Faith

Why Run Around In Rhetorical Circles When I Can Walk Side By Side With The One True God?

Who Am I?

I am a Catholic, which means I am an integral part of the universal Church founded by Jesus Christ himself. In Matthew 16:18-19, Jesus said, “And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Jesus assigned authority of His Church, on earth, to Peter and since that day, the Catholic Church has an unbroken line of apostolic succession from the rock of the Church, Peter, through two thousand years of history to our current pope, Pope Francis. The Catholic Church is the universal Church, in fact, the very definition of “Catholic” is universal.

What do I believe?

As a Catholic, I believe that the Catholic Church is the one Church founded by Jesus Christ. I also believe everything the Catholic Church is founded upon, including all of the dogmas and teachings of the Church. I believe when I receive Holy Communion I am receiving the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ. And finally, I believe my faith is universal, encompassing all that I am, all that I have been, and all that I will ever be.

I believe when I say “Amen” before receiving the Eucharist (Holy Communion) I am making a re-affirmation of my faith, telling God that I do indeed agree wholeheartedly with everything contained in Sacred Scripture, with everything the Catholic Church stands for and represents, and with everything His Church has taught, or will teach. If, for some reason, I find myself questioning or doubting Church dogmas or teachings, I pray for more understanding. I study Sacred Scripture, I delve into the teachings of the Church fathers, and I review two thousand years of Catholic Church tradition. For it is through these three things, Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and Sacred Magisterium (or the teaching authority of the Church), that I can find the answers I may be looking for.

In John, chapter 6, Jesus tells us that He is the bread of life (v.48), that He is the living bread and whoever eats this bread will live forever (v.51). He then takes it a step further and says that the bread He will give is His flesh for the life of the world (v.51). He continues by telling the disciples that whoever eats His flesh and drinks His blood has eternal life, and will be raised up on the last day (v.54). Many disciples questioned this discourse because it was so shocking to them (v.60), and they returned to their former way of life because they could not accept this idea (v.66). The fact that many disciples turned away is important, because it indicates that Jesus was not merely talking about symbolism or a representation of his flesh and blood. He was speaking about His true Body and His true Blood, else no one would have been shocked and walked away. You really need to read John 6, in its entirety, to get the full picture.

Faith is a gift from God, and like any other gift we can choose to open it and enjoy it or we can ignore it, leaving it wrapped and untouched for all time. Faith opens the eyes of our hearts and leads us to a desire to understand the One in whom we have faith. In order to live and grow in my Catholic faith, I must nourish it by reading Scripture and remaining close to God. If I turn my back on God, or stop reading His Word, I risk losing my faith completely and falling away from God. Therefore, my faith is universal. It encompasses all that I am, all that I have been on my spiritual journey, and all that I will ever be as I grow closer to God.

Why do I believe it?

I am Catholic simply because I believe, without a doubt, that Catholicism is true. I believe that the Catholic Church is the one Church divinely established by Jesus Christ himself when He told Peter, “Upon this rock I will build my church.” As a Catholic Christian I am obliged to submit to the authority of His Church.

There is nothing in Scripture to indicate that Jesus Christ intended to build several churches, He built One Church, His Church. Alone, I cannot properly interpret all that Scripture reveals, let alone understand it. Neither can any other man or woman. The Catholic Church is the only Christian church on earth with apostolic succession with teachings from our Church fathers leading all the way back to Jesus Christ himself. The Catholic Church is the only Christian church with two thousand years of Sacred Tradition, again leading back to Jesus Christ himself. In fact, until the 1500′s there was no other Christian church except the Catholic Church.

The Word of God is revealed to us through human authors in a collection of Sacred Scripture we call the Bible. Every Christian church uses their own interpretation of the Bible, yet the Bible was written long before other Christian “denominations” even existed. Although every Christian church uses the Bible, the books of the Bible were determined at the Council of Carthage in 397 AD. Since that time, other Christian faiths have removed books they no longer felt were relevant to them. I cannot imagine feeling so powerful to tell God that His Word was no longer relevant to my beliefs. Either I believe it all, the Sacred Scripture, the Sacred Magisterium, and the Sacred Tradition, or I don’t. If I do not believe it all, then I am not Catholic. For this reason, I am all in. God is God, and I am but a man. This man, like any other man, cannot assume he has more supremacy than God.

When should I rely on my faith?

I should rely on my faith every single moment of every single day. There is never a time when I should not stay focused on God. If I pick and choose the moments I feel I should turn to God, then I am no different than those who pick and choose what to believe in Sacred Scripture. When I pick and choose, I strip the Bible of its moral power. Either I believe it all and live it all, or I don’t. Why run around in rhetorical circles when I can walk side by side with the One True God? As I said before, my faith is universal, it encompasses all that I am, all that I have been, and all that I will ever be. There is no room in my life for turning my back on God, nor is there time for “blind faith”. I must continually strive to increase my faith, to seek more understanding, and to grow closer to God. If my faith is universal, then it only makes sense that my Church is too.

Where should I proclaim my faith?

Everywhere. In every word I speak. In every action I take. In every breath I take. There should never be a moment that I do not take the opportunity to proclaim my Catholic faith.

In conclusion…

Describing the “who, what, why, when, and where” of my faith is quite simple, but it can be very difficult to live in the secular world. No matter how difficult it is, I should never remain silent or inactive when it comes to matters of faith. If I bow to the pressures of secular society or remain silent when others are encouraged to do so, then I am no different than those who bowed to the pressures of secular society in the past and decided to “reform” the Word of God to fit their own needs. I am a Catholic and my faith is universal. There is nothing on this earth that can change this fact because the Catholic Church is the only Christian church that possesses indestructible unity, fundamental holiness, and an unbroken line of apostolic succession, all of which are characteristics that Jesus Christ himself said would distinguish his one true Church. I believe in One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. The Catholic Church. As I said before, I am all in.

The Passion For Authenticity

     The Passion of the Christ (Gibson, 2004) is a depiction of the final 12 hours in the life of Jesus Christ, as told by Director Mel Gibson. Whether or not this film is an historical account of the final hours of Jesus Christ, which contains enough emotion by itself, The Passion of the Christ evokes even stronger emotional responses from the audience. By manipulating the viewing experience through clever cinematography, the depiction of extreme violence, and the use of ancient, long forgotten languages, Mel Gibson cleverly presents a masterpiece of near biblical proportion, even if the historic accuracy is a tad bit skewed. Although the story purports to tell the true story of Christ’s arrest and crucifixion, some dialogue and visual elements of the film are nowhere to be found in the four Gospels of the New Testament (Fuller, 2006). While embellishing some parts of the gospel story through creative license from the director, The Passion of the Christ evokes deep emotional responses to events that are construed to be true simply because of the graphic element added to evoke those responses from the viewers. Through the use of cinematographic manipulation of the audience, The Passion of the Christ seems to blur the line between a factual biography and a fictional representation of the most important person in Christianity, but nothing could be further from the truth.

     The storytelling in The Passion of the Christ is very straightforward, faithfully telling the story of Christ’s passion, death, and for a couple brief moments at the end, his resurrection. The narrative of the film is anything but linear as it is carried out in a simultaneous fashion with events occurring at the same time or seamlessly overlapping into one intense emotion that captures our attention and holds it for the duration of the film. The entire film is a montage of scenes, interpolated with common elements that carry over from scene to scene slowly piecing together the tragedy that is about to unfold. One example of this continuous montage occurs when Judas betrays Jesus in the garden and Peter is attacking the soldiers while John runs to Mary to inform her that they have seized Jesus. Although these two scenes are linear to the eye, one happening right after the other, they actually overlap, occurring at the same time, and deepen the emotional experience of watching Jesus being taken into custody and then beaten. The montage nature of the film cuts the individual stories into their own segments providing a non-linear progression while keeping the viewers emotional experience under the director’s control.

     The plot is revealed in chronological order, for the most part, with timely flashbacks to Jesus’ earlier life although it may not seem to relate to the current storyline. The best flashback occurs as the high priests are bringing Jesus into town and Mary Magdelene informs the soldier that the priests have captured Jesus. She expresses her concern and a priest explains the situation is a Jewish temple issue rather than a Roman law issue and he hurries away. As the crowd passes in front of Jesus he makes eye contact with a woodworker on the other side of the crowd. As he hears the hammer of the woodworker, the flashback begins. We are all suddenly transported back to a day when Jesus is working on a tall table for a ‘rich man’. The flashback shows the down to earth nature of a younger Jesus along with the intimate connection between a mother and her son. As Mary and Jesus hug at the end of the scene we are brought back to present time in the story, with Jesus standing in the crowd where he once again makes eye contact with his mother. That scene, where they make eye contact, would not have the emotional draw that it does had we not seen the flashback to that happier time. Mel Gibson’s choice to present these scenes, along with their flashbacks, was an excellent way to introduce the emotional element that cannot be ignored when considering the events that lead to the end of the story. By laying down the emotional foundation throughout the entire film with the proper presentation of flashbacks and happier times, Gibson allows the other visual and sound elements of the film to present the graphic and violent moments leading up to the death of Jesus. With help from the cinematographer, the editor of this film, Steve Mirkovich, makes extensive use of visual elements to draw the audience into the story, even when parts of the story seem to drift away from authentic Gospel accounts of the Passion. One such drift occurs at the very beginning of the film as Jesus is praying in the Garden of Gethsemane. As Satan uses every tactic at his disposal to distract Jesus while he prays, Jesus stands and crushes the serpent underneath the heel of his foot. This is not an account from any of the four Gospels, but rather a reference which foretells the prophecy of Satan failing in the future against the coming Messiah. “I will put your enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; they will strike at your head, while you strike at their heel” (Genesis 3:15 NABRE). The story includes this account from Genesis, and is based in part on visions by two Catholic mystics that have no proven basis in the theological context presented (Thigpen, 2004). However, as with other biblical accounts of the Passion, Christ in this story is dealing with his own internal conflict knowing what has to be done, as well as how it has to be done. The graphic visuals of blood, and the price Christ paid with his blood bring that reality to light for the viewer. In the scene of the scourging, it cannot get any more real for the viewer. Christ is standing at the pillar when the first soldier, and then the other soldier, strike him with sticks. As Christ is beaten and welts appear on his back and legs, he falls to his knees and the audience cannot help but cringe at the pain endured by Jesus at the pillar. But just as we think that Jesus cannot take any more, he looks at his mother and stands once again. While he grimaces in excruciating pain, the soldiers pick up the whips with sharp metal pieces on them and begin striking him all over again. The sounds of Jesus being struck, the tearing of his flesh, and his gasps while being struck, along with the intensely graphic nature of this scene leave no doubt of the suffering that Christ endured at the pillar. The way in which the story is presented on screen allows the viewer to relate to the pain, suffering, and turmoil that Christ felt as he faced the final hours of his life on Earth.

     Actor Jim Caviezel offers a stunning impersonation of Jesus Christ through a realistic style and the use of the ancient Aramaic dialogue. His portrayal of Christ contributes greatly to the story, as we watch the physical torture endured by Christ during his Passion. Caviezel was able to truly convey the torture at the pillar because the actors playing the Roman soldiers accidentally hit him with the whip at least once while filming the scene (Drake, 2004). While many of the actors in the movie play their part convincingly, none are as convincing as Caviezel himself other than Maia Morgenstern who plays his mother Mary. Each scene that revolves around Mary conveys the emotion and horror that is unfolding as each minute passes, and her character watches her son’s turmoil knowing full well he could stop it at any time. As Mary watches the scourging, she is horrified at the pain he is willing to endure and gasps with him at each beating. Her eyes implore him to stop everything and save his own life, often covering her own face to hide the events taking place in front of her. As the beating comes to an end the expression on her face changes. It is clear that she knows the gravity of the situation as she immediately prepares to gather the blood of her son. Gibson keeps the historical significance of the story intact by depicting the scene of the two Mary’s collecting Jesus’ blood, although historical accuracy falls by the wayside. In Jewish tradition, life is in the blood therefore the blood of Jesus had to be collected, but there is no historical or biblical reference that Mary collected the blood of her son after the scourging. Even with these historical anomalies, Morgenstern offers a very strong portrayal of the virgin mother of Christ and carries Gibson’s interpretation of Mary out well.

     The cinematography of this movie proves to be more important than all of the other elements than the story itself. If not for the cinematography, The Passion of the Christ may not have become the blockbuster hit it became, because of the graphic use of violence and blood to depict the level of pain and suffering experienced by Jesus Christ. It was obvious from the first scene in the Garden of Gethsemane, that Mel Gibson trusted the cinematographer, Caleb Deschanel, to capture the vivid scenes he was directing and produce the visual elements needed to carry the film from that first moment until the final scenes of the resurrected Christ. The scene with Satan in Gethsemane seems to contradict Scripture (Thigpen, 2004), but Gibson uses clever editing and cinematography to manipulate the audience into believing this event actually occurred. The movie is shot using intense natural lighting that captures the vivid colors of each frame, which ends up being the color of Christ’s blood in many cases. As the two Mary’s attempt to collect the blood of Jesus, Pontius Pilate’s wife approaches with white cloths offering them to Mary. Although this depiction is one of the less accurate scenes from a historical perspective, as there is no account in Scripture of Pilate’s wife performing this act, it adds to the emotional intrigue that exists from the first moments in the film to the very end. The colors are not saturated, and all of the camera angles and distances enhance the scene by providing framing that keeps the viewers focus on the developing story and intensifies the emotions of each scene. This works exceptionally well, given the fact that some of the scenes, as well as the dialogue, may not be historically accurate.

     Through the careful use of continuity editing, The Passion of the Christ unfolds as a journey through the Stations of the Cross. The transitions from scene to scene build on the emotions as the violence and graphic detail become stronger and stronger on the screen. Appropriate flashbacks are used when Christ reflects on his life as it pertains to the elements within the current scene, and slow motion is used to capture intense scenes so they last longer than a fleeting moment. There are no elements left to the imagination or implying that something else is happening behind the scenes. After the horror of the scourging, Christ is led toward Mount Calvary along the Via Dolorosa, or the Way of the Suffering, within the city of Jerusalem. As Jesus embraces his cross, we see the crowd building. People scream at him, spit on him, and guards whip him. As he falls with his cross in slow motion, the ferocity of the soldiers is kept at the forefront as if we needed another reminder how brutal it was for Christ. Other than the graphic visual of blood, some of the most intense scenes are when Mary makes eye contact with her son. These scenes build to a climax where even Mary herself has a flashback of a childhood Jesus falling in the street. In both the flashback and the current scene, she rushes to Jesus in the street and reminds him that she is there. As he stands with his cross again he tells her he will make all things new again. The emotion is so intense, no visuals are needed to feel the pain of Christ and the heartbreak of his mother. Viewers watch in horror as the story of Christ and his Passion unfolds before their eyes, even if they are covering them with their hands to escape the carnage on the screen. Although the non-biblical elements, like the scene where Pilate’s wife brings white linens to the two Marys (Thigpen, 2004), may be noticeable to those who know the story already (Willis, 2004), the editing of this film is done in a way that those moments are soon forgotten in a vast rhythm of emotional imagery.

     As expected with a film like this there is extensive dialogue, even though the dialogue is entirely in Aramaic and Latin. The sub-titles offer little to no distraction, and actually help the viewer understand some of the more emotional scenes by requiring the viewer to read the dialogue and process it rather than hearing it in their own language. The use of orchestra music during intense, emotional scenes adds to the overall experience of the film, and the sudden silence and attention grabbing sounds during slow-motion scenes amplify the reality of the images appearing on screen. When Judas is paid his thirty pieces of silver and the priests throw the bag of coins toward him, we are captivated by the sound of coins falling to the floor as the scene wraps up in slow motion.

     Each scene, whether historically accurate or not, is executed flawlessly by Gibson and his technical competence is proven to be solid when pertaining to telling the story of Christ’s Passion. His use of blood, extensively, to emphasize the sacrifice made by Jesus is just one of the many non-traditional storytelling techniques used in the film. If Mel Gibson’s intention was telling the story of the Passion by pointing out the extreme pain, suffering, and sacrifice of Christ, then he succeeded beyond measure in a way that no other film about the Passion has done.

     The impact of The Passion of the Christ is yet to be known, and only time will tell if it becomes a definitive popular reflection of the final hours of Jesus Christ. Critics claim that the film makes several anti-Semitic statements (Fuller, 2006), and the historical accuracy of some scenes has been called into question (Thigpen, 2004), but the overall integrity of the movie is very strong. Although The Passion of the Christ falls into the drama genre and many people already know the story of Christ’s Passion, it could also be considered an historical account, or biography, of the life of Jesus Christ.

     Analysis of The Passion of the Christ shows that although several scenes are not completely accurate to the historical and biblical accounts of the life of Christ, the storyline is solid and supported by exceptional acting, vivid cinematography, clever editing, and stylish directing. The manipulation of the audience through the visual elements of period settings and subtle effects is emphasized along with the use of extreme scenes of blood and violence. Whether or not this film is a completely historical account of the final hours of Jesus Christ, which contains enough emotion by itself, The Passion of the Christ evokes deep emotional responses to events that are construed to be true simply because of the graphic element added to evoke those responses from the viewers. Historical inaccuracies and non-biblical accounts may detract from the overall authenticity of the film leading some to believe that The Passion of the Christ is merely a fictional representation of the most important person in Christianity, but nothing could be further from the truth. Gibson’s genius depiction of Christ in the final hours of his life presents the audience with a clear message, using creative license that is far from blurred, that this was the most significant sacrifice in the history of mankind, and that is the story Gibson was trying to convey.

References

Drake, T. (2004). ‘The Movie Was Torture – But Worth It’: An Interview with actor Jim Caviezel. BeliefNet. Retrieved from http://www.beliefnet.com/Entertainment/Movies/2004/02/The-Movie-Was-Torture-But-Worth-It.aspx

Fuller, C. (2006). Gibson’s “Passion” in the Light of Pasolini’s “Gospel”. Society of Biblical Literature Forum. Retrieved from http://sbl-site.org/Article.aspx?ArticleID=508

Gibson, M. (Director). (2004). The Passion of the Christ [Film]. Los Angeles: Icon Productions.

Thigpen, P. (2004). How Faithful to the Gospel is The Passion of the Christ? Retrieved from http://www.paulthigpen.com/theology/passion-gospel.html

Willis, B. (2004). The Passion of the Christ. Christian Spotlight on Entertainment. Retrieved from http://christiananswers.net/spotlight/movies/2004/thepassionofthechrist.html

The Erosion Of Human Dignity

       Contraception and abortion have always been thought to be controversial by our generation, but every Christian faith “consistently opposed any interference with the God-given natural fecundity of the nature of conjugal relations” (Notare, 2008) until 1930 when the Anglican Church first permitted the use of artificial birth control in marriage. Moral values have been constantly eroded by the individual freedoms sought in the secular world, and because of this erosion, society now places more emphasis on a woman’s right to choose birth control rather than a child’s right to life. When considering the use of birth control, an ethical egoist will always focus on what is best for them personally, but the person with a utilitarianism viewpoint will consider the best result for the greatest number of people affected by their decision. When making their initial decision to use birth control, the utilitarian must also rely on virtue ethics in order to determine the greatest number of people affected by that decision.

       Although someone may try to approach the use of birth control from a utilitarian viewpoint, the justification for using birth control, whether in the form of contraception or abortion, is contradictory to utilitarianism because the choice of using contraception, as well as abortion, always has a detrimental affect on one-half of the people affected by the decision. “Utilitarianism argues that, given a set of choices, the act we should choose is that which produces the best results for the greatest number affected by that choice” (Mosser, 2010). When choosing to use birth control, the mother is, sometimes inadvertently, declaring that her right to use birth control is more valid that her child’s right to life. By choosing to prevent the conception of new life, or choosing to terminate the life of the child forming in her womb, the mother has made a decision that does not generate the best result for the greatest number of people because she has chosen to end the life of one-half of those affected by her decision. From a strictly utilitarian view, birth control and abortion would never be considered if the utilitarian possessed some form of virtue ethics in making their initial determination regarding the rights of their unborn child.

       “The rights of human beings do not depend on the circumstances of their conception: for example, the child conceived from rape must be respected no less than any other child” (Stephens, Jordens, Kerridge, & Ankeny, 2010). Although every human being deserves the same basic human rights and dignity, many people who support the use of birth control will cite various statistics to support their position. They attempt to justify their position by claiming that many “unwanted” children would be raised in low-income or single parent families. They claim that children produced by rape would cause misery and be a detriment to the mother’s mental well-being. The same could be said about every child born, but what could be worse than ceasing to exist in the first place? No matter how a child is conceived, any decision to terminate the pregnancy produces a negative result for the child, and is not producing the best result for the greatest number of people involved, no matter how those children may or may not be raised once they are born. While many feel the use of birth control revolves around a woman’s right to choose, doing so could show they have “the wrong attitude not only to fetuses, but more generally to human life and death” (Hursthouse, 1991).

       The choice of whether or not to use birth control, in utilitarianism terms, should always take into account the best results for the most people involved in the decision. The only way the decision to use birth control, or to obtain an abortion, can be made from a utilitarian viewpoint is when people hold the belief that, “There is room for only one person with full and equal rights inside a single human skin. That is why it is birth, rather than sentience, viability, or some other prenatal milestone that must mark the beginning of legal parenthood, and of legal personhood” (Porter, 1994). Although a woman may enjoy a carefree lifestyle, with no thought of the potential result, that lifestyle may lead to decisions that are simply not utilitarian in nature. When choosing to use birth control she prevents a potential child from developing, or worse, she terminates that child’s life. Because the utilitarian always considers the greatest good for the greatest number of people, their decision to use birth control should also rely on their belief that the child developing inside them has the same right to human dignity that they themselves enjoy. Setting all moral values and virtue issues aside, it all boils down to the acknowledgment that a young child’s life is at stake, and the reality that their life is just as valuable as the life of their mother.

       On the other side of this issue is the ethical egoist argument that contraception and abortion increase our ability to live a sexually pleasurable life and birth control as well as abortion enable us, as individuals, to live the life we want, therefore we should be permitted to use them as desired. This belief, that “if something promotes my own happiness or helps me reach my desired goals, I should do it” (Mosser, 2010) outweighs the moral concerns for the possibility of conception, or the termination afterward, because the ethical egoist is only concerned with the self, or the “I factor”. As a society becomes more secular, the “I factor” plays a vital role in what is accepted throughout that society.

       In writing about abortion, contraception, and euthanasia, Pope John Paul II, wrote, “Broad sectors of public opinion justify certain crimes against life in the name of the rights of individual freedom” (Pope John Paul II, 1995). Individual freedoms are much more attractive to the ethical egoist than others because ethical egoists are focused on their own happiness and those individual freedoms provide a layer of self-justification for their own decisions, no matter how bad those decisions may be. Pope John Paul II also added, “Choices once unanimously considered criminal and rejected by the common moral sense are gradually becoming socially acceptable” (Pope John Paul II, 1995). Remember, for more than 1,900 years birth control was considered immoral by all Christian faiths, but in the past 80 years the decision to use birth control has not only become “moral” to some Christians, but it has become an acceptable and common practice for many others, all in the name of the advancement of individual freedom.

       For the ethical egoist, individual freedoms belong to the woman who may conceive, or is carrying the child; therefore she alone has the right to choose whether or not to use birth control or obtain an abortion. The increase in the belief that birth control is an individual freedom has had a tremendous impact on the destruction of numerous human lives. Although the ethical egoist does not consider the affect of their decision on others, Pope John Paul II points out several societal reasons why these choices no longer seem taboo to many people. He states, “no less grave and disturbing is the fact that conscience itself, darkened as it were by such widespread conditioning, is finding it increasingly difficult to distinguish between good and evil in what concerns the basic value of human life” (Pope John Paul II, 1995). The ethical egoist considers their own happiness, their own well-being, and their own concerns, rather than the concerns of others, when making the decision to use birth control. Because they focus solely on their own self, and ignore the needs and benefits to others, they are, in essence, ignoring the basic value of the human life of the child who is affected by their decision. As long as ethical egoists remain focused on themselves and continue to ignore the basic value of human life, the state of their own conscience will continue to decline and the moral standards of society as a whole will continue to decay as the relevance of human dignity becomes less recognizable.

       The secularization of our society has allowed the thought that individual freedom outweighs the ‘greater good’ because we deserve to be happy, we deserve to do what we want, when we want, and how we want. The “I factor” has become such a prominent cornerstone of secular belief that many people focus solely on themselves and their desires rather than the moral standards that used to guide them in making decisions that could ultimately impact others and the world around them. By remaining focused on their own individual freedoms, the effect of their decision on the world around them does not matter to the ethical egoist. The “I factor” may allow them to think of birth control and abortion as the “incidental means to some desirable state of affairs” (Hurthouse, 1991), but taking this approach “is to do something callous and light-minded, the sort of thing that no virtuous and wise person would do” (Hursthouse, 1991). The freedom of choice and the very definition of ‘individual freedom’ calls into play several more ethical questions that could have a cascading effect on our society, therefore it is important for the ethical egoist to keep their argument focused on the individual we can see physically, rather than the one forming in the womb that may cause a potential moral dilemma simply by entering into the argument.

       Those who consider the decision to use birth control as a personal choice often rely on revisionist theories and secular propaganda to ignore any possible ramifications for their actions. They justify their actions by clinging to their rights of individual freedom and completely ignoring the intrinsically evil result their actions will create. With that said, the utilitarianism position is the position that is closest to my own position because the choices made, whether or not to use birth control, revolve around what is best for the greatest number of people affected by the decision. The ethical egoist ignores every factor that does not benefit the person making the decision, and justifies their decision based solely on their own happiness and reaching their own desired goals. Although I have discussed this issue from a utilitarian and ethical egoist point of view, I feel the decision to use birth control cannot be made without some level of virtue ethics entering into the equation. When a woman makes her initial decision to use birth control, or to obtain an abortion, she must first make the virtuous decision whether or not to engage in sexual activity in the first place. If she chooses to engage is such activity, she must then also decide whether the child that might develop inside her, or is developing inside her, is indeed a person. If so, this new person should be entitled to the same basic rights of human life and dignity that she herself is entitled to.

       Some people claim, “life imposes harsh conflicts between fundamental interests of mothers and their unborn children; or between the value of life and the wish to avoid extreme misery” (Barilan, 2009). As I stated earlier, those who support the individual freedom to ignore the right to life attempt to justify their position by pointing out the horrible or miserable conditions that would exist if the woman was ‘forced’ to be responsible for the child developing inside her. For many, except the ethical egoist who would not even consider it within their argument, it is easier to justify the use of birth control and abortion in the name of preventing a horrible life for the child rather than justifying the child’s basic human rights and standing up for the right for all human life and dignity. John Paul II wrote, “a person who, because of illness, handicap, or, more simply, just by existing, compromises the well-being or lifestyle of those who are more favored tends to be looked upon as an enemy to be resisted or eliminated” (John Paul II, 1995). When we consider that more than 55 million children have been eliminated through abortion since 1973 (Ertelt, 2010), and a majority of women of reproductive age in the United States are now using birth control (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2011), this statement could not be truer today.

       The utilitarian would never choose to terminate a child’s life because the prevention of life, or the death of the child, would not result in the best outcome for the greatest number of people involved. When considering the best outcome, the utilitarian would be compelled to consider the life of the child that would be affected by their decision. By considering the best outcome, the utilitarian would be upholding the basic right of human dignity for their child as well. If everyone approached this issue from a utilitarianism viewpoint, rather than from ethical egoism, our society would be more responsible today.

       Personally I feel if a woman holds the thought that a child may inhibit or impose conflicts on her lifestyle, before she engages in sexual activity, she would never find herself in the situation of having to make that choice in the first place. In fact, I feel it goes much deeper than that. When we consider human rights and dignity, “moral rights and responsibilities interact in a dynamic dialectical fashion. Caring relationships provide the moral ideal; a respect for rights provides the moral floor, a minimum protection for individuals which remains morally binding even where appropriate caring relationships are absent or have broken down” (Porter, 1994). Decisions based on the greater good, such as those made by utilitarianism, would highlight the respect for rights of the unborn child and provide a moral floor for all other moral rights and responsibilities. Therefore, I agree with a utilitarian approach to this issue, because any decision made must benefit not only the mother, but also the child.

       Just over 80 years ago every Christian faith found the use of birth control to be immoral (Notare, 2008). With the constant erosion of moral values, individual freedoms are now emphasized in our society placing a woman’s right to choose to use birth control in the forefront, while altogether ignoring a child’s right to life and human dignity. Ethical egoists support the propagation of the “I factor” as they remain focused on what is best for them personally, ultimately hindering personal responsibility and promoting the decay of moral standards within our society. As society becomes more secular the “I factor” will become more commonplace which will eventually negate the utilitarianism viewpoint all together. In fact, the effect of this decay will result in the constant erosion of human dignity until moral rights and responsibilities as well as the definition of good vs. evil are blurred to the point that they are unrecognizable to those who used to hold them so dear.

References

Barilan, Y. M. (2009). Judaism, Human Dignity and the Most Vulnerable Women on
Earth. American Journal Of Bioethics, 9(11), 35-37.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2011). Unintended Pregnancy Prevention: Contraception. Retrieved from
http://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/unintendedpregnancy/contraception.htm

Ertelt, S. (2010). Analysis Shows 52 Million Abortions Since Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade Decision. Retrieved from http://www.lifenews.com/2010/01/22/nat-5910/

Hursthouse, R. (1991). Virtue Theory and Abortion. Philosophy & Public Affairs , Vol. 20, No. 3 (Summer, 1991), pp. 223-246

Mosser, K. (2010). Introduction to Ethics & Social Responsibility. Retrieved from
https://content.ashford.edu/books/AUSOC120.10.2/sections/sec1.8

Notare, P. (2008). “A revolution on Christian morals”: Lambeth 1930-Resolution #15. History & Reception. Retrieved from http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=1650925941&sid=1&Fmt=2&clientId=79356&RQT=309&VName=PQD

Pope John Paul II. (1995). Pope John Paul II on Abortion, Contraception, and Euthanasia, Population and Development Review , Vol. 21, No. 3 (Sep., 1995), pp. 689-696

Porter, E. (1994). Abortion Ethics: Rights and Responsibilities. Hypatia , Vol. 9, No. 3 (Summer, 1994), pp. 66-87

Stephens, M., Jordens, C., Kerridge, I., & Ankeny, R. (2010). Religious Perspectives on Abortion and a Secular Response. Journal Of Religion & Health, 49(4), 513-535.