A Living God

The past forty-seven years, since the end of the Second Vatican Council, have seen some of the greatest ecumenical efforts in the Church in her history. This effort has especially been extended to Protestants and, more recently, the Orthodox Church, our brothers. One great sign of this ecumenical work and the success it has produced is the recent creation of the Anglican Ordinariate by Pope Benedict XVI, effectively an English Rite allowing Anglicans who wish to convert to Catholicism a smooth transition. This is one of many great accomplishments of ecumenism over the past century and even more energized since Vatican II.

While this ecumenism has produced many signs of growth and reconciliation amongst the fractured pieces of Christianity, it has also given rise to an excessive zeal for ecumenical growth, particularly among Catholics. This zeal has confused the true purpose of ecumenism - mutual growth and constructive, open dialogue - with the singular desire to bring other Christians into the Faith. While this is a noble desire, it has led many ecumenical Catholics to adopt a willingness for compromise. They are willing to sacrifice Catholic truths for the sake of ecumenical agreement, whether for the sake of conversion, peace, or some other motive. Whatever the reason, this sense of compromise has led to many errors being proliferated in the Church which have not been as thoroughly answered and dealt with as they should be.

Certain errors have been largely allowed to continue, especially by the general lay population and many academics, without a decisive correction from the faithful. I would like to address one of the most common and prominent errors resulting from an overzealous ecumenism, in the hope that Catholics can discern this error in themselves. This error can be very subtle, and the motives for accepting it can be genuine, but neither its subtlety nor the good intentions of the individual can justify the error and make wrong become right. To be healed, they must be brought into the light - this is my hope.

In this article, I would like to discuss one error resulting from ecumenical compromise I have seen growing in frequency in modern times:


Sola Scriptura

In the Reformation, one of the most defining beliefs of the Catholic Church which distinguished it from those sects of Christianity that were separating from the Church was the centrality of the Church over the Bible. Most Protestants adopted the idea of sola scriptura, or scripture alone, the belief that the Bible is the sole authority on truth, the deposit of all revelation, and sacred on par with the sacraments, if indeed the individual denomination retained any sacraments. Many Protestants even placed the Bible above all sacraments, including baptism, the most fundamental and uniting Christian sacrament. The Eucharist was demoted and the role of the preacher and the homily were elevated, particularly by the work of Martin Luther. This was done to emphasize the importance of the Bible as well as the individual relationship between believer and Bible which was the center of Protestant spirituality, and largely remains so today.

The Church has always revered the Bible. We wrote and compiled the Bible and owned it exclusively for fifteen hundred years prior to the Reformation. But the Church existed before the Bible was written - the Jewish Church preceded the Old Testament, and the Christian Church, its successor, preceded the New Testament. I can prove each of these assertions with two questions: what Bible did Abraham read? and, what New Testament did the apostles read? The Church always understood that God's revelation is not revealed first through a book. Rather, revelation occurs in history, in reality, whether in time and space or within the human spirit. The burning bush preceded the account of it in the Bible; God's conversation with Noah preceded its recording in the Bible; the life of Jesus preceded the Gospels; etc.

The Bible is also not the second stage of revelation. This second stage is the Tradition of the Church, the transmission of the dogmas and practices of the Faith by its members, orally and sacramentally. This preceded the Bible. (2 Thess. 2:14) The Magisterium of the Church, under the Chair of Moses in the Jewish Church and under the Chair of Peter in the Christian Church, are those in the Church granted the authority by God to interpret and administer Tradition and the sacraments. The sacraments are the greatest experience of revelation possible. They are a direct entering into the presence of God, into Heaven thereby. We participate in Heaven and God participates in our lives directly in the sacraments. This is a higher experience than any other, and it is the fullest expression of the true spiritual center of the Christian life: prayer.

The Bible is the third stage of revelation. It is a written record of Tradition. Just as Tradition is the memory of revelation, which occurs in history, the Bible is written in narrative form because revelation itself is a story. It occurs in time, in sequential events. It develops, it has characters and plotlines, as do all narratives. The Bible is not written as a catechesis or as theology. It is far less straightforward and far more difficult to understand precisely because it is more real and more pure, being a record of history, not of ideas. But the Bible does not represent the origin of revelation or the fullness of revelation, as is repeated many times, particularly in the New Testament. St. John and St. Paul testify that there is much more that Christ did and taught, and much more they could teach, than just what they have written. The Bible consists of the essential narratives of revelation. It cannot grant salvation - if it could, God would have sent us a Bible rather than His Son.

This was a profound disagreement between Catholics and Protestants, the latter accusing us of ignoring or downplaying the Bible. To some extent, this may have been the case, though I have not seen it. Catholics throughout history have read and used the Bible extensively. But because we placed the Church over the Bible, Protestants believed we were not treating the Bible correctly as the center of the Faith.

This idea, sola scriptura, remains very prominent in modern Protestant beliefs, whether conservative or liberal. In pursuit of ecumenism, many Catholics have not only focused more on the Bible, but neglected the centrality and primacy of the Church, the importance of Tradition, the authority of the Magisterium, and the meaning of the sacraments. While we should respect the Bible for what it is, and while we should most certainly read it in lectio divina and spiritual contemplation on a regular basis, we cannot let our love of the scriptures become sola scriptura.

This is not meant to be a discussion of the meaning or origin of sola scriptura, or the details of its fallacious nature. I simply wanted to illustrate the fact that it is incompatible with Catholic truth, and that despite our eagerness for ecumenism, we must not let the error of sola scriptura creep into our beliefs. While many modern people seem to place little value on people's beliefs or in the specifics of beliefs, I respect God and I respect truth and I care for people too greatly to adopt this relativistic indifference towards people's errors. I have seen this error occurring, and I pray that this article can perhaps correct my brothers and sisters in the Faith who may be, even unknowingly, falling into this trap. God bless.

Spiritual Warfare

If a stranger to Christianity were to listen to the way today's Christians present our teachings on morality, salvation and the afterlife, they could very easily come to the conclusion that our religion is nothing but one big spiritual business, a Company of God so to speak. Consider some common phrases you have heard Christians use when they speak about salvation, as well as some of the questions raised against Christian morality. It is treated like a business manifest. Good deeds are tallied in one column, bad deeds in another. God has a specific quota in mind that we must meet, and if our good deeds do not sufficiently meet the quota, or if our bad deeds surpass our good, we are "fired" to Hell (no pun intended), or perhaps "demoted" to Purgatory. The saints are those who not only meet the quota but surpass it, thereby earning a "promotion" to Heaven.

This all-too-common presentation of Christian morality has been one of the central focuses of criticisms by opponents of Christianity for many decades. While this version has not been very popular amongst academic or clergy Christians, it has been adopted, even if unintentionally, but a majority of lay Christians, particularly in the West. An exploration into the causes and origins of this worldview would certainly be worthwhile, but it is not the intention of this article.

Rather, I wish to compare and contrast this modern idea of Christian morality with a much more ancient and far more valid conception: spiritual warfare. While some Christians may be aware of this idea, their knowledge or understanding of it is probably shallow at best, used more as an analogy than as a real, literal description of the intricacies of Christian spirituality. To view it as nothing more than analogy and symbolism misses its fundamental truth, a truth that is essential and even central to the Christian life. Our understanding of spiritual warfare not only influences our own spiritual lives, but our attitudes towards other religions, other groups within Christianity, and the deepest truths of Catholicism. It also shapes our understanding of the purpose and meaning of Christ's sacrifice, as well as the Sacred Liturgy we celebrate.

Many Catholics in today's world find it hard to imagine things like angels and demons, miracles, and even the Resurrection. Ideas such as these are often ignored or responded to with confusion or denial. When these fundamentals are forgotten, it is not difficult to see how the idea of a constant, invisible war being waged in Heaven and Earth, within each of us and all around us, between angels and demons, and even more so, between Satan and humanity, could have been lost in modern times. It can seem absurd or pointless. Yet, it is absolutely essential to the Faith. A reading of the New Testament makes this abundantly clear as we witness the interactions between Christ and angels, demons, possessed people and Satan himself. We are also told that Christ same into the world to "defeat the works of the Devil" (1 John 3:8), and that our war is not with "flesh and blood; but against principalities and power, against the rulers of the world of this darkness, against the spirits of wickedness in the high places." (Ephesians 6:12 Douay-Rheims 1899) And in Acts, we see the apostles carry on the work of Christ, casting out demons and being aided by angels.

But is spiritual warfare merely a heavenly struggle between angels and demons for greater influence over our souls? No, this would be a very simplistic way of seeing it. Angels and demons are only two parts of a much larger war. Truly, the greatest means of understanding spiritual warfare is the Sacred Liturgy. While we participate in the earthly Mass, the Heaven Liturgy is taking place, souls washed clean in the blood of the Lamb, armies being led by the Dragon combating the holy armies of God led by the Lamb and those clothed in white. Every time we attend Mass, we enter into this battle. Each instance of repentance is a victory for Christ; each act of confession of faith, of charity and prayer, of praise and worship is a bolster for God's Army. (For more on these ideas, see the Book of Revelation and especially Dr. Scott Hahn's magnificent book, The Lamb's Supper.)

This liturgical war is an example of the great distinction between an economic, business conception of Christian morality, and the idea of spiritual warfare. The greatest differences lie in the pragmatism of the former version, in which knowledge of only the very end of one's destiny is desired. A pragmatic morality is seen as more realistic and "boiled down", but in fact, this is a rebellion against the neglect that Catholics have shown towards explaining and living spiritual warfare over the past several decades. With spiritual warfare transformed into mere analogy or forgotten altogether, Christians replaced it with a pragmatic economy of salvation. But if we are to correct the many errors being proliferated amongst Christians in today's world, we must return to a truer, deeper understanding of spiritual warfare and we must start applying it to the way we believe and the way we live our faith.

Spiritual warfare is the most real, "down-to-earth" aspect of Christian spirituality. It is experienced everyday, all day. Our spirit, our will, is constantly experiencing new spiritual events - negatives like temptation and confusion, as well as positives like opportunities for spiritual growth in wisdom or charity. There is never a time when our spirit is dormant. Even our dreams can be sources of temptation or growth for us once we awake. The Adversary is a roving lion, and like a predator with its prey, he never lets us rest. His intelligence far surpasses ours, as does his reach and his following. He coordinates with his demonic legions, tempting each person individually. He offers excuses, confusions, emotional pressures; he tempts one person to act in a way that will tempt someone else. He and his Reign are never asleep. Neither are, however, the armies of Christ - His angels and saints, following the Lamb. These are always there to aid and protect us. But because God honors our freedom, neither demonic nor heavenly host will force themselves on us. No one can force us to choose anything against our will - they can only try to influence or protect our will and so promote its freedom.

It is perhaps the greatest folly of modern times, though it should surprise no Christian, that the majority of Western people today reject the idea of Satan, demons, angels, and spiritual warfare, especially in their traditional forms. I say that it should not surprise Christians - those who still believe in these things, that is - because we live in a fallen world. The Prince of this present darkness is cunning, and what eases his work more than disbelief? If I choose to ignore the assassin in my house, will it not be much easier for him to murder me? And even though the Faithful shine bright lights in front of people, only by choosing to turn and see what lurks behind them will someone truly identify the presence of the Enemy and his Reign. We cannot and should not try to force this choice on anyone; by doing so, we only push them further into the arms of Satan.

As should be clear, this traditional conception of spiritual warfare is greatly contrasted by the modern economics of Christian morality. But I think it is also erroneous to see spiritual warfare as a detached, impersonal relationship between soldier and General. God does not sit at the back of the lines while His troops die at the front. No - Christ came and stood at the very front, taking all the blows while His men abandoned Him, betrayed Him, and thereby fell to the Enemy. By standing in the shadow of Christ, we can accept the protection He offers us, for even when we fall to the wounds and enticements of the Enemy, Christ frees us. No adversary is greater than the Lord of Hosts.

Spiritual warfare is not only apart of daily spirituality and morality, it is an explanation for all history and a great tool of prediction. History is not ruled by economics or politics or science. The advancement or prosperity of a civilization does not determine its quality or its actions. No - the moral character of its people and its leaders determines this. And spiritual warfare is even greater than the individual beliefs and choices of people. The influences, weaknesses, aspirations and habits of the inner life are constants of human nature. By addressing these and recognizing their influence in our lives, we can truly grasp human nature and what we can do to overcome our vices and attain true virtue, victories in the Great War.

Yet, the questions of economic morality remain. Practicality cannot be ignored by Christian teaching. How, indeed, is one saved? What standard is used for salvation and damnation? What is required? The fact that people continue mentioning these concepts, whether positively or critically, attests to their enduring meaning and importance, and any mention is greater than forgetfulness.

Spiritual warfare can answer these questions and, indeed, it is the only valid means of answering them in a Christian context. Salvation is not a tally or point system, but it is also not an instantaneous occurrence as many modern Christians believe. (Romans 10:9) Salvation is a matter of the will, of the heart. It is a matter of choice. The graces of God, given through the Holy Sacraments and in the various sacramentals of the Church, and through other spiritual sources, are given by Him as a gift to aid us. God's grace is not meant to overwhelm us, to force us into salvation. Rather, grace liberates our will from the influences of sin - confusion, temptation, passions, habits.

While salvation is a matter of the will, itself aided and transformed by God's grace, our salvation itself is Christ the Lamb. Throughout the history of religion, man has recognized his own weakness and corruptibility. Contrition is an inherent quality of religion. Alongside this recognition is the practice of vicarious sacrifice, placing an offering before God that is both good in itself and a personal sacrifice to us. Christ is the summation of this historical thread in religion. His practice of the Eucharist is the greatest expression of His vicarious sacrifice, fulfilling the meals of thanksgiving as well as the priestly sacrifices of Judaism. As God, He made this sacrifice universal and perfect. As man, He was not an inferior offering, like a crop or animal, receiving the punishment we deserve for our sins vicariously. And as the Eucharist, He can be received with equality perfection and potency by all men for all time.

A life of spiritual warfare involves orienting the will towards God, coming to desire His will above all things and to choose to do His will whenever we can. Because of the sin of this world and our flesh, our will is influenced, its freedom marred. The grace of God works to free our will, liberating it and thereby giving it greater strength to choose God completely. And with our will free and strong, we may then choose to accept Christ as our Savior - not through words alone, but through the sacrifice of the Mass.

By partaking of the Eucharist, we are entering into the universal liturgy of Heaven and Earth. We renew our covenant of baptism through which we were freed by grace from original sin; we experience the fulfillment of the sustenance of food and drink through the true Giver of Eternal Life, the Lamb; our sins are cleansed and we join in the moral war where Satan struggles to drag us to Hell with him while the Host of Heaven works to return us to the salvation of Christ. The truth, meaning and benefit of the Eucharist are endless. It is the summation and summit of spiritual warfare.

I pray that we may grow in understanding and faith in the reality of spiritual warfare, to practice it with knowledge and strength in the grace of God, and to see the liturgy, particularly the Eucharist, as the highest expression of spiritual warfare and the means by which we can come into the fullest relationship with God our Lord and Savior. Amen.

The Elusive Virtue of Patience

"[I]f I should have prophecy and should know all mysteries, and all knowledge, and if I should have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. And if I should distribute all my goods to feed the poor, and if I should deliver my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing. Charity is patient, is kind: charity envieth not, dealeth not perversely; is not puffed up; Is not ambitious, seeketh not her own, is not provoked to anger, thinketh no evil; Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth with the truth; Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things."
(1 Corinthians 13:2-7 Douay-Rheims)

Love (or charity) is patient. Patience is from love, is based in love. Without love, patience becomes indifference, apathy, mere sentiment. And without patience, love is lacking, and thus is not true, perfect, complete love, the love God wants to grow in our hearts. To see this, we need only look at the patience of God, just as extraordinarily abundant as every other expression of love He makes throughout Scripture. Every time someone would sin, every time an individual or nation would fall into idolatry or violence or debauchery, He would await their return, as did the father of the Prodigal Son in the familiar parable of Christ.

This is perhaps most clearly evidenced by the life of the author of the above-quoted verse, St. Paul. Not only was God patient with St. Paul on a human level, as with any other person, He gave Paul opportunity after opportunity to realize the truth of Christ, to repent of his persecutions towards Christians, and to come into full communion with His Church. Only at the very end, when the Church Herself was threatened by Paul, did God finally rebuke him directly and bring him to the destiny God had planned for him.
When we think of love, how often do we connect it to patience? And when we do, what is our vision of true patience? For many, patience is stoic, enduring pain and sin without emotion until it subsides. For others, patience takes the form of condescension as we try to endure those people we consider inferior to ourselves - morally, intellectually or in any other way - without succumbing to sin.

But as with all acts of Christian piety, we must ask: is this the model and example of patience that Christ provided? As the constant and perfect standard for holiness, we must always ask how He lived and behaved. Patience was an integral part of the life and ministry of Christ, particularly in His Passion. Did He retreat from the world in His life, or did He endure pain or the sins of others without compassion or concern? Quite the opposite - He engaged life head-on, without veil or hindrance. His patience was com-passionate, suffering-with. He recognized both the infinite value and beauty of the human person, made in His own image, as well as the universality of sin and its power of us, morally and physically. He knew that our minds, our bodies, our spirits and our relationships are marred immeasurably by sin in all its forms, and He experienced this personally throughout His life. And in His Passion, He experienced the totality of human suffering and sin all at once, the light meeting the dark without compromise or avoidance.

When we're born, when we first enter the world after our life in the womb, we come into the world without expecting sin. We cannot conceive of bad things or difficulties, of need or pain. Our innocent bodies cry out for sustenance, confounded by our hunger and thirst, wondering why we must feel such things. And as children, the sin we experience, in ourselves and in the world, is a shock to us.

Only as we grow up do we become "accustomed" to sin. Embittered by years of pain and disappointment, the good always marred and seemingly overpowered by the bad, we come to expect sin. At times, we can even come to the point that we enjoy sin. We feel that life is too hard, too short to fight against sin our entire lives, to avoid the pleasures and escapes it can give, even if only temporary. And when we sin, when we give into the evil of the world, we believe we can avoid disappointment, experiencing sin preemptively. Get them before they get you.

This is a life without love, and without patience. This acceptance and expectation of sin, and forgetfulness or dissatisfaction with the good, is a corruption and distortion of patience. But the virtue of patience is not a surrender to the power of sin. Rather, patience surrenders to God. It recognizes sin without accepting it as eternal and all-powerful, attributing this divinity only to God. Patience sees that God's love is infinite but mysterious, His plan hidden but perfect, and in this recognition it surrenders all anxiety, all anger, all grudges and all desperation to God.

With this surrender, we see that it is not our place or in our power to cleanse the world of sin. Furthermore, we see that God allows sin for a purpose, within His larger plan. We no longer have to be afraid of sin, as though it were an equal, rival force competing with God for rule of Creation. No - sin, like all else, is under the dominion of the Blessed Trinity. All things work to the glory of God and, through His love and glorification, to the ultimate perfecting of Creation.

With the certain hope of Christ, assured to us in the Blessed Sacrament, we no longer have to be under the power of sin, whether in ourselves or the world. For even when we do sin, as we all do, and even when we do endure the pain of original sin in the world or the sins of others, we need not feel helpless or hopeless. Now, we know that God is Lord even of sin, using it to make us even greater than we were. We come to see that sin is merely an opportunity for love, for mercy, for truth - and for patience.

So, with this understanding, what then does it mean to be patient? How we can grow in patience in our daily lives? As with all spiritual practices, there are two vital, central means of growing in the virtue of patience: the sacraments, and prayer.

In the sacraments, we enter into the spirituality of love. In baptism, we experience the culmination of God's covenantal patience spanning the entire history of humanity. In confirmation, we are rewarded for the patience we are called to exhibit between this and our baptism, just as the apostles were rewarded with the Holy Spirit for their patience after the Ascension of Christ. In matrimony and holy orders, we are called to a lifetime of vocational patience, sacrificing ourselves in every way for the good of God and others. In reconciliation, we are called to perhaps the most difficult form of patience - patience towards ourselves. With this sacrament, we must develop the patience God shows to us in our sinfulness and imperfection, waiting with love and understanding as we walk, stumble, and rise again with His grace over the course of our lives, growing steadily in holiness and moving ever closer to Him. And finally, in the Blessed Sacrament of the Eucharist, we witness and participate in the summary of all the sacraments and in the highest example of patience ever seen - the Passion, Death and Resurrection of Christ, when He suffered all our sins with infinite patience founded in boundless love for His children.

Through a consistent, disciplined and deeply spiritual prayer life, and through the mysticism of the Holy Sacraments, I pray that we may be able to grow ever more in patience, in love, and in our journey towards the Beatific Vision God desires for us, a life of true, complete love. God bless.

The Divorce of Science and Faith

Today, there is a trend that, while not ubiquitous, is very prevalent in many arenas of society. This trend attempts to portray science and scientific inquiry as entirely distinct from and even superior to religious faith and spirituality. It characterizes faith as irrational and science as the only repository of any real, certain truth about reality. Even for those who still possess or at least respect faith, they tend to view it as an entirely private practice, essentially a therapeutic tool not meant to influence one's public life and without any connection to or basis in physical reality. Hence the popularity today of people calling themselves "spiritual but not religious", usually meaning that the latter entirely lacks the former and thus must be abandoned for a genuine spiritual life. 
Sadly, this is not only a philosophical error but a historical one. Proponents of this trend, with and without faith alike, seem tragically ignorant of history even more so than philosophy when it comes to the relationship of science and faith, as well as the spirituality of religion, though that is a different topic. Our modern scientific worldview, which is either explicitly or implicitly accepted by all scientists because it forms the basis of the scientific method, is founded primarily on the worldview of Christianity. Prior to Christianity, most religions viewed nature as pawns on the divine chessboard, with individual deities and spirits moving pieces around as they pleased. Even later religions, such as Islam, largely retained this view of existence. But Christianity, rooted in Judaism and enhanced by the natural philosophy of the Greeks and Romans, as well as uniquely Christian ideas, began the perception of the natural world as controlled by logical, natural laws, without the constant and specific control of God. This worldview was based on the Christian belief in a rational God, a God of law and pattern and truth. Just as our God instituted covenants, assigned times and seasons, and created a teaching body to rationally interpret His Scriptures, He also created consistent laws to govern His Creation. Without this worldview which forms the deepest foundations of modern science, it could not exist as it does today.

As I have observed the way modern scientists think, the way that they approach scientific problems and create scientific theories to explain the evidence they accumulate, I have noticed something that contradicts the aforementioned trend. They not only observe and report facts of nature - they use the logic and reason of the human mind to organize, analyze and explain these observed facts. They do not simply see the moon and say "there is a big rock in the sky". No, they ask a very human question - why? This leads them to not only observe the moon more closely but to attempt to explain what they see. How did the moon come to be as it is, and why? And, how does it affect the Earth and, accordingly, how is it affected by the Earth, the Sun and other astronomical phenomena?

This very basic, very human ability exemplifies a much more fundamental truth of the human condition: we are a part of Creation. While this may seem like a given, it is a truth that reflects deeper truths about ourselves. We are not only in Creation, but of it. We are a reflection of Creation. Every part of us is meant to reflect reality in some way. How could any part of us not be at least loosely based in reality? Even psychological delusions are merely the distortion or displacement of something that is real, and works of fantasy and imagination merely transform what they see in life. We are capable of reason and capable of rationally analyzing nature precisely because nature is itself rational. Our mind is not distinct from nature - every part of it reflects and is based in reality, including our capacities for reason and faith.

People today are severely disjointed in many ways, especially internally. We separate our reason from our faith; we try to blend one thing into another or treat one part of the human person as universally superior to another part. Every part of the human person is good in its original form, even though it may be corrupted and distorted over time, and no part of us is completely fake or false. I would think that materialists could grasp this even better than Christians, since they only believe in the existence of physical reality. How can any part of us exist that is not reflective of reality? But, this would force them to acknowledge the realism of faith, with its basis in Creation and, ultimately, in God, without whom nature could not exist as it does with its laws, its consistency and its fundamental existence.

I believe that for people to be truly happy, they need to return to a holistic approach to life and to themselves as human beings, creatures in God's Creation. Too often, people dismiss parts of themselves that, if faced head-on, might force them to reexamine their lives and their general view of the world. Rather than presuming the truth of the scientific worldview, acting as though laws of nature can create themselves, and rather than having a faith without examination, without question and without life, why can we not embrace both parts of ourselves? As human beings, we are both apart of Creation and made in the image of God. Every single person has built-in faculties that both let them rationally understand and use nature, and to grow closer to God through reason and faith alike, and to then express both of these through love.

I love science very much, a sort of hold-over from my pre-Christian days, and I find it a great tragedy that every time I read or watch anything about science, the author feels it necessary to offer some disparaging remark about God or Christianity, if not religion in general, and then assert his or her own philosophy into the mix. That is not science. Even the so-called "religiously biased" Christian scientists of the Middle Ages taught that for an academic study to be truly objective and factual, it must not mix religion into itself. However, they were not afraid to have a complete view of life, both from scientific and religious perspective, rather than excluding one or the other. They were capable of studying science by itself, and subsequently believing that God is the originator of nature and its laws, neither affecting the validity and objective truth of the other.

Accordingly, both benefit from each other when they are able to live together peacefully. Science gives faith an avenue to understand the beauty and splendor of God's Creation through direct experience of nature as well as rational examination of the astounding intricacy and power of nature. And, to science, faith gives a moral and conceptual background, grounding it ultimately in an understanding of a rational basis for nature, and granting science the purpose and meaning of serving humanity, both academically and practically. When we separate science from faith, we are left with both Nazism and fundamentalism, two sides of the same coin.

For true happiness and for a truly complete understanding and experience of life, we must accept all that we are, not only the parts we find easy or useful. This means realizing that we are at once rational, religious, spiritual, moral, familial/social, and creative creatures. But when the ultimate philosophical basis of science is removed, or the premises of religion confused and distorted, we are left with a disjointed fragmentation of the human mind. We must return to a holism; otherwise we will continue to be plagued by the tragedies of fundamentalism, eugenics, abortion, and the modern divorce of science and faith. I pray that we all may be repaired and thus regain this holism with which we were created and without which we cannot be truly happy and fulfilled. 

The Politics of Faith

With the rising importance of the HHS mandate, which all Catholics should be aware of at this point, I am amazed at two things: the preoccupation today's Catholics have with politics, and the difference between believers and nonbelievers in the modern West.

Unlike the opposition of the Church (and by Church I mean Catholics in general) to abortion, the dissidence to the HHS mandate seems to be more focused on the issue of religious liberty than on protesting the immorality of the specific items of this mandate - namely, contraception, sterilization and abortion drugs. Naturally, it is the implied immorality of these things that makes our participation in this mandate wrong, but the issue being raised most often by Catholics is the fact that this mandate would force Catholic business owners to pay part of the co-pay for their employees' insurance which, under this mandate, would now have to cover contraception, sterilization and abortion drugs. Cleverly, the Obama administration has already passed legislation to force business over a small amount of employees to give their workers company insurance, and so now, businesses are also being told what kind of practices their insurance must cover. It was quite an ingenious tactic on Obama's part, I must say, but wickedness is always ingenious. (See Romans chapter 1 and 2)

Many Catholics have expressed the question that other religious groups, like the Amish, have been given exemption from this mandate, while Catholics and other Abrahamic religions have not. And, as I said before, our main issue with this mandate seems to be that Catholics are being forced to financially contribute to the coverage of immoral practices in insurance. While I completely agree that we should not be forced to do this, it makes me wonder: if Catholics were exempted, or if we did not have to pay for coverage of those specific practices but the government still made them available on company insurance, would this be as big of an issue?

Our opposition to this mandate is more focused on the government's violation of our religious freedom than on the specific immorality of the practices themselves, a different stance than we have towards abortion (except when they try to force Catholic medical personnel to assist in or perform abortions). Actually, I think it is more similar to the issue currently going on in England, where the government is threatening legislation that would force religious institutions to perform gay marriages, whether they want to or not.

Catholics are claiming that this is a violation of our right to religious liberty. But I think this event brings to light a very important point, one that many Catholics seem to ignore: our beliefs are directly connected to and dependent upon our faith, that is, the knowledge we have received directly from God through Revelation and Tradition. This knowledge cannot be inferred purely through reason. Thus, without this faith, many of our beliefs would be unfounded or at least questionable.

For example, our main opposition to abortion in all circumstances is the proposition that human life has inalienable value and dignity from the moment of conception. Simply by virtue of being of the human species, an attribute inherited at the moment of conception (something no one denies), we have this worth and meaning. But why is being human so important? What makes the human species, and thus anyone of that species, so special and deserving of special treatment? Because, Catholics would say, we have an immortal soul created in the image of God and given to every human being at the moment we become human, that is, at conception. This belief cannot be proven simply by reason or science - it is an article of faith, revealed to us by God and transmitted as an infallible truth by the Church.

So what happens when we no longer have this faith, this revelation that cannot be attained by human effort alone? When we lost faith, even just part of our faith, we lose some or all of the attached beliefs which depend on that faith. When we no longer believe in the soul, or even a soul made in the image of God, our belief in inalienable dignity of the human species subsequently (though sometimes gradually) dissolves, as it has for atheists. This is why some people (even, tragically, some Christians) are capable of dismissing the worth of an unborn child by the fact that it has not fully developed, or doesn't look entirely human, or can't yet feel pain (at certain stages of development), or can't live or breathe on its own, etc. To them, the worth of a human depends on something other than their soul, than the fact that they are an individual human person. This change derives from a lack of the faith all Catholics (should) have - that is, faith in the soul made in the image of God.

Despite this fact, many modern Catholics seem to expect nonbelievers (including some heretical Catholics, i.e. Pelosi and Biden) to follow all of our beliefs without the faith upon which those beliefs are based. We seem to be taking natural law too far, as though it contains in itself all the truths of Revelation. This is not so. Natural law is meant to lead us to Christ, not to be Christ Himself. Reason can only get us so far; without Christ, it is ultimately limited and prone to frequent error without a definitive standard of correction. How can we expect nonbelievers to see the terrible immorality of abortion in all circumstances when they lack our belief in the inalienable dignity of the human soul made in the image of God?

Accordingly, with this HHS mandate, the government seems to view it this way: abortion and contraception are legal; they are considered by most doctors, social and health professionals to be an integral part of a complete program of health and well-being; and most people in America use them regularly. Thus, why should any insurance program, even those funded by Catholics, not cover these practices? It is an agenda, yes, but I doubt it is quite as much a conspiracy as it appears. Most people are not as intelligent as Satan, nor do they have his awareness of truth. Most nonbelievers genuinely misunderstand or disbelief the Faith and even think their rebellion is the more conscientious stance. Thus, they think they are doing the right thing by securing abortion and contraception for anyone who wants it, and they view Catholics and others like us as harmful to society.

Have other atheistic regimes, like the Nazis and communists, also shared this stance towards Catholics? Yes. But the major difference is that the Nazis and communists were relatively small regimes trying to force themselves onto other peoples. In modern times, however, this worldview is popular by general preference of the people, not the tyrannical command of some external dictator. Today, the Church is not defending the general public but, rather, we're telling them that they are, for the most part, gravely wrong in their beliefs. It is much harder to convince the hearts of people than to defend them from an unwanted common enemy.

As for the connection between the HHS mandate and religious liberty, I think it shows two things: that Catholics are too involved and too dependent upon the secular; and that the modern conception of justice is led by a non-Christian ideology. For the first point, I have heard so many Catholics discussing this mandate refer to the Founding Fathers of America and their supposed insistence on religious freedom. I find this a difficult idea to base our claims upon. The Founding Fathers were primarily deists, slave owners, supporters of the massacre of Native Americans, criminals against the English Crown, and restricted freedom only to white male land owners. Furthermore, Catholics were persecuted in early America, marginalized if nothing else. We have never been a majority in this country, nor has this country ever been inspired by Catholic teachings except through the distant and blurred patrimony of the Protestant influence on colonial America. The government they founded is the same government that has legalized abortion, pornography and, now, is instituting the HHS mandate, the first two never being revoked since their legalization, even during the presidencies of supposed Christians presidents such as Reagan and Bush.

We seem to forget that the land we use, the money we use, and the government we participate in belongs to the federal government, not to us. "We the people" is an oxymoron, as it was written by wealthy, white, male politicians with little input from "the people". When the government has made something legal, like abortion and contraception, why are we surprised when they try to force us to use their money to pay for such things? Any money we have is loaned to us from the government. Attempts to desecrate or misrepresent money will prove this by their vengeance. We talk as though our money belongs to us - does it not belong to Caesar first?

We are foreigners, aliens in a strange land, no matter how Christians its citizens supposedly are. Even the "Christian" kingdoms of the Middle Ages did not entirely follow our teachings, and no secular government ever will. And, with the majority of modern Western populations not being Catholic, their democratic representation will naturally result in a non-Catholic government and law. As I said above, how we can expect anything else from nonbelievers? Truly, it is a wonder our religious liberty has been secured this long.

But, for the second point, I think this HHS mandate issue is also indicative of another trait of the modern West. This issue is not, on the most fundamental level, an issue of religious liberty. Rather, it is a difference in our perception of justice. The modern West does not have the same idea of justice as the Catholic Church. Their idea of justice derives from the fundamental atheism and pragmatism of the secular worldview that is the standard of governments and even cultures today, at least in how they deal with national issues. For them, justice lies in the protection of people's health and freedom. If these two are protected, they believe, people will be happy and justice will be fully served.

Their idea of health is affected by their extreme view of freedom, and vice versa. Health is seen as power over the body, both to defeat attacks and to make it operate as we wish. This naturally leads into the idea of "reproductive rights", where women are "empowered" to rule their bodies and command them however they wish. To the government, this power is apart of a full and complete health bill, and so abortion and contraception are necessary.  This applies both to men and women, but especially to the latter, as most people today see men as already empowered since we are not "burdened" by pregnancy and motherhood which so severely affects women's pursuit of their careers, reputations and love lives.

Responsibility has become a vice, something that restricts freedom. To Catholics, it is the exact opposite. Responsibilities are opportunities to give of ourselves, to love, and thus to grow spiritually in likeness to God and in fellowship with humanity. But we are willing to endure some pain and inconvenience for the sake of love and virtue. To modern people, any pain and/or inconvenience incurs on their freedom (aka power) and happiness (aka contentment/pleasure) and so becomes an injustice. Abortion and contraception are seen as weapons in the fight against injustice.

For Catholics, this logic seems incredibly senseless and immoral, which it is, but we must understand that they lack the Faith that enlightens our understanding of truth. Without it, we would be as erroneous as they are. We merely have to examine the moral state of Europe before the spread of Catholicism to see this.

We can no longer just expect Western nations to cater to Christians and our Faith-based lifestyles. For so many centuries, it has been a given that every Western country would accomodate us, at least respecting our beliefs. But in this secular age, the direct product of the extreme atheism of the 20th century, we must shed our comfortable presumptions and remember the fact that as Christians, especially as Catholics, we are foreigners in a strange land, living as exiles, trying to merely live a quiet and peaceful life practicing our Faith and working for the common good and evangelization of all. When (not if) we are persecuted, we must rejoice as Christ taught. He was persecuted first, even unto death, and when we are persecuted for His sake, we illuminate His love and His truth and show the real glory of God. We must unite our sufferings to His and life lives of exemplary virtue, religiosity and prayer.

Furthermore, the Church must start focusing more on purifying the Church itself, internally, rather than judging nonbelievers be a standard they do not recognize. We cannot tolerate such heresies as are prevalent today. We must immediately and blatantly reject all heresy and all sin by Catholics, whether perpetrated by political leaders (Pelosi and Biden, for example), priests (such as those involved in the sex abuse), or a member of your own family, and we must work ever harder towards full Christian unity within the one, holy and apostolic Catholic Church of Rome. God bless and amen.

Resident Aliens and Unholy Vessels

"[Christians] reside in their own nations, but as resident aliens. They participate in all things as citizens and endure all things as foreigners.... They obey the established laws and their way of life surpasses the laws.... So noble is the position to which God has assigned them that they are not allowed to desert it."

Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2240

Living as a Christian in a democratic society can be a source of both opportunity and confusion. We have the ability, as citizens equal before the law and equal in government participation, to bring about peace, justice and the promotion of human dignity and well-being without having to appeal to the arbitrary whim of a ruling despot. And we share the ideals of equality and liberty that form the philosophical basis of democracy itself. However, at the same time, it is quite possible for a country’s laws and politics to become definitively anti-Christian without using any unfair political processes. Simply by having a majority vote, people in a democracy can change their nation from one that promotes Christian values to one that openly denies any Christian influence in their history and even considers many Christian teachings, such as our views on homosexuality, to be a human rights violation.

When this occurs, as it has in modern Europe and in America to a lesser extent, Christians feel perplexed and even shocked. How can a society, we think, that has been Christian for so long so abruptly become anti-Christian? Moreover, it was not the edict of some conquering force, as was often the case with fascist and communist empires in the 20th century. No - the secularization and immorality of modern Western nations is entirely due to the popular majority consensus of the people, precisely because those nations are democratic. We Christians cannot seem to understand this.

In response to our feeling of shock, we actively campaign to change the laws of our countries in the hope of returning them to a state guided by Christian teachings. We seem to be under the impression that the Christian influence on Western law and public policy before the 1960s was due to a fundamentally different quality in the government itself. We cannot see that Western democratic governments have always been secular; that has been a defining quality of their democratic status since their inception, particularly as inspired by the American and French Revolutions and their political philosophies. Western government was more Christian at that time not because of the government, but because the people themselves were more Christian and thus they voted according to Christian teachings. The truly alarming condition of the modern West, and indeed any other democracies throughout the world, is that their people are voting in politicians who authorize and legalize various immoral practices, including abortion, euthanasia, assisted suicide, drug abuse, etc. - and then the people go out and use these so-called "public services". If absolutely no one in the country ever chose to have an abortion, would its legality really be an issue? Truly, would it even be legal if such were the case?

Even a cursory glance at worldwide abortion statistics today should show every true Christian that it is not the legality of abortion but its widespread practice that is truly tragic - its legality simply reflects its public acceptance and proliferation. As we live in democratic countries, Christians feel as though the only efforts we can make to combat such rampant immorality are political and legal actions, trying to make it illegal. We must come to see that our true concern as Christians should be the hearts and souls of those who practice abortion, whether doctors, nurses, mothers, indifferent or even complicit fathers, and anyone else who uses or advocates abortion. This applies to any other immoral practice, including abortion, contraception, pornography, premarital sex, or anything else. Whether something should be legal or illegal is a completely different and, I believe, inferior topic, precisely because it is the result, not the cause, of the moral state of a society.

In all nations, the power that governments have is given by God, but with that power comes the responsibility to use it to promote and defend the life and dignity of all people in that nation. This truth takes a slightly different form in democracy than in other political systems. In medieval monarchies, for example, the royalty were definitively and officially Christian. The people and the Church expected them to be good Christians and held them up to that standard. If they failed to follow it, the only ones who deserved blame were the royalty themselves, and the people could blame all signs of corruption in their society on its non-elected government. But in a democracy, we are a nation "of the people". In democracy, the power and responsibility given to governments in effectively distributed to all the people. We are all responsible for the present and future of our society. Even the actions of elected officials ultimately depends and can be blamed on the people who voted them in, since those officials would have no power unless we voted to give it to them.

Because of this attribute of democracy, Christians should indeed work to secure justice and peace through direct governmental action, especially through voting. However, even this can be confusing for Christians. When we look at the legal systems of Islamic theocracies in the world today, their religious law is completely inseparable from their national law. Thus, Islamic moral law and Islamic criminal law are synonymous.

Is this really what Christians want? Should everything we consider sinful be also criminal, such as blasphemy, lust, hate, greed, lack of religious observance, etc.? Indeed, is that even possible? If a Christian accepts the fundamental principles of democracy, namely, equality, pluralism and freedom, we cannot possibly believe that criminal law should mirror Christian moral teaching in its entirety. So, to add yet another layer of confusion to Christian participation in a democracy, we must also decide which of our moral teachings should be reflected in secular law and which should not. This can be very difficult, primarily because the judge of Christian law is God, not man. Even Catholic priests do not administer punishment, only penance - justice is God's. While the state is given the power to administer God's justice on Earth, this cannot be complete. Only God can judge man's interior life and only God is Divine; thus, human justice will always be incomplete and imperfect.

For too long, Christians living in modern democratic societies have let politics misdirect our attention onto it rather than people, law rather than morality, and the government rather than the Church. We vehemently judge and criticize non-Christians and their secular societies while at the same time permitting our fellow Christians to teach false and even malicious doctrines, to lead immoral lives without repentance, and to abandon the Church and God Himself, still calling themselves and accepted as Christians all the way. We allow adoption to be expensive and risky while zealously pushing for abortion to be criminalized. We say pornography is immoral while using contraception and giving it to our children as a "safe and responsible" means of avoiding the "inconvenience" of "unwanted" pregnancies. Priests molest children, teach false doctrines, and hold heretical beliefs about the Church, the Eucharist and God Himself, as all the while Christians are judging atheists for their beliefs and immorality. It is as though we hold a higher standard for nonbelievers than we do our fellow Christians, as though merely saying "I'm Christian" is enough to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. This is ludicrous and completely contrary to the teachings of both Christ and the apostles, as well as all the saints throughout history.

Does this mean we should completely sever ties with all Christians who do not follow everything that Christ taught? No - their dissociation from the Church is sufficient distance between us. Ecumenism is an honorable and necessary practice, but when a true Christian sacrifices truth or goodness for the sake of ecumenical agreement, for compromise, we are truly squandering and betraying the Faith that Christ gave us, allowing His one true Church to be fractured into a thousand pieces and corrupted into something other than the Body of Christ.

I firmly believe that the primary causes of the extreme rise in irreligion in modern times is not atheism. Truly, most Western people are still spiritual in some form, and many of them even believe in Christ. It is the complete abandonment of religion that characterizes the modern world, not atheism or even materialism per se. I believe the greatest cause of this abandonment of religion is religion itself, particularly in the case of Christianity. By compromising our truths, fracturing our Church into thousands of brittle, distorted pieces, and violating the very moral virtues we profess, we become stumbling blocks to those outside the Faith, as well as those who are contemplating it.

When they see our weak faith, our embarrassment at our own beliefs and teachings, and our acceptance of impurity in the Church Herself, how can we expect nonbelievers to share our faith and moral values? Out of fear and a desire for political correctness, modern Christians have almost completely lost the strength, the passion, the devotion and the genuine religious faith that was so prominent in the Middle Ages and even through to the 1970s. Many used the Second Vatican Council as an excuse to indulge their weaknesses, but the Council itself was the Church's attempt to reaffirm the Faith. They tried to inspire the same depth of devotion and piety that we had been gradually losing since the advent of the Industrial Revolution, when people throughout the West began to think we truly no longer need God.

If Christians today truly want to turn the tide of modern secular humanism and irreligion, and to reunite the various denominations of Christianity back into communion with the one true Church, we cannot focus so singularly on politics or even on apologetics, especially towards nonbelievers. No, we must focus on a much more difficult task - making ourselves and the Church as a whole more holy. As long as we remain hypocrites, willfully abandoning the pursuit of holiness while simultaneously criticizing nonbelievers as though they should be holy without any reason to be, our efforts will crumble. Nothing can guarantee conversions in those we evangelize, but our primary focus must be the holiness of the Church. The greatest form of evangelization is not criticism or works of apologetics, but a living example of holiness expressed in religious devotion and piety, charity, faith and purity. As long as we continue using politics and apologetics as scapegoats to avoid fixing the Church Herself and making ourselves more holy, nonbelievers will continue ignoring our teachings, ignoring our Church, and ignoring our God. I pray that all Christians, especially Catholics, may rediscover the sense of mystery, compassion, humility and contrition that are the true foundations of holiness and thus become Christs to the world. Amen.

The Valley of Shadows

Despite the popularity of many moral nihilists now and in the past, such as Nietzsche, the vast majority of people throughout history have believed in some form of morality. It is a deeply human trait to instinctively classify our experiences, whether our choices or anything else, as good, bad, evil, immoral, charitable, loving, positive, negative, just, unjust, etc. Even before the nihilist can stop himself, those moral sentiments have already appeared, and even the most immoral people usually believe their bad actions are justified, or they simply ignore their conscience until it builds to the point of personal ruination.

With this innate moral compass that all people share, everyone is also capable of having their own attitudes and intellectual beliefs about morality. These primarily derive from the way we understand and interpret the moral sentiments our conscience gives us, and the way we decide to act on them. Through reason, we can expand our morality by implications, religious belief and what we know about human behavior to include things such as culpability, imputability, concupiscence, law, and myriad other concepts. However, reason also gives us the ability to "rationalize" our choices - meaning, we can think up seemingly-reasonable reasons to excuse or justify our choices even though those excuses defy conscience and/or the rational moral framework we believe in. Often, this moral framework is influenced by the excuses we build up over time, a filter through which we experience the world and by which we make choices. This creates an attitude, a way of looking at the world and ourselves that usually determines (though not beyond free will) our moral compass.

One of the most common attitudes that every person is susceptible to is what I call "justification by utility", or to use the philosophical term, utilitarianism. A fundamental principle of objective morality, of a morality independent of the arbitrary preference of the individual person, a morality attested to by the essential logic of philosophy and lived (even if refuted intellectually) by almost every person, is that an action which is objectively moral or immoral is so regardless of the situation or condition of the person. Now, this only involves the moral quality of the action or thing itself, involving the inherent philosophical morality of them; the guilt of the individual is determined by their internal consent and knowledge. But regardless of the person's internal condition, an immoral act is immoral - regardless. Theft, the stealing of one person's private property by another person, is immoral, violating the fundamental human right to private property. But if a severely impoverished or ignorant person steals food, is it still immoral? Yes, the theft itself is still wrong - but the individual's guilt is lessened.

This is an essential principle of morality which utilitarianism rejects. Utilitarianism is the attitude that the morality of an action, separate from the culpability of the actor, is determined by its practical result. Now, the standard by which the practical result is judged to be good or bad is arbitrary, and depends on the placement of another moral belief system atop utilitarianism (such as the affixation of liberal consensus relativism to it featured in the philosophy of desire utilitarianism). But regardless, with this attitude, only the utility of an action determines its morality.

Usually, proponents of utilitarianism would say that actions such as lying, stealing or killing are wrong, since they most often lead to more negative results than positive. Lying creates an unsustainable fantasy, endangers one's reputation and is essentially uncreative, never leading to productive results for the common good. But, what if doing something wrong, such as lying, stealing or killing, does in fact lead to great positive result? This is the true loophole within the attitude (as it is not truly a rational philosophy due to its rejection of constant objective morality) of utilitarianism, and it was the excuse used to justify the Holocaust, the dropping of two atomic bombs on Japan, abortion, euthanasia, assisted suicide, stem cell research, contraception - the list is almost infinite.

The opposite of the utilitarian attitude is an attitude of integrity. This, as a virtue, is naturally difficult, the main reason few people have it. Integrity is adhering to what is right and true regardless of one's situation, one's difficulty, or even the possibility of better results by using an immoral means. Justifying the ends by the means derives from a lack of integrity, a weakness of character where one chooses to succumb to the temptation to sin - the immoral means - and justifies it with the possibility of positive ends. It is a test of the heart: what do you love - ease, productivity and pleasure, or truth, goodness and hope? For without the light of hope, and the faithful life of the hopeful person, willing to undergo the trials of suffering - without the certainty that, in the end, no end is worth a wrong means, no result attained by immoral means will last, and salvation will come - there is only darkness.