A Savior in Our Midst

It is no secret that the world around us is seemingly falling apart at the seams. Our communities are as bitterly divided as they have ever been, as evidenced by the almost daily headlines depicting protests, civil unrest and riots. Politically, our nation appears to be rapidly approaching a dangerous tipping point, as battle lines are being drawn everywhere we look. One need look no further than basic comment sections of social media posts to see just how vitriolic and combative we are becoming as a people. I fear that this anger is beginning to seep into the very fabric of who we are as a nation. Working in a faith-based facility, it would be logical to assume that I am sheltered from this type of behavior, but such assumptions would be incorrect.

What has happened to us? Why have so many of us embraced such a hard, indifferent and cruel worldview? Even as Catholics, so many of us have taken a warped sense of pride in wielding our unkind and uncharitable words like swords. Christ tasked us with being the salt of the earth and yet all too often, we appear willing and eager to partake in the poisoning of our social compact. We, as Americans are a political lot; we always have been. In and of itself, this is neither wholly good nor wholly evil. But when it becomes evident that Jesus is being forced to take a back seat to our political allegiances, we’ve gone way off course. To make things worse, too many of us have tried to convince ourselves that Jesus was something that he wasn’t in order to serve our own political agenda. We employ “alternative facts” in an effort to redefine who Jesus was so that he fits neatly into our politically-biased box of convenience. This is dangerous because it has the potential to turn people away from Christ, what we Catholics refer to as “giving scandal.”

In his letter to the Romans, St. Paul stated, “do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind.”(Romans 12:2) I write this not as an advocate for one political party or the other, but as a Catholic and as a servant of Jesus Christ who is concerned that too many Catholics have elevated their political loyalties to a status that takes precedence over their loyalty and fidelity to God. Some would even go so far as to claim that their political loyalty is a result of their loyalty to God, to which I must humbly cry out: “rubbish!” Our Lord implored us to carry his torch, to effectively be His light in the world to others. We cannot serve as a light when our words and actions reek of darkness and surliness. If our demeanor does not emanate love and compassion, then we are not accurately representing He who is the very essence of love and compassion, Jesus Christ.

Our world is clearly in peril. This should certainly give us pause and open our hearts to more frequent occasions of prayer and meditation. But it should also instill in us the wisdom and motivation to accept our collective vocational role in all of this as Christians. We have an opportunity, perhaps greater than any generation has had before us, to shine as the light of Christ in a world that is hellbent on sowing the seeds of its own demise. We have an obligation to carry His torch and to rise above the pettiness, the vulgarity and the ugliness of our modern world. Failure, quite simply, is not an option. Our Savior is with us; we must let the world see Him.

Advertisements

…what reward will you have?

cf56e24696ca57d9052dc6267b70f1dc

There seems to be a disturbing trend plaguing our society that instills in me a fear far greater than any fear that I might derive from the thought of terrorists or active shooters or any other kind of boogeymen that the talking heads on TV might try to force feed our already-weary psyches. Charlotte Bronte wrote that “conventionality is not morality.” Our society, however seems to be embracing the most dangerous aspects of conventionality and conformity. Pack mentality, particularly retributive populism has become something of a new religion in the United States and it is manifesting itself in a collective sadistic indifference towards death.

Too many of us jump at the opportunity to boast about the United States being a “Christian nation” and yet when push truly comes to shove, we do nothing to back up that claim. We applaud the incoherent, saber-rattling rantings of our political leaders; we wave flags and cheer at the notion of our warships launching missiles at other human beings; we vilify victims of legitimate police brutality; and perhaps worst of all, we seize the opportunity to dance on the graves of recently deceased individuals who have been labeled as “evil” by the court of public opinion.  As Catholics, we are taught from a young age that actions, not people, are evil. Especially in our modern age of advanced scientific and medical wisdom, it would be irresponsible and vacuous to dismiss a person as being evil without fully understanding the emotional and psychological background of that individual. Yet in the aftermath of the deaths-by-suicide of former NFL star Aaron Hernandez and “Facebook killer” Steve Stephens, we didn’t miss a beat in jumping all over their respective demises. The commentary I saw on social media this morning was shameful. Have we really become a people who relish and rejoice in the deaths of other human beings?

Hernandez was convicted of murder and the evidence in his case was fairly convincing. Stephens never saw the inside of a courtroom, but his own video evidence would indicate that his guilt for the crime of murder was self-evident.  As someone who works in mental health, I cannot emphasize enough how surprised most people would be to know how little we really know about mental illness in the broad sense; it might not seem likely or plausible to the average person that a seemingly stable individual would suddenly snap and turn into Mr. Hyde, but it is not unprecedented.  Could Hernandez, like so many other football players, have been suffering from some type of CTE-related brain damage? We are only uncovering the tip of the iceberg in terms of understanding just how damaging the sport of football is to the human brain. As for Stephens, we know very little about him at this point, other than the fact that he has had no previous legal troubles or manifestations of violent behavior.

For those of us who call ourselves Catholics, it is only natural to pray for Hernandez’ victim Odin Lloyd and Stephens’ victim, Robert Goodwin; the harder part, and I would say the obligatory part that truly makes us Christians is the fact that we must pray for the souls of Mr. Hernandez and Mr. Stephens, even if–and especially if–it hurts to do so. Jesus made this painfully clear. Praying for those who are nice is easy; praying for those who appear to embrace evil is much harder, and yet Jesus does not make this optional. Those who choose to exhibit such a blatant and boastful disregard for human life by essentially celebrating death—regardless of the acts committed by the recently deceased—are a source of deep concern to me because they have chosen to essentially play God by either judging the souls of others or by failing to even recognize the fact that the individuals had souls to begin with. Please understand that in no way am I expressing any condonation of the terrible acts committed by both of these men and my heart certainly goes out to the families of the victims. But we cannot combat evil with evil. Romans 12:21 makes it plain that we must fight evil with good. To actively ignore the very real fact that the lives of the perpetrators were no more or less sacred in the eyes of God than their victims’ is to miss the entire point of what makes us Christians. A society that is so willing to turn a blind eye to what is right promotes a moral bereftness that is far more frightening to me that any damage that can be inflicted by a man with a bomb or a gun.

On Vocations

 

abbey-of-new-clairveaux_21

When you’ve attended Catholic schooling your entire life as I have, there are things that are engrained in you from an early age that non-Catholics or public school Catholics might not fully grasp in the same manner. Along with terminology—monstrance, vespers, narthex, sacristy, adoration and scapular, just to name a few at random—we learn the meaning and the concept of “vocation” quite early on. As an altar boy who took his job seriously, the idea of the priesthood was something that was always at the forefront of my mind. I was well known for my willingness to serve multiple Masses on a Sunday morning—including the 10:00am Italian Mass which was one of my personal favorites. I loved being in Church. I loved the incense, the music, the fact that as an altar boy I could enter the sacristy while “regular” parishioners couldn’t. I felt important.

Shortly after college, I began strongly discerning the possibility of entering the priesthood. My uncle had been a priest at the Cistercian, aka Trappist monastery in Spencer, Massachusetts, St. Joseph’s Abbey for over 50 years and I had been a frequent retreatant there for many years. There was something otherworldly about the silence, the prayers, the inner peace that I experienced when I was on retreat there. It was the brilliant writer and monk, Thomas Merton (Fr. Louis) who brought the Trappist order into the American mainstream back in the 1940’s, 50’s and 60’s. I was fortunate enough to have been granted permission to spend a weekend in the remote hermitage on the grounds there during a particularly intense period of my discernment. In many ways, it was my “dark night.” That experience will stay with me for the rest of my life, as I went through the entire gamut of emotional and spiritual struggles over the course of three full days. It is something that I cherish and I don’t think it would be an exaggeration to say that it solidified the foundations of my faith.

In the end, the Lord led me to the vocation of marriage, rather than Holy Orders. Much like the military, the monastic life is not for all men (or women). But the men and women who are in fact cut out for that life are a varied lot, eclectic and as different as snowflakes, but possessing a clarity and an understanding of oneself that few people in the outside world can fully comprehend. Upon moving to Northern California, one of the first things my wife and I did was to visit our local Trappist monastery, the Abbey of New Clairvaux in Vina, CA. It came as no surprise that the feelings I got when I arrived there were reminiscent of the feelings I would always receive at St. Joseph’s. The monks who call it home possessed a very similar joie de vivre to the monks at Spencer and the peace and tranquility of the monastery grounds is equally inspiring.

Monasteries are inherently self-sustaining, or at least they attempt to be so by having a specific trade in which to support themselves by. While Spencer produces acclaimed jams, jellies and preserves as well as world renowned altar vestments, Vina’s niche is their wines which, as a chef, I must say are exquisite. They are currently in the process of reconstructing an 800-year old monastery Chapter House from Ovila, Spain; the stones were brought to the United States by William Randolf Hearst in 1930 and eventually found their way into the hands of the Trappist order. It is this very appreciation of the rich spiritual and artistic history of our Church that has always endeared me to the Trappists.

So what exactly is a vocation, some might ask? To put it quite simply, it is the pursuit of one’s purpose for living, as intended by God Himself. All of us have been created by our God with a purpose. We have all been given talents and skills that God has instilled in us for the sake of making the world a better place. Though it is a small part of the whole, it goes beyond simply what we do for a living. Vocation is the full picture of who we are and what we do. For some of us, it is getting married and having a family while supporting that family by using our God given talents in our daily labor. For others it is a life of active service in one capacity or another. But in most cases, when we hear petitions for an increase in vocations at Mass every Sunday, the vocation we have in mind is to the priesthood or religious life. It is no secret that these vocations are dwindling compared to a few decades ago. Why this is the case is the topic for another discussion, as entire books have been written about it. What I will say, however is that for men who are in fact considering a vocation to the religious life, the Trappist life is something truly worth looking into.

It is a life that is immensely different than life in the outside world. For starters, the day begins at 3:30am and ends around 7:30pm. While the day is in fact centered around prayer, make no mistake, work is an equally important aspect of life. St. Benedict, the patron of the order, preached the equal importance of Ora et Labora, prayer and work. It is a humble life to be certain. But as I have seen in my personal experiences, as well as through my uncle, it is an infinitely rewarding life. And what so few people seem to understand is that it is a vocation whose importance goes far beyond the individual who lives it; it is we, the laity and the world at large who need the prayers of those living the monastic life. Their prayers are our direct line to heaven. In a world that has grown so fast and so disconnected from God due to our collective preoccupation with ourselves, we’ve reached a point where the continued prayer and work of the global monastic communities is needed more than ever. I would implore any man who is even remotely considering a vocation to the religious life to take a retreat to the Abbey of New Clairvaux and see for themselves the beauty and the importance of this particular vocation.

If you live on the West Coast and you would like to take a retreat for the purpose of vocational discernment, please contact Brother Christopher, Vocation Director at the Abbey of Our Lady of New Clairvaux at godseeking@newclairvaux.org  or (530) 839-2161.

What Choice Is Ours?

 

 

During the celebration of holy mass in the chapel of the Carmelite Monastery 6 members of the OCDS community made promises to the Order.  Dr. Jason Bourgeois and Judy Hawkins professed their temporary vows for 2 years and David Travers, Suzie Megown, Kath

If there is anything that we, as Catholics, can learn—assuming we didn’t already know this—from the abhorrent state of our nation’s political affairs, it is that we should never put our faith in men (or women). Despite my relatively young age, the study of history has taught me enough about the presidencies of men the likes of Eisenhower and Kennedy to know that we are painfully bereft of true statesmen in the 21st century. Archbishop Fulton Sheen once said that it was hard to admit that one is a sinner. In other words, human beings are prone to pride and boastfulness and we have a difficult time admitting to our own inherent stubbornness. This is not a new concept. But it seems that we are increasingly living in a world that is devoid of humility.

In looking at our two choices for the presidency in 2016, what we’re seeing is a great deal of pride and boasting and a severe lack of humility. If it is true that our elected officials are merely mirror images of their electorate, I must say that I’m deeply concerned. Broken clocks are indeed right twice a day and so it goes without saying that if I tried really hard, I could find positive aspects of the platforms of Secretary Clinton and Mr. Trump. That being said, I find both individuals to be deeply flawed as politicians and as a role models and I genuinely believe that both of them will lead our country down two very different, though equally dangerous paths.

Let’s get controversial for a moment, shall we? Secretary Clinton is not the monster that many on the political right paint her as. There, I said it. But now that I’ve said it, I will also say that I find her to be wholly uninspiring, a pathological liar and a political opportunist whose policies are borderline schizophrenic. She changes her mind far too frequently according to the changing winds of popular opinion and she comes off as being palpably disingenuous. Should she be elected to the presidency, her administration would only further dilute the waters of American exceptionalism and reinforce the trending millennial hypersensitivities and prevailing tide of secularism, both of which are dismantling the once-great American fabric a little at a time.

As for Mr. Trump, I am not blind to the reasons why he is enormously popular—and equally unpopular. His rhetoric strikes a chord with people who, for one reason or another, are fearful of things and people who are unlike themselves. Taken to extremes, this mindset leads to xenophobia and ultra-nationalism. As Catholics, we never have the right to resort to such thinking. However, just this week Pope Francis expressed his dream for Europe, calling for a greater spirit of integration. I found his choice of the word integration to be alarming, as I have long shared the popular belief that the more appropriate concept would be that of assimilation—namely that people who seek refuge or a new life in Westernized countries should adopt and embrace Western values.  Integration is the notion that cultures should blend—oftentimes via government intervention, the result of which has almost always led to societal tensions and infighting.

In the case of Europe, the integration the Holy Father is calling for is not only cultural but religious. This creates a very tumultuous situation in an already fragile region—a region that was once the center of Christendom. Some would view this call for integration as serving to further erode the longstanding, though dwindling Christian values that have made Western Europe—and the United States—what they are today, which in turn plays right into the hands of those who subscribe to the rhetoric propagated by Mr. Trump. Samuel P. Huntington was a Harvard political scientist, a national security advisor for President Jimmy Carter and by all means, a liberal. Yet even he saw the dangers of promoting Western integration with non-Western cultures, particularly Islamic cultures. “The fundamental problem for the West is not Islamic fundamentalism. It is Islam, a different civilization whose people are convinced of the superiority of their culture and are obsessed with the inferiority of their power.”

It is easy in our modern, PC world to promote a starry-eyed form of utopian humanism and likewise, to dismiss and lambaste the Church of the Middle Ages as being too zealous and hungry for political power, but doing so would be ignoring the very real historic facts of human nature and cultural differences. The Church is comprised of human beings, therefore, like human beings, it is flawed. Now that we’ve acknowledged the obvious, we must acknowledge that no other institution in the history of the world has offered more global opportunity for human progress via scientific endeavors, higher education and familial and societal framework than the Roman Catholic Church. To even attempt to dispute this would be an exercise in futility. The Church is the world’s leading charitable organization, it runs more universities than any other religious organization and the Society of Jesus alone has produced a staggering number of leading mathematicians and scientists for the better part of five centuries.

So why is it that so many people in our world—and more specifically, in our nation—have embraced the cultures of hedonism, relativism and overall self-destruction? Why is it that we can no longer find leaders who exemplify the best qualities of human nature, rather than the worst? I’m sorry to say that I do not have the answers to these questions. Or perhaps, to be more specific, I have answers, but most people won’t want to hear them. To ask people to turn back towards God, to embrace His ways and to live in a spirit of humility and selflessness, i.e. the true American spirit, will sadly fall on the deaf ears of a society increasingly obsessed with worshipping new forms of golden calves. As Catholics, we can only look on at the sad spectacle, live out the example set for us by Christ and take refuge and shelter in He who offers the only true happiness and—most importantly—Eternal Life.

Quid Est Veritas?

 

6a00d834515d1e69e20105349e2513970c-800wi

St. Augustine once alluded to the idea that if you think you can comprehend God, then it isn’t God that you comprehend. God is the Creator; we are his creation. As such, it is not possible for us to fully comprehend our Creator in His entirety. Despite this incontrovertible fact, we need not look far to find people who are thoroughly convinced that they know everything there is to know about God, and they are almost always all too ready to proselytize to you. I’ve had the misfortune of running into quite a few folks who fit this bill and sadly, I encountered another one this morning at Mass.

Let me start by saying that I am not a terribly political individual and what I mean by that is that while I care about social issues, I abhor the politicization of my Catholic faith by those who seek division, rather than unity and fellowship. When I come across fellow Catholics, both at home and in my frequent travels, I am filled with a spirit of camaraderie and I look to engage in positive dialogue, regardless of that person’s background or arbitrary characteristics. I make it a point to always visit a local parish or basilica when I travel, as I view those places as my many homes away from home. Needless to say, it perturbs me to have someone blindside me in one of these supposedly safe places—my local parish no less—with their misdirected hostility.

I walked into church about 15 minutes before the 8:30 weekday Mass to check out what was new in our parish library—an impressive library for a small, local parish, I might add. There was only one other person in the room—an older gentleman wearing dark, fit over UV glasses.  Every few minutes, I’d glance over in my periphery and notice that he was looking in my direction. After the third or fourth time, I looked right at him and said “good morning.” He grunted something inaudible and I returned to the shelf that I was perusing. The bells began to ring and I walked into the nave for Mass.

When Mass ended, I began walking towards the exit. As I was passing the library, the gentleman from earlier came out the door and stood right in front of me. “Good morning,” I said once again. With no reciprocation of politeness or salutation, he glared down at my sweatshirt, and said “Fordham, huh? Did you go to Fordham?” Those who know me know that I am deeply proud and appreciative of my Jesuit education. “Yes, I’m currently a graduate student at Fordham,” I replied. “I hate you Jesuits,” he said, with no trace of sarcasm in his tone. “You know, it was Ignatius and his followers who destroyed our Church. Georgetown is more interested in worshipping Obama than Christ. Martin Luther was a good, holy, Augustinian Catholic priest and he understood that faith alone was all you needed to go to Heaven. Works are meaningless. It was people like Loyola who forced him out and ruined our Church. Now we have this Marxist, Peronist for a Pope.”

It was quite a lot for me to take in all at once. Where would I begin? For one thing, Peronism and Marxism were vastly different political ideologies. Francis would need to master the art of bilocation in order to be both at the same time. Sancto Subito if he pulls that off. I hadn’t heard that Georgetown removed Christ from the cross and replaced the Corpus with the “Body of Barry,” though the blasphemous visual sure made me want to chuckle. But the Luther comments were what stood out and confused me the most. “Have you studied the Reformation?” I asked. “Have you?” he angrily replied. “Well, yes I have,” I told him. “Sure, from a Catholic Jesuit—the word dripped from his tongue with disdain—perspective. You’ve been brainwashed by the Church,” he said. “Actually,” I said, “I went through a period during my early 20’s when I attended a Lutheran church so I’ve studied the Reformation from both perspectives and while Martin Luther was indeed a bright individual, I found his theology to be somewhat schizophrenic. Reform was necessary, but if you want reformist philosophy with actual substance from a holy, Catholic priest, perhaps Erasmus would be a better person to study.” He waved his hand as if to brush me off—I have to wonder if he knew who Erasmus was—and dismissed me by saying, “You’re from the new generation; what do you know?” I smiled and said, “I suppose I don’t know much in the grand scheme of things. I’m just doing the best I can with what I do know.” At that point, he cracked a smile and asked me what I was studying. I told him that I had studied theology and was now studying pastoral counseling. He attempted to offer me some advice, saying, “Then you have an obligation to guide people to the truth.” “I hope that I succeed in doing so always,” I replied. He reached out his hand, we shook and he said goodbye.

Quid est veritas? I thought to myself. The man’s rantings were utterly incoherent. In the past, I might have reacted with a sense of anger towards his ignorance. I might have felt a sense of righteous superiority. But I felt neither. Instead, I felt a sense of sadness. Sad that he really felt that God’s will was so narrow-minded; sad that he was blind to the fact that his political anger was clouding and suppressing his ability to live out the Gospel message. I wished that I had employed a more pastoral response. I hoped that the words I did use did not come across as condescending. And I hoped that in some odd twist, maybe some of my words had reached him and led him to the Truth—fully aware of our mutual inability to fully comprehend that Truth. Despite his vitriol, he is no more or less a child of God than I.

Jesus commands us to love unconditionally. Love is not a feeling; it is an action. With that, I will always keep in mind the words of Flannery O’Connor when encountering those who inexplicably seek division and conflict: “I love a lot of people, understand none of them.”

Judge Not…

 

laetaremedal

 

*Sidenote; this is a slightly revised version of something I wrote a while back. It’s just that the topic has come up once again.*

It is natural for young people to embrace things with zeal. Whether it be social and political opinions or religious fervor, youth lends itself to jumping into things with both feet.  I was no different. During my college years, when so many of my friends were abandoning their faith, my Catholic faith took on a much more orthodox appearance. Some would have even called it borderline traditionalist. With time, temperance and a great deal of education, I shed some of the rigidity and, in turn, adopted a more discerning and patient brand of faith. I learned to avoid being quick to rashness or judgment, as well as refraining from fruitless, pedantic debates over issues that need not be debated. That being said, we must also be mindful of the fact that while judgment is God’s and His alone, we nonetheless retain the right to call something what it is–or isn’t, provided that we have factual basis for our proclamations.

I’m all for an inclusive Church–a Church that understands that it literally takes all kinds. Much like our civic society, I’ve long felt that we are much better off when we are open to and respectful of all points of view, even if we disagree with those points of view. We can certainly point out the erroneous beliefs that people hold without resorting to vitriolic judgment. My own beloved University of Notre Dame has been the subject of controversy this week, criticized by both alumni and “fans” for allegedly not being Catholic enough as a result of presenting Vice President Joe Biden and former House Speaker John Boehner with their distinguished Laetare Medal. Critics from both sides of the political aisle have cast stones at Notre Dame President Fr. John Jenkins C.S.C. for inviting both statesmen; those on the right claiming Biden is pro-abortion and those on the left claiming Boehner is pro-death penalty.

The Laetare Medal is presented annually by Notre Dame to Catholic individuals who have performed outstanding service to both the Church and society as a whole. The charges against both men might very well be accurate, but we cannot deny that both men have spent their lives working towards the betterment of American society and both men have spent their lives practicing their shared Catholic faith. Furthermore, shouldn’t we as Catholics pride ourselves in the fact that our universities expose us to different points of view? Fr. Jenkins made it abundantly clear that neither he, nor the university were endorsing either man’s political viewpoints. Instead, they were simply commending them for decades of distinguished public service. The history of universities as bastions of academic excellence is deeply intertwined with Catholicism, especially with the Jesuit order. I am a product of both Jesuit and Holy Cross institutions and I, for one, can speak directly to the fact that it was my exposure to that which was different that served to strengthen and fortify my faith. To shelter ourselves from reality, opting instead to live in a proverbial bubble of possibly obtuse thinking, does us no good.

With all of that being said, we nonetheless reserve the right to call someone out for promoting or supporting something that is in direct contradiction to the teachings of Jesus Christ. The danger with this, however is that oftentimes, those who do so possess a rudimentary understanding of Church teachings and theology and instead opt—unknowingly– to speak from their political soapbox in the name of defending their faith. While Biden has in fact been a supporter of abortion and Boehner has likewise been a supporter of the death penalty—not to mention promoting other economic policies which have at times been detrimental to the needs of those of limited means—the fact remains that both men have attempted to do what they have believed was right and both men have attempted to remain true to their Catholic faith. At that point, it becomes a matter of conscience; ergo, it is between them and God. We reserve the right to point out their mistakes, but we hold neither the right to judge them, nor to arbitrarily excommunicate them in the court of public opinion.

 

We cannot know what is in the hearts of other men. What we can know, however, is that when your political views blind you from that which is Christ-like, you allow them to take precedence over behaving in a Christian manner, which then leaves you open to the judgment of others. To equate a university’s desire for dialogue and compassion with being liberal or harboring a subversive—even heretical—political agenda is irresponsible. That is not to say that we can never know that something is definitively right or wrong. On the contrary, if we have well-formed consciences, we can safely engage in dialogue with those who think differently than we do without fear of being somehow corrupted and maybe, just maybe our Catholic charity and our willingness to live the Gospel through our actions might open their eyes to something they’ve been missing all along.

Of Bathrooms and Circuses

4252d30e69c3306e47d25b40f3f3d246

 

For the past few months, I’ve made it a point not to comment on the ongoing bathroom gender debate that has been somewhat disproportionately dominating our national headlines. I’ve done this for two reasons. Firstly, I have to admit that I am unsure of where I stand on the issue. Secondly, and this ties in with the first reason, I genuinely try to observe and digest all aspects of an issue before weighing in on it—almost unheard of in our modern Twitter world—but alas, I’m vain and I prefer not to look like a fool.

Let me state the obvious: I’m neither a doctor nor a scientist so I really don’t know a great deal about the medical and psychological realities that are at play here. My area of study is in the spiritual realm and so I can only comment with any degree of accuracy from that perspective. If any of the proceeding commentary can be debunked or contradicted by hard, scientific fact, mea culpa; I am not too proud to stand corrected. That being said, I always seek truth above all else, no matter how controversial or unpopular that truth may be. Truth is not subject to the whims of society and that is something that is not debatable. If we can agree upon that one point, I think we can proceed amicably.  If we cannot, then it might suffice to say that you’re not necessarily part of my target audience and much of what I write might very well rub you the wrong way.

After much discernment, I’m finding that I’m not much closer to fully grasping this issue than I was when I first started researching it. As is often the case in our oft-polarized society, there are two very extreme sides to this issue, neither of which is willing to give any validity to the other side’s point of view, nor are they willing to so much as budge from their extreme opinions, despite any attempts to offer perspective or reasoning. One school offers one brand of rhetoric in the name of tolerance and progress while the other side offers their own brand of rhetoric, employing red herring conjectures aimed at frightening people, while maligning an entire class of people who, despite any of our opinions, have a right to exist in our society. I will address both sides and their many flaws before offering an alternative viewpoint.

The information age has undeniably increased the rate in which we receive and process information and as a result, the rate of social progress has likewise become a more rapid and immediate. Movements fueled by social media have seen greater levels of success than ever before thanks to the instantaneous spread of information and the ability to garner national headlines at a moment’s notice. While in theory this might seem like a positive step, in reality it has proven to be a very dangerous tool. The court of public opinion receives its often flawed evidence instantly and as a result, verdicts are formed just as instantly, without any consideration given to the fact that the information provided might be biased or just plain incorrect. The Arab Spring comes to mind, as does the Michael Brown case in Ferguson, MO. In both cases, news went viral almost immediately and widespread public opinions were formed without even a fraction of the actual factual information being known.

Those on the progressive side of the political aisle are very quick to make just about anything a civil rights issue and once that label sticks, it becomes very difficult to oppose publicly without being branded a bigot. This has become a prime tactic of the American Left and while disingenuous, it has been a brilliantly successful strategy. That is not to say that the American Right doesn’t employ similarly abhorrent tactics. The bathroom issue has brought out the worst in both sides, with those on the left using the blanket civil rights term to promote a rather bizarre and largely vague cause and those on the right seemingly demonizing trans-gendered people by comparing them to sexual predators and child molesters. So which side is right?

In my view, neither side is right. The left has tried to make this akin to the historical African-American struggle, which it simply is not, while the right has shown a fundamental lack of understanding and compassion by ignoring the fact that trans-gendered individuals have a right to exist under the law. That being said, there is a great deal of grey area at play that is being ignored, a grey area where elements of validity in the arguments of both sides reside.

If a man or a woman goes through the full spectrum of medical steps necessary to transform themselves into the opposite sex, it would certainly seem self-evident that the individual in question would use the public restroom that corresponds to their appearance. Bruce Jenner was born a man but has made himself to look, for all intents and purposes, like a woman. He now claims to be a she, going by the name of Caitlyn. I would find it somewhat more jarring to see someone who looks like him (her) in the men’s restroom rather than in the women’s restroom. There is absolutely no reason to believe that he (she) poses any more of a threat to society than anyone else.

But I also cannot help but wonder where our society is headed, morally speaking. While it certainly seems tolerant and compassionate to reinforce the cliché that we can be anything we want to be, I’m inclined to think that perhaps we need to be more realistic with ourselves and face the fact that sometimes we simply were not born to be the thing we might want to be. Since the age of three, I desperately wanted to be a professional baseball player. At 5’10, with scrawny arms and a complete inability to hit a curveball, I had to come to grips with the fact that it simply wasn’t in the cards, despite the fact that I continue to live and breathe baseball. I firmly believe that baseball is in my blood, as much as anything else, but limits have been set and I have to live with that.

So is it possible that despite all the medical advancements and all the Tony Robbins-you-can-do-it-if-you-believe-it motivational drivel, maybe, just maybe, we ought to simply accept that we are who we are, regardless of what we might want to believe? This is in no way a commentary on homosexuality vs. heterosexuality, as that is a completely different issue. But one cannot be blind to the fact that the notion of being born a man, yet taking medical steps to become a woman certainly comes off as being peculiar—even mentally unstable—to the vast majority of people. Again, I am not a doctor, so I cannot speak to the science behind this, I can only wonder if it speaks of a deeper superficiality that has become pandemic in our global society. As people have increasingly dismissed the need for a relationship with God, they have grown increasingly in love with themselves, via plastic surgery, materialism, the delusional pursuit of wealth and the social façade that comes with it and I simply wonder if this is but one more aspect of that grand societal depravity?

The real issue at hand goes far beyond who uses which bathroom. If it didn’t, unisex bathrooms would suffice; but the courts have said that they won’t. The real issue is that we are a society afloat on a rudderless ship. We have abandoned belief in God, opting instead to believe in ourselves and as G.K. Chesterton once wrote, “the men who really believe in themselves are all in lunatic asylums.”