the one-child policy doesn't amount to a form of slavery to the state.  Sure, you can do anything you want, except have brothers or sisters.

Lifewalk

This past weekend, I participated in the annual Lifewalk here in Holland.  Lifewalk is an annual fundraiser for the Lakeshore Pregnancy Center which is a place that does just awesome work is support of the unborn and their struggling parents.  All of the area walks raised a total of over $83,000 dollars.
Concerning my own experience, I brought my two oldest munchkins (7 and 5) for the two mile walk and they did great.  They also had a good time with the balloons and the games that the LPC set up for such things.  They really went all out in making it family friendly.
I am hoping to up the Catholic involvement in this for next year though as I was one of maybe two Catholics (well, four if you count my kids) that were walking.  Still, I did get a fair number of sponsors for a first try.
You can check out what Lakeshore pregnancy center is all about at lpcenter.com

More Krav

For some reason I keep fighting kids half my age who have been training since they could walk, or are training for an MMA fight, or freaking Marine officers.  Don't get me wrong, it's fun.  But it hurts!  On one hand, I'm pretty happy that I can hang with people like this but on the other, I'm willing to bet that they don't hurt as much the next morning. 

Christian Art that Doesn't Suck - L'Angelus

In a new occasional series, I'll be talking about Christian/Christian friendly art that doesn't suck.  Why?  Because most of it does.  In a way, this will not be too different from much of what I already do, there will be movie and book reviews as always but I'll add music and maybe actual artwork.  I should confess, my ability to critique that latter two art forms is significantly less than the ability with the former two but I'll give a crack anyway.  So, without further ado...

L'Angelus

This is a family band, which is not at all uncommon in the world of Christian music, especially Catholic music.  So yes, they are Catholic.  The band mostly plays fiddle heavy cajun music with a lot of energy, as evidenced in their album Ca C'est Bon.  However, they also do sacred hymns, which they excel at.  There is something about the sound that they bring to sacred music that makes them fresh and new while still respecting the old traditions that the music stems from.  In short, their music represents a genuine development of tradition instead of a radical interruption.

One of the best parts of their music is that while it reflects Christian sensibilities and teachings, it is in no sense preachy.  The only one that really comes close is "Desperation War" but even this song gets its point across by telling a story, a story that is very believable and likely all too common.   Other's such as "Angelle's Tippy Teaux Two-Step" are just plain fun, especially when Angelle gets on the mic.  You just have to have to hear it. 

Finally, their voices are incredible.  I say "their" because pretty much all of them sing.  And they do it in English, Latin, and French.  The French is particularly beautiful.  All of this combines to make them one of the few Christian bands on an actual mainstream label. 

So, get their music, get their albums and go to their website (http://www.langelus.info/) to find out if they are playing near you.  They mostly seem to play in the South and overseas, which is a bummer since I live in the Midwest.  But maybe someday they'll make it up to Michigan.  Or least northern Indiana.  Come to think of it, Notre Dame isn't too fart away.   

Thor

Yes!  I got to the theater again!  On opening day!  Yay!
Ahem.  Moving on.  The short review is that Thor was a pretty good but certainly
not great film.  There was no point during the movie that I felt like there was
something just utterly ridiculous going on (given the premise of course), a
handful of things that were enjoyable but at the end of the credits, it left
with me a bit hollow.  Not that there was anything in particular, just a sense
that the movie could have been…deeper.  Before I chase down that rabbit trail,
let’s talk about the movie itself.
First, the good.  The thing that most impressed me about the movie was the
acting.  Chris Hemsworth did a great job playing Thor, pulling off the arrogant
uber-powerful Thor at the beginning and the humbled really-tough-human in the
middle and the humble uber-powerful Thor at the end.  Chronologically, the
lesson learning was a bit on the quick side but Hemsworth makes it believable.
Tom Hiddleston also does a great job playing Loki.  Combined with his
sympathetic performance the dialogue makes you wonder at his true motivations,
even until the end of the movie.  The only thing that’s absolutely clear is that
he really, really doesn’t like Thor and will do most anything to kill him.  For
the most part everyone else does a good job filling out their roles, with the
standouts being the characters of Heimdal and Agent Caulson.  Neither have large
roles but both are necessary to the story.  Finally, there was a brief and
highly superfluous cameo by Jeremy Renner as Hawkeye.  Basically, he was just
there as an Easter egg for us comic nerds but if his brief performance is any
indication, we are in for a real treat when comes back next year for the
Avengers.  Renner brings a quiet intensity to the screen that not many can
match.
The story is quite straightforward and is done well, going back and forth
between Asgard and New Mexico without feeling either choppy or forced, a real
testament to the screen writers, director, and editors.  It is basically the
story of how Thor grows up, moving from powerful and arrogant princeling to a
wiser and humbler man worth of being king.  As you can tell from the trailer,
the transformation takes place on earth after being banished for starting a war
(a war we see curiously little of).  While on earth, Thor learns humility,
respect for others and self-sacrifice.  Like I said, it happens pretty quickly
but to be fair, he’s helped along by the trauma of no longer being worthy to
wield his hammer and Loki who came and told a series of lies that would drive
anyone to introspection.

We also see the further development of SHIELD as a force to be reckoned with as
it quickly shows up and sets up shop around the hammer, which of course no one
but someone worthy can wield.  Not to mention the after-credits scene where we
find that SHIELD has well…I won’t spoil it, although my fellow nerds are already
quite aware of what I’m talking about.
Now, for the bad.  First, Natalie Portman.  Her giggles and generally girly-ness
seem a bit forced.  Not that she has a lot to do but she probably hasn’t had as
bad a performance since Revenge of the Sith.  There was also a little too-much
goofy-ness with “Lady Sif and the Warriors Three,” especially when they show up
on Earth.  It isn’t Jar-Jar bad or even close but it grates a bit.  Also, the
costumes look…strange.  Not just out of place but fake.  Which brings me to the
aesthetic of Asgard.  It seemed overly produced to the point of looking fake.
Now, to be fair, I think the director was trying to make it look set apart, like
it really is a higher, heavenly realm as opposed to just a really classy
medieval castle.  I just don’t care for the way he did.  That said, this is
really just a matter of taste.
Moving on, Thor was so powerful that it was hard to really care about him most
of the time.  At the beginning in the battle with the Frost Giants, he pretty
much single-handedly takes out an army without hardly breaking a sweat.  And at
the end, when the Destroyer shows up it pretty much makes mince-meat of Thor’s
buddies before getting completely trashed by Thor (after he gets his hammer
back).  The point is that Sif and the others simply are nowhere near Thor’s
league.  Kind of like staking up Bruce Lee against a really tough ten-year-old.

There was one significant misstep by the director and that was the inclusion of
a date at the beginning.  If I remember right, it was 967 AD when the war
between the Frost Giants and Asgardians was raging on Earth.  The big problem
here is that Thor and Loki were only babies at the time.  This raises obvious
problems with the chronology of the legends of the Norse gods.  I may have seen
it wrong and the date may have been B.C. but even then, I think it was a mistake
to put a time stamp on the Asgardian past.  It potentially raises a lot of
questions about their nature, most notably how they age.

Finally, there was just something missing.  This is the way I feel about all of
the Marvel Studios movies.  They are enjoyable movies but the only reason anyone
will be talking about them ten years from now is that they will still be making
sequels.  I’m not sure exactly what it is, unless it’s the fact that (as a
friend pointed out) they maybe trying to do too much.  A little action, a
littler comedy, a little romance, a little drama, etc.  Basically, trying to
catch every single demographic in one movie, and in the process sacrificing the
core of the story.  As he and I discussed, this is a problem of a lot of movies
today and likely accounts for why so many movies, especially remakes, reboots
and sequels ultimately feel flat.  The studios are just trying to hit all the
check marks while forgetting that their primary job is to tell a good story.
Something to think about.