Christmas Meditations, 2014

Ebenezer Scrooge’s biting criticism of Christmas was true on the visible level: “Christmas is a time for buying things.”

The Grinch stole every inane accessory of Christmas festivity in the attempt to cancel it.  The holiday, to him, seemed merely an excuse for noise making and frivolous rituals.

Ebenezer’s conversion was a climax built on the revelation of three distinct truths: His broken past, his hapless present, and his hopeless future.  His conversion was not directly influenced by Christmas themes or traditions; rather, Christmas afforded him the opportunity to reconcile with others.  He did so mainly by giving away what he had previously withheld.

The Grinch’s conversion was effected by a noise.  His preceding resentment centered around noise, but the new noise was different and unexpected.  What grew his heart was the realization that the bobbles and trinkets which he had stolen were accidental to the meaning of the celebration.

Neither “A Christmas Carol” nor “How the Grinch Stole Christmas” are Christ-centered stories; at least not palpably.  Both stories deal with a grouchy person who desires no part in the celebration but are nevertheless wooed into the most excellent participation.  Both stories are quite predictable.  Why?

In both stories, the villain protagonists would have been correct in their judgment if their estimation of Christmas had been correct.  They scorned what they saw and heard.  There was something hidden from them and their lack of knowing that thing made them villainous.  In one sense, it was through much labor that both characters were changed.  In another sense, it was something very simple and direct which changed them.  Scrooge saw his grave.  The Grinch heard a sound.

Dr. Seuss’ story is much simpler than Dickens’ (and this should be obvious, as it was written for children).  The moral of it is nonetheless important:  Trees and carols and presents are celebration enhancers.  They give expression to the meaning of the celebration.  The meaning itself should be enough inspiration to hold hands and sing out in joy.

Ebenezer’s journey to the light of Christmas is much subtler.  His vice is singular and apparent, but the means by which he is freed of his greed shows that he is a complicated character.  He is forgetful of his past and in denial of his social condition.  He not only fails to see the meaning of Christmas; he fails to see himself.  It is by seeing himself that he is changed.

Reality is much more complex than stories but, by simplifying reality into story-form, we can understand it better.  If Christmas does not inspire us to hold hands and sing out in joy, regardless of what gifts we were given, than we have problems.  Our problems are Scrooge’s problems.  Scrooge’s problems are the Grinch’s problems.  We perceive things but remain ignorant and in our ignorance we hold false attitudes towards those things.  This holds true not merely for stuff, but for ourselves also.  We forget who we are, where we came from, and where we are heading.  The truth is what changes us, if only we see it.

We are, each one of us, broken.  We live in uneasy company with the rest of the human race.  We are all, right now, losing time until death.

The trouble with us modern-day misers is that not only do we fail to see the facts, we fail to see their relation to Christmas.  The funny thing about misers, like the pre-repentant Scrooge, is that they neglect themselves in order to store up wealth:  The wealth they store up is used for no worldly comfort or what might be deemed frivolity.  What they sweat and strain to accumulate is no more than the feeling that they need not worry.  Whatever dire necessity they need, money will buy it.  In a way, we are all misers.  We neglect things we perceive as inane for the sake of feeling OK.  Well, the joke is on us.  We sell ourselves short only for the facts to remain:  We’re screw-ups, we’re alone, we’re going to die.

There is good news for those who will hear it.

We are, each one of us, broken.  We are not, as a species, broken.  We live in uneasy company with each other, but we are united in the prospect of peace.  We are all, right now, losing time until death, yet death is unnecessary.

What insane paradoxes!  I am broken but unbroken. My enemies are my friends.  I must die but I do not have to.  How could they make sense?  For Ebenezer, the answer must have been obvious. 

The moral of both stories, so often echoed by so many Christmas films, are often presented to be, “don’t be a stick in the mud.”  A child might accept such a moral without question and so, for lack of thoughtful adults, Christmas becomes just another “kid thing.”  Be jolly, give out lots of presents, and pretend that sometimes magic exists.  Seeing and hearing amount to things beginning to look a lot like Christmas and Silver Bells on every street corner.

“Noise, noise, noise…” says the Grinch.

The joy of Christmas which changed hardened hearts cannot have been Bing Crosby’s dulcet tones.  It must have been something a little more serious.

If there is a God, the facts are worse.  Not only are we broken, but there is someone we must answer to for all of the crappy things we have done.  Not only are we at war with the world, but God is watching it all go down.  Not only will we die, but God will be there… waiting.

Then comes Christmas.  God decides to become one of us.  He is born into the world as a flesh-and-blood human being; a messy, puny little baby.

God, master of the universe, is cold.

The Gender Song

There has been a movement in a nearby community college which aims to make acceptable a dual right of bathroom privileges by "transgender" individuals (at least institutionally).  Upon seeing a pamphlet which one of these activist groups has been distributing for their cause, I realized that I did not quite understand what "transgender" means.  I did some cursory research to uncover a suitable definition.  I found quite an extensive explanation of "gender" and "transgender" and all the related terminology from genderspectrum.org, from which the following quotes have been taken.  Follow me, as I build a definition of "gender" from those who know "gender" best:

Firstly, they tackled the precedent nature-nurture question and what difference "gender" had to "sex".  I found this interesting, as I had always taken for granted that they were synonymous.

 "In short, gender is a socially constructed concept."

 That is, it is not the same as one's physical anatomy (organs, hormones, structure, etc.).

 "Along with one’s physical traits, [gender] is the complex interrelationship between those traits and one’s internal sense of self as male, female, both or neither as well as one’s outward presentations and behaviors related to that perception."

So gender is a socially constructed concept which consists of one's personal sense of self in relation to his physical anatomy.  This personal sense of self as male, female, both, or neither is one's "gender identity".

 "Given the potential variation in all of these [anatomical characteristics], biological sex must be seen as a spectrum or range of possibilities rather than a binary set of two options."

The variations they mention are not explained, so it is difficult to see how a "spectrum" of traits makes any more difference in gender differentiation than a "binary set".  The definition, nevertheless, is that gender is a socially constructed concept which consists of one's personal sense of self in relation to his place in the spectrum of physical traits.

 "Some of these individuals choose to socially, hormonally and/or surgically change their sex to more fully match their gender identity."

So much for the variations of the anatomical sex spectrum.  Perhaps they mean to drive home that there is no real connection at all between anatomy and gender.  Gender is a socially constructed concept which consists of one's personal sense of self in relation to his place in the spectrum of physical traits which may be changed to more fully match this sense of self.  "Gender expression" is not "gender identity", but the way in which one decides to express himself as male or female or both or neither.

  "Sometimes, transgender people seek to match their physical expression with their gender identity, rather than their birth-assigned sex. Gender expression should not be viewed as an indication of sexual orientation."

This is a fair and clever distinction.  Gender is a socially constructed concept which consists of one's personal sense of self in relation to his place in the spectrum of physical traits which may be changed to more fully match this sense of self, yet this physical expression of gender may or may not equate to his gender identity.

 "More narrowly defined, [transgender] refers to an individual whose gender identity does not match their assigned birth gender."

So "transgender" person is somebody whose gender is a socially constructed concept which consists of one's personal sense of self in a socially-contradictory relation to his place in the spectrum of physical traits which may be changed to more fully match this sense of self, yet this physical expression of gender may or may not equate to his gender identity.

 "Gender fluidity conveys a wider, more flexible range of gender expression, with interests and behaviors that may even change from day to day. Gender fluid children do not feel confined by restrictive boundaries of stereotypical expectations of girls or boys. In other words, a child may feel they are a girl some days and a boy on others, or possibly feel that neither term describes them accurately."

So a "transgender" person is a person whose gender is a socially constructed concept which consists of one's personal sense of self which may change from day to day, sometimes creating a socially-contradictory relation to his place in the spectrum of physical traits which may be changed to more fully match this sense of self, yet this physical expression of gender may or may not equate to his gender identity and may change from day to day.  The folks at genderspectrum.org are experts in child-rearing and are consequently adamant that parents do not make their children feel bad about whatever feelings they may have regarding their gender.

 "These rejecting behaviors undermine a child’s self-esteem and feelings of self-worth. It should not be surprising that many of the children who end up in the foster care system, run away, or become homeless are gender nonconforming and transgender."

It seems they are insinuating that, when a child is "gender nonconforming", they are prone to abuse and thus are taken from their homes or run away.  So parents, do not make your children feel bad about their gender-feelings, because you may lose your children!  It is therefore a mistake to think that children who are abused by their parents or have any broken or damaged relationship with them or who are rebellious or rejected by society are thus encouraged by their spiritually damaging and psychologically tumultuous worlds to have diverse issues in their personal identity or in judging their self-worth.  So, gender is a socially constructed concept which consists of one's personal sense of self which may change from day to day, sometimes creating a socially-contradictory relation to his place in the spectrum of physical traits which may be changed to more fully match this sense of self, yet this physical expression of gender may or may not equate to his gender identity and may change from day to day, resulting in rejection by their family, peers, and neighbors and thus rendering them a needy minority whose unhappy lives are only the faults of those narrow-minded individuals who cannot bring themselves to accept transgender individuals for who they are.

So ladies, if a man walks into your bathroom, who looks like a man and is attracted to females, he just might be a female at heart, which makes him a transgender lesbian who happens to have a male anatomy.  If this alarms you, know that narrow-minded people like you are the ones who make this world such a difficult place for misunderstood people to live in.

The Jesus Prayer

"Jesus saith to them: But whom do you say that I am? Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven."
-Matthew 16:15-17




"And behold two blind men sitting by the way side, heard that Jesus passed by, and they cried out, saying: O Lord, thou son of David, have mercy on us. And the multitude rebuked them that they should hold their peace. But they cried out the more, saying: O Lord, thou son of David, have mercy on us."  
-Matthew 20:30-31



"And as he entered into a certain town, there met him ten men that were lepers, who stood afar off; And lifted up their voice, saying: Jesus, master, have mercy on us."
-Luke 17:12-13



"Bartimeus the blind man, the son of Timeus, sat by the way side begging. Who when he had heard, that it was Jesus of Nazareth, began to cry out, and to say: Jesus son of David, have mercy on me. And many rebuked him, that he might hold his peace; but he cried a great deal the more: Son of David, have mercy on me."  
-Mark 10:46-48

"And the publican, standing afar off, would not so much as lift up his eyes towards heaven; but struck his breast, saying: O god, be merciful to me a sinner. I say to you, this man went down into his house justified rather than the other: because every one that exalteth himself, shall be humbled: and he that humbleth himself, shall be exalted."
-Luke 18:13-14



"Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God abideth in him, and he in God."

-1 John 4:15



"Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ, is born of God."

-1 John 5:1



If there is a prayer that summarizes all the New Testament story of man's relationship with God and his plee for its restoration, it is the Jesus Prayer:

"Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner."

It is an act of faith, confessing that Jesus is the Christ, our Saviour, and the Son of God. It is an act of hope, putting our trust in Christ, Who is our mercy and redemption. It is an act of humility, admitting that I myself am the sinner and am in need of mercy. It is short and memorable. It recalls our need for Christ and makes us aware of his presence in our lives.


It can be prayed always and anywhere and repeated with added fervour, like the blind men who, when rebuked, only cried louder.

Here are some ideas for when you can pray the Jesus Prayer:

• When driving to work
• When taking a shower
• While waiting in line at the DMV
• While jogging
• While waiting for the laundry
• While fishing
• When you're at a loss for words in an awkward conversation
• While waiting in line at the supermarket
• During silent intervals at Mass
• While crocheting or knitting
• While hunting
• While waiting in line at the post office
• When trying to control your anger
• When trying to control your bladder
• When driving home from work
• While taking out the garbage
• While mowing the lawn
• While waiting in line for Communion
• While cooking dinner
• While trying to fall asleep

The Beauty of the Mass

     What is life without the Mass, the humble creche in which our Savior descends truly into our midst in the Eucharist, the "source and summit of Christian Spirituality"?  It is where human beings are most at home.  It is at once natural and supernatural.  It is an aroma of what our very Life urges us toward.  It is heaven - but for a moment. 

     The Mass is, as Belloc recalls, "...all that the race needs to do and has done for all these ages where religion was concerned; there you have the sacred and separate Enclosure, the Altar, the Priest in his Vestments, the set ritual, the ancient and hierarchic tongue, and all that your nature cries out for in the matter of worship."

     Our nature, a spiritual life breathed into stuff of earth, yearns for Divine Beauty but has nothing suitable to offer Him in this holy celebration save earthly stuff.  We seek out what somehow reminds us of Him, as though from instinct, so as to fulfill our natural desire to beautify our worship of Him.  Of course, beauty is not a necessary element of the Mass, as Alexander Schmemann notes:  "Unnecessary it is indeed, for we are beyond the categories of the 'necessary.'  Beauty is never 'necessary,' 'functional' or 'useful.'  And when, expecting someone whom we love, we put a beautiful tablecloth on the table and decorate it with candles and flowers, we do all this not out of necessity, but out of love.  And the Church is love, expectation and joy.  It is heaven on earth..." 

     This is neither metaphor nor contradiction.  “We cannot conceive a more intense affirmation of the world,” wrote Josef Pieper, “ than ‘praise of God,’ praise of the Creator of this very world.”  The world is good because it came from God.  God withdrew His Glory from the world when it became unfit for Him to dwell in.  The God-man redeemed the world and the veil before the Holy of Holies was rent, signifying the reunion of God with His creation.  In no metaphorical way, at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, we reenter the moment of Christ’s Sacrifice and God enters into our presence through the veil of the tabernacle.  We are likely in a church – probably on Sunday morning – but we are outside of time and space.  For a brief while, we are reunited with our Creator in the Blessed Sacrament.  Though it escapes our perception, we are in heaven.

     In heaven there is no partisan cause or political bias.  There are no hidden agendas or motives.  There is only confrontation with Truth, Goodness, Beauty - which are all in reality one and the same Being.  The Mass is such an encounter with God, though hidden; real - even outside the religious mind; veritable - though not "verifiable," save by faith alone; and tangible - touchable - physical.  It is the consummation of the Christian life via consumption of life's source, divine Wisdom - the Word incarnate - Jesus Christ.

Liberal Arts and Servile Attitudes

 It is a common complaint heard from young graduates of liberal arts programs that their expensive degrees are not providing them ample enough opportunity for employment.  I myself have been admonished by older, more “successful” men that college programs in the liberal arts amount to no more than a waste of time and money.  I often admit that a degree in history or philosophy might indeed prove useless in the “real world” and I understand the frustration of being “overeducated”, but at these thoughts I am reminded of a concept laid out by Josef Pieper in his most famous book, Leisure: The Basis of Culture.  He explains that the liberal arts are “liberal” precisely because they are free from being practical or useful.

This, of course, might sound ridiculous at first, but only until the reader will ask himself just what “art” is.  It is no money-making pursuit, though, sadly, it seems to be the occupation of many so-called “artists” of today.  The concept of liberal arts being both liberal and true art depends on the idea that knowledge is something worth pursuing for its own sake, rather than for the sake of something else.  Knowledge which is gained for the sake of practical concerns, such as gaining money and reducing effort, is called “practical knowledge”.  Such knowledge includes science and technology; engineering, programming, mechanics, machining, and the like.  Art, both seen and heard, philosophy, and history are those fields of knowledge which have very little to do with putting bread on the table:  That is, they are free from having to worry about putting bread on the table.  They are all part of what is truly worthy of our time and effort and even our money.  Bread and effort are obvious necessities for life, but they are less than life.  Pieper did quite well in showing that when every pursuit is reduced to something like a dollar value, we become nothing more than machines.  Every ounce of effort we put out in our daily lives to make a living is the clearest evidence that living is always worth more than what it may cost.  We do not live in order to sustain and produce, we sustain and produce in order to live. 

So, what does it mean to live?  It depends what creature is living.  What it means to live as a cat is not the same as to live as a man.  It does not take deep insight to notice what the difference is.  Animals spend their time seeking food and mates, perhaps even solving problems and entertaining themselves while they are at it, but only humans write and read history, tell stories, paint pictures, sing, think aloud, build churches, and pray.  Only humans do these things; they are particularly human.  The liberal arts, then, are concerned ultimately with humanity and being human.  "Why study liberal arts?"  How absurd this question becomes!  We pursue the arts because in them we are most free, most human, and most alive.

If, dear reader, you are one of those souls who worked hard to obtain a liberal arts degree because you loved it and were subsequently sent out into the world by your alma mater in the hope of making a decent wage by that knowledge, you have been misled.  It might help more to go back and learn something practical to practice instead of condemning the economy for being too weak to support you or hating society for being too simple to appreciate your expertise.  Much joy and gratitude is to be had, however, for knowing what is worth knowing for no other reason than that you wanted to know it.

Americanism and Democracy

       “Do not conform yourselves to this age but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and pleasing and perfect.”  Rom 12:2

In 1899, Pope Leo XIII addressed the encyclical, Testem Benevolentiae, to Cardinal Gibbons of Baltimore (the Premier See of the United States) concerning a heresy he referred to as “Americanism.”  In the encyclical, Leo described Americanism as describing collectively a set of opinions to which he believed the American cultural and political atmosphere to be especially susceptible:

“The underlying principle of these new opinions is that, in order to more easily attract those who differ from her, the Church should shape her teachings more in accord with the spirit of the age and relax some of her ancient severity and make some concessions to new opinions.”

That is, if the Church would “get with the times,” there would be greater harmony between the world and disgruntled believers alike.  Cardinal Gibbons was quick to reply, stating in defense of the Church in America that the opinions against which Leo had spoken were virtually non-existent among American Catholics.  Gibbons might have been honest at the time, but Leo was no fool.  About a century later, it is obvious that Americanism is very much alive.

            The reason Americans are especially susceptible to such opinions is that, although they are in principle a democratic people, there is a widespread confusion as to what democracy means.  When one asks any Christian what his beliefs are, he is likely to get an answer like “Conservative Baptist” or “Liberal Catholic, but…”  It seems that Christians let their democratic-political way of thinking shape their religious views.  In addition to this muddling of principles, however, there is a ubiquitous conviction of belief in the separation of Church and State.

            Many argue that Leo XIII sought to abolish this belief, but those who make this assertion misunderstand it.  The Founding Fathers designed the American system of government in response to a system which they felt was too easily prone to tyranny.  A monarchy or aristocracy does not necessarily have a vested interest in the good of their subjects unless it threatens their own wellbeing.  The apparent solution to this problem was to create a government in which the good of a people was put into their own hands under their own governance.  This implied, however, that the people knew well enough what was for their own good.  Activists like Thomas Paine showed that the general population could indeed be well-enough equipped to handle their own affairs so long as the public was capable of participating in the political forum.  It was this capacity for the free exchange of ideas that was seen as the leaven of democracy, though American society at the time was unanimously Christian:  Many social goods that are the center of controversy today were no more than a natural and common disposition.  It is well-known that there was a prejudice against “Papists” which lasted into the nineteenth century mainly for the reason that Catholics were perceived as living under papal obedience and thus incapable of holding their own opinions in the public sphere.  This prejudice, of course, dwindled over time as it became evident that even Catholics could keep Church and State separate.

            The fact that this prejudice existed at all shows that Church and State bear a much closer relationship than is commonly thought, and our forefathers knew this.  Both the Church and the State concern man and his actions with one another.  Whatever one’s religious beliefs may be, they will manifest themselves in his actions, yet one’s actions are also the subject of laws and policies enacted by the State.  Ultimately, therefore, it seems that one need only to determine which actions concern religion and which concern public policy.  This is the general understanding of the separation:  What concerns public policy is one thing and what concerns religion is another.  This usually works well.  The State can mandate brake lights and window tax while the Church obliges Sunday worship and works of charity.  So what do we do when the State commands a priest to testify against his confessants or legalizes the murder of unborn children?

            When “separation” is understood only as drawing a line between the two, there inevitably arise ambiguities of authority which turn the distinction between Church and State into a fierce antagonism.  It should be surprising when it happens, especially in a democratic society, because each institution is concerned with the same thing; namely, the good of the individual and of society.  When each institution becomes the other’s rival, both the individual and society are torn apart, and this is ultimately disastrous for both: “A house divided against itself cannot stand.”  The separation of Church and State, then, is only a healthy separation if they strive for a mutually sustainable goal.  Only then will they not interfere with each other.

            American government is designed to prevent tyranny.  Christianity teaches that there is no greater tyranny than sin and moral depravity.  A cursory knowledge of history demonstrates that the most despotic of nations are also the most depraved.  There is nothing which is inherently at odds between sound moral doctrine and sound civil management, yet there is nevertheless a growing demand from “progressive” Christians to change what they believe to be “outdated” theology as well as federal law, as if what is good and natural changes with the times.  Why can we not just live in the 21^st century?  Because Christians live according to a Truth that is eternal and a law which is in accord with that Truth.  A law devoid of Christian morals is ripe for tyranny, democratic or not. 

A true, healthy democracy is not the rule by a majority which decides what is good for their country, it is the rule by a majority which seeks the good of their country.  The greatest good will never be found without the guidance of Christianity.  Democracy is perhaps the safest system of government for its citizens, but an un-Christian majority is ignorant of the goodness of God and thus doomed to live in dysfunction, as Saint Thomas Aquinas observed in the first response of his Summa:

“It was necessary that man should be taught by a divine revelation; because the truth about God such as reason could discover, would only be known by a few, and that after a long time, and with the admixture of many errors.”

Rebuilding the Pantheon

     It is now quite obvious that a new age of paganism has dawned upon us.  No longer does Christian culture justly reign in the hearts and minds of the world.  This has been so, I think, for at least a century, but now it is easy enough to look around at the present state of things and deduce that the old pantheon has once again been enthroned on the principles of a false morality.

     Though many of the current generation might not conscientiously subscribe to any definite morality (I doubt if the average college student is even prepared to discuss what morality means), they live by a morality nonetheless.  We do not live in an amoral society.  Wherever there is approbation or affirmation, there is at least a sense of right and wrong and where there is a sense of right and wrong, there is a principle by which to judge something accordingly.

     Any and every different morality, complete or not, has an end; a perceived good to which that morality aspires.  For example, if one deems it right to care for personal hygiene, the good to which that norm aspires is the health of the individual.  Simple enough.  Christian morality has God as its end because God is goodness itself and all good things are good insofar as they come from God.  Furthermore, one can hope for happiness in apprehending good things because they ultimately lead one to happiness in God.  Hygiene, then, is a reasonable enough norm as someone who is clean and therefore healthy is more likely to be happier than someone who is not.

     But I am not writing to discuss hygiene.  What has become obvious to the Christian standing apart from modern culture is that God is no longer recognized as the end of morality.  He is no longer recognized at all.  And with the Source-and-Summit of goodness removed, the whole structure is dismantled.  We now see a scattered, fragmented collection of principles which have only sub-perfect goods as their ends, each set up as something worthy of worship in itself.

     I wish it were that society had only fallen under the demons of pagan Rome, where greedy traders and "honest workers" alike consecrate their lives to Vulcan and Mercury, where Venus bestows her blessing on the unbridled sexual escapades of youth, and where libations are offered to Bacchus in return for the destructive pleasure of drunken revelry.  Gaia has reformed her demands and now asks that you drive a Prius, eat only free-range eggs, and separate your recyclables.  Minerva, while still cherishing a few remaining rationalists, scolds those who are perhaps too "narrow-minded" to concede to the pedantry of her priests.

     These gods have indeed been resurrected, but a far more malicious and (thankfully still) controversial presence in our society is the resurgence of the older and much more sinister cults of Ba'al, to whom one was not a man until he sacrificed his virginity to the temple prostitutes, and of Moloch, to whom women sacrifice their children in the hope of being spared the hardships of a capricious life.

     The principles aforementioned are not (as of yet) personified as they were in pagan Rome and ancient Babylon, but they hold their false place of honor nonetheless.  What turns a veritable good into a vicious god?  It is that these ends of today's morality are set up as the end; that there is nothing more to live up to.  The art of pagan worship is nothing more than the art of fooling oneself into believing that happiness will come when the gods are appeased, despite their quarrelling even among themselves.

     What is a Christian to do in a neo-pagan world?  The answer does not come easily, but it helps to know what it means to be Christian and who one's gods are.

Letting Personal Beliefs Determine Public Policy

Can anyone separate himself in an enterprise from his personal morality?  In every forum of human activity, there is a crucial but often subtle correspondence to morality, be it politics, work, celebration, education, the liturgy, etc.  In fact, everything one does is a reflection of his morality in some way.  Every human activity is therefore bound to be misunderstood and poorly undertaken if the moral framework on which it is built is misunderstood.

Morality, simply put, is belief put into action.  Everyone has desires for what he believes is good and so what he believes, be it by faith or reason, has implications for how he decides what is a preferable choice or course of action.  For example, if one believes that air conditioners are bad for one’s health and that person wants to preserve his health more than he wants to keep cool in the summer, that person will probably not buy and use an air conditioner, unless of course, some other thing leads him to believe that he should.  Though this may perhaps seem to be a trivial example, it is still morality.  What morality is not is an arbitrary set of rules.  Even commandments and moral absolutes can be shown to be reasonable and representative of a conviction on what is good and desirable.

It is easy to see how any of the above mentioned examples of human activity ties into morality in a very deep way.  From a Christian perspective, morality is much more deeply intertwined in every facet of human life; from waking up in the morning to burying the dead.  This is because, for Christians, morality is life itself.  If morality is the pursuit of good on behalf of our own desire, then morality is the pursuit of God.  The moral life springs from much deeper fonts than commandments and precepts.  It is more akin to a love affair, in which every soul experiences an unquenchable thirst for something beyond this world; for life itself.  This is God, and He is goodness itself.

The moral life is sometimes called a participation in goodness.  I am not speaking here of some ethereal neo-platonic concept of fragmented bodies tending back into union with the One (though it is worth looking into).  To participate in something is to act in unison with those who are part of it.  It does not help to understand morality by saying it is “acting in unison with others who are also acting for the good.”    This is obvious.  What is extraordinary in Christianity, in speaking of participation, is that God, who is goodness itself, acts.  He in fact acts only in goodness.  Thus, to say that one “participates in goodness” is to say that one “participates in God.”  That is, one acts in unison with Him.  St. Thomas Aquinas goes even further in saying that, because God is perfect, there is no potential good in Him that is not already realized.  God is therefore pure act (though let’s not get ahead of ourselves).

When one acts for the sake of goodness, we call this love.  This is why we say that God is love, because He is goodness in action.  To act for the sake of something is to love that thing.  This works in every analogous sense of the word:  I love ice cream – I will find some and eat it:  I love art – I will create it and preserve it:  I love my wife – I will protect and honor her.  Because God is the good, everything is good by virtue of Him.  He created it; he maintains it, and everything good leads ultimately to Him.  We thus see that every act of love, in whatever sense, is a real participation in the goodness of God.

To say that something ought to be such-and-such a way is to commit to a standard in which that thing is considered good.  We maintain this standard in our beliefs on what is good.  If one, for instance, believes that free-market economy is good because of so-and-so, then he would be likely to say that the economy ought to be a free-market.  If this same free-market proponent were a Christian, it would stand to reason that he would believe a free-market economy (in some small way at least) to be a reflection of the goodness of God and a means of leading oneself to Him.  A Christian cannot reasonably conceive of any sphere of human activity as being separable or unrelated to his morality, be it politics, education, joke-telling, fishing, drinking, love-making, eating, working, nose-picking, reading or writing, buying or selling, child-rearing, painting, pissing, or sleeping.  Everything he does ought to be done out of love of God.  To believe one thing and act contrary to that belief on account of some other belief amounts to a contradiction of beliefs:  Such a person is unreasonable and a liar to himself.  If a Christian cannot sincerely believe that he does something in order to participate in the goodness of God, he ought not to do that thing, no matter what that thing is.