The Top Ten Creatures I Can't Buy A Good God Created, Part Two

The world isn't the way it's supposed to be. Let's look at childbirth by way of example. The first commandment God gave us, way back in Gen. 1:22 was to "be fruitful and multiply." We should remember that God's commandments are not arbitrary. That is to say, moral imperatives are not dictated down from on high for no reason. On the contrary, morality stems from Nature and Being itself. In other words, when Scripture tells us God has commanded us to do something, it is not because that's what God wants, it's because that's what God is, or because that's what we are.

It is of God's very essence (and therefore ours as well) to bring forth life. This is why doing so is an explicit commandment in Scripture. This idea is perfectly consonant with what modern science tells us. Procreation is the earliest and most fundamental aim of evolutionary development, the most basic reason for our existence. The pagan philosopher Aristotle said the same thing almost 2400 years ago when he named the propagation of the species as the ultimate telos (end, goal) toward which all life tends. All of this is to say that, if the world were the way it was supposed to be, childbirth would be the easiest, most natural thing in the world. Unfortunately, like so many other things, it's one of the biggest struggles in life: "in pain you shall bring forth children," (Gen. 3:16).

But it wasn't just humanity that was harmed by our sin: "cursed is the ground because of you; in toil you shall eat of it all the days of your life," (Gen. 3:17). For example:

the star-nosed mole,

this mutant dog thing,

possums,

and cat lady. Messed up as they are, as mammals (and marsupials), this group of horrifying creatures (along with those we saw in Part One) are actually the least horrifying of all.

After God finished his work of creation, he entrusted all of it to Man: "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth," (Gen. 1:26).

Much has been made of the word "dominion." What the Hebrew writers of this passage would have meant, and what Western Christians would have understood it to mean until relatively recently, was not a "master/slave" relationship but something more like a "husband/wife" relationship. St. Paul explains Christian marriage in a similar fashion, saying, "Wives, be subject to your husbands," (Eph. 5:22). Of course, he balances this verse with the complementary commandment to husbands, "Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her," (Eph. 5:25). The relationship is one of self-gift, each living for the other. In the same way, Man is lord of creation in the same way Christ is Lord of us, by sacrificing himself for it. It is a lordship of love and self-gift, our "dominion" is that of the servant, the caretaker, the Lover.

As Man fell, so fell the World. Our sin could not help but affect our most intimate companion, Nature itself. Scripture confirms this when it prophesies that the New Creation will be quite different from the one we currently inhabit:

"The wolf shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid, and the calf and the lion and the fatling together, and a little child shall lead them. The cow and the bear shall feed; their young shall lie down together; and the lion shall eat straw like the ox. The sucking child shall play over the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the adder's den. They shall not hurt or destroy in all my holy mountain; for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord," (Isa. 11:6-9).

If the recreated order after the Parousia is perfect, and in it lions don't eat antelope, it must not be perfect for lions to eat antelope. We saw last post that all this ugliness can't have come from God. Where, then, did it come from? Us. By our sin, evil entered the world and corrupted the operation of Nature. Suddenly only the fittest can survive and things with fangs and claws and venom start popping up. But wait, the fossil record teaches us that fangs, claws, and venom predate Man. It turns out, then, that we just complicated matters and death and destruction entered into the world another way.

Stay tuned.

UPDATE: Part Three to be found here.

Why Natural Family Planning Isn't Contraception

There are those who would suggest that Natural Family Planning (NFP) is really just Catholic contraception. A loophole by which the Popes can avoid the ridiculous number of babies without having to embarrass themselves and admit they were wrong.

Yes, that is the Pope in a Santa hat.

One of the most common points of misunderstanding when it comes to Catholic doctrine is that of Papal Infallibility. Contrary to popular belief Papal Infallibility does not mean that whatever the Pope says might as well issue from the mouth of God. In fact, the Pope is only infallible when he solemnly proclaims something which the Church has always believed to be true. That is to say, it is primarily the Church (as present in Scripture and Tradition) which is infallible, the Pope is only infallible insofar as he operates as the Church's spokesman, which he is empowered to do by virtue of his office. In other words, the Church has always believed and taught that contraception is objectively evil. The Pope can no more overturn this teaching than he could proclaim that Jesus is no longer the Second Person of the Trinity.

Why, then, does NFP not qualify as contraception? After all, used correctly, it's just as effective in preventing pregnancy as the pill (99%) and more effective than condoms. In order to answer this question it will be necessary to examine the Church's rationale for outlawing contraception in the first place.

Holy Matrimony, the sacramental union of a man and woman with one another, is one of the most sacred institutions there is. Scripture itself teaches us that this is so because Christian Marriage symbolizes "the union that is betwixt Christ and his Church," to quote the English Prayer Book. Like the union of Christ with his Church, the marital union is always in effect. There are, however, regular occasions of special solemnity at which the union is consummated in a special way. For the Church it is the Holy Eucharist, which the Book of Revelation refers to as the Marriage Supper of the Lamb (Rev. 19:9). It is at the Eucharist that Christ and the Church come together in love. This is one of the reasons why in many churches there is a canopy over the altar:

The baldacchino at Santa Maria Maggiore in Rome.

It is the canopy over the marriage bed upon which Christ and his Beloved consummate their union.

Contraception hinders the completeness of the union between husband and wife. Certain types of contraception put up a physical barrier between their union. Others put up a chemical barrier. When contraception is used, it is as if the husband and wife are saying to one another, "I love you. I want to be one with you, just, not completely. I'm gonna hold this piece of myself back from you, because it's inconvenient."

The loving union between husband and wife is meant to result in a new life (cf. Gen. 1:22). If you think about it, this makes all the sense in the world. It is the union of Christ with his Church that brings new life to the world, for that is what grace is, new life: "If anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation," (2 Cor. 5:17). Due to the natural cycles of fertility and infertility the marital embrace will not always result in conception. This is really beside the point. The Church doesn't say that marriage should only be consummated with the express intent to conceive. It does say that the couple must be open to life, which is to say, marriage shouldn't be done halfway. You've gotta mean it.

The substantive difference between NFP and contraception is NFP doesn't throw up a barrier between husband and wife. While capitalizing on the natural cycles of fertility and infertility in order to run the family responsibly, it still allows for the complete union, body and soul, of man and woman to be enacted.

The Nightly Exchange Between The Wife And I

Courtesy of The Anchoress.

The Tolkien Diet

Starry Night Over Mordor - Courtesy of The UniBlog.

Um, so I am definitely an advocate of incorporating The Lord of the Rings into child rearing as often as possible.

Courtesy of BabyCenter...

“I’m still hungry,” my youngest said roughly five minutes after he didn’t finish his breakfast. It was an issue. He had developed the bad habit of playing with his food rather than eating it, and it was something that needed to be addressed. Luckily, I had foreseen such a moment and took the proper steps needed to combat it. Basically, I set said breakfast aside and played Words With Friends on my iPhone while the world went spinning on.

“Then you,” I replied, “are in for a treat.” I slid his breakfast across the counter as he climbed onto the same stool that he had only recently vacated. The stool was still warm, his food was not.

“This is my breakfast,” he said. “Again.”

He’s pretty quick.

“It’s your second breakfast,” I explained. “Like a hobbit.”

“What’s a hobbit?”

“You, but hairier.”

“They eat two breakfasts?”

“That’s what I’ve read.”

“Do you know any hobbits?” he asked.

“I suspect a few,” I told him. “But I can’t prove anything.”

His breakfast was colder than he remembered it. I assured him that was the way it was supposed to be. The hobbit way. One hot, one cold. The ying and the yang of a balanced diet(s).

“Do hobbiths get beg and strawng from eating so munch?” he asked.

“Don’t talk with your mouth full,” I answered.

Time passed.

“Do hobbits get big and strong from eating two breakfasts?” he asked.

“I can see why one might think that,” I started, “but the fact-ish is they don’t. They don’t grow much at all.”

“Why not?” his concern was palatable and smeared with jelly.

“Well,” I took a breath and looked him squarely in the plate. “The popular theory is they might get bigger if they actually ate one healthy breakfast the first time it was served and didn’t waste food.” I let the time and money go — everybody wastes those.

“Healthy is good for you,” he said.

The light above his head glowed warm and knowingly.

“I only want one lunch,” he stated, “a good one.” I nodded accordingly.

The Search For The Beyer Family Coat Of Arms, Part One

So lately I’ve been looking into heraldry; i.e., coats of arms and stuff. I started thinking about it ‘cause the prospect of having kids soon got me interested in looking into some of my family history. I thought it might be nice when it comes time to decorate a nursery for it to include a couple of family trees and the Beyer and Walker family arms. At any rate, I just thought I’d share some of the more interesting elements with you.

The first and most fundamental rule of medieval heraldry is called the Rule of Tincture. Tinctures are heraldic colors and they fall into three main categories: metals, colors, furs (which are conventional geometric approximations of traditional furs), and “proper.” The metals are Gold (traditionally called Or and often represented in paint by yellow) and Silver (called Argent and represented by white). The colors are Azure (blue), Gules (red), Sable (black), Vert (green), and Purpure (purple). Interestingly, there are also for determining a color in a monochromatic setting like etching. Or is dots, Argent blank, Azure is horizontal lines, etc. “Proper” refers to when specific images (like a lion, horse, or dog) is pictured as it would be naturally (e.g., “a palomino horse proper”).

So the Rule of Tincture states that no metal shall ever lie on another metal and no color shall ever lie on another color (furs and “proper” are exempt). The thinking is that since the metals are light colors (gold/yellow and silver/white) and the colors dark (blue, black, etc.) they should never lie one on top of the other because it decreases clarity. One must remember that the original purpose of heraldry was anything but ceremonial. You as a Lord (or whatever) bored a shield with your house-specific colors and designs on it so you could be easily identified in battle. Either that or a herald carried your shield or a flag version of it. It is imperative, then, that your colors be legible and distinguishable from others’ at a good distance.

This is also why the fifth category of tinctures is all but ignored. In the nineteenth century it became fashionable to include more varied tinctures (called “stains”) like brown (brûnatre), sanguine (deep, blood-red), and bleu-celeste (sky blue). Of course pink and orange weren’t included originally either, because they could too easily be mistaken for Argent and Gules. They also liked over-using “proper.” In other words, having your coat of arms tend more towards a naturalistic painting than bright, bold, easily recognizable colors and designs. (Of course, this tendency was also due to the fact that by the nineteenth century heraldry had lost its practical purpose and become solely ceremonial.) Thankfully, almost everyone now rejects this tendency as decadence contrary to the true and traditional purpose of heraldry.

Another interesting fact, since women don’t traditionally go to war, women’s arms (if they have their own) aren’t represented on a shield but on a “lozenge” (which is exactly like the diamond on playing cards). Likewise, clergy display their arms on a “cartouche” (or oval) as can be seen on the façade of countless cardinalatial titular churches in Rome.

Also, turns out the actual heraldic device has little to do with any pictorial representation of it. The heraldic device itself is a traditional description of elements to be represented by an artist. This process is called “blazoning,” according to the heraldry scholar John Woodward, it is not just any description, but to describe arms “in heraldic terminology so exactly that anyone acquainted with the language of armory may be able accurately to depict it from its concise description.” For example, the simple blazon “argent, three palets sable” translates to a silver (white) field onto which are laid three black vertical bands:

This is to be distinguished from “paly argent and sable” which describes a field which is itself divided into alternating bands of silver (white) and black:

Imagine how complicated that can get.

And that’s just the beginning. A couple of hours of research convinced me that in order for me to feel comfortable enough with all the rules to blazon my own Beyer family arms I would need to keep studying for at least several months. Of course, I wouldn’t exactly feel comfortable doing so anyway. Even though there’s no legal prescription against doing so in this country, I don’t really like the idea of doing what amounts to knighting myself. I certainly wouldn’t want to follow the path Monsieur Napoleon did. Seems like a better idea to go back far enough on Ancestry.com or the like to see if the Beyers ever had a real one.