40 Memes on Politics, Faith, and the American Culture

Against the Atheistic Notion of Faith

I was not always a person of faith, as I have noted in some of my past writings.  In fact, it seemed that the only “religious faith” I used to have was that my quasi-mighty Portland Trailblazers were going to win the NBA championship each and every new season that started.  Talk about misplaced faith!  In fact, being the arrogant snot that I was, I tried to “prove” that God didn’t exist while still in my late teens and early twenties; something which now seems as utterly preposterous as it was arrogant.  Needless to say, I have thankfully matured (some) intellectually, emotionally, and definitely spiritually over the years since.

All of that said, I have run into and debated more than a few atheists in recent years, long after my conversion to faith in God and Catholicism.  Sadly some of those atheists are members within my own extended family.  One of the reoccurring memes that keeps arising from many of my atheistic debating friends, either implicitly or explicitly, is this twisted notion of what they think faith is.

Many atheists and agnostics today seem to be of a similar mindset that faith is nothing more than an appeal to superstition.  To them, it is a naivety that is born of ignorance or a disdain of science.  And while it is accurate to say that certain religious faiths could indeed be construed in such a way, the cardinal theological virtue of faith as taught by the Catholic Church is nothing of the sort.  (The other two of the three cardinal theological virtues are hope and love, in case you cared.)

What faith truly means in the context of that theology is not some archaic medieval reliance on God as an all-encompassing explanation because we don’t understand the esoteric realities of the physical world.  True faith is not irrational or sub-rational.  It certainly does not lie below the threshold of reason.  Indeed the virtue of faith is a surrender on the far side of reason.  It is informed in its foundation, and as such it is merely a “leap beyond the place currently illumined by philosophy and science,” as Father Barron has so eloquently said.  Further paraphrasing him, this created war between faith and  reason is a matter born of a misunderstanding of what faith truly is by an ever-growing secular society.

Most atheists seem to think that faith is the antonym of reason.  It is contrary to science in their estimation.  The irony of that mindset is not lost on those who truly do understand the virtue of faith.  Indeed it was belief and faith that were often the catalysts for many brilliant scientists to want to discover the intricacies and explanations of our Devine Creator God and his universe.  It was men and women of faith, specifically in the Catholic mold, that were responsible for the creation of many of the modern sciences and even the university system via the Catholic Church. 

The list of luminaries in the history of the sciences often show people of true faith to be the very founders of certain branches of study or discoverers of new scientific theories.  Indeed, it is interesting to note how many fathers of the various sciences were actually Fathers (priests).  Father Gregor Mendel was the founder of genetic science.  Father Georges Lemaitre was the scientist that proposed the big bang theory.  Father Roger Joseph Boscovich was responsible for the precursors of atomic theory, as well as being a brilliant astronomer and polymath.  Father Roger Bacon is credited with being the father of the modern scientific method.  The list of Catholic scientists that understand and are practitioners of the theological virtue of faith is impressive, even into these modern times. 

So you see, faith is not an anti-science and anti-reason philosophy or mindset.  On the contrary, it is by that light of faith that we can see past the darkness on the path that science and philosophy has not yet illuminated the way for us yet in order to make ever greater discoveries and thereby further substantiate our faith in God and his creation.  True faith and reason are not only compatible, but as history has shown, are often a great catalyst in the furthering of science – in great spite of all atheistic claims to the contrary.

Defending the Faith

I am annoyed.  It seems that I keep finding conversations, blog posts, Facebook comments, news stories, political pundit diatribes, and most alarmingly even devout members of my own faith who are manipulating Christianity to fit in with their personal viewpoints and agendas lately.  (Disclaimer:  I have been guilty of this in the past too, largely due to my own ignorance.)

I am sorry to have to tell all of you good folks, and indeed many of you are wonderful and loving people, but you are NOT the arbiter of the Christian faith.  You cannot dictate what the tenets of Christianity are.  You cannot modify Christian doctrine or eliminate those parts that are inconvenient to your way of thinking, or to justify your lifestyle.  You cannot re-interpret or modify what Christ and His Apostles meant because it will make for a stronger point in an argument for you.  You cannot decide which parts of the moral law or catechism are no longer relevant. 

If you are Catholic, you cannot modify the Nicene Creed to meet your new enlightened world view.  If you are Protestant, you cannot personally interpret scripture to tell us what you are certain Christ really meant.  If you are a secularist, you cannot morph Jesus into some less than Divine, but still all-around-good-guy-philosopher-new-age guru and still call it Christianity.

You simply do not have that right or authority.

And neither do I.

It was Christ himself, the second person of the Holy Trinity, that established His church on earth.  Christ was the one who taught what the tenets of the faith were in His culmination and fulfillment of Jewish Old Testament prophecies.  It was our Lord Christ who bequeathed the power and authority to His apostles to keep and teach that Christian faith that He established.  Indeed, in the Gospel of Matthew, Christ emphatically stated to his apostle Peter the following:

“And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."  -Matthew 16: 18-19

Christianity is a revealed religion.  It has been handed down from Christ to Peter and His apostles in an unbroken line of apostolic succession of popes over these last two millennia.  The authentic Christian faith is not open to interpretation.  Not by Arius, Luther, or Smith, and certainly not by politicians such as Obama, Bush, Romney, or Pelosi.

One has to either accept, or reject, the full Deposit of Faith as handed down from Christ through his apostles and their successors.  If that is not satisfactory, you may start your own church based on your own interpretations and beliefs, but don’t assume that it is also an authentic Christian church.

Now that is not to say that there aren’t many churches which do wonderful good deeds and have very loving and holy people within their congregations that try very hard to live their lives and faith as they THINK Christ would want them to do.  The problem is that often times these “Christian churches” practice their faith based on the erroneous interpretation of some pastor instead of what Christ actually revealed to us.

It is not for ANY of us to interpret what Christ meant.  That authority was given from God in the person of Christ to the very first pope, Peter.  That authority was given to His church in its Magisterium.  In other words, that authority to bind and loose and teach what Christ revealed to us lies with our current Pope Benedict XVI and his bishops.  This teaching authority of what constitutes Christianity resides within the Magisterium of the Church that Christ established on earth.  That authority does not reside with ANYONE ELSE, and it certainly doesn’t reside with me.   

The Magisterium, guided by the Holy Spirit, protects the Deposit of Faith from any deviation, addition, subtraction, reversal, contradiction, distortion, or destruction offered by those who wish Church teaching to be something it is not.   Again, not even the gates of the netherworld will prevail against Christ’s own Church.  The Holy Spirit will defend God’s Church and its teachings accordingly. 

When told something about Christianity by a well-meaning person, or sadly sometimes by a not-so-well-meaning person, that happens to be contradictory to what Christ has taught, it is incumbent upon Christians to politely but firmly point out the truth.  Truth about Christianity is not open to their interpretation or my interpretation of the faith, but rather it must come ultimately from Christ himself.  To make sure that we follow His truth, logic would suggest that we follow what His Magisterium teaches on his behalf.  Relying on any other person, no matter how well-meaning or holy, will only lead us astray accordingly.

A Man of Faith

A few weeks ago, a good man and friend of mine that has returned to the Catholic faith decided to join the Knights of Columbus, which is a fraternal organization of Catholic gentlemen dedicated to Christ, Church, and service to the community.

Well during the first degree ceremony to initiate my friend into the Knights, I heard one of the other Knights speak about the "Romanian" that would be joining that evening as well. I had the privilege to shake my friend's hand after the ceremony as well as the hand of the "Romanian". I thought little more about it until this last weekend.

You see, we had a short retreat early Saturday morning for the 43 members of RCIA that would be officially joining the Catholic Church during the Easter Vigil Mass later that evening. (The Mass was beautiful and very joyous to watch as these good people glowingly went through the sacraments of baptism, confirmation, and first communion, by the way.) Anyway, after the retreat, I noticed the "Romanian" was helping some other volunteers to prepare the church for the Easter Vigil that evening.

At one point, I went up to him to thank him for his work in helping to prepare the nave for that evening. It was something that I did as a spur of the moment after-thought as I was walking past him. I am so glad that I stopped and took the time to talk to the "Romanian", who goes by the name of John. Our conversation that transpired was amazing and inspiring.

John began to tell me his story of how he came to America. He had grown up and lived in the Transylvania region of Romania for most of his 61 years behind the iron curtain of the cold war.

John lived under the very brutal dictatorship of Nikolae Ceausescu. Ceausescu was one of the very evil rulers of this Soviet Union satellite nation that seemingly delighted in the persecution of his people. In particular, there was no place for God and Christianity in Ceausescu's Romania, just as there was not in any nation trapped behind the iron curtain.

Well, with the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Soviet Union, the people of Romania overthrew Nikolai Ceausescu and his wife Elena and executed them both for their crimes perpetrated against the Romanian people; A people that were severely punished or killed for choosing to worship God during Ceausescu's reign.

John said that he always believed in Christ though, even despite the knowledge that should that become public, he would possibly suffer a horrible fate.

Well John relayed how he eventually came to the United States seven years ago. He did his best to tell his story in his broken and poor English. (Unfortunately my Romanian skills are non-existent). John spoke of his faith and the magnificence of God, Christ, and the Church and how lucky we are without even knowing it that we are free to worship God as we please. It is something that seemed to amaze him how many people took this basic tenet of freedom for granted here.

John further told me and showed me pictures of his two stunningly beautiful daughters, who both are professional models in California, and of his beloved twin grand-daughters. He is exceptionally proud of his family and the fact that his daughters have taken advantage of America's blessings and have availed themselves of good college educations as well.

He inspired me with his marveling at our nation's freedoms and blessings. Although I am very aware of the exceptionalism of this last great nation that still is a shining city on the hill, admittedly I too take many of our freedoms for granted. John in his broken English and with emotion in his eyes and his hands clasped as if in prayer reminded me that our freedoms are indeed blessings from God and that they must be fiercely defended. And he is a man that knows of which he speaks. I am grateful to him and to God for this divine reminder!

Let's Talk About Faith

I occasionally read the New York Times just to keep abreast of what the left-wing nut jobs are thinking. As Sun Tzu said, "Know your enemy!". Usually it evokes responses of laughter or the occasional conniption fit from me. I am sure my blood pressure is always elevated by the time I am finished with this readership-loosing rag, but every once in awhile there is some actual good reporting and on VERY rare occasions a thoughtful and insightful editorial is to be found. This happens to be a rather good one for a surprising change that was written by Ross Douthat so I thought I would share. Enjoy!

Let’s Talk About Faith

By ROSS DOUTHAT of the New York Times

Published: January 10, 2010

Liberal democracy offers religious believers a bargain. Accept, as a price of citizenship, that you may never impose your convictions on your neighbor, or use state power to compel belief. In return, you will be free to practice your own faith as you see fit — and free, as well, to compete with other believers (and nonbelievers) in the marketplace of ideas.

That’s the theory. In practice, the admirable principle that nobody should be persecuted for their beliefs often blurs into the more illiberal idea that nobody should ever publicly criticize another religion. Or champion one’s own faith as an alternative. Or say anything whatsoever about religion, outside the privacy of church, synagogue or home.

A week ago, Brit Hume broke all three rules at once. Asked on a Fox News panel what advice he’d give to the embattled Tiger Woods, Hume suggested that the golfer consider converting to Christianity. “He’s said to be a Buddhist,” Hume noted. “I don’t think that faith offers the kind of forgiveness and redemption that is offered by the Christian faith. ”

A great many people immediately declared that this comment was the most outrageous thing they’d ever heard. Hume’s words were replayed by Jon Stewart on the Daily Show, to shocked laughter from the audience. They were denounced across the blogosphere as evidence of chauvinism, bigotry and gross stupidity. MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann claimed, absurdly, that Hume had tried to “threaten Tiger Woods into becoming a Christian.” His colleague David Shuster suggested that Hume had “denigrated” his own religion by discussing it on a talk show.

The Washington Post’s TV critic, Tom Shales, mocked the idea that Christians should “run around trying to drum up new business” for their faith. Hume “doesn’t really have the authority,” Shales suggested — unless of course “one believes that every Christian by mandate must proselytize.” (This is, of course, exactly what Christians are supposed to believe.)

Somewhat more plausibly, a few of Hume’s critics suggested that had he been a Buddhist commentator urging a Christian celebrity to convert — or more provocatively, a Muslim touting the advantages of Islam — Christians would be calling for his head.

No doubt many would. The tendency to take offense at freewheeling religious debate is widespread. There are European Christians who side with Muslims in support of blasphemy laws, lest Jesus or the Prophet Muhammad have his reputation sullied. There are American Catholics who cry “bigotry” every time a newspaper columnist criticizes the church’s teaching on sexuality. Many Christians have decided that the best way to compete in an era of political correctness is to play the victim card.

But these believers are colluding in their own marginalization. If you treat your faith like a hothouse flower, too vulnerable to survive in the crass world of public disputation, then you ensure that nobody will take it seriously. The idea that religion is too mysterious, too complicated or too personal to be debated on cable television just ensures that it never gets debated at all.

This doesn’t mean that we need to welcome real bigotry into our public discourse. But what Hume said wasn’t bigoted: Indeed, his claim about the difference between Buddhism and Christianity was perfectly defensible. Christians believe in a personal God who forgives sins. Buddhists, as a rule, do not. And it’s at least plausible that Tiger Woods might welcome the possibility that there’s Someone out there capable of forgiving him, even if Elin Nordegren and his corporate sponsors never do.

Or maybe not. For many people — Woods perhaps included — the fact that Buddhism promotes an ethical life without recourse to Christian concepts like the Fall of Man, divine judgment and damnation is precisely what makes it so appealing. The knee-jerk outrage that greeted Hume’s remarks buried intelligent responses from Buddhists, who made arguments along these lines — explaining their faith, contrasting it with Christianity, and describing how a lost soul like Woods might use Buddhist concepts to climb from darkness into light.

When liberal democracy was forged, in the wake of Western Europe’s religious wars, this sort of peaceful theological debate is exactly what it promised to deliver. And the differences between religions are worth debating. Theology has consequences: It shapes lives, families, nations, cultures, wars; it can change people, save them from themselves, and sometimes warp or even destroy them.

If we tiptoe politely around this reality, then we betray every teacher, guru and philosopher — including Jesus of Nazareth and the Buddha both — who ever sought to resolve the most human of all problems: How then should we live?

It’s reasonable to doubt that a cable news analyst has the right answer to this question. But the debate that Brit Hume kicked off a week ago is still worth having. Indeed, it’s the most important one there is.