It all started with a picket sign, “A woman deserves better than abortion.”

As the Walk for Life takes place in northern California, the Pro-Life movement comes back into the mainstream, defending the dignity of every human person. Like any other person, I am very much affected by the typical bumper sticker/picket sign phrases, proving them to be effective. Why is it that we can say, “Choose life,” or “A woman deserves better than abortion”? Such phrases can be the cause of heated debates in your car on the way to Roberto’s for a carne asada burrito. These discussions could potentially go nowhere other than to emotional responses, attacks on the other person, and frustration, particularly when we forget to go back and make clear where it is we are arguing from. Philosopher Peter Kreeft finds someone like Machiavelli, author of The Prince, useful because Machiavelli shows how there is a necessary connection between ethical and moral conclusions, and [metaphysical and anthropological] principle assumptions. “Those assumptions may seem innocuous until we see the ethical and moral conclusions that follow from them.” Thus, it is important to address the presuppositions behind both sides before continuing on, in that way we could at least pinpoint where it is our moral standards differ in principle, and even do so in a charitable fashion.

I have seen the back-and-forth responses of pro-life and pro-abortionists amongst different people, mainly online, seeing as how it seems to be the hot spot for such discussion amongst young adults. One thing I notice is how everything comes down to the principle belief of absolute truth, versus relativism. “Your truth is your truth, and mine is mine,” or as one person’s response I came across online said, “What you think is right, you will act on it. What I think is right, I will act on it. You define your own right and wrong, and if you define them horribly, then you will die off.” I scurried through my Charles Darwin/Herbert Spencer papers thinking this guy must have drawn a direct quote from something on Social Darwinism.

Consider this popular mode of thinking:

Each person acts on what he or she thinks is right (good, or true)

What is right (or wrong, good or bad, true or false) varies per person.

Therefore, each person acts differently according to what he or she considers right or wrong. It follows that there is no absolute truth, no absolute goodness, since it varies per person.

It would follow that if a woman or man wants a life that is less complicated, free of a baby who is a “huge unexpected burden,” she could act against that which he or she considers an obstacle between him/her and his/her goal of a convenient life, or happy life, assuming convenience and happiness are somehow related. Simply rid that which would cause complication. Why? He/she feels this is right. He/she feels it is right because it makes her life easier (or even the man’s life easier). I mean, with having to actually deal with the pain of labor, financial constraints, the inconvenience of being responsible for another person (or what some might call…love) is all just complicated. And besides, they used a condom, so obviously the baby was not planned. They are not married, and in no position to take care of a child. Or, they are married, but a child is just not convenient right now. But, it is okay for him or her because it is what he or she considers true, right, and good. I shouldn’t have to care because, in the end, I am not he or she, my beliefs and values do not affect his or hers, nor do his or hers affect mine. I can say, “A woman deserves better than abortion,” but who am I to say what she deserves if, in the end, what I say does not in any way have an affect on what she thinks is right for her, or anyone in general.

   Before becoming fixated on the acts that I, or anyone else, would consider immoral, the assumptions of truth must first be addressed.

Much in the above line of thinking seems to be dependent on whether or not truth is something objective or subjective, absolute or relativistic. For if there is an absolute good, then from that we would be able to say whether or not someone is doing something wrong.  If there is no such thing as an objective truth, but one that is subjective and varies per person, then the sort of code of moral living (the right way of living) is one of relativism. However, from where do we conclude that what is right and wrong varies per person? Further, how do we come to the conclusion that there is no absolute truth? In the arguments between what is right or wrong? In the fact that nobody can agree on something? In the fact that there are different cultures?

   The modern thinker might think as follows: That which is most argued about, agreed/disagreed with, must be dismissed as unimportant or even false. The discussion of what is right, good, or true, is constantly subject to argument and moot assertions. Therefore, dismiss the discussion of truth; further, focus on that which is more important, convenience of living. The easiest thing to do when too many people disagree on something is to count it all as false, to disregard everything in the discussion, to dismiss it. That is what often happens in the discussion on what is truth, good, or right. The argument that there is no truth is grounded on this sort of logic that Renee Descartes fathered.

   Consider, further, the claim that there is no truth. There seems to be a demand of faith in such a claim, considering that it is essentially a circular argument in itself, for how can one hold it true that there is no truth. The statement that there is no truth already presupposes the truth of the premise that there is, indeed, a truth, which is that there is no truth.  What can we say, then, if we cannot logically reason that there is no truth?

   It seems to me that if one wants to argue that there is no truth, the best way is to address the fact that many people have different takes on what is true, good, or right. Since truth varies, there must be no absolute truth, but a subjective truth. Since I think some things are wrong, and others think it is right, then there is no such thing as an absolute right or wrong. Why? Because it varies? The conclusion that there is no absolute truth since what one considers to be right/wrong, true/false, good/bad can vary, does not necessarily follow, like how YOU as a person still exist even if I believe so or not, if I know it or not. We can argue about what is right or wrong, what is true or false, all day, in search of whether or not there IS truth, and yet this does not necessarily tell us that our discussion is meaningless, or not going anywhere, but that it is just taking so long to arrive to the truth. But wait, isn’t truth subjective? In arguing that there is a truth despite the differing views of what is right or wrong presupposes an absolute truth. What about the notion of subjective truth?

   From where are you basing the idea that truth varies other than in the fact that different people have different opinions on what is right or wrong? All cultures, peoples, beliefs, etc., are different in the surface, but they all ultimately meet at an intersection which seeks that which is good, good being that which everyone tends towards. What is everyone tending towards? I would argue that all people are moving towards that which make them happy, wouldn’t you agree? The man who eats a pizza, the person who works for money to support his or her family, even the person who smashed another person in the face, even the person who killed the other, they all somehow came to the conclusion that they had to do something in particular to make themselves happy, and ultimately meet at that which is good. (Not do condone the latter acts). If we can acknowledge that all our actions are in motion towards happiness, towards satisfaction, towards that which is good, then it would follow that there is such a thing as absolute good.

   Morality is nothing more than the way of living which helps one achieve happiness, or achieve that which is good. Morality tells us how to act in accordance with our ultimate goal of living a good life, and living it the right way. I agree with those who say that we will act in different ways to achieve what is good. They are right in saying that they will act on what they think is right, and I will act on what I think is right, but this does nothing to the idea of absolute truth, because in the end, both you and I are trying to achieve that which is good, that which makes us happy.

   I could ask, then, what you call a society where everyone acts on what he or she thinks is right. I think it is right to let someone else live, someone else thinks it is right to kill. Let’s allow this sort of relativistic approach to exist and persist, and see what happens. Oh, but wait, we have laws which prevent one from killing. Why? Because truth varies? No! Because somehow, somewhere along the line of human history, everyone in a culture came to the conclusion that it is wrong to kill, because even we as people from varying cultures know that it is wrong to take the life of another. (You might bring up the case of war; but even in that, the ultimate reason why one goes to war with another nation is because another nation threatened the lives of the other nation).

   Morality tells us how to live as individuals in a society. We care so much about how people act as individuals because it permeates in how people act with one another. A ship must be fine tuned in itself in order to set sail with the other ships. Once one ship tries to achieve the destination (i.e. truth, goodness, what is right), a different way, the ships are no longer in unison. We say that there is an absolute truth because ultimately, everyone is tending towards the same thing, even though we have different approaches. Moral living tells us the right way to achieve that good life, when our approaches are somehow contradicting the end goal. We say that a woman deserves better than abortion because abortion, the terminating of a human life, does not follow happy living, and we say this because happiness, and goodness, is not defined as simply convenience or freedom from burden. If anything, the challenge of life actually sweetens the deal of goodness and happiness.

   I would say that it is important to reflect on our principle values because they ultimately have an influence on how we reason with morality, and even, with how we interact/value others in our own community. Saying that humans ultimately seek happiness in the convenient sense has the logical consequence of devaluing the dignity of another human person. That is clearly seen in today’s culture. Having sex for the sake of satisfaction, using a condom to prevent pregnancy, having the option of abortion available, it is convenient. Such reasoning is safe in the relative sense. Seeing humans as seeking that which makes them happy, that which is absolutely good, seeing humans as having a purpose, simply seeing humans as social beings, as creatures not meant to be alone, really affects how we see the value of the human person. If man were only seen as mere matter, then we would have no problem in a culture death since matter is in competition with other things (two objects cannot fill the same space—one must go—see how this primitive thought could lead to conclusions such as death penalty/abortion/murder). However, acknowledging that man is capable of things such as love, sacrifice, and giving, allows life to flourish. This manifestation of life, through love, is precious and meaningful when man is able to act against the possible instincts of selfishness and convenience, for the sake of another person’s life.

   Something just dawned on me, revealing to me the importance of the study of Sacred Scripture.

   In his Confessions, St. Augustine says “our hearts are restless until they rest in you.” These words possess such great meaning. I remember learning in philosophy of nature how purpose is ultimately achieved when the object is able to rest. The final cause for humanity, for instance, we can all agree to an extent, is obtaining happiness. When I am hungry, I go and get something to eat. Until that desire is met, I will not be at ease. I will be constantly searching for something to satisfy my hunger, and when that is done, I will be resting knowing that my hunger is satisfied.

   What does this say of the soul? Well, to be human is to have soul. Happiness is the ultimate goal for humans. The soul, in its nature, seeks to achieve perfection. It desires happiness. It longs for rest. The soul of the human person is constantly searching until it has satisfied its hunger and obtained happiness. Where do we go? Whom shall we seek in order to find such happiness?

   St. Augustine’s, in his first book of On Christian Doctrine, puts it quite brilliantly. He first explains that the interpretation of Scripture depends first on obtaining its meaning, then making it known. Then he goes on to explain something which is best summarized as follows: Words are signs…signs are things which have meaning in themselves…things can either be for use or enjoyment…and enjoyment is defined as resting with satisfaction in the thing for its own sake.

   For St. Augustine, the ultimate object for enjoyment is the Trinity. It follows that our souls, which seek happiness, are restless until they are satisfied by God. But when we ask ourselves just how do we reach that level of happiness? How do find rest in God? Augustine gives the best hint on where to start, and that is by dedicating our time to Sacred Scripture. When we begin the journey of obtaining the proper meaning of Sacred Scripture, it follows that the words which God communicates through it will ultimately put us into contact with the God of the Trinity, the object in which our souls find rest.

With his incarnation he said: I am yours. And in baptism he said to me: I am yours. In the Holy Eucharist, he says ever anew: I am yours, so that we may respond: Lord, I am yours. In the way of the Word, entering the mystery of his incarnation, of his being among us, we want to appropriate his being, we want to expropriate our existence, giving ourselves to him who gave himself to us. “I am yours.” Let us pray the Lord that we may learn to say this Word with our whole being. Thus we will be in the heart of the Word. Thus we will be saved.

Pope Benedict XVI, Address to Synod of Bishops, October 6, 2008. 

Video Link- Marriage Saving Infidelity

The title really struck me. “You’ve got to cheat on your spouse with your spouse,” Andrea Syrtash says. I would say for the first time ever, rather than judging a video by its title, I would go ahead and hear what Andrea has to say. It turns out that her intentions are relatively sincere; however, I would say a couple things to her argument. She brings up the observation that in interviews, men who are cheating on their wives with call girls are doing so not entirely for sexual discharge, but for cuddling, kissing, great conversation, and connection. I ask why not allow these things to be part of one’s relationship with their spouse? Andrea does in fact come to this conclusion, but phrases it in a different way, by “cheating on your spouse with your spouse.” Her thought process is simple: Conversation, connection, etc. are the reasons for men cheating on their wives. The wives of these men are women who the man cannot converse or connect with. So, for the men who are cheating on their wives, why not simply do what you would do with the other woman, with your wife? It seems to me that Andrea is putting a twist on a solution which could be much more considerably phrased as “converse and connect with your spouse,” but then again, perhaps there are cultural reasons for her terms. I would say that rather than proposing the solution as she does, why not look at the real problem of the marriage: if the husband is going to other women seeking things such as conversation and connection, then what is it that he sees his wife as? A mere object for sexual discharge? This seems ironic to me. Perhaps, it would be best to actually converse and connect with your spouse. I think one would have to stoop really low to actually allow their spouse to cheat on them, with them. This is the culture we have to impact.

The setting of Christ’s birth points us to the Eucharist. Since through sin man becomes like the beasts, Christ lies in the trough where animals feed (definition of a manger), offering them, not hay, but his own body as life-giving bread.

-St. Cyril of Alexander, Catena of the Greek Fathers

     Spring break is a going. Grace has somehow led me to Northern California. This grace manifests itself in the image of friends and their family. The time here has been simple yet out of this world. There is something about being welcomed into a place where you think you are out of place, that initial and inevitable thought of being a stranger never lasts for too long when you are welcomed like a family member, like one of their own. This is what I have been yearning for, this is how I have been desiring to experience God.

     This morning, I woke up to the sound of rain drops. I looked outside and was frightened. I had planned on walking to the Mission San Jose Church for Daily Celebration of the Eucharist. Although I missed it, I knew that I could go to Mass at a later time. Still, I wanted to go to the Mission. After morning prayer, I decided that I could not let this desire be unsatisfied, this desire to genuflect in front of the Mission. To simply be close to Him. His Blessed Sacrament was waiting for me. So I decided to run to the Mission not knowing just how far the trip was.

I walked out the door with nothing but a thin nylon sports shirt, nylon sweats, a thin neck warmer, weary shoes, and my iPod. I was on my way. The first ten steps out the door and I was already drenched in rain. There came a point where I could not make the distinction between my own sweat and the rain which coated every inch of my skin. The more I ran, the more I realized how stupid I was for doing this. But, I kept going. My glasses began to fog up because of my breath. My breath itself was incapable of warming up with my neck warmer over my mouth. When I breathed into the air, every now and then I was able to see my breath crystallize and yet the rain often displaced the moisture of my breath. The cold was stabbing. I couldn’t see. The ground was slippery every block. I affirmed my stupidity; and yet, I kept going. It amazed me how my desire for Him, my desire to genuflect in front of the Mission, and my desire to be consumed by grace triumphed over my body’s desire to turn around and just stay where it is nice and warm.

This experience was obviously an uneasy one. In all seriousness, it was a painful and uncomfortable three miles to the Mission. The entire time, however, I contemplated on this pain. I began to ask my self why I feared pain. What was the problem with pain in my eyes? 

The thing with pain, I feel, is that I fear it so much. I fear it because of the ways in which it is experienced. I fear it because as it intensifies, I cannot help but imagine what it may lead to, death. I fear death because I fear pain. I had the entire two or three miles to the Mission, and the entire two or three miles back to think about why my mind made such a connection between fear of pain and death. 

When I finally reached the Mission, I looked around for a short time, then I genuflected from the outside knowing that what was contained in the inside of the Church was His true presence. That is when it came to me: as stupid as I am to put myself in situations where my health, and my life, are at risk, and even if that situation was imposed on me, I have endurance for whatever pain is to be experienced because of what is at the end of the Mission, His full presence. On the way back from the Church, everything that bothered me for the first half of the journey had ceased. The sun was just barely out, framed by clouds. My vision became clear. The warmth was comforting. And on top of that, I knew I was running to a place where I was welcomed, a home which I felt I did not belong in and yet I was accepted into as family. This is why death is something which I no longer fear, because when it comes, I have hope in a Father who would welcome me, who would offer me a room to stay in, who would offer me a towel and place to shower because the trip contained so many barriers of mud and rain; I wouldn’t want to make a house which I am welcomed in dirty and smelling of my odor from the journey. I would be home.

What is the problem with pain? The problem with pain is that I am so fixed on it as an end in itself. I am certain some wise Saint once said that the greater the wound, the greater the healing. The greater the pain, the greater hope for One who would console. I can imagine how there are people elsewhere, in Japan for instance, who are suffering greatly. Their pain is much more immense compared to what I had gone through. I can only hope and pray they see that because there is such a possibility for intense devastation and pain, that there is also the reality of the exact opposite. If anything, it is because of the pain we are able to appreciate the good, even at its simplest. It is because of fasting that we are able to appreciate a simple piece of bread. It is because of pain that we are able to embrace consolation.

Rocky was not really sleeping in this photo. I told him to lie down and he did so. But he eventually fell asleep because he started to snore (5 minutes later).