Personal Note: My 2024 Presidential Vote

So when I wrote a post in memory of my old friend and co-blogger of political topics, Jeanette Lucey, I mentioned I set up this blog, Ashes From Burnt Roses, to especially write on topics that were not political.  I found the immersion into politics to be caustic to my soul, and so I set up this blog as a sort of virtual monastery to get away from political issues.  I have been pretty much true to that for the almost the twelve years this blog has been in existence.  In honor of Jeanette, though, I said I would violate that rule for just once and provide my intentions for the 2024 presidential election.

 

First off, I want to declare up front in no way will I be voting for Kamala Harris.  Democrats have become all Liberals, and extreme Liberals at that.  There are very few moderate Democrats left.  Current Democrats are on the wrong side of all the social issues: abortion, transgenderism, gay marriage, unrestricted legal or illegal immigration, euthanasia, legalized drugs, soft on crime, and so on.  They don’t have an ounce of common sense.  There isn’t a domestic issue they support that is not repulsive to me.  They have all become mindless Liberals, and Kamala Harris is the most mindless Liberal of them all.  She can’t even articulate a complete and knowledgeable opinion.  All she articulates are clichés and banal platitudes.  There is nothing there in that skull of hers.  So no, I am not voting for Harris, and I hope she loses miserably.

 

But that does not mean I am voting for Donald Trump.  I reluctantly voted for Donald Trump twice, in 2016 and 2020.  His views overlap with probably 75% of mine.  While he is soft on some of the moral issues (he supports gay marriage) he is very good on the immigration issues and on crime.  He was surprisingly pro-life in his previous two runs, but he has backtracked substantially on that now.  (For the record, I am not holding that against him.  He was instrumental in overturning Roe v. Wade, and some stepping back is understandable given where the country is on abortion.)  On the country’s economics he’s got good and bad.  He certainly didn’t cut the budget when he was president, and his heart is for protectionism.  I support free trade; in the long run protectionism reduces the standard of living.  But he did cut taxes, reduce regulations, and supported American energy production.  On foreign policy he does support a strong military and negotiated some interesting alliances and kept the US from entering new conflicts.  However, he is a constant critic of NATO, our key military alliance, who is doing all it can to counter an aggressive Russia.  Russia is trying to reconstitute its Soviet empire (Crimea, Georgia, and Ukraine more than once), and absolutely Ukraine requires our support.  Putin needs to be stopped, and frankly Trump is vague if not opposed.  So all in all, Trump is in line with a good deal of my issues, and given it’s a choice between Trump and Harris you would suspect a definite vote for Trump.

 

But I refuse to vote for Donald Trump a third time.  Donald Trump has (1) I think has psychological problems, (2) is a disgusting example of human character, and (3) has proven to have placed his egocentric desires above the good of the country.  Though he may have supported Christian issues—there is no evidence that in his non-political life he believed in any of it—the man does not have a Christian bone in his body.  He has been a negative force to the culture.

 

First of all, let’s see what JD Vance, his current Vice Presidential pick, once said of him.  From a CNN article, but you can find these quotes in most major news outlets.  

 

“I go back and forth between thinking Trump is a cynical asshole like Nixon who wouldn’t be that bad (and might even prove useful) or that he’s America’s Hitler,” Vance wrote in a message to a friend in 2016. “How’s that for discouraging?”

In 2016 and 2017, Vance, then best-known for penning the best-selling book “Hillbilly Elegy” said Trump was “cultural heroin” and “just another opioid” for Middle America. He told CNN ahead of the 2016 election that he was “definitely not” voting for Trump and he also contemplated voting for Hillary Clinton (he ultimately said he planned to vote for independent candidate Evan McMullin.)” 

Hmm, Vance voted third party in 2016—keep that in mind.  Vance obviously has “evolved” on Trump by now accepting the VP offer.  I haven’t evolved.  Yes, Donald Trump is “cultural heroin.”  He has lowered the debate to vulgarism.  He has a crass persona that has degraded the public tone of civil discourse and civil society.  From Gerald Ford to Ronald Reagan to the Bushes to most of their Senatorial candidates, the Republican Party exuded decency.  I was proud to belong to the honorable Party. It astonishes me how conservatives have ignored the crass elements of Trump’s public persona.  What is it they ignore?

 

Well they ignore the disgraceful way he belittles people, ignore the flaunting of his wealth, the imposing if his ego upon people, the expression of his exorbitant pride, the infidelities across his life with all three wives, including within the first year of marrying Melania, the infidelities with prostitutes and porn stars, including a borderline assault that we know of, and ignore his gutter talk. And how about that phrase he used on forcing himself on women: “Grab them by the …”  I won’t actually spell it out because it has no place on this blog.  But that conversation was actually captured, and here is the full context.  From The Independent, who printed the entire transcript: 

As he travelled on a bus with Billy Bush of Access Hollywood to meet Days of our Lives actress Arianna Zucker, Mr Trump bragged about his attempts to have sexual intercourse with a married woman who rejected his advances.

He insisted he had the right to do "whatever he wanted" with women, as he was a "star".

The nominee, who was 59 years old at the time, had just married his third wife, Melania Trump.

 

Notice he had just married Melania.  If you check the dates of his paid ”intercourse” with porn star Stormy Daniels, you will find it also happened within a year of marrying Melania, probably around the time she was pregnant with her son Baron.  Some husband!  I guess his newlywed passion for his young bride wasn’t so loving.  Continuing from The Independent:

 

 Trump: I moved on her [Arianna Zucker] and I failed. I’ll admit it. I did try and f*** her. She was married.

Unknown: That’s huge news.

Trump. No, no, Nancy. This was— And I moved on her very heavily in fact. I took her out furniture shopping. She wanted to get some furniture. I said I’ll show you where they have some nice furniture. I took her out furniture. I moved on her like a bitch, but I couldn’t get there, and she was married.

Then all of a sudden I see her, she’s now got the big, phony tits and everything. She’s totally changed her look.

[The men spot Arianne Zucker waiting for them outside the bus]

Bush: Sheesh, your girl’s hot as shit. In the purple.

Trump: Whoa! Yes! Whoa!

Unknown: Yes! The Donald has scored. Whoa, my man!

Trump: Look at you. You are a p****.

[crosstalk as the bus doors open and close - Trump is still on the bus]

Trump: Maybe it’s a different one.

Bush: It better not be the publicist. No, it’s her. It’s —

Trump: Yeah, that’s her. With the gold. I better use some Tic Tacs just in case I start kissing her. You know I’m automatically attracted to beautiful - I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait.

And when you’re a star they let you do it. You can do anything.

Bush: Whatever you want.

Trump: Grab them by the p****. You can do anything.

So if any of you people who think that the E. Jean Carrol abuse lawsuit was all made up for political reasons, you either don’t know the history of this man or you don’t care.  PBS has provided a long list of all the sexual allegations against Trump, here.  So that banter on Access Hollywood has been corroborated with a pattern of sexual affairs and abuse.  Frankly the man is a pig, a degenerate.  And I’ll say it again, Donald Trump doesn’t have a Christian bone in his body.

 

And if you don’t think he has a screw loose, just ask the people who worked for him.  It is astonishing how many of the very people he put in his administration quit and refuse to endorse him.  Here’s a few: Attorney General Bill Barr, Secretary of Defense James Mattis, Secretary of Defense, Mark Esper, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Gen. Mark Milley, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley, National Security Adviser HR McMaster, National Security Adviser John Bolton, Chief of Staff John Kelly, Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney, Communications Director Anthony Scaramucci, Communications Director Stephanie Grisham, Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos, Secretary of Transportation Elaine Chao, and last of all Vice President Mike Pence.  There are plenty more. 

 

Most of these are good conservatives.  These are the very people he hired and worked for him.    Look up what they had to say about him.  It’s not pretty.  The man is ignorant, subject to conspiracy theories, and possibly unstable.  Bill Barr said Trump is “a consummate narcissist.” Does anyone doubt the man is a narcissist? 

 

Which leads to the final point.  I ignored most this and still voted for him twice. I cannot do it a third time because worst of all after the last election instead of accepting defeat with humility like a good Christian, he brought the country to a constitutional crises strictly because for his self-gain and ego. Sure the election was close, and legal challenges to the really close states were warranted.  But every single court he brought a challenge ultimately rejected his claims.  His record is 0 for 62.  Then he goes off on a riff that the legal system was corrupt.  This is what he wants people to believe: that the Democrats cheated and the legal system was corrupt, 62 times.  Trump brought 62 lawsuits and he lost every one.  Are you telling me that 62 courts in the country were corrupt?  He lost and could not accept it. 

 

There was a point where you had to give up.  But he pursued it against the good of the country.  He tried to force—he seems to like to force people to do lots of things—VP Mike Pence to illegally overturn the validation of the election.  Nobly Mike Pence refused.  Pence said there was a time to give up, but Donald Trump’s ego refused.  Yes, there is something twisted in his brain.  He’s like a spoiled child that cannot accept defeat, cannot lose like a decent man.  This led to what is now commonly referred to as January 6.  He may not have instigated the break in of the Capital, but he was going to use the power of the protestors to force Pence and Congress into illegally overturning the election.  This was truly a constitutional crises, all for his own ego.

 

He has no concept of sacrificial Christianity. Even if he was right about the election irregularities, he needed to bring the country together, not bring it to a constitutional crises.  If he had accepted defeat, whether it was right or wrong, with Christian humility, I would be voting for him in November. He doesn’t understand humility.  He is the very opposite of St. Francis of Assisi. Putting one’s ego ahead of the country is a lack of patriotism.  Putting one’s ego ahead of the country is a lack of Christian values.  Putting one’s ego ahead of the country makes you unfit for office.  By bringing the country to a constitutional crises, he has proven to be unfit for office.  Even before the crises, Robert P. George, the conservative Catholic political philosopher, has said from 2016 on that Donald Trump is unfit for office.  He has not changed his mind and he is not wrong.

 

So I’ve heard the objections.  “You have a moral obligation to vote.”  Who said I’m not voting?  I’ve decided to put in a protest vote, and I will vote for Peter Sonski of the American Solidarity Party.  The American Solidarity Party is a Christian values party.  Its platform agrees with all my social issues, though I probably disagree with a good deal of their economic policies. But they are a solid choice which clears my conscience of voting for a degenerate on the right and an anti Christian on the left.  You can see if the Sonski ticket is on the ballot in your state or whether he is a registered write-in here.  

 

Another argument I get thrown at me is that a vote for a third party is a vote for Kamala.  Don’t blame me.  I’m following my conscience, and frankly a Trump loss would put the Republican Party back on track.  Blame the Republican Party for nominating a man unfit for office.

 

Another argument I get is that a third party vote is a wasted vote.  No it’s not.  A protest vote counts in the assessment of the election.  It factors into how future policy is going to be negotiated, how other politicians run on the issues in the future, how much support the winner actually gets from Congress, and how future lobbying groups will get heard.  A strong Christian protest vote will have an impact.  Your one vote for either of the main stream candidates will be dissolved into about 80 million other votes.  My one protest vote will have more meaning in the one million or so protest votes. 

 

Besides, I’ve learned the dust never settles in politics.  As soon as an election is over, the political fights continue.  The system has checks and balances, and the winner doesn’t get much of what he wants and the loser doesn’t lose much of what he has.  Fear and manipulation is what brings on these illusions.

 

Finally don’t be afraid to lose.  The major parties manipulate you into voting for them because they get you to believe the other party will destroy the country.  Every election they tell you—and people always seem to believe it—that this election if decided wrongly will bring the end of the country as we know it or even bring the end of times.  Well, I’ve been going through this for forty years and it has never been the end.  You’re being manipulated.  The new term for this is gas lighting.  Sometimes you have to lose a battle to win a war.  There is no dishonor to losing for the right reasons.  In fact it’s very honorable.  Jesus Christ lost the only election He was ever in.  The crowd chose Barabbas.  I believe God will bring a greater good whichever of the two horrible outcomes pan out.  That is faith.

Sunday Meditation: What Must I Do To Inherit Eternal Life?

Last week as Jesus was on a journey, He was stopped and asked a question by the Pharisees.  This week, again continuing His journey he is asked a question, this time by a rich, young man.  Last week the question was set as a trap.  This week the question is sincere, and I think is the most important question we could ever ask.  Now this event is told in all three synoptic Gospels, and what is interesting is that all three describe the man subtly different.  Mark identifies him as rich, Matthew as young, and Luke as a ruler.  So we combine all three and get the “rich, young ruler,” but only in the Gospel of Mark are we told that Jesus looked at him with love.

 

As Jesus was setting out on a journey, a man ran up,

knelt down before him, and asked him,

"Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?"

Jesus answered him, "Why do you call me good?

No one is good but God alone.

You know the commandments: You shall not kill;

you shall not commit adultery;

you shall not steal;

you shall not bear false witness;

you shall not defraud;

honor your father and your mother."

He replied and said to him,

"Teacher, all of these I have observed from my youth."

Jesus, looking at him, loved him and said to him,

"You are lacking in one thing.

Go, sell what you have, and give to the poor

and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me."

At that statement his face fell,

and he went away sad, for he had many possessions.

 

Jesus looked around and said to his disciples,

"How hard it is for those who have wealth

to enter the kingdom of God!"

The disciples were amazed at his words.

So Jesus again said to them in reply,

"Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God!

It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle

than for one who is rich to enter the kingdom of God."

They were exceedingly astonished and said among themselves,

"Then who can be saved?"

Jesus looked at them and said,

"For human beings it is impossible, but not for God.

All things are possible for God."

Peter began to say to him,

"We have given up everything and followed you."

Jesus said, "Amen, I say to you,

there is no one who has given up house or brothers or sisters

or mother or father or children or lands

for my sake and for the sake of the gospel

who will not receive a hundred times more now in this present age: houses and brothers and sisters

and mothers and children and lands,

with persecutions, and eternal life in the age to come."

~Mk 10:17-30

 

First to explain the Biblical context of the passage, let’s let Dr. Brant Pitre explain it.

And so Jesus gives us the “eleventh commandment.”  If this is a commandment, then the implications of are great.  I’m going to let Bishop James Golka from the Diocese of Colorado Springs explain the moral implications of the passage.

 

We are never told what happens to the rich, young man.  I would like to think that the penetrating love of Christ worked in the man’s soul, and, though he may have missed the opportunity to follow Christ that day, he subsequently became a Christian and worked to bring about the Kingdom of God.

 

Sunday Meditation: “Jesus, looking at him, loved him and said to him, "You are lacking in one thing.  Go, sell what you have, and give to the poor and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me."

John Michael Talbot’s “Walk And Follow Jesus” is most appropriate for today.

 

 

Faith Filled Friday: Pope Pius X’s Prayer to Saint Joseph

In the devotional magazine Magnificat, Anthony Esolen has a monthly feature called Poetry of Praise where each month he analyzes a different prayer.  In the September 2024 issue he analyzed the prayer to St. Joseph composed by Pope Pius X.  Esolen selected this prayer in honor of Labor Day which occurs early in that month.  I’m not going to quote any of Esolen’s analysis—and it’s quite good and interesting—but I was so struck with the prayer that I wanted to present it to you. 

 

 O Glorious Saint Joseph, model of all those who are devoted to labor, obtain for me the grace to work in a spirit of penance for the expiation of my many sins; to work conscientiously, putting the call of duty above my natural inclinations; to work with thankfulness and joy, considering it an honor to employ and develop by means of labor the gifts received from God; to work with order, peace, moderation and patience, never shrinking from weariness and trials; to work above all with purity of intention and detachment from self, keeping unceasingly before my eyes death and the account that I must give of time lost, talents unused, good omitted, and vain complacency in success, so fatal to the work of God.

 

All for Jesus, all through Mary, all after thy example, O Patriarch, Saint Joseph. Such shall be my watch-word in life and in death. Amen.

 

It is also interesting the prayer calls to work with “order.”  When I was in college I had a part time job working in a supermarket in the produce department.  It was a blessing not only for the money I earned but because there were times I got to work with my Uncle Val, may he rest in peace, who also worked there.  He was a good mentor, and he taught me well.  I remember some of his principles.  One was to always to be organized.  Work like a gentleman he used to say.  This prayer captured my Uncle Val perfectly.  Thinking back, it felt like I was a child working under the tutelage of St. Joseph.  I built quite a relationship with my Uncle Val.  He became my favorite uncle.  The power of working together builds such bonds.  You might even call it a religious bond.  Uncle Valentino, I miss him so. 

I particular like the line in the prayer “to work above all with purity of intention and detachment from self.”  Besides applying that to the labor by which I earn my living, that also applies to the labor of this blog, which is sort of labor of love.  What I write here perhaps is putting into labor the “gifts received from God.”  May it be worthy of God’s trust. 

If you want it to hear prayer read, you can listen to it on this clip. 

 

Many people pray this prayer before starting work.  What a wonderful idea.

 

Sunday Meditation: The Sacrament of Marriage

As Jesus enters Judea, he is immediately challenged by the Pharisees.  As we will see, it is not just a challenge but a trap.  What is it they are trapping him with?  It is important to notice, that Jesus is not a literal interpreter of scripture.  The Torah had an incorrect balance of the nature of man and woman, and thereby distorted the understanding of humanity and of marriage. 

 

The Pharisees approached Jesus and asked,

"Is it lawful for a husband to divorce his wife?"

They were testing him.

He said to them in reply, "What did Moses command you?"

They replied,

"Moses permitted a husband to write a bill of divorce

and dismiss her."

But Jesus told them,

"Because of the hardness of your hearts

he wrote you this commandment.

But from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female. For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother

and be joined to his wife,

and the two shall become one flesh.

So they are no longer two but one flesh.

Therefore what God has joined together,

no human being must separate."

In the house the disciples again questioned Jesus about this.

He said to them,

"Whoever divorces his wife and marries another

commits adultery against her;

and if she divorces her husband and marries another,

she commits adultery."

 

And people were bringing children to him that he might touch them, but the disciples rebuked them.

When Jesus saw this he became indignant and said to them,

"Let the children come to me;

do not prevent them, for the kingdom of God belongs to

such as these.

Amen, I say to you,

whoever does not accept the kingdom of God like a child

will not enter it."

Then he embraced them and blessed them,

placing his hands on them.

~Mk 10:2-16

 

The absolute best and fullest of the explanations on this passage is from Fr. Geoffrey Plant again.  There are so many enlightening thoughts in this exegesis.

 

Fr. Geoffrey identifies the trap of the Pharisees to be of the beheading of John the Baptist.  It is over the divine rules of marriage and not rules created by human hardness of heart that leads to the Baptist’s execution.  Marriage we see is a sacrament, not a contract.

Jesus—perhaps the first truly great feminist in the proper sense of the word—elevates women here by making it a sin to divorce.  By allowing men to divorce their wives, the natural balance of man and woman are distorted.  Jesus ennobles women by returning her to man’s complement, not man’s servant.  Genesis is restored to proper order.

But what about the four verses at the end which deal with Jesus welcoming children?  Most homilies I bet are not going to touch on this.  It seems like it was tagged on at the end.  By Jesus restoring men and women to their proper order, it establishes the family as the building block of society.  It is only in this context that children can be raised to proper flourishing.  Proper order in marriage leads to those that are disposed to enter the kingdom of heaven. 

 

Sunday Meditation: “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother

and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.”

 

Our hymn today will be the beautiful “Ode to the Bride,” by John Michael Talbot

 

 

Matthew Monday: Fifteenth Birthday

At the beginning of September, Matthew celebrated his fifteenth birthday.  It was just a few days before he started school, his sophomore year at Monsignor Farrell High School.  So his birthday caps off the end of summer and anticipates the new school year.  We didn’t do anything special for his birthday except celebrate it at home with cake.  Some pictures, the cake and Matthew blowing out the candles

Man, do I hate that hair.  What kind of a hairstyle is this that is so prevalent?  I don’t even know what it’s called.  And yes that is meant to be that way; it is not from accident.  It’s like a shaggy rodent on top of his head that has gone feral.  If he continues this into adulthood, he’s going eventually become Cousin Itt.  Do you remember Cousin Itt from the TV series, The Addams Family?  

Here’s what Matthew is going to look like in ten years.

 

 

😛

But the day before starting school, he finally got a haircut!  He wouldn’t let me take a picture, so I chased him down and just as he was closing the bathroom door in my face, I snapped it! 

 

Now it looks like he was posing for the picture, but he was swinging that door closed…lol.  The hair is still shaggy but at least it’s shorter. 

Oh Matthew.  Love you my son. 

 

 

Sunday Meditation: Cutting Sin from Your Life

As they continue their journey with Jesus, the disciples continue to show how obtuse they are.  Someone not of their group is driving out demons, and they want to stop him.  This leads Jesus into a little sermon, first on doing the good, then on causing sin, and then on what to do if one sins repeatedly. 

 

At that time, John said to Jesus,

"Teacher, we saw someone driving out demons in your name,

and we tried to prevent him because he does not follow us."

Jesus replied, "Do not prevent him.

There is no one who performs a mighty deed in my name

who can at the same time speak ill of me.

For whoever is not against us is for us.

Anyone who gives you a cup of water to drink

because you belong to Christ,

amen, I say to you, will surely not lose his reward.

 

"Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him if a great millstone

were put around his neck

and he were thrown into the sea.

If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off.

It is better for you to enter into life maimed

than with two hands to go into Gehenna,

into the unquenchable fire.

And if your foot causes you to sin, cut if off.

It is better for you to enter into life crippled

than with two feet to be thrown into Gehenna.

And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out.

Better for you to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye

than with two eyes to be thrown into Gehenna,

where 'their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched.'"

~Mk 9:38-43, 45, 47-48

 

Jeff Cavins identifies just how important cutting sin is from your life.

As I look at Jesus’s sermon, there doesn’t seem to be a logical transition from not stopping outsiders from healing to radically cutting sin from one’s life.  For some reason the lectionary stops on verse 48, but perhaps verses 49 and 50 actually pulls all three elements of his sermon together: “Everyone will be salted with fire.  Salt is good, but if salt becomes insipid, with what will you restore its flavor? Keep salt in yourselves and you will have peace with one another.” (Mk 9:49-50)  By cutting out sin, one is purified as being salted, and those that are salted are those that can go and drive out demons.  The final outcome of cutting out sin is peace! 

 

Sunday Meditation: “If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off.”

 

Our hymn today will be “Go in Peace,” by John Michael Talbot

 

He just has beautiful song after beautiful song.

Mere Christianity by C. S. Lewis, Post #4

This is the fourth of a series of posts on Mere Christianity by C. S. Lewis.

You can find Post #1 here.    

Post #2 here.  

Post #3 here.  

 

Book 3: Christian Behavior

Summary for Chapters 1 thru 6:

 

Chapter 1:  The Three parts of Morality

Morality, consists of three elements: relations between man and man: things inside each man: and relations between man and the power that made him.  All three are critical to a man’s immortal fate.

Chapter 2: The ‘Cardinal Virtues’

Being moral rests on exercising seven interior virtues, and the four which trace back to Classical culture are Prudence, Temperance, Justice, and Fortitude.  Virtue is a building up of interior strength to perform them as a natural consequence of action.

Chapter 3: Social Morality

Christian social morality, that is the morality between man and man, is not any different than the social morality of any other culture.  It is the application of the Golden Rule. 

Chapter 4: Morality and Psychoanalysis

Moral choices involve the psychological disposition of the person, and that can vary from person to person and that can vary from person to person based on experience and psychological makeup. 

Chapter 5: Sexual Morality

The Christian rule of sexual morality is, “Either marriage, with complete faithfulness to your partner, or else total abstinence.” This is contrary to our instincts, but it is our instincts that have gone wrong, not the rule.

Chapter 6: Christian Marriage

The Christian idea of marriage is based on Christ’s words that a man and wife are to be regarded as a single organism—for that is what the words “one flesh” would be in modern English. And the Christians believe that when He said this He was not expressing a sentiment but stating a fact.

###

My Comment:

I'm amazed at how succinctly and simply Lewis is able to explain morality and its relationship to religion in the opening chapter of Book 3. Here from the closing paragraph of chapter 1:

 

It seems, then, that if we are to think about morality, we must think of all three departments: relations between man and man: things inside each man: and relations between man and the power that made him. We can all co-operate in the first one. Disagreements begin with the second and become serious with the third. It is in dealing with the third that the main differences between Christian and non-Christian morality come out. For the rest of this book I am going to assume the Christian point of view, and look at the whole picture as it will be if Christianity is true.

Morality breaks down into three relationships: man's relationship with man, man's relationship with himself, and man's relationship with God. That is so easy to remember.

My Comment:

The chapter on the Cardinal virtues made an interesting point that I think is forgotten. The goal of the Christian life is to be transformed so that the virtues become instilled and part of one's character. The guy who happens to make a good shot in tennis as opposed to the real tennis player who makes all shots from a developed skill. Here is how Lewis ends Chapter 2:

 

This distinction is important for the following reason. If we thought only of the particular actions we might encourage three wrong ideas.

 

(1) We might think that, provided you did the right thing, it did not matter how or why you did it—whether you did it willingly or unwillingly, sulkily or cheerfully, through fear of public opinion or for its own sake. But the truth is that right actions done for the wrong reason do not help to build the internal quality or character called a “virtue,” and it is this quality or character that really matters.

 

(2) We might think that God wanted simply obedience to a set of rules: whereas He really wants people of a particular sort.

 

(3) We might think that the “virtue” were necessary only for this present life—that in the other world we could stop being just because there is nothing to quarrel about and stop being brave because there is no danger. Now it is quite true that there will probably be no occasion for just or courageous acts in the next world, but there will be every occasion for being the sort of people that we can become only as the result of doing such acts here.

 

The point is not that God will refuse you admission to His eternal world if you have not got certain qualities of character: the point is that if people have not got at least the beginnings of those qualities inside them, then no possible external conditions could make a “Heaven” for them—that is, could make them happy with the deep, strong, unshakable kind of happiness God intends for us.

 

Somehow we need to train in the virtues as a want to be tennis player trains in tennis.

Frances Comment:

I have always thought highly of Iris Murdoch’s definition of love. It is deeply Christian, when you meditate on it. She said, “Love is the supremely difficult realization that another person is real.’’

Casey Comment:

This section opens with an idea I like very much. That morality is the code for running the human machine.

 

I feel like so many people think of morality as unenforceable laws imposed by prudes. Rather, morality is simply an outline of how things work. (Laws ought to be for that space between, where the human machines find themselves in conflict.) If you are moral -ie if you go along with the way things work - you will receive the blessings, and if you go with the way things don't work, you'll receive the curses.

 

This is basically the entire Old Testament with the exception of Tobit. Which is what makes Tobit so interesting. He goes along completely with the way things work and receives the curses. Which is right in line with how we often experience the pattern. There's a great paradox there.

 

Using the tennis player, one can train perfectly and lose every match or get injured. Never train and you can avoid losing and injury but you will never gain the possibility of becoming a good tennis player nor the character of Job for having endured the struggle. Again, the anti-pattern paradoxically reinforces the pattern.

My Comment:

I liked his explanation of why we have sexual morality in chapter 5. It is an appetite that has gone wrong. It is unlike the other appetites. It is something gone wrong in human nature and here I think we can link it to the fall from Eden.

 

I also like how in chapter 5 he sums up sexual morality as not being at the core of Christian values. Here's his final paragraph in that chapter:

 

Finally, though I have had to speak at some length about sex, I want to make it as clear as I possibly can that the centre of Christian morality is not here. If anyone thinks that Christians regard unchastity as the supreme vice, he is quite wrong. The sins of the flesh are bad, but they are the least bad of all sins. All the worst pleasures are purely spiritual: the pleasure of putting other people in the wrong, of bossing and patronising and spoiling sport, and back-biting; the pleasures of power, of hatred. For there are two things inside me, competing with the human self which I must try to become. They are the Animal self, and the Diabolical self. The Diabolical self is the worse of the two.

I think he got this from Dante's Divine Comedy. I pointed this out when we read that a few years ago. Dante puts the sexual sins towards the beginning of hell, and the further down into hell the more serious the sins. What Lewis calls the Diabolical sins are at the very bottom of hell.

My Comment:

I also loved the chapter on Christian marriage, with one exception which I’ll get toward the end. I love his definition of Christian marriage.

 

The Christian idea of marriage is based on Christ’s words that a man and wife are to be regarded as a single organism—for that is what the words “one flesh” would be in modern English. And the Christians believe that when He said this He was not expressing a sentiment but stating a fact—just as one is stating a fact when one says that a lock and its key are one mechanism, or that a violin and a bow are one musical instrument. The inventor of the human machine was telling us that its two halves, the male and the female, were made to be combined together in pairs, not simply on the sexual level, but totally combined.

One organism is spot on! I love how Lewis discusses that the emotional feeling of love will not last and that true love is a “unity” formed by grace. Love is distinct from “being in love” and is ultimately a decision, not a feeling. Marriage involves love, not being in love. I love how Lewis brings out that love involves sacrifice and service for the spouse. I love how he brings out that being faithful involves justice as well as virtue and adherence to your oath before God. I sense that Lewis disapproves of divorce, but is a bit reticent so as to not offend Protestants that have rationalized it. Frankly I think this chapter should be a must read as marriage preparation.

 

Now where I think Lewis falls flat is in explaining why Biblically a man is head of the household. Of course he is on target that the man is head per scripture and per nature. But he justifies it by saying the “a woman is primarily fighting for her own children and husband against the rest of the world.” What? He goes on:

 

Naturally, almost, in a sense, rightly, their claims override, for her, all other claims. She is the special trustee of their interests. The function of the husband is to see that this natural preference of hers is not given its head. He has the last word in order to protect other people from the intense family patriotism of the wife. If anyone doubts this, let me ask a simple question. If your dog has bitten the child next door, or if your child has hurt the dog next door, which would you sooner have to deal with, the master of that house or the mistress? Or, if you are a married woman, let me ask you this question. Much as you admire your husband, would you not say that his chief failing is his tendency not to stick up for his rights and yours against the neighbours as vigorously as you would like? A bit of an Appeaser?

So because the woman is overprotective of her children she cannot be rational to reach an objective decision? And why wouldn’t the husband not have such an equally protective reaction toward his children? This is convoluted, especially of the child and the neighbor’s dog. This is the only place in the book so far that I have found muddled thinking.

 

So here’s my take on the head of the household and how to reach marital decisions. The husband is the head because it is natural for him to be. It is how God through nature has set it up. Now that does not mean that the man dictates over the wife, and it does not mean the wife must on all accounts submit to the husband. By all means if the husband is leading the family to ruin or sin, the wife should object. The way marital decisions should be handled is that the husband and wife should come to a consensus, an agreement that is satisfying to both, and through that consensus the natural leadership of the man will come through. A consensus requires both parties to be docile to the other’s needs. A consensus requires a solution that can fit both party’s vision. It may not come instantaneously, but with perseverance, compromise, and negotiation they will come to a solution. It just takes time. And the longer one is married, the faster these decisions come about because one just knows the other person better. It is not one lording it over the other, no matter which of the two has the stronger personality. Both must remember: docility to the other person’s needs. That’s my humble take on marital decision making.

Casey Replied to My Comment:

I disagree and I think you're really overreading. Lewis and the analogy are spot on. What you are discussing is the org structure or decision making structure or job descriptions. Who has authority over what. That's not what he's talking about. (And he's definitely not talking about the irrationality of women.)

 

Another analogy that may help you see what Lewis is saying is that of an eagle family. The female eagle stays with the nest, protecting the young while the male flies about hunting, returning food for the family. The nest has two needs, one interior and one exterior. The two eagles unite as one to serve those needs in opposite ways.

 

In human terms, women represent the family to the outside world. Men represent the outside world back to the family. One says this is what my child needs from the world, the other says this is what the world needs from the child. BTW, this is historically why only men voted. It wasn't that men were shutting women out or they thought women would mess up a man's world, rather is was because the household (not the individual) was seen as the fundamental political unit. (A unit Marx wanted to destroy.) The feminine half of that unit crafted the agenda, the masculine half went out to negotiate that agenda with all of the other Eagles. From that point of view, who is the "in-charge" of the nest? And who is "responsible" for the nest?

 

And also, we have these two elements inside ourselves as individuals as well. A small child is more feminine in the sense that he/she demands what it wants of the world. As the child grows he/she discovers the outside world don't play that and he must negotiate the balance. Initially swinging too far to the masculine in the teenage years as everyone gets the same haircut, wears the same clothes, same music, etc. But then the adult finds (hopefully) a balance properly reflecting the inside-out and the outside-in.

 

Most men and most women need marital union to complete that balance. And most children need two parent homes to help them find that balance.

My Reply to Casey:

Hmm, Casey. So what you're talking about is that there are roles between man and woman. In a convoluted way, yes, that is what Lewis is talking about too. But where is that in St. Paul's dictum? Here is exactly what St. Paul says in Ephesians chapter five:

 

21 Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.

22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing[b] her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28 In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church— 30 for we are members of his body. 31 “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.”[c] 32 This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. 33 However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.

 

Where in there is anything about gender roles? It says to submit to one another, and that the husband is head as Christ is head of the Church. The question is then, how is Christ head of the Church? There is nothing about roles here. It is about dialogue and in my perhaps particular view reaching a consensus. When the Church comes across something that is not fixed doctrine, it has to dialogue with Christ to seek some sort of divine inspiration. The natural leadership of Christ will shape the consensus decision. Just so, the natural leadership of the man will shape the household decision. But it's a consensus. Both husband and wife come to an agreement.

 

Anyway, that's how I see St. Paul's passage, and perhaps I have a more egalitarian perspective than Paul may intend. But I don't see anything about gender roles.

Casey Replied to My Comment:

No I'm not talking about gender roles. In fact quite the opposite. I'm talking about the nature of masculinity and femininity. Coincidentally, I went back and read Tobit. I think this (10:1-7) illustrates Lewis' point:

 

Meanwhile, day by day, Tobit was keeping track of the time Tobiah would need to go and to return. When the number of days was reached and his son did not appear,

 

2he Tobit] said, “Could it be that he has been detained there? Or perhaps Gabael has died, and there is no one to give him the money?”

3And he began to grieve.

4His wife Anna said, “My son has perished and is no longer among the living!” And she began to weep aloud and to wail over her son:

5“Alas, child, light of my eyes, that I have let you make this journey!”

6But Tobit kept telling her: “Be still, do not worry, my sister; he is safe! Probably they have to take care of some unexpected business there. The man who is traveling with him is trustworthy and one of our kindred. So do not grieve over him, my sister. He will be here soon.”

7But she retorted, “You be still, and do not try to deceive me! My son has perished!” She would rush out and keep watch every day at the road her son had taken. She ate nothing. After the sun had set, she would go back home to wail and cry the whole night through, getting no sleep at all.  (Tob 10:2-7)

Kerstin Replied:

I see two things going on here:

1) The God-given hierarchy of the Father and Christ, which is mirrored in the Church and in the family.

2) The complimentary nature of marriage and how it fits within this hierarchy.

Both exist simultaneously. Just like Manny, I thought Lewis was not expressing himself very well here.

 

Lewis mentions the word "contract" in the context or marriage, and I thought that a poor word choice.

The idea of 'being in love' leaves no room for marriage as a contract or promise at all.

 

When we marry we exchange vows. A vow is a solemn promise between bride and groom in front of God. So the promise has a trinitarian aspect to it. A vow or promise is always between persons.

A contract is a binding exchange of goods and services. Here we are dealing with objects or services to be performed. If we reduce marriage to goods and services we no longer uphold the innate dignity of the human person.

Casey Replied:

I'm going to have to go back and reread that section to try to understand how you're reading it. but for now just a couple of things that I think are important... first Lewis reminds early in this section that this section that these were prepared as radio addresses and as such there are limitations in how he can present himself. second, he's speaking analogically ( as he does but also bc of those limitations) and as with all analogies there will be similarities and a place where the analogy falls apart. third, each section is a link in the chain, connecting the previous to the following. I've read the book many times so might be difficult for me bc I know where he's going. ok , off to mass. happy Easter!

My Reply to Casey:

Actually Casey if you're talking about the interaction of masculine and feminine, I think that fits very well with what I'm saying. I said a consensus should be reached between a husband and wife and their natural inclinations will work into the collaboration. Yes, that's masculine and feminine inclinations.

 

The one place I could see some sort of gender role at play is in Lewis's point about dealing with the neighbors. I guess I overlooked the beginning part of his argument:

 

"The relations of the family to the outer world—what might be called its foreign policy—must depend, in the last resort, upon the man, because he always ought to be, and usually is, much more just to the outsiders."

 

I don't know if it's because a man is more "just" (actually I can see in most cases a man is less just than a woman - but this begins to fall into the fallacy of stereotyping) but a man may carry more weight in an argument because society views a man to carry more force - taller, heavier, broader, more muscles, deeper voice, more intimidating. In this respect I can see gender roles.

 

But I don't think this is what St. Paul is talking about. I really don't think Lewis did a great job on this small section of this otherwise very good chapter.

Casey Replied to My Comment:

I went back and read the chapter today. Hope I can better articulate now. (I will say this is hard to do in Goodreads)

 

I want to back up in the chapter a bit. Manny, you say "I said a consensus should be reached between a husband and wife and their natural inclinations will work into the collaboration." Lewis also says that but then says after exhausting that, who gets the final say? He posits two questions:

 

Why is there a head at all?

And Why the man?

 

Again, to the first, somebody has to be the final say. To the second, something like this - we have the needs of the nest and the needs of the community of nests. The nest wants its own ideal but that is in competition with other nests who want their own ideal. Let's imagine those nests in a circle with lines from each nest to the center. The wife in each nest sends the man out to negotiate the best deal for the nest. The husbands go to the center then back to the nest with a less than ideal settlements. The wives will be disappointed with their own husbands for being "a bit of an appeaser" but also feel that all other wives ought to follow the settlement negotiated by their husbands.

 

OK, so back to comment 12 - "...roles between man and woman. ...that is what Lewis is talking about too."

 

But no. He's not talking about the roles 'between' man and woman. At least not in the Ephesians way or even the postmodern way.

 

Remember earlier in this same chapter he opened with the idea of "a man and wife are to be regarded as a single organism." What he is getting at at the end of this chapter is roles between one organism and another. The masculine half is the "head" because it must insist on maintaining the negotiated order.

 

Symbolically speaking, the feminine is always represented as chaos or possibility and the masculine as order. So we see this in the Wedding Feast at Cana - Mary and Jesus acting as one:

 

When the wine ran short, the mother of Jesus said to him, "They have no wine."

(And) Jesus said to her, "Woman, how does your concern affect me? My hour has not yet come."

His mother said to the servers, "Do whatever he tells you."

 

Mary poses the question, Jesus insists on the established order, Mary opens the possibility, moving Jesus to introduce a new order

 

It is this dynamic, of how Jesus and Mary act as one in relation to the guests, that Lewis is emphasizing.

 

I hope that is helpful.

Casey Commented:

If I may, while I'm thinking of it, offer another angle - The Book of Judith.

 

We're introduced to Judith in Ch 8. Her husband Manasseh has died. So the organism is now feminine.

 

The rulers (masculine) will hand over the city. Judith (f) approaches them (possibility) but they say "The people...were so thirsty that they forced us to do for them as we have promised, and to bind ourselves by an oath that we cannot break." (m)

 

So then she (f) takes things into her own hands and goes out where the masculine failed to do so and then beheads Holofernes (m).

 

What happens? Chaos. Flight, attack, plundering.

 

And then other angles on the same theme... Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel etc.

 

It's all the same pattern from different viewpoints and different circumstances.

My Reply to Casey:

Casey, I do see that now, "only as a last resort," in that paragraph you quote. We're probably making too much of the distinction. If the couple is going to go that far and not reach an agreement, they are probably doomed anyway. One of the two is not thinking clearly and obstinate. If this were a decision that did not have huge consequences, I would imagine one of the two would just relent for the sake f peace. If it were over a decision that did have huge consequences and there were two opposite paths advocated by the spouses, I would hope they would get an outside opinion.

 

Now here is an interesting question. What if the wife refused to accept the husband decision. Is she bound to under penalty of sin? Is it a sin for the wife to refuse to accept the husband's decision? What compels her to accept it?

Casey Replied:

Hm, obviously I'm not doing a very good job either.

 

In answer to your question, no a wife is not compelled to accept her husband's decision and it certainly wouldn't be a sin. (perhaps temporarily compelled or contractually depending on what we're talking about but...) In fact, she ought to, and usually does, press him on to the advantage of the family.

 

I'll try two analogies... first, politics. Democrats and Republicans ought to, and usually do fight with each other. But it is the President who is the head and who goes out to the world to meet the other heads. The Prez comes back and we hash it out internally and then he goes back out. America is one organism, and the Prez is the head. But the inner workings of the organism are fluid.

 

Second, a good golf shot. If you want to hit a good golf shot you need a good club, the right stance, a proper swing, etc. But before you even do any of that you need to understand what a good golf shot is. Once you understand, only then can you practice toward that end effectively. And that practice will be specific to you and look different than the practice of others.

 

What I'm trying to outline is that the practice, or domestic politics, or the inner workings of a family is all downstream of a particular pattern. We need to understand the pattern first before we can understand the particulars.

 

Lewis, in addressing why a head and why the man, is just saying because there is this pattern underlying all reality. Each organism can find its own way to match this pattern internally, but to buck the pattern will result in pain for the organism. ie too much tyranny or too much chaos.

 

He's not actually addressing how a husband and wife ought to get along. How they get along or make decisions is entirely up to them. But there is a standard or pattern against which they can evaluate their progress or behavior. As so with everything.

My Reply to Casey:

I don't think we're that far apart Casey.

###

C. S. Lewis on the “right to happiness” by divorcing one’s spouse.  This is so spot on.