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.

Hello, My Name is Ian and I Am Heterosexual (or) Don't Tell Me What to Teach My Kids

     Why would people not be allowed to love each other? This question is often the spearhead to any debate over the legalization of gay marriage, or “marriage equality” as it’s been dubbed. The notion of having a couple’s love recognized by the public eye, i.e. the government, and thus enjoying the benefits which go along with this recognition, has as its supporting foundation this simple idea: We are allowed to love each other. How could those who oppose a love so strong and fast, so undeniably true and vivid in the hearts of lovers, woman and man and other alike, be seen as anything other than monstrous? Indeed, as we learn from the most ancient of poets, the value and force of love and the tie it binds between those involved is nothing short of divine. Who are we to lay constraints on a love which is looked down upon simply because we are not used to it? We, who are not accustomed to the public cry for social acceptance of diverse nuclear families since the invention of in vitro fertilization and AI must learn to cope with, nay, to embrace the diverse character of the human eros. Right?

     Well, let us step back for a moment and see why the angry cry to “love and let love” has not been met with satisfaction. What the heck is love? Well, obviously love means sex, right? When a same-sex couple says that they love each other, that is, after all, what they ultimately mean. I have a few good friends (male like me) whom I can say I “love”, but I am certainly not engaging in sexual activity with them. So by “love”, in this context, it is inferred that sex is the definitive factor in the relationship. There, however, seems to be a problem with this. It appears that sex, in today’s (secular) society, has virtually no relation to the institution of marriage. So what is the issue, precisely? It appears that the issue is not at all precise! In fact, it is so imprecise that I fear I can only speak for myself and my own worldview, lest I get mixed up in the political thicket of liberal and conservative ideals. Again, I fear I cannot stress enough that I am not speaking on behalf of either political faction (I mean… party).

     So back we go to finding the issue. If love means sex but sex does not mean marriage, what is the issue? There is an issue, we cannot doubt, so there must be a problem with these definitions. Supposing love has little to do with sex (for it would be monstrous to divorce the two completely), what kind of love are we speaking of when we say that people who love each other should have the right to be married? Perhaps it is not only a love that thrives on reduced income tax liability, but one which bears to the married couple the right to raise children. Ah, children, the third part and full completion of love, follow only naturally from the culmination of personal intimacy. Well, usually...
But the fact that life does not naturally flow from the intimate union of a particular pair of lovers does not matter when they can have someone else’s child, right? After all, just as sex has little to do with marriage, neither does it have much to do with children these days. But this is at the core of the desire for marriage – to have the relationship recognized by society so that children may be raised under the stability of two parents. Observations suggest that I may have this wrong also, but I will leave that alone for now. To be honest, I find that the more I try to understand the underlying principles which support the case for “marriage equality”, the more confused I become. I will, therefore, stop trying to understand until someone kindly enlightens me.

     I feel, however, a great need to make clear the principles which underlie my own perspective as a Roman Catholic (vivat papa!). I have noticed a few jabs at my favorite old grey single man in a pointy hat whom I call the Holy Father. I have noticed that there seems to be a great deal of animosity toward him and the college of like-minded old grey single men in pointy hats whom I call Reverend Bishops. The feelings of hatred toward the faith I profess has been something the Church has had to deal with since we hid on the day of Jesus’ crucifixion. It simply does not faze us. What does faze us is when we send our children to school and they are taught things which directly contradict our faith. And so, finally, I come to my purpose here: Somebody please think of the children.

     So, what exactly does my Faith have to say about all these “diverse” people who want to get married? Where else could I go but the Bible, right? Well, for the sake of all those not in the choir, I shall refrain from going there. For the Catholic Church, marriage is sacred. It is to join a man and a woman together for two reasons, love and babies. These two things are so essential to marriage that you just cannot have one without the others. Not only does this fly in the face of “marriage equality”, but also contraception, abortion, fornication, and divorce. Marriage is neither some narrow-minded provincial tradition nor a cold-hearted dictum forced upon the sheepish masses of the Christian faithful by an oppressive regime of castrated old men. Simply put, our bodies are so sacred that we cheat ourselves if the contract is not for life. There is no sex without marriage, but, believe it or not, there is no marriage without sex. Now here we come to something really controversial: Because there are no children without sex, there ought to be no sex without children. This is not to derive an “ought” from an “is”, this is to make certain that no person is used as an object for pleasure’s sake. This is, furthermore, not to say that God punishes the pleasure of the marital act by giving the couple babies (unless of course you’re gay). It merely means that any act of love, if it is really love, involves creation.  This is not the case because my Faith teaches it, my Faith teaches it because this is the case.

     Notice how emotions have not been mentioned. Sure, emotions can be good, helpful, and entertaining but they can be pretty messed up, too. Not many people would argue that emotions which involve destructive tendencies are not to be held in check: No matter how angry I get, it is not okay to punch someone in the face. There is a law which forbids it and for good reason. Emotions cannot be the only factor in deciding to marry. This I say as a Catholic. As an American, we each have a right to believe what we want (however incorrect that belief may be) and so long as it does not infringe upon the rights of others. Yet, more often than not, beliefs clash: Catholics believe in a duty to teach their children the Faith while others believe in a duty to teach Catholic children other, contradictory things. It is our right to hold what we do; we can even talk about it and have grownup discussions. Just keep our kids out of it.