Consequentialism, and the Justifying the A-Bomb

Like most American kids, I learned about the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in elementary school history class.  I was shown the image of the mushroom cloud and perhaps a few destroyed buildings.  But then I was shown the fanfare in New York City celebrating the surrender of the Japanese and the closing of World War II.

Regarding the morality of dropping the atomic bomb, I learned – and wholeheartedly believed – the following argument:

“Yes, the atomic bomb killed tens of thousands of people.  That is the horror of war.  However, the other option was to invade Japan.  That would have resulted in a brutal fight against a determined enemy which would likely cost millions of human lives.  So which do you choose?  The option that kills tens of thousands, or the one that kills millions?”

The obvious answer is the one that involves less death.  Thus the dropping of the atomic bomb, while unpleasant and sad, was a justifiable and necessary event that saved millions of lives.

But as I grew in my understanding of the Christian faith, I had to ask myself… is that true?

Christian Morality and the "Euthyphro Dilemma"

Conversations between Christians and Atheists often gravitate toward the nature of morality.  Most people intuitively believe in what’s called “objective moral values and duties”.  By that, I mean:

“A standard of right and wrong – good and evil – which superintends human actions.  Moral facts which exist independently of human minds, to which we have a duty to conform our lives.”

Believers have an intuition that something critical gets lost when you subtract God from a moral framework.  And yet today it is becoming more common for Atheists to say this intuition is false – that a fully functioning moral framework is just as possible without God.

Today I want to begin taking a closer look.  What is the Christian intuition pointing to?  How do Christians explain (and defend) their foundations of morality?

Stephen Colbert and Christian Citizenship

Comedian Stephen Colbert is arguably one of the most recognizable Catholics in the world.  One of the few times he is willing to leave character is when he talks about his faith.  And when he does, it is reliably profound and worth listening to.

However, sometimes people goof up. And if you are a late-night comedian, these mistakes are public by default.  So while I don't want to dwell too long on the sins of another, I do want to point out what he did ... because it's something we can all do.

Three Principles for Opposing Euthanasia

Euthanasia and Physician Assisted Suicide (PAS) are two issues which are quickly emerging in the Western world.   They present us with a very troubling moral dilemma.  It is typically given to us like this:

"Suppose you had a person who was slowly dying of some incurable illness.  But his death is slow and agonizing.  Would it be so wrong for that person to be given a pill so that he can die more quickly and painlessly?  Wouldn't the Golden Rule have us end that person's suffering, or at least allow him to end it himself?"

It sounds like the truly empathetic position - perhaps even the Christian position - would be to embrace euthanasia and PAS.  Any yet you have the Catechism of the Catholic Church insisting the following:

"Those whose lives are diminished or weakened deserve special respect. Sick or handicapped persons should be helped to lead lives as normal as possible. Whatever its motives and means, direct euthanasia consists in putting an end to the lives of handicapped, sick, or dying persons. It is morally unacceptable." - CCC 2276

Today I wanted to look at three principals which I use to explain why I am opposed to euthanasia and physician assisted suicide.

Numbering the 10 Commandments...

I learned the Ten Commandments back in the 3rd Grade... or at least I thought I did.  But an odd thing happened when I started talking to my other Christian friends.  Their 10 Commandments list seemed to be different from mine.

In fact, I even began to hear accusations that the Catholic Church had altered the 10 Commandments to remove the ban on "graven images".  That was, of course, all so we could continue worshiping statues.  Because we do that, apparently.

Today I want to look at the 10 Commandments and how they are numbered.  Perhaps we can get to the bottom of this.

Luther's Blindspot: Why the Church had to say "no"

The 500th anniversary of the posting of Martin Luther’s 95 Theses is coming up next year.  This is marked by many as the dawn of the Protestant era.

Today I wanted to look at a question which is rarely asked:  Why did the Catholic Church reject Luther’s doctrine of “faith alone”?  Was it because they were pure evil?  Or was there was actually something wrong with Luther’s philosophy?

That’s what I want to explore today.

Is the Church Contradicting Itself by Banning Abortion AND Contraception?

As pretty much everybody knows, the Catholic Church stands firmly against abortion.  What often confuses people is how the Church could then go on to be against contraception too.  Every now and then I'll hear a person say:

"If the Church was really  against abortion, it would be the biggest proponent of contraception.  Properly used, contraception has the power to prevent unwanted pregnancies - thus eliminating the need for abortion.  So it is working cross-purposes in banning both."

That's what I wanted to look at today.

Is the Church Inconsistent on Family Planning?

In 1967 Pope Paul VI released encyclical called Humanae Vitae.  The document upheld the perennial (and traditionally Christian) teaching that contraception was contrary to the moral law.  However, the same document goes on to endorse "natural means" of postponing the conception of children.

Humanity has long known that a woman's menstrual cycle has spaces of fertility and infertility.  Couples have used this fact to space out children by not having sex during the fertile periods.

In the past this was done through the "Rhythm Method".  It relied on averages and personal menstrual history to guess where a woman is in her cycle.  Its usefulness and reliability have well-known limitations.

A more modern method is called Natural Family Planning (NFP).  It also uses abstinence during fertile periods, but relies on various biometric markers to identify signs of a woman’s fertility.  This method is far less dependent on a woman's regularity and – (when practiced rigorously) - achieves levels of certainty equivalent to modern forms of contraception.

And again, this method is approved by the Catholic Church.

Some people see the Church’s approval of NFP as arbitrary and inconsistent.  They will commonly object:

“When non-Catholics want to have sex without having a baby, they use contraception.  When Catholics want to have sex without having a baby they use natural family planning.  It’s the exact same thing.”

Well... is it?

Short Answer: Is it OK to Kill Baby Hitler?

Dear Apologist, Recently a major pro-life presidential candidate said he would have killed Hitler as a baby.  Would that be right?

Judging the Pharisee and "I'm a Christian, but..."

Today I wanted to reflect on a viral video I saw and my favorite parable.

The Catholic Church and Suicide

Depression and suicide come into the news periodically - particularly when a famous person ends his life.  A recent example was the late Robin Williams. 

These instances point us back to our own lives.  One fact I cannot get accustomed while in high school youth ministry is the staggering number of kids who have battled depression and suicide.  It seems to be everywhere.

I'm no expert on the psychology of suicide or depression, but perhaps there is one thing I can usefully shed some light on.  Today I wanted to examine what the Catholic Church teaches regarding suicide.

Conscience, Cooperation, and Moral Philosophy

The past few weeks have seen a spike in the attention given to Christians in the wedding-service industry who wish to refrain from providing their services to same-sex weddings.

The first response people often have is to conflate this specific refusal of service with the complete refusal of all services seen in the Jim Crow Era against African Americans.  I covered this in a previous blog post – showing why that comparison is inaccurate.

Today I wanted to look at two other questions people ask about the issue:

• Is this refusal of service unloving?
• What level of involvement is acceptable for conscientious Christians?

This will involve dipping our toes into moral philosophy.  This realm of philosophy is geared toward making explicit what we all feel in our consciences when confronting moral dilemmas.  It helps draw useful distinctions between what a person can and cannot ethically do.

So let’s dive in.

The Catholic Church and Homosexuality - Part I

About a year ago, one of the seniors at my Monday night discussion group pointed out that in 4 years she'd never heard a word at the larger OLMC Youth Ministry gatherings (on Thursdays) about the one issue she's asked about more than anything else at school: The Catholic Church's teaching on homosexuality.

And she was right. The Thursday night gatherings have covered everything under the sun, but has never ever said a word about the matter. Seeing as how THE thing their peers (and society as a whole) want to talk about, it seemed neglectful to let them twist in the wind while avoiding the controversy ourselves.

So I took up the task of wring a curriculum. And after nearly a year of work, we've finally begin a 3-part series on the matter. The first two presentations are my work. You can hear and see the first one on Youtube [ here ].

What did Jesus teach about Divorce?

A while ago I wrote a note about the way Christians ought to treat people with same-sex attractions.  I mentioned that if more Christians were willing to speak frankly about things like divorce, then homosexual acts would not be perceived as being a sin above all others.  

Well, today I’ll take my own advice and draft a sketch of a very tough issue.  What did Jesus teach about divorce?