A "vested interested", you say?

So, we all know how passionate I am about issues involving sexuality, right? Side note, if you want to know why, please ask me privately and personally.

Even if I weren't so interested in ameliorating this issues on different levels... if I could care less, we all know that everyone is talking about Chic fil A, aka, "American's best chicken joint and oh yeah go eat there to stand up for tradish marriage" (patent pending!). As I skimmed through my blogs, I actually stopped to read one entitled "Is gay marriage about granting 'rights'?" (Spoiler: no, it's not. the rights in question can be achieved by other means). What struck me, though, was this line, as quoted in the post itself:

Neither the state nor the church invented marriage, though both have vested interested in it, and therefore neither can change its nature. [sic]

I hope both institutions' "vested interest" are apparent, but I'll explain shortly anyway... there is a point to this post.

I got to thinking... which institution has MORE of a said "vested interest"?

As a Catholic, man of faith, my first instinct would be to clearly pick the Church. More babies born (that's the natural ends of marriage, remember?) means more souls won for Christ and more of us happy in Heaven. YAY!

However, IF IF IF IF IF we aren't necessarily looking at the issue with our eyes of faith, perhaps the STATE has more of an interest. We can agree that more babies born and raised have the potential to become happy, healthy, productive members of society, chocked full of innovation and ingenuity... meaning $$$, money that the state can then tax the crap out of and then spend like... well like they currently already are, but that's not the point.

IF we're not looking at the eternal reward of Heaven and perfect communion with the God of the freaking universe, I would like to think that the Church's interest is much less in keeping marriage between one man and one woman. I mean, more babies born means more souls that we have to try to reach, more kids that we have to teach about the faith, more fallen away Catholics that we have to pray for, etc... you get the idea, right? I could take this example to far, but it sure would be a lot less work if there were less people.

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE do NOT take my words out of context. The Church LOVES to do this work. The Sacraments are AWESOME! Souls are beautiful. People, human beings are the crown of God's creation and should never be treated as just a number. Christ calls us to mission and our response out to be a happy FIAT, despite how hard the work can be at times.

Of course, we know that it's flipped around. The Kingdom is worth everything, so why not fight for it by protecting traditional values, upholding our religious liberty, the freedom to do not whatever the heck we want recklessly, but to do what we know is right. Thanks JP2.

I guess my point in this post is a wake up call to the govment. WTF??? Why aren't you joining us in protecting traditional marriage, when you only stand to loose from trying to change it? Or are you just being a passive parent bending to the whims of the capricious, crying infant? That's not what a good parent would do...

update!!

so, as i've made clear in other posts, i'm studying jp2's theology of the body in one of my grad classes. i just finished reading the third cycle (summary forthcoming). it occurred to me that both Christ and St. Paul (in agreement with the Lord) seem to grant a certain superiority, as it were to celibacy, yet in no way do they disrespect the institution of marriage as it is between one man and one woman. again, don't take what i say here the wrong way. the Church totally supports traditional marriage (it's the primordial sacrament). however, if Jesus Himself and the Great Apostle both are trying to teach us by calling to mind humanity's eschatological destiny, then it only gives more weight to my argument that any civil authority in "this world" should be in favor of keeping marriage between one man and one woman.

yeah. just thought i'd add this. though i'm sure no one reads my blog anyway...

Affirmation and the beatific vision

NOTE, I meant to post this a while ago, but never got to it, because well, the rest of the series never got written. Got it? Now ya do.

This post is the first in a series. I may have explained some of what I want to say in previous posts, either here or on other websites. This and subsequent posts will attempt to explain how the late Holy Father, John Paul II's, wonderful teaching called the Theology of the Body (TOB) relates and is applied to homosexuality.

I've been reading Christopher West's latest book, called <a href="http://www.christopherwest.com/at-the-heart-of-the-gospel-2/" target="_blank">At the Heart of the Gospel</a>. Even though I'm quite familiar with his work of teaching TOB over the past several years, believe or not, I've never actually read any of the books until now. I had the privilege to hear Christopher speak just a few weeks ago at a seminary. Admittedly, I went there not only because I'm a fan and I want to learn more, but I'd heard about how Christopher interacts with men who have unwanted same-sex attraction (ussa)...and I wanted to experience it first hand. Say what you will about me, but you know how some people will always say "I'll be the first to admit that I'm not perfect" or what have you... well I'm putting that out there right now. I'm broken! Yes, I heard that Christopher affirms us men in our search and struggle for masculinity... and I wonder, am I much different from those who merely wanted to touch the tassels of Jesus' garments in hopes of being healed and made whole. I don't believe my actions were selfish, but when I asked Christopher to signed my book, I simply told him, "I'm involved with a group called ____" (a ministry that helps those with ussa live according to God's will), and he know exactly want I was trying to say. Almost immediately Christopher sprang to his feet and wrapped his arms around me so tightly. Then he looked me square in the eye and encouraged me to keep fighting this battle, because it's the exact same battle that he and every other man on the face of this planet are called to fight. I think I cried a little.

As I reflect on that moment, I don't think it's because Christopher believed that I had daddy issues or that I wasn't hugged. He wasn't attempted to be a surrogate father figure. I think that Christopher genuinely tries to live his life by offering every single person he meets as much authentic love as he possibly can. He does his best, by the grace of God, to live his own life as Jesus did. Many times when I'm in deep prayer in front of the Blessed Sacrament, an image of God I'll have is simply Christ looking back at me as intensely with love as Christoper did, if not more so. This isn't just me making this stuff up just because I saw a guy who knows his theology once and attempted to get some of what he has. The scriptures clearly coincide with this vision of what heaven will be like: "for now we see dimly, as if in a mirror, but then face to face" (1 Cor 13:12) and even "blessed are the pure of heart, for they shall see God". (Mt 5:8) Christopher, in my opinion, lives heaven on earth, but not for himself. Far too often, when we think about heaven, we imagine how great it will be, yet for our own sake. I think that's a mistake. While we all hope to "go to heaven" when we die, I believe that it's precisely that attitude that prevents us from living it out now, and possibly hinders us from ever reaching it after death. Of course, that second part is just my speculation.

Heaven is NOT about me... because LOVE isn't about me. Heaven isn't just 'the greatest thing we could ever imagine, but better'. John Paul II, in Fides et ratio,&nbsp; claims that man is 'capax dei', the capacity of God. Setting the philosophy of the work aside (only because I haven't actually read the encyclical and some thoughts were confounding as I try to explain them to myself), I take that phrase to imply a certain power and thus responsibility we have to each other. My mom would always say "you can live hell on earth and your heaven on earth". She's right... but heaven is not about what makes us happy, at least not primarily. Because we has human beings can bring about heaven in the way that we treat each other and because heaven is our ultimate good, we have the responsibility to do so. At the same time, I do not write this in order to guilt you into the Christian vocation.

We should be Christians, authentic Catholics because we love, or rather, because Christ first loved us. When we act out of that love, we fulfill our responsibility without even trying, really... we fulfill the law that's been written on our hearts from the very beginning. When I think about how Christopher loved me and so many others in the midst of our brokenness, regardless of what the brokenness was, I have no doubt of his intentions. Christopher is a true Christ-bearer, just as his name suggests.

Okay, so I know that this post didn't get much into the specifics of homosexuality or the academics and pragmatics of TOB in relation to it, but I hope this serves as a starting point for discussion. My goal really is to apply this amazing teachings to one of the most controversial topics of our current generation and to see lives changed, including my own, because of it. I don't think there's been enough work done this specifically on it. Yes, Christopher West wrote a book and Janet Smith gave a talk (and I'm sure there's more, and by no means do I wish to belittle their work), but I'm discovering even right now a specific vocation... calling me deeper into prayer...

Pax Christi