Cosmos-Liturgy-Sex

Pope Benedict, during his general audience, spoke of the necessity of theologians maintaining a  sense of humility by using Tertullian as an example:

“…, this man who made such a great contribution to Christian thought. It is clear that in the end he lacked the simplicity and humility to be part of the Church, to accept her weaknesses. When one sees only one’s own ideas, in all their greatness, in the end it is precisely this greatness that is lost. The essential characteristic of great theologians is the humility to remain with the Church, to accept her weaknesses and their own, because only God is truly holy. We, on the other hand, always have need of forgiveness.”

Words of wisdom for all of us to live by, being either towards the Church or each other - the foundation of true freedom.

I guess you could say Frances Kissling, who dared The Church to excommunicate her for her pro-abortion advocacy, and I have something in common- neither of us knew anything about excommunication latae sententiae. First Things explains how and why Catholics who advocate for abortion actually excommunicate themselves.

The issue of excommunication persists, however, because canon law treats abortion much more severely than most other kinds of wrongdoing. It imposes on the canonical crime of procuring an abortion a so-called latae sententiae excommunication (canon 1398). An excommunication latae sententiae attaches to the offender merely because he has performed the prohibited action and without any judicial action by the Church—indeed without any further action by anyone whatsoever. The penalty is imposed automatically, or, as an American lawyer might say, by operation of law. Ecclesiastical authority will, at most, take note of the fact that the wrongdoer has incurred the penalty.

Hence, when Catholic politicians violate the canon, the Church should declare openly that they have incurred the penalty of excommunication latae sententiae.

Note to Ms. Kissling – best wishes on your book deals and safe travels on your speaking tour.

Update: (Important comment left by Jeff Miller/ Curt Jester) -

Unfortunately I think he misrepresents the Canon. No Canonist has extended the Canon on “Procuring” an abortion to those who vote to make it law. Rome has not interpreted this Canon this way. If they did there would never had been any talk about giving pro-abortion politicians Communion since those who are excommunicated automatically are not allowed Communion.

Canonist Ed Peters who is quite reliable has posted on this multiple times on his blog.

The Pope was asked a question about the Mexican bishops and excommunicating pro-abortion politicians. So far these Bishops have not in fact excommunicated anybody, but if they did the Pope would be totally behind them because they certainly can. The real issue is not whether they incurred an automatic excommunication, but the fact that under Canon law they should in fact be denied Communion for this.

From the creators of the reality series Big Brother is a controversial show called The Big Donor Show, where a 37 year old woman gets to choose which of three “contestants” will receive her kidney. Viewers will also be able to send in their advice by text message during the 80-minute show. Who knows, maybe they have some swell consolation prizes to give away as well.

Update: It seems it was a kind of publicity stunt to raise awareness for the need for organs. Thanks Monica.

O God,
by whose mercy the faithful departed find rest,
look kindly on your departed veterans who gave their
lives in the service of their country.
Grant that through the passion, death, and resurrection of your Son
they may share in the joy of your heavenly kingdom
and rejoice in you with your saints forever.
We ask this through Christ our Lord.

Judicial Watch has attained information from the FDA under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act on adverse events of the HPV vaccine. Included were three deaths, two of which were teens, who died from cardiac events and/or blood clots. Other adverse events included spontaneous abortions, fetal abnormalities and a significant amount neurological disorders (Bells Palsy, Guillain-Barre Syndrome, speech disorders and seizures) – some of which were determined to be permanent disabilities. The adverse events were reported in girls as young as 7 years old with a significant majority of the events being reported on girls 17 years and younger.

According Merck’s safety profile in their package insert, they stated that there was no evidence of harm to the fetus, nor was their any mention of neurological adverse events – both of which appeared repeatedly on the adverse event reports. What is probably most disturbing is the prevalence of spontaneous abortions which have occurred on the same day of the patient receiving the HPV vaccine, but the bureaucrats at the FDA and CDC fail to see, or refuse to assume a possibility of a link between the drug and fetal destruction.

FDA spokesperson Karen Riley said the agency has been monitoring adverse events associated with Gardasil but has not “seen anything at this point that would suggest we’d make any changes in the product.” John Iskander, acting director of the Immunization Safety Office at CDC, said, “None of the information I’m aware of or have seen suggests that there’s any pattern here linking birth outcomes to the vaccine.” Iskander added that pregnant women who have received the vaccine should “make sure they’re enrolled in the registry and make sure they keep up with their routine prenatal care”

Of the 18 adverse events experienced by pregnant women, 16 involved miscarriages. Richard Haupt, executive director of medical affairs for Merck, said that Gardasil likely did not cause the miscarriages (even though a majority of cases occurred just hours after the HPV injection), adding that miscarriages are common during the first three months of pregnancy. According to the Journal, one pregnant woman was found to have an abnormal fetus and another woman’s fetus was found to have an increased risk of fetal defects; however, outcomes have not been reported in the two cases.

This drug was declared safe for pregnant women based on the studies of mice, and the employee from Merck making the asinine statement which minimizes the seriousness of miscarriages by calling them “common” during the first three months of pregnancy is irrelevant to the facts. There is just cause to, at the very least, issue a product warning for pregnant women.

The burden of this dangerous immunization (which is suspiciously dissimilar to it’s FDA approval safety profile) being assumed by young girls receiving the HPV vaccine, without any evidence of the vaccine’s efficacy beyond four years is, at the very least, irresponsible – bordering on criminal. Can you imagine being the parent whose daughter died at the age of 12 after learning it was fully effective for only 4 – 6 years from a cancer of which comprises of less than 1% of the total cancer deaths in woman?

H/T LifeSite

In our parish we have two hymnals. One is full mainly of Protestant hymnody –the Red Book– and the other is primarily loaded with what is nowadays distressingly referred to by the younger generations as “traditional” Catholic music –the Blue Book. These are songs that were written mostly in the 1980s by some guitar players from St. Louis. Both books come from “Catholic” music publishers.

At times my distaste for the music in one of the books will become manifest and the response of my interlocutor often goes something like this: “you mean you like the Red Book?” It is a great shame that these comprise the extent of the liturgical music options for most parishes in the US today. It’s either the red book or the blue book. Neither of them proffer the excellence that is to be found in the great liturgical music patrimony of the Catholic Church. Ironically, nor do they comport with the wishes of the Second Vatican Council Fathers which are often cited as justification for the seriously wanting liturgical music that we have today.

An article I read recently from Catholic World Report discusses the issue from the perspective of the democratizing tendencies of Western culture and it shows how good music is antithetical to this notion. I think that the author makes some good points. While it was not the purpose of the article to analyze this, I think though, that the problem is two-fold.

First, the majority of the current “old guard” liturgical musicologists reject the Church’s teaching on the meaning of the liturgy. They do not see the liturgy as the making present of an eternal reality and effecting (i.e. making present in time) the grace poured out in time 2000 years ago by an eternal Person when He died on the Cross and rose again 3 days later. They do not recognize it as a real participation in a heavenly wedding feast whereby heaven touches earth. They do not recognize in it, the manifestation and recapitulation in time of the Trinitarian cosmic liturgy (see About This Blog under the header for more on this). Rather, it is usually seen as an opportunity for emoting and for psychological satisfaction. Thus, music is for them more a matter of taste than anything else.

Second, they do not recognize that music has an ontology that comports with the created order and has universal potency to effect experiences of the transcendent, the mundane, or the profane. Thus, there is not much of a possibility for a theology of music or of dialogue about the appropriateness or inappropriateness of certain musical forms for the liturgy (even if one could come to an agreement about the meaning of the liturgy).

Now some who are favorable to both an authentic liturgical and musical theology, will point out that music is simply an accident and for the sake of Church “harmony” (a bad pun) it should not be made to be a big issue (St. Augustine is oft cited here). It is true that it is an accident (thankfully). However, one might respond that while green is a perfectly good color, as a hair color it doesn’t work. Rather it works to deny the authentic nature of the substance in which it inheres. The same thing can and does happen with music in the liturgy.

There is a nature to the liturgy. The liturgy, as I intimated above, reflects the economic manifestation of Trinitarian Communion. This includes the divine condescension, human divinization, and nuptial return of The Bride with Her Bridegroom to the Father and Her filial participation in Trinitarian Communion in the Son. Liturgical music must reflect this liturgical movement. Most of current day music rather, reflects the sense that we are stuck in the condescension (if it even reflects the condescension at all). The music may be technically good or bad, simple or sophisticated. However, if it is “green” it does belong in the liturgy. There are of course varying degrees of inappropriateness as there are varying degrees of accord of music with the nature of the liturgy. I am not prepared (or qualified) to make anything but general observations. However, a few of us will be discussing this issue in more detail over the summer months so you can be sure that as we proceed I will share with you the insights of our discussions. My hope is that these discussions will help in being able to draw some more concrete conclusions.

H/T to Disciple of the Dumb Ox for the story on Frances Kissling who is taunting Catholic hiearchy for their lack of action in excommunicating her and other Catholics who publicly support abortion.

Kissling writes, Every so often some Roman Catholic hierarch gets a bee in his beanie and makes noises about excommunicating some pro-choice policy maker. Ultra-orthodox Catholics are ecstatic, and even mainstream newspapers turn into tabloids rushing to report the imminence of something that never happens.

In the absence of any willingness from the hierarchy to issue an actual, formal bull of excommunication, which requires due process, warnings and canonical justification, conservative church leaders prefer ambiguity. Kissling, however, points out that with all the official expressions of concern for abortion, nothing happens to the makers of the liberalized laws. The pope — and it seems most Catholic bishops — do not excommunicate; they equivocate.

She is also daring The Church to excommunicate her so she can make money on book deals and a speaking tour.

Kevorkian is scheduled to be paroled on June 1st, after serving just over eight years of his 10-25 year sentence for second-degree murder in the televised death of Thomas Youk. Kevorkian’s parole of two years includes the provision of banning him from attending any assisted suicides or acting as a caregiver for seniors or the disabled.  For those interested, you many want to read Wesley J. Smith’s rather disturbing piece on Kevorkian published in The Daily Standard.

 Kevorkian put his suicide machines to work terminating the lives of scores of disabled people. Indeed, about 70 percent of the nearly 130 people who died in Kevorkian’s rusty van or other venues were not terminally ill. Most were disabled and depressed. At least five had no discernible illnesses whatsoever upon autopsy.

This has been the truth about Kevorkian from the very start. In 1991, Kevorkian’s second victim, Marjorie Wantz, complained bitterly about unresolved pelvic pain. But she was an emotionally disturbed woman who had been in mental hospitals. Her autopsy showed no discernible pathology of any kind.

Kevorkian, who has claimed to have been responsible for approximately 130 deaths during the1990’s, is currently diagnosed with hepatitis C and diabetes, and has a life expectancy of less than one year. It just so happens, that he graduated from the same medical school, The University of Michigan Medical School, as our friend over at Scorpion Stalking Duck.

H/T: LifeSite

Philanthropist Robert W. Wilson said he is giving $22.5 million to the Archdiocese of New York for needy inner-city students attending Roman Catholic schools. He said that although he’s an atheist, he has no problem donating money to a fund linked to Catholic schools.

“Let’s face it, without the Roman Catholic Church, there would be no Western civilization,” Wilson said. “Shunning religious organizations would be abhorrent. Keep in mind, I’m helping to pay tuition, the money isn’t going directly to the schools.”  Wilson’s donation is the largest the archdiocese has ever received. The money will be used to fund the Cardinal’s Scholarship Program, which was started in 2005 to give disadvantaged students attending the archdiocese’s inner-city schools partial or full tuition grants.

An anonymous donor has given an additional $4.5 million to the archdiocese after learning of Wilson’s gift.

Sinead O’Connor, notorious for ripping a picture of JPTG on Saturday Night Live (Video disclaimer: may increase blood pressure) which, for all practical purposes, ended her career. She later went on to became a Catholic “priestess” in 1999 at a ceremony staged in Lourdes by a breakaway Catholic group. Now, in an effort to resurrect her career, again, is trying her hand in inspirational music which is comprised of Biblical psalms.

Singer Sinead O’Connor, who once inflamed Catholic sensibilities when she ripped up a picture of Pope John II, hopes a new batch of psalm based songs will cast off the brash, shaven-headed image accorded her 20 years ago. Theology, her new album to be released next month, turns Old Testament psalms into songs that she delivers with the same powerful voice and signature sound that made her instantly recognisable after her major 1990 hit “Nothing Compares 2 U”.

She muses that she might want to do a record of Gregorian chants, “kids songs at some point” or arias opera songs. “You know, sung in a normal voice with just like a guitar, a punk version of opera songs, like the Sex Pistols go to the opera.”

Can anyone say flop? I just don’t see a market for it.

Source: MSNBC

Here is a great story from the ole homestead that you may have already seen. Nevertheless, the San Antonio Express News reports on a Father and Son ordination to the Diaconate last Saturday. The son was ordained a transitional deacon in the Legionaries of Christ and the father a permanent deacon in the Archdiocese of San Antonio. Both were ordained by Archbishop Gomez, the local ordinary. In fact, it was the son who inspired his father to deepen his knowledge of his faith and eventually led to the father’s ordination. Go read the story. It is a good one.

Boston Globe article by Dean Barnett provides the reason for his pro-life stance, which is based on reason alone:

You might expect that since I’m pro-life, I would argue that life begins at conception. Actually, that’s not quite right. In answering the question of when life begins, the best I can do is say “I don’t know.” Life may begin at conception. It may begin during pregnancy. Or it may begin at childbirth. While I have a feeling that life begins at conception, I certainly can’t prove it.

“Who are you to foist your values on others?” That’s a common question in the abortion debate, and yet it has no rightful place in the argument. It’s the precise moral and logical equivalent of antebellum Southerners saying that blacks weren’t human beings, and that slavery opponents had no right to even question their peculiar institution. History has judged that argument harshly, and rightly so.

While I don’t agree with Barnett that one cannot know from reason alone when human life begins (it clearly begins at conception), he still makes an important point. Logical, rational thought should trump wishful thinking and irrational emotions every time! The fact is that proabortionists say they cannot prove when life begins. Here the answer is obvious.  One must ask the question: when it comes down to another human life, when should one have the right to err on the side of recklessness?

Mario Landolfi, of the formerly neo-fascist National Alliance, had communicated with the director-general of the Italian Public Television network urging him not to allow the screening of the documentary that accuses Pope Benedict XVI of being directly responsible for a systemic sex-abuse cover up . He feared that airing the documentary called Sex Crimes and the Vatican would be to turn the public network into an “execution squad ready to open fire on the church and the pope”.

The film made by Colm O’Gorman, founder of a charity for abuse victims, mis-represented a document written by Pope Benedict, while he was a Cardinal, that addressed the secrecy and the misuse of information gathered in the confessional as a secret document that imposed an oath of secrecy on the child victim, the priest and any witness of the abuse.

Is it just coincidence that this documentary get publicity just as things are coming to a boiling point in Italy over same-sex marriage? It was also aired right after the pope was accused offending Muslims in his Regensberg Germany speech.

Planned parenthood demanded the following videos be taken off YouTube and be provided with the originals. The video was taken with a concealed camera at a planned parenthood clinic where an employee was helping what she thought was an underage teen, falsify documents so they would not have to report the child abuse that lead to the pregnancy to authorities.

The videos I found have subtitles and enhanced audio. I’m not sure why they added what looks like a music video, I thought it was rather distractive and a little annoying.

For the past 22 years Fr. Leaon has been sexually involved with a female parishioner and while he admits what he has done (and continues to do) has hurt The Lord, he also believes that his relationship “has brought real fruits to The Church“. In support for Fr. Leaon who has been sanctioned and can no longer say Mass, the parishioners have been boycotting the Mass with their new priest for the last three weeks.

The BBC article reads more like a soap opera review than that of a sad and tragic story of a Roman Catholic priest and parish who had lost it’s way. While Fr. Leaon appears to acknowledge what he has done has been hurtful to God, there’s evidence to him, in his own mind that what he is doing is o.k. because he see’s the “fruit” of his sin. How typical is it in some of us who struggle with sin, to find anyway possible to justify doing what we do, because we hold on the appetite of our sins, and in someways, fear the thought of letting them go.

We were “owned” by some hacker named freeze for the last 24 hours or so, but things look to be back to normal. Thankfully, he pretty much left everything alone once he took control of our dashboard, but I must say that I was close to my wit’s end after being redirected to his website after each of my 1000+ attempts to access our own dashboard.

The good that came from all this was there is no damage done, and we are now hopefully more protected from future hackers, who may not be so merciful.

Catholic Archbishop of Russia, Tadeusz Kondrusiewicz, has strongly rejected the practice of “proselytism”,  which, according to the article, “is conversion of Orthodox Russian into Catholicism”(?).

”Russia is above all an Orthodox country and it is the Russian Orthodox Church that is responsible in the first place for converting people”. The archbishop also stressed that the Catholics were called ‘together with Orthodox brothers’ to take part in the conversion of people, ‘helping each other and strictly observing the teaching of the Catholic Church that proselytism is absolutely unacceptable and cannot constitute a strategy for the development of our (Catholic – IF) structures either in Russia or in any other country in the world’.

Archbishop Kondrusiewicz also said ‘It is completely wrong’, to understand the Fatima prediction of Russia’s turning to God as meaning a conversion to Catholicism as Mary spoke only of a conversion in general.

Maybe I lost his definition of proselytism in the translation. So, I’ll cautiously assume Archbishop Tadeusz Kondrusiewicz’s rejection of proselytism is referring to the use of unfair and coercive methods leading to conversion. But I must question the judgment of his confident belief and vocal conviction that it is “completely wrong” to believe our Blessed Mother’s prediction of a Russian conversion was never meant to be understood as, to the Catholic church. Given statements like this, the Archbishop can rest assured no one could ever accuse him of proselytising a soul to Catholicism.

Our Holy Land experience in a 3:35 video.

Windows Media player (better quality video). If it doesn’t download right away, you can just click the link which will launch your personal media player.

Download link

or from youtube.

If you have been reading this blog for any length of time, you might be asking yourself what the heck is this guy doing writing about Catholic, or for that matter any, literary matters. This would be an excellent observation. I don’t intend to write about the literary arts per se, rather, on a particular concern associated with the. Some time ago I posted on a book by a Catholic novelist on the issue of chastity.

It was a good book but I had some misgivings about some of the content (actually a quite small part). However, it was very much in line of what you might read from Walker Percy or Flannery O’Connor. There was the use of obscene language and some mild sexual scenes. So what’s my problem?

There are three issues here as I see them. First, there is the issue of purity. Second, we have the matter of material participation in evil. Finally, we have the issue of scandal. I will take them one at a time.

Flannery O’Connor had some misgivings about her style and how it corresponded to her faith but after consulting with her spiritual director, he told her that she did not have the obligation to write for a 15 year old girl. True enough; I suppose that we are guilty here at C-L-S of assuming this as well. However, there ought to be more said about this. While we do not have the obligation to limit everything we write or say to audiences that are not sufficiently mature to deal with certain topics this is not the same as saying we do not have the obligation to attend to the concern of avoiding putting others into the near occasion of sin. We are our brothers’ keepers and must help to guard others’ purity. This is not the same as puritanism.

O.k., so what is the difference between purity and puritanism? Purity is a single minded commitment of the will to be in accord with God and therefore to look upon other human beings in the way that God created them. In other words, purity recognizes that each human person is made in the image of God and created for their own sakes. The person is made body and soul and purity recognizes, therefore, the beauty and goodness of the body and its important role in manifesting the person. It also recognizes the importance and goodness, nay holiness, of marital sexual intercourse. Purity recognizes that the only proper attitude toward a person is love. Others cannot be treated as a means but must always be looked upon as ends in themselves. Thus, no one can be reduced to their physical (or any other) attributes. They cannot be looked upon as a means to pleasure.

Purity also recognizes that we are in a fallen state and that it is a constant struggle to avoid the reduction of the other to a means to an end. This is very often sexual or emotional pleasure, but not always. And so purity recognizes that there are certain things that can lead one to see and treat others as objects. As an example, men are very visual and can be, in varying degrees, visually superficial. Thus, those wishing to be pure must avoid such occasions that would subject them to impure thoughts. While these are often visual, as I will discuss below, words can be powerful occasions for returning one to problematic visual experiences. Women wishing to guard men’s purity will not subject reveal their bodies in such a way as to make themselves the occasion of temptations against purity.

Puritanism, on the other hand, sees the body and even marital sexual intercourse as dirty, as something of a necessary evil. So while the response of someone motivated by puritanism and one motivated by an authentic concern for purity may sometimes externally appear to be the same, it will not be such in all cases because of their different motivations. For example, while respecting purity, the naked human body may be portrayed in art if it is done in such a way as to reveal the whole human person rather than to evoke an erotic response. Puritanism would never allow this to be done.

So now that we have these terms defined, we need to look at what we are doing in literature with words and word images. Words are symbols and have symbolic value. They point to a reality beyond themselves. I suppose that our post-Cartesian mindset has led us to view symbols in a disembodied, even arbitrary manner. A rose by any other name…

There is some truth to the claim of arbitrariness to the assigning of names to things, but this is not universally true. Nor does this fact negate the mediation of the thing symbolized, in a very real way, through its symbol. Symbols are more than just arbitrary signs of something else. We recognize this in our human experience. For example, the way a person’s name can mediate their presence to us in such a way that we actually experience in a certain manner, their presence.

Another example might be the way we react when someone says something kind or hateful to us. Even if we know what they are thinking, the experience of hearing or reading the words gives us the sense that the words have an ontology of their own. We are cut to the quick with hateful words or uplifted in an almost transcendent way with words of affirmation. There is a weightiness to the spoken and written word that goes beyond simple affective or psychological response.

Thus, words and word images can and do mediate to us the object or experience they symbolize, in way that cannot be reduced to the cognitive. That is why words are so powerful and must be used with much care. This brings us to the second issue: material participation in evil.

We must always avoid evil, but there are times when as an unintended side effect of a good act with a good intention, we find that the good done results in bad consequences. Sometimes we find that accepting the unintended consequences is justified by the greater proportion of good that will come from the good act and good intention. The Catholic tradition refers to this as the principle of double effect. Just war teaching relies upon this principle. In the case of using words or word images that might evoke impure responses in others but the intention is to explain circumstances and/or actually counter the effects of such events and words the use of them may be justified. However, we must first recognize that they are evils.

If we look at obscenities, we can see that they usually have to do with the bathroom or the bedroom. Most others tend to reduce the human person to something less than human. Most all have the same goal. They take what is holy or sacred (an act or a human person) and try to reduce it to the profane. Even if they are not always intended in this way by those who use them, that is their etymology. Thus, the use of them is at least a material participation in evil. Formal participation would be actually intending, to some degree, to convey the evil sentiment. Material participation can sometimes be licit and necessary. Formal participation in evil can never be justified.

Therefore, one must recognize the gravity of choosing to use obscene words or word images. It seems to me that literary merit in and of itself cannot be the only consideration. Rather, the gravity of material participation in evil dictates that one must ensure the use of obscene words or word images is an absolute necessity with no other effective way to bring about the good. Furthermore, one can never employ obscenities with the intent that the reader will experience a lurid response and furthermore, the writer must use all his skill to ensure that this is avoided. This would be formal participation and no good result can ever justify it.

The final issue is scandal. There are two aspects to this issue. The first is that which we have been discussing all along. Christian scandal is not what is often meant colloquially by the use of the term, mainly shocking sensibilities. Rather, the Christian meaning can be found in its Greek etymological origin, scandalon, which means a stone upon which one stumbles. In other words, in this context one is guilty of scandal when he causes others to sin or he makes it at least a near temptation. Today, so many have been exposed to pornography that this becomes a dicey issue. It does not take much for some (many?) to be led back to these images impressed forever in their memories. This ought to be taken into consideration, at least in deciding how to craft the use of one’s literary material.

However, something else ought to be considered as well. We are conditioned by our culture with the idea of “adult” humor, content, etc. into a mistaken notion about adult abilities. Now, while it is true that adults do have a greater maturity and therefore, capacity and obligation to master themselves and their responses to exposure to impure, or suggestively so, experiences, we too often naively assume that these exposures have no effect on us. All have varying degrees of self-mastery, but no one can be so confident in themselves that they would unthinkingly expose themselves to impurity. In fact, I would submit that exposure to impurity has a tremendous, cumulative, and perhaps almost imperceptible effect on our thinking and willful responses to temptations against purity. Being an “adult” does not give anyone license to expose himself to impurity with the presumption that their are no negative consequences for so doing. In fact, just the opposite is true. As an adult, one has the obligation to recognize and avoid all temptations against purity.

The other aspect of scandal is that by use of obscenity one can lead his readers to assume that obscene words or word images are “no big deal.” I think that this does happen when, for example, someone reads Walker Percy, knowing that he was a very faithful Catholic and sees his use of obscenities, the reader comes to think that there is nothing wrong with or at least no caution necessary with their use.

This is why you do not see the use of such words here and that we edit out or delete any such use as seems appropriate. Thoughts?

Last week Tricia and I were watching EWTN’s World Over program. The guest they had on the show was Dr. Francis Collins,
a leading geneticist and head of the Human Genome Project. The topic was faith and science and they discussed Collins’s journey of faith, which began when he was a couple of years shy of 30 years old. Up until that time he was an avowed atheist but he had to confront in his medical practice, the phenomenon of faith in the face of suffering and death. He began to realize that his position as an atheist was one of profound hubris and presumption.

He recognized that if he considered all of the possible knowledge in the cosmos, the existing body of knowledge yet possessed by humanity would be a small fraction of the whole. Even further, when he considered the body of knowledge that he personally possessed, relatively speaking this would be an infinitesimally small portion of even the existing known body of knowledge. Thus, he found that to make a negative assertion about the existence of God with such a small amount of understandinng, that atheism was an untenable position and that he had now much work to do in order to fairly investigate the claims of faith.

Honest atheists also recognize that atheism is a prior commitment of the will rather than something to which one comes to the conclusion of via dispassionate rational reflection. John Courtney Murray, in The Problem of God, Yesterday and Today, says it this way:

Atheism is never the conclusion of any theory, philosophical or scientific. It is a decision, a free act of choice that antedates all theories (95).

Thomas Dubay points out that Jean Paul Sartre said something similar:

…Sartre considered that atheism is a radical decision that one makes. He did not even try to construct a rational justification for this decision (Faith and Certitude, 206).

I think that Harvard Genetics Professor Richard Lewontin, and promoter of this atheistic materialism provides a most honest admission of this. In a retrospective essay on Carl Sagan in the January 9, 1997 New York Review of Books, says:

We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen.

Atheism is at root an act of the will that requires immense hubris. You will be hard pressed to find an atheist argue against belief in God who does not succumb to the fallacy of snob appeal.  In other words, he will assert the inadmissibility of “reasonable” people’s belief in anything beyond the material world because it is by definition superstition.  As an aside, the irony is that superstition is associating causes to effects without any rational justification.  Philosophical serendipity as the explanation for the order in the cosmos is by that definition, superstition.   Any way, the undemonstrated assertion that faith is unreasonable is ubiquitous.

There seem to be very few reasonable arguments in favor of atheism, rather most are emotive reactions, sometimes anger, often fear.  It is fear of many things. It can be fear of moral demands, of having one’s intellect discredited by atheistic peers, or even of being taken advantage of based upon a caricature of faith.

For example, Lewontin above fears a Voluntarist distortion of God. Carl Sagan provides another indication of fear of belief. A number of years before he died, Sagan exchanged a series of letters with a priest from the Christophers (I think it was; if anyone knows of a link to the letters please post it in the comments), motivated by the priest’s criticism of the Sagan’s faith in the existence of extraterrestrials but not in God. At the end of the discussion, Sagan seemed to reveal his precommitment to atheism (or sometimes agnosticism I understand) as a fear of being taken advantage of if he accepted anything on faith. This is, of course, a gross misunderstanding of faith but it echoes Beck’s fear.

When one has an emotive reason for rejecting the human condition, which is a natural openness to belief, to trust (just audit for a moment your daily activities and see how far you would get if you were consistently skeptical of everyone and everything you encountered), then he cannot be convinced even that the earth is not flat.  One can see clearly about philosophical and religious matters only when one softens his heart and opens his mind.  Faith demands humility and deep faith demands it most deeply.