Wanna Evangelize? Be HAPPY!

Father Longnecker, a priest whose blog is definitely worth reading regularly, has a great post up today providing one of the keys of the New Evangelization (or any evangelization), one that is often overlooked and forgotten by those on the "left" and those on the "right" in the Church (how I detest those terms, but alas...).

When I lived in England I used to walk to church for Evening Prayer every night.

At the corner of the street lived a Jehovah’s Witness.

He was the kind of guy who always had his hair combed and probably wore a neck tie with his pajamas...

Read the rest of it over there - Get Happy 

He, unfortunately, found it better to close his combox, so feel free to leave any comments here. And, yes, BE HAPPY! Christ is Risen! Our sins can be forgiven!! Who could ask for anything more!!

Read Dante. There are Few Better Uses of Your Limited Time on this Earth.

A commenter on my Google + page remarked, after reading my recent post on the Terminally Ill 29 Year Old Who Have Decided to Commit Suicide, that he has a copy of Dante's Inferno, referenced on the blog post, and might pick it up. As I wanted to encourage him (and all of you) to do so, I wrote the following and decided to post it here:

Hi Jeff,  

I highly encourage you to pick up that copy of Dante's Inferno you have sitting around. More than that, though, I encourage you to continue on the journey and read the whole poem - Inferno, Purgatorio, and Paradiso. Do you know which translation you have? I strongly recommend using Mark Musa's for a first pass through the poem. Musa provides ample notes without overwhelming the first time reader. The notes are important as Dante's work is populated with personages that were instantly familiar with his readers - drawn from mythology, contemporary events, the Bible, ancient history, etc. - but that can be perplexing to readers today. If you don't know who Farinata degli Uberti or Francesca da Rimini were, Musa is your guide. That's not to dismiss other translations (Ciardi's and Esolen's are fine and Longfellow's is classic), but Musa is where I'd recommend you start. 

Yes, the poem takes a little bit of effort, but it is well worth it. There is a reason Dante's masterpiece is widely hailed as the single greatest literary accomplishment in human history. It's also been called "the Summa in verse," higher praise for a Catholic could hardly be found. 

Ludovico Sfroza, Duke of Milan, after witnessing his city fall to Louis XII, King of France who also held a hereditary claim to Milan, was dragged before the king as a prisoner. Told he could take but one possession with him into his imprisonment at the Castle of Loches from his fabulously wealthy Renaissance palace, Sforza choose nothing other than La Commedia, which he spent reading and rereading for the next eight years. Few better choices could have he made. 

For what could be more rewarding than journeying with Dante the Pilgrim (or perhaps even as Dante the Pilgrim, can't we all recognize ourselves in the poem?) from the pits of self-obession, despair, and inquiry to finally behold the very vultus Dei, the face of God, in a moment of blinding ecstasy? Such is the reward of reading Dante.
It can be tough going, but don't lasciate ogni speranza ("abandon all hope" - Inferno, Canto III). There's an old saying for those embarking upon their first trip with Dante, "when you've finished reading The Divine Comedy, you are ready to begin reading The Divine Comedy. That's not to say reading it once is without joy and merit of it's own, but getting the whole poem in one's head is the best way to appreciate its parts. While this is especially true of Dante, it's a good rule for all great books. 

Long story short - read Dante. Frequently. 

God bless.

 Recommended Reading:



Recommended Listening:

Terminally Ill 29 year old Decides to Commit Suicide. What Will Become of Her Soul?

I just came across a very disturbing story over at People, Terminally Ill 29-Year-Old Woman: Why I'm Choosing to Die on My Own Terms.

Long story short, this poor woman (please pray for her) has an incurable brain tumor that will, in time, kill her. Instead of waiting for what seems like a certain (and painful) death, she has decided to kill herself with prescribed medications - basically, she's decided to poison herself. This is something we are going to be seeing more and more of, I think. Not for nothing did St. John Paul the Great identify our civilization as "the Culture of Death."

Culture of Death

What are we to make of such pieces that laud the decision of a young woman to kill herself? Of course, we all remember the fifth commandment, "thou shall not kill," which would also rule out self-killing (suicide or "dying with dignity") as much as it would killing your neighbor. Breaking any of the Ten Commandments is grave matter, which would, under normal circumstances, qualify suicide as a mortal sin - the kind of sin that damns people's souls to an eternity in hell (for they have thereby rejected God forever.)

All sins, of course, can be forgiven if we repent. The particular problem with the suicide is that it seems the suicide has no time to repent.  I suppose a person who decides to hang himself might be able to repent and fail to be able to get himself out of the noose in time to save himself or perhaps a person might have second thoughts about ending their own life by jumping off a building in the split-second they have before they crash upon the ground, but for the vast majority of suicides, it would seem that the person doesn't have time to repent because their sin is nothing less than deliberately rejecting having more time all together.

Dante
This conundrum is such that the Church has always been especially dismayed over suicides. Dante, in the single greatest art created by any man - The Divine Comedy - finds the souls of the suicides in his journey through Inferno as he walks through a dense forest (the trees being the very shades of the suicides themselves),

Quando si parte l'anime feroce  

dal corpo ond' ella stessa s'è disvelta...

When the exasperated soul abandons
The body whence it rent itself away,
Minos consigns it to the seventh abyss.  

It falls into the forest, and no part
Is chosen for it; but where Fortune hurls it,
There like a grain of spelt it germinates.  

It springs a sapling, and a forest tree;
The Harpies, feeding then upon its leaves,
Do pain create, and for the pain an outlet.  

Like others for our spoils shall we return;
But not that any one may them revest,
For 'tis not just to have what one casts off.  

Here we shall drag them, and along the dismal
Forest our bodies shall suspended be,
Each to the thorn of his molested shade. (Canto, XIII)

These souls, unique among the damned and the saved, will never get their bodies back, as it would be unjust for them to receive back that gift which they disdained to keep.

Chesterton
As I read the article, my mind also leapt to GK Chesterton who; reflecting on the vast difference between the martyr, he who chooses death over rejecting the Faith, and the suicide, he who chooses death over keeping the Faith, in Orthodoxy, wrote,

"I read a solemn flippancy by some free thinker: he said that a suicide was only the same as a martyr. The open fallacy of this helped to clear the question. Obviously a suicide is the opposite of a martyr. A martyr is a man who cares so much for something outside him, that he forgets his own personal life. A suicide is a man who cares so little for anything outside him, that he wants to see the last of everything. One wants something to begin: the other wants everything to end. In other words, the martyr is noble, exactly because (however he renounces the world or execrates all humanity) he confesses this ultimate link with life; he sets his heart outside himself: he dies that something may live. The suicide is ignoble because he has not this link with being: he is a mere destroyer; spiritually, he destroys the universe." (chapter 5)

The Catechism
More authoritatively, The Catechism of the Catholic Church also deals with suicide,

Everyone is responsible for his life before God who has given it to him. It is God who remains the sovereign Master of life. We are obliged to accept life gratefully and preserve it for his honor and the salvation of our souls. We are stewards, not owners, of the life God has entrusted to us. It is not ours to dispose of. (2280) 

Suicide contradicts the natural inclination of the human being to preserve and perpetuate his life. It is gravely contrary to the just love of self. It likewise offends love of neighbor because it unjustly breaks the ties of solidarity with family, nation, and other human societies to which we continue to have obligations. Suicide is contrary to love for the living God. (2281)

Against such reasoning we get, from the article at People,

I believe this choice (suicide) is ethical, and what makes it ethical is it is a choice

Of course, if something is ethical merely because it is a choice then nothing is ethical at all (or everything is). Is it not a choice for a thief to steal your car? Or for a murderer to end your life? Or for a rapist to have his way with whomever he pleases? Everything is a choice. In the end, such morality amounts to nothing more than the imposition of the will of the strong upon the weak. If something is made ethical because "it is a choice" then whoever has enough money, power, or brute strength to impose his choice over yours has ethics on his side. This is nothing more than the "might makes right" fallacy.

All of the above would seem to give little hope to the suicide. Of course, those who take their own lives in a moment of unreason would be incapable of sinning, even by killing themselves. We know we can't accidentally sin (cf. CCC 1857). We must be able to make a conscious decision to commit act x (in this case suicide) for our action to rise to the level of sin. This is exactly what an insane person can't do, hence the insane can't sin at all. Perhaps, some one will say, everyone who takes their life is insane.

But, what of someone like our 29 year old woman? She clearly isn't insane. In fact, she seems perfectly rational about her decision, even dedicating her remaining time on this Earth to spreading the "Gospel of Suicide" in a campaign to extend the "right" to end one's own life with "dignity." This is the exact situation the Catechism foresees, in paragraph 2282, as increasing the gravity of the sin,

If suicide is committed with the intention of setting an example, especially to the young, it also takes on the gravity of scandal. Voluntary co-operation in suicide is contrary to the moral law. 

Don't Lose Hope
Does all of this mean we should "lasciate ogni speranza" (to return to Dante) - abandon all hope - for those who deliberately take their own lives?

By no means. Again the Catechism is instructive, striking the balance that is the hallmark of the truth (and of Catholicism),

We should not despair of the eternal salvation of persons who have taken their own lives. By ways known to him alone, God can provide the opportunity for salutary repentance. The Church prays for persons who have taken their own lives. (2283)

However, we should also not presume their salvation (cf. CCC 2092).

Ending your life is a terrible thing to do. Something you can't undo once done. No matter what evils you are living through, please don't follow this woman's bad example. Dare to live. Dare to hope. Hear the words of Christ and be bold.

Ego sum nolite timere - It is I, be not afraid (Jn 6:20)

Why shall we not fear, even in our darkest hours? Because

For though I should walk in the midst of the shadow of death, I will fear no evils, for thou art with me. (Ps 23:4)

He (Christ) is with you. Don't despair. Don't seek death. Whatever evils may be plaguing you, remember after death, it could still get worse.

Pray with me.
Please join me in offering a prayer to Saint John Paul the Great, who was no stranger to suffering and illness, that this young woman may be healed. Or, if that be not the will of God, that she may have the courage to live out her time, using her suffering to fill up what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ (cf. Col 1:24).

ora pro nobis

Please also join me in praying for the untold numbers of those struggling with a desire to end their lives, that such an unfortunate witness may not drive them over the edge.

Almighty and clement Father, Who wills all men to be saved, please send forth your Spirit to those whose Earthly struggles are so overwhelming that they seek the peace of an untimely grave, that their hearts may be filled with hope, their wills may be filled with fortitude, and their minds may be filled with Christ, hope of the world. We pray this through the intercession of Our Lady, who brought forth hope and forgiveness into a world of darkness and sin. Amen.

Recommended Reading:

The Death of a Catholic Legend. Pray for his Soul.

I've spent most of the day out and only recently heard the sad news of the death of a man who is no doubt familiar of all my readers - Father Benedict Groeschel. He was a true "star of the New Evangelization" giving talks, speaking on the radio, and, of course, hosting his show on EWTN. He will be leaving behind a large pair of shoes in the Church in America.

Please take a moment and offer a prayer for the repose of his soul, remember that our dearly departed are still with us, and still in need of our prayers.

Requiem Aeternam dona ei Domine
Et lux perpetua luceat ei
Requiescat in pace.
AMEN.

In this moment of sorrow, brothers, take stock of your life and remember you too will meet the judgment of God.

Is Saint Michael Really Jesus in Disguise and Other Interesting Questions About Angels.

Dr. Taylor Marshall, whose blog and institute I highly recommended, recently posted an interesting video on St. Michael the Archangel's battle with Satan, as understood by the great St. Augustine of Hippo (a saint who, incidentally, played a big role in my conversion). The whole video (it's rather short) is well worth watching,

In comment section on Dr. Marshall's blog I had an interesting conversation with a fellow we'll call "Joe." I thought I'd post my half of the conversation here (in the style of Lewis' Screwtape Letters or Kreeft's Letters to an Atheist - both of which you should immediately purchase and read if you haven't read them already):



Without further ado, and in honor of both Michaelmas and the Feast of the Guarding Angels occurring this week, here it is (I've numbered and titled my responses to provide easier reading):

1) How Many Angels Can Dance on the Head of a Pin?
Joe, who are the people who will tell us its important to know exactly how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? Did you know there is no evidence that any theologian has ever debated the this question? It was an insult developed to attack Scholasticism centuries after the height of the Scholastics. Although, if you think about it, it is a good question, isn't it? It basically asks "what is the relationship between non-material beings and the material world?" That is something very relevant to any discussion on the angels, even if it is a bit philosophical.

2) This Topic is Unimportant, Jesus Never Even Discussed it!
Joe, that Jesus didn't spend "ONE SECOND" on this topic is itself "highly speculative." We know many things Jesus did spend time on, but we don't know which topics He didn't.

But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. (Jn 21:25)

3) How Do Angels, Who Lack Bodies, Battle One Another? 
Facetiousness ill becomes you, Joe. How do non-material angels battle one another? With their minds. And no, this wasn't an "angel class warfare," we haven't fallen into some kind of Marxist Angelology, angels from all nine "choirs" defected to side with Satan, as did angels from all nine orders side with God.

4) St. Michael is Really Jesus According to 1 Thess 4:16.

For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the archangel’s call, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first; (1 Thess 4:16)

Joe, do you happen to be a Jehovahs Witness? 1 Thess 4:16 is only saying that the Second Coming will be heralded by an Archangel's cry and trumpet blast. In no sense does the text require Jesus to either be an archangel (or have the voice of an archangel) or to be playing a trumpet Himself. As a matter of fact, it would be rather odd for a Lord to be heralding himself. If you think back to the ancient world lords and kings would enter cities not themselves playing trumpets and crying out, but with their servants doing so. Such is the context assumed in 1 Thess. We can also look at the "First Coming" (aka The Nativity) to shed light on what we might expect of the Second Coming. If we look at the Gospel of Luke (2:8-14) we read,

And in that region there were shepherds out in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night. And an angel of the Lord appeared to them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were filled with fear. And the angel said to them, “Be not afraid; for behold, I bring you good news of a great joy which will come to all the people;  for to you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord.  And this will be a sign for you: you will find a babe wrapped in swaddling cloths and lying in a manger.”  And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God and saying, “Glory to God in the highest,and on earth peace among men with whom he is pleased!”

Who heralds the coming of Jesus? Not His own voice, but that of angels. So to, as we learn in 1 Thess 4:16, angels will herald the Second Coming.

Besides, where do you make the leap from "an ARCH-ANGEL" to "Michael"? Do you believe Michael is the only archangel? If so, what do you make of Gabriel and Raphael? It would seem that even granting your interpretation of 1 Thess 4:16 still doesn't get us to your conclusion, that Jesus = Michael.


5) St. Michael is Really Jesus Because Only Jesus Can Raise the Dead.Joe, You'll note, I never said the voice of an archangel will raise the dead. 1 Thess 4:16 says that Christ's return will be accompanied by the cry of command, the voice of an archangel, and the trumpet of God. It goes on to say the dead will rise, but that doesn't mean the archangel's voice is the cause of the rising of the dead any more than the trumpet of God is. 

You didn't answer how you make the leap from "the voice of an archangel" to "the voice of Michael." "AN archangel" would suggest that there are others. If there was only one archangel wouldn't the text say with "THE archangel's voice?" If the only archangel was Jesus, why even bother mentioning "an archangel's voice?" Why not just say "with the voice of God?" Angels are clearly created spiritual beings, you are not a JW, are you an Arian? Do you think Jesus is created not begotten of the Father?


6) You are like the highly educated Nicodemus, I'm like the humble Woman at the Well.

Joe, I know you are happily comparing yourself to a faithful person from the Bible (who witnesses to Christ) and me to someone who couldn't grasp Jesus' meaning when speaking to him, but that is just begging the question - assuming your right. If your interpretation of 1 Thess 4:16 is wrong, then you are like "Nic" and I like the woman at the well. In other words, your comparison is nothing more than saying "I'm right and you're wrong." Shall we just leave that aside, then? Or do you want to continue to explore the comparison?

7) I'm Prefer the "Plain and Simple" meaning of Scripture.
Joe, do you think a "simple and plain" understanding of Scripture would be one that only a tiny percentage of Christians have ever understood? The overwhelming majority of Christians (including the great minds of the Church and the humble) do not share your understanding of that passage. In fact, very few Christians have ever equated Michael with Jesus except for the JWs (who aren't actually even Christian at all). You didn't answer my question above, is my interpretation (the one held by almost all Christians for the last 2000 yrs) not at least as plausible as yours? If so, 1 Thess 4:16 doesn't prove your case.

8) Michael doesn't mean "Who is Like God" it means "I am Who is Like God."
Joe, As far as the meaning of "Michael" it isn't just I that disagrees with you, it (again) is pretty much everyone, including translators of the OT. For example, on New Advent, the article on St Michael begins with mentioning that Michael means "who is like God."Do you have any source anywhere that backs up your novel translation of "Michael"?

Even if we assume your translation is correct, it still doesn't show an equivalence between Jesus and Michael, does it? Jesus isn't "like God" Jesus is God. What sense would it make for God to carry the name "like God?" Do you not believe that Jesus is "true God from true God, consubstantial with the Father?" Do you instead believe He is merely "like God?" If so, how can His death have bridged the gap between sinful man and sinless God? It would seem that only if Jesus is both God and man can our sins be forgiven through His crucifixion. Are we then "still in our sins?"

You mentioned before how you are like the humble woman at the well, while I am the educated, but confused Nicodemus. Do you really think it is humble to say basically everyone who has ever studied this, including those who translate Hebrew into English for a living, are all wrong while Joe alone is right? That doesn't sound much like the woman at the well and "plain reading of Scripture" to me. Does it to you?

9) The end.
Joe, I'm sorry to hear personal business will keep you occupied for the next couple of months and that we can't continue our discussion. I hope it is nothing serious. God bless and thanks for the delightful time.

The Catholic Church Defends the Rights of Children and Authentic Freedom

In a recent interview, one of my favorite Cardinals had some profound words to remind the world of the importance of the family (and yes, I am solely referring to the "traditional" family - how absurd that such qualifiers must be used). As you may know Mueller is the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (what used to be simply called the "Holy Office") and thus is a Vatican heavy weight (Pope Benedict, before ascending to Peter's Throne, was head of the CDF). These are important words, even if the content should be incredibly obvious to all.

What Mueller, and indeed the Church, is reminding the world of is simple: a child has the right to be born in an act of love between his mother and father. He further has a right to be raised, again in love, by the same father and mother. To deliberately deprive a child of these basic things is to grievously violate his fundamental human rights.

Let me say that again, the child has the right. No adult has the right to a child. And doing things that violate the basic rights of the child (think: IVF, gay adoption, surrogate motherhood, etc) is always and everywhere intrinsically evil. Yes, evil.

Do we sometimes find a child in a less than ideal situation (say he is unwanted by his parents who put him up for adoption or he is abandoned by a "dead beat dad"), sadly yes. This is after all a "lacrimarum valle." In such unfortunate, less than ideal, situations we make the best of it. A great pair of adoptive parents (yes, this means an adoptive father and mother who are married) is found who will do what the original parents refused to in the first instance or a single mother (again, an unfortunate, less than ideal, situation) takes up the responsibility that should be shared with the father by herself and does the best she can. These people (adoptive parents, single parents, etc) are to be commended highly for the work they do. However, that some people step up in heroic fashion to make the best out of a less than ideal situation is no reason to pretend such situations are unfortunate.

Without any redemptive value, unlike the situations looked at just now, are those where a child is deliberately deprived of the love of a father and mother. It is one thing for a mom to, again heroically,  shoulder the task of raising a child who was abandoned by his father alone. It is another for a woman to decide to get pregnant outside of marriage with the intention of raising a child alone. Such is to deprive her child of his father with foresight. Again, it is one thing for a child who is unwanted to be raised heroically by a loving set of adoptive parents. It is another for a child to placed in a home without a father or mother (as all homosexual homes, by definition, must be).

The world, of course, has this all exactly backwards. The world treats the child as a commodity to be bought and sold, in what amounts to little more than modern chattel slavery (albeit one that ends with birth). Or, even worse, as a product to be manufactured. Here the child has no rights, not to be created in an act of love, not to have a father and a mother, not even to life itself. The world declares, in effect, that might makes right; that the strong may do as they like to the weak, simply because they can. Such is the attitude that fueled the slave trade, the Holocaust, and countless other horrors brought on the world when they embrace such an evil ideology.

In the end, it is the Catholic Church who raises the cry of real human rights - as it always has been and always will be.

The Church is the defender of authentic freedom.

What to Make of Atheists Who Reject the Argument from Beauty for God

Yesterday we took an extended look at the "argument from aesthetic experience," in its simplest form, was expounded in Peter Kreeft's Handbook of Christian Apologetics,

There is the music of Johann Sebastian Bach
Therefore there must be a God.

I ended by quoting Dr. Kreeft that this is an argument that you either get on a "gut level" or that you miss entirely. Why is that? Is it a sign the argument fails? Well, no argument is going to convince everyone (there are still people who dispute the Earth moving around the sun or that the universe really exists), so that is no test. It does, unlike many other arguments for God, rely on "intuition" rather than coldly moving from undeniable premises about the physical world to the existence of God. But that doesn't mean it doesn't work, that it "fails." It simply means that some people have "darkened" the "interior eye" to such an extent that they can no longer see the obvious truth proved by this argument. In other words, some people have lost the ability to have the "aesthetic experience" which is the premise for the argument.

What are we to do when we meet such people?

I must admit to feeling rather sorry for them and I don't mean that in a patronizing way. Honestly, on some level I can't really believe they don't feel the pull of the argument, maybe it is rather simply that they won't. They seem like those poor souls Plato described in his  famous allegory of the cave, but instead of being chained in the cave, they simply refuse to get up and walk into the light. What a small, dreary world they must inhabit. One without objective morality, objective beauty, or objective truth (but, wait a minute, if no truth is objective, is the truth of atheism really true?). A world where even our own thoughts cannot really be trusted (who would trust a computer programed at random to provide accurate information about the real world?) It is enough to make you want to shake the atheist by the shoulders, like the madman in GK Chesterton's Orthodoxy who is beyond reason (like many atheists) not because he has no reason, but because all he has left is reason. Chesterton says,

The madman’s explanation of a thing is always complete, and often in a purely rational sense satisfactory. Or, to speak more strictly, the insane explanation, if not conclusive, is at least unanswerable; this may be observed specially in the two or three commonest kinds of madness. If a man says (for instance) that men have a conspiracy against him, you cannot dispute it except by saying that all the men deny that they are conspirators; which is exactly what conspirators would do. His explanation covers the facts as much as yours. Or if a man says that he is the rightful King of England, it is no complete answer to say that the existing authorities call him mad; for if he were King of England that might be the wisest thing for the existing authorities to do. Or if a man says that he is Jesus Christ, it is no answer to tell him that the world denies his divinity; for the world denied Christ’s.
Nevertheless he is wrong. But if we attempt to trace his error in exact terms, we shall not find it quite so easy as we had supposed. Perhaps the nearest we can get to expressing it is to say this: that his mind moves in a perfect but narrow circle. A small circle is quite as infinite as a large circle; but, though it is quite as infinite, it is not so large. In the same way the insane explanation is quite as complete as the sane one, but it is not so large.... we may say that the strongest and most unmistakable MARK of madness is this combination between a logical completeness and a spiritual contraction. The lunatic’s theory explains a large number of things, but it does not explain them in a large way. I mean that if you or I were dealing with a mind that was growing morbid, we should be chiefly concerned not so much to give it arguments as to give it air, to convince it that there was something cleaner and cooler outside the suffocation of a single argument. Suppose, for instance, it... were... the third case, of the madman who called himself Christ. If we said what we felt, we should say, “So you are the Creator and Redeemer of the world: but what a small world it must be! What a little heaven you must inhabit, with angels no bigger than butterflies! How sad it must be to be God; and an inadequate God! Is there really no life fuller and no love more marvellous than yours; and is it really in your small and painful pity that all flesh must put its faith? How much happier you would be, how much more of you there would be, if the hammer of a higher God could smash your small cosmos, scattering the stars like spangles, and leave you in the open, free like other men to look up as well as down!”

In much the same way you almost wish to leave arguing aside and simply point out how much happier the atheist would be if he too could get "outside the suffocation of a single argument" and be "free like other men to look up as well as down!" What greater happiness could there finally be than to leave behind the meaningless, pointless universe he has caged himself into? What higher joy than to find a way free from the putrid air of his most beloved mate being nothing more than an amoeba on steroids, a cosmic mischance, a burp of atoms?

Luckily for the sanity of both believers and unbelievers atheism can be answered through reason alone. Unluckily for unbelievers, they first have to be open to Truth before they can attain it. They might not need to accepted Catholicism "just on faith" (like Mormonism or Fundamentalism or Islam or Hinduism), but they do need to be willing to put the search for Truth above all else, including above their commitment to atheism and, harder yet, their desire to remain in their sins. (Catholicism, after all, isn't just a truth to assent to like those in science, but a truth that seeks to radically reform us). However, the availability of what are perhaps "more logical" arguments doesn't do away with the power and utility of our argument here. In some sense, arguments like the one we looked at yesterday approach the question in perhaps the right spirit for

religion is a relationship. It is more like a marriage than like science or math. Romeo doesn't propose to Juliet in syllogisms. He leaves her free to believe him or not, trust him or not, love him or not, elope with him or not....

(God) gives us just enough light, just enough evidence, so that those who truly seek Him can find Him, but not so much that those who don't seek Him and don't care will find Him against their own will. He seduces our souls but does not rape them. He is a gentleman. So we all get what we want: we become single or married (to God) as we will. No shotgun weddings. (Kreeft, Letters to an Atheist) 

That, of course, doesn't mean leaving reason aside (there is no institution in the history of man that defends reason as strongly as the Catholic Church - just read Aquinas or the Catechism). Nor does it mean forgetting all other arguments. But it does mean looking at all the data - even that which we experience within rather than without. Can God be proven through syllogisms, sure, but is that the best way to come to know Him? Perhaps not. Such gives power to arguments like the one from aesthetic experience.

Recommended Reading: