On the Rocks . . .

. . . but in a good way.

Yesterday afternoon I explored the rock platform at the southern end of Town Beach, just below Swallows’ Ledge.

For as long as I can remember I've always enjoyed clambouring around rocks and rocky formations - whether they be lonely outcrops in the hills around my hometown of Gunnedah (right), or the coastal rock platforms of Port Macquarie, teeming with aquatic life. Oh, and did I say that Picnic at Hanging Rock is one of my all-time favourite films?



Three years ago - almost to the day - I spent an afternoon at the same spot on Town Beach. I wrote about that experience for The Wild Reed, and those words remain as true today as they did then. Here’s what I wrote:

I love the tidal zone of coastal areas. To some people they may appear as simply rocky and lifeless. But, in fact, tidal zones can be very colourful places, teeming with life. Whole worlds exist within the pools of water, wherein a myriad of fascinating lifeforms can be observed if one simply takes the time to sit quietly and watch.

And then one only has to look up from these worlds to observe the sweep and majesty of the sea! Seemingly, it’s another whole world entirely. And yet it’s amazing to me how the fleeting, fragile world of the rock pool co-exists, indeed, depends upon, the powerful surges of the ocean. As strange as it sounds, I find the natural rhythm of the sea’s ebb and flow very grounding.

And then there’s the following that I’ve shared more than once on these cyber pages. It’s from the homily I shared with the community of St. Joan of Arc in Minneapolis in January of 2006.

I long for a searching life ‘somewhere in between.’ Not a desperately searching life, but one filled with hope and the joy of pilgrimage, one that is respectful of honest doubts, one that is open to authentic relationships and to God in many worlds.

I hope one day to marry the man I love – and I have a dream of holding our marriage ceremony within the tidal zone of a beach, in that place ‘somewhere in between’ the land and the sea.

. . . [in so many ways] I believe we’re called to stand and live in the messy middle between polarizing extremes. Such an ‘in-between’ place is like a valley – green and fertile – that lies between the mountains of extremism. It’s not a place of indecision or lukewarm commitments. It’s not a place where ‘anything goes.’ Rather it’s a place where we allow our convictions and beliefs the opportunity to be informed and shaped by new insights born of our experiences and the experiences of others; a place where we get to discover the light of God in unexpected faces and places.

See also the previous Wild Reed posts:
• A Summer Afternoon
• Starfish
• Somewhere In Between
• A Solitary Ramble
• Rocky Beach
• Bago Bluff
• Climbing Barn Bluff
• A Delightful Summer’s Afternoon . . . and a Moving Tale
• Trempealeau

Images: Michael J. Bayly.

Nathanial Frank on the "Natural Law" Argument

Nathanial Frank (right), author of Unfriendly Fire: How the Gay Ban Undermines the Military and Weakens America, has an excellent op-ed over at The Huffington Post in which he takes to task Robert George’s intellectually dishonest and morally bankrupt concept of “‘new’ Natural Law.” George is the author of the “Manhattan Declaration,” discussed previously at The Wild Reed here, here, here, and here.

Frank’s op-ed is reprinted in its entirety below.

_______________________________________

Gay Rights and the Natural Law Farce

By Nathanial Frank

The Huffington Post
December 21, 2009

For years now a culture war has raged between liberal rationalists and religious dogmatists over whether homosexuality should be treated equally by civil law. Having lost ground in recent years as young people grow up in a world far more familiar with the banalities of what it really means to be gay, the right wing has begun taking careful steps to re-brand its homophobia as a rational, secular position, instead of the sectarian prejudice that it is.

This is the latest project of the Princeton professor, Robert George, profiled in this Sunday’s New York Times magazine. It’s a dangerous trend, and a starkly immoral one, as credentialed, highly educated people who should know better lend their social science credentials to the sloppy thinking and outright bigotry of those who are unable or unwilling to challenge their own dogma.

George is a rising conservative intellectual, counselor to Catholic bishops and Republican presidential contenders, and chair of the board of the National Organization for Marriage, founded in 2007 to oppose the right of gays to marry. Most recently he penned the “Manhattan Declaration,” a call to action for modern Christians to oppose abortion and gay marriage. It was signed by over 150 top Christian and conservative leaders. In this document and elsewhere, George roots his argument against gay marriage in what’s called the “new” natural law – “invoking no authority beyond the authority of reason itself.” But the only thing new about it is the brazenness of George’s effort to claim a monopoly on human reason.

Natural law has meant different things over the centuries, but today it most commonly means deriving moral value by looking to nature. It doesn’t mean that everything that occurs in nature is good, a common misunderstanding of natural law that’s easily clarified by considering that disease, the cruelty of the jungle, and death are all natural but that doesn’t make them good; but natural law does involve walking a rational path from empirical observation to moral valuation: we might observe that certain human goods are empirically desirable – friendship, knowledge, life itself – and reason from that observation to the assertion that they are therefore morally right, along with other acts that serve those ends. Since life is a good, the procreative act is morally right since it produces life, and so is an institution like heterosexual marriage, which blesses the procreative act. Using the body for anything else, or privileging a relationship characterized by non-procreative acts, becomes morally wrong by default.

If this sounds fishy to you, it’s not because I’m doing an injustice to natural law theory, or even so-called “new” natural law. It’s because a Princeton University professor has succeeded at pulling the wool over thousands of educated eyes by passing off his personal, religious beliefs as “invoking no authority beyond the authority of reason itself.”

George and other proponents of natural law believe that nature endows humans with reason, and all you have to do is consult that reason to know that, just as a stone falls by gravity, homosexuality is morally wrong.

But there are (at least) two main problems with natural law reasoning as the basis of public policy. First is that it is utterly circular: it relies on broad agreement about what is a human good, from which natural law theorists deduce morally right action as anything that leads to that good; but how do we decide in the first place what is a moral good? Conservatives might posit that human goods include procreation or religion, while liberals might include tolerance, pleasure, or equality. That this latter good was Thomas Jefferson’s top “self-evident” good when he wrote our founding natural law document, the Declaration of Independence, does not seem to convince conservatives like George that gay people should be included in the enjoyment of equality. Most of us may agree on friendship or knowledge as human goods, but the test of a good theory is whether it’s applicable when the tougher stuff comes into play. Natural law fails this test, as it’s totally incapable of actually answering the question of how nature or reason resolves the question of what is morally good.

The second problem is that the link that natural law makes between observation and valuation relies on privileging one natural act over another as your starting point, and insisting that act is supreme, to the exclusion of other acts that some view as good. Those like Freud and George, who apparently view the world through a telling prism of sexual fixation, choose the procreative act as supreme. They reason that this act is central to the “biological good of the whole,” as George puts it, and is therefore morally good for individuals to engage in. (Of course, it’s only deemed moral if you’re married, and while I don’t have room to address this here, note that conservatives use a bait-and-switch to toggle sloppily between marriage and sex, which really must not be used interchangeably.) The trouble is that urinating is also central to the biological good of the whole, because if we didn’t eliminate waste, we’d all perish. But we don’t hear much about this in natural law. Instead, we hear that the penis was naturally designed for procreation, so the only morally proper use of it is an act that leads to procreation (or resembles an act of procreation, if you’re straining to give straight, infertile sex a moral pass). Yet since the penis was also designed for urination, why not claim its only moral use is anything that involves wetting the bed? By natural law reasoning, using your mouth to kiss instead of eat is unnatural and immoral, and should perhaps be illegal. Same for using your hand to shake someone else’s, instead of restricting it to hunting, gathering, and feeding oneself. And so on.

Remember, it’s not that anything that’s natural is good; it’s that nature provides humans with the tool of reason to know what’s good and choose what’s right. But this means we’re back to square one. On what mystical “authority of reason” does George rest his claim that heterosexual intercourse is moral and homosexual intercourse is not? Indeed, where life gets tricky and tests natural law theory is when several things that our reason might judge to be “good” are in conflict. Once again our founding document, the Declaration, deems equality such a high good that it’s first on the list and is considered worth killing for in a war of rebellion. So why is heterosexual intercourse, which is so messy, indulgent, and narcissistic (after all, what’s more narcissistic than reproducing yourself?) a moral good, while equality for gay people is not? George waxes poetically about “bodily sharing,” “sexual complementarity” and “one-flesh union,” but he seems not to realize that his poetry is metaphor – could he actually be so confused as to think that heterosexual intercourse makes two people into one organism, literally? Could he really think that his own preference for male-female unions is an empirical fact that his own right reason recognizes while the rest of us are simply confused?

Pointing out the subjective dimension of morality does not mean resorting to anything-goes relativism. There are many other promising avenues of thought that might help us understand where our morality comes from and how we can strive to live moral lives, ranging from the genetic selection of altruism to faith in moral instincts. Reason certainly plays a role. But if we're going to use reason, let’s use real reason, and not lean on our ivy-league credentials to pass off homophobia as genuine rationality.


Recommended Off-site Links:
Princeton’s Robert George: Sophistry Disguised as Scholarship – Wayne Besen (TruthWinsOut.org, December 21, 2009).
Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About Manhattan Declaration Author Robert George – Evan Hurst (TruthWinsOut.org, December 21, 2009).

See also the previous Wild Reed posts:
John Corvino on the “Always and Everywhere” Argument
Patrick Ryan on the “Defense of Traditional Marriage” Argument
Stop in the Name of Discriminatory Ideology!

For more on Natural Law theory, see The Wild Reed series, “Perspectives on Natural Law,” featuring the insights of:
Herbert McCabe, OP
Judith Web Kay
Daniel Helminiak
Garry Wills
Gregory Baum
William C. McDonough

Susie O'Brien on Celebrating the Life and Legacy of Mary MacKillop "Without All the Hoo-Haa"

For many Catholics here in Australia the big news at the moment is the Vatican’s recent approval of a decree recognising a second miracle attributed to the intercession of Mary MacKillop (1842-1909), an Australian nun set to soon to be declared the country’s first saint.

I appreciate the perspective of columnist Susie O’Brien, and find myself in agreement with much of what she writes in the following op-ed from today’s Herald Sun newspaper.

(NOTE: The illustrations that accompany this post are from the website of the Sisters of St. Joseph of the Sacred Heart.)

____________________________________

Our Saint of the Outback


By Susie O’Brien

Herald Sun
December 22, 2009

Was I the only one who cracked a smile over the weekend while reading that the [Roman] Catholic Church had decided that a nun who died a century ago recently saved the life of a seriously sick woman through the power of prayer?

Don’t get me wrong. I am happy the woman has recovered from her inoperable cancer. But I don’t think the nun, Mary MacKillop, had anything to do with it.

Besides, even if you buy the “dead-nun-saves-sick-woman story” (and isn’t it funny we didn’t see that headline anywhere), just how is it considered to be Mary’s miracle? The sick woman did the praying.

Surely she should get most of the credit – not to mention her doctors and family.

But according to the Catholic Church, this is Mary’s second miracle, putting her in line for elevation to sainthood.

In case you don’t know much about her, Mary MacKillop was born in Fitzroy in 1842 and spent much of her life doing good work for needy women and children in Penola, South Australia.

Last week’s official confirmation of the miracle by the Vatican follows decades of lobbying by her followers, who are keen to see her become Australia’s first saint.

While Mary certainly should be commended for her good work, it’s hard not to be somewhat cynical.

One thing’s for sure, the real winner in this process is the Catholic Church.

Recent popes seem to have cottoned on to the fact that announcing new saints in new countries works miracles for shoring up support for the church.

The late John Paul II beatified Mary MacKillop in 1995, even as he created more saints than all the other popes combined since the 16th century. Almost 500 saints got a guernsey under his stewardship.

Under the current Pope, Benedict XVI, the saints have kept marching in. But the pontiff lowered the bar, decreeing that two miracles – rather than three – would be sufficient. On Sunday, he approved the decree confirming the second miracle, clearing the path for Australia's first saint.

It’s the religious equivalent of the fairground cry of “every child gets a prize,” except it’s probably more like “every country gets its own saint.”

And the publicity is heavenly.

You watch the millions of dollars in free publicity the Catholic Church will get between now and next year as the Australian media goes Mary-mad.

In fact, the whole story has already been huge, because it coincided with the Christmas once-a-year-religious sentiments flowing around this week.

And take Adelaide Archbishop Philip Wilson, who recently said Mary would have “had a little smile on her face seeing the good news spread by text messages.”

“If she was alive today, she would certainly have been on Twitter and Facebook,” Archbishop Wilson said.

Come on. Twitter? Texting? Facebook? Sounds more like a blatant ploy to make the church appeal to a younger generation.

In any case, it really would be a miracle if the modern Catholic Church saw Mary MacKillop as a true role model for those doing good work.

And let’s not forget the real Mary MacKillop (as opposed to the one the Catholic spin doctors are about to Photoshop a halo on) actually fell out with the church.

In fact, she was once excommunicated.

Yes, that’s right. The church she committed her life to nonetheless struggled to understand her way of life or work, which included working in remote areas helping the most vulnerable, including the aged poor, people released from prison, orphans and neglected children.

So I’m not anti-Mary. Far from it. It’s just the process that bothers me. Why can’t we celebrate the life and legacy of a great woman without all the hoo-haa?

Indeed, I do acknowledge how much individuals such as Mary can provide inspiration for others.

Take Melbourne’s bravest twins, Krishna and Trishna, who have just been released from hospital after marathon surgery to separate them. Their guardian, Moira Kelly, has credited Mary MacKillop with helping to save the girls.

But can prayers really cure cancer, as Catholic Archbishop of Sydney Cardinal George Pell claimed this week? I don’t think so.

What’s important is faith, not adherence to narrow teachings.

And when I see people blindly accepting Mary’s “miracles” as if they are real, it’s hard not to be sceptical. Until this week a miracle cure was something you’d see on late-night TV or on current affairs shows, not a major part of serious journalism.

I also object to the Prime Minister and other politicians jumping on the Mary bandwagon to try to appeal to religious voters.

Our democratically elected leader recently met the Pope in Rome in the hope of talking up the chances of “Aussie Mary” becoming a saint.

While it may accord with his personal beliefs, it’s got nothing to do with his official role, so he should butt out.

It makes you wonder what Mary would make of all this.

No doubt she’d hate all the extravagant claims and posturing, and would surely want to just get on with helping others – which sounds like a good idea to me.

“There where you are, you will find God.”

- Mary MacKillop, 1871

Recommended Off-site Links:
Blessed Mary MacKillop
Mary MacKillop’s Remarkable Life - The 7:30 Report (ABC, December 21, 2009).

Swallows' Ledge

Above and below: The view at dawn from my bedroom balcony at Swallows’ Ledge - my parents’ apartment complex in Port Macquarie, New South Wales, Australia - Wednesday, December 16, 2009.

The complex is actually called The Sandcastle, but I think Swallows’ Ledge is a much more appropriate name, given the many swallows that dart around the building at all times of day. Plus, “The Sandcastle” has always struck me as a rather odd name. I mean, it doesn't exactly elicit confidence in the building’s structural integrity, now, does it!?

I’ll be in Australia for the next two months, visiting family and friends - oh, and escaping the wintry conditions of my other home in Minnesota!



Right: With my parents Gordon and Margaret Bayly - December 18, 2009.

Mum and Dad moved into their unit at Swallows’ Ledge in November 2006. I was in Australia at that time, waiting for the completion of my longer-than-expected Green Card application process.




Aspects of the architecture of Swallows’ Ledge are quite interesting - like the pattern of balconies at the rear of the building (above) and the almost North African-look of the building’s north-western facade (below).




Above: The front of the building which overlooks Port Macquarie’s popular Town Beach (right and below).












Above: The view of Swallows’ Ledge from the north end of Town Beach.



Above and below: The south-eastern end of the building.




Above: My parents (at left) with their friends Mary, Daphne, and Bob - December 18, 2009.


Left: With Dad, after playing tennis with him and his friends on the morning of December 19, 2009.



Right: With my younger brother Tim.

Last night I was invited to join Tim, his wife Ros, and their two daughters at a party hosted by their friends Phil and Tracy - whom I first met, along with their two daughters, Danika and Paris, during my last visit to Port Macquarie.






Left: My niece Layne.













Right: My niece Sami.












Above: Sami and my sister-in-law Ros (left) at last night’s party. Sixth and seventh from left are Tracy and Danika. Tracy’s mum, Margaret, stands second from right.



Above (from left): Phil, Steve, Harry (on crutches), Adam and Patsy - December 19, 2009.


See also the previous Wild Reed posts:
Australia Bound
Return to Ellenborough Falls
The Empty Beach
Port Macquarie
A Solitary Ramble
Rocky Beach
Flynns Beach
A Summer Afternoon

This time one year ago at The Wild Reed . . .
Newtown
“Harbour City” Sights
Exeter

For the Traveler

Here’s an excerpt from a beautiful blessing that my friend Kathleen shared with me last night. I offer it to all who are traveling at this time of year.

. . . A journey can become a sacred thing:
Make sure, before you go,
To take the time
To bless your going forth,
To free your heart of ballast
So that the compass of your soul
Might direct you toward
The territories of spirit
Where you will discover
More of your hidden life,
And the urgencies
That deserve to claim you.

May you travel in an awakened way,
Gathered wisely into your inner ground;
That you may not waste the invitations
Which wail along the way to transform you.

May you travel safely, arrive refreshed,
And live your time away to its fullest;
Return home more enriched, and free
To balance the gift of days which call you.

– John O’Donohue
To Bless the Space Between Us: A Book of Blessings
Double Day, 2008

See also the previous Wild Reed post:
The Onward Call

Australia Bound

Tomorrow evening I leave for a two-month long visit to Australia to see family and friends. It will be my seventh trip back to my homeland in the sixteen years I’ve lived in the U.S.

Last night some friends gathered at my home in St. Paul to wish me bon voyage.

Right: With Phil.






Above (from left): Freeman, John, Brigid, Bernie, and Kathleen.




Left: Mary and John.





Above: Sitting second from left with (from right)Paul, Rick, and Brian.



Right: Ken, Carol, Kate, and Brian.






Above: Babs and Kathleen.


Left: With Paula Ruddy and Bernie Rodel. All three of us serve as co-chairs of the Catholic Coalition for Church Reform.





Above (from left): Freeman Noelle, Kathleen, and Phil.



Above (from left): Kate, Jane, Eileen, Bernie, and John.



Right: Jairo.









Above: With my dear friend Rita.

_____________________________________

On Friday, December 4, I attended a Christmas party for members and friends of the organization I work for, the Catholic Pastoral Committee on Sexual Minorities (CPCSM), and its two projects - Catholic Rainbow Parents and The Progressive Catholic Voice. Following are a few photos from this gathering.



Above (from left): Paula, Michael, and Gretchen.



Above: Tom and Gretchen Murr, who graciously hosted the CPCSM/Rainbow Catholic Parents/Progressive Catholic Voice Christmas party.



Above: Georgia Mueller and Mary Lynn Murphy - both mothers of gay sons and co-founding members of the Catholic Rainbow Parents. Mary Lynn also served for many years as president of CPCSM.



Above: David McCaffrey (left), co-founder of CPCSM, and his partner Michael Douglas. (For David’s recollections on the founding of CPCSM, click here.)



Above: Paul Fleege and Paula Ruddy.

Paul serves on the CPCSM board and for many years was the organization's treasurer. Paula is a co-founder and regular contributor to The Progressive Catholic Voice.



Above: Mary Beckfeld, co-founding member of Catholic Rainbow Parents, CPCSM board member, and former CPCSM president.



Above (back row): Tom, Gretchen, Conrad, Georgia, and Mary Lynn. Front row: Teresa, Brigid, and Mary.


See also the previous Wild Reed post:
Australia Bound (2006)