WHAT HAVE YOU DONE FOR ME LATELY?

“Faith does absolutely nothing for me.”

This was a pronouncement by a person who came to the rectory to let me know this.

“It seems to me,” by way of my response, “that among the many, many things that faith does do for you, right now it is providing you with a place to go and discuss your displeasure.”

But underneath that question is an underlying question and it is this:  “I want my faith to do something for me in spite of me.”

The return question might be, “What have you done for your faith recently?”

Faith is primarily a relationship.  It is first and foremost a relationship with God.  If you had a friend who was to you exactly like the friend you are to God, would you want to be your friend?  How often do you talking for how long?  How loving are you to God?  How often do you take up His causes?  How closely do you listen to Him and take His advice?  How often do you give thanks and praise?  He was willing to die for you, are you willing to die for Him?  Or be willing to face a repercussion for love of Him?  Or be embarrassed on behalf of Him?  Or at least be somewhat inconvenienced on behalf of Him?  

Faith is also a relationship with the faith community.  The person that says that the faith community is doing nothing for them is quite often the person who does nothing for the faith community or only does them on their own terms. 

It is like letters (snail mail ones) when I was a kid.  I was sad that I never got mail.  My Mom said, “If you want mail, you must also write letters.”  So I did.  And I started getting letters back.  Imagine that.

If you are able to read this, God has already done so much for you that you cannot even begin to fathom the depth and height and width of the indebtedness that we have.  Even that feeling that you are not receiving what you think you need or want is itself God working in you, through longing, to bring you to the next level of faith, hope, and love.

YOU ARE A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES TOO

Recently on the news someone pleaded with our newly elected president not to reverse the progress that has been made in our nation against global warming.  (Don’t worry, this is NOT a post about the president nor is it about global warming.)  In support of his position he said that it would be a moral failure not to do so.

Interesting position in our politically correct atmosphere and further points out that it is impossible to have a morally neutral position even in national politics.

In the name of tolerance, could we not say that if I don’t “believe in” global warming, (or if I am looking forward to it) then I should be able to live my life as I wish as long as I allow you to live life as one who believes in it?  Or could I say as a politician I personally believe in global warming but I don’t believe I can force my view on the world on others and so reject passing bills outlawing open trash burning?

“Of course not,” many would respond, “because this is something that effects all of us and science has proven it.”  And so there is a perceived moral imperative that overrides individual’s strong desires and beliefs.  

Or suppose I am all about being able to drown kittens if I have too many of them.  “They are mine and my property.”  The moral outrage would be great.  Laws would be enforced - cruelty to animals.  My idea (not really mine - but you get it) belief that animals are here to serve us and I should be able to do with them as I want is suppressed.

We make moral laws all of the time: This is right and protected.  This is wrong and punishable.  On many such topics, there CANNOT be a morally neutral position and moral positions are imposed or lifted by law all of the time.  

Often Catholics are harried into leaving their faith at home when it comes to involvement in politics as if it is an unfair thing to bring to the table or that it would be the same as forcing faith down someone’s throat.  This is unfair.  It instantly negates anything oppositional to popular culture which is making moral imperatives all of the time.  It forbids the idea that a topic of faith may actually offer a moral truth.  If this idea is fully realized it makes Christians in general and Catholics in particular second class citizens.  This epitomized Pope Emeritus Benedict’s comment that we are experiencing the tyranny of tolerance.  It is as inequitable as it is unAmerican.

HAVING FUN WITH HERESY

I received an interesting letter from a man named Ron Sutter yesterday.  He is a former Catholic that is afraid that all Catholics are going to hell and he wrote to me hoping that I will have a change of heart and start leading Catholics according to his way of seeing the Gospel and Jesus’ mission.  It is a form a letter so I wonder how many of you may have received it.

I rarely have a problem with anybody who accurately presents Catholic teaching and then respectfully disagrees.  I will still think them incorrect, but I can respect that.  But when someone misrepresents the Church and then violently rips the false teaching apart in a slight of hand to prove how wicked (or in this case extremely cruel) the Church is, then I get my liturgical underwear in a bunch.  

The letter is three pages long and I have only a short time to write today.  But if you receive such a letter, it might be a good exercise to read it and then get the catechism out see if you can discern the flaws in the reasoning, find the straw men, and weigh the theology.  

In this letter, he states that he grew up Catholic but that he did hear the Gospel until age 19.  It was the first time that he heard that Jesus was the way to heaven.  I have a difficult time believing that he went to PSR, was baptized, received Communion, and was confirmed, went to Mass every weekend, and did not hear that Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life.

Another major theme in the letter is that Catholics believe that they earn their way into heaven.  “Ask any Catholic,” he asserts, “and they will tell you they are going to get into heaven because they do good works.”  We know, however, that we not only cannot, but we have no need to earn heaven.  If we could earn heaven, one of us would have pulled it off before 2,000 years ago and we wouldn’t have needed Jesus.  Jimmy Akins puts it succinctly: “To come to God and be saved, you need to repent, have faith, and be baptized. If you commit mortal sin, you need to repent, have faith, and go to confession.”  In all of this it is Jesus Who will save you.  Read more of his article HERE.

Here are two more sentences and then I will call it quits.  1) “The Catholic Church is clearly false because you preach another Gospel.  God is Holy.  He cannot tolerate even one sin and demands moral perfection: something we don’t have to offer.” 

Here is straw man case,  Does the Church teach that you must be morally perfect in this life in order to get into heaven?  Let us take the case of St. John Paul II.  When he was canonized there was a flurry of activity online and in the news about how he was not perfect.  (If he were perfect, he would’t have needed Jesus.)  We don’t claim that he was perfect, just a great model of true Christianity, and example of Christian living in our day and age.  No-one who knows and understands the teachings of the Church (which are the teachings of Christ) thinks for a moment that the saints had reached moral perfection in this life.  In fact, that is heresy.  “Anyone who says he is without sin calls God a liar.” 1 John 1 :8

Finally, “He justifies, he sanctifies, and He glorifies.  In the end, God gets one hundred percent of the glory for our salvation.  No one in Heaven is boasting in themselves about being there because everyone there knows i was all Him.”  

Well . . . yes.

But this is a clever ploy to make it sound as though this is something that the Church does not teach.  We actually agree but it is an attempt to make the Church look bad.  It is a clever but dishonest, underhanded letter with a fraudulent presentation of Catholic teaching.

And a fun way to build you knowledge of your own faith.

FRIDAY POTPOURRI: IFEELISTS AND THE MORALISTIC THERAPEUDIC DEISM

“I” and “feel” are two of the most damaging words toward the faith in the world today.  I think it should be its own heresy.  The “Ifeelists – Ifeelism.)   You’ll be having a perfectly good conversation about something faith related and somebody will say, “Well I feel . . .”  There are two problems with this.  The first is that it is an inherently selfish statement.  Who can say anything to you?  You are simply stating how you feel.  It’s like saying, “I feel satisfied.”  What can I say to that?  “No you don’t.” 

 

The second problem is that whatever is stated after “I feel” often has no connection to the lived faith of two thousand years of Christianity, the early Church Fathers, the writings and lives of the saints, the logic of the greatest minds of mankind, a children’s catechism, or even a casual conversation with someone remotely connected with any orthodox faith.  “I feel” is a cloud.  You can’t punch it, defend it, or debate it.  It is simply a thought someone has that makes them feel good.  The full consequences need not be thought through, possible blow back, inconsistencies, or the fact that it may have been held in the past and rejected due to its ill consequence.  Any debate is likely to be answered, “Well, I don’t agree.”

 

One author calls this Moralistic, Therapeutic, Deism.  This is truly the opiate of the masses.  What you feel or think is of course truth – at least for you.  This is where relativism sneaks in.  “Well, that may be truth for you but . . .”

 

This is why the Church has always insisted on a formed conscience.  That means being in contact with Scripture and Tradition, it means having some training in the early Church Fathers, lives of the saints, and 2,000 years of Christian thought (which comes to us at least in part through the Catechism, Catholic schools, PSR, CCD, etc.)  All of which leads us to the third precept of the Church: to study and learn the faith in preparation for Confirmation, to be confirmed, and then to KEEP LEARNING.  I know that perhaps your particular parish is horrible at teaching the faith.  That doesn’t lift the responsibility of the individual from forming their conscience.  We are too rich of a nation with too much information at our disposal to say, “Nobody ever told me.”  At the click of a button on your computer (or at the library’s computer) there are all the Church documents, tweets by the pope, Church history, lives of the saints, writings of the Church Fathers, apologists, videos, podcasts, links, all floating around in the air just waiting for you to grab them and study them like angels surrounding us, just waiting for us to take advantage of them.

FRIDAY POTPOURRI: THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH

Dei Verbum Chapter III paragraph 11

 

Have you ever been in a situation to give someone advice and in the middle of it came up with some brilliant insight after which you thought, “Where the get out did THAT come from?”  Maybe it was what God wanted that person to hear and you were the instrument.

 

In a somewhat similar way (only much more dramatically so) we affirm that, although humans put hand to pen and paper and went through the action of doing the actual writing, it was the inspiration of the Holy Spirit that caused to be written what was written as Scripture.  Not so much that they were simply enlightened but that the Holy Spirit flowed through them and on to the paper so to speak far beyond simply being a muse.  Therefore we emphatically state that the author of the Scriptures was ultimately God Who caused to be written what is needed, no more and no less.

 

As such we recognize the entire canon of Scripture which was brought together (ironically for Protestants) by the Catholic Church using Sacred Tradition.  There was no single canon of the Old Testament at the time of Jesus.  The Christian Old Testament canon came to form in the fourth century and the New Testament canon after that.  It remains unchanged in the Catholic Church to this day though 500 years ago certain books were removed from the Old Testament by Martin Luther for Protestant Catholics.  It should also be noted that he wished to remove some of the New Testament books also (such as James) but was persuaded against such action.

 

Interestingly there are some things in your Bible that are NOT considered inspired.  Some of the more obvious ones are the verse numbers and such.  There are other things, however, that are less obvious.  For example, the titles of the books are not necessarily inspired.  Who the authors are of the Gospels or the Acts of the Apostles is not inspired and in some circles debated.  In another twist of irony, it is Catholic Tradition that states the actual authors of the Gospels to be Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

 

To be steeped in history is to cease being Protestant.

PUTTING YOURSELF OUT THERE

If you are looking to get married you don’t hide things about yourself in order to lure someone into marrying you.  One of two things might happen as a result: 1) You will be somewhat unhappy hiding something for the rest of your life or 2) Your spouse will be feel angry and betrayed when whatever it is you are concealing becomes exposed.

 

For some reason (and I occasionally fall for it myself) preachers do the same thing in trying to “keep the numbers up.”  Dicey and controversial topics are not brought up in homilies, prayer services, or classes because we might lose people.  So leading up to the last election much of the Catholic Church was caught with its pants down trying to proclaim a message but unfortunately for much of the Church it was too late: Catholics did not need to be reminded about what our faith says about many of these touchy topics, they needed introduced to a mindset that produces these beliefs.  A pamphlet or a homily one week before the election aint gonna cut it.

 

There is a gentleman who works at St. Sebastian who happens to not be Catholic.  One day he stopped me and presents me with a list of topics ranging from abortion to health care.  “When was the last time you preached on any of these topics?” he asked me for he was greatly saddened that he had not heard any of this talked about at all at his church ever.  “Our faith is supposed to help us understand these things.  If we don’t hear about them at church there are plenty of other people out there working hard to have us think the way they want us to think about them.”

 

Now I admit that I am intimidated to speak on some of these matters.  But they are what they are – they are who we are.  It is not matter of politics – it is Catholic 101.  That some of these topics happen to line up with hot button issues going on in politics is just happenstance.  And we must be honest about who we are for we are in covenant together and that means full disclosure as one would hope a future spouse would offer.

 

Just one last note: I know there is some amount of wiggle room in some of these topics.  I am just saying we must talk about them as Church.  Only then can someone make a clear, full, and free decision if they want to be part of (or leave) this intimate Communion of people.

IT'S A NUN ISSUE

Are you properly angry at the Vatican for badgering our nuns?  Have you the proper moral outrage?  Are you disgusted? 

Why do you feel that way?  Are you confident that you have all the facts of the case?  Are you sure that the way information is coming to you is balanced and complete? 

The Cleveland Plain Dealer ran a salacious article concerning these matters written by Maureen Dowd.  Here are some quotes from her column entitled “Misguided Vatican takes on sisters” dated 30 April 2012:

“Who thinks it’s cool to bully nuns?”

“Yet the nuns must be yanked into line by the crepuscular, medieval men who run the Catholic Church.”

“How can the church hierarchy be more offended by the nuns’ impassioned advocacy for the poor than by priests’ sordid pedophilia?”

“Instead of looking deep into its own soul, the church is going after the women who are the heart and soul of parishes, schools and hospitals.”

“The stunned sisters are debating how to respond to the Vatican’s scorching reprimand.”

 “. . . it scares the church hierarchy to have ‘educated women form thoughtful opinions and engage in dialogue.’”

If this was all that knew about the situation I would be embarrassed, humiliated, and ashamed of the Catholic Church.  Indeed there is no local paper willing or brave enough to give a broader perspective and so the cultivation of animosity toward the Catholic Church continues to be planted and nurtured.

But what if there is more to the story?  Take these quotes from Elizabeth Scalia’s article in the Wall Street Journal entitled, “The Vatican’s Corrective to Liberal Catholics” dated 27 April 2012:

“The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’s first duty is to assure that the doctrines of the church are being accurately reflected and communicated to the church body by those canonically representing the faith.”

“. . . Sister Laurie Brink (the then president of the Leadership Conference) had acknowledged that while many sisters walked unevenly with Rome, some had moved, ‘beyond the church, even beyond Jesus.’”

“But concern is not the same as condescension and there is an unmistakable pastoral tone permeating the entire assessment.”

“Yet the corrections and reforms prescribed to the Leadership Conference are few in number and not extraordinary.  They include liturgical prayer, Eucharistic focus, putting away “other” minds in order to form more closely to Christ’s and – a genuine challenge for all Christians – obedience to primary church teachings that remain unchanged even after Vatican II.”

Interesting.

One might wonder if Dowd and Scalia were talking about the same situation – the same country – the same century.  If one or the other was your primary source of information on this news item, it would greatly sway your position.

What I offer is this: be very careful about forming an opinion from single source or similarly biased news sources.  Always wonder if there is more to the story than is being told.

NEVER STOP THINKING IT THROUGH

A little bit of marketing goes a long way. Putting the right spin on a topic may sway public opinion in any direction on any particular topic. Just for example, in many circles the Church is labeled as being more restrictive in rights of human beings such as in the case of abortion. Some ways in which this is done is by portraying the teachings of the Church in this matter as being the whim of white haired old men in Rome forcing their morality on women and the rights that they should have over their own bodies; rights that those cranky old men retain while taking them away from women. “Keep your rosaries off my ovaries” is a common slogan.

It is proposed that pro-abortionists are more compassionate because they care about women and extending such rights to them; rights which “the Church” wishes to curtail. The two sides can then be separated into “pro-women” and “anti-rights” camps. If nobody bothers to think beyond these first salvos of the argument it seems to be pretty clear who cares more about women, rights, and freedom.

But is this the case? The Church puts forth that far from being more limited in extending rights that individuals should have over their bodies than the pro-abortionists, the Church casts a far greater net, includes more people, grants more freedoms and protects more rights. Human dignity, the right to life, the right to integrity of one’s body is preserved not just for those who can speak for themselves, not just for those with power, money, or influence, not just for those who can be seen, not just for those who have developed enough skills, not just those protected by law, not just those who are seen as productive to society, but all human beings, men and women alike, old and young, capable and challenged. No, the Church, the teaching of Christ are not more restrictive than Pro-Choicers, it is far more generous. And of course it will not seem so to those who wish not to recognize human life as human life and who feel restricted in their choice to end a human life that is not desired by them for one reason or another, but it cannot be argued (at least I think) that their net of human life to which they extend protection and integrity of life is far smaller than the Church – interestingly enough this is so even with those who are aborted who are female.

WHY WE ARE SOMETIMES BUFFALO-ED

An interesting tidbit was in the paper yesterday. An anthropologist named Colin Turnbull took his African guide for a plane ride. Looking out the window he wanted to know what the insects he saw on the ground were. When told that they were buffalo he erupted in laughter. He didn’t know about visual perspective and thus that objects seem to shrink in the distance. Coming closer to the objects he became frightened as the appeared to grow.

Myers had a very perceptive comment to make about this. He said, “We perceive the world not just as it is, but as we are.” How we interpret our world has a lot to do with how understand it.

This gives us a hint as to the weak link in the pro-life movement. It sounds so obvious doesn’t it? Who wants to be anti-life? Who wants to destroy their children? Who would want to make it not only possible but a legally protected right that people can take the life of the children with more legal clemency than taking the life of the pet dog?

Nobody.

I mean nobody.

Not one sane person.

And that includes most of the most dedicated self proclaimed pro-choice people.

Like the Pygmy in the plane that refused to believe that the insects he saw were actually buffalo, “pro-choice” persons do not see realities that pro-life people see. They do not see a baby, they see a clump of cells that could become a baby. They do not see the damage to the dignity and bodily integrity of women but that they are free of undesirable results. They see independence from men and not that men have been relinquished of responsibility. They see the event only affecting them; not the father, other children, grandparents, etc. They do not see freedom, they see the freeing of unnecessary societal restraints. They do not see that having the option out promotes the need for even more abortions, but see it as a safeguard against oppression. They do not see the richness of life but the escape from poverty.

So, suppose for a moment that you are pro-choice and you see the world as they do. You believe that you are fighting for the good. Being called a murderer, a hater of women, a sinner, being vilified is not something that is going to turn your heart. If anything it is evidence of exactly the thing you are trying to escape and will entrench you more deeply in your position. (Once again, is the alternative really becoming someone who calls persons like me a baby hater?)

The task then at the same time becomes easier and more monumental. It is easier because now we know more about what it is we are dealing with and can address that. It becomes more monumental because this job will be much more difficult.

One woman who used to work for NOW said one of the best things we can do is educate, educate, educate about life – scientific facts. And of course pray. Pray like gangbusters. Be compassionate and welcoming. How this exactly plays out each of us must discover. But if we want true and lasting change this is the only way. Having abortion only outlawed without conversion of hearts means much less and will always be in danger of being overturned. This is a war of hearts.

ABSURDITY IS IN THE EYES OF THE BEHOLDER

Here is part two of “Atlas Said,” a commentary on common objections to the faith:

ATLAS SAID:

“Secondly, It matters not if I'm wrong, 'cause the "All-Loving" God will toss me to eternal wrath pain and suffering (which to me is a bit excessive, but hey, u gotta kill non-believers somehow I guess). The thing is what if YOU'RE wrong and you devoted your life to faith in that which is not their. I don't mean to be a (censored), but I mean, WHY do u irrationally believe their is a God and WHY do people not see that Evolution is a Fact?”

It is often the case that a person has some erroneous idea that if God is all loving then there will be absolutely no consequences for one’s actions. “God’s wrath and God’s mercy are two sides of the same coin,” one spiritual guide once said. At heart here are two questions: What is love and what does God want from us.

There are many definitions of love but in this case only one that matters and that is how God defines love. We have many commandments to love: Love the Lord your God, Love you neighbor, love your enemies. I do not have warm and fuzzy feeling about my enemies. But is that what God is calling us to? “I demand that you have warm fuzzy feelings about everybody!” If this is the case, then we have a mighty cruel God Who demands that we have feelings since we cannot summon them up at will. So God must be talking about something else.

While not denying that emotions play a role in our love life at its core God is talking about decisions; primarily the decision for the betterment of the other person – and that is first and foremost their salvation. That means if my enemy is standing in the middle of the road and a bus is bearing down on them and I grab them and pull them out of the street I have acted in love toward them. If my best friend is doing something that places his salvation in danger it might mean I must risk losing our friendship to help him or even allowing him to deal with the consequences of his behavior in order for him to find truth.

So why is not everything perfect on earth? Why does God allow us to suffer war and hunger and anger? Does He cause it? No. We do. We could end war and starvation easily enough. But we choose not to. And He allows us to live with consequences (or we would never do anything that does not suit us directly would we?) Hell is much the same thing. Hell is our doing, not God’s. And on His part it is actually an act of mercy. “Nothing unclean shall enter before God” Scripture tells us. God condemns nobody to Hell. By our lives we tell God where we want to be. Could you imagine choosing “not God” with your life and then be forced to sit before His thrown for all of eternity? Rather in His mercy He allows souls their own limited realm so that they can have that which they have chosen. “Better to reign in Hell than serve in heaven,” says the devil. Indeed. And so God allows it.

The next part is an interesting (and in my estimation more dangerous) twist on Paschal’s wager which offers the proposition that if one chooses to believe in God and there is a God one in a sense “wins.” If one chooses to believe in God and there is no God, one would never know – but they would have had a life full of hope and purpose. Atlas, I think, is worried about being duped. What if we are wrong? Paschal answered that for us. But what if one chooses not to believe and they are wrong? There is a place for that.

If He does exists (and I believe wholeheartedly that He does) what does God ultimately want from us? There is a reason He is named Father. He is looking for a relationship. That is why God’s connection to His Church in Scripture is most often referred to as a marriage. This marriage is calling all in the Church toward community and unity – toward charity – toward peace. This is completely irrational! Yes it is! It makes much more sense to go after pleasure when and where I want it – to look after me and mine! It is irrational but it is what we choose as given to us by our Creator.

Now I am going to say something that will disturb some people out there. Darwinism is not fact. Not even science says so. It is a theory and, unfortunately one that is suffering at the moment – at least the way Darwin put it forth – no matter what your eighth grade science book says. This is not my or the Church’s view – this is modern science’s view. So they are on the search for another way to explain life.

In his book, “The Case for a Creator” by Lee Strobel which I recommend just because it is interesting (it will give you a different perspective even if you do not completely buy it) it makes the following point: “If Darwinism is true,” he reports the prominent evolutionary biologist and historian William Provine of Cornell University as saying, “there are five inescapable conclusions:
1 there’s no evidence for God.
2 there’s no life after death.
3 there’s no absolute foundation for right and wrong.
4 there’s no ultimate meaning of life.
5 people don’t really have free will.

Given the choice then of being wrong about a having a Creator or not – I err on the side of having one for life is just too bleak and senseless without him.

Lastly, for Darwinism to be true, he further reports, we must also believe the following:

1 Nothing produces everything.
2 Non-life produces life.
3 Randomness produces fine tuning.
4 Chaos produces organized information.
5 Unconsciousness produces consciousness.
6 Non-reason produces reason.

In the end then I guess I believe because as irrational as faith is, I find accepting this as far more irrational.

PAGAN SKELETONS - CHRISTIAN CLOSETS

Today we get to the series promised two weeks ago! A cyberfriend of Adam’s Ale by the name Atlas has been proposing some very interesting and thought provoking statements as of late in the comments section. They are classic statements of persons who do not have a particular belief in the Church and have many reasons for it.

Atlas, I appreciate your comments and hope you will continue. This is not an effort to convert you primarily. But your comments reflect what a Christian often faces in the world and you have provided me with a wonderful opportunity to reflect on them.

There are other sites that deal more specifically with apologetics and do a fantastic job so this not going to become a solely apologetic blog. For now a will limit myself to Atlas’ comments and a note of thanks to him because it has been fun thinking about it! So, here’s part one:

Atlas said...
To start off, Linda, Easter evolved from a Pagan ritual that celebrated the return of the Sun at the winter solstice. On December 22nd, the days stop getting shorter, it remains in the same spot in the sky for three days (the Sun is Dead), then on December 25th, the Winter Solstice, the Sun Rises and brings with it the coming of Spring and New Life. Christianity overtly stole this ritual from the Sol Invictus and Mithraism. In fact, Constantine the Great was an official member of Sol Invictus and is believed to have spliced the Early Christian cult, Mithraism and the Sol Invictus Cult.

This is not an uncommon claim presented to Christians and if one were truly not well versed in matters of faith and history it might give one pause for concern. Subtle though it is the implication is on one hand that the Christian celebrations lose credence because they are just modified pagan rituals or worse, on the other hand, the Christian story is false, being just a Christianized continuation of the pagan story.

But in a concisely worded response the Catholic Answers website responds:

“The fact that when it was first celebrated the feast of the Resurrection coincided with pagan celebrations doesn’t mean it was derived from them. The Jewish Passover (on which Christ was crucified) also coincided with such celebrations, yet this didn’t mean it was pagan.”

There are some other false implied assertions in such statements also. One would be that everything pagan is bad or evil and that any similarities are thus likewise tainted. C. K. Chesterton wrote on this:

“Let me set about making the matter clear. There is one broad fact about the relations of Christianity and Paganism which is so simple that many will smile at it, but which is so important that all moderns forget it. The primary fact about Christianity and Paganism is that one came after the other. Mr. Lowes Dickinson speaks of them as if they were parallel ideals --even speaks as if Paganism were the newer of the two, and the more fitted for a new age. He suggests that the Pagan ideal will be the ultimate good of man; but if that is so, we must at least ask with more curiosity than he allows for, why it was that man actually found his ultimate good on earth under the stars, and threw it away again. It is this extraordinary enigma to which I propose to attempt an answer.

“There is only one thing in the modern world that has been face to face with Paganism; there is only one thing in the modern world which in that sense knows anything about Paganism: and that is Christianity. That fact is really the weak point in the whole of that hedonistic neo-Paganism of which I have spoken. All that genuinely remains of the ancient hymns or the ancient dances of Europe, all that has honestly come to us from the festivals of Phoebus or Pan, is to be found in the festivals of the Christian Church. If any one wants to hold the end of a chain which really goes back to the heathen mysteries, he had better take hold of a festoon of flowers at Easter or a string of sausages at Christmas. Everything else in the modern world is of Christian origin, even everything that seems most anti-Christian. The French Revolution is of Christian origin. The newspaper is of Christian origin. The anarchists are of Christian origin. Physical science is of Christian origin. The attack on Christianity is of Christian origin. There is one thing, and one thing only, in existence at the present day which can in any sense accurately be said to be of pagan origin, and that is Christianity.”

If you wish to read more of his grand thoughts on this go here.

Another problem is that for the assertion to be entirely true the entire Christian story must be false or the allegation makes no sense. To make that case one would have to first throw out all evidence of the contrary. This too is done a regular basis. Often only extra ecclesial evidence is accepted as untainted and even that which is secularly archived video tape (there were not many videos being made in Jesus’ day) is explained away.

In short, this statement designed to disturb the weak Christian only “works” by smoke and mirrors – winks and nods – innuendo and insinuation. But it is as insubstantial as a Fourth of July firework which may dazzle one for a moment and then becomes nothing more than some burnt pieces of cardboard on the ground.

GUEST BLOG - WHERE CHARITY AND LOVE PREVAIL

C. is our guest blogger today. Thanks C.! I'll enjoy my day off and I'm sure people will enjoy your post!

"THERE GOD IS EVER FOUND"

Several months ago I attended a meeting held by a local apologetics society. I remember shaking the moderator’s hand when it was over and smirking as I told him he was a brave man. The moderator was a pillar of well-formed faith, but this meeting had attracted just about every possible caricature of a Catholic.

There was a middle-aged woman who told us all the wonderful things a New Age nun was teaching her: something about secrets written in Sanskrit and how wind and sand talk to us. Another guy was there with his son and was clearly perturbed about recent scandals in the Church and despite his agitation, was there sincerely seeking faith.

Sitting directly across the table from me was a guy who really knew his stuff! This guy not only knew his faith well, but he also had a lot of secular knowledge that supported the Faith (I was particularly impressed that he knew Nietzsche died in a madhouse.) But every time this guy started to speak, you could feel the tension rise in the room. He didn’t share the Faith…he didn’t present the Faith…he bludgeoned you with it!

I think one of the biggest mistakes faithful, well formed Catholics make it that we think that if we don’t defend the Faith like a bazooka to the face that somehow we are watering it down. There is a difference between zeal and defensiveness.

I remember searching for the fullness of the Faith years ago and even though I was desperate to know the Truth, I was horrified that someone might actually tell me. God was good enough to reveal the Faith to me in chunks that I could deal with, understand, and accept and he gave me time to let my faith grow roots. Now that I have the answers I longed for and am so jazzed about it, sometimes I forget how patient God was with me and I find myself losing my temper as I try and CRAM the Truth down a stubborn person’s throat.

I read a great letter to the editor in This Rock magazine last summer from a “chastened apologist” and it really struck a chord with me. He said he had three rules for doing battle:

1) Stand up. State the truth clearly and dispassionately. Shut up and sit down.


2) Realize the only weapon the Christian possesses is the cross. It is not to be wielded against your opponent. It is to be crawled up on.

3) Live a clean life.

“If you do this, the truth will do the rest. The ontological reality is that all men’s hearts were made for the truth. The truth does not belong to you; it belongs to God, so at best you are a conduit.”

There are situations that call for a little extra zeal, but in general, this guy’s advice works for me. When I must defend the Faith, I try to approach everyone with a mother’s heart and this attitude is almost universally accepted. If you really want to win people over, be there for them when they have problems – your words will carry weight in their minds AND hearts.

I was so impressed with the disgruntled father and son team at that apologetics discussion because I knew if I felt the way they did, this meeting would be the last place I would go. I’m sure they were overwhelmed when it was through. I approached the dad and warmly shook his hand and smiled and said, “I hope you find what you are looking for.” His scowling face turned positively angelic.

Jesus did not give us the cross to bash people over the head with it. We have to ask, “Would I listen to me? Would I be attracted to someone who behaves like I do?” If you want to convey the truths of the Faith in a way that really “seals the deal”, be clear, be gentle, and point people in the direction of resources that can help them live a Godly life. We need to have that strong, uncompromising, joyful, charitable attitude that makes people say, “I want what she’s got!”

IGNORANCE IS NOT BLISS

This post is being written specifically for those who think they do not need to read it. It concerns a certain body of knowledge that many people do not find it necessary to know at the present and figure that when the time comes, there will be plenty of knowledgeable people and handy resources to help them through. Such is not the case.

Most likely one day you find yourself in need of this information. Life will be going on somewhat normally and all of a sudden people will be looking to you to make a decision. If you are lucky you will have a few days to decide. If you are not, you will have someone standing in front of you looking at the second hand of his watch and saying, “We need a decision.”

The body of knowledge is bioethics. Or more specifically Catholic bioethics. At the very moment you need the information the most, chances are you will not have ready access to it. Not everybody thinks like you do and not everybody has the same intentions that you do. Some people are simply avoiding lawsuits. Some people are making money. Some people are very sincere but have different values from you. Some people do not care. Nobody is as invested in the relationship in which you are asked to make a decision as you.

At this point you do not want to just call a priest and ask, “What should I do?” You want to know “whys” and options and true teachings of Christ not something easily grasped in desperate moments. You want to be able to say to others who are emotionally involved, “This is why our decision is alright,” not just, “Father said so.”

We also do not have a bioethics “hot line” though that would be very cool. As we have less and less priests, they are less and less available to be able to sit by a phone 24 hours a day, seven days a week just in case they are needed at the hospital. It is sad but nonetheless a fact. Far too many “chaplains” at hospitals, nursing homes, and even many hospices do not get extensive training in care for Catholics. For many it is just a section in a workbook that they turn to and it may very well be that they are not very invested so as to be able to enlighten you and know fine points.

Until this situation is corrected it is time to arm yourselves with knowledge.

TO LIKE AND BE LIKED - TO LOVE AND RISK NOT BEING LOVED

Knowing that I would probably need a day off from the computer after Easter, C. has graciously composed this guest blog for our edification on this Easter Wednesday.

There is nothing more crippling to the Christian message than the thought, “Please like me!” How many times has it you kept you quiet when you should speak?

I received a life-altering ray of light while surfing channels a few years ago. Mother Angelica was explaining the concept of “human respect”, how Jesus didn’t have it and neither should we. It suddenly dawned on me that my greatest deterrent to talking about my faith was my desire to be liked. The desire to make the message somehow “cool” was making me into pathetic mute. This little gram of understanding liberated me completely, and I began talking about my faith when the situation demanded it, and I didn’t care about the consequences. The results have been amazingly positive. My greatest unfounded fear was that talking about the hard issues courageously was going to make me hated, and I am still prepared for that. But to my surprise, I have been showered in love and gratitude.

Great opportunities are missed by fearing the wrath of unreceptive ears. Don’t be afraid of the angry people. They’re not so far away as you think. I used to flip past EWTN as quickly as possible for fear I might hear something challenging that I didn’t want to hear. I remember that subtle desire to think that those priests and nuns were really shams, then I wouldn’t have to feel so guilty about my own faults. Bishop Sheen once said that passion is a force and it has to choose a direction. I know from experience that what looks like anger is really fear of the message and its implications. Understanding can change fear into loving acceptance, but if we don’t have the courage to lead people to understanding, then were losing valuable members of the team, people who can launch their passion in the direction of Truth rather than rebellion. Anger and attitude are easy. The humble consideration of, “Maybe I’m wrong” is an act of the will that is hard to come by, but the grace to do that has made several 180 degree turns in my life. If we Christians “in the know” don’t lead others to that, who will?

How many bowls of homiletic porridge have been offered to the god of being liked? Listen, all you religious out there: if getting us to like you is your mission, mission accomplished! We’re falling all over ourselves liking you. But is that your mission? It’s good to educate AND be engaging, but which is your real goal? I think sometimes priests make the same modern mistake that some parents do: they want to be their kid’s pal rather than their parent. Your position is so much more powerful than “pal”! The dignity of the collar, the disinterested love, even a holy detachment, they fill us with awe of something greater and more powerful than that! There’s a time and a place for “pal” just not in the context of the sacraments. Don’t be afraid to upset us. If you are going to deliver the message authentically, you like St. Paul are going to be “disturbers of the peace”. Bishop Lennon recently reiterated that parents need to be the primary catechists of their children. He’s right. 100%. The only reason I persevere in the faith is because of my parents. But I fear he might just as well have said, “Let them eat cake.” We can’t give what we never received. It’s up to you in the pulpit to re-catechize us.

When I was looking of for the fullness of my faith, I was so skittish I could barely get near the very message I sought. I remember reading about St. Pio (not a subtle guy) criticizing immodest dress, and it was like a flamethrower in the face. At the time I was a poor little fat girl who suddenly whipped herself into shape and thought the best way to celebrate this fact was to dress like a hooker. Can you imagine my horror of any talk of modesty?! I wanted the message so badly, but I was as afraid of it as a vampire of holy water. Just because I wanted the message doesn’t mean I wouldn’t have hissed at you if you tried to deliver it. I didn’t “like” St. Pio for what he said, but I needed to hear it. Now I know that he also said, “Pray, hope, and don’t worry” and “Be sweet and loveable in everything”. Like all things Catholic, it is not either/or but both/and. It’s not a choice between gentle and direct. We need both.

Truth be told, I love Mother Angelica and Fr. Corapi but I STILL am not comfortable with what they say. I watch them like I watch a horror movie, peeking between my fingers lest I see something I don’t like. But the only truly life-altering messages I ever got came from them. Frankly I think they are improving with age, getting mellow like a fine wine. Mother has slowed down, and Fr. is getting grey. The message is clear as ever, but it is more of a roaring furnace of charity than a flamethrower. That’s my idea of the perfect delivery. It works for me every time. None of us are called to be tyrants. Christ did not give us the cross to bash people over the head with it. But every man is called to a father and every woman a mother, either literally or spiritually, and if we don’t want our kids to end up in prison, we’ve got to be clear on how to live a good Christian life. Our kids aren’t always going to “like” us, but that’s not our goal. Our goal is to get them to heaven, and for that they are going to more than like us, they will love us.