Under the Red Hood

This is easily the most mature of the three movies we’re reviewing as it deals heavily with the death of Jason Todd, the second Robin, Batman’s feelings of guilt, and the difference between revenge and justice.

As before, the animation is very good, this time slightly influenced by the old series but for the most part is something all its own.  The voice actors are largely unfamiliar to the world of animated Batman movies but everyone does a good job, especially Jensen Ackles, who plays the Red Hood.  There are also small parts by Neil Patrick Harris as Nightwing, and Jason Isaacs as Ra’s al Ghul.  John Di Maggio plays the Joker particularly well, showing influence of both Mark Hamill’s definitive animated portrayal and Heath Ledgers equally definitive live action rendition of the character.

Fair warning, it is pretty much impossible to talk about this without spoiling anything so I won’t bother trying.  Of course the movie doesn’t really try to hide anything either.  This isn’t about the mystery, it’s about the character conflict.

The movie gets going with the famous beating to near death of Jason Todd by the Joker and the subsequent explosion that finishes him off, an event that haunts Batman for the rest of his life.  We then jump to Gotham where we meet the Red Hood, an outsider who comes in and rapidly starts to take control of the criminal underworld in Gotham, igniting a war with Black Mask and attracting the attention of Batman, which of course is part of the plan.  You see, the Red Hood is none other than Jason Todd, back from the dead courtesy of Ra’s al Ghul and his handy-dandy Lazarus Pit.  Incidentally, this is just about the only thing that really bothers me about this story; it continues the long established comic book trend of brining people back from the dead.  Until recently, DC didn’t do it very often, but they have definitely jumped on that bandwagon with Marvel by now. 

I digress.  Jason’s primary purpose through the whole movie was simply to stage a showdown with Batman and the Joker.  You see, he isn’t blaming Batman for his death or anything like that, he’s too smart.  But what he does want to know is why, “Why on God’s earth is he (pointing at the Joker) still alive!”  Why wasn’t his death the final straw, the one that finally made the Batman break his one rule and rid the world of “this piece of death worshiping filth?”  A fair question, one that comic nerds have been debating for decades.  Why not kill the Joker?  After all, it seems no prison can really hold him and all he does when he gets out is to kill as many people as he can.  Batman’s answer is simply that it would take him to a place that he wouldn’t come back from.  Once he kills the Joker, why not Two-Face?  The Riddler?  The next random mugger?  I admit, it isn’t really satisfying on a visceral level but the right answer rarely is.  Not that there couldn’t be better answers but a long dissertation on the value of the rule of law and the inherent dignity of even the worst bastards probably would not have fit.  In any case, Todd is also less than satisfied and tries to force Batman to kill either him or the Joker, which of course doesn’t work.  The Joker goes back to Arkham in the end and it looks as though Todd is dead, but we all no better don’t we?

Near the beginning of the movie there is also a great fight scene, featuring Batman and Nightwing vs. Amazo, a super-powered android.  This version possesses a number of the Justice League’s powers, leading to the original Dynamic Duo having to be pretty creative in their tactics.  My personal favorite is when Batman puts some plastic explosives over his eyes, which Amazo obligingly detonates with his heat vision.  That scene alone is worth the entire runtime. 

Anyway, like I said, this is not for the kiddies.  It is awesome and for older teen Bat-fans it is a very worth while viewing experience. 

Batman/Superman - Apocalypse

As you can already see, this one is not only a Batman story.  Nor is it an original tale but is based on the Supergirl storyline of the Superman/Batman comic and functions as a sequel of sorts to Enemies of the State animated feature  (also based on a story from the same comic) of a couple of years ago.  This brings up of  the cooler aspects of this particular series of animated features, the animation.  If you were to watch the movies back to back you would be surprised at how different the animation styles are.  However, if you were to compare the animation to the art in the comics, you would see that they basically chose to adapt the art styles of Ed McGuiness and Michael Turner to an animated format.  Whether this really makes any real difference to the story, I don’t know, but it is kind of a neat thing for nerds like myself. 

As for voice talent, this movie brings back many animated series favorites, Kevin Conroy again, Tim Daly as Superman, even Wonder Woman is done by the same actress who portrayed her in the Justice League series.  Suffice to say that the voice acting is competent to excellent. 

Now for the story.  I won’t belabor differences between the movie and the comic, suffice to say that there are several but all the differences seem to have been based on time considerations more than anything. 

Things kick off with the arrival in Gotham a very powerful young lady who seems to be the long lost cousin of Superman, Kara.  Batman of course is highly suspicious, assuming that she might be part of some elaborate trap.  He’s wrong, at least for a while because many people naturally take notice of her and her talent, including Darkseid who is basically the ultimate physical evil in the DC universe.  To make a long story short, he kidnaps Kara and brainwashes her (doesn’t say how), turning her against Superman when he, Batman, Wonder Woman and Big Barda come to rescue her.  This leads to a confrontation, not just of muscle vs. muscle but of philosophy, how do we know what is right and good?  What is the role of the parent or guardian in guiding the development of those in his care?  I won’t pretend that there is an in depth discussion of these issues in between punches, but it is there.

Another issue worth considering is how Batman keeps Darkseid out of the fight, allowing them all to escape.  Again, keeping the long story short, he rigs the whole planet to go boom unless Darkseid lets them leave and promises to leave Kara alone.  Now, is it morally permissible to threaten to blow up a planet of slaves to rescue one girl?  And not just threaten, but to actually do it?  After all, Darkseid relents because he knows Batman will actually do it.  Altruistic or not, he is also a ruthless bastard.  Now, many of the slaves are no doubt unwilling and wanting to escape, making them innocent victims.  However, many (perhaps a majority) worship Darkseid as a god.  This was seen in an episode of the Superman animated series where Supes kicked the crap out of him, only to see him carried away by his slaves, not to be drawn and quartered but to be nursed back to health.  It is also a military target.  Darkseid, being a comic book villain wants to take over the entire universe.  Actually, he wants to destroy all life.  Really.  For you Marvel fans out there, he is like an amped up version of Thanos.  Darkseid would use Kara, who is arguably more powerful that Superman to further his ends.  In this case, I would say that this is a Death Star scenario; there are innocent prisoners but the entire purpose of everything and everyone else on the planetoid in questions is to spread fear and terror making the action justified, if not still tragic.  \

Conclusion, well animated, acted, and written.  Not suitable for the little ones but perhaps mature pre-teens and above.

Mystery of the Batwoman

This one is pretty old, dating from the heyday of the 1990’s Batman Animated Series (one of the greatest series ever by the way).  In fact, it was produced by the same team, featuring the familiar voice of Kevin Conroy as Batman and the trademark minimalist animation that has become the standard for almost all of DC’s animated projects.  As always, the technical side of the production is handled very well. 

Moving onto the story, it begins with our introduction to the Batwoman, who is decidedly different, at least in appearance from earlier bearers of the same name.  There is no bright yellow spandex and crazy red masque here.  Instead, they went with a light gray spandex and red bat logo, fitting more with the general tone of the series.  As bat-fans will not find surprising, she quickly runs afoul of Batman.  However, it is not just because he doesn’t much care for other vigilantes operating in his city but also because she is a lot more violent than he is, having no regard at all for the lives of the criminals she fights.

We are also introduced to a number of new female characters who are of course potential Batwomen.  We get to walk along with Bruce as he thinks he figures out who the female caped crusader is and then is quickly proven wrong, a couple of times.  They do a good job with the mystery but by the time the pay off comes you aren’t exactly surprised.  Along the way, you find out that there are personal reasons for the Batwoman’s violence, helping to understand the character a bit but I still think that she should have suffered some sort of real consequence for her actions, which is ultimately the biggest problem with the movie.  Still, all in all a fun, entertaining little adventure that I would recommend for the pre-teen and older crowd. 

The Batman Reviews

At last!  I’m going to review those Batman movies I mentioned a long time ago now.  In case you need  a reminder,   those movies were Mystery of the Batwoman, Apocalypse, and Under the Red Hood.  These will be short and sweet since everyone knows the basic Batman story, so I won’t spend a whole lot of time dwelling on that.

One quick note though.  I think I mentioned before how there are numerous interpretations of Batman’s personality and motivations.  These range for arrogant bastard, terrorist, anger-driven sociopath, to altruistic crusader.  I also mentioned that the latter is definitely my preference.  Perhaps sometime I’ll go into the reasons for that and why the other interpretations, often presented as attempts to humanize the character tend to exasperate me.  Actually, the whole trend of making characters more “human” and “identifiable” drives me batty ( no pun intended). Suffice to say (for the moment) that I think it is grounded in a corrupt interpretation of the Calvinistic idea that we area largely defined by our sin married to modern relativism.  Anyway, on with the reviews.

Barnes and Noble

Maybe it's just me or my local store but Barnes and Noble has been bugging the heck out of me for a while.  Largely the titles they display have been at times inappropriate.  But a couple of days ago, I went in and saw that they had completely gutted their philosophy section as well.  Details in the letter below.

I am writing to express some frustration and disappointment with your store.  For many years now, I have enjoyed browsing through, hanging out in and spending money in the Holland Barnes and Noble.  But over the last year or so, there have been a number of things that have made me less than enthusiastic about continuing to do so. 

Most of these instances have consisted of the sexually suggestive covers various prominently displayed books, including the Vargas pinups, Good Girl’s Guide to Bad girl Sex, and most egregious, What Happens in Vegas.  The latter featured a cover with two people engaged in sex, displayed cover out right next to the children’s section.  I think most people would agree that whatever the book’s merits as literature may be, this is not necessarily an example of intelligent product placement.  Another example featured nothing more than bust of a woman wearing something with a zipper being unzipped, displayed on a cart just as one walks in.  I’m sure you can imagine the discomfort of many parents walking around the store with small children. 

As much as these things bother me, they are not the primary reason for writing today.  The main reason is that I recently was in the store looking to spend a gift card and decided to swing by the philosophy section.  I have generally found this portion of your store to be fairly well stocked considering its size.  Imagine my surprise when I found that not only was it reduced in size by at least half but the content and taken a turn for worse.  It almost exclusively featured works of pop-culture (30 Rock and Philosophy, Zombies and Philosophy, etc) and militantly atheistic works such as Bertrand Russell’s Why I Am Not a Christian, The Christian Delusion and other such things prominently displayed.  A closer look did reveal some works by Immanuel Kant and others which while I have my problems with them, at least have the merit of being important to the history of philosophy (to be fair, so does Russell’s work).  My point is not that you shouldn’t have these sorts of things in your philosophy section but rather that it seems to almost entirely consist of these sorts of books.  I’m sure had I the patience I would have found Plato’s Republic and Aristotle’s Politics in there but these clearly are not the works you are most interested in promoting.  Rather, you seem focused on promoting pop-culture fads that no one will remember in ten years and works that openly attack traditional and orthodox faith and philosophy.  Not only does this reflect an unfortunate attitude towards the very foundations of our civilization, it is also poor business sense given that the Holland area is well known for being a strongly traditional Protestant community.  I grant that this has shifted in recent years but it still represents the largest portion of your potential patrons. 

Now, I can imagine that you are simply carrying what you believe will sell, and perhaps some other things such as the classics already mentioned and other authors I’ve seen in your store such as Alistair MacIntyre, Roger Scruton, and E.F. Schumacher may not sell as well (incidentally, I’ve bought one each by MacIntyre and Schumacher from the Holland store).  Perhaps you could place those books cover out?  Or to appeal to the Christian community, move some of the works of Thomas More, Thomas Aquinas, and Augustine (all Catholic saints) from the Christianity section to the philosophy section?  They are all prominent in that field as well as others.  Or why not the Protestant philosophy Dietrich von Bonhoeffer? 

I have always enjoyed Barnes and Noble and respected not only the presentation of the stores, but also the variety and general tastefulness of the titles carried.  I hope that the trends away from this standard are corrected such I will not have find ways to avoid your store rather than finding ways to get there.

Living off the land

Follow this link to read the story of an old man getting kicked off his land for the crime of living without modern conveniences.  Then, if you care, email some people in the county by starting here.  For those with free time, here's the email I sent:

To whom it may concern,

I recently heard of the plight of a certain gentleman in you county, one Dick Thompson.  I understand from the media reports that you are essentially forcing him off of his own land, for the apparent crime of living without modern conveniences.  I understand that there are certain rules and regulations that he is charged with violating.  However, do they really apply in his circumstance?  I don’t mean in a strict letter of the law sense, but rather in terms of common sense.  It seems the rules I am aware of Mr. Thompson violating; rules concerning sanitation and living permanently in an RV were likely designed for urban and suburban settings.  But this gentleman lives on his own thirty-two acre plot.  It seems to me that he is not likely to generate any more biological waste that many of the animals that inhabit his property.  Nor is the presence of his RV doing anything to lower the property value of the neighbors he doesn’t have. 

Aside from this, there is of course the whole issue of the state forcing a man from his own property.  Are there times when such an action is appropriate?  Yes, when the person involved has committed actual crimes.  For example, if Mr. Thompson were running a meth lab out of his trailer, then jailing Mr. Thompson and seizing his property would be appropriate.  But this is not the case; he is in violation of regulations that as argued above do not apply based on a common sense analysis.  Even if, the rules did have true relevance, would not a fine and a warning be more appropriate?

Please, especially as it is Christmas, reconsider this action and offer an apology to Mr. Thompson for the anguish that this ordeal has caused him.

The Nanny State Across the Pond...

...fulfills its self-imposed obligation to make life Hell for a man and his autistic son.  Check it out:  http://www.annaraccoon.com/politics/the-orwellian-present-–-never-mind-the-future/

Read it and then go sign the petition.

Arkham Asylum

My wife got me Batman:  Arkham Asylum for my birthday.  I've only played it a couple of hours but I'm enjoying it so far, especially the graphics and the combat.  Lots of fun.

Natural Law - Ten Commandments Part 1

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 contend 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 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 men.

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 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, and because we 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 be 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 if 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 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 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 di 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 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.

  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), 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 of follow it.  After all, is 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’ 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 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 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 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.

Coming Soon

Soon, I'm going to get those reviews of the Batman movies up.  I'll probably do them all at once since there is no real need to be going over the character and what he's all about.  Especially since none of them really go too deep into Batman's motivations or personality beyond his relentless commitment to justice.  Although, different interpretations of his motivations and personality are certainly worth discussing.  All I'll say for the moment is that I very much like Chris Nolan/Christian Bale's take on the character.
Other than that, and likely before, I'll post another essay on natural law.  Also, after the first of the year, look for other developments in the book reviewing department.

After 9 Years

After nearly nine years of rotating shiftwork, I have finally gotten a dayshift position at my job.  It is only for a year but still, for that year, I will have every weekend off, every evening I'll be home with my family for dinner, basically it is going to be great.  We'll lose some things as well but on balance, this is going to be a wonderful break.
Also, I should have more opportunities for blogging.  I hope.  We'll see.

Joan of Arc

As previously stated, this is the made for TV version, not the horrendous The Messenger starring Mila Jovovich as a crazed nut job pretending to be St. Joan.  Anyway, the good version stars Leelee Sobieski as Joan and a number of solid B list actors such as Robert Loggia as her hometown priest, Powers Booth as her father, and Neil Patrick Harris as the Dauphin.
For those who may not know the story, here's the short version.  France's very existence is threatened by the English and has been for sometime.  The king is not even the king as he cannot even make to Reims to claim the crown.  But there is an ancient prophecy attributed to Merlin that in France's darkest hour, a from the region of Loraine would rise up and unite the nation.  Joan of course is the maid and at the age of seventeen and under the guidance of St. Catherine of Alexandria, St. Michael the Archangel, and  St. Margaret leads an army under the authority of the king to raise the siege of Orleans.  She succeeds and has a number of other victories, enabling Charles to claim his crown.  However, after a disastrous attempt to take Paris, she is betrayed by Charles and is taken to England to be burned as a heretic.  Later, her case was retried by the Church and she was exonerated and five hundred later was canonized a saint. 
There is much more to it than that and for a more detailed account I strongly recommend Mark Twain's biography of her published by Ignatius press.
In any case, the movie seems to get it mostly right, taking the miraculous nature of her life at face value.  Such miracles included of course the voices of the saints but also the finding of a sword behind the altar in a church dedicated to St. Catherine and her vast military knowledge (you only get glimpses in the movie though.  Twain's book is again far more detailed).  The movie presents all this faithfully, avoiding both cynicism and sappiness.
The acting is solid all around with my only complaint being what I would consider to be the miscasting of the character Jean Metz (if I remember the name right).  The guy just didn't seem to have the right look, but this is a minor complaint.  As for other minor complaints, the battles and general production values are made for TV and not Hollywood but that is to be expected.  Bottom line is that this is a good and faithful representation of St. Joan's story.  You should get yourself online and buy it now. 

Carriers

Carriers stars Chris Pine and Piper Perabo as two of a group of four twenty somethings traveling back roads in post horrible plague America.  But this is not your typical post plague movie.  That is, there are no zombies.  Not one, despite what the trailer would have you believe.  I remember reading about the movie on screenrant before it came out and they remarked on how the trailer didn't seem very sure if it was a standard zombie flick or character driven piece about what people do in survival situations.  The worry was that the movie would be just as unsure of its direction.  I can tell you this, movie is very sure of its direction.  The studio however seemed unsure of how they wanted to sell it.  So unsure in fact that even though it was done first, it didn't come out until after the Pine starring Star Trek proved to be a resounding success.
Back to the movie.  Like I said, no zombies, so this is a look at how four people deal with survival after most of the country is dead.  There aren't really any big surprises in the movie.  The characters basically look out for themselves and anyone else is just a potential source of gas and other supplies.  What is new in this movie is that there is no big humanizing moment, in fact they get more ruthless as the movie progresses.  They start out by stranding a guy and is infected daughter, after stealing their truck.  The main character (Pine) then abandons his girlfriend (Perabo) in the middle of nowhere after she gets infected (which happened when she was trying to help the little girl.  After that, Pine's character just flat out kills two completely innocent women to stea their gas.  From there, Pine is infected and the other couple, that is, his brother and another girl plan on stranding him.  But things get complicated and Pine gets killed by his little brother.
This leads to another thing I liked about the movie.  It shows how one's decisions establish certain dispositions, or more bluntly, how being a little bastard make it easier to become a bigger bastard down the road.  Our decisions matter and can have major consequences for ourselves and others down the road.  There is also a narration at the end where the little brother realizes that while he have survived, he knows that now he will always be alone, never able to trust or love another person.
The movie also got me thinking about the whole survival movie genre in general.  Normally, the people in them are ruthless and if not ready to just screw over every one they find at least aren't exactly eager to help.  Why is that?  Well, I guess I know why.  But why not a movie where the main characters are motivated by a desire help others?  Why not have a zompocalypse where people are trying to recruit fellow survivors and try to cure the virus or what that is the cause of it?  Basically, what if the primary group of survivors were devout Christians?  You could still have all the typical conversation about what should be done with the infected person, the tension between survival and keeping our humanity, etc.  The only difference would be that the nice guy wins the argrument.    The only movie I can think of like that, even a little is I am Legend where Smith's character is rescued from certain death by Alice Braga's character and he in turn sacrifices himself so that she can survive with the cure that he developed.  And then she makes it to a settlement which features a Church in the center.  But this is the very end of the movie and is very different than the book it is based on.
Anyway, just some thoughts.

Good Will Hunting

So, like said a couple of posts ago, I finally watched this movie for the first time a week or so ago.  All I can say is, "Thank you Netflix instant!"  Seriously, I really enjoyed watching this movie.  It has a compelling story and is wonderfully written and acted.
Briefly, for the three other people in the country that haven't seen this movie (that is, living under the same rock I've been living under) the story is as follows:  Insanely smart working class kid solves really hard math problem at MIT, attracting the attention of the brilliant (but still nothing compared to young Will) math professor.  However, Will has lived a hard life in the "economically depressed" parts of Boston and ends up going to jail for hitting a police officer.  The professor persuades the judge to let Will out under his supervision with the promise that he will also see a therapist.  Enter Robin Williams as the brilliant shrink who helps Will (Matt Damon by the way) deal with his past and so learn to connect with people and take chances in life.
Which brings us to what the movie is really about, relationships and the need to allow oneself to be vulnerable in order to build those relationships.  It's not that Will doesn't have friends, he does but he doesn't let himself move beyond that.  We see this in his relationship with a girl (Minnie Driver) he meets a bar (in probably my favorite seen of the whole movie).  They have a great first date but he doesn't call her back.  Why?  Because he sees her as perfect and "doesn't want to ruin that."  As Sean (William's shrink) retorts, "That's a great philosophy.  That way you can go through life without really knowing anybody."
This same difficulty shows up in other ways such as his pushing away of the professor and the fact that he has never done anything with his considerable gifts.  Basically, he is afraid of developing new relationshps with people for fear that they may finally reject him.
The reason for this fear is that his parents had abandoned him and many of the foster parents that he had beat him.  As Sean put it, "the people who were supposed to love him the most abandoned him" or beat him.  That would tend to mess a person up.  Naturally, Sean helps Will realize that what those people did to him was not his fault, that the problem wasn't with him, allowing him finally to take the big chances with his girlfriend and with his gifts.
This got me thinking about myself.  While no Will Hunting, I'm slightly smarter in some ways than the average bear.  Or at least my interests are different.  But I have done very little with that, largly for fear of failure/looking stupid.  You see, I used to think I was a lot smarter than I really am but becoming Catholic helped me see that there are people far more intelligent than I will ever be.  Which is good.  In any case, doing something with my interests and limited gifts has been on my mind a lot anyway (hence this blog) and this movie is making me think about it even more.  And has it turns out, some new opportunities may be cropping up.  So, stay tuned.

Why do we ignore the natural law?

Latest entry in the Natural Law series.  Have at.  More movie reviews coming next week, including Carriers and maybe the made for TV over a decade ago Joan of Arc (which is way better than that piece of crap The Messenger).

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 la the 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 live 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 others 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 is 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 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 affect himself.

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

The League of Bearded Catholics

My wife stumbled onto this blog:  http://timothyjones.typepad.com/tlbc/
Check it out.  If you go back a couple or three pages you will see the glory of Chesterton done up as an Incredibles character.  Oh the glory!

Levels of Being

Here is an essay in the natural law series from my brother.  If you haven't visited his website - http://catfoundations.com/ - do so now.  In fact, if you want, call him out for a speaking engagement.  He's smart, articulate and very faithful to the Church.  You'll be glad you did.


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?

At last!

Well, my long hours of work are pretty much done.  That means I can get back to some more blogging, especially movie and book reviews.  Here's a snapshot of some of what I'll be blogging about in the near future:


More natural law
Batman/Superman: Apocalypse
Batman: Under the Red Hood
Good Will Hunting (Just watched it for the first time last night)
Memento
Batman: Mystery of the Batwoman (Yes, I am a big Batman fan)
John Carter of Mars
How science fiction is such a great way to explore what it is to be human (with examples)
And lost of other things.

I'll still be a little sporadic as I'll be busting my butt on my basement, but posts will be a couple of times a week instead of maybe once a week.

To the editor

Here's what I sent to the local newspaper and the "Fair" Housing people.  Well, I had shorten it for the paper  but here it is.


I recently read a pair of articles concerning the case of a woman that the Fair Housing Center of Michigan is taking action against for advertising a desire for a Christian roommate. I must confess that I find this appalling. It does not seem to me that it is anyone's business who she chooses to live with. This applies even if she were seeking a person of a particular race as a roommate, which Ms. Haynes believes to be an analogous situation. While such an advertisement would likely demonstrate racism, it is still a person's right to choose who they spend their time with, not to mention live with. This is true because despite Ms. Haynes' contention, this woman is not in the business of renting. She is simply seeking another person to share her living space for the purpose of easing the burden of the rent that some other party is charging. Allowing someone into your home is far different from allowing someone into your place of business. If such were the case and the advertisement were for Christian “renters” instead of for a “roommate”, then this complaint would be valid. As it stands, this is not even an issue of freedom of expression but of common decency and privacy.

I also think that there is a need to clarify why seeking a roommate of a particular religion is not bigotry as it would be if the issue were concerning race. A religion, whether it be Christianity, Islam, Hinduism or any other religion contains certain requirements for behavior. Should a Muslim find himself with a pagan roommate he (and likely the pagan) would find this to be a very unpleasant arrangement, filled with arguments over theology, TV, clothing, relationships, what food should be eaten, etc. Individual races are an accident of pigmentation and evolutionary developments suited to particular climates and thus contain no such mutually exclusive moral and religious codes. These codes can and often do coexist peacefully in the public square but doing so in the home is a very different matter indeed. Taking this into consideration, the woman the Fair Housing Center is taking action against is simply seeking a roommate with whom she can live peacefully.

Concerning the issue of whether or not it is okay to seek a roommate based on specific criteria but not to advertise for it, how else shall this be done? I can readily imagine at least two situations in which advertising is the best solution. Perhaps this woman has many friends but they are mostly married, or live far away? Perhaps she is new to the area and has few friends among whom she could seek a roommate. In either case, advertising for a specific roommate is the quickest and most logical solution.

I sincerely hope that after reflecting on this matter, they retract their action and allow this woman to go back to her life.

Sincerely,

Eric Postma

ejpostma2@gmail.com

You will be punished...

...for the slightest hint that .you are not celebrating and embracing every possible form of diversity.  Follow the link and prepare to be utterly astounded.
The crazy thing is that this has happened in my home area of West Michigan.  I grew up practically next door to where this is going on and frankly, I didn't think there were enough completely unreasonable people around here for something like this nonsense to happen.  Had a Christian been forbidden to advertise (at a church!) for a Christian roommate in say, the Soviet of Washington or the Socialist Republic of Canada I would not be shocked.  Still upset, but not shocked.  Anyway, check it out and be wowed.  I'm going to send a little letter to the Grand Rapids Press and to the "Fair" Housing Center and be sure to post it here with any response that I get.  Oh, and just to be sure that credit is given where and when it is due, the Alliance Defense Fund is defending the woman seeking the roommate.

Natural Law - How do we know?

Here's the next natural law essay.  Open to critique as always.

NATURAL LAW

How do we Know?

Last time, we left off wondering just how it is that we can know that there is a
natural law and 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.
Returning to Sparta, we can see a very clear 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

The other 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. Therefore, it is obvious even at this early
stage that abortion, as the ending of a human life, violates this first principle.
Homosexual sex (and homosexual “ marriage” is similar in that it is a sexual act that by its
very nature cannot result in the birth of new life, the very purpose of the sexual act in the
first place.
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 has
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 of
human life and are therefore contrary to the natural law. This also points to the answer to
out 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.
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.

Electronics Update

That new Asus I last posted about has been working out great so far.  The night I set it up, I wound up playing Starcraft 2 for 5 hours straight and it barely blinked.  It also does a great job streaming Netflix movies and runs Stellarium beautifully.  I highly recommend you get one. 
On the cell phone front, it turns out that the Sienna phone tends to drop calls in the house after all.  That means we won't be dropping ATT in favor of them.  We may wind up doing Vonage instead. 
In other news, my work and my basement are going smoothly.  Well, mostly.  However, they are keeping me from getting to the numerous sci-fi related posts that I want to do.

New Computer

The HP my wife and I got last spring had been giving us fits (slow, won't take a blasted charge) for about the last six months.  Finally, we decided to get a new one a couple of days ago and it just arrived today.  I'm now sporting a new Asus notebook with an i7 processor.  I'm just finishing up the install on startcraft 2.  With a little luck, this beast will actually play the game half-way decently.

Update on Sienna

After a few minor travails, I got my new phone from Sienna Communications and it works great.  The phone is nothing special but the reception where I live is good and the customer service is friendly.  I plan on dropping my landline and getting another phone from them in the next week or so.  Believe it or not, with the cheap plan my wife and I will be using, we'll be saving a fair amount of money every month.

Thanks

Go out to Mark Shea for linking to my blog, to John C. Wright for linking to my review of his Golden Age Trilogy (yes, I am pleased) and to Jeff Miller (better known as the Curt Jester) for being my first commentor.

Natural Law - A Series

I wrote a little essay on natural law for my brother's website, the below mentioned Catechetical Foundations.  For those more philosophical astute than I am, feel free to correct or elaborate on anything that needs it.  After all, I'm just an average schmo who happens to like reading books and arguing.  You can also read it at his site under the free resources link.  Anyway, here it is:

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. Hopefully, this first of a series of articles on natural law, its content, history and place in the public square will help you in some small to cut 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.
     Now, 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.

     Okay, that's 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.”  Naturally, that is a little vague, 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 in conforming 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 to make a smaller donation. 
     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 can we say then 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. 

A Politician who at least seems to tell it like it is.

Check out this link of NJ governor Chris Christie in a Q&A.   I think I like the guy.

Catechetical Foundations

Catechetical Foudnations is a group of Catholics dedicated to providing material to help train those who work to transmit the faith to the youth and adults of their parishes.  They have at least one full course developed and numerous talks and workshops ready to go.  The website is in the process of adding podcasts and video presentations in addition to its blog.  They really know their stuff, so check 'em out. 

Eugenics lives!

Just read the link.  It brings to mind all the reasons why I oppose the present administration and fear for our civilization.  Seriously, just read it, I can't really add anything to it.

Congressman endorses indoctrination

40 Days for Life

40 days for life is a peaceful campaign to pray outside abortion clincs for an end to abortion.   They have saved a number of small lives and encouraged a number of conversions to faith amoung clinc workers, the most well known of whom is Abby Johnson who last year left the Planned Parenthood clinic she ran after witnessing an abortion on ultrasound for the first time.  From there, one of her first stops was to one of the 40 days founders. In any case, get out there and pray or stay home and pray if you can't get to a clinic to pray.  And of course, check out the site.

Plans

For the next month and a half or so, I am going to be very busy with work.  Basically 12.5hr days, six days a week.  Actually, it'll be nights.  So that won't allow much time for blogging.  Still, I'll be off every fifth day, so I'll be sure to post something then.

Sienna Communications

The other day, I signed up for a cell phone with Sienna Communications.  They're a Catholic run company that offers plans for about the same price as the big guys (less in some cases) without a contract.  Yes, you can still get a free phone when you sign up as well, although you will pay more for a better phone than would from say Verizon.  However, the best part is that they will donate 5% of your bill goes to the pro-life charity of your choice.  So you get to yak on the phone and do a good deed at the same time.  That's the kind of multitasking I can get behind.  Anyway, check 'em out.  Also, check out the charity I chose donate to, Rachel's Vineyard.  They do lots of good work help people deal with the grief that often follows an abortion.
Almost forgot to give out the proper credit, I found out about them in an add in the National Catholic Register.
One last thing, I don't have the phone yet, so I'll let you know in a week or so how it all works out.

Shocking!

The other day, my wife pointed out to me that the headlines were full of "Pope Admits the Church Acted Too Slowly in Abuse Scandal" or something to that effect.  Seriously, this is news?  He's only been saying that ever since he was elected to the papacy.  I get why this is reported but I do wish the media would stop acting like it is some new, earth-shattering for the Pope to admit that some members of the Church screwed up big-time.  If only they would actually pay attention to what he is saying and has said maybe they would see that the Church is not a government seeking power but is rather an organism seeking the salvation of all.

Eli and Moses

I was thinking about The Book of Eli again the other day and realized an interesting parallel.  In the movie, Eli (as discussed in the review below) went through a period in which he was really following God's will, concerned only with his task but not the people around him.  It is possible that this is the reason that Eli doesn't actually deliver the Bible he was carrying but instead has to dictate it and then apparently dies right after he is finished.  In a similar way, Moses angers God in the water from the rock episode (scholars debate about exactly how Moses angered God; for myself, I subscribe to the idea that Moses was putting the focus on himself rather than on God), and as a result he never gets to enter the Promised Land, dies as he looks upon it.  Eli, like Moses accomplishes the primary task they were given but neither of them get to witness the fruits of their labors.  It is one final lesson in humility and trust in the Lord. 
It is worth noting one other similarity, both are lawgivers.  Moses transmitted the Ten Commandments and the Torah, whereas Eli carried and transmitted both the Old Law and the New Law.   Both also were required to go on long arduous journeys as well as overcoming certain handicaps (stuttering for Moses and blindness for Eli).  I could possibly go on, but it is already too darn late.

Two Questions

So, someone my wife is acquainted with died recently.  Before she died, she said she had two question for God.
The first, "Can I have a farm in Heaven?"  And the second was, "Can I be a greater at the gates with St. Peter."  If only all of our desires were so simple.

The Book of Eli

So, I watched The Book of Eli the other night. I had been interested when it was in theaters but given family life and all, I wasn't going to push going to see it. That said, the more I read about it, the more I wanted to see it. And finally, I have.
The basic plot is simple enough, thirty years after a nuclear war (it's never said explicitly but...duh), Eli (Denzel Washington) is heading west, carrying a book, a book that Carnegie (Gary Oldman) has been looking for for quite a while. Naturally enough, they run into each other. Since the movie has been out a while now and it doesn't waste much time revealing it, the book is in fact the Bible, perhaps the last one.
This of course is where it gets interesting. It is the last Bible because people quite consciously sought them out after the war and destroyed them, apparently blaming Christianity for the war. There isn't any detail given beyond that as to how or why the war started. In any case, it is thirty years later and most of the population can't read, making them ripe for manipulation by the evil Carnegie. See, Carnegie is old enough to remember the power the Bible has to inspire and motivate people for good or ill. Carnegie figures that if he can get a hold of one, he can spoon feed the populace whatever he wants from it and so bend them to his will more completely than he will ever be able to accomplish through force alone. Eli is also aware of this power and thus seeks to protect on his journey from people like Carnegie. Thus bullets fly and people fall, a lot.
One of the best things about the movie is that Eli is not perfect. More importantly, his imperfection is not celebrated and in fact he realizes his faults by the end of the movie. Essentially, he is so focused on his specific task of bringing the Bible cross-country (and reading it every night) that he has forgotten to apply what he reads, which he sums up towards the end of the movie as "do unto others." This is particularly relevant as at the beginning he ignores a woman being gang-raped and later on lies to a girl (Solara played by Mila Kunis) to prevent her from following him. It is, in fact his interaction with Solara that leads him to re-evaluate his actions and they way he had been living his life. I think that moral of this part of the story is that even divinely appointed soldiers on a mission from God (literally in this case) are not necessarily perfect and require redemption just like the rest of us.
Eli does actually share his faith during the movie, inviting Solara to a before meal prayer which completely baffles her, especially since she was sent in to seduce him. The fact that he doesn't take advantage of her and also shares his food visibly confused her. Eli certainly is not your typical post-apocalypitc survivor.
My only real complaint with the movie concerns the end. Eli loses the Bible along the way but does eventually reach his destination, a survivor colongy on Alcatraz which is dedicated to preserving the cultural heritage of man and eventually diseminating it through world again. Sort of like the monastaries during the "Dark Ages." The loss is only partial though as after thirty years of reading the Bible every day, he has it memorized and it is quickly transcribed and becomes the first book off their newly operational printing press (a nice homage to Guttenberg, I thought). From there, it is placed on a shelf. Between the Talmud and the Koran. In effect, after Eli receives his task in a kind of vision, is clearly given a supernatural ability to fight and is in fact protected from death until his task is complete, the Bible is treated just like any piece of literature. Sure it is an important piece of our cultural heritage but the entire movie treats it as much more than that, as something that contains answers to our hearts' deepest longings that reveals the hidden purpose of our lives. More to the point, given the aforementioned vision, fighting, etc. it seems to treat the Bible and Christianity as the truth. And then, it's just put on the shelf? A much better ending would have been to have a minister of some sort giving a speech about how long they have waited for this day and then begin reading, probably the parable of the Good Samaratin.
Still, all in all a good movie, with good acting, good action and an overall positive portrayal of faith without being afraid to look at the way people abuse it or to acknowledge the faults of the faithful.