Found in Centesimus annus 48:
"Excesses and abuses, especially in recent years, have provoked very harsh criticisms of the Welfare State, dubbed the "Social Assistance State". Malfunctions and defects in the Social Assistance State are the result of an inadequate understanding of the tasks proper to the State. Here again, the principal of subsidiarity must be respected: a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to coordinate its activity with the activityies of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good.
By intervening directly and depriving society of its responsibility, the Social Assistance State leads to a loss of human energies and an inordinate increase of public agencies, which are dominated more by bureaucratic ways of thinking than by concern for serving their cints, and which are accompanied by an enormous increase in spending. In fact, it would appear that needs are best understood and sarisfied by people who are closest to them and who act as neighbors to those in need. It should be added that certain kinds of demands often call for a response which is not simply material but which is capable of perceiving the deeper human mind."
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
Food, Human Nature, and Sex
A few months ago, I embarked on an exercise plan that focused on weight-training. In order to maximize the effects of the exercise, I have tried to eat more and more properly. I sought out advice from trusted exercise-nutrition sources and books, and was actually surprised by what I was reading.
To summarize, it is obvious that the human body is designed to consume animal products like raw milk, meat, and eggs. In addition, the human body is also designed to consume vegetables and fruits (mostly vegetables). What is becoming more clear is that the human body struggles with consuming too many grains (of which our government wants us to consume 7-10 servings a day!!). So, while our body can handle significant portions of animal products, we are told to limit animal products because they are "high in fat". In the meantime, even though too many grains cause our bodies many problems (not the least of these obesity), we are told a "healthy" diet is eating more grains than anything else.
In terms of anatomy and physiology, there are three macro-nutrients: carbohydrates (which provide energy in the form of the simple sugar glucose), proteins (which are responsible for cell-building), and fats (which help viscosity between organs, muscles and other soft tissues, and stores excess energy). Of the three, one is deitarily dispensible: carbohydrates. The body can break down proteins and fats into glucose, if there are no carbohydrates available. Sources of protein and fats are usually high in other nutrients that the body needs, while most available sources of carbohydrates lack essential nutrients (this is why we have "enriched" flour). Thus, an individual that consumes only fats and proteins with a significant amoung of vegetables, can be quite healthy and meet all their dietary needs.
Here we have "science" competing against itself. On the one hand, the local health-food store will rail against animal products and saturated fats and the like, but on the other, will admit that animal protein is the most complete and most readily used by the human body. Similarly, on the one hand, certain groups (okay, the breakfast cereal industry) decry eggs as heart-unhealthy, and deadly, while others will acknowledge that while eggs are high in cholesterol, it is not all bad cholesterol and eggs do have a significant amount of good cholesterol (HDL), thus making eggs a healthy choice.
I have never been known as a "health food junkie". Sure, both my parents (well, my mom actually), and my wife's parents cooked at the least low-fat foods regularly (my wife's parents more so than mine). In college, I wasn't as particular as I could have been, but I wasn't bad by any means. As a married man, and as a father, money constraints more than anything have limited not only what I ate but how much of it as well. Still, I have had my issues with food choices. I can say with complete honesty that I have made excuses for my proclivities, using whatever research or study or whatever to ensure that I could continue my chosen path for no other reason than I liked eating the foods I was eating. When I realized what I was doing, inspite of what it was doing to my health, I was able to see the following very clearly.
The situation is a simple one: we, as human beings, are gifted with an intellect, and FREE WILL. We choose to eat what we want, in light of (or inspite of) what our bodies are telling we can and cannot eat. We will even attach ourselves to eating styles/preferences that we know aren't really good for us, but man do they taste good. On the converse, we will attach ourselves to a movement which rejects anything stated to the contrary and is illogical, simply because we want it to be true (or we like the company we keep with others who believe the same thing).
This is a consequence of a human's innate FREE WILL and intellect. We are able choose our own actions, regardless of whether it is right or wrong. We are free to reject that which is good for that which is ill. We will defend our actions because we chose to do them, even when such a defense is illogical, false, or delusional.
Just has humans refuse to listen to their bodies when it comes to food, they will refuse to listen to their bodies when it comes to sex. Humans aren't born eating. They have to learn how to eat (babies learn how to nurse from their mothers...they don't just do it). As they get older, they choose when to eat, what to eat, and how much of it to eat. Eating becomes a matter of the will, and is subject to it. No man is going to eat that which he has decided he will not, nor is any man going to put down that which he has decided he doesn't want to. The same is true with sex. Sexual intercourse is a matter of the will, not instinct. Human beings consciously choose when and with whom to engage in intercourse.
In the world of human anatomy and physiology, the primary function of the sexual organs and their peripheral support systems is reproduction, which can only be done between a man and a woman. For men, climax is (normally) the release of sperm, which contain his half of the genetic code, hopefully to be united with an egg from the woman he is supposed to be with. For women, the stages of sexual arousal create a situation within her body to allow the man to enter easily and for most of the sperm to stay inside and increase the chances of her egg (if there is one) being fertilized. Climax for her actually creates a uterine situation that would push the sperm up further. At the same time, the body releases certain chemicals during climax for men and women that create a sort of chemical bond between the person they are with during their sexual experience. Sex, then is geared to procreating AND unifying the couple doing the procreating (seems like an ingenious way of getting the child's parents to stay together). Worth noting,though, is that not all sexual climaxes are pleasurable, so pleasure has nothing at all to do with the nature of sex. Climax, not pleasure, produces the "chemical bond" between partners, which is stronger than pleasuer. It doesn't matter who the person is with, why they are together, or what they do, the above is true regardless. All sexual acts have the same physiological goals: reproduction and unity.
Science, again, is competing against itself. On the one hand, many scientists want to say that a sexually liberated attitude is perfectly healthy. On the other, some psychologists are noticing a disturbing trend in depression and suicide rates among women who sleep around. Again, many scientists urge that homosexual relationships are normal and perfectly healthy. Yet, it is well known and documented that active homosexuals have more health problems, do not live as long, and have higher suicide and depression rates than their heterosexual counterparts.
Just like the situation with food, the situation is simple: humans are gifted with FREE WILL. It is this FREE WILL that allows us to engage is sex with whomever we want, when we want, why we want to. Like our apettite for food, we will often reject what we know to be true because it feels good for us. Like many people simply refuse to acknowledge that their dietary choices are influencing their health problems, many people also refuse to acknowledge their sexual choices are likewise detrimental. In ways similar to dietary partisans, sexual partisans will reject any and all facts that disprove their chosen appetite.
To summarize, it is obvious that the human body is designed to consume animal products like raw milk, meat, and eggs. In addition, the human body is also designed to consume vegetables and fruits (mostly vegetables). What is becoming more clear is that the human body struggles with consuming too many grains (of which our government wants us to consume 7-10 servings a day!!). So, while our body can handle significant portions of animal products, we are told to limit animal products because they are "high in fat". In the meantime, even though too many grains cause our bodies many problems (not the least of these obesity), we are told a "healthy" diet is eating more grains than anything else.
In terms of anatomy and physiology, there are three macro-nutrients: carbohydrates (which provide energy in the form of the simple sugar glucose), proteins (which are responsible for cell-building), and fats (which help viscosity between organs, muscles and other soft tissues, and stores excess energy). Of the three, one is deitarily dispensible: carbohydrates. The body can break down proteins and fats into glucose, if there are no carbohydrates available. Sources of protein and fats are usually high in other nutrients that the body needs, while most available sources of carbohydrates lack essential nutrients (this is why we have "enriched" flour). Thus, an individual that consumes only fats and proteins with a significant amoung of vegetables, can be quite healthy and meet all their dietary needs.
Here we have "science" competing against itself. On the one hand, the local health-food store will rail against animal products and saturated fats and the like, but on the other, will admit that animal protein is the most complete and most readily used by the human body. Similarly, on the one hand, certain groups (okay, the breakfast cereal industry) decry eggs as heart-unhealthy, and deadly, while others will acknowledge that while eggs are high in cholesterol, it is not all bad cholesterol and eggs do have a significant amount of good cholesterol (HDL), thus making eggs a healthy choice.
I have never been known as a "health food junkie". Sure, both my parents (well, my mom actually), and my wife's parents cooked at the least low-fat foods regularly (my wife's parents more so than mine). In college, I wasn't as particular as I could have been, but I wasn't bad by any means. As a married man, and as a father, money constraints more than anything have limited not only what I ate but how much of it as well. Still, I have had my issues with food choices. I can say with complete honesty that I have made excuses for my proclivities, using whatever research or study or whatever to ensure that I could continue my chosen path for no other reason than I liked eating the foods I was eating. When I realized what I was doing, inspite of what it was doing to my health, I was able to see the following very clearly.
The situation is a simple one: we, as human beings, are gifted with an intellect, and FREE WILL. We choose to eat what we want, in light of (or inspite of) what our bodies are telling we can and cannot eat. We will even attach ourselves to eating styles/preferences that we know aren't really good for us, but man do they taste good. On the converse, we will attach ourselves to a movement which rejects anything stated to the contrary and is illogical, simply because we want it to be true (or we like the company we keep with others who believe the same thing).
This is a consequence of a human's innate FREE WILL and intellect. We are able choose our own actions, regardless of whether it is right or wrong. We are free to reject that which is good for that which is ill. We will defend our actions because we chose to do them, even when such a defense is illogical, false, or delusional.
Just has humans refuse to listen to their bodies when it comes to food, they will refuse to listen to their bodies when it comes to sex. Humans aren't born eating. They have to learn how to eat (babies learn how to nurse from their mothers...they don't just do it). As they get older, they choose when to eat, what to eat, and how much of it to eat. Eating becomes a matter of the will, and is subject to it. No man is going to eat that which he has decided he will not, nor is any man going to put down that which he has decided he doesn't want to. The same is true with sex. Sexual intercourse is a matter of the will, not instinct. Human beings consciously choose when and with whom to engage in intercourse.
In the world of human anatomy and physiology, the primary function of the sexual organs and their peripheral support systems is reproduction, which can only be done between a man and a woman. For men, climax is (normally) the release of sperm, which contain his half of the genetic code, hopefully to be united with an egg from the woman he is supposed to be with. For women, the stages of sexual arousal create a situation within her body to allow the man to enter easily and for most of the sperm to stay inside and increase the chances of her egg (if there is one) being fertilized. Climax for her actually creates a uterine situation that would push the sperm up further. At the same time, the body releases certain chemicals during climax for men and women that create a sort of chemical bond between the person they are with during their sexual experience. Sex, then is geared to procreating AND unifying the couple doing the procreating (seems like an ingenious way of getting the child's parents to stay together). Worth noting,though, is that not all sexual climaxes are pleasurable, so pleasure has nothing at all to do with the nature of sex. Climax, not pleasure, produces the "chemical bond" between partners, which is stronger than pleasuer. It doesn't matter who the person is with, why they are together, or what they do, the above is true regardless. All sexual acts have the same physiological goals: reproduction and unity.
Science, again, is competing against itself. On the one hand, many scientists want to say that a sexually liberated attitude is perfectly healthy. On the other, some psychologists are noticing a disturbing trend in depression and suicide rates among women who sleep around. Again, many scientists urge that homosexual relationships are normal and perfectly healthy. Yet, it is well known and documented that active homosexuals have more health problems, do not live as long, and have higher suicide and depression rates than their heterosexual counterparts.
Just like the situation with food, the situation is simple: humans are gifted with FREE WILL. It is this FREE WILL that allows us to engage is sex with whomever we want, when we want, why we want to. Like our apettite for food, we will often reject what we know to be true because it feels good for us. Like many people simply refuse to acknowledge that their dietary choices are influencing their health problems, many people also refuse to acknowledge their sexual choices are likewise detrimental. In ways similar to dietary partisans, sexual partisans will reject any and all facts that disprove their chosen appetite.
Thursday, May 19, 2011
New Interest in Adam Smith
I was directed, a while back, to an article that discussed Pope Benedict's views on economics. It touched on Catholic social teaching, and was interesting to read. What struck me, though, was a commenter's rather uninformed quip that equated Adam Smith with modern capitalism. This quip can be forgiven, though, because most school textbooks call Smith the father of capitalism, and summarize his famous Wealth of Nations as basically calling for capitalism.
As I was reading this, a thought came to my mind: how does the Catholic social teaching compare with the writing of Adam Smith? I decided to undertake a rather daunting task: read Wealth of Nations and compare it with Magesterial writings based on and including Leo XIII's 1891 encyclical Rerum novarum.
As I was reading this, a thought came to my mind: how does the Catholic social teaching compare with the writing of Adam Smith? I decided to undertake a rather daunting task: read Wealth of Nations and compare it with Magesterial writings based on and including Leo XIII's 1891 encyclical Rerum novarum.
Sunday, May 1, 2011
Confessions
I have recently been in a conversation with a coworker that has me thinking. I will post about the actual conversation piece over at RottinApologist, but I reflect on myself here.
I don't really know the true end result of this two day conversation. Suffice to say, this coworker, we'll call him "Chip", was baptized Catholic and lapsed over time, eventually being rebaptized LDS (but is currently not practicing). The conversation started when I said I was going to begin my reading. He asked if I had any entertainment software on my computer and I said "No, but that is okay, because for so many years, I've fallen behind on my reading." Then he wondered what my book was...I tried to give him a brief summary of how Eamon Duffy's Stripping of the Altars was a look at Catholicism in England prior to the Reformation. "Chip" wondered what I meant by Reformation, and by trying to explain that, I needed to explain a great deal about Catholicism. When "Chip" left today, he was interested in finding a priest, making a good confession, and getting confirmed.
I looked back on some past email, and I stumbled upon a correspondence with my father. I reflected on my tone and my attitude in that correspondence with the tone and attitude that was exhibited these past two days. I also reflected on my tone since embarking on my seeming obsession with learning more and more about the Catholic Faith. Since I stumbled on apologetics, and began learning more and more, I have had a passion to teach people what I have learned. Sometimes this "teaching" simply restating it to my wife...who while interested at first, conveniently would "forget to listen". Often I would find myself arrogantly starting arguments...knowing that I had answers (or better yet questions that revealed inconsistent answers). I was hoping that my "teaching" would plant seeds that would sprout interest, which would germinate into conversion.
I was mostly foolish, boorish, and arrogant. I see that now, because when "Chip" and I started this conversation, I wasn't out to prove anything or convert anyone...I was simply carrying out an act of spiritual mercy: informing the ignorant. I was trying to explain the Catholic Church with passion, with fervor, yet with compassion and not being pushy about it. It wasn't about me, it was about "Chip". He needed to learn, he needed to know this. Somehow, I knew that. Heck, I even bit my tongue when I could easily have butted in and skewered his poorly formed personal theologies...something I had done to people in the past...all because it was about him seeing the Truth, not me being right.
As a result of this two-day long discussion, I would like to state that I know full well that I can be boorish, pushy, persistant, arrogant, and inconsiderate. While I have always been that way, so much so that people have said I inherited those traits, I must apologize to all whom I have done this to. It is uncharitable and arrogant of me to do this. It is also a poor reflection upon God's Holy Church. I am truly sorry for those moments.
I don't really know the true end result of this two day conversation. Suffice to say, this coworker, we'll call him "Chip", was baptized Catholic and lapsed over time, eventually being rebaptized LDS (but is currently not practicing). The conversation started when I said I was going to begin my reading. He asked if I had any entertainment software on my computer and I said "No, but that is okay, because for so many years, I've fallen behind on my reading." Then he wondered what my book was...I tried to give him a brief summary of how Eamon Duffy's Stripping of the Altars was a look at Catholicism in England prior to the Reformation. "Chip" wondered what I meant by Reformation, and by trying to explain that, I needed to explain a great deal about Catholicism. When "Chip" left today, he was interested in finding a priest, making a good confession, and getting confirmed.
I looked back on some past email, and I stumbled upon a correspondence with my father. I reflected on my tone and my attitude in that correspondence with the tone and attitude that was exhibited these past two days. I also reflected on my tone since embarking on my seeming obsession with learning more and more about the Catholic Faith. Since I stumbled on apologetics, and began learning more and more, I have had a passion to teach people what I have learned. Sometimes this "teaching" simply restating it to my wife...who while interested at first, conveniently would "forget to listen". Often I would find myself arrogantly starting arguments...knowing that I had answers (or better yet questions that revealed inconsistent answers). I was hoping that my "teaching" would plant seeds that would sprout interest, which would germinate into conversion.
I was mostly foolish, boorish, and arrogant. I see that now, because when "Chip" and I started this conversation, I wasn't out to prove anything or convert anyone...I was simply carrying out an act of spiritual mercy: informing the ignorant. I was trying to explain the Catholic Church with passion, with fervor, yet with compassion and not being pushy about it. It wasn't about me, it was about "Chip". He needed to learn, he needed to know this. Somehow, I knew that. Heck, I even bit my tongue when I could easily have butted in and skewered his poorly formed personal theologies...something I had done to people in the past...all because it was about him seeing the Truth, not me being right.
As a result of this two-day long discussion, I would like to state that I know full well that I can be boorish, pushy, persistant, arrogant, and inconsiderate. While I have always been that way, so much so that people have said I inherited those traits, I must apologize to all whom I have done this to. It is uncharitable and arrogant of me to do this. It is also a poor reflection upon God's Holy Church. I am truly sorry for those moments.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)