As I was in the middle of typing my last blog entry, my wife (who's reading "Preparing Yourself for Mass", by Fr. Romano Guardini--good author!) shared a theological observation with me. (Yes, I'm not the only one. She does it too--quite often, in fact... and usually with far less rambling than I use! I'd encourage her to start a blog, if I didn't think it would take the last bits of her spare time, push her beyond her last scrap of endurance, and put her in an asylum for the duration of her natural life. But I ramble...)
She mentioned the story in John 6, where many of Jesus' disciples abandoned Him, because they simply couldn't believe His teaching about the Eucharist (cf. John 6:22-72)... but mentioned something that hadn't struck her until now: remember when, after the mass abandonment, Jesus turned to the twelve and asked, "Do you also wish to leave? (John 6:68)" St. Peter spoke for all of them, in saying "no", but did you notice? Judas Iscariot, the one who would betray Jesus, didn't leave! But the twist comes with Jesus' reply to St. Peter: "Have I not chosen you, the twelve? Yet one of you is a devil", speaking of Judas. The traitor didn't leave when the unbelievers left. Did that make him a believer?
Let's look at that for a moment. Now, this isn't conclusive--I'm just following my nose, here (with help from Fr. Guardini!), but think about this:
- After St. Peter says, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of everlasting life, and we have come to believe that You are the Christ, the Son of God!", Jesus follows up with the "Have I not chosen you, the twelve? Yet one of you is a devil! Doesn't this suggest, at least somewhat, that Judas didn't believe? Nothing iron-clad, true... but suggestive.
- Earlier, St. John writes (describing Jesus speaking at the moment when the disciples were about to abandon Him en masse), "'The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life. But there are some among you who do not believe.' For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who it was who should betray Him." (John 6:64-65) Again, nothing provable in a court of law... but again, see the close association with disbelief and betrayal?
- St. John, in his first letter, writes: "[...]many antichrists have arisen [...] They have gone forth from us, but they were not of us. For if they had been of us, they would surely have continued with us;" (I John 2:18-19) This suggests that, among others, Judas was not "of them" in the sense of being true followers of Christ (i.e. those who believed).
- plain common sense suggests that, if Judas had truly believed Jesus to be the Messiah of God, and the Son of God, he would never have betrayed Him.
So... we have Judas, who (at least according to strong evidence) doesn't believe. That begs a question:
Why didn't he leave?
I wish I could answer that question with certainty; I can't. But I can tell you one thing: we have modern evidence of the same, with every Faux Catholic who walks the earth. They don't believe, but they still don't leave (for many possible reasons, I'm sure). Some seek to remake the Church in their own image. Others truly wish to destroy the Church from within. Others sense the power and authority of the Church of Christ, but want to take (or manipulate) that power for themselves. Still others are too weak, complacent, and comfortable to leave, or even to face their lack of faith. (I was of that number, I'm ashamed to say.)
It would certainly fit. Consider the sense of betrayal felt by the Church as Faux Catholics sacrifice unborn children to Moloch (with the updated name of "Planned Parenthood") for the sake of personal thrills and promised material gain; doesn't it mirror the betrayal felt by Christ as Judas sold Him for thirty pieces of silver? Judas wasn't honest; he didn't leave (or convert). Faux Catholics aren't honest, either; they don't leave (or convert). It looks as if the patron anti-saint of Faux Catholics is none other than Judas Iscariot.
I'd add this: Judas could have repented. He could have gone back, begged forgiveness, and been received back... to the point where we could have had a "St. Judas Iscariot" in the Church martyrology. (It happened with the murderer known as Saul of Tarsus, after all.) Likewise: Faux Catholics can come back. Or, if they refuse to repent, they can embrace honesty, and leave the Church (which is often a large step toward ultimate repentance and reception as a *true* Catholic!). The only thing they can't do, without remaining a Faux Catholic, is remain in the Church while still falling under the condemnation of Christ: "There are some among you who do not believe."
The truth will set you free... but you must embrace it, first.
Sunday, January 18, 2009
A Spade Is, In Fact, A Spade
(In atonement for neglecting this poor, starving blog for so long, I thought I'd feed it a 3-course meal; sit back, and let the rhetoric fly! :) )
I need to start this post with two confessions.
First: not only am I a sinful man, but I find it extremely hard to live up to the exhortations that I offer to everyone else. I can spend an entire evening teaching catechumens about the glories of redemptive suffering, and then I can mope for the entire following day because of my physical ailments. I can teach about the moral imperative of charity (and rejecting all ill-will toward our neighbour), and then sulk interminably over an offense that someone gave me. Oh, to be sure: I very rarely let these sins out of my head and into the external world (where others might see them)--and I sometimes even congratulate myself on my self-restraint in that regard--but, lest anyone think that I'm capable of "preaching from an ivory tower", I assure my readers that my feet are composed of the poorest quality of clay. I need that clear, lest people think that the fingers I wag at others are not equally wagged at myself. I assure you, they are.
Second: for all my talk of "faith, hope and love are choices, not feelings!", I was an enthusiastic proponent of "feelings-faith" (and basically making emotions the dominant guiding force in one's life) as recently as 7 years ago. When I condemn that error now, I do not do so as one who has no experience with such; in fact, the past 7 years have largely been a repudiation of that same philosophy which I embraced (and defended strenuously) for the majority of my life. (All right, all right: for the incurably nosey: I'm 40 years old, as of a week ago; okay? :) Now that *that's* out of the way...)
Why do I now fight so strenuously against this "emotion-driven" approach to life? Three reasons, primarily:
1) Rational: I've since examined the "emotion-driven" view of faith, and I've found it to be not only flawed, but completely unworkable (and--quite frankly--utterly insane).
2) Practical: it doesn't work. Or rather, it works to bring evil and ruin, all too successfully; what it does not do is bring about any substantial or lasting good.
3) Personal: with apologies for being vague, suffice it to say that the "emotion-driven" approach to faith leaves one open to horrors about which no sane person would even care to dream. I was lucky, and I survived... and I learned that the fight against "squishy, feelings-based faith" is not simply a matter of taste, or merely a fastidious distinction of systematic theology, or even a "good and laudable idea"; it's a matter of life and death. (Again: I hate to tantalize with a story that I won't tell... but to Little eye, my respected "sparring partner" on Jen's Wonderful Blog, I can say that--if it's any comfort--you're not the only one with stories which, if told to the general public, would cause many others to doubt your sanity!)
As the President-Elect of Death prepares to mount his new throne, won for him in large part by Faux Catholics (and Faux Christians, and squishy-thinking emotion-worshippers of all flavours) in two days, I'm tempted to stand in amazement at the sheer lack of all awareness of the darkness threatening to engulf us. Does that sound extreme? Hyperbolic? "Fanatical Apocalyptic Right-Wing?" (That last one was in honour of--and virtually quoted from--the hundreds of hard-working trolls out there, who work tirelessly to mock and neutralize truth in orthodox Christian blogs throughout the world.) Not only have the pagans of our land voted for the foremost champion of death of our time and country, but feelings-worshipping Catholics (and other self-proclaimed Christians) pushed him over the top... by quite a margin. The man:
- who's promised to re-legalize partial-birth abortion,
- who's promised to mandate all health organizations to provide "abortion services" to whomever asks for them,
- who's promised to throw wide the floodgates of taxpayer funding for abortions of all kinds--at home, overseas, and even after being born, (no reason why poor women should be denied the "right" to have their baby, born-alive after a botched abortion, strangled or left to die on a shelf; it shouldn't be an exclusive privilege of the wealthy, after all!),
- who's promised to throw open the taxpayer coffers in support of Embryonic Stem-Cell Research (what Paul, at his masterful blog, fittingly calls "recreational cloning/killing").
Need I go on? (Don't answer that, please.) Death is coming to our country's highest elected office in a way never before seen, and a majority of Catholics rejoice. I know of few other sentences which contain the very essence of heartbreak, as does that. May God have mercy on us.
So... in addition to a lament for the evil that's coming upon us (and which has already settled on the hearts of misled and/or morally corrupt members of our land--including at least a plurality of Catholics and other Christians), why do I mention this? I mention this because of three things:
1) Even in the midst of this ugly and perverse time: this battle--bloody, grotesque, and inhuman as it is--has already been won. Christ Jesus, Lord of All, has won. Don't despair. Grieve, certainly... but don't despair. Be faithful until the bitter end. If you grieve, know that faithful members of the Communion of Saints are grieving with you... and, God willing, you'll see them--face-to-face--rejoicing with you in the Kingdom, when all will be made new.
2) I offer this as another wake-up call to those who are "Faux Catholics/Christians", but who are sensitive enough to harbor twinges of doubt and unease at the agenda of the new "secular pseudo-messiah" who's ascending the "throne" of the presidency... and to those who are honest enough to be willing to re-examine the dynamics which brought them to their heterodoxy in the first place. (I was one of your number, for over 20 years of my adult life; I do not condemn you, but I also urge you to question where you are... and, God willing, to move out of it!)
3) I believe that Edmund Burke was correct when he said that the only thing necessary for evil to be victorious is for the good to do nothing. I don't claim to be "good" in any absolute sense... but I certainly claim to follow the good, found within the Lord of Perfect Goodness, Himself: Jesus Christ; and I don't want any non-Christian who's ignorant of the Gospel to accept the "Obama-led culture of death", simply because it seems to be the only game in town, and no one has said anything to the contrary.
Two days until the war takes a new and bitter turn. Pray, followers of Christ. Pray, and mean it. Rearrange your lives for it. Pray, fast, offer mortifications. I suspect this type of demon can only be driven out by prayer and fasting (cf. Mark 9:28). Get on it, warriors for Christ!
I need to start this post with two confessions.
First: not only am I a sinful man, but I find it extremely hard to live up to the exhortations that I offer to everyone else. I can spend an entire evening teaching catechumens about the glories of redemptive suffering, and then I can mope for the entire following day because of my physical ailments. I can teach about the moral imperative of charity (and rejecting all ill-will toward our neighbour), and then sulk interminably over an offense that someone gave me. Oh, to be sure: I very rarely let these sins out of my head and into the external world (where others might see them)--and I sometimes even congratulate myself on my self-restraint in that regard--but, lest anyone think that I'm capable of "preaching from an ivory tower", I assure my readers that my feet are composed of the poorest quality of clay. I need that clear, lest people think that the fingers I wag at others are not equally wagged at myself. I assure you, they are.
Second: for all my talk of "faith, hope and love are choices, not feelings!", I was an enthusiastic proponent of "feelings-faith" (and basically making emotions the dominant guiding force in one's life) as recently as 7 years ago. When I condemn that error now, I do not do so as one who has no experience with such; in fact, the past 7 years have largely been a repudiation of that same philosophy which I embraced (and defended strenuously) for the majority of my life. (All right, all right: for the incurably nosey: I'm 40 years old, as of a week ago; okay? :) Now that *that's* out of the way...)
Why do I now fight so strenuously against this "emotion-driven" approach to life? Three reasons, primarily:
1) Rational: I've since examined the "emotion-driven" view of faith, and I've found it to be not only flawed, but completely unworkable (and--quite frankly--utterly insane).
2) Practical: it doesn't work. Or rather, it works to bring evil and ruin, all too successfully; what it does not do is bring about any substantial or lasting good.
3) Personal: with apologies for being vague, suffice it to say that the "emotion-driven" approach to faith leaves one open to horrors about which no sane person would even care to dream. I was lucky, and I survived... and I learned that the fight against "squishy, feelings-based faith" is not simply a matter of taste, or merely a fastidious distinction of systematic theology, or even a "good and laudable idea"; it's a matter of life and death. (Again: I hate to tantalize with a story that I won't tell... but to Little eye, my respected "sparring partner" on Jen's Wonderful Blog, I can say that--if it's any comfort--you're not the only one with stories which, if told to the general public, would cause many others to doubt your sanity!)
As the President-Elect of Death prepares to mount his new throne, won for him in large part by Faux Catholics (and Faux Christians, and squishy-thinking emotion-worshippers of all flavours) in two days, I'm tempted to stand in amazement at the sheer lack of all awareness of the darkness threatening to engulf us. Does that sound extreme? Hyperbolic? "Fanatical Apocalyptic Right-Wing?" (That last one was in honour of--and virtually quoted from--the hundreds of hard-working trolls out there, who work tirelessly to mock and neutralize truth in orthodox Christian blogs throughout the world.) Not only have the pagans of our land voted for the foremost champion of death of our time and country, but feelings-worshipping Catholics (and other self-proclaimed Christians) pushed him over the top... by quite a margin. The man:
- who's promised to re-legalize partial-birth abortion,
- who's promised to mandate all health organizations to provide "abortion services" to whomever asks for them,
- who's promised to throw wide the floodgates of taxpayer funding for abortions of all kinds--at home, overseas, and even after being born, (no reason why poor women should be denied the "right" to have their baby, born-alive after a botched abortion, strangled or left to die on a shelf; it shouldn't be an exclusive privilege of the wealthy, after all!),
- who's promised to throw open the taxpayer coffers in support of Embryonic Stem-Cell Research (what Paul, at his masterful blog, fittingly calls "recreational cloning/killing").
Need I go on? (Don't answer that, please.) Death is coming to our country's highest elected office in a way never before seen, and a majority of Catholics rejoice. I know of few other sentences which contain the very essence of heartbreak, as does that. May God have mercy on us.
So... in addition to a lament for the evil that's coming upon us (and which has already settled on the hearts of misled and/or morally corrupt members of our land--including at least a plurality of Catholics and other Christians), why do I mention this? I mention this because of three things:
1) Even in the midst of this ugly and perverse time: this battle--bloody, grotesque, and inhuman as it is--has already been won. Christ Jesus, Lord of All, has won. Don't despair. Grieve, certainly... but don't despair. Be faithful until the bitter end. If you grieve, know that faithful members of the Communion of Saints are grieving with you... and, God willing, you'll see them--face-to-face--rejoicing with you in the Kingdom, when all will be made new.
2) I offer this as another wake-up call to those who are "Faux Catholics/Christians", but who are sensitive enough to harbor twinges of doubt and unease at the agenda of the new "secular pseudo-messiah" who's ascending the "throne" of the presidency... and to those who are honest enough to be willing to re-examine the dynamics which brought them to their heterodoxy in the first place. (I was one of your number, for over 20 years of my adult life; I do not condemn you, but I also urge you to question where you are... and, God willing, to move out of it!)
3) I believe that Edmund Burke was correct when he said that the only thing necessary for evil to be victorious is for the good to do nothing. I don't claim to be "good" in any absolute sense... but I certainly claim to follow the good, found within the Lord of Perfect Goodness, Himself: Jesus Christ; and I don't want any non-Christian who's ignorant of the Gospel to accept the "Obama-led culture of death", simply because it seems to be the only game in town, and no one has said anything to the contrary.
Two days until the war takes a new and bitter turn. Pray, followers of Christ. Pray, and mean it. Rearrange your lives for it. Pray, fast, offer mortifications. I suspect this type of demon can only be driven out by prayer and fasting (cf. Mark 9:28). Get on it, warriors for Christ!
Sunday, January 4, 2009
And Now, For Something Completely Boring...
Well, maybe not... but only if you're into dry, mind-bending metaphysical stuff!
On many occasions (usually in debates with atheists), I've been in the position of trying to demonstrate the existence of God, independent of Scripture, Sacred Tradition, Church Teaching, emotion, or personal experience. It's something of a chore (despite the fact that something about proofs appeals to the "inner geek" in me!), but I've assembled--or rather, cobbled together--my own meager attempt at such a proof. I don't pretend that it's airtight, or even very good; in fact, I ask all readers to do their best to tear it down, find flaws, discover fallacies, expose gaping holes, and the like! (Then I'll rebuild it accordingly, and I don't have to pay an editor! :) )
If you read past this point, all legal disclaimers regarding your mental health are in full force!
***
Notice: the following is for entertainment purposes only. The author assumes no extraordinary liability toward the reader for mental injury or facial injuries due to boredom-induced collapse into computer keyboards, nor can the author be held accountable for any program of hair-replacement therapy necessitated by the frustrated removal of the original follicles by the reader. Besides, the author doesn't have any money to pay a lawsuit; so there.
***
The Necessary Existence of God?
=====
Definition A: By "cause", this argument will mean "ontological cause", or "that which is responsible for bringing an object into existence," or "that which bestows existence to another object." (It's true that Aristotle, Aquinas, etc., suggested many types of causes; I'll be abstracting from and/or conflating them, in general. Time will tell if such a move is well-advised.)
Definition B: By "object", this argument will mean anything which in any way holds ontological existence.
Definition C: By "eternal", this argument will mean that which is completely independent of time.
Definition D: By "intrinsic [essential] existence", this argument will describe that which exists by necessity, and by its very nature; that which is causeless.
Definition E: By "extrinsic [essential] existence", this argument will describe that which is dependent upon an ontological cause for its existence; that which does not exist by necessity.
-----
Assumptions (assumed to be self-evident):
Lemma #1: An object must exist in order to act.
Lemma #2: An object cannot use or extend that which it does not possess (corollary to Lemma #1).
=====
Proposition #1: No object can be its own cause.
Proof: There are only two possibilities for any object, re: causation: an object is either caused, or uncaused.
a) If an object is uncaused, then Prop. #1 is trivially true.
b) If an object is caused, then its cause must (by Lemma #1) have existed in order to enact that causation. It is therefore manifestly true that a non-existent object cannot act to bring itself (or anything else) into existence.
Proposition #2: Causation is necessarily bound to the definition of "change."
Proof: Any change is an event by which an object either loses or gains characteristics--by which an object (in one or more ways) moves from potentiality to actuality, or from actuality to potentiality. (It will be necessary, before finishing the proof, to discuss the mode of continued existence of any given object.) Since "cause" (as per definition #1) denotes an event by which an object gains ontological existence, the definition of "change" is thus satisfied. (Discussions of change regarding "loss" will be described below.)
An object's existence can be conceived as being either (a) intrinsic, by its very nature (i.e. uncaused); or (b) extrinsic (i.e. caused and maintained). It might be argued that an object could, hypothetically, be "caused, but independent (i.e. not maintained)" in the sense that it required an "initial cause", but needs no "maintenance" of that acquired existence; such a suggestion stems from a misunderstanding of--among other things--the nature of time, in that an object's existence at any given moment subsequent to its causation is dependent on its existence in prior moments (up to that moment of causation--which is then dependent on the extrinsic cause), just as surely as the existence of a 100m object is dependent upon the existence of, say, the first 99m. Such a suggestion, therefore, cannot be maintained.
Proposition #3: Given any example of change(s), one must consequently posit one or more causes.
Proof: see Proposition #2. I assert that the visible universe does, in fact, offer many such examples of change (which consequently require causes), and that such a fact is self-evident.
Proposition #4: That which has intrinsic existence in its essence must be changeless in its essence.
Proof: from Proposition #3, any change would necessitate a cause; and that which has intrinsic existence is, by definition, causeless (cf. Proposition #2); therefore, that which has intrinsic existence cannot admit of change. Or, to put the matter differently: if the statement "that which admits of change(s) must thereby require a cause" is true (which it is, by Proposition #3), then the contrapositive of that statement is also necessarily true: "that which does not require a cause (i.e. has intrinsic existence) does not admit of change"--which is the thesis statement of Proposition #4.
Proposition #4a: Every “chain” of extrinsically caused objects must have an uncaused cause (i.e. a cause with intrinsic existence) as its ultimate source; a hypothetical “infinite regression of extrinsic causes” would be empty of content (i.e. would not exist at all).
Proof: By definition, an extrinsically caused (i.e. contingent) object does not possess existence by its nature (as would an object with intrinsic existence); it must "borrow" (i.e. "depend/subsist on") existence from its antecedent cause (see Proposition #2). If the ontological antecedent of a contingent object is itself contingent, then it must in turn "borrow" existence from its own antecedent, and so on, in turn; but if there were a hypothetical infinite string of consecutive "ontological causes", none of which possessed ontological existence in and of itself (but which was dependent on its ontological antecedent), then the total ontological content of that string would be "... + 0 + 0 + 0 + ...", without reaching a term of actual value (i.e. the total content would be "0").
Illustrations for this idea abound, but here's a popular one: picture a string of people going to see a movie, and passing the ticket booth; and picture each successive person, when asked to pay for a ticket, point to the person in back, saying: "He'll pay for me!" If the string of movie-goers were infinite, the ticket-taker would never get paid.
Proposition #5: That which has intrinsic essential existence must necessarily be eternal in its essence.
Proof: Change, by its very nature, necessitates time, and vice-versa. Time is a dimension of space which has meaning (and even existence) only when some manner of change exists; functionally, time is a measure of change, and it cannot operate on that in which there is no change in which progress could be measured. Since that which has intrinsic existence is changeless by definition, it must necessarily be immune to time, and therefore eternal (by definition).
Proposition #6: Any uncaused cause must be eternal and unchanging in its essence; its essential existence must be utterly beyond space/time.
Proof: see Propositions #4 and 5. Note that the pseudo-converse of this proposition (i.e. "that which is in eternity must have intrinsic essential existence") is not necessarily true (and is known, by Divine Revelation, to be false: e.g. angels).
Proposition #7: Any uncaused cause will necessarily be identical with its very existence (i.e. its essence and existence must be equivalent).
Proof: First, consider three aspects of any object: (a) the object itself, (b) the object’s existence, and (c) the object’s reason for existence. When considering an uncaused cause, the reason for its existence is, by definition, contained within itself—i.e. it exists by its very nature. Thus, (b) = (c). It remains to be demonstrated that (a) = (c), which would consequently show that (a) = (b).
All objects have a "reason for existence" [hereafter: "reason"]; that reason would be either external (if the object is contingent) or internal (if the object is uncaused). Given that the reason for an uncaused cause is necessarily internal to it[self], this leaves three situational comparisons:
(#1) The object's reason exceeds the object.
(#2) The object exceeds its reason.
(#3) The object is identical to its reason.
Situation #1 would entail a contradiction of the definitions of "uncaused" and "internal", since a reason cannot be contained in (i.e. "internal to") its object if the reason exceeds that object.
Situation #2 would entail "parts" of the object which were distinct from the reason itself (i.e. which were not in the "province" of the reason); as such, those "remainder aspects" would be contingent on the (internal but distinct) reason, and would thereby "disqualify" themselves from "membership" in the utterly non-contingent, uncaused cause.
Therefore, #3 is the only situation which does not prove itself to be absurd. As such, (a) = (c), which necessitates that (a) = (b).
Proposition #8: Any uncaused cause will necessarily be identical with existence itself.
Proof: By proposition #7, any uncaused cause is identical to its own existence. In addition, all contingent objects have existence which is not theirs by nature; despite temporal illusions to the contrary, no contingent object is "given" existence in any essential way, as if it were somehow given existence apart from its cause (ref: Proposition #2). A contingent object is no less contingent (i.e. dependent on its cause for existence) during any subsequent point in time than it is at its temporal beginning.
Since the sum-total of contingent existence (as reflected in the sum-total of existing contingent objects—we can call it “C”) is within (and "borrowed from") the uncaused cause (since no contingent object has existence in and of itself, but relies on the existence of its cause), and since the totality of existence (we can call this “T”) entails the union of contingent existence (“C”) and intrinsic existence (we can call this “I”); then that totality (“T”) of existence is identical to the uncaused cause itself (see Proposition #7).
Proposition #9: Any uncaused cause (i.e. whose essential existence is intrinsic) must be unlimited in all respects.
Proof: Limitation, per se, is the extent to which something does not exist. For example: that which exists as a 4'-radius sphere does not exist beyond that radius; or, that which occupies 1 cubic foot of space in region X does not exist thusly at any point Y beyond the boundaries of that enclosed space; etc. That which exists in every way would necessarily be unlimited in every way; and that which was utterly unlimited would enjoy the fullness of existence.
Here is an alternate way to demonstrate the same idea: it is true that all "limited" objects must be caused, since any object which is limited cannot be identified with existence as such, and cannot contain its own reason for existence (as would be necessary with any uncaused object--see Props. #7,8). This establishes the conditional statement: "that which is limited, is caused." Given that this is a true statement, then its contrapositive must necessarily be true, which reads: "that which is uncaused, is unlimited."
Proposition #10: An uncaused cause cannot admit of plurality of nature (i.e. there cannot be more than one uncaused cause).
Proof: It is a truism in logic that any two objects which fail to differ in any way whatsoever are, in fact, the same object. If we can show that any two hypothetical "uncaused causes" do not differ in any way whatever (or if we can show directly that the two are identical), then that will suffice to show the uniqueness and singularity of the uncaused cause. (Note that this method can be extended to cover an arbitrary number of uncaused causes.)
Suppose (A) and (B) are uncaused causes. This implies that (A) is identical with existence (E) as such, and (B) is identical with existence (E) as such. It cannot be true that two objects which identify with existence, per se, admit of any differences whatever. Thus, since A = E and B = E, we conclude that A = B.
==========
Conclusion: Here is the argument, thus far:
1) No object can be its own cause.
2) Causation implies change, and vice versa.
3) Any uncaused object is necessarily eternal.
4) Any uncaused cause is equivalent to existence per se.
5) Any uncaused cause must be unlimited and unique.
6) Our universe contains examples of changeable, non-eternal objects.
7) Ergo, an uncaused cause is required, as per #3-5.
Since it is self-evident that there exist both instances of change and limited (i.e. contingent) objects, there must necessarily exist a cause for these (i.e. to cause the change, and to be a source of existence for the contingent objects) which is itself uncaused, eternal, unlimited, unique, and identical to existence itself... and this we call God.
On many occasions (usually in debates with atheists), I've been in the position of trying to demonstrate the existence of God, independent of Scripture, Sacred Tradition, Church Teaching, emotion, or personal experience. It's something of a chore (despite the fact that something about proofs appeals to the "inner geek" in me!), but I've assembled--or rather, cobbled together--my own meager attempt at such a proof. I don't pretend that it's airtight, or even very good; in fact, I ask all readers to do their best to tear it down, find flaws, discover fallacies, expose gaping holes, and the like! (Then I'll rebuild it accordingly, and I don't have to pay an editor! :) )
If you read past this point, all legal disclaimers regarding your mental health are in full force!
***
Notice: the following is for entertainment purposes only. The author assumes no extraordinary liability toward the reader for mental injury or facial injuries due to boredom-induced collapse into computer keyboards, nor can the author be held accountable for any program of hair-replacement therapy necessitated by the frustrated removal of the original follicles by the reader. Besides, the author doesn't have any money to pay a lawsuit; so there.
***
The Necessary Existence of God?
=====
Definition A: By "cause", this argument will mean "ontological cause", or "that which is responsible for bringing an object into existence," or "that which bestows existence to another object." (It's true that Aristotle, Aquinas, etc., suggested many types of causes; I'll be abstracting from and/or conflating them, in general. Time will tell if such a move is well-advised.)
Definition B: By "object", this argument will mean anything which in any way holds ontological existence.
Definition C: By "eternal", this argument will mean that which is completely independent of time.
Definition D: By "intrinsic [essential] existence", this argument will describe that which exists by necessity, and by its very nature; that which is causeless.
Definition E: By "extrinsic [essential] existence", this argument will describe that which is dependent upon an ontological cause for its existence; that which does not exist by necessity.
-----
Assumptions (assumed to be self-evident):
Lemma #1: An object must exist in order to act.
Lemma #2: An object cannot use or extend that which it does not possess (corollary to Lemma #1).
=====
Proposition #1: No object can be its own cause.
Proof: There are only two possibilities for any object, re: causation: an object is either caused, or uncaused.
a) If an object is uncaused, then Prop. #1 is trivially true.
b) If an object is caused, then its cause must (by Lemma #1) have existed in order to enact that causation. It is therefore manifestly true that a non-existent object cannot act to bring itself (or anything else) into existence.
Proposition #2: Causation is necessarily bound to the definition of "change."
Proof: Any change is an event by which an object either loses or gains characteristics--by which an object (in one or more ways) moves from potentiality to actuality, or from actuality to potentiality. (It will be necessary, before finishing the proof, to discuss the mode of continued existence of any given object.) Since "cause" (as per definition #1) denotes an event by which an object gains ontological existence, the definition of "change" is thus satisfied. (Discussions of change regarding "loss" will be described below.)
An object's existence can be conceived as being either (a) intrinsic, by its very nature (i.e. uncaused); or (b) extrinsic (i.e. caused and maintained). It might be argued that an object could, hypothetically, be "caused, but independent (i.e. not maintained)" in the sense that it required an "initial cause", but needs no "maintenance" of that acquired existence; such a suggestion stems from a misunderstanding of--among other things--the nature of time, in that an object's existence at any given moment subsequent to its causation is dependent on its existence in prior moments (up to that moment of causation--which is then dependent on the extrinsic cause), just as surely as the existence of a 100m object is dependent upon the existence of, say, the first 99m. Such a suggestion, therefore, cannot be maintained.
Objection #1: Cannot an object have discontinuous existence? Cannot an object exist for a burst of moments, blink out of existence, and then re-appear, for an indefinite number of repetitions?
Reply #1: Even if that were possible, it would merely push the case back to smaller intervals; the very same propositions would hold for each small "segment" of existence, and each "annihilation" would require its own cause, as would any subsequent "recreation". If an object has intrinsic existence, then (by definition) it will never cease; if an object has extrinsic existence, then it is dependent on an extrinsic cause for that existence. No object can "cycle" between existence and nonexistence by its intrinsic nature--if for no other reason than the fact that any object which ceases to exist (a) is shown to have non-intrinsic existence, and (b) would be helpless to enact its own "recreation" (cf. Lemma #1).
There are only two ways by which characteristics can be lost: by active negation (i.e. an event, force, etc., which actively cancels an existing characteristic), or by privation (i.e. by having the "maintaining source" discontinue its maintenance). Both cases require an extrinsic cause.
Similarly, there is only one way by which attributes can be gained: by extrinsic cause (since an object cannot bestow upon itself that which it does not itself possess, as per Lemma #2).
As such, any change must necessarily require a cause or causes (since change, by definition, requires the gain and/or loss of attributes--and both require extrinsic causes). Conversely, any cause (so-called) would necessitate the existence of change--at least insofar as the object being "caused" is concerned (which changes in state from potential to actual--from nonexistence to existence).
Objection #2: "There seem to be many types of change which do not require gain or loss; what is gained or lost, for example, by an object moving from position A to position B?"
Reply #2: Such an object would lose its characteristic of occupying position A (to say nothing of a possible loss of being at relative rest), and it would gain the characteristic of occupying position B (to say nothing of having gained--albeit briefly--the positions of all intermediate locations, and having lost the state of potentiality inherent in *not* moving). No change can possibly occur without gain or loss. (It should be noted that the subjective ideas of "degradation" and "improvement" have nothing especially to do with the strict definitions of "gain" (moving from potential to actual) or "loss" (moving from actual to potential); it is not the purpose of this specific proposition to explore advancement toward, or retreat from, any sort of perfection.)
Proposition #3: Given any example of change(s), one must consequently posit one or more causes.
Proof: see Proposition #2. I assert that the visible universe does, in fact, offer many such examples of change (which consequently require causes), and that such a fact is self-evident.
Proposition #4: That which has intrinsic existence in its essence must be changeless in its essence.
Proof: from Proposition #3, any change would necessitate a cause; and that which has intrinsic existence is, by definition, causeless (cf. Proposition #2); therefore, that which has intrinsic existence cannot admit of change. Or, to put the matter differently: if the statement "that which admits of change(s) must thereby require a cause" is true (which it is, by Proposition #3), then the contrapositive of that statement is also necessarily true: "that which does not require a cause (i.e. has intrinsic existence) does not admit of change"--which is the thesis statement of Proposition #4.
Proposition #4a: Every “chain” of extrinsically caused objects must have an uncaused cause (i.e. a cause with intrinsic existence) as its ultimate source; a hypothetical “infinite regression of extrinsic causes” would be empty of content (i.e. would not exist at all).
Proof: By definition, an extrinsically caused (i.e. contingent) object does not possess existence by its nature (as would an object with intrinsic existence); it must "borrow" (i.e. "depend/subsist on") existence from its antecedent cause (see Proposition #2). If the ontological antecedent of a contingent object is itself contingent, then it must in turn "borrow" existence from its own antecedent, and so on, in turn; but if there were a hypothetical infinite string of consecutive "ontological causes", none of which possessed ontological existence in and of itself (but which was dependent on its ontological antecedent), then the total ontological content of that string would be "... + 0 + 0 + 0 + ...", without reaching a term of actual value (i.e. the total content would be "0").
Illustrations for this idea abound, but here's a popular one: picture a string of people going to see a movie, and passing the ticket booth; and picture each successive person, when asked to pay for a ticket, point to the person in back, saying: "He'll pay for me!" If the string of movie-goers were infinite, the ticket-taker would never get paid.
Objection #3: "Cannot an object exist intrinsically in its essence, but extrinsically in its accidents and/or attendant attributes? In other words, cannot an object with intrinsic existence somehow contain accidental attributes which are extrinsic, and therefore subject to change?"
Reply #3: That question is not germane to the issue at hand; the only objection which could have weight against proposition #4 would be an instance where an object with intrinsic ESSENTIAL existence was subject to change in that essence. It is enough to say that, if there were (hypothetically) attendant accidents to an object with intrinsic essential existence, they would themselves require causes to the extent that they existed extrinsically, and certainly to the extent that they exhibited change.
Proposition #5: That which has intrinsic essential existence must necessarily be eternal in its essence.
Proof: Change, by its very nature, necessitates time, and vice-versa. Time is a dimension of space which has meaning (and even existence) only when some manner of change exists; functionally, time is a measure of change, and it cannot operate on that in which there is no change in which progress could be measured. Since that which has intrinsic existence is changeless by definition, it must necessarily be immune to time, and therefore eternal (by definition).
Proposition #6: Any uncaused cause must be eternal and unchanging in its essence; its essential existence must be utterly beyond space/time.
Proof: see Propositions #4 and 5. Note that the pseudo-converse of this proposition (i.e. "that which is in eternity must have intrinsic essential existence") is not necessarily true (and is known, by Divine Revelation, to be false: e.g. angels).
Objection #4: "These arguments depend entirely on the idea that objects are strictly simple ones--that each object is the result of only one cause. This cannot be maintained, since any composite object will necessarily have component parts which need causes--possibly from many different venues (e.g. color, shape, etc.)."
Reply #4: The above propositions are most easily applied to simple objects; that is true. However, composite objects are--by definition--reducible to simple parts, which themselves would be described by these propositions. Consider, also, that even a composite object *can* have a single ontological cause (though it need not), which would be covered under these scenarios.
Objection #5: "Some attributes of composite objects simply can't be 'parsed' like that; how, for example, could we speak of a cause for an apple's shape, another cause for its redness, another for its rigidity, etc.? It's equivocal to say that 'the apple exists', when in fact its shape, color, rigidity, etc., all exist as well."
Reply #5: This may well be a shortcoming of my argument due to a neglect of the various types of causes; a formal cause, for example, could well differ from an accidental cause or a material cause, and so on. However, the same principle holds: every "caused" object (be that object a "physical object" as considered by common idiom, or a single attribute of any such object--which is an "object" in the sense of that which holds ontological existence, and has a cause which answers the question "WHY is that so?") must trace itself to an ultimately uncaused cause.
Proposition #7: Any uncaused cause will necessarily be identical with its very existence (i.e. its essence and existence must be equivalent).
Proof: First, consider three aspects of any object: (a) the object itself, (b) the object’s existence, and (c) the object’s reason for existence. When considering an uncaused cause, the reason for its existence is, by definition, contained within itself—i.e. it exists by its very nature. Thus, (b) = (c). It remains to be demonstrated that (a) = (c), which would consequently show that (a) = (b).
All objects have a "reason for existence" [hereafter: "reason"]; that reason would be either external (if the object is contingent) or internal (if the object is uncaused). Given that the reason for an uncaused cause is necessarily internal to it[self], this leaves three situational comparisons:
(#1) The object's reason exceeds the object.
(#2) The object exceeds its reason.
(#3) The object is identical to its reason.
Situation #1 would entail a contradiction of the definitions of "uncaused" and "internal", since a reason cannot be contained in (i.e. "internal to") its object if the reason exceeds that object.
Situation #2 would entail "parts" of the object which were distinct from the reason itself (i.e. which were not in the "province" of the reason); as such, those "remainder aspects" would be contingent on the (internal but distinct) reason, and would thereby "disqualify" themselves from "membership" in the utterly non-contingent, uncaused cause.
Therefore, #3 is the only situation which does not prove itself to be absurd. As such, (a) = (c), which necessitates that (a) = (b).
Objection #6: "Could it not be possible to speak of multiple "reasons" for an object's existence? For example, would it not be valid to suggest that a biological mother AND father would be reasons for a child's existence?
Reply #6: It is certainly possible to speak of multiple reasons for existence… provided that we are speaking of contingent objects (e.g. the child in question would have far more reasons for existence: proper temperature for survival, adequate food supply, etc.), but it's quite beside the point in this case. Even if a plurality of reasons within an uncaused cause were possible (and that will be shown to be untenable), the main issue of this idea is whether or not the reason(s) is (are) INTERNAL or EXTERNAL to the object itself; the very same scenarios (a,b, and c, from proposition #7) would apply; the only difference would be that any multiple reasons, as a collective whole, would be identical to the object itself.
Proposition #8: Any uncaused cause will necessarily be identical with existence itself.
Proof: By proposition #7, any uncaused cause is identical to its own existence. In addition, all contingent objects have existence which is not theirs by nature; despite temporal illusions to the contrary, no contingent object is "given" existence in any essential way, as if it were somehow given existence apart from its cause (ref: Proposition #2). A contingent object is no less contingent (i.e. dependent on its cause for existence) during any subsequent point in time than it is at its temporal beginning.
Since the sum-total of contingent existence (as reflected in the sum-total of existing contingent objects—we can call it “C”) is within (and "borrowed from") the uncaused cause (since no contingent object has existence in and of itself, but relies on the existence of its cause), and since the totality of existence (we can call this “T”) entails the union of contingent existence (“C”) and intrinsic existence (we can call this “I”); then that totality (“T”) of existence is identical to the uncaused cause itself (see Proposition #7).
Objection #7: Why can there not be several uncaused causes, which would entail SEVERAL sources of existence (rather than just one)? Wouldn't that undermine the equivalence of "uncaused cause" and "existence"?
Reply #7: This question anticipates Proposition #10; but again, it is beside this particular point. If, hypothetically, there were several uncaused causes, then it would still be necessarily true for the uncaused causes, as a collective, to be equivalent to existence as such, given the equivalence between an uncaused cause's reason and its existence, and given the utter lack of existence contained per se in the non-intrinsically-existing objects.
Proposition #9: Any uncaused cause (i.e. whose essential existence is intrinsic) must be unlimited in all respects.
Proof: Limitation, per se, is the extent to which something does not exist. For example: that which exists as a 4'-radius sphere does not exist beyond that radius; or, that which occupies 1 cubic foot of space in region X does not exist thusly at any point Y beyond the boundaries of that enclosed space; etc. That which exists in every way would necessarily be unlimited in every way; and that which was utterly unlimited would enjoy the fullness of existence.
Here is an alternate way to demonstrate the same idea: it is true that all "limited" objects must be caused, since any object which is limited cannot be identified with existence as such, and cannot contain its own reason for existence (as would be necessary with any uncaused object--see Props. #7,8). This establishes the conditional statement: "that which is limited, is caused." Given that this is a true statement, then its contrapositive must necessarily be true, which reads: "that which is uncaused, is unlimited."
Objection #8: What of the aspects of reality which do not seem to imply lack? You wouldn't say that a male was limited in his existence to the extent that he wasn't female, would you? If so, then which one out of a man and woman would be limited by not being the other gender? In short: what about the cases where two seemingly "existing" things are mutually exclusive?
Reply #8: Again, as per reply #2, it is not the purpose of this proposition to make affective or subjective judgments about any given object. It is certainly true that a male simply does not have the faculties of a female, and vice versa... but any criticism of that state of affairs remains a subjective one; the fact that a male lacks female attributes, etc., is still a fact. It does not mean to imply that a male is not functioning properly by failing, for example, to be female. It merely shows one of many evidences that prove the limitation and non-universality of any contingent object.
In the case of a square and a circle, for example, one might say that a square could be a perfect square--and a circle could be a perfect circle--without containing the attributes of one another. While this is true, it is quite beside the point; save to give further proof of the limitations and non-universality of both.
It might help to consider the following: any order of being which holds mutually exclusive possibilities must be limited, by definition. There is no question of any circle, no matter how large, being unlimited in all respects, for example; its "circleness" requires a center and constant radius, or else it ceases to be a circle altogether. Its very definition requires limitations.
Proposition #10: An uncaused cause cannot admit of plurality of nature (i.e. there cannot be more than one uncaused cause).
Proof: It is a truism in logic that any two objects which fail to differ in any way whatsoever are, in fact, the same object. If we can show that any two hypothetical "uncaused causes" do not differ in any way whatever (or if we can show directly that the two are identical), then that will suffice to show the uniqueness and singularity of the uncaused cause. (Note that this method can be extended to cover an arbitrary number of uncaused causes.)
Suppose (A) and (B) are uncaused causes. This implies that (A) is identical with existence (E) as such, and (B) is identical with existence (E) as such. It cannot be true that two objects which identify with existence, per se, admit of any differences whatever. Thus, since A = E and B = E, we conclude that A = B.
==========
Conclusion: Here is the argument, thus far:
1) No object can be its own cause.
2) Causation implies change, and vice versa.
3) Any uncaused object is necessarily eternal.
4) Any uncaused cause is equivalent to existence per se.
5) Any uncaused cause must be unlimited and unique.
6) Our universe contains examples of changeable, non-eternal objects.
7) Ergo, an uncaused cause is required, as per #3-5.
Since it is self-evident that there exist both instances of change and limited (i.e. contingent) objects, there must necessarily exist a cause for these (i.e. to cause the change, and to be a source of existence for the contingent objects) which is itself uncaused, eternal, unlimited, unique, and identical to existence itself... and this we call God.
Thursday, January 1, 2009
Blessed Christmastide, and To Be Continued...
Just to let you all know: I haven't forgotten you! (I'm at my mother-in-law's house, visiting for a few days, with erratic internet access.) I'll try to throw a few more mediocre musings into the arena, ASAP...
God bless your Christmastide, and your New Year!
God bless your Christmastide, and your New Year!
Monday, December 29, 2008
Definitions of Terms
(For those of you who might be wondering: "What the [insert colorful metaphor here] is this all about?", this is the easiest way I could find to include a sidebar perma-link to some of the details, FAQ's, etc., that will eventually be explored. As I get a bit better with this HTML stuff, I might find a less "clunky" way to do it!)
"Paladin" = "virtuous warrior" (originally a reference to the 12 noble peers of the court of Charlemagne, but generalized to refer to any warrior dedicated to the heroic ideals of Christian virtue)
The three powers, or "faculties" of the rational soul:
"Paladin" = "virtuous warrior" (originally a reference to the 12 noble peers of the court of Charlemagne, but generalized to refer to any warrior dedicated to the heroic ideals of Christian virtue)
The three powers, or "faculties" of the rational soul:
- "Intellect" = the power of the soul by which we apprehend truth; the faculty by which we "know" things
- "Will" = the radically free power of the soul by which we embrace one option over another; the faculty by which we "choose" things
- "Memory" = the power of the soul by which we retain experiences of the past; the pfaculty by which we "remember" things
- "Faith" = the act of the will by which we believe all that has been revealed by God, Who can neither deceive nor be deceived
- "Hope" = the act of the will by which we believe that God's promises will be fulfilled, and that He is in control
- "Love" = the act of the will by which we freely choose the best good for another person, regardless of the cost to us
(Note: none of these are "passions" or "emotions"--despite the propaganda of the modern culture!)
Thursday, December 25, 2008
The Rise of the Faux Catholic
(with many thanks to Clinton for the turn of phrase!)
Note: most of this section can easily be adapted to the case of "faux Christians", in the general sense (try it, and see!); I restrict myself to Catholicism, since I'm most familiar with Catholic teaching, and since I'm of that Church, myself.
It doesn't take much to get the average faithful Catholic (or faithful non-Catholic, for that matter) to notice: the 55%+ of them voting for the President-Elect of Death, the vast percentage of "Catholic" retreat masters/mistresses who count themselves among their number, the plentiful "crop" of similarly-minded contributors to Vox Nova and the like, the "ardent, practicing Catholics [sic]" (h/t "One Mom") who unapologetically promote abortion, and on and on, almost interminably. In our culture, the word "Catholic" has been subtly redefined. It used to mean "any person who is validly baptized, who (in his/her adult life) gives full assent to the teachings of the Holy Catholic Church, and who strives to obey the Church's laws regarding Faith and morals." Now, on the cusp of 2009, it's been changed (in the common parleyance, anyway) to mean, "anyone who wants to label themselves Catholic, regardless of belief, lifestyle, or "choices").
"Abortion? Only one issue among many... and an annoying and narrow-minded one, too! As if anyone is really 'pro-abortion'; hmf... the very idea! Besides, 'too much' talk about abortion is hardly fitting for balanced, nuanced, open-minded, non-conservative, non-orthodox, non-Pharisaic, tolerant followers of the true, compassionate Jesus (if He existed, that is). Besides, if you're so pro-life, why do you support the war, huh? Huh? I bet you do..."
"Same-sex marriage? Come on, get over it; what harm does it do your marriage if two men (or women) who love [sic] each other want to marry? How spiritually immature of you to be so uncomfortable with that! Are you sure you're comfortable with your own sexuality?"
"Contraception? Grow up! Are you serious? You're the same 'oh, so orthodox' people who want to get rid of abortions, but you're the same people who won't let women have access to common-sense [sic] birth-control [sic: see what G.K. Chesterton says about that!]? Isn't it time you took another look at your unquestioning obedence to a bunch of man-made rules designed by a bunch of celibate, sexually repressed old men in Rome at the expense of women?" [In all likelihood, insert a gratuitous cheap shot about the sex abuse scandals among some members of the Catholic priesthood, here.]
Translation: the Faux Catholic has risen.
What's a Faux Catholic, you ask? Depending on how specific you want to be, the definition is laughably simple, or else frighteningly complicated. The easiest defintion is, "someone who claims (or is supposed) to fit the definition of 'Catholic', but doesn't." This gets complicated by the fact that spiritual laws and definitions are notoriously difficult to enforce "externally", this side of Eternity, and many who are responsible for teaching and protecting those laws and definitions have tolerantly smiled and nodded their acquiesence (or "nodded" as they dozed off) as the definition of "Catholic" gradually changed to include almost anything and everybody.
Interestingly enough: if you try to challenge a Faux Catholic on any point of Catholic discipline (e.g. celibate priesthood, obedience to the Holy Father, etc.) or doctrine (e.g. the Church's condemnation of abortion, contraception, embryonic stem cell research [ESCR], etc.), he/she will usually "morph" into one of two things: a Faux Canon Lawyer, or a Faux Wolverine. (Such a transformation might actually be fascinating to see, in other circumstances, if the gravity of their falsehood weren't so appalling, and if the stakes were not so high.) I've challenged many such fantastic creatures, and I've yet to see any third (or further) options...
What's the explanation for Faux Catholicism? Quite frankly, it's easier... at least, in the short run. That's the explanation for every heresy that has ever plagued Christianity: heresy is easier than orthodoxy, on one or more levels (e.g. the level of understandability, or of practice, or of emotional satisfaction, etc.). I admit, I *have* seen such heresies "morph" into exotic new versions that (ironically) outstrip true orthodoxy in complexity and/or rigidity... but that never happens until the original heresy proves itself shallow and unrewarding (as it always does), and its adherents "over-correct".
For the Catholics who've become infected with this disturbing disease, why do such people not simply be consistent, and leave the Catholic Church in favour of a religion which is more tolerant of their secular definition of tolerance? So far, I've heard at least three convincing explanations (one of which is from Clinton, from whom I took the phrase--it's only fair that I list his, first! :) ):
1) Catholic institutions offer greater-than-average job security--both in job sustainability, and in reluctance to fire the incompetent, the apathetic, the incurably confused, and the rebellious. This is a fairly strong argument (and it can readily be combined with the others), since the members of Catholic institutions--at least for the last 50 years or so--have ingested the secular redefinitions of "Catholic" and "tolerance" to the point where they fear to discipline wayward employees (how would they earn a living wage, otherwise?) or volunteers (goodness, they've given of their own time when no one else would; we can't get rid of *them*!). To those of this mindset, it's far more important to have a job filled than to have it filled *well*. "Not expecting perfection" becomes the buzz-phrase for "not expecting the job responsibilities to be followed at all".
2) They have a primitive, ineffable recognition of the Church's solidity and authority (which they would call "power"), and they don't want to give that up. To split away from the Church would be to become just another tiny "socially-conscious splinter group" (the Elks probably wouldn't take them as a group, anyway) who are very easily ignored by the world at large. After all: if you're at the weapons panel of a battleship, which would seem the more efficient way of getting your agenda pushed: to commandeer the battleship weapons, or to jump ship onto a raft and be content to bang the side of the battleship with your wooden oar?
3) They're scared. They fear persecution from the secular world (especially the media and their devotees), they don't know how to draw upon God's gift of supernatural courage (no one ever showed them how, since many of their elders were infected with the same disease), and they're starving for approval from the "cool people" (i.e. the media, Hollywood, and all who seem to have what they don't have).
(Side note: As a high school teacher, I've seen many different flavours of this: where student [x] will do some of the most remarkably disrespectful, destructive, and even cruel things, all because they're starved for attention, and their entire lives have been one long training ground, teaching them that "only negative attention will get mommy and daddy's attention away from the TV, the whiskey, their fight with each other, and so on"; by that point, it almost takes a miracle for them to *stop* doing stupid things, even if *good* ways to get attention are readily at hand! Only attention from "The Cool People" (whatever that means, at the moment) matters; attention from proper authorities? Pfft! Get real...)
As a hat-tip across cyberspace: Paul, in his excellent blog, offers the hypothesis that many of such people--specifically those who give vocal support for the "abortion-tolerant" position while disavowing the idea that they're "pro-abortion"--are lying. This hypothesis, to my eyes, is getting more and more difficult to refute by the day. I personally (being something of a mathematical purist) will acknowledge the mathematical possibility that someone might have just the right mixture of mental imbalance, bad upbringing and abysmal ignorance to hold such a position without being culpable for lying... but the number must be vanishingly small, even then.
So... given the disease of Faux Catholicism, a basic description, and some idea of its origins, what do we do about it? Is it curable? Treatable? Something?
Perhaps. But one thing at a time; the diagnosis comes first, and then comes the medical intervention. Here's a quick "self-diagnostic tool" for those at home who lay claim to the title of "Catholic":
1) Are there any circumstances in which you'd find a direct abortion (i.e. the direct killing of an unborn child) permissible? (E.g. rape, incest, danger to the life of the mother?)
2) Are there any circumstances in which you'd find artificial contraception (e.g. condoms, IUD's, injections, etc.) permissible?
3) Are there any circumstances in which you'd find homosexual sexual activity permissible?
4) Are there any circumstances in which you'd find ESCR (i.e. the extraction of stem cells from an embryonic baby, causing the baby's death) acceptable?
5) Are there any circumstances in which you'd find euthanasia (i.e. so-called "mercy killing") acceptable?
If you answered "yes" to any of the above, you've embraced a position that the Catholic Church condemns as intrinsically evil. If, after being made aware of that, you *persist* in that position, you can confirm your diagnosis as a "Faux Catholic".
More to come.
P.S. At the risk of sounding incongruous, at the end of a severe-sounding post:
Praise God, Jesus is Come in the Flesh!
Merry Christmastide!
Note: most of this section can easily be adapted to the case of "faux Christians", in the general sense (try it, and see!); I restrict myself to Catholicism, since I'm most familiar with Catholic teaching, and since I'm of that Church, myself.
It doesn't take much to get the average faithful Catholic (or faithful non-Catholic, for that matter) to notice: the 55%+ of them voting for the President-Elect of Death, the vast percentage of "Catholic" retreat masters/mistresses who count themselves among their number, the plentiful "crop" of similarly-minded contributors to Vox Nova and the like, the "ardent, practicing Catholics [sic]" (h/t "One Mom") who unapologetically promote abortion, and on and on, almost interminably. In our culture, the word "Catholic" has been subtly redefined. It used to mean "any person who is validly baptized, who (in his/her adult life) gives full assent to the teachings of the Holy Catholic Church, and who strives to obey the Church's laws regarding Faith and morals." Now, on the cusp of 2009, it's been changed (in the common parleyance, anyway) to mean, "anyone who wants to label themselves Catholic, regardless of belief, lifestyle, or "choices").
"Abortion? Only one issue among many... and an annoying and narrow-minded one, too! As if anyone is really 'pro-abortion'; hmf... the very idea! Besides, 'too much' talk about abortion is hardly fitting for balanced, nuanced, open-minded, non-conservative, non-orthodox, non-Pharisaic, tolerant followers of the true, compassionate Jesus (if He existed, that is). Besides, if you're so pro-life, why do you support the war, huh? Huh? I bet you do..."
"Same-sex marriage? Come on, get over it; what harm does it do your marriage if two men (or women) who love [sic] each other want to marry? How spiritually immature of you to be so uncomfortable with that! Are you sure you're comfortable with your own sexuality?"
"Contraception? Grow up! Are you serious? You're the same 'oh, so orthodox' people who want to get rid of abortions, but you're the same people who won't let women have access to common-sense [sic] birth-control [sic: see what G.K. Chesterton says about that!]? Isn't it time you took another look at your unquestioning obedence to a bunch of man-made rules designed by a bunch of celibate, sexually repressed old men in Rome at the expense of women?" [In all likelihood, insert a gratuitous cheap shot about the sex abuse scandals among some members of the Catholic priesthood, here.]
Translation: the Faux Catholic has risen.
What's a Faux Catholic, you ask? Depending on how specific you want to be, the definition is laughably simple, or else frighteningly complicated. The easiest defintion is, "someone who claims (or is supposed) to fit the definition of 'Catholic', but doesn't." This gets complicated by the fact that spiritual laws and definitions are notoriously difficult to enforce "externally", this side of Eternity, and many who are responsible for teaching and protecting those laws and definitions have tolerantly smiled and nodded their acquiesence (or "nodded" as they dozed off) as the definition of "Catholic" gradually changed to include almost anything and everybody.
Interestingly enough: if you try to challenge a Faux Catholic on any point of Catholic discipline (e.g. celibate priesthood, obedience to the Holy Father, etc.) or doctrine (e.g. the Church's condemnation of abortion, contraception, embryonic stem cell research [ESCR], etc.), he/she will usually "morph" into one of two things: a Faux Canon Lawyer, or a Faux Wolverine. (Such a transformation might actually be fascinating to see, in other circumstances, if the gravity of their falsehood weren't so appalling, and if the stakes were not so high.) I've challenged many such fantastic creatures, and I've yet to see any third (or further) options...
What's the explanation for Faux Catholicism? Quite frankly, it's easier... at least, in the short run. That's the explanation for every heresy that has ever plagued Christianity: heresy is easier than orthodoxy, on one or more levels (e.g. the level of understandability, or of practice, or of emotional satisfaction, etc.). I admit, I *have* seen such heresies "morph" into exotic new versions that (ironically) outstrip true orthodoxy in complexity and/or rigidity... but that never happens until the original heresy proves itself shallow and unrewarding (as it always does), and its adherents "over-correct".
For the Catholics who've become infected with this disturbing disease, why do such people not simply be consistent, and leave the Catholic Church in favour of a religion which is more tolerant of their secular definition of tolerance? So far, I've heard at least three convincing explanations (one of which is from Clinton, from whom I took the phrase--it's only fair that I list his, first! :) ):
1) Catholic institutions offer greater-than-average job security--both in job sustainability, and in reluctance to fire the incompetent, the apathetic, the incurably confused, and the rebellious. This is a fairly strong argument (and it can readily be combined with the others), since the members of Catholic institutions--at least for the last 50 years or so--have ingested the secular redefinitions of "Catholic" and "tolerance" to the point where they fear to discipline wayward employees (how would they earn a living wage, otherwise?) or volunteers (goodness, they've given of their own time when no one else would; we can't get rid of *them*!). To those of this mindset, it's far more important to have a job filled than to have it filled *well*. "Not expecting perfection" becomes the buzz-phrase for "not expecting the job responsibilities to be followed at all".
2) They have a primitive, ineffable recognition of the Church's solidity and authority (which they would call "power"), and they don't want to give that up. To split away from the Church would be to become just another tiny "socially-conscious splinter group" (the Elks probably wouldn't take them as a group, anyway) who are very easily ignored by the world at large. After all: if you're at the weapons panel of a battleship, which would seem the more efficient way of getting your agenda pushed: to commandeer the battleship weapons, or to jump ship onto a raft and be content to bang the side of the battleship with your wooden oar?
3) They're scared. They fear persecution from the secular world (especially the media and their devotees), they don't know how to draw upon God's gift of supernatural courage (no one ever showed them how, since many of their elders were infected with the same disease), and they're starving for approval from the "cool people" (i.e. the media, Hollywood, and all who seem to have what they don't have).
(Side note: As a high school teacher, I've seen many different flavours of this: where student [x] will do some of the most remarkably disrespectful, destructive, and even cruel things, all because they're starved for attention, and their entire lives have been one long training ground, teaching them that "only negative attention will get mommy and daddy's attention away from the TV, the whiskey, their fight with each other, and so on"; by that point, it almost takes a miracle for them to *stop* doing stupid things, even if *good* ways to get attention are readily at hand! Only attention from "The Cool People" (whatever that means, at the moment) matters; attention from proper authorities? Pfft! Get real...)
As a hat-tip across cyberspace: Paul, in his excellent blog, offers the hypothesis that many of such people--specifically those who give vocal support for the "abortion-tolerant" position while disavowing the idea that they're "pro-abortion"--are lying. This hypothesis, to my eyes, is getting more and more difficult to refute by the day. I personally (being something of a mathematical purist) will acknowledge the mathematical possibility that someone might have just the right mixture of mental imbalance, bad upbringing and abysmal ignorance to hold such a position without being culpable for lying... but the number must be vanishingly small, even then.
So... given the disease of Faux Catholicism, a basic description, and some idea of its origins, what do we do about it? Is it curable? Treatable? Something?
Perhaps. But one thing at a time; the diagnosis comes first, and then comes the medical intervention. Here's a quick "self-diagnostic tool" for those at home who lay claim to the title of "Catholic":
1) Are there any circumstances in which you'd find a direct abortion (i.e. the direct killing of an unborn child) permissible? (E.g. rape, incest, danger to the life of the mother?)
2) Are there any circumstances in which you'd find artificial contraception (e.g. condoms, IUD's, injections, etc.) permissible?
3) Are there any circumstances in which you'd find homosexual sexual activity permissible?
4) Are there any circumstances in which you'd find ESCR (i.e. the extraction of stem cells from an embryonic baby, causing the baby's death) acceptable?
5) Are there any circumstances in which you'd find euthanasia (i.e. so-called "mercy killing") acceptable?
If you answered "yes" to any of the above, you've embraced a position that the Catholic Church condemns as intrinsically evil. If, after being made aware of that, you *persist* in that position, you can confirm your diagnosis as a "Faux Catholic".
More to come.
P.S. At the risk of sounding incongruous, at the end of a severe-sounding post:
Praise God, Jesus is Come in the Flesh!
Merry Christmastide!
Thursday, December 18, 2008
A Plea for Truth, Part II: A Plea for Reality
Is it so much to ask, that we treat things as if they really are what they are?
We do it in so many walks of life. When we teach our baby children to eat solid food, we gently encourage them not to insert the strained peas in their ears, nose, and other non-mouth orifices, right? When we teach young men and women how to drive, we encourage them not to treat brick buildings as if they were imaginary (i.e. gently encourage them to apply pressure on the brake pedal and angular force on the steering wheel, as needed), right? We don't consider it unreasonable when others ask us politely if we would refrain from treating their dog as a toothbrush, right?
So could someone please explain to me why it's acceptable for "Christians" to behave as if Christ didn't exist, or that He's irrelevant, or that He's of minor importance compared to our other priorities?
I'll stick to examples of so-called "good Catholics" (with thanks to Bishop Robert Hermann of St. Louis for the phrase), partially since I'm most familiar with Catholic teaching, and partially since I have the misfortune of being familiar with untold scores of cases in which dissidents, the heterodox, and (yes, even) heretics still claim the name "Catholic" and all the "privileges" pertaining thereto.
From LifeNews.com:
From LifeSiteNews.com:
Let's translate these into plain English, shall we?
1) The president (a religious sister, consecrated and bound by vows in poverty, chastity and obedience to God through the Church) of the "Catholic" [sic] "Health" [sic] Association [okay]: (a) believes that the President-Elect of Death is a fine choice to lead our nation; (b) is thrilled with said President-Elect of Death's pro-death choices as members of his staff; and (c) is indignant that anyone would dare question her decision, her allegiance [sic] to Catholic teaching, and her standing as a "good Catholic" [sic].
2) A "Catholic" [sic] hospital, when confronted with the rightful orders of the local bishop that they cease all intentional sterilizations (which the Church condemns as intrinsically evil), refuses the order on the grounds that "the bishop doesn't appreciate the nuances of Catholic teaching in the matter, and that the condemned actions are really justified, if only they can be viewed in the correct way".
To this, I gently submit that a Catholic does, in fact, need to obey Catholic teaching--or else cease to be a "faithful Catholic", by definition. If someone claims to be a golfer while indignantly denying any suggestion that he use golf balls and gold clubs (preferring instead to use, say, avocados and a pair of tongs), then I might possibly support his right to choose not to avail himself of the normal tools of the trade--but I will also be justified in saying that he is not, after all, a golfer at all... but only claiming (without substance or merit) to be one, for whatever mysterious reason. If a satanist suddenly rejects all allegiance to Satan, I may well congratulate him for making an excellent spiritual step; but I cannot reasonably congratulate him on being a good satanist, because he has, in fact, ceased to be one by that very act of rejection... and, even in my newfound admiration of him, I could not help but understand the Satanist Club's decision to deny him his usual "members only" parking space.
Just so, I suggest, with Catholicism. How are we to view someone who wishes to cling to the "perks" of Catholicism (reception of Holy Communion, or whatever else those "perks" might be, in his or her mind), but refuses to obey even the most rudimentary elements of Catholicism (such as belief in necessary Catholic doctrines, obedience to rightful Catholic authorities, adherence to Catholic practices and the requirements that go with them, and the like)? How can an institution boast the name "Catholic", while at the same time arrogating to itself the decisions rightfully made by the Bishop (or other rightful Church authority over them)? In short: I can't see how such a person or institution could be viewed as anything but "not a good Catholic" (and, perhaps, not even Catholic at all).
As I've said before, there's a special pain in watching a Christian betray Christ (and even worse, to deny and "cloak" their betrayal with rhetoric and sophistries). I'd much rather encounter a sincere atheist or unapologetic pagan; they might decide to stab Christ in the chest, like an avowed enemy, but at least they don't stab Christ in the back.
Picture the following scene (with a hat-tip to Paul for the general theme:
(Disclaimer: the "pseudo-firefighters" in this scene are not meant to resemble, in any way, the true and literal fire-fighting heroes of our country--many of whom I'm proud to number among my friends! Hence the prefix "pseudo-"...)
At the end of the day, as the medics remove the charred corpses of your friends, what would be going through your mind? What would you say to those who comment (perhaps tactfully) on your lack of charity and goodwill toward the pseudo-firefighters who arrived on the scene, and toward those who agreed with their way of handling things? What would you say to the pseudo-firefighters who rebuke you for yelling, screaming, perhaps physically shaking a pseudo-firefighter or two, or even illegally trying to go in and save the family yourself?
I'm sure Noah Webster never meant for "nuance" to be a foul word... but the distressingly large assembly of "liberated", "nuanced", "liberal", etc., Catholics--at "Catholic" hospitals, "Catholic" universities, "Catholic" blogs* and websites, and the like, have certainly made it unfit for most faithful conversation. May God have mercy on us.
To the "nuanced" of the world, here's my response: try objective truth, for a change. Christ (i.e. objective truth) would really prefer it of you... and perhaps you could then join us in stopping the runaway train known as the "Culture of Death", rather than adding fuel to the train's furnace?
(*) In all fairness, there seems to be at least one sensible contributor to Vox Nova, along with the courageous commenters who try to champion orthodoxy, over there.
We do it in so many walks of life. When we teach our baby children to eat solid food, we gently encourage them not to insert the strained peas in their ears, nose, and other non-mouth orifices, right? When we teach young men and women how to drive, we encourage them not to treat brick buildings as if they were imaginary (i.e. gently encourage them to apply pressure on the brake pedal and angular force on the steering wheel, as needed), right? We don't consider it unreasonable when others ask us politely if we would refrain from treating their dog as a toothbrush, right?
So could someone please explain to me why it's acceptable for "Christians" to behave as if Christ didn't exist, or that He's irrelevant, or that He's of minor importance compared to our other priorities?
I'll stick to examples of so-called "good Catholics" (with thanks to Bishop Robert Hermann of St. Louis for the phrase), partially since I'm most familiar with Catholic teaching, and partially since I have the misfortune of being familiar with untold scores of cases in which dissidents, the heterodox, and (yes, even) heretics still claim the name "Catholic" and all the "privileges" pertaining thereto.
From LifeNews.com:
The president of the Catholic Health Association, Sister Carol Keehan, has issued a response to the pro-life advocates who are upset with her statement praising two pro-abortion picks by incoming president Barack Obama. Instead of backing down from her position, Sister Keehan goes further by offering a defense of Obama as well as his new pro-abortion Health Secretary Tom Daschle and pro-abortion deputy health care director Jeanne Lambrew. [...] Keehan also claims that Obama and his selections will provide better health care for pregnant women and unborn children. "They are committed to getting access to quality health care for all Americans, including pregnant women and their unborn babies," Keehan adds. "It is my belief that we ... will prevent more abortions by ensuring tangible health care for pregnant women and their unborn babies."
From LifeSiteNews.com:
Despite a bishop's order to cease, a Catholic hospital in Tyler, Texas that had been caught routinely performing direct sterilizations has issued a statement denying it has contravened the Church's moral law.
The hospital's statement came less than a week after Tyler Bishop Alvara Corrada issued his own statement reaffirming that two investigations confirmed Trinity Mother Frances Hospital's history of tubal ligations and other direct sterilizations, and that such activity must cease as being intrinsically contrary to human dignity and forbidden by Church law. [...]
Father Gavin Vaverek, Promoter of Justice in the Diocese of Tyler, said that the hospital does not define tubal ligations as “direct sterilization,” and is basing its denial upon this false understanding of what constitutes sterilization.
“It does not deny offering tubal ligations,” the priest said about the hospital’s statement, according to a CNA report. “Having admitted the procedures, Trinity Mother Frances now wishes to continue them in the face of clear teaching and directive of the bishop by reasserting its discredited opinion that the procedures really are not ‘direct sterilizations.’ Essentially, it is saying the bishop is wrong when he asserts that tubal ligations are direct sterilization.”
Let's translate these into plain English, shall we?
1) The president (a religious sister, consecrated and bound by vows in poverty, chastity and obedience to God through the Church) of the "Catholic" [sic] "Health" [sic] Association [okay]: (a) believes that the President-Elect of Death is a fine choice to lead our nation; (b) is thrilled with said President-Elect of Death's pro-death choices as members of his staff; and (c) is indignant that anyone would dare question her decision, her allegiance [sic] to Catholic teaching, and her standing as a "good Catholic" [sic].
2) A "Catholic" [sic] hospital, when confronted with the rightful orders of the local bishop that they cease all intentional sterilizations (which the Church condemns as intrinsically evil), refuses the order on the grounds that "the bishop doesn't appreciate the nuances of Catholic teaching in the matter, and that the condemned actions are really justified, if only they can be viewed in the correct way".
To this, I gently submit that a Catholic does, in fact, need to obey Catholic teaching--or else cease to be a "faithful Catholic", by definition. If someone claims to be a golfer while indignantly denying any suggestion that he use golf balls and gold clubs (preferring instead to use, say, avocados and a pair of tongs), then I might possibly support his right to choose not to avail himself of the normal tools of the trade--but I will also be justified in saying that he is not, after all, a golfer at all... but only claiming (without substance or merit) to be one, for whatever mysterious reason. If a satanist suddenly rejects all allegiance to Satan, I may well congratulate him for making an excellent spiritual step; but I cannot reasonably congratulate him on being a good satanist, because he has, in fact, ceased to be one by that very act of rejection... and, even in my newfound admiration of him, I could not help but understand the Satanist Club's decision to deny him his usual "members only" parking space.
Just so, I suggest, with Catholicism. How are we to view someone who wishes to cling to the "perks" of Catholicism (reception of Holy Communion, or whatever else those "perks" might be, in his or her mind), but refuses to obey even the most rudimentary elements of Catholicism (such as belief in necessary Catholic doctrines, obedience to rightful Catholic authorities, adherence to Catholic practices and the requirements that go with them, and the like)? How can an institution boast the name "Catholic", while at the same time arrogating to itself the decisions rightfully made by the Bishop (or other rightful Church authority over them)? In short: I can't see how such a person or institution could be viewed as anything but "not a good Catholic" (and, perhaps, not even Catholic at all).
As I've said before, there's a special pain in watching a Christian betray Christ (and even worse, to deny and "cloak" their betrayal with rhetoric and sophistries). I'd much rather encounter a sincere atheist or unapologetic pagan; they might decide to stab Christ in the chest, like an avowed enemy, but at least they don't stab Christ in the back.
Picture the following scene (with a hat-tip to Paul for the general theme:
(Disclaimer: the "pseudo-firefighters" in this scene are not meant to resemble, in any way, the true and literal fire-fighting heroes of our country--many of whom I'm proud to number among my friends! Hence the prefix "pseudo-"...)
You approach the house of a friend (who's married with 3 small children) just in time to watch the house erupt in flames, and to see an arsonist screech off in a very fast car. You call the fire department, and a number of pseudo-firefighters arrive... but--rather than single-mindedly fighting the blaze, as you expect--they look at the fire and shrug, and tell you earnestly how these flames aren't that bad (they've seen far worse), how the arsonist might not be culpable for his actions (perhaps due to troubled home life, or even because of a different cultural outlook), and how there are far more important concerns than merely fighting fires (one mustn't be a single-issue fire-fighter, after all). Another pseudo-firefighter walks up and suggests (in all seriousness) that we not forget all the other houses burning at that very moment, throughout the world... that we can't possibly fight them all, so the best way to fight this fire, and others (we mustn't be provincial and narrow, and focus only on *this* house, mind you!) is to work toward stronger and more sweeping state and federal regulations that mandate more flame-resistant houses. A third pseudo-firefighter opines, while the roof of the house begins to collapse and screams can be heard from inside the house, that more governmental support (and more money to strapped public school programs) would go a long way toward preventing poor, lost people like yonder arsonist from "acting out" in such a socially unhelpful way.
At the end of the day, as the medics remove the charred corpses of your friends, what would be going through your mind? What would you say to those who comment (perhaps tactfully) on your lack of charity and goodwill toward the pseudo-firefighters who arrived on the scene, and toward those who agreed with their way of handling things? What would you say to the pseudo-firefighters who rebuke you for yelling, screaming, perhaps physically shaking a pseudo-firefighter or two, or even illegally trying to go in and save the family yourself?
I'm sure Noah Webster never meant for "nuance" to be a foul word... but the distressingly large assembly of "liberated", "nuanced", "liberal", etc., Catholics--at "Catholic" hospitals, "Catholic" universities, "Catholic" blogs* and websites, and the like, have certainly made it unfit for most faithful conversation. May God have mercy on us.
To the "nuanced" of the world, here's my response: try objective truth, for a change. Christ (i.e. objective truth) would really prefer it of you... and perhaps you could then join us in stopping the runaway train known as the "Culture of Death", rather than adding fuel to the train's furnace?
(*) In all fairness, there seems to be at least one sensible contributor to Vox Nova, along with the courageous commenters who try to champion orthodoxy, over there.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
