TLA is FJC

Father Jerome Cummings

Knowledge of the Father, A Course Of Study For The Twelfth Grade
"Now this is eternal life. That they may know you Father, and He whom you have sent."(John.17:3)
By: Rev. Jerome Lyons Cummings

AUTHORS PREFACE

This course was written by students. It is the result of about thirty years of teaching and attempting to answer student's needs, that this course came about. Hence this is a course that was designed by students for students. It differs from other religion programs principally in that it is designed to meet student's needs at the twelfth grade level. It attempts (after much prompting by students), to give them the TOOLS they need now and for the future especially in the ways of loving God, and the neighbor. It seeks to clarify the "WHAT?" we gave them in grammar school, by giving them now the "WHY?" that they must have to all of God's doctrines and the Church's teachings. It differs also in that it does not spend much time in the areas of religious experience and endless examining current feelings and movements and desires. Not that these are not important, but students at the twelfth grade level have made it abundantly clear that they have identified those things, and now they want to know how to DEAL with them. Upon examination, this is to teach as Jesus did.

It was never my intention to set this course to writing, but so many of my former students (well over four thousand!) have asked me to do so, that I have finally given-in and am putting in writing, some of the things we discussed in class. Its structure follows none of the standard ways of writing a teacher syllabus manual in the traditional sense at least, of covering certain material by priority or theological treatment of imperatives or catechetical approach. It follows rather those sequences which years of teaching have indicated where the students interests and needs are, and has gradually evolved from learning what they want, and making it fit into that framework. More simply, it outlines for them the two paths they must choose between: those of God and Adam. In God's design, the human being is asked to deal with REALITY and TRUTH. In the other path, the student must deal with self-centered existence and the world of FANTASY. Jesus sums up the first way, and the world that we live in sums up the other. They are contradictory as Jesus warned us they would be.

The author is not intending to get into the "methodology wars" that constantly surround any teaching of any subject (especially of religion!). Nor is he seeking "approval" from an accrediting agency or text writers. Long ago the author learned from the teaching method of Christ, that what you put across to your students is in the final analysis, yourself, and not the subject matter. Each teacher therefore, learns that the students are of all the same thought pattern when it comes to learning. They ask themselves one question repeatedly and in various different ways, "does the teacher really believe this?" It is the same formula expressed in so many ways like "love is shown in deeds not in words", etc., that the author has finally learned over the course of some time, that is what the students look to first, in assimilating and choosing a plan of life. Hence the structure of this course follows simply this format: What do the students need, and how did God provide the answers for those needs? The following presentation attempts to address those expressed needs.

No attempt is made to claim my originality for this material. Basically, it is from the teachings of God and then the students themselves who have arranged it in order of their simple human expressions. In most cases it is their thoughts, their ideas that are now presented upon the written page. If there is any humor or sequence of presentation it is simply that of the students, who expressed themselves in some way, or, as we proceeded, their observations that became all too real and funny, and we both had many a good laugh! I was fortunate to in having very good teachers in my life, and they, together with my students have largely formulated and dictated this text and for which I am most grateful. The author willingly submits to lawful Church authority for any correction deemed necessary. It is my hope that this will fulfill the teaching injunction incumbent upon all who are sent by the master to "go and teach all nations." It was never thought or conceived to be an all-inclusive work, but designed principally for the twelfth grade Senior Religion course of two semesters.

The principal sources that have been consulted and guided this work are the Holy Spirit in prayer; the Divine Law of God that have come down to us long before the written word; then the Scriptures themselves as they are written down for us and presented by the long succession of Apostles and teaching magisterium of the Church as it was so given by Divine Mandate. Principally, we have used those official documents of the Church, the Councils, the teachings of the Church Fathers, and of late, the Decrees of the Vatican Council, the encyclicals of the various Popes, the American Bishops, and now at long last, the New Catechism. In addition we have followed the guidance of the teaching of the Summa Theologica of St. Thomas, the insights of the theology of St. Augustine, The New Catholic Encyclopedia, and the Jerome Biblical Commentary. Finally, above all, the four Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, have been the constant in the author's attempts to give the "knowledge of Eternal Life, that of the Father, and He whom He has sent, Jesus Christ."

I would be remiss if I did not thank all of my students for their help in the compilation of this syllabus. It is again, their work and not mine. I have consulted many of them over the years to be sure that I was on the "right track" with what has been presented, and an overwhelming ninety percent have responded that it was the best course they ever had in high school! I intend therefore not to change anything at their behest. I wish also to thank all those teachers of mine both living and dead, who have by their example and knowledge, contributed so greatly to this effort. The Master will be their reward. Specifically, I want to thank Mr. John Merino of Mater Dei High School, and Greg Winslow, George Fulton, Larry Larson, Tom Klipfel and other various former students who kept after me to its accomplishment.

Rev. Jerome L. Cummings
Feast of St. Joseph, 1993

DEDICATION

Dedicated to the most Blest of all Mother's who by her words taught THE WORD his human knowledge of the FATHER. Her "Magnificant" summed up the whole of ancient Israel's prayer, and leads us yet to Him who is the final "WORD". And finally to all my students who by their good lives and example have helped me to be a better teacher and priest for them.

I. Introduction
1. Why Religion Course in A Catholic School?
2. Theological as a Unifying Principle.
3. Course Requirements.
4. Class Procedures & Policies.

II. The Church and The World.
1. Creation:
A. Starting Points.
B. The problem.
C. Happiness.
D. Two Value Systems.
E. Semantics.
F. Proof.
G. Knowledge.
H. Truth.
I. Law.

2. Salvation:
A. God.
B. Scripture.
C. Religion.
D. Morality.

III. Part II. CHRISTIAN MARRIAGE.
1. General Introduction.
2. Church: Sacrament & Covenant.
3. Nature of Love.
4. Human Sexuality.
5. Dating: Choosing & Chosen.
6. Engagement & Marriage.
7. Birth & Control.
8. Family Life.
9. Celibacy & Single Life.


Part I. Introduction

1. WHY RELIGION COMES IN A CATHOLIC SCHOOL?

Two questions often arise: 1. Why do students have to take a religion course? 2. Why have them as the University and College levels will not give academic credit for them? It seems unfair to include them therefore in the grade-point average.

Jesus proclaimed a "new" way of life. It was not just a philosophy or a set of norms for idealistic living. He came to announce the fact that there was for all people of all times, ANOTHER WAY OF LIFE, which the Father had designed for human nature. It will differ from any given society or culture of any age. That causes tension even in our own day. Jesus gave no attention to the majority opinions or "polls" of public opinion. Neither was he concerned with whether the society of his own day approved of what he taught. Indeed, it was a totally NEW WAY OF LIFE in a spirit of authority. No wonder it causes tension!

To learn about that was to gain KNOWLEDGE OF THE FATHER's design for human nature, and that all humans had the same goal: Eternal life. Though we still live a natural life with all its demands and needs, those are not its goal. It will require a struggle to live that "new" way. According to Jesus, I am God's child on my way back to heaven.

The world in which we live has never accepted that, and has a totally different set of values. The whole reason for a Catholic School therefore is to prepare the student to learn that there are those TWO approaches to life, and that the presentation of what Jesus taught could not be compromised. His teaching envisions that the human has as a goal, the GLORY OF THE FATHER. The world in which we live (of any time and culture) has a goal of simple-enrichment, gratification, and the power of money. The purpose of the first is eternal life; the purpose of the second is this life and that's all and death is the end of all.

Thus the Catholic School teaches:

"No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will stand by the one and hate the other. You can not serve both God and money."
-Luke 16:13

Therefore we are trying to be different! No aspect of life escapes the Christian standard. While the grade-points will not be accepted by the institutions of this life, Jesus taught that a FINAL EXAM would be given to all, and that a GRADE would be given by his Father. Those who flunk that exam will be forever marked with a sign of eternal disgrace! Thus, that's the grade that counts!


2. THEOLOGY AS A UNIFYING PRINCIPLE OF STUDY.

Theology has as its goal, the unification of all science. That is so because it studies the highest of all truth and goodness, God. All other science studies aspects of creation and attempts to learn all about the "why" creation is the way it is. To study the Creator is the KEY to understanding how all sciences compliment each other and are a part of the whole of truth. Without the study of theology therefore is to doom us to unregulated scientific and human efforts with disaster as a result! Our society is no different than any other in this regard. Problems in environment, morality, marriage, violence, psychology, etc., the list of human misery is endless, because it's strivings at odds with each other, and threatens the very world and universe we live in because of this disunity. This is the reason the student must have a sound grounding in the efforts of the science of theology. Specifically;

LOVE. The child is born self-centered (thanks to Adam!). The main effort of parents is to wean the child away from the self-indulgence and self-centeredness fixation, and begin the process of learning to love, which is directed towards others. Failure to learn this dooms the child to a life immaturity destructive of all human relationships.

1. Childhood. Awareness of things and others.
2. Adolescence. Awareness of other human beings as persons. Here the person learns to pray as a stepping-stone to learn the "spiritualness" of other human beings. In other words, to LOVE! This will direct his physical body toward the goal of INTIMACY with another. Love is between persons; sex is between bodies. To separate them is disaster for growth of the human person. To zero in God in the student's growth pattern is to soundly ground that person on the notions of "spiritual" and thus prepare them for a mature relationship. Tragically Psychological psychosis will develop in the human who has still a fixation on self-gratification because of arrestment in development, and guilt and depression result from the demand to love and never having learned how. God is essential to a human being's growth.

3. COURSE REQUIREMENTS.

ATTENDANCE. At the senior level, responsibility is emphasized. Consequently, the student must understand the maturity of keeping their commitments. Absence is therefore as serious matter. Consequently, the teacher must be informed beforehand by the student.

TARDINESS. Habitual tardiness is a sign of immaturity. It will not be tolerated. It disturbs the whole class. The student must have a pass from the Principal or his delegate. No faculty member can admit a student directly to class.

ATTITUDE. Attitude and effort are expressed exteriorly. One cannot judge a person's intention but respect for others can be. Observance of all class procedures, school dress code, etc. are therefore a part of participation in class.

COURTESY. A great emphasis will be given on courtesy in this course. Jesus was unflaggingly courteous to everyone, especially his enemies. It differs from etiquette in that courtesy is the same in all times and cultures. Etiquette changes from society to society. The OBJECT of courtesy is "another". This is the beginning of all respect for others. Racism and discrimination cannot be tolerated.

WORKBOOK. The student must have a three ring binder and a supply of binder paper as well as a supply of pencils and pens. A three-hole punch should be purchased as well as a stapler. Continuous borrowing from others is an attitude problem. The workbook should include all the materials given by the teacher. It will receive a grade from time to time, and is a serious part of the semester grade. And at least one page of notes for each day. (Separate sheet of requirements will be given).

GOAL BOOK. The life's goal book has as its objective to give the student the opportunity to go outside of self, and be aware of the world about. It also gives an opportunity to learn a lot about self. Hence it's construction and work therein is a major part of the grade for both semesters. (A separate sheet of the requirements will be given).

GRADES & TESTS. In religion, grades are assigned for knowledge gained and demonstrated; notice to parents of a continuing growth pattern; indication of responsibility of COMMITMENT. Because most of life comes upon us without warning! Jesus used this method: "The son of man will come at the moment you least expect!" So, be prepared at all times. The student is asked therefore to REVIEW CLASS MATERIAL at least FIVE minutes per night. The Semester Exam will be a review of all material, and is 30% of the grade. Parents and students must sign the grade policy sheet and return to the teacher. Cheating results in an "F" for the semester.

ASSIGNMENTS & PROJECTS. From time to time, assignments will be given. Written work is to have a course title page and the FIRST page of text must have the name, course period and date at the top right hand corner. They are to be typed (unless excused by teacher and margins and school composition requirements are to be observed).

TEXTS. "Knowledge of the Father", by Rev. J. L. Cummings "A Man For All Seasons", by Robert Bolt. This text is to be studied and ANALYZED carefully from the first day. Reading and studying are not the same thing! The student is expected to know the essentials of the Text and the play and the distinct roles of the characters, as well as the application of the lessons to be learned.

"The American Bible". (Or one of equal value that gives adequate knowledge of how scripture was written, and introductory comment to its books).

Specifically:

First Semester: Genesis, first 5 chapters. Psalms, Proverbs, Wisdom, Matthew, Mark, Corinthians, Ephesians, Romans, Timothy, Colossians.

Second Semester: Exodus, John, Luke, and Thessalonians. (Current Marriage Text for second semester)


PRAYER. Each class in a Catholic School starts with a prayer. No attempt a proselytyzation will ever be made, but those of other faith traditions are expected to join in. (If a problem see teacher).

CHRISTIAN SERVICE. The school conducts a service hours program and accomplishment and attitude thereof is a part of this course. Also, without a serious reason, each student is expected to attend one of the Senior retreats offered by the school.

4. CLASS PROCEDURES.

The bell starts the class. The student is expected to be at the desk, book back underneath, and workbook on top, ready to begin when the bell ends. The bell does not end the class, the TEACHER does. School handbook norms are incorporated in this class. The object of this is respect for others. All classes begin with a prayer, and all must join in.

When a faculty member enters, students will stand.

Studying for another class is a serious matter and forbidden.

Absence of the Workbook and "Knowledge of the Father" is a serious matter.

Sleeping requires the teacher's express permission.


II Part I: The Church in the world.

1. CREATION.

There are two ways of living life. The first is that of dealing with REALITY, which is to recognize the fact of God and the creation of the real world about us. The second approach is to recognize only the world of my own experience, which finally turns out to be FANTASY. It is this appreciation that this work is about. We shall try to present it in a comparison fashion as we proceed.

Since the dawn of human existence (perhaps Angelic as well) the problem facing creatures with intelligence and will, is that of Epistemology (The nature, scope, and validity of Knowledge). All of the problems of history, and that of our own current day have their roots in epistemological problems. It started with Adam. (One can only guess at Angelic Knowledge at best but there do seem to be hints that their problems may have had a similar basis as well). Without attempting to address the scriptural problems at this point, we can say that Adam was given a command not to eat of a certain tree. That tree is described as that of being one of "knowledge of good and evil". What should be noticed here is that it is centered on the ability of the human nature to KNOW? Even more clearly, it is the very basis of a certain type of knowledge that human nature must avoid: the attempt at fathoming of the divine essence precisely as the ABSOLUTE NORM OF RIGHT AND WRONG FOR THE HUMAN NATURE, for it will permanently disable the mind and have immense effects on the physical side of the nature as well. In a very clear presentation, the book of Genesis is outlining the fact that to try to comprehend the nature of the Divine, one would in fact have to be divine. That would require equality with God, something which a creature could not do. This is not to say that one should not strive for knowledge of God. Indeed, just the opposite is true, for God is anxious to be found and known. Rather the danger lies specifically in attempting "equality" with God who is a Creator, and we are simply creatures. Trying to equalize our knowledge with that of God is tantamount to declaring ourselves equal to nature that tries to do so. Nevertheless, that is what Adam attempted to do. The attempt was to "eat" of the tree of knowledge into oneself (as eating does on a physical level). It was good choice of symbolism, because it accurately portrays, "taking into oneself by the act of seeing, touching, eating" that which on a human level is done with food for nourishment. To become a "knower" of good and evil is to become the ultimate in saying what is "good" or "bad" for human nature, something that would be in the very essence of God. To attempt to "force" such knowledge into the mind of the creature would be like trying to force a square peg into a round hole. Something will break from such a forcing, and it did! Adam "broke" himself apart in the attempt. It caused death. It was the first suicide.

Probably it is for this reason that St. Paul is to write in the letter to the Philippians that, "Jesus did not think equality with God something to be grasped at". What Adam tried to "grasp", Jesus relinquished as a disastrous path for human nature to take. He deliberately wanted to "empty" himself of such an action.

Therefore to the student who does not recognize the existence of God, this course has little to offer. The reason is that there are only two possibilities: God either exists, or does not. If He does not, then there is only one way to live life, and that is to be "God" for oneself. The unfortunate part of that is that every other human has the same starting point, and violence becomes the only way of settling anything. If the maxim "If I think its right then it is right for me" works equally for the other person as well as myself. Thus if that person is bigger or more powerful than I, it can't be wrong for that person to say, take my money, my spouse, kill my children, etc., because that person is doing it because they think it is right for them! This would be an intolerable state of affairs.

A STARTING POINTS

To start anything you have two options: 1) you can start somewhere or, 2) you can start nowhere. Since you cannot start nowhere in anything, we have only one alternative and that is to start SOMEWHERE. The importance of that matter at hand that is to be considered. Additionally, it will have the most important consequences in the result of the investigation. In this life we have to deal with three persons:

GOD, MYSELF, THE OTHER PERSON. Since this subject matter wants to deal with the first of first of these (God), that has to be the most important of all things to consider, and so our starting point must be with the best possible starting point, of the most important thing there is to consider. Thus the best possible starting points with our relationship with God, and since He is an "answer", then we must start with a PROBLEM. This is so because you have again, two alternatives: you can start with an answer, or you can start with a problem. Since one cannot start with an answer, then we shall have to start with a problem. The best problem to start with is one that everyone has, and one that will do the most good to find an answer to, for the most people. The biggest problem that we know of therefore is that of HUMAN WEAKNESS. Why? Well, everyone has it!

SUMMARY: Two places to start anything:
1. Start nowhere. Not possible
2. Start Somewhere. Two Possibilities
A. Start at an Answer: Nothing to solve.
B. A problem: Something to solve.
3. Best problem to solve: One that everyone has.

SCRIPTURE
1. Genesis: Chapter 1
2. Gospel of John: Chapter 1

B. THE PROBLEM

We shall start our examination with a look at "the problem" that is most unique to human nature, namely the fact of human weakness. What makes it fascinating is that: 1) everyone has it, and 2) it shouldn't be there!

It is a very rare occurrence that you can find something that is common to every human being. Yet that is what is found in the problem of human weakness. St. Paul laments over the fact. "The good I want to do, I don't do, and the evil that I don't want to do, I do right out and do". Shakespeare notes it well in the play Julius Caesar, when he says, "the fault dear Brutus, is not in the stars, but in ourselves". What we have here is a universal recognition of something common to all human beings, that there is a terrible factor in our nature that entices us to do the very things we do not want to do. Whether it is the thumb sucking in the baby that we try to get the child to overcome, or smoking, or drinking, or drugs, or sexual perversions, they all partake of one common denominator called Human Weakness. We all have it, and apparently we all have a very bad case of it! We can not but wonder at this factor, so universal, and yet so deep in us, and try to not only search for its source and origin, but to see if we can find a remedy. Our investigation then leads to the second fact that we know about it, namely that it wasn't in the original design!


One can discover the purpose of anything by examining its nature. And upon examining human nature we can see that it was designed for among many things, to be essentially happy. This human weakness keeps us from it. Yet upon examining the nature itself we can find no reason for the weakness. The body parts all operate in a wonderful harmony. The biological functions display a magnificent interplay with the nervous and hormonal systems, and interact with the brain and organs in a marvelous order. The weakness we discover is not in the body's design. We look at the Person, and find it also has incomprehensible but very real order of functioning, from the emotions, to the passions, to the intellect and the will. All seems in order as far as the "blueprint" is concerned. One can only conclude that something happened to the nature after it was constructed.

Let us take some simple examples. If the builder gets from the architect the plan that he has in mind, he gets together the tools and the materials and builds the building. If there is to be a fireplace in the center of the wall, that is very specifically noted in the blueprint. After the house is build, and we discover that there is no fireplace, we ask why? After all it was in the blueprint! Something happened somewhere along the line! Or, if a musician writes a musical score, and when it is played by the orchestra, one or another musician is playing some sour notes, one can conclude something happened to the score that was not the intention of the composer. Someone has done something to it that wasn't in the original design.

Now this is what we discover in human nature. It was designed to operate (we can see this in the blue-print itself) to operate in total harmony. If it does not (and it doesn't) then the conclusion is that something happened along the way that was a major disaster to the human nature. This is what we know as original defect or sin. It didn't collapse the building, but it sure made it difficult to operate. Adam is to blame. Instead of operating as he was designed to do, namely to freely choose to love God back as a response, he chose to love himself, perverting the design and causing a fatal flaw in the structure. It wasn't designed that way by the Divine Architect, but it sure is what we have now!

This begins to give us (only begins!) an insight as to human suffering and disease in the world. If the compass is slightly off in its function then the ship is never going to get to its port. Someone must come and re-adjust the compass. Suffering was never intended by God. We brought that on ourselves due to the centuries and centuries of pride and greed. (For instance, there is more than adequate food supplies to feed the whole world, yet millions will continue to starve because of the disproportionate use of the foodstuffs. This is all because of greed and self-interest). Some others may say, "How can God allow suffering to innocent children in the world?" Well it wasn't God's idea. But again through centuries and centuries of humans fooling around with biology and its functions, there have been disastrous consequences; the AIDS disease and hemophilia are but two notable examples. They were something that DEVELOPED because of human beings selfish interference with nature's laws. We all learned in physics, that for every action, there is a corresponding re-action. Well, that is what has happened down through time. Look what we are still doing to the environment! But I don't think God can be blamed for smog!

Sadly, something happened, and we must not it, and then deal with it the best way we can. (Happily, we shall see later on, god came to our rescue and sent us the means to overcome the defects. But that is for a later chapter). We may note however, that there are three most UNREASONABLE effects of this human blunder. They are the fact of 1.) The weakness itself. It just wasn't in the design, and that is totally frustrating. 2.) Ignorance. Scientific discovery has shown that every sensation that we have ever had since our days in the womb, is stored in our brain. Yet try to recall these sensations, and we find it difficult. How often we have had to relearn the same things in school that we have learned many times before. It is all stored up there in our head, but try and get it down and express it is something else! 3.) Death. There is nothing in the design of human nature that one can point to that would argue for the fact that we are going to die, but we will! (Death is understood here in its most common sense of the separation of the material element (body) from the spiritual element (person or soul). It is that coming apart that we are using here as the notion of death). We act this way naturally enough when we are called to a funeral parlor. WE go to see "Uncle Zeke's remains". We look in the coffin and we immediately say, "boy it sure doesn't look like Uncle Zeke"! And of course, we are right! It isn't Uncle Zeke. It's his body. But whatever constituted Uncle Zeke is not there! If he were there, he would get out of that coffin in a hurry! No, the sad fact is that we are going to part with our bodies (only bodies are taken to cemeteries) whether we will or no, and that is called death. The problem with all of this is there is no indication of the slightest, that we were intended to make such a separation! This beautiful harmonious functioning human being comes apart, and for no reason it its design. That is a fact we must all deal with, and has been for every human being of all times and places. That's a pretty significant fact! It is totally unreasonable.

All in all, it can be said that we have a PROBLEM! It is a universal problem to all human beings, and that is the reason we are using that as our STARTING POINT for this course. That PROBLEM is the biggest obstacle to our obtaining our final purpose. And remembering our principle, that the purpose of anything can be discovered by examining its nature, we find that examination tells us that our purpose is to be "Happy". Thus we shall take that as our next consideration, as human weakness stands directly in the way of our obtaining what we most want, which is HAPPINESS.

SUMMARY:
1. The Problem the best starting point: Human Weakness.
2. Three aspects of human weakness that are unreasonable:
A. The very weakness itself: it wasn't in the design or blueprint. But it's there!
B. Ignorance. There is no reason to forget anything.
C. Death. There is no reason why we should die.

PRINCIPLES:
1. Purpose of anything can be learned by examining its nature.
2. The end does not justify the means.
3. God did not cause human suffering; human fooling with God's perfect creation did.

SCRIPTURES:
1. Genesis: If you eat of this fruit, you will die.
2. Genesis: Their eyes were opened to self; blind to God.
3. St. Paul: The Good I want to do, I don't do. The bad I don't want to do, I do.
4. What will a man give in exchange for his life?

MAN FOR ALL SEASONS:
Cardinal Woolsey: "Certainly measures must be taken. Regrettable but they must be taken."



C. HAPPINESS.

What does it meant to be "Happy"? We all use the term with some vague notion of what it means, but it will be essential that we find out at least in essence what it means or will mean to be "happy". We shall take some simple examples to illustrate what is involved.

If a pencil could write, it would tell you that it is happiest when it is writing. Why? Because upon examination we can see that is what is designed to do. (It is not designed to be chewed on!). IF we look at a very fine surgeon's scalpel we can see that it is so finely made that it is the sharpest that human effort can make it, so that the incision will be quick and without the least amount of blood and damage being done. But if one took such a scalpel out and started chipping concrete with it, we shudder to see such a finely honed instrument being blunted and damaged in such a fashion! Certainly if the scalpel could talk, it would cry out, "That's not what I'm made for"! It would be totally unhappy at such misuse. Such is the case with human nature. It will be happy only when it is being used to obtain its object or purpose. To find that purpose we shall examine some of the more common expressions to find out if they indeed do bring us to "HAPPINESS".

1. The first of all things that we are introduced to in life would be that pleasures. Since our very first moments of nourishment at the breast of our mothers, pleasure was associated with contentment and happiness. It became associated in our minds as almost a given that if you have pleasure you are happy! It wasn't long before we discovered how wrong we were. Pleasure is good of course, but upon examination, we discover that the very nature of pleasure is a "means to an end". That is, it is so constructed as to leas us to something that is good for us. The example mentioned is that of eating. There is a deeply satisfying pleasure to eating, as it brings us to nourishment. However, if we eat just for the pleasure of eating (and many do!!) then we are aiming at the means to the end, and not the end itself. (However we may not care for brussel sprouts, they are good for us!). A child, when it is first introduced to ice cream, thinks heaven has arrived! Thus there is a natural desire to obtain more and more, given the pleasure involved. But we soon learn an important lesson. PLEASURE INDULGED IN LONG ENOUGH, BECOMES PAIN! If you eat several hamburgers, the certainly bring pleasure and satisfaction. But about the sixty-fifth hamburger we are in excruciating pain! That is the way that pleasure is designed. It is a means to an end, and when the end has been satisfied, then the pleasure ceases. If continued indulgence is prolonged it will eventually lead to pain. We have learned an important piece of information in our search for what is happiness namely: "AS PLEASURE INCREASES, SATISFACTION DECREASES TO THE POINT OF PAIN". In all simplicity, pleasure is not happiness itself, nor can it be aimed at as happiness. It is just a very good means to an end, but only a means.

2. Our second important piece of evidence is JOY. Joy is something that like pleasure, everyone has experienced. What is most significant about it however, that unlike pleasure, the more we experience joy; the more we are fulfilled, in an ever increasing amount. Unlike pleasure, it is not a means to an end. We can aim at it and never tire of it, or get too much of it! At its basis is the very fact that it is fulfilling our very beings in a way that nothing else does, or can. We marvel at it. We want it. We are astounded by the experience of it. And never once can we say that we have had too much joy. We can always wish for more, and more. That too, is a significant fact in our quest for happiness. Certainly we can say that whatever else happiness is, it will and must be JOYFUL.

3.Time is the greatest obstacle we have to obtaining happiness. Let us take an example. We are reading a good book. The plot is great, the story is well told. We look at the clock and say, "I'll read until ten o'clock." But the story is so good and so compelling we read and read, and when we look at the clock it is 3:00 a.m.! Notice that we were not aware of time passing. Notice also, that we are sad to some degree that we have to stop. Time has interposed itself in the experiencing of some happy activity. So long as we were not aware that time was going by, we were fulfilled. It is the same with all activity that we enjoy. We wish it would never end!

SUMMARY;

1. All things have a purpose for which they are made. If we used them according to this purpose, they operate best and are "happiest". To be Happy is our goal.
2. Pleasure is a MEANS to an end, not an end in itself.
3. Pleasure becomes pain.
4. We never tire of Joy.
5. Time is the greatest obstacle to happiness.

PRINCIPLES:
1. As pleasure increases, satisfaction decreases.
2. As joy increases, fulfillment increases.
3. A need never creates its object.

SCRIPTURE:
1. Beatitudes.
2. Seek first the kingdom of God and all else will be given you besides.

MAN FOR ALL SEASONS:
Thomas More: I die the King's loyal subject, but God's first.

D. THE TWO VALUE SYSTEMS.

Now that we have ascertained at least the essence of what will must happy. We now proceed to find a method of seeking that happiness. That method will be a way of ascertaining the "worth" or "value" of things that will lead us to our goal. In the history of human expression, there seems to be only two ways that humans have ever devised of arriving at the value of anything. It is our quest therefore to look at these two methods of ascribing value, and see which best assists us in attaining happiness.

1. USEFULNESS THEORY. The usefulness theory has some simple elements to it to arrive at the value of anything. To begin with it maintains that the "value" of anything is arrived at by discovering its usefulness. Accordingly, if something has usefulness about it then it has value. If however it loses its usefulness, then it is said to be "useless", and of no value. In a descending scale, as a thing loses its usefulness, it thus becomes less and less valuable until it is totally useless. Further, when a thing has become useless it now starts to become harmful! It is a pretty simple and practical theory of value. An example would be a light bulb. If it gives light, then it is valuable (useful). But when it burns out, it is said to be useless (valueless). To leave it lying around can surely make it harmful. It is best to throw it away. As Jesus said about salt, "once it has lost its savor, it is good for nothing but to be thrown out". This is a very common theory, and fairly well accepted in most societies.

2. INTRINSIC THEORY.
On the other hand, the intrinsic theory looks at value in a completely different way. It maintains that something has value because who ever made it gave the value to it when it was made. This means that the value of the thing is only in what the maker put into it, and has no relation to its usefulness. Thus a painter or artist or sculptor puts his skill into the work, and that is what gives its value. So say a famous painting from Picasso, which you may like, and another dislike, has its true value only in so far as it is the work of this famous artist. That, and that alone, according to this theory, is what the value of something is.

Try as human beings have, so far is human history; those are the only two theories that human beings have been able to engineer as means of establishing something as "valuable". For us it is crucial to decide what method we are going to establish in our own lives as to what the WORTH of anything is. Let us take a closer look at these theories to try to assess, which one is for us in trying to assign value so that we can best attain happiness.

Regarding the USEFULNESS THEORY: Upon close examination, it has some surprising aspects. It sounds good on the surface to say that something is valuable only in so far as it is useful, but that leads into some very important consequences. As an example, let us say that one of your parents reaches 90 years of age and is in a nursing home, and unable to do anything for themselves, and on to make it worse are totally senile and blind. According to this theory they are pretty much useless. Worse still, they have become "harmful" to the extent that they are using up valuable money, and space, and they can make no return or be in anyways "useful" to you or to society. They have become totally useless, and are now harmful. Right away, one can see this has some alarming consequences! It might even be that the State might say to you that since your parent has no become useless to society, then they are going to painlessly (of course!) eliminate their life and that they regret any inconvenience this may cause you. According to the usefulness theory, this is the logical conclusion to this theory.

Regarding the INTRINSIC THEORY: This theory too has some surprising aspects upon close examination. For in the same example used above about one of your parents, even though the individual has lost all usefulness, the value of that individual is still intact because their value depends on the one who made them. Thus even though they are not a non-functioning human being, they are still valuable. They could not be indiscriminately killed just on the fact alone that they are useless and are costing someone a lot of money. (Allowing them to die would not be killing them, but to take their life as in the usefulness theory would be in short, murder!)

The debate over these two approaches to value has been going on since time began. Each has its proponents and each maintains that their theory best answers human attempts at evaluating the worth of anything or any one.

SUMMARY:
There are only two known ways of knowing the value of anything. 1. The USEFULNESS theory. Things only have value only if useful. 2. The INTRINSIC theory. The value of anything is put into it by its maker.

PRINCIPLES:
1. First value system ends always in violence and force the only way to settle things.

SCRIPTURE:
You cannot serve two masters. You will either stand by the one, and hate the other, or you will love the one, and despise the other. You cannot serve God and money.

E. SEMANTICS

Now that we know how to establish the value of anything, we must learn how to COMMUNICATE it. Since there are various ways that we humans communicate we shall concentrate on one here, and the other in the treatment of marriage.

Of all the gifts that God has given us, the ability to speak to each other is a clear indication of human rationality. Animals of course do indeed communicate through various expressive vocal sounds, but theirs is basic instinct response to a stimulus, awareness pattern. The human being on the other hand can express ideas, generalities, universal deductions etc. Because we have a free will, it is possible for us to CHOOSE some course of action whether it be convenient or not, and may even be painful! Since we must communicate with God and our neighbor, we shall take a very brief look at the science of Semantics.

In its most simple form the science of Semantics can be understood as, "the meaning of meaning". That is, we are attempting to understand what another person is saying by the words that they use. Words can be written or signified in various ways, but principally by speech. Words are nothing more than various symbols that transfer the meaning of the idea we wish to communicate to another. When we write we use letters of the alphabet. These are merely symbols or drawings that communicate a sound. (In some languages such as Chinese, they may communicate by the character itself a type of drawing, which indicates more than just sound but an idea). When we speak, we use these same sounds, putting them together in some agreed on form that will communicate some idea. Thus the "sound" of speaking a given word communicates what the speaker is trying say to another person. The word SEMANTICS itself comes from the Greek word "Sema" meaning sign. It meant that there was a concept that was trying to be made known to another which was on the mind of the speaker. All of this eventually evolved into a science, and it was termed the science of SEMANTICS.

More specifically Semantics can be defined: "Semantics is that science that deals with an 'IDEA OR CONCEPT, VERBALIZED WITH SOUND, TO WHICH WE AGREE, TO SOME DEGREE.'" It is important that we look at this definition if we are truly to understand what others (including God) are trying to say to us.

IDEA OR CONCEPT:
This is what is in the mind of the speaker. This thought is what the speaker wants to get across to the one that is being spoken to.

VERBALIZED:
Here the speaker is making use of the vocal cords to make various conjugated sounds that will be used in some successive order that will bear the meaning of the concept that is in the mind, to the one spoken to. Thus various letters are made "sounds" and these are put together to form a "word". A series of words is spoken to get across the idea. A more complex idea will require more words.

TO WHICH WE AGREE:
In order to get the idea across, there must be a previous statement among the one speaking, and the one spoken to, that the individual sounds of words have a meaning or stand for a meaning of a specific type. Thus word "NO!" must be agreed on first, before an idea of non-agreement or non-procedure can be understood. This is very simply how various "languages" came about. Humans agreed that certain words stood for certain ideas. If there was not an agreement, then there would have to be a search by the individuals or groups involved until they agreed on what certain words meant, and most importantly, what they did not mean!

TO SOME DEGREE:
As time went on, it became necessary to refine certain meanings of words. Thus a whole division of the science came into existence. Thus a general division:
1. Syntactics: The history of words.
2. Semantics: The meaning of words.
3. Pragmatics: The development of words.

While we are not concerned here about the formal study of all this, we are concerned in a very specific way with the science because of two reasons: 1). God's communication to us, which is usually, called revelation. 2). Our communication with other human beings about God's communication which is the "good news" or Gospel. We shall see that there are some very special and specific concerns about these matters, that have bothered peoples of all times, and our society and culture are no exception. In a later chapter, we shall take up such questions as HOW God communicated; WHEN god communicated; and can we be sure it was God communicating; and finally, the human beings that were used to communicate those messages.

For now however, we must concentrate on the essential facts of communication so that we can be clear when we want to understand the meaning of some important matter in scripture or morality.

SUMMARY:
Semantics is the science of the study of meaning. It is defined as: "A concept or idea, verbalized with sound, to which we agree to some degree."

PRINCIPLES:
We must have agreement on the word and it's meaning if we are to understand another person.

SCRIPTURE:
Everyone who wears my words, and understands them will be like the householder who brings forth from his store, the old, and the new. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was God. Blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it.

MAN FOR ALL SEASONS:
Meg: What difference do words mean?
More: Words mean everything.
Meg: Look. God made the Angels to praise him by their splendor. He made the plants and animals to praise him by their simplicity and purity. But God made man to praise him by his wits. If I can take this oath, I will.

F. PROOF

Adam never had to practice faith. He did not have to believe in anything or have an opinion about something, or not know about something. Objective reality was right before him in brilliant light. He walked and talked with God whom he saw face-to-face. After the disasters fall, Adam found himself having to wonder about nearly everything. The subjective now haunted him, because the best that was possible from knowledge of anything was the lining up of evidence and having to proceed with that. The objective was hard to find and illusive behind a myriad of doubts, uncertainties, and his own opinions terribly influenced by his emotions, passions, and the now darkened Intellect and cavernous sub-conscious. As his descendants, we too must struggle with the problem of certainty and uncertainty about everything! Hence we now begin our study of the next important tool that we will need to have if we are to deal with the three people in our existence that require our attention: God, myself, and the other person. Two very fundamental things are going to plague us for decisions. One of which is our relationship with God, and the other person. Two very fundamental things are going to plague us for decisions. One of which is our relationship with God, and the other with our neighbor. Specifically, we are going to have to know WHAT GOD SAID in Scripture, and what another means when they say to us "I LOVE YOU!Ó Hence we turn our attention to the tool we cannot do without: NATURE OF PROOF. Just as we saw the importance of the tool of SEMANTICS, so now we must be able to prove our values about which we wish to communicate, and thus achieve happiness, which is our objective, and about which the problem is our greatest obstacle.

The general meaning of proof is that it is a line-up of evidence (the word in latin means "clearness"). What the notion of evidence is that it is the lining up of a body of facts in order to make a conclusion. The object therefore is to arrive at a conclusion based on whatever is presented. This means that the judgment is involved. All law is based on facts that are substantiated by evidence. All of our judgments are based on one type of evidence. All of our judgments are based on type of evidence or another. From our earliest childhood we have quickly learned the need to establish important things through the means of the proof process. Probably the first thing we deal with is authority. Thus we are always asking, "Who said so?" We then demand PROOF that they said it. Again, ownership of even the smallest of toys became a source of contention with others, and we were always telling those who disagreed with us, "Prove it!" We must now look at the process of proof for it is the only way we know of in human and divine affairs, for establishing the objective order of right and wrong, good and evil, truth and falsity.

THE PROCESS OF PROOF:
The process of proof for anything requires the following.

1. Line up all the evidence FOR something.
What must be looked at is the simple things we know so well, namely witnesses, physical evidence, etc.

2. Line up all the evidence AGAINST something.
We must objectively examine all the evidence that is known about something that is the contrary to what we think, or are trying to "prove". This is the only fair thing to do, and we must discover whether there is something we may have overlooked which may be crucial in establishing our point of view. Not to do so could spell disaster for what we are trying to prove!

3. All evidence that is NEITHER.
Upon examination, it simply has no relation to the issue, but one should nevertheless, examine it if for no other reason, than to ascertain its irrelevancy. It closely resembles that which is claimed below, but it may not be claimed. Yet it must be examined.

4. We must examine all evidence that is CLAIMED about the point at issue.
It may be totally irrelevant, and have nothing to do with the issue, but we must very objectively listen and examine it to see what import it may have on our lining up of evidence.

5. Look for CONTRADICTIONS.
A contradiction is establishing when we discover the complete opposite of something is in fact the case. Thus a contradiction is as follows: "SOMETHING CAN NOT BE, AND NOT BE, AT THE SAME TIME AND THE SAME PLACE, AND THE SAME CIRCUMSTANCES." Thus if a crime took place on Thursday at 9:00a.m. And it was proved that the suspect was a thousand miles away at that time and day, then you have a complete contradiction as to who could have done that crime. Again, a person cannot be a male and a female at the same time, the same place, and the same circumstances. (A male cannot be said to be the mother of a child no matter how he may wish to impersonate a female!). It simply is a contradiction in and of itself.

6. Drawing a CONCLUSION.
Based on the evidence lined up we now must draw a conclusion. A conclusion is an act of the mind that upon examining all relevant information and evidence, would be what a reasonable person would arrive at. To sum up what it all means.

There are two types:
A. MORALLY CERTAIN. A morally certain conclusion is one that one has about the evidence when there is no "REASONABLE FEAR OF ERROR". This means that it is still POSSIBLE that there is some other explanation for the evidence presented, but there is no remote likelihood that it could be so. (But the POSSIBILITY does exist!).

B. METAPHYSICALLY CERTAIN.
This means that there is not even the slightest possibility of error! That is to say, if one has this type of certainty about something, the opposite or any other explanation is NOT POSSIBLE! Rarely does one get such certainty in this life. Usually it entails the defining out of existence of any other possibility to begin with in the first place. Thus one cannot have a "four sided triangle". By definition it cannot POSSIBLY be. There is one final aspect to the proof process that we must consider. That is the POINT OF ABSURDITY. This means that in the line up of evidence one finds present two things:

1. ALL of the evidence can be reasonably presented has been gathered and assessed.
2. There is an ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY!
This means that the opposite side of a question presents no evidence whatsoever regarding that matter. In human communications therefore this situation has been given the semantic term: "absurd". (Thus a person who says, "well I still don't think so", and gives no evidence whatsoever, has reached the point of absurdity. There simply is no further communication possible with them on that given point).

SUMMARY:
Proof is the line up of evidence. One must examine all the evidence that is for; against; neither; claimed; look for contradictions; draw a conclusion. There are two types of conclusions: 1) Moral. No reasonable fear of error. 2) Metaphysical. No possibility of error. One reaches the point of absurdity when all the evidence is on one side, and there is no evidence to the contrary.

SCRIPTURE:
Genesis: God created humans. There is no evidence to the contrary.
John: "If you don't believe me, believe the works that I do."
Romans: God can be known through the things that have been made.
Mark: Go and offer the gift proscribed. That should be proof enough for them.
I Corinthians: There can be nothing of sin in Jesus Christ.

G. KNOWLEDGE.

We have now arrived at the very core center of the study of this course, the ability to KNOW. While the average high school student doesn't spend much time on this subject, yet it is nevertheless, the most important point upon which the basis of their approach to the problems they must inevitably solve. In addition, they will acquaint themselves with the makers and the thinkers that caused the modern mind concepts within which they must live their lives. They must inevitably ask themselves, "How did things get this way in our society? Or, why is it that our culture is following along the course that it is?" To approach those and other questions, this chapter will form the key to the student's quest for a sure and safe guide to thinking in the modern world. (It will not answer all questions with metaphysical certainty as we should all like to have about some matters, but it will allow the student to see clearly the pitfalls and philosophical and theological "mine fields" that lay ahead).

The basic problem of the modern world is Epistemological. (Epistemology is the study of the nature, scope, and validity of human knowledge). This so because we are absolutely bound to find out what we can KNOW? Can we know whether there is a God? What can we know about the world around us? What can be said about knowing about those whom we dwell? And finally, what can we know about ourselves? what is good?; what is moral?; etc. These and other problems of knowledge haunt our daily existence. They must be addressed. We shall begin our study with a simple illustration and try to build thereon. Let us start with a question. Can you explain the color GREEN to a blind man? Color as we know is a refraction of light which is presented to the eye. Upon examination, we can easily see that the object of the organ called, "the eye" has as it's major function, TO SEE. (We discover the purpose of anything by examining it's nature, remember!) Now, as we casually but completely consider this problem, we find that all the evidence we can possibly gain, is that the blind man can NEVER know the color GREEN because there is no means by which the color of green can play upon the optic nerve. Thus the color GREEN (or any color for that matter) can never be transmitted to the brain. Thus the blind man can NEVER KNOW GREEN. We could of course try to tell that person that "green is like this, or like that" but in fact unless his eye operates, there is no sense organ that can tell this person, WHAT THE COLOR GREEN IS LIKE!

Let us move one step further. Suppose there was some individual who was born without any of their senses. That is they had no sensations to the brain from sight, touch, taste, smell, hearing. Would they have anything in their mind to work upon at all? We probably would hurriedly try to say, "Well there must be something they could think about!" But could they? When we make a close investigation of all the senses, and find they are not operating at all, and there is no sensation being transferred to the brain, is there anything there for the mind to operate on at in itself, and ready to operate on anything brought to it, but nothing is being received. Based on the evidence, that person would not be able to know ANYTHING whatsoever, even though they wanted to. They are not "BRAIN DEAD", but simply the brain has nothing to operate on at all. (Like this computer, it is ready to take in what ever is typed into it, but if I put in nothing, the little "cursor" on my screen simply sits there "winking" at me! Absolutely nothing will be put into the data bank, if nothing is typed in!).

We come to an inevitable conclusion: "NOTHING IS IN THE MIND THAT DID NOT FIRST COME THROUGH THE SENSES". The principle brings us to a morally certain conclusion: "ALL REALITY IS OUTSIDE THE MIND!" For, we could not know or think about anything unless it came into the mind from outside. Thus we are faced with an absolute fact: There had to be something outside of ourselves first, so that it could be sensed, and thus transmitted to the mind. Reality thus, is not made up in the mind. We can take parts of reality, and put them together with our imaginations once they are in the mind such as a "Mickey Mouse that talks", or a "Pink Elephant" if we use to much booze, but the fact remains that they (or parts of them) were in reality first, and thereafter we chose to use the imagination in a creative way to put things together which may or may not be in reality.

The basic PROOF for all that we have been saying is rather simple and understandable: ONE CAN NOT HAVE A PURE THOUGHT ABOUT NOTHING! Try as we might like, the mind grinds to an instantaneous halt, when we try to get a concept or idea of "NOTHING". In the 175 million or so years that the scientists tell us that human beings have been on thee earth, the fact is no one has ever been able to KNOW anything except through the senses. Is it possible that there is another way? Perhaps, but so far, no one has been able to find it. It doesn't mean they haven't tried.

A Catholic philosopher RENES DESCARTES (1596-1650) thought so. he tried to reason back to having the purest thought possible to start philosophy and knowledge. His reasoning was that the purest thought that he could think, was the notion that he "was thinking". Hence he stated his classic SUBJECTIVE POSTULATE: "I think, therefore I am!" (Cogito, ergo, sum). It became the greatest blunder in philosophical history! Ignoring the evidence that he would have to exist, before he could think, he backed himself into the corner of asserting that "because he could think, then he existed, and if that were so, then all knowledge depended on what his thinking was". In effect he was declaring that one could not know anything unless on thinks, and so that is where all knowledge begins. It was the fatal mistake, that caused the maker's of the modern mind and their constructs, to drop most of the world into a subjective morass from which it has not been able to extract itself to this day. It wasn't hat some didn't see his mistake and didn't try. One of the greatest philosophers of all time made the effort. This was Immanual Kant.

IMMANUAL KANT (1724-1804) was horrified at what Descartes had done, and tried valiantly to extract human thought from the problem. Unfortunately, he fell right back into the same error! While Kant felt that objective reality outside the mind might be there, he nevertheless postulated that we could never know it for sure, if at all. His failure lay in a rather simple problem. He never could distinguish between what if knowable in itself and what is knowable to ourselves. It simply meant that instead of the "subjective postulate" of Descartes, Kant stated that the mind had to be content with "that is the way things are" and you could never know what you are knowing has any validity or not. It was nothing but an assertion, later called the "SUBJECTIVE IMPERATIVE". Most simply, it took another approach to reality than Descartes, but essentially arrived at the same conclusion. For Descartes, EXISTENCE was adequate proof that we could know anything. For Kant, it JUST WAS THAT WAY.

The difficulty with both of these systems of thought, is that it opened the door for the human mind to be the final decision-maker of what reality was in itself. The disciples of this type of thinking were not slow to adopt it, as history has shown. In the field of Political Science, Hegel and later Karl Marx adopted it as the only way that government could operate. For Marx, it was the cause of all human relational problems. Economics was the key, and whoever controlled wealth and services was what was the norm of right and wrong! (Marx should have known better, as economics is a condition, not a cause!). Who was ever the "boss" made reality for the masses. That was not arguable. In the field of Psychology and Psychiatry, Sigmund Freud insisted that sex drive was absolute and therefore all reality was determined by it in one's personal life. In Theology, personal interpretation of the Word of God became the only way of "knowing" what God said, and cults and "fundamentalism" too numerous to mention have become the popular expression of those who do not want to deal with the fact that there might be on objective reality. Morality was quick to follow the lead. The current notion that "what I think is right, is right" is now in full belief in society. The idea of a free will is only give lip service, or never mentioned. The one thing that we are assured of is that we can NOT BE SURE of anything! Chaos in the law courts, in human endeavors of any kind, are now the rule of the day.

However, one must not think that the SUBJECTIVE is not important. Just the opposite! the subjective is that means (God given) by which we judge the reality of existence, and make our choices accordingly. It is in the choice to conform to reality that we can only be held responsible! Of course, if what I think is right, then I can never be wrong! The number of people like Adolph Hitler, Stalin, etc., are legion, that adopted this thinking. It wasn't long before empirical sciences followed suit. Thus for instance in Biology, evolution ceased to be a hypothesis of process in human development, but rather an EXPLANATION thereof, since we could never be sure of objective reality. Charles Darwin's discoveries became an imperative, and thus science entered the age of "subjective imperative".

While this may seem to be an over-simplification of the study of knowledge, it nevertheless, gets at its roots. We should not be surprised that it started early on in human history. Adam was the first to believe that God was not the author of all reality, but that his own mind construct, was! God said: "I AM WHO AM!" Adam in effect replied, "I don't think so neither does my wife!"

There is of course much more to be said on this age old dialogue about the theories of knowledge. But you and I must come down to the fact of everyday existence and deal with it. Whatever may be said of the various theories, one thing remains clear: "YOU CAN'T HAVE A PURE THOUGHT ABOUT NOTHING!" Thus something, or someone pre-exists my knowing it. That might not "prove" it to everyone, but at least it lets us deal with absolutely everything in life with reasonable assurance. The other option is to spend an endless life-time trying to just cope. But what's worse, if my neighbor thinks that the only certainty is what is going on in his mind, than the only way to settle differences, is VIOLENCE! For if that person is bigger and stronger than I, then they can take my possessions, my spouse, my life, and really, I can have no objection because if he thinks it's right for him to do so, I can't really object, since that is the only way we can deal with reality. About the turn of the century this got translated into the Christian mode of thinking in a philosophy called "EXISTENTIALISM". This "theology" believes that one can never know anything except what is in the mind, and so a "leap of faith" is the only way possible to live. Just believe in one's own thoughts as that is all you can know. Theologians, philosophers, psychologists, counsellors, of every kind and background immediately leapt on this as the "end all and be all" of the individual's right to make his own life. God is what you want him to be, or think him to be. Long ago Aristotle saw the danger of all of this, and stated the contrary very simply: "I know something to be!" (Scio alquid esse). Jesus very carefully said that we could know the Father (the author of everything in being) and while demanding of his followers hat they must make very personal and individual decisions, they must nevertheless make those choices about reality that is already in place.

Maybe that's where we are finally ending up as societal structures begin to disappear. Perhaps "might, makes right"! Whatever may be said, chaos is the result of unrestrained subjectivism. (Of course what we should acknowledge in actuality is the fear hat there might be an objective AUTHORITY other than myself, who might just be the norm of right and wrong. That's unacceptable to Adam and his descendants of any time and age, and to most of the human races!).

St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1275) following the lead of Aristotle shows whereof the evidence is: "SICIO ALIQUID ESSE" - "I know something to be". Thus all reality is knowable because one knows only through the senses, which bring in to the mind, reality as it is.

SUMMARY: Nothing is in the mind that did not come through one of the senses. One can't explain the color green to a blind man. This means that the reality pre-existed anyone knowing it and is the norm for objectivity, about which I must make some very important choices. To make up reality, is to be forever caught in subjectivism, without every being able to get out.

PRINCIPLES:
1. Nothing is in the mind that did not come through one of the senses.
2. One can not have a pure thought about nothing.
3. Reality is outside the mind.
4. On the contrary, if all can be known is one's own thoughts, then violence is the only norm of settling anything; morality is what the individual thinks; God is man created.

SCRIPTURE:
If you know me, you know the Father. He who sees me sees the Father.
There are none so blind as those who won't see.
Faith comes from hearing.
God is able to be known from the things that have been made.

MAN FOR ALL SEASONS:
"Some people think the world is round; others think it flat. It is a matter capable of question. But if the world is round will the King's command flatten it?"

H.TRUTH.

Now that we have learned that we CAN know, and that we are able to understand the PROCESS by which we know (knowledge comes first through the senses), and that therefore REALITY IS OUTSIDE THE MIND, can we now learn, if the reality we know is known accurately or, truthfully as it is? Do we have in the mind, the reality that is outside it, accurately portrayed upon the mind as it is in the outside world?

We must study this question upon it depends the whole human effort to know the reality that God has created around us. The only other alternative is to try to create a reality in the mind which we already seen is pure fantasy. This treatment therefore will take three very important aspects: 1. What is truth? 2. Can we attain truth? 3. Impairments in attaining the truth.

1. WHAT IS TRUTH?

The definition of truth will start our consideration. Truth is properly defined as the "exact conformity of the mind, to the thing in reality". What is meant here is that the mind has exact correspondence through the sensations brought to it, to the thing or object outside the mind in reality. That is the notion of truth. That is the meaning of the semantic term "truth". If there is an absolute impairment of some type either in the sense organ, or in the psychological and physiological systems of the mind or body, then of course we can not know the truth of the thing outside our mind. If there is only a partial impairment thereof, then we must look to see if there is at least the essentials of the thing in reality, brought to the mind through the senses. We can state therefore, that to the degree we have CONFORMITY of the mind to the thing in reality, to that degree we have the truth.

2. CAN WE ATTAIN THE TRUTH?

If the human mind can know anything at all, then there are but two alternatives: A. The mind can know the reality outside of itself or B: It can not and therefore is made for total FRUSTRATION! Since the latter is absurd, the former therefore is all that we are left with by process of elimination. This is to say, that the mind is made to attain its object (truth), or it is not. If it is not, then it was made for an object that it could never attain, which would be pointless, ridiculous, and absurd. Whoever made the human mind would have made it for frustration. Since that alternative is not possible, then we are left with the fact that the mind CAN KNOW THAT AS IT IS.

3. IMPAIRMENTS IN ATTAINING THE TRUTH.

The most casual observer will note certain deficiencies either in oneself, or in others as regards their sensing the outside world. An example that comes readily to mind is that of color blindness. If one sees something as read, and everyone else calls it green, there is a suspicion that somethings is wrong! Since we have already seen that the mind is not made for frustration, then it behooves us to investigate to see if there is some EVIDENCE that we are not seeing things as they are. A trip to the eye doctor will readily "line-up" that evidence. We can then understand that there is an impairment to the optic nerve, and we attempt to correct the situation. Impairments to the emotional, or psychic life of the individual present a more difficult situation and challenge. We are use to assuming (correctly) that everything that has come into the senses since childhood, or even before, is accurate. It is a shock to find out through various means, that perhaps we were not well informed, or that we had been exposed to absolute false-hood and or fantasy in some part of our psychological grown pattern. Or it may be, that we have gradually imposed one such pattern on our own psyche. This will produce a varied view of the outside reality of the world, both in the physical sensibility of things, but also in cultural and sociological patterns such as prejudice and racism.

4. ANALYSIS IN ATTAINING THE TRUTH.

The opposite of truth is a lie. It is a "FALSE SPEAKING" (a falsi loqui). It means that the mind knows that something is true in reality, and has conformed to it, and then the individual makes a choice to say "no it is not so!" Because the brain is the greatest organ of the body and contains the greatest ability given by God to the human mind namely FREE WILL, the telling of a deliberate lie is therefore the greatest evil that we can do. (It should be noted that there are various degrees of impairment to knowledge by which the mind can be misled, and thus responsibility is impaired to a degree).

5. It has come about in history that human beings should not tell What is in their mind for two reasons:

A. The person asking has no right to know in a serious matter. Thus if two conditions are fulfilled, then the person can use MENTAL RESERVATION. The two conditions would be:

1. It is an extremely serious matter (only God can say what is serious!).
2. The person "asking" has no vested right to know the answer. Example: Someone asks you have you committed adultery? You may reply "no", meaning as "far as you are concerned." (The person asking has no right to know). If however your spouse was the one asking, they would have a RIGHT to know.

B. When silenced would not be consent. The condition is fulfilled only when the individual has no DUTY to answer. Thus one can remain silent and let anyone construe by that silence anything they choose. However, if you have a duty to answer, then the silence follows the moral maxim: "Silence is construed as consent".

In ordinary matters therefore, mental reservation may NEVER BE USED! One can always however choose to remain silent. You do not have to testify against yourself.

SUMMARY:
We have the truth when the mind perfectly conforms to reality outside of it. We assert we have the truth until PROVED otherwise.

PRINCIPLES:
1. Reality is outside the mind. The mind must conform to that reality.
2. The mind can put two pieces of reality together of things that don't exist in reality.
3. You assume you have the truth until proved that you don't. Otherwise the mind was made for frustration.
4. Mental reservation may only be used when it is a SERIOUS MATTER and the person "asking" has no VESTED RIGHT TO KNOW.

SCRIPTURE:
I am the way and the truth, and life. If you really knew me, you would know my Father also. Whoever has seen me, has seen the Father. Everyone who hears my voice, hears the truth. The truth will make you free. The Devil is the father of lies. He was a liar from the beginning. When he tells a lie he speaks from his very nature.

MAN FOR ALL SEASONS:
"Now explain how can you as Counselor of England can obstruct those measures for the sake of your own conscience. Well, I believe when statesman forsake their own private conscience for the sake of their public duties, they lead their country by a short route to chaos."

"Your silence must be reckoned as objecting to the oath. Nay Mastery Secretary, the rule of law is, "qui tacuit consentire." If you can construe anything from my silence, you must reckon that I consent."

"I die the King's loyal subject. But, God's first!"

I. LAW
The truth which we can be known, and proved and communicated to express our values to acquire happiness, we can now comprehend the problem which is our greatest obstacle to happiness, which is our human weakness, which is where this course started! We are surrounded by disorder . That's not so surprising. After all, everywhere we look we see the conflict between reality of the order of nature (reality) and disorder (human weakness). In order to begin to get back to the original order and reality in which we call in a general way LAW. This is what God did for his people by giving them the Laws of the Old Testament, especially the Ten Commandments These were always a part of God's order, but they had to be codified into laws so that we in our weakness would have the assistance of a "Monitor" (as Paul put it) to guide us back to the author of all creation and truth (God).

Hence our study of law. We shall start with a definition, and then look at it's divisions, and then it's elements and applications.

DIVISIONS OF LAW

A. Eternal Law. This is the order discoverable in God's being. It never changes.
B. Divine Law. The laws by which God governs all of creation and creatures. It never changes.
C. Divine Moral Law. Laws made by the community of faithful in order to govern the family of God on earth. They do change and must change from time to time.
E. State Law. The laws made by any human society (State, Nation, County, City, Organizations, etc.) that apply to the particular community involved. They change and must change.

Note: Many laws of human communities are also restatement of Divine Laws, and that part of them, bind FIRST, because they are of Divine Law (i.e. oaths, murder, etc.).

DEFINITION OF LAW: "Law is an ordinance of reason, made by the one who has care of the community, for the common good, and promulgated (published)." We should note here that a definition is best when it does two things: 1. It tells you what a thing is; and 2. it tells you what a thing is not. Additionally, it must apply to all things in that category. In this case especially, all laws Divine and human, are included. Let us now proceed to look at the parts of our definition.

1. AN ORDINANCE OF REASON: Only a free will and intellect can create order. Animals follow the LAWS of instinct. Hence they do no create laws, but follow them exactly. There is no greater frustration to an animal when it can not carry out the laws directed by its instinct. Thus this "ordering" by an intellectual mind, is a sign of that intelligence. It also means that because it is so designed by a being with reason, that we must discover the reasons that the law was made, and for which the law applies. Thus laws do not apply when the object of the law has become UNREASONABLE. The law to worship God on Sundays doesn't apply if you are in prison or in the hospital. That would be unreasonable. It was not what the law-maker had in mind when the law was made.

2. MADE BY ONE WHO HAS CARE OF THE COMMUNITY. No on can make a law that does not have the right to do so for the subject involved. God of course can make laws for everyone. But human laws can not be made for everyone, in every place and time. Hence we must look to see if the one making the laws has the AUTHORITY to do so. What is authority? The word comes from the word "author" which means the right to command. Semantically it has been reserved for indicating the person (or persons) who have received the POWER to command in a given area or circumstances. Thus we can see there are various forms of authority. It may be a king, president, congress, republic, parliament, prime minister, etc. They all have received authority to command from some source. It is well to see the principle of Political Science here namely, that ALL AUTHORITY ON THIS EARTH COMES FROM GOD TO THE PEOPLE. Hence it is the community which DELEGATES authority to some form of government to make laws for the people. Whatever the form of government the people choose, they delegate (usually in a constitution) what authority that form of government has. Once the individual is so delegated, then the law must be obeyed unless it becomes unreasonable, or does not apply.

A careful notation must be made at this point. There is a woeful difference in the expression of authority. For AUTHORITY is based on evidence. Hence something I or you may say, is true because of the evidence for it. On the other hand, we must look at "AUTHORITARIANISM". This maintains that something is true because "I said so"! Nothing becomes true because someone says so. It may indeed be true, but it is NOT TRUE BECAUSE SOMEONE SAYS IT IS!

3. MADE FOR THE COMMON GOOD. This is the object of law. It means that all beings in this or that category, must have the same object for which they are striving. The law-maker must know that and make an ordinance so they can best obtain that object without disorder ruling, and also to curb the weakness that is in us, and direct it by discipline to its final goal. Hence the individual's rights may in some cases have to YIELD for the sake of the common good. For example, if the community needs a sewer system because it has grown in size, then an individual's property rights may have to yield for the sake of the common good. On the other hand the law-maker can not make a law for only one individual, and not have the common good in mind.

4. PROMULGATED (Published). One can not obey a law if there is no means by which they can know about it. Hence the law-maker must make it known in a REASONABLE way. This usually means an official pronouncement in the press or other means, so that the community can know about it. One can not be held to laws one does no know about. The problem sometimes comes up that one has made no EFFORT to find out about the law. That may be because they have not gone to the trouble to find out in the usual place, what the law is. For example, speed laws are usually published in various places so we can know what the speed limit is. If one deliberately ignores them, they are still held responsible. Thus "ignorance of law is no excuse."

SUMMARY:
Law is an indication of reason. It is necessary for all humans to follow law by choice. Animals follow the laws of instinct. There are laws that do NOT CHANGE such as God's Eternal, Divine, Natural, Moral laws. There are laws that DO CHANGE such as Church and state, and all other human community laws. Note, however, when these laws involve DIVINE LAWS, then they can not change. Laws of Church and State may be disciplinary. These must and do change. But church laws of discipline should not be confused with DOCTRINES.

PRINCIPLES:
When a law ceases to be reasonable, it ceases to be a law.
Laws must be made by one having authority.
Laws must be published.

SCRIPTURE:
Not one jot or title of the law will be done away with until it all comes true. Heaven and earth will pass away; my words will not pass away. It is not the letter of the law but the spirit.

MAN FOR ALL SEASONS:
"The world must judge accordingly to it's wits. This court must judge according to the law. I die the King's loyal subject but God's first."

2. Salvation.

A. GOD.

It is necessary to deal with three persons in this life: God, myself, and the "other". We now come to the place where we must deal with the first of these three persons: God. Of course it will be necessary for us to semantically clarify what is the meaning of the concept of God. The term means many things to many people. Since we can't possibly deal with them all at on time, we shall start by using one concept about God, and then apply all others to it. (One can't start nowhere!).

For our starting point, we shall look at the concept of God as follows: We are talking about a "being", an existing being, whose nature is TO BE. That is to say we are looking at the concept of a being as differentiated from all other beings, whose nature is "not to be" (that is, a being of some sort that at one time did not exist, and perhaps will not continue to exist by it's very nature). This "being" whose nature is "to be" is precisely different from any other concept. This "being" is one that by it's very nature and essence had no beginning and will never have an end. That is the concept we shall consider first because that would rank such a being above superior to all other beings claiming a divine status.

It should be noted here that an ATHEIST is usually well read on the concept of God, if for no other reason than that person must be very certain about what it is HE DOES NOT BELIEVE IN! An AGNOSTIC on the other hand , while conceding such a being "might" exist, are either certain that you can never know, or lack any way of being certain about it. Both agree however on the concept that they are talking about, and we must be too!

When we use the term God therefore, we are considering a being whose nature is not only "to be" but is the "being" that caused all other beings "to be". To illustrate what is behind this concept, we shall take a simple demonstration of what every child probably has done: setting up dominos in a line so that if one falls, it falls into the domino in front, and they eventually all fall down. We of course observe that "someone" caused the first domino to go down. However, if one set up enough dominos, say through the kitchen and dining room, through the living room, and into one's bedroom, and just as the last few were being set up, one hears a dreaded "clicking" sound! The dominos are going down. One reasonably concludes that if these are going down, something or someone started them going down. We did not see who or what it was, only the effect, and that led us to a morally certain conclusion: someone pushed the first domino. This process is known as the CAUSE AND EFFECT relationship (i.e. that the effect of one going down was caused by another falling against it). Or, another example might be if we find a body all tied up on the floor, and a gun shot to the back of the head, we conclude that something or someone shot the individual. It is clear that the wound was not self inflicted. It is also clear that it would have to be someone that had the ability to cause adequately the effect produced.

We have observed two things: 1). We have seen that effects must have adequate causes. We also have seen that effects don't cause themselves. Thus we can see that a DESCRIPTION answers the question "WHAT" happened? 2). On the other hand, we can see that an EXPLANATION answers the question "WHY" it happened? It is very important that we do not confuse the two, for we are always being offered descriptions for causes. It is ridiculous to say that there is dead body on the floor, and merely say: "Well it just happened!" No a murder took place (that's the effect; the "WHAT" happened). What we must know is the "WHY" it happened! A description simply will not do. We must have a cause.

The world around us is all to evident as an EFFECT of some cause (descriptions will not do). In fact no human being has ever experienced the reality that is outside the mind in any other way except under the sensible formality of CAUSE AND EFFECT relationships. Were there one other experience, this would all be a meaningless consideration. We have got to come to some conclusion of "WHY" the "WHAT" happened. The classical case would be evolution. In the book "Origin of the Species", Charles Darwin argues and very credibly that there is adequate development of all growing things on earth; that there is a evolving process that is going on all about us, and has since things were in existence. However, he makes a fundamental blunder by calling the process or description of "The Origin". A description is simply not an explanation! Evolving or development is not telling us "WHY", but only telling us "WHAT"!

The mind then can follow a simple reasoning process:
1. Effects exist in the world. (If they didn't we have nothing to consider. But they do exist!).
2. Every effect requires an adequate cause. (Descriptions explain nothing!).
3. An infinite series of effects and causes gives no explanation whatsoever.
4. The only other alternative is that there is a cause that did not need some other cause, which was able to cause everything else, and was not caused by another.

We call that cause "GOD".
NOTA BENE: We only have two alternatives:
1. An infinite series.
2. An Uncaused Cause.

Since we have eliminated choice one, we are stuck with choice two. There are not any other alternatives! (This does not mean however, that we can "conceive" of such a thing, but only that we have to have an adequate cause for the effects produced). Also, this does not make it semantically metaphysically certain. It is only morally certain.

This argument (cause and effect) has been termed the "Five Ways" for proving the existence of God. The other four ways are simply exchanging the nouns for cause and effect. Thus the arguments would be:

1. ORDER. Whatever is ordered, is ordered by another.
2. MOTION. Whatever is moved is moved by another.
3. PERFECTION. Perfection requires no limit. But perfections are discovered as limited in this world. Thus there must be one who can so limit them.
4. CONTINGENCY. Whatever is touched by another.

These arguments can all be reduced to the argument of "Cause and Effect".

CONCLUSION:
It is reasonable to say that you can reason to the existence of God, and that it is morally certain that God exists to the point of absurdity for the opposite. But that is as far as human reason can go. This is not however, Faith. (That will be considered under the unit on RELIGION.) It is sufficient however to say that God is reasonable, and that the concept of God while not able to be conceived, is and can be reasoned to as existing.

SUMMARY:
Every effect requires an adequate cause. The world that we know certainly, is always known under the "cause and effect" relationship. Since descriptions only tell us "What", we must have an explanation that tells us "Why" the effects exist. The "Uncaused cause" is an adequate explanation of what we mean by the concept of a being whose nature is "to be".

PRINCIPLES:
Every effect requires an adequate cause. Explanations tell us "Why" things happen. Descriptions tell us "What" happened.

SCRIPTURE:
Moses asked: "Who are you?" God replied, "I AM who AM". God's invisible attributes of power have been able to be known through the things that have been made. Before Abraham came to be, I AM!

B. SCRIPTURE.

Since we can know God, and know that his existence is reasonable, we must now consider the following questions: If God exists, did He say anything? And, if he said anything, what was said? And if indeed He said it, where do we find it? And, if He said it, can we be sure that we now have whatever it was He said. Hence we now come to the questions involving the COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE DIVINE.

Before we make certain of what it is we ARE talking about, we must equally be certain of what it is we ARE NOT talking about. This can be done by a simple example.

A telephone book upon examination, can easily be discovered to have as its purpose the listing of phone numbers. It may well indeed have other information therein, but the phone company is not guaranteeing such information; only the phone numbers. Again a COOK BOOK has as its purpose, teaching one to cook. It may be a sunrise to find on a given page that the line up of numbers for various ingredients for a Chocolate Cake just happen to be one's own phone number, but that is by accident! Also, one might examine the phone book under the letter "C" and fine a listing for a man named "Dutch Chocolate", but that does not mean that one should try to learn to cook from a PHONE BOOK! Every book has its very own reason for being written. What else is in that book besides that main purpose is there accidentally.

The same can be said of any book, and it is equally true of the book called the BIBLE. Upon examination, one can discover that the purpose of the book is: TO TEACH RELIGIOUS AND MORAL TRUTHS ONLY. There are other things stated in the Bible, but they are there by accident, or by reason of the lack of knowledge of the human writer. (For instance it is a matter of science that the sun does not move, but the earth moves around the sun. However, the Bible says endlessly, that the sun "sets". Does that mean the Bible is in error? Hardly. Scientific truths are not the purpose of the Bible. They may be there; they may be accurate; they may be equally be false; but they are not the PURPOSE of the book, anymore than one should be overwhelmed with one's telephone number in one's cook book!). The classic example is the rather ridiculous argument between the "creationists" and the "evolutionists". Evolution is a matter of science. The Bible says nothing about science as it's formal purpose. It would be equally ridiculous to assume that just because one discovers in a Chemistry text that some author exclaims that if you mix certain chemicals together you have a "God-awful" explosion, that the author is asserting the existence of God! That is not the formal purpose of a Chemistry book.

Now that we know the purpose of the book called the "Bible"(Biblios meaning "book"), we can proceed to the problem of whether it can be shown to be a communication from God (and later, to see a further problem of how it was written).

There are two essential ways for approaching this problem: the LONG way, and the SHORT way.

1. The LONG way is to examine all CLAIMED writings and communications from the DIVINE. This would take a life-time, for we would have to examine each writing; learn all the languages that each was written in; compare the thoughts contained therein; analyze whether this could be just from human minds, or whether it would have to be "super-natural" (that is above human beings ability to produce); how it compared with other writings, etc. etc. Needless to say, that would take a lengthy bit of time. Most of us neither have the brilliance nor the time and inclination to undertake such an effort. Happily, for those of us who are not so brilliant, there is another way.

2. The SHORT way is to go through the following logical steps:
a. Prove that Jesus Christ was God.
b. Jesus Christ approved (as God) that the Hebrew Bible was the communication from God. (That is not to say that He excluded "other" writings as coming from God. But, he does say that this one at least is absolutely from God).
c. Since those he sent to teach what he taught, could not be able as creatures, to defeat God's teachings, the Christian New Testament therefore is the communication from God as well.

That all sounds almost too simple a process, and at the same time, a very demanding process. Can it be done? The answer is yes!


PROVING JESUS CHRIST IS GOD.

The same process can be used here as if one were trying to prove that say, George Washington, did all the things he did.

Thus:
1. Prove that Jesus Christ existed as a historical person. (If he never existed, this would be a useless consideration!) By examining the "unfavorable" and the "favorable" historians of Jesus' time. (That is those who were official writers of history at the time in question). The unfavorable would surely love to prove that Jesus never existed. But Flavius Josephus, Tacitus, Pliney the Elder, Pliney the Younger, all agree that there was such a historical person. The "favorable" historians(those who promote Jesus' cause) such as Luke, Paul, etc. all agree, he did exist. Conclusion: they all agree on the fact that: Jesus called the "Christ" was a historical person.

2. Prove that Jesus Christ made a "claim" to be Divine. Again, the favorable and the unfavorable all agree on the fact that he did make such a claim. In fact, that was the official reason that he was crucified.

3. Prove that Jesus Christ said "how" he would prove such a claim in such a way that no human being could prove it.

One of the unique things about Jesus is that he always said that he came to die. He also said that he would come back to life in a way that no one could ever doubt that he was dead, or that he came back to life. (Oddly, it was the "unfavorable" ones who believed him!) Again, the same historians on both sides of the issue are all agreed on the fact: He did come back! (How, and what it meant, they would never agree).

The debate goes on over the centuries as to what all this means, but it certainly is an ADEQUATE line-up of evidence that the death and return of Jesus, is morally certain. Not all would agree, but surely is enough for those who believe in Jesus to have more than reasonable certainty that it is so. (This again, must not be constructed to be an ACT OF FAITH. That is something we shall examine later).

What is important for us however is that this is a simple way for the simplest person, to be content that the Bible as we now have it, is the word of God.

We now must consider HOW the bible was written. To do this as always we shall let a simple example be our guide. Let us consider the CARPENTER and the saw. (How Biblical!)

When a carpenter decides to saw a board, he selects a saw from those available. The selection may be a very fine instrument that cuts a smooth and exact line. Or it may be a dull instrument that is the only one available. But which ever the Carpenter chooses, the work of cutting the board in half is attributed to the CARPENTER and not to the saw.

God is the author of the Bible. He chose various different instruments (some sharp, and some not so sharp) to accomplish the work. The human writing may be prose, poetry, folk-songs, proverbs, stories, etc., but it is God (The Carpenter) to whom the idea or concept is attributed. Some God rejected part way through the work (King Saul, Judas, etc.), and replaced them with others. The thought is that no creature can defeat the Creator's plan of transmitting the message of salvation to the human community.

C. RELIGION

Now that we have determined that God said something, our natural question is "how do we respond?" This brings us to the unit on Religion. It is a word that comes from the latin word "re-eligio", that is to "choose again." It harkens back to the fact that Adam made a very bad first choice! Jesus comes along and makes it possible for s to make another choice. Particularly, it means that we can choose again, the Father and to respond to his love in creating us as His children.

It is our desire to be friends with the Creator. Hence even primitive religions sought divine approval from a any "god" they could imagine. Thus they offered gifts thereto to ask for things or to placate for their wrongs, etc. Since you couldn't very well give "the god" anything, they sought various forms of "offerings" such as incense which as smoke disappears upwards; or animal or human sacrifices which sought in someway to give the greatest gift you could which was LIFE! In all of these, there was a very basic realization that there was a need to become "friends" with the divine. But what can you give God? Thus we study our "choice" to give to God the best; the most "pleasing" sacrifice. Since we know that God's word is in the Scriptures, we now turn to them so that we can see what God would want from us. We shall see that God has very carefully pointed out for us a pattern that shows us what he wants and why. This is the practice of religion.

Our next concern is to grasp the overall pattern and theme of the Bible. We find upon reading any of the books thereof that three major themes present themselves: LIGHT, LIFE, LOVE. These three major concepts are at the heart of the scriptures from the moment God says "let there be light" in Genesis, to the book of Revelations where St. John has the whole symbolism of this book around the Light that is the Divine Essence. St. Paul reminds us that God dwells in light "unaccessible", and finally Jesus identifies himself as the "light of the world". Again, it is Jesus who comes to give "life", and that we must "love" one another in order to attain eternal life.

To put these things in their proper setting, we must understand the PATTERN that is used throughout the Bible. It is a simple pattern but it has its corresponding elements that need to be grasped. They include:

1. Breath of God. The word "Spirit" means breath. In this case it means the "Holy Breath of God". This is the unique thing that God does to Adam (and not to any other creature) namely to "breath" into the human nature something of the very ESSENCE OF THE DIVINE BEING OR LIFE ITSELF!

2. Adam "blew" it back in God's face: That is to say by his action, Adam chose not to have the ability to live forever by his choice to love himself rather than God. It of course brought death. Too long to cover here are the many themes by which God reminds his people that they are to keep ever in mind that they must seek this life again. There is a plan that God uses to re-establish this.

3. Moses is chosen to bring the LAW to the people. The reason is simple. As in Genesis where there is at first "chaos" and the Spirit of God moves over the waters, so order is made by God's command. Moses is to re-assert ORDER (by means of the Law) os that God can once again prepare mankind to receive back the breath of life. Very carefully, God sets the plan in motion by letting the people "eat and drink bread and water" by means of the divine power. This is to catch their attention that even natural life depends on nourishment brought about by the power of God. The "manna" and the "water from the rock" were food and drink, but only for the human body. They still died because this was not bread and drink that would give eternal life. Notice again, the pattern: order, bread, drink, nourishment and the object of life.

4. Moses is to establish a perpetual community of the family of God (the Hebrew people). Moses of course is going to die (thanks to Adam). So Moses appoints Joshua to continue the ongoing progress of the community. He has authority to say what God wants, and what he does not want. (Interestingly the name "Jesus" is practically the same as "Joshua" in Hebrew). The most notable thing we know about Joshua is that of all the most important persons in the Old Testament, we do not find that he ever once failed God! He brought the people into the promise land and governed them seemly without exception without fault before God (Perhaps this is a type of Jesus).

5. Without ignoring the other personage of the Bible such as David, and Isaiah, Ezechiel, Elizha, etc. we now see clearly what Jesus does in the New Testament. God takes on the human flesh that had been designed for the "divine breath" and represents it back to the Father, by putting life back into by destroying death. The very first thing Jesus does after the resurrection is to BREATH ON THE APOSTLES! That was meant to exactly correspond to God breathing life into Adam. Following the pattern God used with Moses, Jesus makes a point out of FOOD and DRINK. This bread and drink however is not for the life o bodies as was all that Moses could do, this bread and drink however "came down from heaven" (like manna) that the "breath" of life could be put back into the human soul to LIVE FOREVER! Thus the pattern and cycle is finally complete. The water that Moses got from the rock, is exactly typical of the water BAPTISM and HOLY SPIRIT (Breath) that is now given to Jesus' delegate "THE ROCK" (Peter) to give an on-going life to the family of God. That was God's pattern and plan. We shall see in the unit on the CHURCH just what the community is to do with the gift of life, and the nourishment thereof (Eucharist).

6. Finally, the Letter of the Hebrews let us know that with most of the people of the Old Testament, God "was not well pleased!" Hence we must seek out the "most pleasing gift" to the Father. We shall see that the "Most Pleasing Gift" to the Father is the sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross. It gave back the life to God's children.

7. Adam by this mistake lost the "knowledge" of the Father. He was blinded to God's presence, and thus the long wandering by faith. Jesus comes and makes the whole purpose of Christian life one thing: KNOWLEDGE OF THE FATHER. Our faith now means that we are getting an ever "clearer" vision of the Father through the humanity of Jesus. But that faith (knowledge) is useless unless we do the Father's will. Hence Jesus very carefully tells us that the patter of his life is to be our pattern. "I do only what I understand the Father wants me to do, and I speak only what the Father wants me to say." This completes our quest for how to respond to the Divine, or our practice of religion.

This leads us to a proper understanding of FAITH. Faith is a semantic term concept which has been reserved for one idea. It is the BELIEF IN WHAT GOD SAID (assuming we know He said it) BECAUSE HE CAN NOT LIE. The very nature of God in his total goodness is that He could not deceive us. Thus our motivation in believing God's word is the fact of GOD'S TRUTHFULNESS. This is to be very carefully distinguished from two things.

SUMMARY:
Religion is nothing but the attempt to be friends with the Creator by the creature. The best way of all to be friends is to give someone the most pleasing gift. The most pleasing gift we know is Jesus' sacrifice. The Pattern in the Bible of: LOSS OF KNOWLEDGE OF GOD; EAT,DEATH; LAW, ORDER; MANNA, ROCK, WATER; MOSES,JOSHUA; GAIN KNOWLEDGE OF THE FATHER; BREAD, DRINK; EAT, LIFE; JESUS, PETER; MOST PLEASING GIFT.

PRINCIPLES:
1. We must offer to God the only gift that is pleasing and the one that is wanted.
2. God's plan restored eternal life to us.
3. The BREAD OF LIFE is the most pleasing gift to the Father restoring life to his creatures.

SCRIPTURE:
1. In Him was life and the life was the light of man.
2. Now this is eternal life, that you may know the Father and He whom He has sent.
3. Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood, you will not have life in you.

MAN FOR ALL SEASONS:
"If I were a man who did not value he taking of an oath, I would not be there. I pray that if what that man says is true, that I may never see God face to face!"

D. MORALITY.

The three persons we deal with in life we saw are: God, the Other "Guy", and myself. We have now dealt with the first of these three, and now we take a look at the relationships we establish for all "OTHERS". This is the basic study of human nature as it acts and specifically, the behavior of human beings and the nature of what they should and should not do, or the "OUGHT" in their activity.

Morality comes from the latin word "mos, mores" which means simply "custom", or "customary observable behavior". It pertains in its most wide semantic notion to the CONDUCT of human beings. (It should be distinguished from "BEHAVIOR" which normally refers to the operations of animals). Specifically, it refers to that conduct of human beings for which they are held responsible. The definition of morality therefore is: THE GOODNESS OR BADNESS OF HUMAN CONDUCT. Thus it should be noted that this distinguishes it from all operations of animals, or angels, or any other behavior of any other type of creatures. Positively therefore we are speaking about human conduct for which we can and must be held responsible. The use of the term "moral" refers to conduct which we "ought" to do; the term "immoral" refers to that which we "ought not to do".

We can further sub-divide human conduct into ACTS OF HUMANS, and HUMAN ACTS. The former means those acts performed by human beings that are NOT UNDER THE COMMAND OF THE WILL. Thus blinking of the eyes, beating of the heart, sneezes, etc., are performed by human beings but they are not "chosen" or "commanded by the will." On the other hand there are HUMAN ACTS which are actions that are COMMANDED BY THE WILL. These actions are those that I choose to do, or choose not to do, and for which I AM HELD RESPONSIBLE. The key notion here is that human beings have a free will, and because they have that free will, they can and are held responsible for what they do. It should be noted here that much of the Psychiatric world, does not believe in the freedom of the will. Either the Freudian school which believes that the human being is DETERMINED by drives and there is nothing that person can do about certain or all of their activities. Again, the BEHAVIORISTIC school believes that we are all the result of our environment, culture, society, etc. Thus there the human being can not ultimately be held for what they do.

The Judeo-Christian notion of morality rejects this notion as totally unacceptable. It is based on an Epistemological problem which we saw under the unit on Knowledge. They simple do not believe that there is any OBJECTIVE world and hence everything is totally SUBJECTIVE. The Catholic Church has always come down hard on the side of OBJECTIVE morality. We are held responsible for what we do, even though we are greatly influenced by environment or genetic disposition. We can still be held to account for what we do even though it may be under great difficulty. It is important therefore to review the unit on Knowledge here, to understand that reality is OUTSIDE the mind and we must make choices about it. We understand the semantic concept of "FREE WILL" therefore as follows: WHEN EVERYTHING IS PRESENT FOR HUMANS TO CHOOSE ONE WAY, IT IS STILL POSSIBLE FOR THEM TO CHOOSE THE OPPOSITE.

Our choices therefore must be considered as to what will determine the moral or immoral aspect thereof. (We must remind ourselves of our very early principle that we can discover the purpose of anything, by examining it's nature). By examining human conduct we can discover that the "goodness" or "badness" of any human action can be seen by three types of determinants. They are: the INTENTION for which something is done; the OBJECT for which it was done; and the CIRCUMSTANCES surrounding it. Thus:

INTENTION: That which was my choice that made me do the action. We are not talking about our assessment of why we did it, but the actual DECISION that we made TO DO IT!

OBJECT: This is the reason "Why" we made the decision.

CIRCUMSTANCES: These are the interrogatives of what, why, where, who, when and how much?

Thus we must always look first to the intention why we did this or that act. If the intention was good (I need money to eat), the object is good (gain money by working), and the circumstances are good (I receive money and buy food). Then we can say it is a moral action. However, if my intention is bad (I lie about my qualifications), even though my object is good (get some money), and the circumstances are alright (receive the money from employer), the action is immoral, and I may not do it.

Again, my intention might be good (have sex with my spouse), but the object is wrong (pornography), and the circumstances are not wrong (legitimate affection), I may not perform the action, because it is rendered immoral by the bad objective.

Finally, the intention may be good (I take a rope), and the object is good (I need to have a rope for my work on a farm), but the circumstances are wrong (there is a cow on the end of the rope), then I may not take that rope!

But not all moral choices are so easy. Hence we must look closer to human actions to discover their precise morality. Thus we can distinguish between: GOOD ACTS; BAD ACTS; INDIFFERENT ACTS.

1. GOOD ACTS: Those that are purely good in their very essence. "Praying" is a purely good act. One can not say a bad prayer! It will instantly cease to be a prayer.

2. BAD ACTS: Likewise these are acts that are purely bad in their essence. Thus "telling a lie" is a purely bad action. One simply can not tell a "good lie"!

3. INDIFFERENT ACTS: These are the majority of actions we perform. They are neither "good" nor "bad" in themselves. They have some good and some bad in them.

For the human being most of the acts they perform are decidedly in themselves, "indifferent acts". Hence we must do MORAL SURGERY as it were, to find out if we may perform them. This brings us to the principle of DOUBLE EFFECT. This is not unknown to us as we use it many times daily without really reflecting thereon. (Jesus supports the principle by affirming it as a method of procedure).

1. THE PRINCIPLE OF DOUBLE EFFECT.

Let us remember that this principle is only used in those actions of humans that are neither good nor bad in themselves but have some good and some bad in them, called INDIFFERENT ACTS.

The principle has four conditions:
1. We must always INTEND the good effect involved.
2. We may never INTEND the bad effect involved.
3. There must be a GREATER PROPORTION of good to be achieved than the bad to be ALLOWED.
4. The good effect can not come out of the bad effect.

Let us see how this works out. The action I wish to perform is to eliminate mice from my house by using means to get rid of them. I certainly intend the GOOD. Secondly I am not intending the bad effect (death to those mice!) but allowing it. But, I decide to use an atomic bomb! This will get rid of the mice for sure, and a half the state as well! There is no proportion between the good effect and the bad effect. Thus I may not perform this action. On the other hand, if I chose to hire an exterminator company and they gas the mice within the confines of my own home, that would be a perfectly good act. Or again, I wish to get rid of cancer in my hand. The action is of cutting is neither good nor bad in itself, although it has a good effect: save the body; and it has a bad effect: I lose my hand. Can I do this? Well based on the principle we see we can intend the good effect: save the body; I allow the bad (don't intend this) severing the hand; there is a good proportion of good over the bad: the body is more important than the hand; The good effect does not arise out of the bad effect: health of the body remains more important than the losing of the hand. As serious as the loss of a hand may be, I can perform this act as "morally good" by reason of the conditions of the principle of double effect.

It is important to see, that ANY INDIFFERENT ACT no matter how large or small can be judged by this principle, should we desire to find out it's "MORAL WORTH".

2. CONSCIENCE.

In forming assessments of morality, we are necessarily dealing also with our conscience. It is vital for the student to understand what the conscience is and what it is not. First of all it is not a "feeling". One can have feelings about the decisions that we make, but whether they are good or bad, they belong in the emotional and sub-conscious world. They are not our conscience. (If you are hearing "little voices" you may need to consult a psychiatrist!). Neither is it one's conditioning from the society, culture, or family. Those are indeed heavy influences, but they are not conscience. (A caution is to be noted. The psychological term is "consciousness." This means "awareness". The ethical moral term is conscience meaning the assessment we used about some objective moral matter).

Conscience in its most strict definition is : A PRACTICAL REASONED MORAL JUDGEMENT. That is, you make an assessment of the "moral worth" of the action contemplated, and based on that assessment you decide to do or not do the action. It should be very carefully noted here that the conscience is in the INTELLECT OR REASON. Thus the reasoning about something, however serious the matter may be, is not sinful (although it can quickly become some once a choice is made!). On the other hand, sin is in the WILL. That is where we make our choices having taken the assessment of the INTELLECT. Thus all the "reasoning in the world" is not sinful, until we make a CHOICE about doing it.

Some principles:
1.CORRECT CONSCIENCE: One that is in conformity with reality that is good as judged. Thus the OBJECTIVE and the SUBJECTIVE agree.
2. ERRONEOUS CONSCIENCE: The intellect judges something to be good, when in reality its is bad. It has been misled.
3. MORALLY CERTAIN CONSCIENCE: One makes the judgement without reasonable fear of error.
4. DOUBTFUL CONSCIENCE: The judgement is with serious misgivings. Thus something may be judges as "possible" or "probable".

God expects us to follow generally the SAFER course if at all possible (sometimes we just have to go with what we know!). Also, we remind ourselves that a doubtful law, or an unreasonable law does not bind. Thus we consult our conscience over the decisions that we made, BASED ON WHAT WE KNEW AT THE TIME WE MADE THE DECISION.

SUMMARY:
Morality is the evaluation of human acts that are commanded by the will. It is the "ought" in determining what is good or bad for human beings to perform and for which they are held responsible. It maintains that we have a FREE WILL.

Human acts have as their moral determiners the INTENTION, THE OBJECT, and THE CIRCUMSTANCES. There are three types of human acts: good, bad, indifferent. Indifferent acts have some good and some bad effects. Hence we must look to the principle of DOUBLE EFFECT to decide whether they can be performed.

A word must be said here about the nature of CONSCIENCE.

The conscience is not a feeling. Neither is a "little voice" in the back of your head telling you something. (If you are hearing "little voices" you may need a psychiatrist!) Indeed, there may be feelings accompanying human activity, and emotional and biological responses that are attached to certain actions, but they are not conscience. The conscience is A REASONED JUDGEMENT. Thus it is in the intellect (not the will!) and it is the reasoning or assessment of an action to be performed or avoided. It is necessary to "line up the evidence" (remember proof?) about what we are doing. Once the person has adequate evidence in the intellect, then it presents it to the will to make a choice. Thus we do not SIN in the intellect, but only in the WILL. Whatever our thoughts they are not sinful as such until we make a CHOICE about them. If we are badly informed, or simply don't know enough, then we must not act. If however we are deceived or have received bad information, than of course our "choice" is worth only what we knew at THE TIME WE DID THE ACTION!

PRINCIPLES:
1. Humans are held responsible for what they do because they have a free will.
2. The PRINCIPLE OF DOUBLE EFFECT has a four conditions:
A. Always INTEND THE GOOD EFFECT.
B. May NEVER INTEND THE BAD EFFECT.
C. The good effect must OUTWEIGH THE BAD EFFECT.
D. The good effect can not ARISE OUT OF BAD EFFECT.
3. Conscience is a reasoned judgement. It is in the intellect and not in the will.

SCRIPTURE:
If your hand is your undoing, cut it off. It is better to enter into life maimed, then to enter with two hands into unquenchable fire! I tell you, anyone who even looks at another with lust in their heart, has already committed adultery. When the Son of Man comes, he will render to each one his due. I tell you, you will render account for every idle word you speak.


SECOND SEMESTER.

III. Part II.Christian Marriage.

The very first thing that God the Father was concerned about in the creation of the first man and woman was marriage. (In using the term "He" the male pronoun is not the sense of simply sexual gender, but that used by the scripture writers, not out of sociological concerns of the times, but to express real "divine" gender activity to compliment and to become "unionized" with the human beings that were created. The language of the scripture writers is metaphorical, figurative, and poetic. They struggled to find various expressions to correspond to the activities of God in simply human terms. The magisterium of the Church has never understood God's essence to include both genders and hence is not used in any prejudicial way to one or the other gender. To rashly assume that it was used for cultural or sociological reasons by the scripture authors is very poor biblical theology, and remains in the field of an assertion, not a credible evidentiary theory).

God had put his own life into this special creature called human for the precise purpose of creating his own family. In a deeply mysterious but very real way, God wanted to share his life with his creature and did so by "breathing" into that new creature, his SPIRITUS(Breath) whereby the first human beings were forever different than all other angels and creatures of his making. The point was forever emphasized that the human being was essentially and radically different than every other creature precisely because there was "something" in the very essence of the humanity that was of the Divine Life itself. The human being in God's plan was to be distinctly a true life-blood member of God's family. It is this central idea, that the author of this work will use throughout this presentation.

The Doctrinal sources of the Church have been carefully consulted, especially the creedal statements from the earliest statements of doctrine and the Father's of the Church; the official documents of the Councils, and the encyclicals of the Popes down through the history of the Church; along with the major Doctors and Theologians of that history, particularly St. Augustine, and St. Thomas Aquinas. The author has made extensive efforts to remain abreast of modern scriptural scholarship especially where it is concerned with the subject matter herein. If any correction is deemed necessary, the author readily admits to legitimate authority for that correction.

Rev. Jerome L. Cummings
Feast of St. Joseph, 1995

C O N T E N T S

1. General Introduction.
2. Church: Sacrament & Covenant.
3. Nature of Love.
4. Human Sexuality.
5. Dateing: Choosing & Chosen.
6. Engagement & Marriage.
7. Birth & Control.
8. Family Life.
9. Celibacy & Single Life.

1. GENERAL INTRODUCTION.

God has called us to a life that makes us part of His family. It was His intention from the beginning to incorporate us into his ETERNAL LIFE. He so designed us that we can freely respond to his love, by specifically LOVING OTHERS. Thus our whole identity of "who we are" is essentially found in our recognition of "who God is"! To learn that, we must begin to begin to share his life-giving love, and then to recognize it in other human beings. That is how we will best understand in a human way, how God loves us. To do this, we shall take a look at God's pattern of love, which then will help us learn how to love. The pattern that is best known to us is God's community (family) the Church.

2. CHURCH: SACRAMENT & COVENANT.

It was God who decided to make human beings. What is most noteworthy is that God wanted to share his very "inner life" with this creature (It is worth noting that God apparently does not do this in the case of the Angels. Why is not known). The Genesis writer very carefully draws attention to the fact that God "breathes" into Adam. The word "breath" (in Latin: "spiritus") means the "inner life" of someone. Humans have always recognized that when someone stops "breathing" they are dead! So it is this "breath of God" that is being called attention to, and that will be recognized as the IMAGE OF GOD IN US. Because we share in this very inner life of God, we are part of his very being, destined to live forever (this has caused some to think over the centuries that we will be Divine in nature. This is easily seen as to be false and not what God intended. You can't very well be Divine and be "created by another!"). Probably St. John puts it best when he says that we shall "be LIKE Him."

To begin our examination of the PATTERN of God's love, we will consider the essential factors:

1. It is God who INITIATES the action to bring humans into existence. It is a decision. An act of God's will brings "life" into another.

2. It is not just animal life. God wishes to share his ability to love. Now love can not be love unless it is FREE! God freely chose to love us. But love demands RESPONSE. Thus God chose to initiate into being a creature who had the ability to love God in return, freely, and without constraint. but the mystery is that if you are free, you can choose to not love in return! And that is exactly what happened with Adam's choice! He chose to love himself, not God. Disaster was the result, but then it always is when we choose not to love another, but ourselves.

3. God had put into human beings not only his own life, but chose to have us GENERATE life in others, by and through love. Hence we can pass on the Divine life (not from our own bodies) into a child that God chooses to create. (It should be noted here that animals reproduce animals; human beings do not reproduce other human beings! In humans, the PERSON of the child does not come from the parents glands, or genes. The best the parents can do is dispose the matter and God will put a PERSON into it). Thus, "male and female, He created them."


4. UNION. Union was God's choice. He achieved union with humans by placing Divine life therein. Humans were to imitate that union by the fact that as male and female they could physically unite their persons and their bodies. It is an action that is complete and brings forth NEW LIFE. God's action is called COVENANT. It is the union of God and human beings.

5. The COMMUNITY of these different individuals is life the life of God itself. For there is a community of persons, yet a unity that is perfect which we call the Trinity. The fundamental reason why God revealed the Trinity was that it not only showed the intimacy and "oneness" and love of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, but it shows us just how far we have fallen from the original way God made us. The true desire of the lover is to be completely united in thought with the beloved. It creates a "oneness" in them. When Adam broke his "oneness" with God, he broke the "oneness" with his human family as well. The murder of Abel by his brother Cain, shows how deep the insane whisper goes in our fallen human nature of sheer egotism and selfishness. Now we find that we concentrate on self-love, instead of "love of another". It is very painful to discipline ourselves on order to seek a balance once again, so that our love may be directed towards others. For this reason God established the CHURCH in the Old Testament of "His" people. Five times at least God undertook the effort to bring them back into love and harmony with Himself and with one another. We know from history just how sad were the results. When Jesus came, he was born of a Woman, born under the law with the "Holy Spirit's Breath" in him. He established the community of the Church once again with God and with our neighbor. "Of this Kingdom (family) there will be no end!"

6. The SACRAMENT of the Church is poured out in various different ways, but principally through the seven essential sacraments that are necessary corresponding to our growth. Principally they are:

A. BIRTH. As a baby is born and is the result of the union of the Father and Mother, so in BAPTISM, the child receives life from the union of God the Father with Mother Church. The seed of life is Christ himself. In Him was light (very essence of God's life) and the light was the LIFE of men. They are born not by carnal desire, nor blood, but of God's willing it. There will be enmity between Mary's seed will crush the head of the serpent.

B. EUCHARIST. Every baby no matter how healthy, needs food. Hence the bread of life. The manna in the desert showed clearly that natural food was not enough to return to the purpose for which we were made, eternal life. The bread that Jesus gives is the very flesh that he took from Mary, and having put his DIVINE LIFE into it, give us the nourishment to live forever.

C. CONFIRMATION. All life is growth.