The New Amsterdam's Lack of Catholic Understanding in Croaklahoma [S01:E15]

In something that seems all too common, TV shows seem unable to find a single expert on Catholicism. That is no different when it comes to a new Netflix program called "New Amsterdam". The show is pretty good as far as shows go, but there is of course many moral problems with it.

[Spoiler Alert!]

In one episode titled "Croaklahoma" (Season 1, Episode 15), there is a married couple whose child received a transplanted organ and is now having adverse side effects. The situation is that the medical insurance of the parents covered the necessary transplant but not the subsequent anti-rejection medication. The parents cannot afford the excessive cost of the drugs and therefore decided to give their child half the number of dosages so they would last longer. This caused the negative side effects.

Not sure what to do, the main character Dr. Max Goodwin brings up a controversial suggestion. Medicaid can be used to pay for drugs if a person's income is low enough. The bold suggestion of Max is for the couple to divorce, thus bringing at least one of them below the threshold for free medication.

This present the couple with a quandary. They declare they cannot divorce because they are Catholic and for them it would be a sin. After tearfully considering all their alternatives, the couple decides they would rather commit a sin to save their son's life than to avoid sin but put him at risk. A monkey wrench is thrown into the situation when the son runs off in the hospital and can't be found. He leaves a note saying "No Divorce".

Eventually the son is found and he tells his parents that he doesn't want them to go to Hell, which is what will happen if they divorce, as he doesn't want to go to Heaven without them. They look at each other as if they agree with him and think well that's okay we are willing to do whatever it takes to save his life.

This is a ridiculous premise to being with, but it gets worse. Stay tuned for that. But for now, I will explain what is wrong with this line of thinking. The Catholic Church does not say its members are not allowed to divorce. Rather, it says if a couple of validly married, then divorce is not an option, it's simply impossible. Christ established marriage as a permanent bond between two people which cannot be broken save by the death of one of the spouses.

The key is that the Church regards legal marriage by the state as a separate affair altogether. In other words, the Sacrament of Marriage is altogether distinct from the civil procedure known as marriage. When a couple of married in a Church wedding witnessed by a priest, the priest must also have the couple sign a state form separately. The priest is granted permission by the state to perform a wedding just like they permit other civil servants. I must stress that the Catholic Church sacrament called Marriage is completely separate from the state version of marriage, even though they occur concurrently.

What this means is that the Church actually allows couples to legally divorce in various contexts if it is for a greater good. For example, if a woman must be separated from her husband for her own safety and can only do so with a legal divorce, she would be permitted to do this. Of course, she would not be allowed to remarry as she would still be bonded to this man in marriage.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church explicitly states this:

The separation of the spouses while maintaining the marriage bond can be legitimate in certain cases provided for by canon law. If civil divorce remains the only possible way of ensuring certain legal rights, the care of the children, or the protection of inheritance, it can be tolerated and does not constitute a moral offense. – CCC 2383

Clearly in the case above, this civil divorce would be permitted for the care of children. It's very straightforward. Yet somehow, NBC couldn't get anyone who knew this? Maybe some people say perhaps they were just creating a plot and this is simply artistic license. Well I find that implausible. In every other instance, it seems they use real laws, possible scenarios, etc. The producers of the show do their research when it comes to various groups and facts. Yet, it seems they are unable to verify even straightforward information on Catholics. It only took me a few seconds to find the Catechism quote above.

So, how does the situation get even worse in the show? Well, as chance would have it, the pope's right-hand-man happened to be in the hospital as the pope was in town at the time and they had to maintain a presence in the hospital "just in case". After being helped by Dr. Max Goodwin, the Cardinal asks if there is anything he can do for him. So Max thinks for a second and then says to the Cardinal, actually there is.

The next scene shows the couple and their son speaking to the cardinal. Max introduces him as the pope's right-hand-man. The cardinal then says he spoke to the Holy Father about their situation he says ...pause.... "it's cool!"

Seriously? That's the best they could come up with? First of all, it's clear the cardinal never did speak to the pope about this situation at all. So he's lying right off the bat to the family. Then he tells them the pope says "it's cool", like it just some little do-dad, no biggie, whatevs! It's all good!

The Catholic Church doesn't work like that. Moral laws aren't just applied willy-nilly. Things aren't done on a case-by-case basis. Our entire moral code is based on the teachings of Christ. Christ said once two people are joined they become one flesh and that divorce is unlawful. The Church is simply upholding that. For the cardinal to simply brush off the situation like it was nothing would be like him disregarding the laws laid down by Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Another problem with this whole scenario is that it gives the impression the clergy, including cardinals and the pope, have some kind of absolute authority. As if they can just change any rule they want and that we as Catholics just do whatever they say because they said it. It's presented as though the Vatican and the clergy are some kind of absolute monarchs who make and change rules at their whim and we are just servants who dutifully do what they tell us.

In reality these laws do not change. The Church is our teacher which is why she is called Holy Mother Church. Not only we, but also the pope and cardinals must abide by and follow the teachings of the Church. Sometimes the magisterium (or teaching authority of the Church) will issue a clarification or address a particular issue. These represent developments in doctrines but never breaks from it. No moral law, doctrine or dogma can contradict another.

If there were an episode featuring basketball, they would probably have someone with knowledge of the game to inform the episode so that it made sense. Yet somehow, when it comes to Catholicism, no such care is taken. It's a pity and should be corrected.

What does the Catholic Church mean by Unitive?

My friends and I were having our weekly catechism discussion and this past week concerned the 6th commandment against adultery. It was mentioned in our discussion that in order for a sexual act to be morally valid and licit, it would have to be three things:

• Procreative
• Unitive
• Marital

My friend would give examples of sexual expression and ask whether they met the three conditions listed above.

During this exercise, a question came up for me which was how does the Church define "unitive". I had assumed that unitive meant two married people uniting in the sacrament of marriage. Therefore, it would have to be open to life, non-contracepting, between a married couple.

It seems I was wrong.

I looked around and no one was really providing a good definition of what constituted "unitive". However, I eventually ran across an article written by theologian Ronald L. Conte Jr. In the article, he goes on to explain what constitutes unitive and basically answers objections to this line of reasoning.

I was surprised to find out that a sexual act can be unitive even if it involves contraception or even if it occurs outside of marriage. Of course, as mentioned, not one, but all three of the above conditions must be met in order for an act to be morally valid. However, just because some of the conditions are not met, does not automatically mean they aren't all met.

I guess logically this makes sense. If this were the case, there would not be three conditions, only one or two. In other words, unitive could just simply be an aspect of procreative if it was implied in the definition.

So what is the answer? Unitive simply means a sexual act involving a man and a woman. This could be between a married couple that is contracepting or between a man and a prostitute. To bolster this idea, Ronald L Conte Jr. quotes St. Paul in the Book of 1 Corinthians 6:15 when he says:

15 Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I therefore take the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? Never! 16 Do you not know that he who joins himself to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For, as it is written, “The two shall become one.”

St. Paul is saying that he who joins himself to a prostitute becomes on body with her, i.e. it is unitive. It doesn't make it right, but that one aspect is fulfilled.

In terms of married couples who contracept, this too would be considered unitive. To show how this is the case, Mr. Conte quotes from Humanae Vitae, which came after the Second Vatican Council, in 1968. I will also quote what Mr. Conte had to say about it:

The Vademecum for Confessors: “Special difficulties are presented by cases of cooperation in the sin of a spouse who voluntarily renders the unitive act infecund.” [n. 13]

Here the Holy See calls contracepted marital sex “the unitive act”. It could not be called by that term if contraception deprived sex of its unitive meaning.

Mr. Conte explains it well. It would be illogical to call an act unitive if it wasn't. It's quite simple. And the act they are referring to is a contracepted marital act. Therefore, the Church would consider such an act to remain unitive.

However, are all sexual acts unitive? Of course not. Unitive sexual acts must involve a man and a woman engaging in intercourse. Homosexual acts are not unitive, nor is self-pollution (masturbation). The latter is obvious since an act involving one person obviously cannot be unitive. The former is not unitive, however the exact reason why not I am not sure. It could simply be because the real definition of sex is sexual intercourse between a man and a woman. It's sufficient to say that homosexual acts fulfill none of the three criteria.

I hope this clarifies things for people. Please comment if you have any comments or questions.

Prop 8 Overturned Against the Will of the People

A judge has overturned California's Prop 8 ruling. Of course, when it went to referendum, the people of California upheld the definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman. But a judge claims this is unconstitutional and it has been overturned.

Of course, we also know that in Argentina, the government is allowing same sex marriage, the first South American country to do so. How is this happening? Who is to blame? Should anyone be allowed to get married?

I think it all comes back to the definition and purpose of marriage. Heterosexual couples are as much to blame for this situation as anyone else because everyday people have lost the true meaning of marriage.

Our modern day view of marriage is quite different than it has been historically. Nowadays people view marriage as an arrangement indicating that two people have loving feelings for each other and decide they want to be together. That's it. That's marriage.

With this definition, how can you deny any two people the possibility of marrying? I believe that's why heterosexual couples are to blame for this current state of affairs.

Historically, marriage was viewed as a covenant between a man and a woman to form the building block of society which is the family. Children naturally sprang forth from the love of spouses. Childlessness was seen as a very sad thing. Also, love was not a fleeting feeling, but rather a decision of the will. Divorce also was not an option because it was believed that God joined this couple together.

But from that original definition, we have dramatically strayed. Marriage has become about fuzzy feelings of a couple. Children are no longer a natural offshoot of a marriage but are carefully planned through contraception and possibly abortion. Parents will "design" a perfect family - them and one boy and one girl. The children are almost ego-boosts.

Once the fuzzy feelings end, many couples decide to divorce, caring nothing about the develpoment of their children. They are falsely told it's much better for the children if they split up. Plus, why just stay for these kids. They have needs which aren't being met. It's completely selfish.

Many couples even choose to not have any children at all. Not that they are unable to have children, they simply choose that path. Children are completely optional to a marriage. In fact, the permanence of marriage is something fewer and fewer people believe in.

So if marriage is nothing more than a mere feeling between two people, how can we justify it being only between a man and a woman.

Homosexual marriage is not valid as it is opposed to what marriage actually is. Marriage IS something. It has a definition. What exactly IS marriage? Well, nowadays there would be many different answers. However, historically the answer has always been the union of a man and woman for life for unity and the procreation of children. Therefore, I find it odd when people say marriage is a "right" for gay people. Obviously if the definition of marriage precludes relationships other than man-woman, then it is not a right.

Where do rights come from in the first place? Rights have limitations by definition, so to claim that everyone has the same rights is not true. Would it be correct for a 14 year old to claim he has the right to drive a vehicle? How about a drunk person, or someone with poor eyesight? The right to drive is given to people who are capable of fitting the definition of what constitutes a legal driver.

So what is marriage? If we include two people of the same sex as a possible combination for marriage, then we radically change the definition. It now comes down to a fleeting feeling. It's not about children, or procreativity, or sexual complementarity, or complementarity in general, or permanence. Obviously it loses its religious basis, since virtually no religion endorses same sex marriage. It becomes a legal agreement between two individuals.

What then would prevent a father and daughter from marrying, or two buddies, or any other combination of people? Why not three, four, five, or more people in a single marriage?

Obviously the government recognizes marriage for some reason. It does not recognize mere relationships. You do not have to apply to the government to date someone or to fall in love with them. So the government recognizes something more than an intimate relationship in marriage that makes it worth official government status. They recognize its benefit to society. Marriage is the building block of society because as the family goes, so goes the country, and ultimately the world.

Once the government recognizes any grouping of people as "marriage", it will lose all benefit. There will be no need for the government to even recognize marriage at all.

Prop 8 is probably going to go to the Supreme Court of the United States. Hopefully there they will do the right thing.

NBC jumps on gay marriage bandwagon

NBC wants to do its part to normalize gay marriage. In its annual marriage show on the Today Show, it will for the first time feature gay couples who are marrying. It's a major faux-pas to only show men and women marrying. Of course, they probably won't just open it to gay couples, but will make sure at least one gay couple is represented, even if 10,000 heterosexual copules apply and only one gay couple does. Because it's not enough to open it to everyone, the network must proactively push an agenda.

Check out the full story here.

Why the high divorce rate.

The divorce rate in Canada is around 38%, according to Stats Canada. I'm proud to report that in Newfoundland, it's the lowest, just 22% (maybe just is the wrong word here). My question is, why isn't it lower, maybe 1%? In India, where arranged marriages are often performed, this is indeed the divorce rate.

I believe there are many reasons for the high divorce rate in Canada and other Western nations. One of the reasons I believe boils down to expectations and mind-set. People marry often because of a feeling called "love". Their definition of love includes feeling happy with the person they marry, enjoying doing things together, and feeling fulfilled. It also involves a notion of sexual fulfillment and other criteria. Everything is just perfect. They base their marriage on this feeling. If the feeling changes, the marriage is on the rocks. This is a very precarious situation.

My point is that expectations are too high. I was reading an article which suggested that in the past marriages were a much different issue. They were based on practical considerations for both parties, not on transitive feelings. It sounds outdated now, but a woman would be expected to be good at household chores, while the man was able to provide for his family. The decision was not based on feeling of affection. Obviously, I'm not saying marriage is all about practicality even if you hate the person. I'm also saying that a marriage based on feelings is a very shaky one.

Divorce rate is also known to be lower among Catholics than other groups. But I've noticed a disturbing trend, and that is a divorce-mentality. It is very common, even among Catholics. The Catholic Church does not allow divorce. Not so much "not allow", as it does not even think divorce is possible in the eyes of God. The expression "till death do us part" is taken for what it is. But some have started to see annulment as the Catholic divorce. I participate in a Catholic forum. Often, a troubled individual will go there telling how they are having some problem in their marriage. Very often, people will suggest that perhaps this represents something which rendered the marriage invalid to begin with and they should seek an annulment to see what happens. But marriage is always presumed valid unless there is very strong evidence to the contrary. God did not make the sacraments easy to break.

But that's only the tip of the iceberg. That's what they say to people who are married. To those who are not married, it's even worse. Almost every time I've seen someone post a message on these forums who is concerned about some aspect of their relationship, the advice given is to just abandon it. The theory goes that no matter what this issue is, it will only get much much worse once they're married. Some even say they are only seeking help for an issue and never mention breaking up, but it is soon suggested by nearly everyone on the boards.

The underlying implication is that at the first sign of a stormy sea, to jump ship. So why is the divorce rate in India so low? I believe it is because the feeling of love is like a cherry on top, not the whole dessert. They go into a marriage expecting problems. When they arise, no one is surprised, and they work through it. Divorce is not an option so their brains expand beyond this limited idea and work for other solutions. This mentality is not present in many Western marriages. Divorce may be regarded with contempt, but it is nonetheless an option if things are "bad enough". I believe sometimes there is little desire for the couple to make things better, but rather they make things worse precisely to justify the divorce. They make mountains out of molehills and then proclaim, as if they just lost a battle which they tried so hard to win, that it was just a hopeless situation. It's almost a self-fulfilled prophecy.

Jesus said divorce is never permitted. Many people who get a divorce are surprised to find they must wait a significant amount of time before it is finalized. That's because it causes such havoc on society. Family is the building block of society and divorce is like a small war. If enough of these building blocks are damaged, the society is damaged.

Let's take a new look and approach to marriage. Let's work on helping the other, and not constantly asking ourselves if we are completely fulfilled and happy. Let's aim for a 0% divorce rate.

Some random thoughts on gay marriage

Gay marriage is a big issue nowadays, so I wanted to throw out some thoughts. Let me know your opinion.

First of all, I want to say I do not hate gay people and I am not afraid of them (i.e. not homophobic). I think gay people are people with struggles, just like everyone else. We are all called to a high standard of sexual morality. Some people struggle with same-sex attraction, others struggle with fornication, or adultery, or masturbation. We are all called to a higher standard.

But the issue of gay marriage doesn't really have a huge lot to do with homosexuality itself. Let's first of all break down what the homosexual marriage debate is all about. It is about the state recognizing the love or feelings of two people of the same gender and officially declaring this to be a marriage. You can oppose gay marriage without having any ill feelings toward gay people. That is not a logical contradiction. Even Elton John doesn't believe in gay marriage and he's gay.

The issue is whether or not the state should or has any need to recognize the union of two gay people.

The state (i.e. a country, or separate geographic law-entity) is very pragmatic, at least in places like the USA or Canada. Whatever the state recognizes or doesn't recognize has to do with the benefits of this recognition on the state. For example, there are laws against drunk driving. Not because the state has a moral qualm about alcohol, but because you could put people's lives at risk, perhaps including your own. Also, it is not a crime, per se, to cheat on your spouse. It is also not a crime to be proud, lustful, full of anger, jealous, envious, lazy, or anything else. The state simply has no interest in these interior personal feelings, unless they affect the state. The state also has no interest in your feelings toward someone. A man could be totally in love with a woman and want to have children with her, but the state would not automatically recognize this as anything, until they got married. Similarly, the state would not recognize my hatred toward someone, unless my hatred incited violence. The state is not in the business of ratifying or recognizing feelings, no matter how strong, between two people.

On the other hand, if a man and woman willingly and with full consent decide to marry with the intention of remaining together, the state would recognize this marriage even if there was no love. In fact, even if the couple detested each other, the state would still recognize the relationship as a marriage.

The point is there is another reason the state recognizes marriage and it is because of the perceived benefit of the marriage, especially in terms of children that are born in that relationship. States throughout the world came to understand that marriage is beneficial to children. A woman who got pregnant but had no man to help her was at risk. For the benefit of the mother and any children born, there was a committed before a family was started. Psychologists now agree that a child does best with a mother and a father. Children have a natural law right to be raised by their mother and father. Therefore, marriage is good for society, because a child is raised in the optimal environment.

Other benefits of heterosexual marriage is that a man and a woman offer the benefit of complementarity, which cannot be found in same-sex couples. It has been shown that homosexual couples often are involved in more violent relationships as well as more promiscuous ones.

Strong families means strong communities means strong societies. The family is the building block of society and if it is strengthened, the entire society is strengthend. Doesn't it just seem natural for a mother and father to raise their own child? Does it not seem unnatural for two people of the same sex, only one of whom can possibly be a parent, raise a child?

Civil law is interested in the well-being of its citizens. A child does best in his own family. Also, strong families create a strong society. In the past, romantic feelings had little to do with marriage. It was not seen as essential. That's because the state has no interest in peoples' feelings as such.

Some object to what I'm saying by pointing out that many children are homeless and that isn't it better to give them a gay home rather than no home? First of all, it is important to seek an ideal. The ideal situation is for a child to be raised by his mother and father. Sometimes this ideal cannot be achieved, such as the case with single parenthood, or in the case of an orphan, but that does not remove the ideal. By legally recognizing gay marriage, we force adoption agencies to adopt children to gay couples. We can no longer recognize that a stable man-woman marriage is the best place to raise a child. We must now turn a blind eye to the best alternative to the ideal in the name of "justice". The state must have programs to help children in their situation, and we must not look at next best possibilities for anyone, and we certainly shouldn't artificially put unsatisfactory solutions on par with satisfactory ones.

People have made the gay marriage issue an issue of rights, but is has nothing to do with this. The state does not recognize feelings. It creates an environment that is the best for its people. If a couple wanted a divorce, the main concern of the court would be the welfare of the children. They have little interest in the feelings of the spouses toward each other.

If this was an issue of rights, we would have a different set of issues to look at. If marriage was based on feelings, then we would have to allow other types of marriages. This argument is usually laughed at by gay-marriage proponents, but let's logical look at this. If marriage has nothing to do with the ability to procreate or about childrens' rights, or about the benefits to society, then there are many types of marriages that would have to be allowed. One is polygamy. What reason could a proponent of gay marriage give for the ban on polygamy, assuming all parties agreed to that arrangement and they wanted to be married? There would be no case. What if two siblings wanted to marry? They could not be refused based on the gay marriage logic because the welfare of any possible children would not be a factor, only feelings would. I will not compare gay marriage to bestiality as some have, because this is an unfair comparison. We can only speak of human-human relationships.

There are many other things that can be said about this topic. I think what has been said will suffice. I would like to clarify one point however. Some people who defend same-sex marriage say that if we legalize it, churches will be forced to perform these marriages. I do not agree with this statement given our current situation. I will use my own Catholic Church as an example. The Catholic Church only allows marriages that comply with her teachings. For example, if two Buddhists demanded to be married by a priest, the Church could refuse, and the law would back up the Church. The Church has the right to allow or disallow any marriage it sees fit. Therefore, unless the law radically changes and a new era of Christian persecution begins, I do not see this happening.

I welcome feedback on my thoughts. Please try to be civil and stay on topic. Thanks.

Great Article about divorce on CNN

There is a great article on CNN now about divorce and why it is so bad. Fatherlessness causes so many tragedies in our society. As I thought about this article, I realized something. There is a big push now for recognition of gay marriage, but I realized perhaps we as a society are to blame for this just as much as anyone else. We may try to blame the gay lobby for this, but really heterosexual people are just as guilty. I am referring to the fact that marriage has traditionally been not just been between a man and a woman, but also it has been about commitment to one another and a protected area in which to raise children.

Starting mostly with the birth control pill and the sexual revolution, people began seeing marriage not as an unbreakable union between a man and a woman for the protection and raising of a family, but rather as simply a personal contract between two people to legitamize a sexual union. Love, viewed as a fuzzy feeling between two people, became the glue of the marriage. Once that glue lost its stick, the marriage was on thin ice and often failed. Love should rightfully be a decision of the will. A decision to remain together in the good times and the bad. Marriage was reduced to a fuzzy feeling. It was no longer about children, and divorce became increasingly common. Because of this attitude that a marriage is just strong feelings between two people, how could society logically forbid same sex marriage? That's why I think we are partly to blame for this mess. If we said marriage is about not only love (love informed by reason and will), but also about a family, and the raising of children, we would have a much stronger ability to deny same sex marriage or any union that was inherently fruitless.

The Catholic Church recognizes this, much more than any other church. I am not saying this to be triumphalistic, as someone on Catholic Answers Live once pointed out. The Catholic Church would forbid a couple from marrying if they had decided at the onset that they were against having children. The Church also forbids the use of contraception because it violates God's plan for sexuality and renders a marriage infertile against God's will, no different than using a wheelchair when you are perfectly capable of walking, or worse, mutilating your body. The Church also forbids divorce, because they view marriage as an unbreakable bond between a man and a woman. These beliefs fly in the face of the opinion that a marriage is a contract of feelings between two people. I believe if the world accepted the Church's view of marriage, gay marriage would never even be seen as possible, nor would divorce or contraception, and there would be a strengthening of marriage so that people would be raised in a household with a mother and a father.

Please take a look at the CNN article:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/LIVING/07/02/sears.family.divorce/index.html

Amazing Story of how Joseph Ratzinger's (now Pope Benedict XVI's) parents met

London, Sep 11, 2006 / 12:00 am (CNA).- Pope Benedict XVI and his brother, Fr. Georg Ratzinger, 82, were surprised to learn this week that their parents, Joseph and Maria, met through a singles ad their father had placed in local Catholic weekly, Liebfraubote.

The disclosure came at the outset of the Pope’s return to his native Bavaria, where he intends to visit his parents’ grave and the village of Marktl am Inn, where he was born, reported the London Times.

The July 1920 ad was found in the Bavarian state archives by a researcher for the tabloid Bild. According to the report, the ad read: “Middle-ranking civil servant, single, Catholic, 43, immaculate past, from the country, is looking for a good Catholic, pure girl who can cook well, tackle all household chores, with a talent for sewing and homemaking with a view to marriage as soon as possible. Fortune desirable but not a precondition.”

Maria Peintner, 36, an illegitimate baker’s daughter and a trained cook, replied. She did not have a fortune, but they married four months later.

The Pope said he remembers his father as “strict but fair” and his mother as warm and open-hearted,” reported the Times.

Special thanks for this report goes to the Catholic News Agency (http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=7582)