Monday, December 21, 2015

A Saint of Joy Amidst Suffering. A Book Review

What’s the first image that pops into your mind when someone mentions “the saints?”

Perhaps you think of the Twelve Apostles traveling the back roads of first century Judea with Our Lord. Or do you conjure up images of the early martyrs being eaten by lions for refusing to offer a pinch of incense before a statue of Caesar? Or perhaps you think of the Church Fathers like St. Augustine of Hippo or St. Athanasius standing firm for orthodoxy even as the world around them seems bent on embracing error and heresy. Or do the great Medieval theologians, like Thomas Aquinas or Francis of Assisi shaping Christendom with their intellect and love for poverty come first to mind?

All these, of course, are great examples of the holiness God calls all men to, but what about a saint who lived and breathed in our own twenty-first century?

That might be just what we witnessed in the life of the young Italian woman Chiara Corbella Petrillo, whose brief life has been an inspiration to many, especially as told by her close friends in Chiara Corbella Petrillo.

Chiara’s heart wrenching story, taking us through her marriage to Enrico (who authors a moving preface to the book), through her pregnancies which saw her children born with life threatening defects to such a degree that abortion was seen as the normal course of action to be taken. Chiara, however, strengthen by her Catholic Faith, embraced these troubles - risking even her own life when she decided to delay chemotherapy when she learned that she had cancer during her second pregnancy - and found at the bottom of them all - joy.

Her story is stunning. The amount of physical and emotional pain Chiara suffered in her brief 28 years is more than most will be forced to deal with in a lifetime and yet her experience of these sorrows is best summed up by her response to her husband’s question as to whether the yoke of Christ is sweet after all,  “Yes, Enrico, it is very sweet.” Thus answers a saint. 

If you need a good Christmas read to motivate you to take stock of your own relationship with Christ, especially in the rough patches we all face in this vale of tears, you ought to check out this inspiring story.

Thursday, December 17, 2015

The Three Advents of Christ in Dante

This Advent we've been looking at the traditional Three Advents, or comings, of Christ. First, in a general way, then sitting at the feet of the great Bernard of Clairvaux. Today, let's see what the greatest Christian poet, Dante Alighieri, can tell us about these comings by looking at his greatest work, The Divine Comedy, in which all three Advents are symbolically present.

First Advent of Christ - The Incarnation
In Canto IX of the Inferno (wherein Dante travels through Hell) we read how he and Virgil (Dante's guide) are barred from passing into the Infernal City of Dis (the deepest part of the Netherworld). Dante's trip has been ordained by Divine Providence and his passage cannot be stopped by Satan. To open the doors to the doleful city an angel suddenly appears amidst the terrors of Hell (just like Christ appeared amongst a sinful world). This mirrors the culmination of the First Advent of Christ - The Harrowing of Hell, when Christ "preached to those spirits that were in prison" (1 Peter 3:19)

and then, above the filthy swell, approaching,
a blast of sound, shot through with fear, exploded,
making both shores of Hell begin to tremble;

it sounded like one of those violent winds,
born from the clash of counter-temperatures,
that tear through forests; raging on unchecked...

As frogs before their enemy, the snake,
all scatter through the pond and then dive down
until each one is squatting on the bottom,

so I saw more than a thousand fear-shocked souls
in flight, clearing the path of one who came
walking on the Styx, his feet dry on the water.

From time to time with his left hand he fanned
his face too push the putrid air away,
and this was all that seemed to weary him.

I was certain now that he was sent from Heaven.
I turned to my guide, but he made me a sign
to keep my silence and bow low to this one.

Ah the scorn that filled his holy presence!
He reached the gate and touched it with a wand;
it opened without resistance from inside.

"O Heaven's outcasts, despicable souls,"
he started, standing on the dreadful threshold,
"what insolence is this that breeds in you?"

Second Advent of Christ - Conversion
In Canto VIII of the Purgatorio we see the Second Advent of Christ. Here Dante is traveling through the valley of the Princes in the anti-purgatory (the area just outside of Purgatory proper) when, just as night is about to fall, Dante learns that a serpent (symbol of the devil) comes into the valley each night to tempt the departed. Of course, the souls in purgatory are beyond the reach of Satan, so two angels appear to protect the holy souls from his reach. This mirrors the daily coming of Christ into the hearts of believers, giving them the grace to stay away from sin and the grasp of the prince of this world.

and then I saw descending from on high
two angels with two flaming swords, and these
were broken short and blunted at the end.

Their garments, green as tender new-born leaves
unfurling, billowed out behind each one,
fanned by the greenness of their streaming wings...

"From Mary's bosom both of them descend
to guard us from the serpent in the vale,"
Sordello said. "He'll soon be here, you'll see."...

"But then Sordello clutched his arm and said:
"Behold our adversary over there!" -
he pointed to the place where we should look...

I did not see, so I cannot describe,
how the two holy falcons took to flight,
but I saw clearly both of them fly down.

Hearing those green wings cutting through the air,
the serpent fled, the angels wheeled around,
flying in perfect time back to their posts. 

Third Advent of Christ - Final Judgement 
In Canto XXX of the Purgatorio, Dante is met by his beloved Beatrice who sternly judges him for his past sins before allowing him to move forward with her into Paradiso, into Heaven. Here we see the final of the Triplex Adventus, the Triple Advent of Christ, where Christ comes in glory to judge the living and the dead.

then, one of them, as sent from Heaven, sang
Veni, sponsa, de Libano, three times,
and all the other voices followed his.

As at the Final Summons all the blest
will rise out of their graves, ready to raise
new-bodied voices singing 'Hallelujah!'

just so rose up above the heavenly cart
a hundred spirits ad vocem tanti senis,
eternal heralds, ministers of God,

all shouting: Benedictus qui venis! then,
tossing a rain of flowers in the air,
Manibus, O date lilia plenis!...

I sensed the regal sternness of her face,
as she continued in the tone of one
who saves the sharpest words until the end:

"Yes look at me! Yes, I am Beatrice!
So, you at last have deigned to climb the mount?
You learned at last that here lies human bliss?"

I lowered my head and looked down at the stream,
but, filled with shame at my reflection there,
I quickly fixed my eyes upon the grass.

I was the guilty child facing his mother,
abject before her harshness: harsh, indeed,
is unripe pity not yet merciful. 

What do you think? How does reflecting on this sublime poetry from the height of Christendom help deeper your devotion to the Advents of Christ?

Monday, December 7, 2015

The Three Advents of Christ in Saint Bernard

Last Week, we looked at the Three Advents of a Christ, today let's take a moment to listen to what a great saint and Doctor of the Church has to say on the subject - here is St. Bernard of Clairvaux from a sermon he gave on this topic (with my emphases)

 We know that there are three comings of the Lord. The third lies between the other two. It is invisible, while the other two are visible. In the first coming he was seen on earth, dwelling among men; he himself testifies that they saw him and hated him. In the final coming all flesh will see the salvation of our God, and they will look on him whom they pierced. The intermediate coming is a hidden one; in it only the elect see the Lord within their own selves, and they are saved. In his first coming our Lord came in our flesh and in our weakness; in this middle coming he comes in spirit and in power; in the final coming he will be seen in glory and majesty.

 In case someone should think that what we say about this middle coming is sheer invention, listen to what our Lord himself says: If anyone loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him. There is another passage of Scripture which reads: He who fears God will do good, but something further has been said about the one who loves, that is, that he will keep God’s word. Where is God’s word to be kept? Obviously in the heart, as the prophet says: I have hidden your words in my heart, so that I may not sin against you.

 Keep God’s word in this way. Let it enter into your very being, let it take possession of your desires and your whole way of life. Feed on goodness, and your soul will delight in its richness. Remember to eat your bread, or your heart will wither away. Fill your soul with richness and strength.
Because this coming lies between the other two, it is like a road on which we travel from the first coming to the last. In the first, Christ was our redemption; in the last, he will appear as our life; in this middle coming, he is our rest and consolation.

 If you keep the word of God in this way, it will also keep you. The Son with the Father will come to you. The great Prophet who will build the new Jerusalem will come, the one who makes all things new. This coming will fulfill what is written: As we have borne the likeness of the earthly man, we shall also bear the likeness of the heavenly man. Just as Adam’s sin spread through all mankind and took hold of all, so Christ, who created and redeemed all, will glorify all, once he takes possession of all.

Sermo 5, In Adventu Domini, 1-3: Opera Omnia, Edit. Cisterc. 4 {1966}

Monday, November 30, 2015

The Three Advents of Christ

It's Advent. As you probably know 'advent' comes form the Latin word 'adventus' meaning 'coming' and is, of course, the liturgical season in which we prepare for the coming of Christ. In Ancient Rome, adventus referred to a special ceremony in which the emperor was welcomed back into the city after a successful military campaign. Before the emperor arrived, he would be proceeded by messengers announcing the evangelium, the gospel, the good news, of the emperor's victory. The early Christians, recognizing Christ as the true emperor, celebrated His coming, His adventus, and so we do today.

What you might not have known is that Christ has three Advents and the Church wants us to call all three to mind during the Advent season. Let's take a look at each of them.

The First Advent of Christ
The first coming of Christ is the one we are most familiar with, the one we most naturally focus our minds on this time of year, Christ's coming as a babe wrapped in swaddling clothes in the stable in Bethlehem (cf. Luke 2:12). Why would the Lord of Lords come in such a humble manner? Why not come as the High Priest in Jerusalem? Why not as Caesar? C.S. Lewis, in Mere Christianity, gives the answer, (emphasis added)
"enemy occupied territory - that is what this world is. Christianity is the story of how the rightful king has landed, you might say landed in disguise, and is calling us to take part in a great campaign of sabotage."

The Second Advent of Christ
The second coming of Christ is the one we are perhaps least familiar with, although it's the one we have the most experience with. It's His coming into the life of each believer. In The Gospel of St John, Jesus assures those who love Him that He "will not leave (us) comfortless: I will come to you" (14:18) and in Matthew He tells us, "lo I am with you always, even unto the end of the world" (28:20). This, of course, is accomplished in heart of every believer when they convert, when they "accept Jesus as Lord and Savior" as our Evangelical friends are fond of saying. This also happens, because we are a psychosomatic unity (a union of body and soul), when Christ comes to us physically in the Holy Eucharist every time we receive Him at Mass. Jesus doesn't feed only half of us. He comes to us spiritually when we accept Him into our heart, but He also comes to us bodily.  In a real sense each Mass is a mini parousia, and thus is a mini Advent.

The Third Advent of Christ
The third coming of Christ is His final coming at the world's end. Here He comes not veiled as a baby or hidden under the accidents of bread and wine, but in His full awful majesty. Here He comes to separate the goats from sheep, turning to the unrepentant and speaking the most fearsome words a man can hear, "Depart from me, you acursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels" (Matt 25:41). This is the Dies Irae, the day of wrath, from which none can hide. The dead will be raised, the just rewarded with life eternal, and the damned sent to the fires of Gehenna. This is the final Adventus, the one which all creation groans for as if in childbirth (Rom 8:22), the one for which we Christians call out, "Veni, Domine Jesu, Marana tha Lord Jesus, Come, Lord Jesus! (cf. 1 Cor 16:22).

How will you keep in mind all three Advents of Christ this year?

Tuesday, October 20, 2015

Quas Primas, Pope Pius XI on Christ the King (pt 2)

Today, we finish looking at Pope Pius XI. Today we will continue looking at this great encyclical, specifically looking at the necessity of all men recognizing the power of Christ the King and the hopes Pope Pius had in establishing this great feast. (with my emphases and comments) if you missed it you can read part one here.

20. If the kingdom of Christ... receives, as it should, all nations under its way, (yes ALL nations) there seems no reason why we should despair of seeing that peace which the King of Peace came to bring on earth... Oh, what happiness would be Ours if all men, individuals, families, and nations, would but let themselves be governed by Christ (the path to peace is conversion of the world to Christ, not "tolerance.")

21. That these blessings may be abundant and lasting in Christian society, it is necessary that the kingship of our Savior should be as widely as possible recognized and understood, and to the end nothing would serve better than the institution of a special feast in honor of the Kingship of Christ. For people are instructed in the truths of faith, and brought to appreciate the inner joys of religion far more effectually by the annual celebration of our sacred mysteries than by any official pronouncement of the teaching of the Church. Such pronouncements usually reach only a few and the more learned among the faithful; feasts reach them all; the former speak but once, the latter speak every year--in fact, forever. The Church's teaching affects the mind primarily; her feasts affect both mind and heart, and have a salutary effect upon the whole of man's nature. Man is composed of body and soul, and he needs these external festivities ...

24. If We ordain that the whole Catholic world shall revere Christ as King, We shall minister to the need of the present day, and at the same time provide an excellent remedy for the plague which now infects society. We refer to the plague of anti-clericalism, its errors and impious activities. This evil spirit, as you are well aware, Venerable Brethren, has not come into being in one day; it has long lurked beneath the surface. The empire of Christ over all nations was rejected. The right which the Church has from Christ himself, to teach mankind, to make laws, to govern peoples in all that pertains to their eternal salvation, that right was denied. Then gradually the religion of Christ came to be likened to false religions and to be placed ignominiously on the same level with them. It was then put under the power of the state and tolerated more or less at the whim of princes and rulers... The rebellion of individuals and states against the authority of Christ has produced deplorable consequences..... We firmly hope, however, that the feast of the Kingship of Christ, which in future will be yearly observed, may hasten the return of society to our loving Savior. It would be the duty of Catholics to do all they can to bring about this happy result. ... if the faithful were generally to understand that it behooves them ever to fight courageously under the banner of Christ their King, then, fired with apostolic zeal, they would strive to win over to their Lord those hearts that are bitter and estranged from him, and would valiantly defend his rights.

25. Moreover, the annual and universal celebration of the feast of the Kingship of Christ will draw attention to the evils which anticlericalism has brought upon society in drawing men away from Christ, and will also do much to remedy them. While nations insult the beloved name of our Redeemer by suppressing all mention of it in their conferences and parliaments (sound familar?), we must all the more loudly proclaim his kingly dignity and power, all the more universally affirm his rights.


29... (The feast) is at the end of the liturgical year, and thus the feast of the Kingship of Christ sets the crowning glory upon the mysteries of the life of Christ already commemorated during the year...


31. When we pay honor to the princely dignity of Christ, men will doubtless be reminded that the Church, founded by Christ as a perfect society, has a natural and inalienable right to perfect freedom and immunity from the power of the state; and that in fulfilling the task committed to her by God of teaching, ruling, and guiding to eternal bliss those who belong to the kingdom of Christ, she cannot be subject to any external power...

32. Nations will be reminded by the annual celebration of this feast that not only private individuals but also rulers and princes are bound to give public honor and obedience to Christ. It will call to their minds the thought of the last judgment, wherein Christ, who has been cast out of public life, despised, neglected and ignored, will most severely avenge these insults; for his kingly dignity demands that the State should take account of the commandments of God and of Christian principles, both in making laws and in administering justice, and also in providing for the young a sound moral education.


Given at St. Peter's Rome, on the eleventh day of the month of December, in the Holy Year 1925, the fourth of Our Pontificate.

Pope Pius XI

Quas Primas, Pope Pius XI on Christ the King (pt 1)

Yesterday was the Feast of Christ the King. Today and tomorrow, we're going to take a close look at Pope Pius XI's encyclical in which he instituted this feast to answer the question, "why did Pius think we needed this feast in the 1920s?" (with my emphases and comments).

Venerable Brethren, Greeting and the Apostolic Benediction.

IN THE FIRST ENCYCLICAL LETTER which We addressed at the beginning of Our Pontificate to the Bishops of the universal Church, We referred to the chief causes of the difficulties under which mankind was laboring. And We remember saying that these manifold evils in the world were due to the fact that the majority of men had thrust Jesus Christ and his holy law out of their lives (how much more true is this today than it was 88 years ago?); that these had no place either in private affairs or in politics: and we said further, that as long as individuals and states refused to submit to the rule of our Savior, there would be no really hopeful prospect of a lasting peace among nations. Men must look for the peace of Christ in the Kingdom of Christ...
 6. Since this Holy Year (1925 was a jubilee year) therefore has provided more than one opportunity to enhance the glory of the kingdom of Christ, we deem it in keeping with our Apostolic office to accede to the desire of many of the Cardinals, Bishops, and faithful, made known to Us both individually and collectively, by closing this Holy Year with the insertion into the Sacred Liturgy of a special feast of the Kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ...

7. It has long been a common custom to give to Christ the metaphorical title of "King," because of the high degree of perfection whereby he excels all creatures. So he is said to reign "in the hearts of men," ...But if we ponder this matter more deeply, we cannot but see that the title and the power of King belongs to Christ as man in the strict and proper sense too. For it is only as man that he may be said to have received from the Father "power and glory and a kingdom," since the Word of God, as consubstantial with the Father, has all things in common with him, and therefore has necessarily supreme and absolute dominion over all things created.

8. Do we not read throughout the Scriptures that Christ is the King?...

11. Moreover, Christ himself speaks of his own kingly authority...

12. It was surely right, then, in view of the common teaching of the sacred books, that the Catholic Church, which is the kingdom of Christ on earth, (the Catholic Church IS the kingdom on earth) destined to be spread among all men and all nations, should with every token of veneration salute her Author and Founder in her annual liturgy as King and Lord, and as King of Kings... The perfect harmony of the Eastern liturgies with our own in this continual praise of Christ the King shows once more the truth of the axiom: Legem credendi lex statuit supplicandi. The rule of faith is indicated by the law of our worship. (lex orandi, lex credendi)


14. ... it is a dogma of faith that Jesus Christ was given to man, not only as our Redeemer, but also as a law-giver, to whom obedience is due (want a personal relationship with Jesus? Obey Him!) . Not only do the gospels tell us that he made laws, but they present him to us in the act of making them. Those who keep them show their love for their Divine Master, and he promises that they shall remain in his love... In this power is included the right of rewarding and punishing all men living, for this right is inseparable from that of judging. Executive power, too, belongs to Christ, for all must obey his commands; none may escape them, nor the sanctions he has imposed.

15. This kingdom is spiritual and is concerned with spiritual things...The gospels present this kingdom as one which men prepare to enter by penance, and cannot actually enter except by faith and by baptism... This kingdom is opposed to none other than to that of Satan and to the power of darkness...


17. It would be a grave error... to say that Christ has no authority whatever in civil affairs, since, by virtue of the absolute empire over all creatures committed to him by the Father, all things are in his power. Nevertheless, during his life on earth he refrained from the exercise of such authority, and although he himself disdained to possess or to care for earthly goods, he did not, nor does he today, interfere with those who possess them...

18. Thus the empire of our Redeemer embraces all men. To use the words of Our immortal predecessor, Pope Leo XIII: "His empire includes not only Catholic nations, not only baptized persons who, though of right belonging to the Church, have been led astray by error (Protestants), or have been cut off from her by schism (Eastern Orthodox), but also all those who are outside the Christian faith (all others); so that truly the whole of mankind is subject to the power of Jesus Christ."(Enc. Annum Sacrum, May 25, 1899.) ... If, therefore, the rulers of nations wish to preserve their authority, to promote and increase the prosperity of their countries, they will not neglect the public duty of reverence and obedience to the rule of Christ. (Re-read that. How does that make you feel, especially as an American?)... "With God and Jesus Christ...excluded from political life, with authority derived not from God but from man, the very basis of that authority has been taken away, because the chief reason of the distinction between ruler and subject has been eliminated. The result is that human society is tottering to its fall, because it has no longer a secure and solid foundation."

19. When once men recognize, both in private and in public life, that Christ is King, society will at last receive the great blessings of real liberty... (Note: Christ must rule both our private and public lives. There is no room for us to leave our Faith out of the public square. None.) ...


Pope Pius XI

We will finish looking at this encyclical tomorrow.

Sunday, October 11, 2015

Columbus Day, 1892

Columbus Day is tomorrow.

Some will celebrate the eponymous man and his accomplishments. Some will be happy for a day off of school or work (if they even get one). Others, however, especially those who loath western culture, their own culture and thus, in some way their ancestors and themselves, will stop to denounce Columbus and cry out for this holiday to be stripped from the calendar.

What was once an uncontroversial day to celebrate one of the greatest navigational feats in human history has, unfortunately, become a moment for those living on these shores to battle one another.

Thus we each are forced to ask ourselves who was Columbus? What is his import? Is he a character to be celebrated? A villain to be denounced?

Can we, in 2015, still raise our voices to proclaim the greatness of the "Admiral of the Seas? Or do we now, with many of our contemporaries, merely see Columbus as an imperialist slave-trader?

More specifically, how should we, as American Catholics, feel about Christopher Columbus?

Hero or Villain?

Perhaps the best way to answer these questions is to reflect on how we have answered them in the past. Therefore, today we turn our eyes to selections from the Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII from July 16, 1892 on the occasion of the Quadri-centennial of Columbus' famous voyage. (With my comments and emphases).

"To Our Venerable Brethren, the Archbishops and Bishops of Spain, Italy, and the two Americas.

Now that four centuries have sped since a Ligurian first, under God's guidance, touched shores unknown beyond the Atlantic, the whole world is eager to celebrate the memory of the event, and glorify its author. Nor could a worthier reason be found where through zeal should be kindled. For the exploit is in itself the highest and grandest which any age has ever seen accomplished by man; and he who achieved it, for the greatness of his mind and heart, can be compared to but few in the history of humanity. By his toil another world emerged from the unsearched bosom of the ocean: hundreds of thousands of mortals have, from a state of blindness, been raised to the common level of the human race, reclaimed from savagery to gentleness and humanity (we often forget today, in our age of cultural relativism and hatred of Western Civ. how brutral native society was. "Savagery" - human sacrifice and cannibalism were ritually practiced - and "blindness" - technologically the native populations were in the Stone Age - darkened pre-Columbian America), ; and, greatest of all, by the acquisition of those blessings of which Jesus Christ is the author, they have been recalled from destruction to eternal life (extra ecclesiam nulla salus - even though the natives were in invincible ignorance of the Catholic Faith, unrepentant violation of the moral law leads to damnation and without the teachings and graces available to Catholics the road to destruction is indeed very wide.) Europe, indeed, overpowered at the time by the novelty and strangeness of the discovery, presently came to recognize what was due to Columbus...amidst so lavish a display of honor, so unanimous a tribute of congratulations, it is fitting that the Church should not be altogether silent; since she, by custom and precedent, willingly approves and endeavors to forward whatsoever she see, and wherever she see it, that is honorable and praiseworthy. It is true she reserves her special and greatest honors for virtues that most signally proclaim a high morality, for these are directly associated with the salvation of souls (i.e. Columbus is not a saint. He did evil things and his ultimate fate is unknown to the Church); but she does not, therefore, despise or lightly estimate virtues of other kinds (i.e. although Columbus wasn't a saint, we still can, indeed should, praise his virtuous actions)...

2. But there is, besides, another reason, a unique one, why We consider that this immortal achievement should be recalled by Us with memorial words. For Columbus is ours; since if a little consideration be given to the particular reason of his design in exploring the "mare tenebrosum," and also the manner in which he endeavored to execute the design, it is indubitable that the Catholic faith was the strongest motive for the inception and prosecution of the design; so that for this reason also the whole human race owes not a little to the Church.

3. ...We say not that he was unmoved by perfectly honorable aspirations after knowledge, and deserving well of human society; nor did he despise glory (he did demand the title "Admiral of the Seas"), which is a most engrossing ideal to great souls; nor did he altogether scorn a hope of advantages to himself (he was to profit nicely from any discoveries he made); but to him far before all these human considerations was the consideration of his ancient faith, which questionless dowered him with strength of mind and will, and often strengthened and consoled him in the midst of the greatest difficulties. This view and aim is known to have possessed his mind above all; namely, to open a way for the Gospel over new lands and seas (Do we still feel the spread of the Gospel and the salvation of souls to be the greatest good for man?).

4. ...when he learned from the lessons of astronomy and the record of the ancients, that there were great tracts of land lying towards the West, beyond the limits of the known world, lands hitherto explored by no man, he saw in spirit a mighty multitude, cloaked in miserable darkness, given over to evil rites, and the superstitious worship of vain gods. (The native populations were lost in a sea of polytheism and nature worship. These gods are "vain" because they either don't exist at all or are demons deluding men and leading them astray, leading them into "evil rites" such as human sacrifice.) Miserable it is to live in a barbarous state and with savage manners: but more miserable to lack the knowledge of that which is highest, and to dwell in ignorance of the one true God. Considering these things, therefore, in his mind, he sought first of all to extend the Christian name and the benefits of Christian charity to the West (the moral teachings of Christ), as is abundantly proved by the history of the whole undertaking..(Columbus) hastens to seek missionaries from Pope Alexander VI, through a letter in which this sentence occurs: "I trust that, by God's help, I may spread the Holy Name and Gospel of Jesus Christ as widely as may be." He was carried away, as we think, with joy, when on his first return from the Indies he wrote to Raphael Sanchez: "That to God should be rendered immortal thanks, Who had brought his labors such prosperous issues; that Jesus Christ rejoices and triumphs on earth no less than in Heaven, at the approaching salvation of nations innumerable, who were before hastening to destruction.(These were all people no Catholic knew. Men, like Columbus, risked their lives for the salvation of unknown souls. Before we begin casting stones, perhaps we ought to ask if we have, if we even would, do the same.)"

5. ...Columbus threw open America at the time when a great storm (Protestantism) was about to break over the Church. As far, therefore, as it is lawful for man to divine from events the ways of Divine Providence, he seemed to have truly been born, by a singular provision of God, to remedy those losses which were awaiting the Catholic Church on the side of Europe (Today, almost half of all Catholics are in lands discovered by Columbus).

6. ...We mention what is indeed well known, but is also characteristic of the man's mind and soul. For being compelled by the Portuguese and Genoese to leave his object unachieved, when he had reached Spain, within the wall of a Religious house he matured his great design of meditated exploration, having for confidant and adviser a Religious—a disciple of Francis of Assisi. Being at length about to depart for the sea, he attended to all that which concerned the welfare of his soul on the eve of his enterprise. He implored the Queen of Heaven to assist his efforts and direct his course; and he ordered that no sail should be hoisted until the name of the Trinity had been invoked. When he had put out to sea, and the waves were now growing tempestuous, and the sailors were filled with terror, he kept a tranquil constancy of mind, relying on God. The very names he gave to the newly discovered islands tell the purposes of the man. At each disembarkation he offered up prayers to Almighty God, nor did he take possession save "in the Name of Jesus Christ." Upon whatsoever shores he might be driven, his first act was to set upon the shore the standard of the holy Cross: and the name of the Divine Redeemer, which he had so often sung on the open sea to the sound of the murmuring waves, he conferred upon the new islands. Thus at Hispaniola he began to build from the ruins of the temple, and all popular celebrations were preceded by the most sacred ceremonies .

Columbus lands on Hispaniola

10. Meanwhile, as a pledge of heavenly favors and of Our own paternal goodwill, we lovingly bestow the Apostolic Benediction in Our Lord upon you, Venerable Brethren, and upon your clergy and people."


Thursday, October 1, 2015

How Pope Francis Evangelized America (And You Can Too!)

Pope Francis’ visit to the United States was a smashing success… right? He certainly seemed to capture the attention, at least for the moment, of the American people and that’s no small feat. 

Will his visit, though, have any lasting impact? 

The mission of a pope in the world of the twenty-first century is not an easy one. Far from being widely respected, let alone obeyed, as popes once were, the power to command, or even influence, people - even among their own flock - of pontiffs today is questionable. 

In his authoritative early work, Introduction to Christianity, Pope Benedict XVI relates the following story originally from Soren Kierkegaard, which might well sum up the position of the Pope (and even of the rank and file believer) in today’s cultural climate.
According to this story, a traveling circus in Denmark caught fire. The manager thereupon sent the clown, who was already dressed and made up for the performance, into the neighborhood village to fetch help, especially as there was a danger that the fire would spread across the fields of dry stubble and engulf the village itself. The clown hurried into the village and requested the inhabitants to come as quickly as possible to the blazing circus and help to put the fire out. But the villagers took the clown’s shouts simply for an excellent piece of advertising, meant to attract as many people as possible to the performance; they applauded the clown and laughed till they cried. The clown felt more like weeping than laughing; he tried in vain to get people to be serious, to make it clear to them that this was no stunt, that he was not pretending but was in bitter earnest, that there really was a fire. His supplications only increased the laughter; people thought he was playing his part splendidly - until finally the fire did engulf the village; it was too late for help, and both circus and village were burned to the ground. (p. 30)

Benedict asks whether this isn’t a perfect analogy to the task of the theologian, or indeed we might add any Christian seeking to evangelize in the world today. The clown, of course, represents the Christian, especially the Catholic, dressed in odd (we might even say Medieval) costume, fascinating the world with his performance, but not quite ever being taken in earnest. He pleads with his “modern” neighbors, warning of their impending doom, but they can’t ever quite get themselves to take him seriously. It is, they insist, all just a role he is playing, even the clown, after all, knows he’s just a clown.

This story, related by Benedict a half-century ago and written by Kierkegaard a century before that, is particularly relevant today, in the aftermath of Pope Francis’ visit to the United States. Here the citizens of the United States, the epicenter in many ways of “modern culture”, cheered, celebrated, and watched - with baited breath - every movement of the Vicar of Christ on Earth. But where they doing so merely as the crowd in Denmark gathered to watch the clown? Was this just a sideshow, a moment to watch a man, dressed in oddly antiquarian garb, teach oddly antiquarian truths? Were the Holy Father’s pleas, diplomatically delivered, received with the same urgency that the clown’s were? And will the consequences be as terrible? Did Pope Francis with his visit succeed in getting Americans, including American Catholics, to realize a fire is threatening them or was he taken for a mere showman, a clown in a silly costume, who ought to be watched, enjoyed, but never taken seriously?

Now that the media coverage is over, now that the spectacle has subsided, the answer will become clearer and clearer. These questions can only really be be answered only with the passing of time. 

But what if the answer is “yes?” Where does that leave us Catholics? What are we to do to get an increasingly deaf world to listen to our warnings?

Reflecting on our opening story, we might conclude the circus clown would have been quite a bit more convincing had he simply taken off the costume, the make up, and the big red shoes. If he could have just looked like everyone else, then the villagers would have listened to him and been saved from he flames. It seems like an obvious answer, doesn’t it?

We Catholics then ought just to get rid of those ridiculous, medieval, costumes! 

Replace cassocks with shirts and pants, get rid of the religious orders’ ancient habits, substituting the same clothing any other person would wear, drop the incense, the Latin, the chant, and all that “sacred” art from the churches, in fact - build new churches that look like office buildings or schools!

In short, take off the “clown make-up” and put on modern dress and everything will be okay. This line of thought, called aggiornamento, ripped through the Church in the immediate aftermath of the Second Vatican Council. Nuns abandoned their habits, priests wore jeans and celebrated Mass on the beach, even the Pope got rid of his tiara.

Now none of these changes are necessarily bad in themselves. Our Faith isn’t in vestments, but in the beliefs of the Church and I’m not here arguing that a return to “Pre-Vatican 2” appearances are some magical panacea or that these changes, again though some semi-magical and never fully explained process, led to the current state of alienation of people from the Church. However, at fifty years remove, it is abundantly clear that aggiornamento, whatever your aesthetic preferences, wasn’t enough for modern man to take the Church seriously. Nor, I think we can safely conclude, would the message of Francis be taken any more seriously if he came in a neck tie or a t-shirt and jeans rather than in his simple, white cassock. 

Aggiornamento, the changing of the exterior look of the Faith, wasn’t enough to fool modern man who still smells the odor of the centuries on the Church, a smell - the smell of tradition - which repeals modern man, fixated as he is on “progress” and “the future.” What is new, is “improved;” what is old, is “obsolete” and no amount of cosmetic surgery can possibly trick modern man into thinking the Church is anything but ancient.

Maybe, we might begin to think, it isn’t just the clothing we need to change. If our clown came running into the village, dressed normally but spouting jokes even as he warned of the impending danger of a wild fire, we could forgive the villagers for not taking him seriously, despite the costume change. What we need, then, isn’t just aggiornamento, but “demythologizing.” How is modern man to take us Christians seriously when, even in more modern dress, we go about speaking of miracles? Of men rising from the dead, of sin, and of things like Hell? Wouldn’t it be better to reinterpret our Faith to be more palpable? Jesus didn’t feed the five thousand by miraculously multiplying bread and fish… no! He got people to share, that was the “real miracle!” Resurrection from the dead? Yes, yes, we believe that, but not in the sense of a physical rising… no… we rather mean that the memory of Jesus lives on and His mission carries on with us, His followers. Etc.

This “demythologization” of Christianity has been ongoing for over a century and thanks to it we’ve seen a massive pouring of people into the Church… or not. 

In fact, this doesn’t work much better than aggiornamento does it? The leading exemplar of a “demythologized” Christianity might just be the Anglican Communion where even belief in God is no longer the belief in something “supernatural” (“we believe in the objective value of the concept of God” says the demythologizer). Yet this tactic must necessarily fail for two reasons.

First, once you’ve finished “demythologizing” Christianity, you’re left with believing in well, something other than Christianity. We haven’t saved the Faith, we’ve abandoned it. We’ve not thrown out the baby with the bathwater, but we’ve found that we’ve meticulously preserved every drop of dirty bathwater and discarded the baby in the nearest dumpster. 

Second, and this is a direct consequence of the first reason, we’ve found that no one is really all that interested in our “demythologized” religion. So Jesus got people to share, modern man asks, “who cares?” So the Apostles kept the teachings and workings of a particularly kind man alive after his brutal execution? “thanks for the ancient history lesson, now may I move on to life in the twenty-first century, please?” A “demythologized” Christianity, aside from being both absurd and false, is entirely irrelevant. The “historical” Jesus, who is constructed in myriad, contradictory ways, but who always just happens to reflect exactly the passions of the constructor of the image, is just that - historical, trapped in the past and unable to reach man here and now. And worse still this ancient artifact, this “demythologized” Christianity makes demands, moral demands, on men to live in a way quite contrary to the spirit of the age. Why should I, asks modern man, deny myself to follow a first century Jewish nice guy (or political rebel or false messiah or what have you)?

Aha! We might think, that’s the key. It isn’t enough to change out of the ancient costume or stop speaking about miracles, what we really need to do to make Christianity relevant again is to change the moral teachings! Let the world lead the way and we Christians will follow. You are a feminist, we’ll have women’s ordination; a homosexual, gay marriage; promiscuous? easy divorce (and remarriage!); sin? forgettaboutit. 

Finally, we might think, we’ve managed to get rid of all the clown and now we too are perfect villagers. 

In fact, we’ve blended in so fully with the rest of the village that we’ve managed to forget about the fire and will be as surprised as the rest when we die in the flames. Not only that, but this move too (like the other two we’ve tried) simply makes the Church, the Faith, redundant. Modern man doesn’t need to bother with sitting in some church somewhere on a Sunday morning just to hear the same platitudes he can hear elsewhere and he quickly learns this. Why go through all the effort when the game is on, or when he can sleep in, or do whatever else he feels is more important and a better use of time? We’ve tried to save the circus and the village and managed only to lose both.

Is there any hope? Can we Christians do no more than either abandon our Faith entirely or be laughed at by an unbelieving age?

Introduction to Christianity has another story for us that might light the way forward, this one originally from Martin Buber.
An adherent of the Enlightenment, a very learned man, who had heard of the Rabbi of Berditchev, paid a visit to him in order to argue, as was his custom, with him, too, and to shatter his old-fashioned proofs of the truth of his faith. When he entered the Rabbi’s room, he found him walking up and down with a book in his hand, rapt in thought. The Rabbi paid no attention to the new arrival. Suddenly he stopped, looked at him fleetingly, and said, “But perhaps it is true after all.” The scholar tried in vain to collect himself - his knees trembled, so terrible was the Rabbi to behold and so terrible his simple utterance to hear. But (the) Rabbi… now turned to face him and spoke quite calmly: “My son, the great scholars of the Torah with whom you have argued wasted their words on you: as you departed you laughed at them. They were unable to lay God and his Kingdom on the table before you, and neither can I. But think, my son, perhaps it is true.” The exponent of the Enlightenment opposed him with all his strength; but this terrible “perhaps” that echoed back at him time after time broke his resistance. (pp. 34-35)
“Perhaps it is true.” That simple message, that awe-inspiring thought is enough to break down the futile resistance of our “adherent of the Enlightenment” (think New Atheist). We can imagine what would have happen in our village had one person said to himself, “perhaps it is true.” He would surely have escaped the flames, but more importantly could very well have saved both the circus and the village. 

“Perhaps it is true,” those words must arrest any secularist in his tracks. Is he so sure of his knowledge and erudition (and when dealing with our New Atheists they tend to be painfully short on both these in the relevant fields) that he can entirely dismiss that “perhaps?” 

But what of the vast majority of those who laugh at our clownish ways? They haven’t left off the Faith because of argumentation. Rather they have drifted slowly from the Faith, first failing to live the moral teachings of the Church, then denying those teachings altogether. What of this type? Can someone who has lost the Faith not through rational argumentation, but through immoral living be struck by the power of the “perhaps?” 

In his seminal masterpiece, I Promessi Sposi, Alessandro Manzoni introduces us to the archetype of this modern man. He is so representative of everyman that he bears only l’innominato (the unnamed) as an identification in the story. 

This man lived as worldly a life as one can - committing any and every sin to promote his material well-being, indeed he exemplifies the lifestyle that is the natural consequence of disbelief in God, summed up so well by Dostoyevsky, “if God doesn’t exist, all things are permissible.” Now, lying alone in his castle in the darkness and stillness of the night, he is haunted by a sense of his own mortality, of the possibility of his own death…
It was not death threatened by an enemy who was himself mortal; it was not to be replaced by stronger weapons, or a readier arm; it came alone, it was suggested from within; it might still be distant, but every moment brought it a step nearer. (p. 322)
And this sense of his own eventual demise brings with it just that same “perhaps,”
That God, of whom he had once heard, but whom he had long ceased either to deny or acknowledge, solely occupied as he was in acting as though he existed not, now, at certain moments of depression without cause, and terror without danger, he imagined he heard repeating within him, ‘Nevertheless, I am.’ (p. 322)
Most of the people who we must evangelize fall into this second camp. Maybe they are not the arch-sinners that l’innominato was, but they neither “deny or acknowledge” God, living “as though he existed not.”

How does the Church, how do we, reach them? With that “perhaps.” With that “nevertheless.” We need not worry ourselves about the costume we wear, about whether those outside the Church already believe the miracles and morality of the Faith (of course they don’t, else they’d be in the Church rather than out). We can’t pretend the Faith we hold is “new and improved” when we all know it is the common heritage of the Western world these last two millennia. 

Dressing in different guises, blending in with the world, will do us no good. At best we become redundant, at worst we are seen as deceivers. What we need to do is what the Faith has always called us to do - “preach the word, in season and out” (2 Tim 4:2). Proclaim that comfort shattering “perhaps” to the unbelieving world. Is materialism true? Can science be the measure of all human knowledge? Or is there something beyond physics? 


That’s not to imply that we can’t, through philosophy, know God exists. It isn’t to suggest the believer and the non-believer are alike stuck in a perpetual “perhaps.” It is, however, a place to start. That one powerful word, “perhaps,” can be what it takes to move someone from indifference (like l’innominato) or from outright disbelief (like our “adherent of the Enlightenment”) into serious, soul searching, dialogue. In that regard it also will do much more than aggiornamento, “demythologizing,” or dumping the moral teachings of Christ for those of Dr. Phil ever could to start the reconversion of the world, to launch the New Evangelization. 

And I think that is exactly what Pope Francis’ visit achieved. 

Time will tell.


Recommended Reading (purchase through these links to support this blog at no additional cost):

Enjoy this post? Subscribe to my mailing list! (no spam)

* indicates required

Tuesday, September 22, 2015

How to Discuss Abortion Like a Pro. A Dialogue Between a Catholic and an Atheist.

An Atheist and a Catholic Discuss Abortion.

The Scene: A Catholic is praying the Rosary outside a Planned Parenthood when he is approached by an atheist pro-choice Planned Parenthood supporter who happens to be on his lunch break. A conversation ensues…

Atheist: You’re praying for this woman’s health center to be closed aren’t you?

Catholic: Yes, I am.

Atheist: And you pray that abortion may be outlawed, don’t you?

Catholic: I do.

Atheist: In all circumstances?

Catholic: Yes.

Atheist: That’s my problem with you religious nuts. My daughter just had an abortion. You’d have stopped her, wouldn’t have you?

Catholic: I’d have tried to dissuade her from getting an abortion, yes.

Atheist: But then she’d be dead! It was an ectopic pregnancy. She removed the fertilized egg, what you’d call “murder,” to save her own life! You think your God would rather they both were dead don’t you?

Catholic: You say she removed a “fertilized egg,” you mean she removed a living human, correct?

Atheist:  No. A fertilized egg is not a human anymore than a sperm is! If I wanted to say “living human” I would have.

Catholic: If the “fertilized egg” isn’t human, what is it?

Atheist: That’s a stupid question. It’s a fertilized egg! I thought that would be obvious. Why would you have wanted my daughter to painfully die instead of going to see a doctor?

Catholic: Nice appeal to emotion, but I haven’t said I wanted your daughter to die, have I? But let’s look closer at your “obvious” claim. Sure, a “fertilized egg” is a “fertilized egg” (that would be the law of identity), but that doesn't mean that a “fertilized egg” is not a human anymore than saying a toddler is a toddler means a toddler isn’t a human. You do admit toddlers are human?

Atheist: Of course.

Catholic: Let’s take a step back. Is a “fertilized egg” alive?

Atheist:  Yes, but I’m saying that isn’t enough to say removing it is wrong.

Catholic: I agree. We need to ascertain what kind of living thing this “fertilized egg” is. 

Atheist: It’s an egg.

Catholic: Right, but is it a living human fertilized egg or is it some other kind of living fertilized egg, perhaps we’re talking about a canine fertilized egg or a feline fertilized egg?

Atheist: Are you suggesting my daughter had sex with an animal? You Catholics…

Catholic: I’m not “suggesting” anything, I’m just trying to figure out what kind of living fertilized egg we are talking about. We both agree it’s human, correct?

Atheist: Of course it’s human. I’m insulted by the question! But that doesn’t mean anything. Did you wash your hands this morning?

Catholic: I’ve washed my hands several times today.

Atheist: Then you’ve murdered thousands of living things! Worse yet, thousands of living human things!

Catholic: I wonder if your analogy holds up. Is the “fertilized egg” genetically distinct from your daughter? Does it have it’s own, distinct, DNA?

Atheist: It does. It’s not a clone! What do you think my daughter is anyhow?

Catholic: Are the skin cells that die when I wash my hands genetically distinct from me? Do they have their own, distinct, DNA?

Atheist: No.

Catholic: Hand washing might not be the best analogy to abortion then as we both agree the “fertilized egg” is living, human, and genetically distinct from your daughter, while the skin cells in my hands do not possess those three characteristics. Lacking their own DNA code, the skin cells were just parts of my body. The genetically distinct “fertilized egg” that was removed wasn’t just a body part, it was a living human that is now dead.

Atheist: So you think my daughter should have died. End of story. Just like I said. You’re heartless.

Catholic: I don’t remember saying that and I’ll thank you for not putting words into my mouth. Would you agree that it is always wrong to kill an innocent person to save another person’s life?

Atheist: Well…

Catholic: Had your daughter needed a heart transplant and your perfectly healthy neighbor had a perfect match would it by right for you to kill him, harvest his heart and give it to your daughter to preserve her life? 

Atheist: Of course that would be wrong.

Catholic: I’m glad we agree on that too. Let’s call that “principle one.” Would you also agree with me that the following situation isn’t immoral?

Let’s say your daughter had gone on a cruise and the ship began to sink. There isn’t enough life boats for everyone, but your daughter ends up in one. She lives. Other people drown in the sea for lack of space in the boats. 

I’d say your daughter has done nothing wrong in this case. She hasn’t murdered anyone by getting into a lifeboat to save her own life even if it was foreseen that some people (as an unfortunate and unavoidable side effect) would die in the sea for lack of space in the boats. All she did was a morally neutral act - get into a lifeboat to survive a sea disaster. 

You don’t think she is morally responsible for murdering those who drowned, do you?

Atheist: Of course not. They died from the disaster at sea, not from my daughters actions. Maybe your God is to blame!

Catholic: If she had smashed someone over the head with a hammer and tossed them into the sea to make sure they didn’t take a seat she wanted, however, you’d agree that is murder?

Atheist: Yes, yes. You can’t go around killing people to save your own life, we already agreed to that.

Catholic: But in our example above, she is just saving her life, not killing other people, which is morally neutral? It is alright to save your life even if an unavoidable, unintended consequence of your morally neutral act results, indirectly, in the death of some other person.

Atheist: Quite right.

Catholic: Let’s call this “principle two.”

Atheist: Very well.

Catholic: Then with our agreement on these very basic moral principles and with what we’ve already agreed on regarding the nature of a “fertilized egg” I think we can conclude the following:

The unborn, as living, genetically distinct humans cannot be justly killed even to save another living, genetically distinct human. That is our “principle one.” Does that mean your daughter should have been left to die when her fallopian tube would have inevitably burst? Not at all.

An ectopic pregnancy can be morally resolved, not by directly killing the genetically distinct, living human (that would be like killing your neighbor for his heart), but it can be resolved by removing the part of the fallopian tube which is set to burst. Here we are treating the pathology in a morally neutral way (just like getting into a lifeboat is morally neutral), even though an unfortunate side consequence will be the death of the baby (like those left behind to die on the sinking ship). In the philosophy of ethics this is known as the law of double effect. It is a sad situation, but it isn’t an immoral one.

Atheist: Well… maybe you wouldn’t have let her die, but what about women with cancer or in other cases where the life of the mother is in danger? 

Catholic: Our basic principle can be applied to any of those cases. We can treat the disease, even if it unfortunately results in the unavoidable death of the baby (our “principle 2”), but we can never directly kill the unborn simply to save the life of a born person (our “principle 1”). Directly killing the unborn (“abortion”) is always wrong.

Atheist: Yeah, well you Catholics are still heartless. You might not let a woman die but you still would punish women who are raped by making them have babies they didn’t choose to.

Catholic: The other “hard case,” eh? First, let me ask you do you oppose abortion in all cases other than rape and when the mother’s life is in danger? Do you support outlawing the 99% of abortions that occur for reasons other than these two? If so, let’s stop bickering and start working to end those abortions, the one’s we both agree are wrong.

Atheist: Not so fast. I think a woman has the right to choose.

Catholic: Your use of these “hard cases” is, then, just a rhetorical strategy?

Atheist: It sounds like you are avoiding my question. Would you punish a rape victim by forcing her to become a mother? Yes or no?

Catholic: I’m not avoiding your question. We’ve agreed on quite a lot, maybe we ought to see if we can agree on another basic moral principle to help us resolve this case. Let’s say a man went on a murderous rampage and then killed himself. Should the State execute the children of the murderer as they can’t execute the murderer himself?

Atheist: That sounds like some barbaric religious morality, not like mine.

Catholic: You don’t think the child of a murderer ought to be executed for the crimes of his father, even if those crimes are incredibly heinous?

Atheist: Absolutely not.

Catholic: Is rape a heinous crime?

Atheist: Do you even have to ask?

Catholic: Is the child the rapist or the rapist’s child?

Atheist: Obviously the child isn’t the rapist.

Catholic: The unborn child hasn’t committed a crime?

Atheist: Certainly not.

Catholic: You don’t think the crimes of the the father ought to allow a capital sentence to be executed on the son or daughter, right?

Atheist: Not at all.

Catholic: Then we seem to agree on this point too. From this we can conclude…

Atheist: Wait a minute. I don’t think abortion is okay in cases of rape because the child deserves a death sentence, but I do think it’s okay because the woman shouldn’t be punished for being raped! She isn’t the criminal either, you know. You pro lifers only care about unborn life. What about the woman’s life? Should she be made to suffer?

Catholic: The woman hasn’t done anything wrong and it is horrible and unjust that she has been violated in such a way. I certainly agree with you there.

Atheist: But you still want to punish her. You want her to be forced, against her will, to be a mother. That’s cruel.

Catholic: Do you think a raped woman should be able to kill a born child if that child was conceived against her will? Say the trauma is still too much for her after three years and she decides to kill the toddler on his third birthday. Do you think that is an okay choice?

Atheist: Of course not.

Catholic: I’m only extending that same protection to the life of those same children before  they are born. I’m being consistent.

Atheist: But the children aren’t the same before they are born…

Catholic: Oh… I see. Your objection isn’t about rape, is it? You object to treating born and unborn children the same.

Atheist: Because the unborn aren’t the same!

Catholic: We’ve already shown they are living, genetically distinct humans. They aren’t “parts” of the woman’s body, but people in their own right. It sounds like you favor age discrimination. Can you give any good reason these living, genetically distinct humans ought to lack the rights of their born brothers and sisters?

Atheist: Yes and that is why I picked rape as an example. The unborn are burdensome to the mother. They are completely dependent on her! That makes them different.

Catholic: Are newborns “completely dependent” on others to help them?

Atheists: Not as dependent as the unborn!

Catholic:  Are newborns or teenagers more dependent on their parents?

Atheist: Newborns, clearly. A teenager can suffice for themselves if they have to, but a newborn can’t.

Catholic: If the parents of a 17 year old leave their child home alone for an evening out or even a weekend vacation, would you say they are doing something wrong?

Atheist: No. I have a teenager myself and I have left them alone longer than that.

Catholic: Even without care being provided? No babysitter?

Atheist: They don’t need one at that age. You must be a helicopter parent.

Catholic: What if the parents of a newborn left for an evening out without providing any care for their newly born child, would that be wrong?

Atheist: That would be criminal. The baby would likely die.

Catholic: So you’re saying parents are more responsible for their children the more dependent they are on them for survival?

Atheist: Yes.

Catholic: And the unborn are the most dependent of all children?

Atheist: And therefore the parents are most responsible to keep them alive, that’s your point, isn’t it?

Catholic: Well?

Atheist: But what about the rights of the woman, she is a victim here?

Catholic: If you steal my car is it okay for me to steal my neighbor’s TV?

Atheist: What? Of course not. Two wrongs don’t make a right.

Catholic: Right. And the horrible wrong of rape isn’t righted by another horrible act - killing the innocent unborn child.

Atheist: So you’re fine with making this woman suffer more?

Catholic: It’s regrettable and we should do everything possible as a society to eliminate the crime of rape and to punish rapists to the full extent of the law. Nonetheless, killing the innocent child is not an acceptable solution.

Atheist: You’re making this woman, this victim, be the mother of her assailant’s child.

Catholic: If she’s pregnant, she’s already the mother of the attacker’s child. I’m just saying making her the mother of a dead child isn’t the solution. As you said, “two wrongs don’t make a right.” The horror of the attack isn’t lessened by making the mother complicit in the death of her unborn child.

Atheist: I support choice. That’s the difference here. You want to impose your religious beliefs on women. I don’t. I think women are smart enough to make these choices for themselves. Choice is good.

Catholic: Is choice always good?

Atheist: Overall? Yes. I might not respect everyone’s choices, but I respect their right to make them.

Catholic: Is the choice of the man to become a rapist “good?”

Atheist: Of course not. 

Catholic: Is the choice of the racist to murder African Americans “good?”

Atheist: I can’t believe you are even asking that.

Catholic: So “choice” isn’t always good.

Atheist: It depends on what is being chosen.

Catholic: Is killing innocent living, genetically distinct humans “good?”

Atheist: You know what, as a man, I don’t feel comfortable answering that. It’s a woman’s issue.

Catholic: Are all unborn babies female?

Atheist: No.

Catholic: So male babies are being aborted?

Atheist: I’d guess about half are male.

Catholic: You’d be wrong. More females are aborted, simply because they are female. That’s the true “war on women,” but you admit many male lives are being ended via abortion.

Atheist: Yes.

Catholic: How many of the aborted babies have male parents?

Atheist: Come now, all of them.

Catholic: Many male lives are being ended by abortion and every aborted child has a male parent? 

Atheist: Yes.

Catholic: How is this only a female issue again?

Atheist: It’s a woman’s body…

Catholic: I thought we agreed the unborn are genetically distinct.

Atheist: We did.
Catholic: Then we aren’t talking just about the woman’s body are we? We’re primarily talking about the unborn child’s body.

Atheist: Well, we men don’t understand what it is like to be pregnant.

Catholic: No, but we were once unborn. We can be parents. And we are “living, genetically distinct humans.” I think that’s more than enough to make us interested in stopping the termination of human lives, even if we aren’t able to be pregnant.

Atheist: I don’t know. With all the disagreement over when a “living, genetically distinct, human” becomes a person, I just think it’s better to not impose the views, especially the religious views, of one group on the rest of society.

Catholic: How many times have I referred to God in this conversation?

Atheist: None.

Catholic: How often have I quoted the Bible or Church teaching?

Atheist: Not once.

Catholic: It doesn’t sound like we’re talking about a “religious view” then does it?

Atheist: Does your Church tell you abortion is wrong?

Catholic: Yes and it also tells me rape is wrong. Are you saying I shouldn’t support laws against rape because the Church is opposed to rape?

Atheist: Even if your position isn’t “religious,” it’s still just one view in a pluralistic society. Why should your definition of when a person comes into existence trump any one else’s? I think if we can’t agree, then the best policy is to leave the question to the individual conscience of each woman. I’m not saying the unborn are definitely not persons, just that we don’t know.

Catholic: Have you ever been hunting?

Atheist: No. Hunting is barbaric.

Catholic: I’ll resist the urge to point out the hypocrisy of your position. 

Atheist: I’m okay with the mother animal eating it’s young, so I’m not a hypocrite.

Catholic: But you are aware that some people do enjoy hunting, yes? That it is a pastime some people partake in. 

Atheist: Yes.

Catholic: And, you’re familiar with the possible situation that one hunter might not immediately recognize another hunter and might, by accident, shoot another hunter.

Atheist: Yes. I remember Vice President Cheney doing something like that. I really can’t stand Republicans.

Catholic: What would you say if we were hunting together and I saw a bush moving. You happen to be behind the bush, but I can’t tell for sure if it’s you or a deer behind the bush. My friend tells me it looks like a person. He even advances solid arguments showing that the creature I see is, in fact, a man not a deer. I, however, have another friend that says he isn’t sure what we are seeing behind the bush. Would I be justified in shooting?

Atheist: No. In fact you’d be guilty of at least criminal negligence, of manslaughter, if you killed me and rightly so.

Catholic: Why? My friends and I were unable to all agree that we were seeing a man.

Atheist: Why? Because it is irresponsible to shoot unless you are 100% certain you aren’t shooting a person! 

Catholic: Right. And we shouldn’t abort an unborn child unless we are 100% certain they are not people. Are you 100% sure they are not people?

Atheist: No.

Catholic: Then abortion is, at least, a criminally negligent act, at worst premeditated murder. Either way, it isn’t something we can leave up individual conscience. We, as a society, have an obligation to protect all people, especially the most vulnerable. 

Atheist: I don’t like abortion either. I actually don’t disagree with you that it’s a horrible thing. I think it sound be “safe, legal, and rare.”

Catholic: What’s horrible about it? Why should it be rare?

Atheist: Well… it… uh…

Catholic: We don’t describe routine “women’s health care” as “horrible,” do we?

Atheist: No.

Catholic: Don’t you think your moral repugnance might be telling you something about abortion?

Atheist: Maybe. 

Catholic: Would you consider an elective operation with a 50% mortality rate to be “safe?”

Atheist: Absolutely not. That’s why I support legal abortion, so 50% of women aren’t killed in back alley abortions. Are you suggesting half of all women who get an abortion are killed in the process? That’s absurd.

Catholic: I’m suggesting half of all “living, genetically distinct, humans” die in abortion.

Atheist: Hmmm… Well, you’ve given me a few things to think about. I’ll admit that much. I’m not convinced, but you’ve given me something to chew on. I’ve got to get back to work.

As the atheist walks away the Catholic picks back up his Rosary and begins to pray for his conversion.

Subscribe to my mailing list (no spam. ever.)

* indicates required