Why Does Sin Exist?

I got an e-mail the night before last from one of my younger brother's friends, Danny. This was the e-mail Ben gave me a heads' up about here.

Hello, this is Danny Cirotski. Ben suggested me to email you so you can post stuff on your blog or whatever. I haven't got to it because it's been a bit of a busy month for me. The new season of House M.D. started new Dan Brown book,new Richard Dawkins book, and new Pearl Jam album.

Danny, you're reading people who are either idiotic about religion (Brown) or intensely hostile to it (Dawkins). Since you're already (if I'm not totally mistaken) an atheist, don't you think you'd learn more, and grow in your faith (or non-faith) by understanding what 'the other side' has to say? I appreciate the e-mail, and I think it's great that you and Ben debate hot issues, but there are some really capable Catholic authors who address a lot of the issues that you may be wondering about. Atheists say, "the answers that theists provide about the universe are wrong." But to be able to make that statement, one would either have to show (a) that the idea of God is metaphysically impossible [a burden which even Dawkins acknowledges can't be done]; or (b) at least show that existing normative theories are wrong. (B) doesn't actually prove atheism, but it at least makes atheism a more likely contender by comparison. But to arrive even at (b), you have to know what theists are saying, rather than what atheists (Dawkins) and trashy fiction writers (Brown) are claiming that they say.

Spoiler alert: Brown's new book will claim that all religions are really the same, and all point to God, a notion which both atheists and Catholics think is completely off-base. You can create your own Dan Brown books here. And House is incredibly formulaic as well: Strange symptoms, misdiagnosis, improper treatment leading to new symptoms, correct diagnosis, and either proper treatment and/or one of the characters will realize something new about themselves, causing them to pause (either while walking or talking) while the music gets dramatic.

Anyway, I don't know if I'm supposed to lay out an argument for you or just ask
you simple questions that you can most likely assume what the entire
opposition's (me) standpoint is. Since it's late and I'm feeling like my usual
lazy self I think I'll do the latter and you can tell me if you want me to go
into greater detail.

Sounds good. In the future, feel free to approach it either way. My biggest interest is to try and present an intelligent and authentically Catholic answer to your question. You'll have to be the judge of how well I do.

I only have one question for you today that Ben and I discussed in the lunch
line last week if I'm not mistaken. It seems like some "sins" are things that
humans are naturally inclined to do.

If there wasn't an inclination to do something, there wouldn't be any need for a rule against it, or for a regulation of the activity. It's true that some inclinations come with us at birth, and some inclinations we develop through the course of our life, but all sin is based on the improper pursuit of an inclination.

My question is why does God create instinct, and then make rules in the opposition of this human nature. I hope you understand what I'm asking. I'd appreciate if you sent me your answer through email regardless if this ends up on your website. If you're anything like me though, you don't have to send it and I won't be upset. Thanks. God bless.
Sincerely,
Danny Sean Cirotski

Danny, great question. The answer's a bit complex. Here's what I would say:

1. The Divine plan is one of God loving us, and us loving God.
   
2. Love requires a sufficiently free will. In fact, any good thing we do is good only because it was freely chosen. Here's what I mean: it's good to give money to the poor. But if a poor person robs you, we don't say, "well, that was good of you." There must be sufficient freedom to do otherwise for an action to have an ontological worth. So even the angels in Heaven were given a free will, so that their worship of God would be authentic. Some of them used this freedom to rebel, because they thought they were better than God - this the Fall of Satan and his demons.
   
3. Evil is capable only through the misuse of God-given gifts, and is pursued only for ends which are perversions of the good themselves (many of these ends, are, in fact, good ones). Here's what I mean. We'd both agree that theft is wrong. But God, being good, gives us cleverness and ingenuity, as well as the ability to work. God also inspires in us the desire to take care of our families, to ensure that there's a roof over their heads, food on the table, and that the base levels of Maslow's hierarchy of needs are met. So far, all of these things are intrinsically good. But because we now have (a) cleverness, (b) a desire for material comforts for our families, and (c) free will, we have all of the ingredients to create theft.
   
4. We know that theft is wrong, because we can demonstrably see the damage that it does. It's an injustice, in that one person used their gifts properly (by working), for a good end, while another person harms them (via theft) through an improper use of their gifts. A society in which theft was permissible would be a society which immediately collapsed. No one would work, because working would only make you a more likely target for theft, and no one wants to get robbed. Besides, if your choices for enrichment are to work hard or to steal from someone else, the only reason to choose the former is moral -- so if the moral prohibition against theft were gone, nearly everyone would choose theft. Such a system would favor the strong while harming the weak.
   
5. So a system of rules is required to ensure that we don't harm ourselves or others. This system we call morality. Some of these rules we can figure out through the use of our God-given logic: we call these the natural law (don't be confused - not all of these are practiced by nature; in fact, certain animals steal constantly). Other rules are known (or known fully) only because God tells us them. I think that Catholics typically agree that we should legislate natural law (things like "don't steal"), but not divinely revealed law (things like "go to Mass on Sunday").

There was a solution to this problem, paradise. There, humanity was without insatiable want. If you wanted food, it was readily available in the form of fruits and veggies, so your acquisition of a necessity was possible without even harming animal life. Some Catholics think that Genesis 2 and 3 describe historical events, while others think that it's a parable which describes humanity's fall as a whole. I think the answer to that question is less important than making sure that you understand the message, and why it's told. In Genesis 2:16-17, God lays out the ground rules: you can eat of the fruit of any tree, but not the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. With the knowledge of good and evil comes accountability: when a baby pulls your hair, it's cute; when an adult does, there's going to be some sort of penalty for that behavior. Why? Because the adult has a knowledge of good and evil, and must act accordingly. Once knowledge of good and evil came, so came shame (Genesis 3:7), while before it, they were carefree and naked (just like very young children often are). Prior to that, the only sin was disobedience: God says, "do x," and you do something else, or vice versa (God says "don't do x," and you do it anyways). Again, these are the only morals placed upon toddlers. They share because mom and dad tell them to (and sometimes not even then), not because of some sense of Rawlsian justice. The Fall, then, was sinful not because Adam and Eve had an innate knowledge of good and evil, but because they disobeyed the Loving God who they realized (on same basic level) was their Provider and Authority.

Whether historical, allegorical, or both, we can see parallels of the Fall in our own lives. We begin as carefree kids whose only responsibility is to what we're told. As we grow up, we grow in our knowledge of good and evil, and we're capable of feeling shame for the first time. But the Fall tells us more than that: it also tells us that we're proud, that we think we know more than God, or that we can take care of ourselves, etc. And from this pride and this disobedience comes sin. Every sin is the result of disobedience. An action can't both be obedient to God and sinful. Since God is the origin of all that is Good, His will is inherently Good. Sin is any deviation from His expressed will.

Finally, you ask why God would make a rule against our human nature. But imagine if He didn't. Imagine if His only rule was "do whatever you naturally desire." Now consider that there are people out there who desire some pretty sick or cruel stuff, and ask yourself, "Would that world really be better than what we've got?"

P.S. This I would really enjoy if you would respond to. I just want you to tell
me what your position is on gay marriage since it's such an issue these days.
I'd also like to know just your whole stance on homosexuality in general. Thanks
again.

Definitely. I'll get to this tomorrow, because this post will be way too long if I try and tackle everything. Great e-mail, Danny!

A New Low at Georgetown.

Last night, as I was leaving campus (much too late, but alas), I noticed this poster on the wall:

If you can't read it, here's what you need to know:

1. The picture says, "Even though we know dinosaurs survived the flood (on Noah's Ark) we don't know if Jesus ever rode them. But He probably did!" accompanied by a picture of Christ on a velociraptor (a clearer, color picture can be found here).
2. Beneath that, it says, "Awesome? Yes. Science? No." and beneath that, "Okay. Now that we have your attention, we'd like to let you know that the First Meeting of the Georgetown Law Secular Student Alliance is happening Thursday, Septemeber 24 at 2pm in McD 156. GULCSSA@gmail.com."
3. It's stamped by the Office of Student Life for posting, and was hanging in a student organizations only spot (where, incidentally, the pro-choice group had recently put up flyers for their "Wine, Cheese, & Choice" gala which Georgetown allegedly doesn't support).
   

Now, I don't know if Georgetown is actually funding this "student group" or not. I don't think I need to say that to fund them would be totally incompatible with Georgetown's alleged mission as a Jesuit University.

In 1990, Pope John Paul II released an Apostolic Constitution, Ex Corde Ecclesiae, on the purpose, identity and mission of Catholic Universities. Paragraphs 13 and 14 read as follows:

Since the objective of a Catholic University is to assure in an institutional manner a Christian presence in the university world confronting the great problems of society and culture(16), every Catholic University, as Catholic, must have the following essential characteristics:

1. a Christian inspiration not only of individuals but of the university community as such;
2. a continuing reflection in the light of the Catholic faith upon the growing treasury of human knowledge, to which it seeks to contribute by its own research;
3. fidelity to the Christian message as it comes to us through the Church;
4. an institutional commitment to the service of the people of God and of the human family in their pilgrimage to the transcendent goal which gives meaning to life"(17).

14. "In the light of these four characteristics, it is evident that besides the teaching, research and services common to all Universities, a Catholic University, by institutional commitment, brings to its task the inspiration and light of the Christian message. In a Catholic University, therefore, Catholic ideals, attitudes and principles penetrate and inform university activities in accordance with the proper nature and autonomy of these activities. In a word, being both a University and Catholic, it must be both a community of scholars representing various branches of human knowledge, and an academic institution in which Catholicism is vitally present and operative"(18).

Now, a University which promotes "secularism," the mockery of religion, and the blasphemous mockery of Christ seen above (whether that promotion is financial, or simply through providing wall space to air that message, authorizing the student group with this anti-Christian message as it mission, and allowing the use of University-owned supplies, like computers and paper) is failing in its essential Catholic mission. If there is any difference between a secular University and a Catholic University, it is that the Catholic University has a distinct identity. In other words, a secular student group is antithetically opposed to the distinctly Catholic elements of Georgetown. The group, then, is an assault both on the University's goals, and her character.

The Secular Student Alliance is a perfect example of everything wrong with the New Atheists. The poster promoting their first even doesn't actually affirm anything (an affirmation might be something like: "Those of us who don't believe in God still follow an ethical and moral system - find out why!"); instead, they assault everything else. And as it happens, what they assault is continually a straw man argument. In a nominally Catholic University, they don't intellectually challenge Catholicism. Rather, they challenge a parody of Fundamentalism. No Christian believes Christ rode dinosaurs. It's just a stupid and insulting stereotype, like showing a person eating a pork chop at a traditionally Jewish school and saying, "Wow, it didn't kill me on contact like we all thought!"

The Secular Student Alliance is also allied with some of the worst anti-Catholics currently living. Exhibit A: PZ Meyers, one of their speakers. He's the guy who thinks it's funny to steal and desecrate the consecrated Eucharistic host... that is, the Real Presence of Jesus Christ. There's nothing intelligent or intellectual here, just a bunch of bitter athiest fundamentalists fueled by hatred and blindness. Georgetown should do everything in its power to stop this religious hate speech, rather than supporting it.

Catholicism, Libertarianism, and Fundamental Rights

For a very good article on the limits to rights (including the right to life), and why Ron Paul's Libertarianism isn't 100% compatible with Catholicism, try this one.

The Essence of God

Yesterday, I talked about what defines us - what it is that makes each of us "us." I meant for the post to not only suggest that our individuality is greater than the physical, material sum of us parts, that the soul not only exists, but defines us. But what about the essence of God?

The reason that this question is important is because there is a view that says that the defining characteristic of God is His omnipotence. After all, the first difference we notice between us and God is that He's in charge. He runs everything, we (hopefully) follow Him. But viewing God primarily as Sovereign or Omnipotent is problematic. Springboarding off of the C.S. Lewis discussion from earlier, the problem is primarily this: if the devil were more powerful than God, worship premised upon power would suggest that we worship the devil, instead of worshiping God. The solution to this is to suggest that goodness is more important than power. So a powerless Christ who preserved His goodness is worthy of worship, while a mighty and evil Huitzilopochtli is not. This isn't just some ivory tower hypothetical. Christ tells us that Satan is prince of this world (see John 14:30), and that the whole world is his fiefdom (1 John 5:19). Certainly, we know, as Christians, that the good guys win in the end. But if our reason for worshiping God is because He's sovereign, we might as well say, "we'll back whichever horse crosses the finish line," and there's no merit in that.

But there's a second part to this, too. Not only is the notion of omnipotence-worship just an exaggerated form of dangerous power-worship, the notion of power as being central to the identity of God is contrary to Scripture. Take Philippians 2:5-11:

Have among yourselves the same attitude that is also yours in Christ Jesus,

Who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God something to be grasped.

Rather, he emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, coming in human likeness; and found human in appearance,

he humbled himself, becoming obedient to death, even death on a cross.

Because of this, God greatly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name,

that at the name of Jesus every knee should bend, of those in heaven and on earth and under the earth,

and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

So Christ Jesus is able to detach Himself from His power, leaving Him totally dependent upon God the Father for His miraculous powers (John 3:2). His life on Earth is full of rock-bottom moments. He's born in a stable, He dies amongst criminals on a Cross, and in between, we see things like Mark 6:5, where He's unable to perform miracles due to the people's lack of faith... in His own hometown. Isaiah 53:2's Christological prophesy reads:

He was spurned and avoided by men, a man of suffering, accustomed to infirmity, One of those from whom men hide their faces, spurned, and we held him in no esteem.

If our worship of Him is based upon His power, He'd be an unlikely candidate. In fact, He would have "emptied Himself" of His Deity (which would, in turn, render the Incarnation false, since it's premised upon Jesus being both fully God and fully Man).

In contrast, the above passage from Philippians suggests that God the Father exults Christ because of His humility. Or, more to the point, the Holy Trinity is worthy of our worship for two interrelated reasons: (1) the Trinity is the source of all love; and (2) the Trinity is the epitome of Love. 1 John 4:16 captures it best in the succinct statement, "God is love, and whoever remains in love remains in God and God in him." This may seem like some poetic flourish, but it's not. It's foundational for the entire Judeo-Christian system. Obeying power isn't a particular merit: it's doing what you're forced to do. But pursuing the Good even when evil rules the world is meritorious. So the only reason to ever worship God is because of His love. Most concretely, He died for you on a Cross, but even prior to this, He was worthy of (and received) worship.

This is a different way of looking at God than perhaps we're used to, but it's absolutely fundamental to understanding anything else (like why an all-powerful God would choose the course of Redemption which He did).

Cool Undergound Stone Churches

Catholic Eye Candy cheats a bit by including the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church's underground stone churches in Lalibela as Catholic art. It's worth fudging the self-made rules, I think. If you haven't seen pictures of them before, check them out!

If you're interested, Wikipedia's got a good primer including a good quote from Fr. Francisco Álvares, the first (Roman) Catholic to stumble upon them - in his account he swears by God, because he fears no one will believe his story otherwise.

The Essence of Man

What's your defining characteristic? I don't mean this in the way that they mean this on job interviews. I mean this in a serious way. What is it that, if changed, would render you no longer you? Here are some possible answers which I find unconvincing, or at least, incomplete:

• DNA, since it "codes" much of who we are here on Earth. This answer sounds fine on the surface (and indeed, may be a helpful indicator of when life begins), but it's pretty flawed, scientifically speaking. Mutagens are substances which cause DNA mutations. In other words, if your precise DNA code is what makes you "you," then "you with cancer" is a separate person whose "birthday," so to speak, is different from your own.
  
• Your personality. The best argument for this position would be Phineas Gage, a railroad crew foreman who, after suffering traumatic brain damage (from a chunk of hot iron being shot through his skull by mistake), became what might be called "a new man." As his physician put it:
  

  His contractors, who regarded him as the most efficient and capable foreman in their employ previous to his injury, considered the change in his mind somarked that they could not give him his place again. He is fitful, irreverent, indulging at times in the grossest profanity (which was not previously his custom), manifesting but little deference for his fellows, impatient of restraint of advice when it conflicts with his desires, at times pertinaciously obstinent, yet capricious and vacillating, devising many plans of future operation, which are no sooner arranged than they are abandoned in turn for others appearing more feasible. In this regard, his mind was radically changed, so decidedly that his friends and acquaintances said he was “no longer Gage.”
  

  
  The current theory about what lead to Gage's transformation is that the accident functioned as a makeshift lobotomy that damaged his frontal frontal cortex, removing his social inhibitions. In a way, this 'new Gage' was perhaps lurking in the personality of 'old Gage.' This cannot be the defining standard that creates the "essence" of a man. Where would such a standard end? Truama of all sorts, physical or otherwise, can fundamentally alter a person's character. So can things like education, a new-found faith, and so forth. And what of temporary changes to personality? After all, a man who imbibes a bit too much on alcoholic beverages may find himself acting "not quite himself," but this is merely a figure of speech. Should we really claim that before four drinks, you're yourself, and after, you're a "different person" who is born and dies with the cycle of your sobriety?
  
• Your memory. This one is related, but not identical, with personality. As bizarre as Gage's case was (the guy started to walk off being shot through the brain with a chunk of iron), he still had a memory of who he was before. But what if you woke up one morning like Jason Bourne from the Bourne Trilogy, with no recollection of who you were prior to that day? Of course, this standard is as problematic as all the rest. What of people with amnesia or Alzheimer's, who chronically forget? Do we claim, "oh, you're the twentieth in a line of people named Mary to inhabit your body"? Or, you're not a person at all, because you can't remember anything? Would two people with equally blank memories be considered the same person? Obviously, this standard won't do, either.
  
• Your body. Going in a different direction, one might speculate that the physical boundaries of a person, so to speak, define who they are. Some perverted form of this seems to arise in the abortion debate. The unborn child, with a discreet and identifiable physical shape and form, as well as a distinct brain, organs, and DNA, is considered by law to be the same "person" as the mother, since they inhabit the same body. But immediately, there are problems: conjoined twins share a body, but are two people; people are amputated, give and recieve blood, or have organ transplants, and remain "themselves." So body, then, is clearly out.
  
• Your brain / mind. But what if, instead of defining a person by their body, you identified them just by their brain or mind? For the physical organ, the brain, there are some theoretical problems. There's a hypothetical procedure called either a "brain transplant" or a "whole body transplant" (since theorists couldn't decide if the body was getting a new brain, or the brain a new body). There are also really serious questions, due to hypothetical "partial-brain transplants," where a chunk of one person's brain is fused with someone else's. A science-fiction book, My Brother's Keeper, by Charles Sheffield, apparently examines this issue by having two twins (a concert pianist and a spy) in a terrible accident undergo surgery. The patient who awakes has the personality of the pianist, but the memories of both, so of course, he undergoes some secret mission. Would the patient, post-procedure, be considered the pianist, the spy, or a new person completely?

All of the above options relate (some more obviously than others) to the physical person. All of them are the types of answers which might be given by materialists. And thus, all are suseptible to a sort of Sorites' paradox in reverse. [Sorites' paradox, for those of you who aren't familiar, asks, "If one has something that is not a heap of sand, and one adds a single grain of sand to it, the result is still not a heap of sand . . . if n grains of sand are not sufficient to make a heap then n+1 grains aren’t either." The seeming conclusion is that "no matter how many grains of sand may be gathered together, they are not sufficient to make a heap of sand."] If one cell dies or is transplanted (from a person's brain, or body, etc.), the person's "essence" wouldn't change, and adding one more cell couldn't conceivably be the difference. So following the logic to its end result would seem to suggest that one could eliminate or replace an endless number of physical cells composing the organ, and it would remain the original organ, with the original person's "essence." After all, a large number of brain cells do die every year, and many more die after incidents like strokes.

Still, of all of these possibilites, the brain, and more specifically, the parts of the brain we call the "mind," which help create self-awareness and self-identity, serves as the most accurate answer. But it's only partially correct. From a theistic perspective, the answer is easy enough. The "soul" is what we consider the defining characteristic of a person. It's invisible, distinct from the physical phenomenon, and yet interacts through them. It's impossible to transplant (even theoretically), and completely indivisible, so it's immune from that reverse Sorites' paradox. It's impossible to say the precise interconnection between the soul and the mind, because we don't know much about the way that the brain works, and we'll never know the depths of how the soul works. So to the extent that the mind seems to be the primary playground of the soul, and the hotspot for temptations to the soul, I think brain/mind is at least a half-right answer for what makes us "us."

One final piece of the puzzle. In Mark 7:14-23, Jesus identifies the "heart" as being the source of all sin - that it is not the physical things we come in contact with, but how we decide to react to them that determines sin. This was, for example, why the early Christians declared the raped virgins of Rome to still be virgins. What He means by "heart" is easier understood than defined: it's what any of us mean when we say someone "has a lot of heart," or "sang with all their heart," and it pretty definitively doesn't refer (at least primarily) to the physical organ.

So heart, soul, and mind... where have we seen that trinity before? Oh right. Jesus already suggested this answer in Matthew 22:37.

So the soul, working through the heart and mind, defines the essence of an individual. But what about the essence of the Holy Trinity? What is the defining characteristic of God? I'm going to try and tackle that one tomorrow.

Oh, Brother!

My little brother sent me an e-mail a couple of nights ago, saying:

[A friend] has recently informed me that he will be sending you an email reagarding homosexuality and gay marraige. if you could send [him] an email back, that would be great! Could you also forward the email to me because i would like to hear this conversation as well.!
-sincerely
awesome face

That's right, he signed it "awesome face." Which I 'accidentally' misspelled as "awful face" in my reply, of course. In all seriousness, he's a great kid who takes his Faith very seriously for a 14 year old. Remember him in your prayers, that God directs him to the vocation He has in mind. And if you see a post in the near future about gay marriage (or perhaps "gay marraige"), you'll know whence it came.

And finally, it's good to see that he's finally getting the benefits of all-school Masses. I'd hate to think a zombie was wandering around my house. Ahem. ;-)

Greatest Question Ever?

This past week I was visiting one of the freshmen classes at the high school I serve at as chaplain. After giving them my vocation story, I asked if they had any questions. Silence. I told them that if they didn't have any questions they would have to take the quiz their teacher had planned. Silence. Seriously, no questions? Silence. Finally, I asked, "You don't even want to know my favorite band?" (I was grasping for anything to get the ball rolling).

At that prompt, the inquiries started flowing in. Questions about everything from my most embarrassing moment to who is my favorite college team. Eventually, I received a question that I had never been posed before: What is the greatest question I can think of?

Hmmmm.

Excellent question.

The greatest question I could think of that day: Why does God love us so much?

I explained that God plus us is not greater than God alone. We add nothing to God's greatness. God doesn't need us. Yet, God loves us. In fact, God loves us with an unparalleled love.

To emphasize my point, I referenced the Crucifix on the wall. I asked them to think about why a God who doesn't need us would become like us in every way but sin and endure that for us. Why would God go on a deadly rescue mission for us when only we could benefit?

Every Crucifix should challenge us to ask that question. As was discussed previously, Boston College finally put a Crucifix back in each classroom. Here is the explanation given:

Rev. T. Frank Kennedy, chair of the committee on Christian Art, wrote (in part): “I suppose a question might be posed to Boston College as to what purpose this Christian Art serves? In a world that is pretty successfully driven by media (imagery) ours is a response that seeks to pose the age-old invitation of Christ to enter into love – a love that is made perfect in its unselfishness. John Paul II spoke of the crucifix on September 15, 2002 saying ‘It is the sign of God, who has compassion on us, who accepts human weakness, who opens to us all, to one another, and therefore creates the relation of fraternity.’ The Pope also went on to say that though this symbol has been abused in history, it is the Christian’s duty to reclaim that symbol as an invitation to love. An invitation to love, and an invitation to faith is exactly that, an invitation. One is not required to respond, one can decline, and one can have many reasons for declining the invitation, but to imply that a Jesuit and Catholic university is not free to offer this invitation is simply an impossibility.”

Another good question remains: Why do we run from the invitation to love?

Forty Days for Life!

Today is St. Mary's day with forty days for life, so a bunch of parishioners signed up for different time slots (or like me, forgot to sign up for a time slot, and will just show up) to pray outside of the abortion mill* here in Alexandria. As I understand it, what this means is that every day, from 7 AM - 10 PM, for forty days, running up until November 1st, there will be people out there praying quietly for an end to abortion, for healing for women who have had abortions, for guidance for women contemplating abortions, and for the men who may be either suffering from the woman's choice (and an early end to their stint as fathers), or encouraging her to do something she doesn't want to do. It's a mostly-silent witness, lots of rosary praying, and trusting the Lord, rather than our own yelling, to change peoples' hearts.

Check out 40 Days for Life's website for locations. Even if you're busy today, there are plenty of spots and plenty of locations. You can sign up now for a time slot, or just show up ready to pray. If you don't see your city or state on the list (I'm looking at you, City of Kansas City, and State of Kansas), it might be time for you to prayerfully consider starting a chapter. This literally saves lives. Not as many as we'd like, perhaps, but saving even one human life is worth a few hours (or a full day) of prayer. The thought that I keep having is that at the end of my life, I may be approached by someone in Heaven whose life I either saved through pro-life activities, or failed to save, because I was "too busy" for them. This is especially relevant to me since I walk past an abortion mill on the way to work. Say a few prayers, and if you feel the Spirit is calling you to help save some innocent lives, check out the website, show up, and pray your heart out.

*The priest pointed out last night that it's not really a "clinic," at all, in that it doesn't provide a medical service. I'm still fine with either term, but I thought it was an interesting point.

On Wikipedia and Charity

Mark writes, regarding my most recent post on the LDS Hoffman scandal:

hm... Thanks, once again, for the effort and time you put into this. Just one complaint though:

PLEASE don't use wikipedia to cite sources! I would also recommend using current, up to date, official LDS documents if you really actually want someone to rethink it. Everything else can simply be brushed off as, "Well that's wikipedia." or "Well that was a long time ago."

While we as Catholics can argue history, most other people just don't think that way, ya know?Just a suggestion.

"what criteria is used, I am not sure"
sounds like good meat for a new post. also, it'll help your posts grow in charity, for sure. :)

pax et bonum.

_mark

First, on Wikipedia. I try to cover a lot of subjects, with as much information as I can, while still holding down an 18 hour/week job, and 5 third-year law school classes (including two tax classes, an ethics class, a critical race theory class, and Antitrust - so not easy "senioritis" classes, either). I take certain shortcuts, and Wikipedia is one of them. Still, I'm working on this. For example, the Stefan Aust quote here was something I'd originally found on Wikipedia, but traced to the NY Times easily enough. Besides that, the post in question references Wikipedia, sure, but then says, "And if you don't trust Wikipedia..." and includes a second source, this time from an official LDS site. An earlier post included JoAnna's link to the official LDS website as well. I'll keep making an effort to get credible sources, but there will be times when I fall back to Wikipedia, and leave interested readers the responsibility of following up on it - either due to time restraints, or because Wikipedia puts it most succinctly.

Second, on rejecting information just because it comes from Wikipedia. I agree that someone can do this. But I think when presented with reason to believe x, they should at least find out that x isn't true before rejecting it out of hand. The major claim Wikipedia was used for here was to say that the LDS First Presidency are all considered "seers, prophets, and revelators." And since I realized that someone might dismiss it that way, I backed it up with another source. I feel like those two sources work best in harmony, so I left the Wikipedia link in.

Third, on a new post. I'm punting on this one. Defining the precise contours of what the First Presidency is and is not capable of is something best done by a person involved in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. I know the basics - they're considered "seers, propets, and revelators." If someone within the LDS Church wants to defend why that definition doesn't protect them from accepting as authentic inauthentic documents, I'll let them.

Fourt, on charity. This is a fair point. I was annoyed that Maggie accused me of manufacturing the scandal without bothering to type "Mark Hoffman" into Google. I continue to feel that it was an unbecoming move, although her follow-up comment is graceful and heartfelt. But calling her claim that I was manufacturing the scandal "batty" wasn't any more charitable, either -- I've fixed it. Thanks for pointing this out to me. If the problems you're seeing with my posts being charitable are more widespread, please let me know. I sometimes word things more strongly than is necessary to convey my point -- the best I can say is, "I'm working on it, please pray for me."

In Such Manner as They Shall by Law Direct.

“World War II was only 20 years earlier. Those in charge of the police, the schools, the government — they were the same people who’d been in charge under Nazism. The chancellor, Kurt Georg Kiesinger, was a Nazi. People started discussing this only in the ’60s. We were the first generation since the war, and we were asking our parents questions. Because of the Nazi past, everything bad was compared to the Third Reich. If you heard about police brutality, that was said to be just like the SS.” - Stefan Aust, author of Der Baader Meinhof Komplex, explaining the culture giving rise to the violent Red Army Faction.

LaRouche PAC anti-Obama sign.

"A U.S. Census worker found hanged from a tree near a Kentucky cemetery had the word "fed" scrawled on his chest, a law enforcement official said Wednesday, and the FBI is investigating whether he was a victim of anti-government sentiment." - Associated Press, September 23, 2009.

Bill Sparkman, hanged Census worker.

"The actual Enumeration shall be made within three years after the first meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent term of ten years, in such manner as they shall by law direct." - US Constitution, Article I, Section 2.

Update: Lyndon LaRouche sent out a press release advocating hanging those people ("Brits") who support Obama's policies. His rationale is that it's the best way to protect the Constitution. Yup, the same Constitution that requires a Census be taken every ten years.

Zombie Hunting 101

Yesterday we had our first all school Mass at the high school where I serve as chaplain. It was held under a big tent (large enough to hold nearly 1,100 students plus faculty, staff, and visitors) in front of the school because our gymnasium is being worked on. The setup worked really well actually. It felt like an old-fashioned revival!

I started out my homily by sharing an exchange I had with one of my classmates who's a priest in another diocese. After getting back from a Mass with his local Catholic high school, he asked me, "How do you do it? It's like preaching to freakin' zombies!"

The more I thought about it, the more I could see where he was coming from. I told the students that the world might have good reason to see them as zombies. For instance:

• High schoolers tend to run in packs
• They also have a herd mentality: If everyone else is going to do it, I guess I will too!
• They are obsessed with the flesh (big time)
  
• Without a doubt, they will take over the world (it's inevitable)

Enter the zombie slayer: the Holy Spirit!

I reminded the students what Paul says in Romans 8:5-6:

For those who live according to the flesh are concerned with the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the spirit with the things of the spirit. The concern of the flesh is death, but the concern of the spirit is life and peace.

If we live according to the flesh without acknowledging the Spirit, we are quite literally "dead meat." I challenged the students to risk believing that there is more to life than just what we see. We are more than just bags of meat. The Spirit truly does give us life!

Here's the problem though: many of us remain zombies for a long time. For most of us, it is only after the Holy Spirit has taken hold of our hearts and gives us "life and peace" that we can recognize how truly empty we used to be. Zombies don't want to accept that they are zombies. However, settling for life without God is accepting existence as just that: a member of the walking dead.

Some of the most heartbreaking stories I hear are from parents who's children have settled for just such an existence. Priests hear many stories about children from devout families who have left the Church or denounced the existence of God or become totally apathetic or just think religion is one big joke. The feelings of frustration, guilt, anger, and betrayal that the parents experience gnaws on them at the core. Basically, many parents are on the brink of losing hope or have already given up the good fight. It's a lot like the reason zombies are such a scary monster: we think they can't be stopped. No matter how long survivors of a zombie outbreak holdout, eventually the zombies will find a way to get to them. It's the way the story goes. It's why a slow, clumsy, clueless, rotting corpse is so terrifying: zombies always win. Freakin' zombies!

Fortunately for us, there is reason for hope. Jesus already won the battle over sin and death. He also sent us the Holy Spirit so that we can share in the victory of the Cross and Resurrection.

A couple from my parish reminded me of this hope we should have. They started the Marian Mantle Group as an effort to rely on the Holy Spirit in this battle for wayward souls. They are a great group with a focus on prayer. They also impressed me with the term they use to describe those they pray for: prodigals. While I typically say "fallen away Catholics" or "non-practicing" or "lost sheep," they keep the focus on the hope that we should have since we play for the winning team. Their motto is: It's not hopeless and we're not helpless.

Hope is the name of the game, especially when hunting zombies.


The photo is from the September 25, 2009 issue of the Kansas City Star.

C.S. Lewis' Argument from Desire (and Neurology)

My post from earlier got me thinking about the way that we are or are not wired for God. One of the most convincing proofs for God comes from C.S. Lewis' argument from desire. Peter Kreeft explains it very well here, and structures the argument in a Thomist fasion like so:

1. Every natural, innate desire in us corresponds to some real object that can satisfy that desire.
2. But there exists in us a desire which nothing in time, nothing on earth, no creature can satisfy.
3. Therefore there must exist something more than time, earth and creatures, which can satisfy this desire.
4. This something is what people call "God" and "life with God forever."

Here's how Lewis originally presented it:

Creatures are not born with desires unless satisfaction for these desires exists. A baby feels hunger; well, there is such a thing as food. A duckling wants to swim; well, there is such a thing as water. Men feel sexual desire; well, there is such a thing as sex. If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world. (Mere Christianity, Bk. III, chap. 10, "Hope")

There are a few important caveats that must be made to this:

1. The desire should be understood in the broadest of terms. That is, a man might desire sex with a woman who doesn't exist, or you might have a dream about eating a non-existent food: but women, sex, and food are all real, and these imaginary deviations relate to an existent core. Applying this to God, we have desires which are satisfied in God, but that certainly doesn't mean that whatever we imagine (or desire) God to be, He is.
   
2. The fact that some individuals aren't aware of the desire doesn't serve as a negation. After all, there are plenty of people who consider themselves asexual. Any number of causes might explain this lack of desire - a lack of self-awareness, psychological causes (be it trauma, suppression, or fear of the desire itself). But the fact that I'm not hungry right now doesn't disprove the existence of food.

The atheists who criticize the argument here seem to misunderstand those two caveats (and come to the mystifying conclusion that C.S. Lewis was desperately trying to convince himself that God existed).
Going back to the substance of this morning's post, let's plug in Lewis' argument from desire, and see how it fares. We know two things:

1. There is a unique neurological reaction to religion which doesn't relate to the other known neurological reactions. (This is Newsweek's argument that God is "all in your mind," because we're pre-programmed for religion).
   
2. People in affluent societies tend to be less religious. (This is Newsweek's argument that God is, in fact, not all in your mind, and that we're not pre-programmed from religion; instead, religion is but a delusion clung to by the ignorant and sufferring).

In other words, given the prompt, "Is belief in God an innate neurological phenomenon?" Newsweek offers the options, "Yes, and this disproves God, because it means we're imagining Him;" and "No, and this disproves God, because it means He's a social construct." In other words, Darwinism or Social Darwinism is to blame for the problem of God. Lewis' argument, in contrast, explains things in a much more convincing manner:

1. There is a unique neurological reaction because God is a unique desire not satisfied through the satiation of other desires (sex, money, fame, food, drink, comfort). Thus, through prayer and meditation, we can observe people getting this unique spiritual hunger fed.
   
2. People who perpetually indulge in sex, money, fame, food, drink, comfort, often misidentify the spiritual hunger as a carnal hunger. We see this in other contexts, like when a person sometimes thinks he's hungry when he's sleepy. We often mask a hunger through the satiation of other desires - it's the reason that people rebounding from a rough breakup often turn to drugs, drink and meaningless sex, or throw themselves into another relationship. In indulging generally, they mask the specific hunger they're trying to ignore.

So far as I can tell, this explains both the phenomenons we see quite aptly, without having to create an impossible-to-win double-bind against the existence of God. That is, whereas Newsweek's argument presumes the lack of existence of God (because it's unprovable), and sets out to explain why we miss Someone who we can't prove scientifically exists, Lewis' argument is supported by observable phenomenon, like the neurological data. Additionally, we know that people indulging in everything but God aren't getting this neurological stimulus. Whether they would like to admit it or not, the science now shows that believers are getting something which non-believers aren't. No matter how Newsweek tries to spin it, this is an argument for God, and a pretty good proof for the argument from desire.

There's Just No Winning With Some People.

Over at Newsweek's website, their underlying views regarding religion are on display for those who care to look.  I offer two exhibits.

1. Sharon Begley's (Un)wired For God.  Because of the speed at which highly developed societies like those in Western Europe lost the Faith, Begley's article explores the fact that religion may, in fact, be a crutch that the mind clings to when things are bad, and discards when things are good:
   

   More interesting is the fact that if social progress can snuff out religious belief in millions of people, as Paul notes, then one must question "the idea that religiosity and belief in the supernatural is the default mode of the brain," he told me. As he wrote in his new paper, "The ease with which large populations abandon serious theism when conditions are sufficiently benign . . . refute[s] hypotheses that religious belief and practice are the normal, deeply set human mental state." He posits that, rather than being wired into the brain, religion is a way to cope with stress in a dysfunctional society—the opium-of-the-people argument.

2. On the sidebar on the same page, there's a link to a video called "Is God All in Your Head?," which describes the neurological impacts of prayer.
   

So if your brain is hardwired for Faith, God's all in your head.  And if your brain isn't hardwired for Faith, God's an opium of the masses.

Or look at Begley's own introduction:

At last check, intimations of mortality had not been banished from the human mind—the Grim Reaper still stalks our thoughts. Nor have our brain circuits shaken their habit of perceiving patterns in chaos, such as seeing the face of Jesus in a piece of burned toast; imagining the invisible hand of a supernatural agent in acts of randomness, as in "answered" prayers; and conjuring what anthropologist Pascal Boyer of Washington University calls "non–physically present agents."

The assumption is that the hand of God is "imagined," "conjured," and "non-physically present."  A few sentences later, she throws us believers an only mildly patronizing paranthetical: "Of course, humans might believe in God because a deity designed that belief into our brains, but that hypothesis is not amenable to scientific investigation."  Assume for a moment that this last sentence is entirely accurate.  Does it follow, then, that "non-testable," means "non-existent"?

Quick thought experiment.  Imagine that God is real, and that prayer is communication with the Eternal Triune God.  Are we surprised that this occurs more often when people are desperate?  And are we surprised that this form of communication stimulates parts of the brain not stimulated when we communicate with one another?  If not, how do either of these sets of facts disprove the notion of God at all?

Certain atheists, Begley perhaps being one of them, are so against the idea of God that they'll buy any theory, no matter how irrational, that "explains away" God - even if the theory doesn't explain much of anything at all.  It's no different than those very lonely scientists who try and "disprove" romantic love by showing the biological impulses that help stimulate it, or the brain's reaction to it, and so forth.  These people need our prayers, because it's not really the latest scientific fad that's keeping them from God.

Which Traditions Are Authentic?

First things first, if you haven't read Fr. Andrew's latest post, or heard his recent homily, they're very much worth your time.  There's a tag at the bottom of his posts that says "Fr. Andrew," so if you ever want to skip my stuff and get right to his, I won't be offended!

A blogger named Andre Rook wrote a blog post on sola Scriptura and Tradition back in January, and I've been telling myself for the last couple of months that it deserves a thought-out response. It's a thoughtful post from a blogger who comes across as intelligent, irenic, and full of love for both God and his fellow man.  The post is here, and I'll quote from him in red, with my responses in blue.  I've cut some of his block quotes down a bit, but I've tried to preserve all the necessary context to see his point.

His first argument is against a Catholic argument he's heard, that "Scripture is infallible inasmuch as those who canonized were themselves infallible; therefore, these men, operating from within the Holy Tradition, bear the weight and authority of Tradition onto the canonized Scripture.":

As I have said, this can sound very convincing at first, but there are some big problems with this reasoning. The biggest error that I can see is the lack of objectivity given to God's Word, the Scriptures. The way I see it, if we can give math the benefit of objectivity, we should do likewise for God's Word. [...] Most certainly math exists outside of our knowledge of it. Two and two make four, quite regardless of whether I acknowledge that or not. This objective view of math can be very helpful when searching for the authority of Scripture. Just as the objective principles of math can be acknowledged by men, so those who helped to canonize Scripture recognized its authority outside of themselves, or objectively.

As I understand it, Andre is saying that there are two forms of truth.  There's law-by-decree, where the king individually creates a law, and it's binding by his individual or official authority; and there's Divinely created law, from the law of gravity to the wages of sin, which exist whether we acknowledge them or not.  This is a helpful distinction.


In the realm of Catholicism, the pope can dictate something like law-by-decree in the realm of discipline.  He can say, "we're all going to celebrate Christmas on December 25th," and we follow it.  That's a legislative fiat.  But for dogma, which is the sort of Tradition we're talking about, the pope can't just say, "we're now going to believe something new about Jesus!"  He doesn't have the power to do that.  Dogma is only Divinely-created and revealed law.  And that binding revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle.  So for newer things, like the apparitions of Mary at Lourdes or Fatima, the Church authorities can say, "these things seem to be true," but they can't say, "...and therefore, you must believe them."


But let's look to Scripture, specifically.  Clearly, the Truths described aren't simply done by fiat, with a few possible exceptions (like some of the Pauline rules for worship, the Pauline privilege, etc.), but there at least don't conflict with Divine Truth.  It seems like Andre is saying, "Scripture is True because it describes true things, rather than because it is written by the Apostles."  In a sense, I agree.  But the way that we know that it is written about true things is because it is written by the Apostles and their followers.  We don't trust Luke's Gospel because Luke's a doctor, and doctors are smart.  We trust Luke's Gospel because we believe that the Holy Spirit inspired him.  And we believe that in part because his Gospel accords with what we know from all the other sources (the other books, early non-written sources, the reception his Gospel had in the early Christian community, etc.), and partly because of who he was: a student of Paul's.  Mark Shea calls this the "roots and fruits" test - Luke's roots are in the Pauline camp, and the fruits are an orthodox Gospel in accordance with the rest of Scripture and Tradition. He describes it on page 164 in his book By What Authority?, like this:

The Church said, in essence, "Does the book have a widespread and ancient tradition concerning its apostolic origin? Check.  Does the book square with the total paradosis we all learned from the apostles and the bishops they gave us? Check.  Then it is to be used in public worship and is to be regarded as the word of God."

We need a starting out point to even judge whether a book is orthodox.  I think Andre's logical stumbling block here (and elsewhere) is that he starts with the Bible fully assembled, and thinks, "does this book fit with the rest of the books in the Bible?"  But that's not the way it occurred, historically.  The people preceded the books.  If there wasn't an authentic and binding paradosis being proclaimed orally, the Scriptures when written wouldn't have been recognized as authentic by the early Christians.  The problem with his logic is that if you just say, "Is the Gospel of Luke authentic?" you're left with what standard of comparison?  It agrees with the other two Synoptics, it's compatible with John, and it disagrees with the Gnostics' "gospels."  If you start with the assumption that Matthew, Mark, and John are true, and the Gospel of Thomas is false, then Luke makes sense.  But you can't get to that assumption using Andre's test, because it's only half-right.  He's looking at the fruits, but imagining you can't judge that detached from its roots.  You can't.  The early Church judged the Gospels against what the Apostles (and their students) had taught them orally.  So the written Scriptures rely upon the already-established oral and written Tradition (paradosis) for authority.

His second argument is the one that I thought really warranted a response:

No Roman Catholic would argue with the fact that there have been false, or bad traditions that have disguised themselves as tradition in the past. Many have not even been disguised. Now, I acknowledge that many bad or false traditions have been purged from the Roman Catholic church over the years, and that is a good thing. What I find contestable are the words good and bad, when applied to Tradition. Now, if it is true that Roman Catholic's place the Holy Tradition as their highest degree of authority, then how in God's Name can subjective terms such as bad or good be applied to it? If the Holy Tradition is the yardstick by which we must measure everything else, then how is it even possible that it can be questioned or deemed bad? [...] Likewise, if Holy Tradition is the highest authority, how then would it begin to make sense to question it? If it is, in fact, the highest authority, then we should conform ourselves to it, no questions asked. But once we begin the nonsense of saying there is good absolute authority, worthy of our devotion, and bad absolute authority, then we have begun to hold Tradition up to a higher standard, a standard objective to it's subjectivity. Now what would be the candidate for Tradition to be subject to? Men, who are creatures prone to change? I shouldn't think so. Then what? Why, the Holy Scriptures of course.

Two major flaws here. First, he claims that "No Roman Catholic would argue with the fact that there have been false, or bad traditions that have disguised themselves as tradition in the past." I will argue that.  No capital-T binding, taken-as-revealed-from-God Tradition has ever been revoked or recanted.  They work harmoniously with one another, and are attested to from very early ages.  Some practices, like simony or the sale of indgulences, have been discredited, but no one ever claimed that God commanded these as Traditions.  Nothing which we've ever held to be dogma do we now hold not to be dogma, although it's true that some non-dogmatic beliefs were likely wrong (like geocentrism).  On the other hand, there are lots of beliefs whose origins are primarily in Tradition.  These range from many of our beliefs about Mary to the contents of the Bible - which leads right to my second point.  He says, "there's good tradition and bad tradition, and we need something that's not tradition (Scripture) to sort those two out."

But since he's starting with a compiled Bible, he's missing the obvious.  There were good books which claimed to be Scripture, and bad books which claimed to be Scripture.  His argument against having Tradition determine what is and isn't Tradition is an equally valid argument for letting Scripture determine which Scripture is Scripture.  In both cases, the Church (relying upon the teachings of the Apostles, both written and oral, see 2 Thessalonians 2:15) separated the Holy Traditions and Holy Scripture from the non-inspired traditions and scriptures.  Some of this second category were still worth keeping around (like the Didache, and certain pious practices), while others were evil in origin (like the Gospel of Thomas and simony).

So this is really an argument for a visible and identifiable Church with the authority (and thus, necessarily, the guidance of the Holy Ghost) to separate wheat and chaff, and bind and loosen.  This is also the standard which both Scripture and Tradition point to (see 1 Timothy 3:15, Acts 15, etc.).

 Finally, he writes:

The last argument that many Roman Catholics like to raise goes something like this: both Tradition and Scripture are subject to divine revelation, which comes from God and empowers both equally. Now, this is perhaps the best of their arguments so far, but it remains unconvincing. One must ask this crucial question: How do we receive divine revelation? Of course, this is the key point where Protestants and Roman Catholics answer differently, Roman Catholics answering that they receive divine revelation from the papacy, Tradition, and Scripture, while Protestants answer only the Scriptures. Personally, in reference to the Catholic argument, I can think of nothing more circularly problematic. Maybe I just need to ask the Lord to increase my faith...for when receiving divine revelation from the papacy, Tradition, and Scripture, which have all erred in the past, sans Scripture, then I'd consider myself in deep doodoo if I placed my foundation upon something that has failed, and is certainly prone to fail again.

Of course, on issues where they claim to have inspiration from God, neither the papacy nor Divine Tradition have erred.  But there have been pretenders, like he says.  Still, "Scripture," which just means "writings," is equally fallible, in the sense that there are true and untrue Scriptures - just as anti-popes and false traditions have existed, so have false scriptures.  So it's Andre's approach (Scripture tells us which Scripture is Scripture) which seems to be circular.  Trusting the early Christian community to have the best grasp on who was put in charge, which traditions come from the Apostles and which don't, and which Scriptures are authentic isn't circular, it's logical.  So look to the early Church:

• Do they read the Deuterocanon?  Yup.  So they have the full Catholic Scriptures, not the limited Protestant ones.  
• Do they believe in the sinlessness of Mary? Yup.  So they have the full Catholic Traditions, not the limited Protestant ones.  
• Do they believe in top-down authority governed by a bishop who is a higher rank than a presbyter? Yup.  So they have the full Catholic ecclessiology, ont the limited Protestant one.

I'm over-simplifying here, of course (there are lots of other issues which could be raised for my point, and some more interesting ones on the Catholic/Orthodox side), but my point is that the eyewitnesses seem to harmonize with what the Catholic Church believes.

The Trouble with "Americanism"

I. Why Vox Populi, Vox Dei is a Bad Standard
You may remember that Kathleen Kennedy Townsend wrote a singularly foolish piece for Newsweek claiming that Obama is more Catholic than the pope, because his views better represent American Catholics.  In a particularly confused phrasing, she writes:

When Obama meets the pope tomorrow, they'll politely disagree about reproductive freedoms and homosexuality, but Catholics back home won't care, because they know Obama's on their side.

Let's leave aside the blatant elitism of conflating the views of liberal American Catholics with the views of lay Catholics globally (in fact, Catholics in the Global South tend to be much more orthodox). Kennedy Townsend's premise is that of a lot of misinformed liberal Catholics in the US: that the Church is a "democracy," which should govern by majority rule.  So if 51% of Catholics think that abortion's okay, then it's ok.  Of course, this raises a series of confusing questions: if Catholicism is simply what the majority of Catholics believe, who's a Catholic?  Under this sort of majority-rule system, heresy may just be the next big orthodoxy.

This heresy is nothing new.  In 798 A.D., Alcuin of York wrote to Charlemagne in 798, in a letter which reads, in part:

"Those people should not be listened to who keep saying the voice of the people is the voice of God, since the riotousness of the crowd is always very close to madness."

But given America's distinctive political contributions, it's not surprising that people who have benefited so much from political democracy would seek Church democracy as well.  It's particularly appealing to dissidents on the political left because of an unstated premise: legalized abortion and gay rights, because they're newer, are "progressive"; that is, that society is moving in that direction.  The recalcitrance of the Catholic Church  continues to defy this Myth of Progress, but devout progressives still fantasize about the day when the "hierarchical Church" (as they term the Magisterium, as well as the actual hierarchy) will do a 180 and declare "abortions for some, miniature American flags for others." 

These dissidents don't just support Church democracy because they like democracy per se; they like the idea of Church democracy, because they think a democratic Church will be a Democratic Church.  But there are ominous signs on the horizon for anyone with the sense to see them.  Take the death penalty, for example.  The Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate (CARA) compares Latino with non-Latino Catholic views on a variety of political issues (pg. 29 here).  Long-story short, over 60% of both Latino and non-Latino Catholics support the death penalty, contrary to traditional Catholic teaching.  Significantly, the death penalty is not an intrinsic evil, the way that torture and abortion are, meaning Catholics can, under certain circumstances, support it.  Still, the Church's general view is much more "liberal" on this issue than the view of lay Catholics.  In a signal that I find much more disturbing than the Catholic views on the death penalty, a recent US News poll found that fewer than 25% of white non-Hispanic Catholics said torture was "never right" (I was unable to find anything which examined Catholics, in toto).  In other words, if Obama is more Catholic than the pope for being pro-choice, Bush is more Catholic than the pope for being pro-torture.

II. Playing Both Sides of the Magisterial Fence
So surely, dissident Catholics who love Church democracy have to say, contra their political views, that the Church should cast off her old-fashioned opposition to the death penalty and torture... right?  I mean, surely, it would be brazenly hypocritical to suddenly side with the Magisterium (no longer "institutional Church," of course) when it supports one's personal or political views?

Enter Anthony Stevens-Arroyo, who we see here shamelessly attempting to use Magisterial teaching to simultaneously permit Obama to speak, and bar Rick Santorum:

That means that no Catholic institution -- university, study group or Knights of Columbus Council, etc. -- can invite Newt Gingrich, Sean Hannity or Rick Santorum to speak. Each of these Catholics supports Cheney and thus endorses torture.

 With no apparent sense of irony, he claims it's his opponents (political, of course, not religious), "who would defy Catholicism for political gain."  Right.  Lots of others could join his ranks, and plenty of non-Catholics have even picked up the ball, clumsily arguing, for example, that Scalia can't be Supreme Court justice because of his support for the death penalty.  This has all of the credibility of an anarchist taking you to court for trespassing on his property.  Although (like the anti-torture camp), they're right on the issue, winning the battle costs them the war.  It undermines the entire position, and shows the necessity of having a central set of rules to appeal to. 

A "democracy Church," which governed by the whims of American Catholics, would be a pro-death penalty, pro-torture, pro-choice, pro-women's ordination Church which represented only the least religious.  On all of these stances, American Catholics have taken the "American view" over the Catholic one.  This is a heresy known, fittingly, as Americanism.

Red Coins of Redemption

As I was finishing my time in prayer in our adoration chapel last night, I said goodnight to the other man in the chapel. He told me that it was good to see a priest in there praying and asked me to wait a minute. He pulled out his wallet and took out a bill. He told me that he wanted me to offer a Mass for the cause of Fulton Sheen's canonization on December 9, 2009 (the 30th Anniversary of Sheen's death). At that point, he shared how important the daily holy hour was to Bishop Sheen (a point I had heard earlier in the day emphasized by Fr. John Corapi on the radio). He then asked if I had read Sheen's "Life of Christ." I told him that I owned the book but haven't read it yet. He then said to look up on page 544 the "Second Word of Christ on the Cross." He then when on to quote almost verbatim this passage in which Sheen describes the scene in Luke 23: 39-43:

A dying man asked a dying man for eternal life; a man without possessions asked a poor man for a Kingdom; a thief at the door of death asked to die like a thief and steal Paradise. One would have thought a saint would have been the first soul purchased over the counter of Calvary by the red coins of Redemption, but in the Divine plan it was a thief who was the escort of the King of kings into Paradise.

When I got back to the rectory and went down to my man cave (AKA basement suite), I pulled out the book and opened it to page 544. I was stunned. The devotion of the adorer I spoke with in the chapel obviously caught me off guard. However, the depth of reflection by Bishop Sheen on this passage was astonishing. Obviously, I was experiencing the fruit of years of prayer and study by a dedicated disciple. A life spent in adoration before the Blessed Sacrament.

Sheen constantly talked about the importance of the daily Holy Hour for his life and the life of all priests. When asked about why the daily Holy Hour with Christ in the Eucharist is so important, he related a story that I have retold many times:

A couple of months before his death he was interviewed on national television. One of the questions was this: "Bishop Sheen, you have inspired millions of people all over the world. Who inspired you? Was it a Pope?"

Bishop Sheen responded that it was not a Pope, a Cardinal, another Bishop, or even a priest or a nun. It was a little Chinese girl of eleven years of age. He explained that when the Communists took over China, they imprisoned a priest in his own rectory near the Church.

After they locked him up in his own house, the priest was horrified to look out of his window and see the Communists proceed into the Church, where they went into the sanctuary and broke into the tabernacle. In an act of hateful desecration, they took the ciborium and threw it on the floor with all of the Sacred Hosts spilling out. The priest knew exactly how many Hosts were in the ciborium: thirty-two.

When the Communists left, they either did not notice, or didn't pay any attention to a small girl praying in the back of the Church who saw everything that had happened.

That night the little girl came back. Slipping past the guard at the priest's house, she went inside the Church. There she made a holy hour of prayer, an act of love to make up for the act of hatred. After her holy hour she went into the sanctuary, knelt down, bent over and with her tongue received Jesus in Holy Communion, since it was not permissible at that time for laymen to touch the Sacred Host with their hands.

The little girl continued to come back each night to make her holy hour and receive Jesus in Holy Communion on her tongue. On the thirty-second night, after she had consumed the last and thirty-second host, she accidentally made a noise and woke the guard who was sleeping. He ran after her, caught her, and beat her to death with the butt of his rifle.

This act of heroic martyrdom was witnessed by the priest as he watched grief-stricken from his bedroom window.

When Bishop Sheen heard the story he was so inspired that he promised God he would make a holy hour of prayer before Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament everyday of his life. If this little Chinese girl could risk her life everyday to express her love for Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament with a holy hour and Holy Communion, then, at the very least, the Bishop thought he should do the same.

In this Year for Priests, hopefully all priests will deepen our appreciation of the Eucharist and foster a greater devotion to Eucharistic Adoration.

As a closing comment, on this memorial of St. Pio of Pietrelcina, it is important to remember that the stigmata that Padre Pio had received were given to him especially for the sanctification of those living a consecrated life to God. As new discoveries uncovered:

Asked to swear on the Gospel, Padre Pio for the first time revealed the identity of the one from whom he received the wounds.

It was June 15, 1921, and in answer to a question posed by Bishop Rossi, Padre Pio said: "On Sept. 20, 1918, I was in the choir of the church after celebrating Mass, making the thanksgiving when I was suddenly overtaken by powerful trembling and then there came calm and I saw Our Lord in his crucified form.

"He was lamenting the ingratitude of men, especially those consecrated to him and favored by him."

"Then," Padre Pio continued, "his suffering was apparent as was his desire to join souls to his Passion. He invited me to let his pains enter into me and to meditate on them and at the same time concern myself with the salvation of others. Following this, I felt full of compassion for the Lord's pains and I asked him what I could do.

"I heard this voice: 'I will unite you with my Passion.' And after this the vision disappeared, I came back to myself, my reason returned and I saw these signs here from which blood flowed. Before this I did not have these."

Padre Pio then said that the stigmata were not the result of a personal request of his own but came from an invitation of the Lord, who, lamenting the ingratitude of men, and consecrated persons in particular, conferred on Padre Pio a mission as the culmination of an interior mystical journey of preparation.

Personally, I can't think of a better way to develop a deeper gratitude for the "red coins of Redemption" than to thank Jesus daily in adoration of the Blessed Sacrament.

What's the Catholic Position on Feeding Tubes?

The Catholic Church is clearly and unambiguously opposed to euthanasia, the intentional ending of life (through an act or refusal to act) as an attempt to alleviate suffering.  But at the same time, there are clear limits to what one ought to do to preserve life.  We should respect and love life, but we shouldn't cling to it madly, nor enter death's door kicking and screaming.  There's a huge theoretical difference between accepting death when your time has come, and assisted suicide through the deprivation of feeding tubes.

The beginning premise is this: it is fundamentally immoral and unchristian to refuse to give food to the hungry, and water to the needy.  It violates even the most basic test Christ forewarns of at the Last Judgment (see Matthew 25:35 and 25:42), and it makes no difference whether the food and drink are administered artificially or not.  The general rule of thumb for feeding tubes, to separate acceptable (and praiseworthy) acts of facing one's own death bravely, and morally unacceptable acts of ending one's own (or another's) life, even for "therapeutic" reasons is this: the cause of death must be the disease itself, rather than the deprivation of food and water.

Here are some hypotheticals:

• In "a situation where a person is actively dying, one’s death being imminent (presumably within a few days)," is it obligatory to provide nutrition and hydration, even artificially?
• "What if it is possible that a person may live indefinitely but need to be artificially fed?"
•  "What if, after a feeding tube is placed, the nutrition and hydration is not being assimilated into the person’s body?"
• "What if, after a feeding tube is placed, grave medical complications arise because of the presence of the feeding tube?"
  

 Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted raises, and answers, these questions skillfully here (see sections 9-12).   The entire article is succinct and very readable, which is unusual on this subject.  Bishop Olmsted wisely, in my opinion, limits himself merely to the question of "feeding tubes," without addressing other end-of-life decisions.  Trying to tackle the whole beast of euthanasia and end-of-life judgments can be hard: the good Bishop of Phoenix has painted a clear piece of the puzzle.

Brash, Bold, or Just Bald?

I'm humbled that Joe invited me to be a contributor to this blog. He defends the truth, beauty, and goodness of faith in Jesus Christ with a tenacity and sincerity that is most welcome in the blogdom. I will come nowhere close to his depth, breadth, and volume of posts and insights. However, I'm sure some more bite-sized posts are welcome as well.

In terms of introduction, here is the homily that I gave last weekend (apologies for the quality of the recording...sounds like I'm preaching at a nursery in a fishbowl).

This was a difficult homily for me to give. Not so much because the topics covered are unpopular truths (the evil of contraception in this instance), but because unmasking sin hurts. Inviting Christ's light to shine on the shadows of our life is painful. Old wounds may need attention, new wounds may be revealed, and the crosses we have neglected may demand our surrender. As a priest, sharing the truth of Christ is not something I can afford to do casually. I must share in every wound and cross I uncover. Ultimately, the struggle is of course worth the share we receive in the triumph of the Cross and Resurrection, but I'm still not seasoned enough to avoid flinching.

On St. Paul's Body and the True Cross

Ever since the days of the earliest Christians, there's been a belief that the relics of Christ and certain of His Saints have healing powers.  In Acts 19:11-12, for example, we hear that, "So extraordinary were the mighty deeds God accomplished at the hands of Paul that when face cloths or aprons that touched his skin were applied to the sick, their diseases left them and the evil spirits came out of them."  Today, I wanted to mention briefly (by my standards) two of these relics: St. Paul's body, and the Cross on which Christ was crucified.

I. St. Paul's Body
A while ago, I mentioned the discovery of St. Paul's body.  I know a bit more about the story now, and thought I'd provide an update.

The Catholic Church has long claimed to have had St. Paul's body in St. Paul's Outside the Walls in Rome.  But in 1823, after a fire, things got chaotic and they somehow lost his body (I'm a bit unclear how that's even possible).  They knew the body was somewhere beneath the Basilica, but they weren't sure exactly where.  Flash forward to 2006: a marble sarcophagus is found, reading "To Paul, Apostle and Martyr," in Latin. 

Archeologists were pretty skeptical.  At the time of St. Paul's death, the Christians didn't have a whole lot of marble to spare, and spoke Greek instead of Latin.  The church itself was built (on the site of an earlier church) in 390 A.D.  So the three major theories were these: first, that St. Paul's body was moved from his earlier grave to a more ornate one when the new church was built; two, that the body wasn't St. Paul's; or three, that there was no body at all.  Time seems to have leaned towards the third view back in '06:

X-ray tests on it have already failed because of a layering of concrete and plaster that still surrounds most of it. And the more than 300-year gap between Paul's reported death by order of of the Roman emperor Nero in AD 68 and the construction of the old church leaves considerable room for doubt.

At the time, these hesitations were justifiable.  No more.

This year, at the end of the Year of St. Paul, Pope Benedict XVI released information that convinced even the not-particularly-religious UK Daily Mail that "in all likelihood, they are the bones of the Apostle Paul - bones that have lain there for 1,950 years yet, astonishingly, have only been discovered in our time." The Daily Mail continues:

You might say, so what? Aren't Roman Catholics always making claims about bones and relics? Was it not said that if you measured all the bits of the True Cross venerated throughout the world you could build a bridge to the moon? Yes, yes.

But this is slightly different, and it is very exciting. The Pope was not saying that he revered some relics as a matter of faith. He was saying that scientists, by carbon dating, have come as close as possible to identifying the very bones of St Paul himself.

Why is he so convinced? Though the carbon-dating experts knew nothing of their  origins, the bone fragments were recovered after a tiny probe was inserted into the tomb which lies in a crypt beneath the Basilica of St Paul outside the Walls in Rome - a church long held to have been built on the site where Paul was buried.

It was only three years ago that the tomb itself was discovered by Vatican archaeologists.
The fact that it was positioned exactly underneath the epigraph Paulo Apostolo Mart (Paul the Apostle and Martyr) at the base of the altar convinced them it was Paul's tomb.

Now backed by the evidence of his carbon-dated bone fragments, the Pope has announced: 'This seems to confirm the unanimous and uncontested tradition that the bone fragments are the mortal remains of the Apostle Paul.'

So non-biased scientists examining the remains placed them in the 1st to 2nd century A.D... without even knowing whose body the Church thought it was (or where the remains had come from).  Going back to the earlier options, we can cross out option #3 - we now know, as a matter of science, that there are bones and human remains in there.  The best science now tells us that the body is older than the sarcophagus and older than the church under which it was buried.  So now we're left with the question separating options #1 and 2 - is it St. Paul's body?  To the extent we're capable of knowing, all evidence points towards "yes."   After all, why would the early Christians save someone else's body for three centuries only to grandly re-bury it?  We know from Acts 19 that the early Christians believed that "face cloths" that were touched to his skin could be taken to the sick and would heal them. It's not exactly a stretch to think that these same Christians would keep his body after death, and touch his bones.  It is a bit of a stretch to think it's a trick.  I understand that there are certain unethical people who might want to make a quick buck by pawning off someone else's body as St. Paul's.  But that's unlikely in the 1st century.  The community was close-knit, relatively poor, and had a good idea of what Paul looked like (and were almost certainly present at his death).  If we couldn't tell how old the body was, we'd have to acknowledge that it's at least a plausible theory that some cruel person came along eons later with the wrong body.  To put it another way, the Hoffman scandal which was perpetrated against the LDS Church wouldn't have been possible (or even seriously considered) if Joseph Smith's kids were still alive.  You need distance to get rid of pesky eyewitnesses.  Since we now know (as far as science can tell) that the body is as old as we've always claimed it was, the idea that it's a scam is just too far-fetched.

II. The True Cross
The first sentence of the Daily Mail passage I included irked me, because it's wrong on two counts: first, on its author, and second, on the truth of its contents.  Where it says, "yes, yes," a reliable source would say "no and no."   First, the actual quote is from John Calvin, who said that re-assembled, they "would make a big shipload" (Traité Des Reliques), not "reach to the moon."  Since distance to the moon is a measure of length, anything can reach to the moon if spread thin enough.  If your veins, arteries, and the rest of your circulatory system were laid out in a straight line, they would wrap around the world 2 and a half times in a very thin line.  Does that prove that they don't fit in your body?  Methinks that this reporter doesn't understand science.

But besides journalistic sloppiness, the underlying premise is wrong.  The point that both the Daily Mail and Calvin were making is that taken together, there's too much wood for this all of these pieces to have come from the True Cross.  That's flatly untrue.As Wikipedia notes:

Conflicting with this is the finding of Rohault de Fleury, who, in his Mémoire sur les instruments de la Passion 1870 made a study of the relics in reference to the criticisms of Calvin and Erasmus. He drew up a catalogue of all known relics of the True Cross showing that, in spite of what various authors have claimed, the fragments of the Cross brought together again would not reach one-third that of a cross which has been supposed to have been three or four meters in height, with transverse branch of two meters wide, proportions not at all abnormal. He calculated: supposing the Cross to have been of pine-wood (based on his microscopic analysis of the fragments) and giving it a weight of about seventy-five kilograms, we find the original volume of the cross to be .178 cubic meters. The total known volume of known relics of the True Cross, according to his catalogue, amounts to approximately .004 cubic meters (more specifically 3,942,000 cubic milimeters), leaving a volume of .174 cubic meters lost, destroyed, or otherwise unaccounted for.

De Fleury's work isn't without possible criticisms, and he's obviously working with some rough estimates about the dimensions of the True Cross.  But the True Cross relics reassembled wouldn't even total up to a small cross, much less a "shipload' or a road to the moon.