D is for Dependency

Following up on the acronym SLED (What To Say and How To Say It by Brandon Vogt.) where S is for Size. L is for Level of development. E is for Environment. D is for Dependency.

Dependency: Here the pro-choice activist argues that a fetus is not fully human because they are totally dependent on another human being in order to live. But if that’s the criteria, you can ask about people with disabilities or elderly who are dependent upon others to live. Furthermore, newborns and toddlers are considered to be dependent on other human beings to live.

Mr. Vogt likes to bring up the following scenario: Suppose two scuba divers are exploring and underwater cave, when the first diver’s oxygen tank fails. She can only survive if she gets air from the second diver’s tank, and let’s assume the second diver has enough oxygen for the both of them. The first diver is now completely dependent on the second diver. Does the second diver now have the right to pull out a knife and kill the first diver because of her dependency?

Thus, Dependency not a quality unique to the unborn that disqualifies it from being considered a human being. The Pro-choice bioethicist Peter Singer agrees. Writing in Practical Ethics, “[T]here is no doubt that from the first moments of its existence an embryo conceived from human sperm and eggs is a human being.”

In Christ, Ken.

E is for Environment

Following up on the acronym SLED (What To Say and How To Say It by Brandon Vogt.) where S is for Size.  L is for Level of development. E is for Environment. D is for Dependency.  

 

Environment: Here the pro-choice activist argues that a “fetus is not yet in the world.” Not so. While they may not be directly visible to us, the unborn are indeed in the world. Not only are they in the world at large, they are precisely where they are supposed to be.  The womb has no other innate purpose than providing a safe haven for the nourishment and development of this specific human being.  By definition the womb is the “organ in which the young are conceived and grow until birth.”

 

Thus, Environment is also is not a sufficient reason for denying the unborn their innate right to life.  This criterion is not unique as a person is a person whether in a house, an igloo, an incubator or a womb. 

In Christ, Ken.

L is for Level of Development

Following up on the acronym SLED (What To Say and How To Say It by Brandon Vogt.) where S is for Size.  L is for Level of development. E is for Environment. D is for Dependency.  

Level of Development: Here the pro-choice activist argues that a “fetus cannot think or feel pain.” One might then ask if born people with developmental disabilities are not human beings. Are born people who cannot think clearly or feel pain are not persons.  Then there is the scientific fact that human brains are not fully developed until around the age of 25.  Are we any less human beings until we reach that age?

Thus, Level of Development is not a reason to dismiss the unborn as not being persons.  This criterion is not unique and applies to many born people that we do not dismiss in this way. So we are still left asking the pro-choice advocate, why is a human being in the womb denied the right to life?

In Christ, Ken.

S is for Size

Following up on the acronym SLED (What To Say and How To Say It by Brandon Vogt.) where S is for Size.  L is for Level of development. E is for Environment. D is for Dependency.  

SIZE: “An embryo is just a clump of cells.”  Ask, “What distinguishes you from being more than a mere “clump of cells”? If size matters, is a toddler less of a person than a teen?  Are short people less human than tall persons?” You might also ask, “How big must an unborn child be before it can be considered human or a person with a right to life?” Trent Horn in Persuasive Pro-Life suggest this response “use the following simple test to show something is an organism and not a clump of cells:

If I can give this living thing time, nutrition, and a proper environment, and it is able to develop toward becoming a mature member of its species, then it is an organism and not a mere [clump of cells].”  Trent goes on to say “cells such as skin, sperm, and egg can never —even given time, nutrition, and a proper environment—develop into an adult human, they fail the organism test.116 When removed from the human body, they are clumps of cells, or tissue, that will quickly die.”

You can also have recourse to Dr. Seuss and the popular line - and major moral theme - from Horton Hears a Who!  "A person's a person, no matter how small.”

In Christ, Ken.

SLED and Abortion

Though the abortion rate in the US has been declining recently, the Guttmacher Institute (GI) still reports over 860,000 abortions in the US in 2017. GI also reported that in 2014 “17% of abortion patients identified as mainline Protestant, 13% as evangelical Protestant and 24% as Catholic…” Also according to GI one-third of all women in the US will have had at least one abortion by age 45. What are the reasons given for having an abortion?  According to GI, 74% say “having a baby will dramatically change my life.” And 73% also say “I can’t afford a baby right now.”  However, these reasons do not justify a parent killing a 2-month old baby (at least not currently), so why do they seemingly justify abortions?  What is different about a pre-born human being and a born human being such as an infant, or toddler, teenager, etc.?

Let’s consider the four main differences most often raised by pro-choice advocates.  A good way to remember them is using the acronym SLED (What To Say and How To Say It by Brandon Vogt.)  Picture an infant riding a sled.  S is for Size.  L is for Level of development. E is for Environment. D is for Dependency.  In the next articles, we will see how these differences are arbitrary and rather than reasons are merely rationale for discrimination against the unborn that do not withstand scrutiny.

In Christ, Ken.

FX “AKA Jane Roe”

In a recent article, a Ms. Valenti - referencing the FX program “AKA Jane Roe”- chastised the pro-life community for manipulating Ms. McCorvey, the “Roe” in Roe v. Wade.  Here is an excerpt from my reply:

I’m going to suggest that such abusive behavior, use of lies and deception (at least be honest Ms. Valenti, the pro-choice side is in no way innocent here) is the result of wanting too much for “your team” to win.  It does not arise from a desire that “the truth will out.”  Consequently, I disagree with those on my team who want to cry “fake news” or personally disparage pro-choice activist’s use of Ms. McCorvey.  In the final analysis it does not matter what position any one or several persons espouse on this matter as they “cross the finish line.”  In fact, even popular opinion is not what matters. What matters is what is the unborn?  If it is not a human being, then abortion is of no concern.  If it is – as science tells us – a human being from the moment of conception, then I am obligated to lobby that the right to life, which inherently belongs to human beings, be returned to those who have had it taken away. As implied in your article, Ms. McCorvey – as a human being – deserved far better treatment than being seen merely as a “trophy,” so to do the unborn in untold numbers deserve far better treatment than to be seen merely as a non-entity to be destroyed at whim.  Both sides of this issue would do well to repent of and forgo the ethical infractions your article brings to the fore and engage in discussion of the core issue. Simply saying “Yay, for our side!”  and calling each other “Liar!” is unlikely to make any meaningful contribution of any sort.

In Christ, Ken.

The Unborn are Human Beings:

First, the unborn are human beings. Somewhat ironically, it is science that tells us that the unborn are human beings.  From the moment it exists an entity has being.  And from the moment of conception an embryo has human DNA, he or she is the product of two human beings and thus is a human being. 

Some will object that it is “just an embryo” or “just a fetus.” However, look up the terms in most medical dictionaries and you will learn that among humans an embryo is a “human being from conception until the seventh week of life.” While fetus - derived from Latin for little one - refers to a human being from the eighth week of life until birth.  Therefore, referring to the unborn as a fetus only describes the stage of development of a human being. To deny that the unborn is a human being is to deny biology.

Another objection is that sperm and eggs have human DNA but we don’t consider them “human beings.” Author and apologist, Trent Horn addresses this: “Sperm, egg, fetuses, and toddlers are all human in the adjective sense of the word, since they possess human DNA. Unlike sperm and egg, however, fetuses and toddlers are also human in the noun sense of the word. A fetus is a human and a toddler is a human, while an individual sperm cell or egg cell is not a human. This is similar to how we might say apple pie and the president are both American, while the president of the United States is an American, and the apple pie is not.” ¹

In Christ, Ken.

1 Persuasive Pro Life: How to Talk About Our Culture's Toughest Issue. Catholic Answers Press.

The Right to Life

To reach one who subscribes to being “pro-choice,” one must start from where they are and not from where we may be.  That is, it will be of no use to talk of God’s law, or Church teaching in the likely case that they do not have regard for either. In this situation, experience has taught me (having been inspired by Trent Horn of Catholic Answers) to guide a discussion of the matter away from abortion per se as in: “I am not focused on outlawing abortion.  Rather I am lobbying for returning the right-to-life to the unborn who had this right stripped from them.”

This keeps the discussion secular which keeps the other from immediately dismissing you as trying to” impose your religion” on others. It also moves the discussion to the central question: what is the unborn? As Trent puts it: “If pro-choice people are right and an abortion is harmless surgery, then restrictions on abortion would hurt women and make them second-class citizens. If pro-life people are right and abortion kills a valuable human being, then keeping abortion legal would be the continuation of a tremendous evil that has taken tens of millions of innocent lives.” [Trent Horn, “20 Answers Abortion.”]

In Christ, Ken.

The Trinity (18)

To conclude this series on the Trinity, the Father possesses the whole nature of God as His Own, the Son possesses the whole nature of God as His Own, the Holy Spirit possesses the whole nature of God as His Own. And since the nature of any being decides what the being is, each person is God, wholly and therefore equally with the others. Further, the nature decides what the person can do: therefore, each of the three persons who thus totally possess the Divine Nature can do all the things that go with being God.

CCC 2205 states:

The Christian family is a communion of persons, a sign and image of the communion of the Father and the Son in the Holy Spirit.

When we think of a family, we can see how a father, mother, and child can be distinct persons and yet possess the same nature (human), just as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three distinct persons who each possess the same nature (divine). The weakness, of course, is that in God each person possesses the one infinite and immutable divine nature, and is therefore, one being. Our analogous family consists of three beings. Again, no analogy is perfect. But in the end, if we combine our two analogies, we can at least see both how there can be three relationally distinct realities subsisting within one being in the anthropological analogy, and how there can be three relationally distinct persons who share the same nature in the analogy of the family.

In Christ, Ken.

The Trinity (17)

From last time - By our nature, then, we are what we are. It follows that by our nature we do what we do: for every being acts according to what it is; according to its nature. 

Applying this to ourselves we come upon another distinction between person and nature. We find that there are many things, countless things, we can do. We can laugh and cry and walk and talk and sleep and think and love. All these and other things we can do because as human beings we have a nature that makes them possible. 

A snake could do only one of them—sleep. A stone could do none of them. Nature, then, is to be seen not only as what we are, but as the source of what we do. But although my nature is the source of all my actions, although my nature decides what kind of operations are possible for me, it is not my nature that does them: I do them, I—the person. 

The person is that which does the actions, the nature is that from which the actions are drawn; It is our nature to do certain things, but we do them. we operate according to our nature.

In Christ, Ken.

The Trinity (16)

To the question “Who are you?” each of the three persons of the Trinity would give His own answer, Father or Son or Holy Spirit. But to the question “What are you?” each can only respond, “God,” because each totally possesses the one same divine nature, and nature decides what a being is. Because each possesses the divine nature, each can do all that goes with being God.

It is necessary to be accurate upon two points here. 

First, the three Persons do not share the divine Nature; it is utterly simple and cannot be divided up; it can be possessed only in its totality. 

Second, the three Persons are distinct, but not separate. They are distinct, because each is Himself; but they cannot be separated, for each is what He is solely by possessing the one same nature; apart from that one nature, no one of the persons could exist at all.

Nature answers the question—what we are; Person answers the question—who we are. Every being has a nature; of every being we may properly ask, What is it? But not every being is a person: only rational beings are persons. We could not properly ask of a stone or a potato or an oyster, Who is it?By our nature, then, we are what we are. It follows that by our nature we do what we do: for every being acts according to what it is; according to its nature. 

In Christ, Ken.

The Trinity (15)

Note that we must not say three separate persons, but three distinct persons, because although they are distinct, that is to say, no one of them is either of the others, yet they cannot be separated, for each is what He is by the total possession of the one same nature. Having talked about spirit and person, let’s turn our attention to “nature.”

My nature decides what I can do. I can raise my hand, for instance, because that action goes with human nature; I can eat, laugh, sleep, think, because each of these actions goes with human nature. I cannot lay an egg, because that goes with bird nature; if I bite a man, I do not poison him, because that goes with snake nature; I cannot live underwater, because that goes with fish nature. 

But though it is my nature which decides what actions are possible to me, I do them, I the person; nature is the source of our operations, person does them. Applying this bit of insight to God, we can say that there is but one divine Nature, one answer to the question “What is God?”, one source of the divine operations that yields what God can do (everything). But there are three persons who totally possess that one nature. 

In Christ, Ken.

The Trinity (14)

Less explicit regarding the Trinity, yet richer with insight, is this: if God is love as John the Evangelist tells us (1 John 4:8, 16) and love involves fully giving oneself to the beloved, then there had to have been someone to receive his love. Otherwise, God’s love would be imperfect, because it would not be willing the good of another person. Furthermore, if God existed as love for all eternity, the beloved must have existed for all eternity.

Then, at the very end of St. Matthew’s Gospel, Jesus’ final words reference a third person - still within the oneness: ”Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” Note that Jesus does not say “in the names of...” Three persons, but with one name, and therefore one being. 

Just as the love of husband and wife creates a new person, the eternal love shared between the Father and Son is itself an eternal person—the Holy Spirit. It is only through the doctrine of the Blessed Trinity all these insights about God fall miraculously into place.

In Christ, Ken.

The Trinity (13)

Other implicit references to the Trinity in the Old Testament include Genesis 1:26, which reads, "Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness." Since God was alone at the time of creation (Isa. 44:24, Neh. 9:6) with no other gods, this expression of plurality must refer to God himself. At the Tower of Babel God says, "Let us go down," yet no one else comes down with him (Genesis 11:7).

Though Jesus does not water-down the strict monotheism—He directly quotes the Old Testament saying, “Hear, O Israel, the Lord thy God is one God.”  - however, he is far more explicit than these Old Testament references to God being a plurality.  

Matthew (11.27) and Luke (10.22) give us this statement: “No one knows the Son but the Father; and no one knows the Father but the Son . . .”: here are two persons put on one same level.  “I and the Father are one” (John 10.30): they are two persons, yet one. And when Philip the Apostle says (John 14.8), “Let us see the Father,” Our Lord answered: “Whoever has seen me has seen the Father.” Similarly, Our Lord says that He will answer our prayer (John 14.14) and that His Father will (John 16.23); that He will send the Holy Spirit (John 16.7) and that His Father will (John 14.16). Jesus is clearly conveying that God is at least two persons in one God: Father and Son.

In Christ, Ken.

The Trinity (12)

While there is much more to be understood about “spirit,” we will move on to explore “person.” All persons are beings, but not all beings are persons. For example, you are one being and one person. But a dog is one being and zero persons. If there can be beings composed of zero persons, and beings composed of one person, why can’t there be a being composed of three persons?

It was Christ Our Lord who revealed that there is companionship within the one divine Nature—not a number of Gods, but three Persons within the one God. As we read the Gospels, we find Our Lord saying something new about God—there are hints and foreshadowing of it in the Old Testament, but certainly no decisive statement. For example, in Deuteronomy 6:4, one finds the Shema, the Jewish expression of monotheism:  "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD." 

It is of note that there are two words in Hebrew for “one.” Yachid means only one while echod means a compound unity or a united one—as in Genesis: "evening and morning… one day" or "husband and wife… one flesh." It is this second word, echod – meaning a unity of beings – that is the word used to speak of God.  So here we see the Old Testament hinting at what Jesus would later reveal as Trinity.

In Christ, Ken.

The Trinity (11)

To have no hold of one’s own upon existence is the most limiting limitation of all and points to the greatest difference between the finite spirit which is our soul and the infinite spirit which is God. Our existence is dependent.  God is existence, is being. We learn this about God when he appeared to Moses in the burning bush. When Moses asked Him His name, God said “I am who am.” This is God’s name for Himself, I AM. That is the primary truth about God. He is, He exists, He is being.

Bishop Robert Barron writes, “You and I are contingent (dependent) in our being in the measure that we eat and drink, breathe, and had parents; a tree is contingent inasmuch as its being is derived from seed, soil, water, etc.; the solar system is contingent because it depends upon gravity and events in the galaxy.  To account for a contingent reality, by definition we have to appeal to an extrinsic cause. But if that cause is itself contingent, we have to proceed further. This process of appealing to contingent causes in order to explain a contingent effect cannot go on indefinitely, for then the effect is never adequately explained. Hence, we must finally come to some reality that is not contingent on anything else, some ground of being whose very nature is to-be. This is precisely what Catholic theology means by “God.””

In Christ, Ken.

The Trinity (10)

God is a spirit. As a first step towards forming a modestly better idea of Him, imagine your body away and think of your soul existing and functioning bodiless; without parts, not occupying space, immortal, knowing, loving, deciding, acting. All these things are true of God. But our soul is not God’s equal, it is only His image. For God is infinite: we are not. God is without limit or boundary or end. Whatever perfection there is, God has it totally.

“Can God make a weight so heavy that He cannot lift it?” asks the unbeliever; thinking he has us cornered. If we say “yes,” then God cannot lift it; if we say “no” then God cannot make it. Our reply is that God can indeed do all things, but a self-contradiction is not a thing. God cannot make a four-sided triangle, because the terms contradict each other: a four-sided triangle is meaningless; it is not a thing at all, it is nothing. A weight that an almighty Being cannot lift is as much a contradiction in terms as a four-sided triangle. It too is nothing. And (to give an old text a new emphasis) nothing is impossible to God.

In Christ, Ken.

The Trinity (9)

The most I – or anyone - can do is to offer a few observations. (From last time)

Think of anything that occupies space, and it must have parts, there must be components which are not the whole of it—the top is not the bottom, the inside is not the outside. If it occupies space at all, be it ever so microscopic, or so infinitesimally submicroscopic, there must be some “spread.” Space is what matter spreads its parts in. But a being with no parts has no spread; space and it have nothing whatever in common; it is space-less; it is superior to the need for space. The trouble is that we find it hard to think of a thing existing if it is not in space.

 

We all know that God is not an old man with a beard (looking rather like Karl Marx, especially when the artist wanted to show God angry). We likely realize, too, that even the somewhat more complex picture of an old man with a long beard, a young man with a short beard, and a dove, bears no resemblance to the Blessed Trinity: it is merely an artist doing his or her best. But getting rid of the pictures is of value only if, in their place, we acquire a more accurate – though still imperfect – idea of God: otherwise we have merely an empty space where the pictures used to hang. 

In Christ, Ken.

The Trinity (8)

A spirit differs from a material thing in that it has no parts. A part is any element or component in a being which is not the whole of it, as my chest is a part of my body, or an electron a part of an atom.

A spirit has no parts. 

There is no component part in it which is not the whole of it. There is no division of parts as there is in matter.  Our body has parts, each with its own specialized function: lungs are to breathe with, eyes to see with, legs to walk with. And while our soul similarly is able to do a remarkable variety of things—knowing, loving, animating a body; no part of the soul does any specific function as with the body.  The whole of the soul is involved in each activity.

Concentrate on what follows from this - a being which has no parts does not occupy space. There is nothing I can say to make this truth any clearer: you merely go on looking at it over time, until suddenly you find yourself seeing it.  The most I – or anyone - can do is to offer a few observations (next time).

In Christ, Ken.

The Trinity (7)

Every living body—vegetable, lower animal, human—has a life principle, a soul, which animates a given body.   However, unlike vegetables or animals, our soul is also uniquely a spirit. And just as ours is the only soul which is a spirit, so ours is the only spirit which is a soul. God is a spirit, but has no body; the angels are spirits, yet have no body. Only in man is spirit united with a body. 

Why is it reasonable to conclude that we are a union of body (which is visible) and spirit (which is not visible)? Our ideas are not material; they have no shape, no size, no color, no weight, no space. And yet it is not accurate to say an idea is nothing.  Ideas produce thought, and thought is one of, if not the, most powerful thing in the world. Ideas have no resemblance whatsoever to our body. They must derive from something similar in nature and that something is what we call spirit. Ideas resemble their source, that is, our spirit. 

In Christ, Ken.

The Trinity (6)

To get a better grip on the four truths regarding the Trinity, we need a good understanding of: spirit, person, and nature. 

Start with spirit. In theology, spirit is not only a keyword, it is the keyword. Jesus advised the Samaritan woman, “God is a spirit.” Without a good understanding of spirit, we won’t know what Jesus said about God.  So, it’s critical to know what spirit is; and not just a definition. We must take hold of the idea, make it our own, become comfortable with it.  And to help us be comfortable with it, let’s start with the familiar – ourselves.

Spirit is the element in us by which we know and love, and by which we make decisions. The mind with which you are processing this information is a spirit. Our body knows nothing; it loves nothing. Bodily pleasures are not enjoyed by the body; it reacts to them physically: heightened pulse, for instance, or acid stomach; but it is the knowing mind that enjoys the reactions or dislikes them.  Two people riding a roller coaster will experience physically the same thing, yet one enjoys it and the other does not.  The difference arises from the mind – one mind enjoys the “feeling” the body has, the other mind does not.

In Christ, Ken.

The Trinity (5)

The Catechism summarizes the Trinity in this way: We do not confess three Gods but one God in three persons… The divine persons do not share the one divinity among themselves but each of them is God whole and entire. (CCC 253).

The primary scriptural data from which the Church derives the doctrine of the Trinity are:

a. that there is only one God (Deuteronomy 6:4); 

b. that the Father is God (John 5:18);

c. that the Son is God (John 8:58); and 

d. that the Holy Spirit is God (Matthew 28:19).

In its simplest outline, the doctrine of the Trinity contains four truths: 

1.    In the one divine Nature, there are three Persons, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. 

2.    No one of the Persons is either of the others, each is wholly Himself. 

3.    The Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Spirit is God.

4.    They are not three Gods but one God.

In Christ, Ken.

Trinity (4)

Perhaps the most common difficulty with the Trinity is that the numbers just don’t seem to add up. Certainly, there are those who are content to resolve the difficulty by waving a white flag and surrendering with, "God is a mystery.” Yet while the notion of one God who is three Persons is profoundly mysterious, believing in mystery does not mean believing in something that is unreasonable or illogical. To assert that something is a mystery is to say we don’t have the capacity to ever know it completely. A mystery isn’t something we can’t know anything about; rather it is something we can’t know everything about.  Moreover, God would not mock us by revealing something about Himself from which we could not derive more insights.

In Christ, Ken.

Trinity (3)

God did not have to reveal to us his Trinitarian nature. It’s reasonable to conclude we could be saved without knowing it. However, it is a profound sign of love to want to be known; the revelation of the Trinity is the greatest evidence of God’s love for us apart from Calvary. And since He clearly wants to be known by us, we should respond and make an effort to know Him as he has revealed himself. To understand the doctrine of the Trinity better - to get more light on it as wells as from it - is to know God better.

And while the dogma of the Trinity surpasses human reason, hopefully this series of articles will demonstrate that is does not contradict human reason.

In Christ, Ken.

Trinity (2)

The First Vatican Council taught that while mankind can, by reason alone, come to know God exists, we cannot reason to the conclusion that God is a Trinity of three persons. The doctrine of the Trinity is God’s profoundest secret. If God had not revealed this truth to us, we would still be ignorant of it. Even when He has told us, we may feel that it is altogether beyond us. The tendency is to say “Uhm, OK.” and go on to think about other things. 

But the doctrine of the Trinity gives us significant insights into the innermost life of God and to not think about the Trinity at all seems, well… irresponsible.

In Christ, Ken.