The Gospel and Extraterrestrial Life

In a recent interview, the Director of the Vatican's Observatory, Fr. José Gabriel Funes said in an recent interview that belief in extraterrestrial life is not opposed to Christianity. It is an interesting subject to contemplate; in fact, C.S. Lewis took the same position.

If in fact, there is intelligent life in the universe, even if their technology and knowledge surpassed ours, their dignity could not. As rational creatures, such beings, would obviously have free will and there is no higher dignity in this universe—free, rational agents—because to have such a mode of existence is to be made in the image and likeness of God.

Therefore, if there are such creatures, we can be confident that they are images of God just as we are and that the mercy of God extends to all of His creation.

Believing in aliens not opposed to Christianity, Vatican’s top astronomer says
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=12628

Roman Catholics for Obama '08

Archbishop Chaput is an admirable Catholic leader in the United States. He faithfully presents the teachings of the Church and candidly speaks about them. More importantly, he is very humble and often gives people the benefit of the doubt; it might be more accurate to say, he invites Catholics to conscientiously reflect on the teachings of the Magisterium and conform to the authentic teachings of Christ Jesus. I think this is direly needed especially in the politicization of the Catholic Church and debate on which American political party better reflects Catholic social teaching.

Earlier this year, the Denver Archbishop offered a coherent vision of Catholic responsibility as voters in the American political process. He clearly stressed the primacy of the abortion issue and did not criticize those who for "proportionate" reasons vote for a pro-choice candidate. He did emphasize that he disagreed with them, but in his experience, he knew people, of good will, who morally did oppose abortion, but hoped to bring about its demise in a different way.

I am proud that Catholics speak out against pro-choice rhetoric. I am even more proud that we remind fellow Catholics that the pro-choice position is not compatitible with our faith. But, in his own way, Archbishop Chaput is a humble gift to the Catholic Church in America. He goes beyond political language and does not speak condescendingly or make ad hominem statements. I personally am grateful for him as a Roman Catholic. While I profoundly disagree with people who identify as "pro-choice," I think basic respect is due to them and true civil dialogue will serve us better as we move toward the goal of ending the horror of abortion. In all truthfulness, calling people "baby killers," "pro-death," "proponents of a culture of death," "anti-life" and so forth, while it may be true of their position, it is not productive and it yields an unnecessary culture war at the expense of lives of unborn children who die everyday while we fail to humbly approach those who disagree with us. The solution to hostility is not to respond with hostility.

Once again, I admire and thank Archbishop Chaput and I recommend his words to the Roman Catholics who for whatever reason have decided to back Sen. Barack Obama for President.

Thoughts on "Roman Catholics for Obama '08"
http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/?p=1073

Can A Catholic Be A Democrat?

I think so, but it is also dependent on the Catholic's priorities.

I'm a Catholic and a Democrat; it isn't very easy. A few positions of the Democratic Party platform go against fundamental principles of the moral law and even the mission of the party itself, particularly in protecting the most vulnerable among us. I am in vehement disagreement with more leftist Democrats in regard to these positions. While this is a pressing issue, I don't think it takes away from the fact that the party is founded on sound philosophical principles with a potentiality for good. The problem is that pro-abortion organizations and lobbyists have a monopoly on the party.

The late Joseph Cardinal Bernardin employed the New Testament image of the seamless garment to create a comprehensive ethical system linking many different issues together by focusing attention on the basic value of human life. It shows us how the distinct issues of abortion, euthanasia, embryo-destructive research, capital punishment, poverty, healthcare, and other issues are related, with the understanding that not all issues have the same moral weight.

As a Catholic Christian committed to my faith, I try my best as a conscientious American citizen to promote the common good. The Catholic faith offers me "a consistent moral framework anchored in the scriptures and expressed in the teachings of the Church." Our wonderful American Bishops in Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship expressed a wonderful synopsis of Catholic Social Teaching (good luck using it as a voting guide). This teaching does not commit Catholics to any political party, but binds Catholics to moral principles based on the Gospel truth. Thus, the Church does offer Catholics "room" to vote for a pro-choice candidate if it is not our reason for favoring that candidate and we must have morally grave—proportionate—reasons to justify our votes. Unfortunately, the "doctrine of proportionalism" is often abused and exercised casually among dissenting Catholics.

Human life is threatened by abortion, war, economic injustice, racial violence, oppression, human trafficking, euthanasia, amongst a myriad of other issues. I believe fully in the protection of all life—minorities, the unborn, the condemned, the enemy, the elderly, the poor. I don't see the value of life of any group as more important than any other group of lives, but I do believe that certain attacks on human life are more detrimental than others.

I don't think labels can fully exhaust my political views or any aspect of my person. Though labels do help us conceptualize. On most issues, I agree with Democrats, so you might say I am 'liberal' or 'progressive.' That's fair. I am a liberal on social justice and economic issues, though, I do think that the free-market should not be handicapped nor do I believe a social program (a.k.a social "band-aids") is the solution to every problem; more importantly, all social programs should begin as close to the root of the problem as possible and not immediately on the federal level or even state level. On many social and moral issues, I am moderate (not necessarily conservative): I oppose abortion, euthanasia, embryo-destructive research, and same-sex marriage. But I "dissent" from a number of traditional conservative positions in this arena: I am almost a strict pacifist on war (and torture) without objecting on the Church's teaching that war in certain cases can be legitimate; I simply believe the "Just War" doctrine should be tossed around lightly, which is certainly not the case as of late in my view. I oppose capital punishment. I oppose weakening the collective safety net to those individuals in society who are most in need. A last and final example, I recently learned (from a Republican friend) that I don't support second amendment rights because I applauded a Congress-ban on automatic and semi-automatic weapons. I simply am not convinced that people owning guns that fire off countless bullets in a matter of moments is prudent nor a civil moral right. What's wrong with a simple handgun or hunting rifles? I don't oppose those at all, though, I do advocate some form of gun control.

Quite simply, I don't think any of the positions I take as a Catholic Democrat necessarily contradict my Catholic faith. Ironically, a generation ago, to say, "Catholic Democrat" was almost redundant. Few asked about your politics if you were Catholic; it was almost understood. Today the political landscape would be unrecognizable to Catholics of that time. The Democratic Party has hurt itself by taking a firm "pro-choice" position on abortion. Abortion rights advocated have managed to merge the pro-choice position with pro-women's rights issues, therefore, to dissent on abortion is an attack on the dignity of women. Surely, this narrow-minded thinking has cost the Democrats dearly. (cf. Feminists for Life of America and the case for pro-life feminism).

The Democrats are profoundly in error on the right-to-life issue. But I don't think anyone would disagree that the Democrats despite this can and do legislate many policies that actualize basic principles at the heart of the moral teaching of the Church based on our Gospel imperative: reducing the poverty rate, increasing the quality of education and access to higher education, pressing for universal access to healthcare, supporting anti-discrimination policies, and moving to heal our nation's image in the international community and redevelop our foreign policy. In my opinion, the Democrats are "right" on a number of issues and I don't think these issues are of no consequence; though, I don't believe that the right-to-life can simply be traded off for a wanton series of pro-Democrat votes because "they are right on just about everything else."

The success of the pro-life cause depends upon representation on both sides of the American political discourse. This way we can prevent one side from having a monopoly on certain voting blocs and getting comfortable enough to make empty promises with the confidence that voters will vote for them anyway because the other candidate takes too radical a position. Competition does in fact stimulate progress. In the practical sense, in order to safely secure a pro-life agenda across the political spectrum there must be an end to the "culture war" that is dividing America.

Therefore, I as a pro-life progressive see that it's necessary to change the Democratic Party's platform on abortion to a pro-life platform (eventually) and in the mean time, revert to the "big tent" philosophy where there is inclusiveness and tolerated dissension among the ranks on issues such as abortion, so that more pro-life Democrats run for elected office (cf. Democrats for Life of America) even for the presidency. It won't be easy and it won't be done tomorrow, but it is a worthy cause to fight for. To be a Catholic Democrat does not necessarily entail voting only for Democrats. As a Catholic, as a Christian, I am baptized into Christ Jesus' death and I literally am apart of His Body. Therefore, I am called, as a vessel of grace, to transform the world, which includes the political party I personally see as a vital instrument for achieving a certain end: the moral vision of the Gospel which produces human flourishing.

I expect the same of Catholic Republicans because our goal transcends party boundaries. Just as I don't criticize their preference, I humbly ask that they don't criticize mine, but rather encourage me to live up to the vocation of being a faithful and orthodox Catholic in the Democratic Party. The Church needs us; the world needs us.

Let me repeat: I am Catholic, pro-life, and a Democrat.

Interview with a Christian pro-life Democrat

Baptist Press, a Tennessee media source that self-identifies as 'news with a Christian perspective' recently interviewed Democrats For Life of America friend and member, Representative Heath Shuler. The North Carolina representative is one of the most reliable pro-life Democrats in Congress. He was also praised for his strict adherence to the Consistent Life Ethic. In the interview, Congrssman Shuler talks about his views on politics, the Democratic Party, abortion, marriage and myriad other important topics and how they are affected by his Christian faith.

Heath Shuler: Rare pro-life Democrat in Congress
http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=28033

A Pro-life Democrat for Vice President?

Sen. Barack Obama hasn't won the Democratic Nomination yet, and if my prayers and the intercession of St. Jude, the patron saint of lost causes, mean anything for Sen. Hillary Clinton, hopefully he won't win at all. I am unconvinced that Obama's rhetoric actually reflects his real views and find that him to be politically such a leftist that I would coin Clinton as a centrist Democrat. But if Obama did win the nomination, there remains the question: who would he choose as a Vice President? The following proposition is very unlikely, but it is an interesting one. There may be something to this political strategy.

Could Casey balance out an Obama ticket?

Right now, the Democratic nomination is Sen. Barack Obama’s to lose — and then, only through an act of superhuman self-sabotage. He will go into the Democratic National Convention in Denver with the most primary votes cast and the most committed delegates; he will need only the blessing of the party’s unelected superdelegates.

Those superdelegates will be extremely reluctant to turn against Obama because of his vote totals, his Midas-like fundraising ability and his enthusiastic supporters. They will also probably want to avoid angering black voters — as reliable a Democratic voting bloc as ever there was.

The general election is another story. The nightmare scenario that many Democratic strategists must be contemplating right about now is the defection of a few hundred thousand white working-class voters in Pennsylvania, Ohio and New Hampshire from Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton now to Sen. John McCain in the general election.

If that defection happens, McCain will be our next president. Obama had been trying to run as a transformative candidate who could sweep away the old red/blue map, but the old political reality hasn’t changed. This election will likely be fought in five or six key states. If they want to take the White House, Democrats cannot afford to lose the swing states where Clinton edged out Obama.

Obama will therefore want to do something both old-fashioned and audacious in picking his running mate. Old-fashioned: He’ll want to pick someone who can help him carry the must-win state of Pennsylvania. Audacious: That running mate should be Sen. Robert P. Casey Jr.

Casey would be a controversial pick because of his politics and his name. The Pennsylvania senator agrees with his party on most issues, but he is both pro-guns and anti-abortion. He’s the son of the late Gov. Bob Casey, who was famously excluded from speaking at the 1992 Democratic convention because of his anti-abortion views. He was the “Casey” in the Supreme Court case Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

Casey Junior is popular in Pennsylvania not in spite of his renegade views but because of them; though, set against the state’s politics, those views don’t look so radical. Pennsylvania has a large enough pro-life, mostly Catholic contingent that, in statewide elections, when both D’s and R’s put up candidates who support abortion rights, the Constitution Party candidate can win a few hundred thousand votes. It’s chock full of exactly the sort of economically progressive, socially conservative voters Democrats would love to win back.

With the help of Casey’s endorsement, Obama had been making inroads with those voters. Then the God and guns gaffe ruined his chance to force Clinton out early and opened a huge chasm between the politician and the people. It’s no longer just an issue of policy that divides them but one of trust, as well.

Religious blue-collar Democrats suspect that Obama’s empathy for them is all an act. The best — in fact, probably the only — way to convince them otherwise is to put someone whom they respect on the ticket. The person who can best do that is Casey.

Critics can carp that this will cost votes and money, but that’s at least half wrong. Evans-Novak Political Report’s Timothy P. Carney argues that politicians tend to break against abortion rights for the votes or in support of them for the campaign donations. However, Obama’s campaign is already receiving more funds than it knows what to do with. What are those folks worried about — that he’ll raise only $35 million a month?

As for the votes, many Democrats who support abortion rights cautioned Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee Chairman Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) against recruiting Casey to run for Senate in 2006. The pro-abortion-rights Schumer brushed off these criticisms because he figured Casey agreed with the party on enough issues and because he wanted to win back the Senate. Look how
that turned out.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0408/9923.html

Pro-life Democrat Elected in New York

According to LifeNews.com, a faith-based news agency, the New York state abortion bill, The Reproductive Health Privacy Act if passed would in effect "enshrine abortion in state law and overturn virtually every pro-life" restriction on abortion. Moreover, the law would oblige Catholic and other private pro-life hospitals to provide abortions upon request.

There is hope. The New York Republican-controlled senate opposes the bill and the recent special election of pro-life Democrat Darrel Aubertine gives the pro-life community hope that the bill will not make. (David Paterson, a pro-choice Democrat recently ascended to the office of Governor giving pro-lifers a two vote gain in the senate). The Democrats for Life of America has congratulated Aubertine on his victory and urges pro-life Democrats to vote in more pro-life Democrats to bring recognition that you can be both pro-life and a Democrat.

The article on LifeNews.com:
http://www.lifenews.com/state3213.html

Partisanship Leads To Pro-life Failure in Tennessee

Pro-life Democratic State Senators Eddie Bass, Nathan Vaughn, Charles Curtis, John Mark Windle and Curt Cobb were pictured on a "Wanted Poster" for "unlawful use of a donkey on the floor of the General Assembly in violation of custom, tradition and decorum." Their crime? Supporting a resolution to remove the court ruling that guarantees Tennessee women the right to abortion in any circumstance and at any time during the pregnancy. The Supreme Court ruling prevents the State from passing any restrictions on abortion.

The Republican sponsor of the resolution bears the ultimate responsibility for the bill's demise by preventing pro-life democrats from sponsoring the bill. Her initial partisan tactics led to a partisan fight, not over the content of the resolution, but over her refusal to work with Democrats. Vaughn, one of the impressive pro-life leaders listed on the poster, gave an impassioned speech after he was refused the opportunity to cosponsor the pro-life resolution by its Republican sponsor. I would encourage you to listen to it.

Rep. Nathan Vaughn on Tennessee, pro-life Democrat
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5mVJ6MNnPY&feature=related

New Threats to Darfur Civilians

Violence in Sudan is escalating. The Justice and Equality Movement, a Darfuri rebel group, attacked Khartoum on Saturday in an attempt to topple the Sudanese regime. The government has reportedly stopped the attempt. In retaliation to the attacks, there is already news of widespread atrocities against Darfuri civilians.

Reports indicate that the government is detaining, torturing and killing Darfuris in and around Khartoum, and that janjaweed militias have commenced attacks in North Darfur. The international community must demand an immediate end to atrocities, speed up deployment of peacekeepers, and make clear to all sides that there is no violent solution to this conflict.

Please take the time to tell President Bush to immediately use all diplomatic and economic tools necessary to help end attacks against innocent Darfuri civilians.

The situation in Darfur is dire. Violence is affecting every aspect of life in Darfur, including food supplies. The U.N. has been forced to cut its food aid shipments in half because its trucks are often hijacked before they get to the people in need.

President Bush must immediately use the full force of American diplomacy to urge all sides to exercise restraint, protect civilians, and to begin a just and inclusive peace process. President Bush must also use the U.S. presidency of the U.N. Security Council in June to ensure full deployment of the UNAMID peacekeeping force for Darfur, and to punish those who attack civilians.

The international community is falling tragically short of our mandate and our moral obligation in Darfur. There is hope, but only if the most powerful actors on the world stage are serious about ending the genocide.

Thank you for your dedication to the people of Darfur.

Can Eastern Orthodoxy Really Make A Case?

The Orthodox Way is one of the most referenced books in Orthodox Christianity. Despite Bishop Kallistos Ware's best case, I remain strongly Roman Catholic. In the book, Ware describes the theological doctrines, worship, and life of Orthodox Christians. In the Introduction, Ware emphatically states that Christianity is more than a theory explaining the mystery of the universe, but recalling an ancient name for Christianity, he labels it as "the way" to Truth. On that issue, I don't disagree with him. But, I do think a close examination of his argument shows that though he is a renowned scholar, he fails to make a case for The Orthodox Church and its doctrines. In comparison to figures such as St. Thomas Aquinas, known infamously for taking on counter-arguments head on, Ware lacks such boldness. He quotes—to an inordinate degree—the Greek Fathers of the Church and theologians of the Orthodox tradition. Rarely is there any mention of early Christians devoted to the traditions and theology of Western Christianity. I think the fact that he doesn't, at first glance, isn't surprising at all. Supposedly, the West is in heresy. But then again, the fact that he doesn't, is very surprising.

Ware cites from seventy-five sources that he refers to as “Orthodox.” Of the group, only three sources—St. Augustine, St. Anthony of Egypt, and St. Leo the Great—are of the Western Christian tradition. He also cites from thirteen additional sources that he refers to as “Non-Orthodox,” implying that the writers are not Orthodox Christians or any of the early Church Fathers. The typical use of sources of this sort is to validate his own convictions or to condemn a specific view, e.g. Augustine’s view of the fall of man.

In the pages devoted to the Latin doctrine of the Filioque, or “and the Son,” which has found its place in the Western version of the Nicene Creed, Ware asserts that this “unauthorized addition” committed without the consent of the Christian East is not only theologically unsound, but it is “spiritually harmful.” He notes that the Orthodox Church following the Greek Fathers of the fourth century—presumably the Cappadocians—affirm that the Father is the sole source of the Trinity. Ware misinterprets the Trinitarian theology of the West. St. Augustine in fact argued that God the Father was the source of the Trinity using the analogy of love. If God is love, then the Father is the lover and the object of his love is the Son, the beloved. The Son returns the love of the Father and the love existing between them is the Spirit.

Ware reflecting over an Orthodox hymn for the Feast of Pentecost states that one of the “chief reasons” that the Orthodox reject the filioque is that it “might lead men to depersonalize and subordinate the Holy Spirit.” The same is true of not having the filoque in the West when men were inclined to “depersonalize” and “subordinate” the Son. In response to the pressing question then about the interrelationship of the Son and Spirit to the Father, that is, what is the difference between “generation” and “procession,” Ware cites St. John of Damascus who claimed, “…we do not understand at all.” He supports this with St. Basil the Great who remarked, “it is easier to measure the entire sea…than to grasp God’s ineffable greatness with the human mind.” Ware, then, turns to St. Irenaeus who speaks of the “two hands” of God, in which we see manifested in the work of God itself, e.g. creation, the Incarnation, the Transfiguration, etc. This very theological mystery is discussed by St. Augustine, a Church Father that Ware does not turn to once except to speak ill of some idea that he posited. Augustine did concede that human language could not properly describe the Divine Reality, but since it is the only tool we have in discussing God, it is necessary that man try the best he can, understanding the improper proportions of analogies to God.

St. Augustine effectively employed human psychology and the idea of love, to illuminate the persons of the Son and the Spirit and paint a clearer distinction between the two, e.g. the Son as the beloved of the Father and the Spirit as the "act of love" pouring back and forth between the Father and Son, hence, the “double procession.” Ware does not choose to explore this idea in the context of the Western Christian tradition, which he seems—from cover to cover—not to care for at all. Perhaps this is due to the West’s philosophic nature in contrast to the East and its attentiveness toward spirituality and mysticism; hence, Ware willingness to refer to the idea of God as both Father and “Mother” put forward by the Blessed Julian of Norwich, a Roman Catholic mystic who’s notion supports Aphrahat, an early Syriac Father who speaks of the believer’s love for “God his Father and the Holy Spirit his Mother.”

In his discussion of the Blessed Virgin Mary, often referred to in Orthodoxy as the Theotokos—the God-bearer or Mother of God—he spells out the Orthodox position on the Catholic dogma of the Immaculate Conception: "Although not accepting the Latin doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, Orthodoxy in its liturgical worship addresses the Mother of God as a spotless” (achrantos), “all-holy” (panagia), “altogether without stain” ( panamomos)…She is for us “the joy of all creation” (The Liturgy of St. Basil), “flower of the human race and gate of heaven” (Dogmatikon in Tone One)… "

Ware then quotes St. Ephrem the Syrian, also of the Eastern Christian tradition, “Thou alone, O Jesus, with thy Mother art beautiful in every way: For there is no blemish in thee, my Lord, and no stain in thy Mother.” Ware, quoting heavily from Eastern Christian sources, comes to a consensus with the Latin dogma of the Immaculate Conception, though he denies it. Nothing that he states goes against it nor makes it theologically inept. The idea that the Immaculate Conception as simply “superfluous” as Ware puts it comes from a difference in opinion between the East and the West on the fall of man.

The Latin West holds a very Augustinian view of the Fall, where there is an inheritance of Original Sin, in such a way that there is an innate disordered tendency toward self in reflection of the pride of Adam and Eve. The Orthodox according to Ware hold a radically different view that doesn’t explain original sin in “quasi-biological” terms. Ware describes the Orthodox view of original sin this way: "The doctrine of original sin means rather that we are born into an environment where it is easy to do evil and hard to do good; easy to hurt others and hard to heal their wounds…and to this accumulation of wrong we have ourselves added by our own deliberate acts of sin."

This idea, however, doesn’t necessarily disagree with the view held by Latin Christianity. The West certainly would say more about the nature of sin itself—that it is not just an external reality, but an internal one where humans struggle with a sort of moral paralysis. In effect, humans are wounded creatures that need God’s grace; often enough, the intention to do good is sometimes disordered in our pursuit to protect and gratify ourselves rather than do what is holy. However, the West would agree that this internal struggle that we all face does create an environment where it is “easy to do evil and hard to good.” The two ideas of Original Sin are not in opposition to one another, though Ware holds that position and it might seem so at first glance.

Kallistos Ware undoubtedly gives an impressive, synoptic vision of Orthodox Christian theology and spirituality. In the Introduction, Ware proclaims the Orthodox Church’s message to the West: “We are your past.” In spelling out the details of Orthodox theology, Ware does not give credit to or any recognition to Western Christianity; though, the Orthodox Church considers the West to be heresy, none of the Church Fathers or traditions of the West prior to the “heretical” turn of the West are praised and seen as what the West should return to. Ware’s bias is apparently evid€ent—particularly in his excessive citing of Eastern Orthodox sources—and shows that he does not fully expound on why the Orthodox view is necessarily correct. Certainly, Ware could have made a profoundly critical argument had he used early Church Fathers and saints of Western Christian tradition to demonstrate how Roman Catholicism has deviated from its past. Rather, he quotes faithfully from Greek Fathers and Orthodox Christians who already affirmed a view he is committed to. The fact that he went about it this way and not the other may reveal a much greater reality—perhaps there is no valid argument of heresy against Western Christianity.

The Modern Christological Question: Who Was Jesus?

At the Council of Chalcedon in A.D. 451, it was universally confessed throughout all of Christendom that Jesus Christ was the incarnate Logos of God. The Fathers of the Church explicitly wrote:

"Following the holy Fathers, we unanimously teach and confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ: the same perfect in divinity and perfect in humanity, the same truly God and truly man, composed of rational soul and body; consubstantial with the Father as to his divinity and consubstantial with us as to his humanity; 'like us in all things but sin.' He was begotten from the Father before all ages as to his divinity and in these last days, for us and for our salvation, was born as to his humanity of the virgin Mary, the Mother of God. We confess that one and the same Christ, Lord, and only-begotten Son, is to be acknowledged in two natures without confusion, change, division, or separation. The distinction between natures was never abolished by their union, but rather the character proper to each of the two natures was preserved as they came together in one person (prosopon) and one hypostasis."

In modern times, the rise of skepticism and historical criticisms has led to the question of whether Jesus of Nazareth the historical person is identical with Jesus Christ, the Son of God. There is no doubt that the person of Jesus is a mystery to us all. But what can we know about him? Can we know him? The Christian faith invites us to know God through the Messiah who died on the Cross for our salvation. Therefore, in order to accept this invitation, Christians must attempt to encounter an engimatic figure who walked the earth 2,000 years ago...a figure shrouded in mystery and controversy.

Biblical scholar, Howard Clark Kee in his scholarly work What Can We Know About Jesus? posits that much can be known about the historical Jesus of Nazareth. We can know, for example, that Jesus the Christ, as he was known by his followers, died by Roman crucifixion. Kee backs this claiming that it “is confirmed by all evidence available—Jewish, Roman, and Christian.” Kee in his biblical scholarship employs the historical-critical method of analyzing Christian scriptures. According to this approach, in order to understand who Jesus of Nazareth was, one must read the four canonical gospels within their social and historical context.

Pope Benedict XVI in Jesus of Nazareth takes a profoundly different approach to the historical Jesus. The Pope acknowledges that the differences in all the gospels as a “struggle to come to grips with the figure of Jesus,” but recognizes—something Kee would agree with—that there is still “a deep harmony despite their differences.” The Roman Pontiff and Kee diverge ultimately on the fundamental basis that the Holy Father firmly holds that the study of the figure of Christ—a true Christology—cannot be removed from theological tradition that is associated with his person. Though, Benedict XVI and Kee would agree that the four canonical gospels are a source of credible information about Jesus of Nazareth, their competing approaches lead to profoundly different conclusions on who Jesus of Nazareth really was.

Kee approaches the mystery of the historical Jesus using a rigorous scholarly method. He proposes that one must first uncover “source Q”—a hypothetical document containing the earliest tradition of information about Jesus and his teaching—in order to fully know Jesus. Since the Q document is not readily available to us, the surest way to uncover the historical Jesus is to look to the four canonical gospels. For Kee, the letters of Paul—the earliest Christian writings—are not as valuable as the writings of the four Evangelists because Paul’s letters are “plagued” by religious teaching and “suprahistorical” facts about Jesus, e.g. his resurrection from the dead, his Real Presence in the Eucharist, etc. Kee has the same view on other non-canonical works. Despite their value in cross-referencing facts and validating or disproving a hypothesis, these sources offer no substantive information about Jesus. Kee thus concludes that in the “search for knowledge about Jesus, we are led, therefore, to the primary sources: the Gospels of our New Testament.” The four gospels offer a coherent view of the man Jesus, if read without giving attention to the “theological opinions” attached to Jesus. Kee articulates in his book that the person of Jesus is covered, as it were, with doctrine and ideas that were possibly conceivably of after his death. For example, Kee notes that in the Gospel of Mark, the birth narrative of Jesus is ignored. In fact, the Markan tradition doesn’t focus on Christ’s fulfilling messianic prophecies—there is no virgin birth or savior that comes to us from Bethlehem. This reality is not ignored in Luke and Matthew.

The seeming discrepancies in the gospel are realities that Kee is conscious of in his attempt to solve the puzzle that is the person of Jesus. It is Kee’s understanding that all the evangelists present their own theological convictions for a specific audience with specific circumstances leading to the writing of Jesus' gospel message and this will influence how they present Jesus. Kee fears this leads to distortion and disables us from truly, objectively, knowing Jesus. In putting the pieces of the puzzle together, Kee insists that Luke “reproduces more primitive forms of the sayings of Jesus” whereas other gospels like Matthew’s account of the “good news” written primarily to Jews is “adapted…freely to his purposes.” This emphatic pronouncement demonstrates Kee’s commitment to an almost empirical scholarly method. He is interested in where Jesus was born, the surrounding historical events that may have shaped his life, what he said and how his religious beliefs might have influenced him, and so forth. Luke provides information about his birth, a reference to his childhood experience in the Jewish Temple, and a very synoptic view of Jesus’ life that is chronological and historically-based. Kee ultimately does not view Luke as primarily as a historian, noting that Luke tries to show “the continuities and transforming differences between what was announced…in the Old Testament and what happened in the coming of Jesus.”

Kee sums up the entirety of his Christological approach when he writes, “…historians in this period were not interested…in reporting events of the past, but saw their role as providing the meaning of those past events for readers in the present…They did not adopt the pose of objectivity, as though they were merely telling ‘how it really happened’”. Ultimately, Kee reaffirms his earlier thesis that in order to know the person of Jesus of Nazareth one must approach the scriptures with a critical eye that filters out the theological add-ons and search for solid facts based on the historical and cultural context of the life of Jesus and the written accounts of his life.

Pope Benedict XVI in Jesus of Nazareth announces within a few lines that there is a growing chasm between the historical Jesus and the Christ of faith. This is a pressing problem to Christians especially. If the Jesus of the Christian faith is not the same person as the historical person they believe to be God incarnate—the eternal Logos united with human consciousness and flesh—then their faith is in vain. The Pope poses the inevitable question: what would it mean “if the man [Benedict’s emphasis] Jesus was so completely different from the picture that the Evangelists painted of him and that the Church, on the evidence of the Gospels, takes as the basis of her preaching?” The Holy Father then proceeds to answer the question, first, with a closer examination of the historical-critical method. He does not discredit the approach, saying, “the historical-critical method…is an indispensable tool, given the structure of the Christian faith.” However, the Pope cautions Christians on the weakness of relying solely on such a method, saying it “considers the individual books of Scripture…and then analyzes them…according to their sources. The unity of all of these writing as one ‘Bible’…is nothing it can recognize as an immediate historical datum.”

Benedict XVI takes the position—in opposition to Howard Kee—that to know the person of Jesus is impossible by divorcing him from the Christian faith. The historical-method only shows a single dimension that perhaps can be seen as a new “movement” in Judaism that eventually splintered into a new religious tradition based on the beliefs of the followers of a man called Jesus—whether or not these beliefs are actually the teachings of Christ is not known, or just irrelevant. The Pope seems to identify this stance as the modern stance and why the world has come to see a gap between the historical Jesus and the Jesus of faith. Benedict XVI posits that the authentic way to know the historical Jesus—and thus, the Christ of faith—is by what he refers to as “canonical exegesis.” The reading of the scriptures as a whole, he writes, “is an essential dimension” to understanding what the writers of the gospels are trying to convey about Jesus Christ and thus it illuminates more clearly who Jesus of Nazareth is. This approach “does not contradict historical-critical interpretation” but rather leads it to fruition.

Jesus of Nazareth, in the Pope’s view, cannot simply be a moral teacher or a Jewish revolutionary. Rather, he was a man and “he truly was [Benedict’s emphasis] God, and…he communicated his divinity in parables, yet with increasing clarity.” Most importantly, the Pope goes further declaring that such a reality “exceeds the scope of the historical method.” Thus, Benedict XVI contradicts Kee’s assertion that the way to know Jesus is to look at the theological traditions of the gospel writers without taking such religious convictions seriously. Benedict XVI argues the contrary. According to this line of thinking, one cannot know the historical Jesus without adhering to the teachings of the Gospel. To have faith in Christ, to know the Jesus of faith is how we know the historical Jesus.

Kee in trying to reconstruct the source Q, in Benedict’s view, missed the actual source he was looking for. One such source is the earliest Christian writer, Paul the Apostle. Paul in his letters quotes from early traditions of the Christian church, e.g. a hymn that presents a clearly developed Christology that was developed within approximately ten years of Christ’s death as Paul converted in the 30s A.D. and began writing his letters possibly as early as the 40s A.D. This seems to be in fact superior to a possible “Q” source if such a hypothetical document exists. It readily presents who Jesus’ followers believed him to be with the source of the information being as close to Jesus’ life as history thus far has enabled. Therefore, Kee in dismissing Paul’s letters as too concerned with Christology and theological teachings simply because it goes beyond the scope of history misses the mark. In fact, Benedict XVI points out that modern biblical scholars should see the truth of history—the earliest believers as St. Paul’s letters demonstrates believed that Jesus of Nazareth was God in the flesh and the continuity of this is unbroken by other writings Kee dismissed as too far from Christ’s earthly life. For example, Pope Clement I’s Letter to the Corinthians (96? A.D.) or the seven epistles (including a Letter to the Romans) written by Ignatius of Antioch (d. 110 A.D.), disciple of the St. John the Apostle and Bishop of Smyrna, as he was en route to be martyred in Rome—these letters address topics such as ecclesiology, the sacraments, and the role of bishops clearly indicating the Church, based on the teachings of Jesus, was well-established. Thus, in the search for “objectivity” Kee missed what Pope Benedict XVI introduces to the reader in his book—it is objectively, historical true that the earliest Christians believed the historical person of Jesus of Nazareth to be God and that belief is alive and well in the present today.

In contrast to Kee, Catholic theologian, Hans Urs von Balthasar begins Does Jesus Know Us? Do We Know Him? approving the Evangelists’ gospel approach. Within a few pages, his attention turns to the miraculous works of Jesus particularly in regard to exorcisms. He boldly claims that the nature of demonic possession is not what needs attention, but the fact that Jesus of Nazareth had the power to remove people from such spiritual imprisonment. The underlying question for von Balthasar is—what does this say about this historical person? He goes further to say that Jesus is the God-man, the representation of God to us and mankind to God. Literally, Jesus of Nazareth is the covenant of God and Israel personified. The position is not at all unlike Pope Benedict XVI’s position that Jesus, as God and man, “is a historically plausible and convincing figure.” Benedict XVI in Jesus of Nazareth apologetically asserts that historical Jesus is reconcilable with the Jesus of faith. He takes on the Old Testament prophecies of the coming Messiah—prophecies that he believes Jesus, a person, a historical figure fulfilled. Von Balthasar takes the same position that Jesus, a Jew, was not merely a man that lived in the first century, but he too, was the saving God that created the cosmos.

St. Anselm emphasized that the Christian life is about “fides quarens intellectum”—faith seeking understanding. Von Balthasar picks up rather quickly on the implicit statement behind this assertion: no faith leads to no understanding. Jesus in the Gospels discusses with his apostles who people think he is and St. Peter with faith professes the true answer, “You are the Son of the living Lord.” As if in recollection of this profound scene from Scripture, von Balthasar makes his approach go beyond a purely historical-critical exegesis and allows him to offer a faithful theological presentation of Jesus, true to Christian theology and true to history. Von Balthasar affirms this mission when he writes clearly his vision of the incarnate God in the historical person of Jesus is the result of “the greatest Trinitarian love.” Furthermore, the “terrible possibility and reality—finite freedom rejecting infinite love—cannot simply be wiped away with a harmless act of forgiveness. Anselm was right to say that it demands…the remaking of the covenant between heaven and earth.”

Similar to the approach of Pope Benedict XVI, von Batlthasar makes use of all resources available to him. Analogous to human disciplines—all having to do with the human condition—he doesn’t focus on one, but incorporates all. Psychology without constraint reduces man to a complex mechanism driven by his interpretation of events. Biology reduces man to an animal that ponders; while physics reduces man to the interaction of matter. But, von Balthasar employs theology, history, and the modern interest of psychology to obtain a clear vision of the whole. He rejects the solely historical-critical empirical method of studying Jesus. He quotes from the scriptures frequently to evince the reality that all of the Bible is inspired by God and is a way in itself to know Jesus. He reaffirms this himself, writing, “He is the measure of everything human in all its dimensions. When we read that all knees in heaven, on earth, and under the earth must bow before him (Phil 2:10), this applies to all areas of human life.”

In the section of his book dedicated to the question of whether man can know Jesus, von Balthasar answers firmly with a “yes.” He writes, “Jesus interprets God to man. He does it in his teaching, which links up with what man knows from the Law and the Prophets. Thence it proceeds in two directions, revealing the heart of God and man’s heart and their direct encounter in the New and Eternal Covenant.” Pope Benedict XVI takes an identical position, as he writes:

Unless there had been something extraordinary in what happened, unless the person and the words of Jesus radically surpassed the hopes and expectations of the time, there is no way to explain why he was crucified or why he made such an impact. As early as twenty or so years after Jesus’ death, the great Christ-hymn of the Letter to the Philippians…offers us a fully developed Christology, stating that Jesus was equal to God….and that to him now belongs the worship of all creation, the adoration that God, through the Prophet Isaiah, said was due to him alone.

Both the Holy Father and von Balthasar agree, not with Howard Clark Kee, but on the fact that Jesus is the historical confirmation—an embodied linking—of the Old and New Covenant. Therefore, the historical mystery of the person of Jesus of Nazareth cannot be solved by separating him distinctly from the religious tradition of the Jews or the radical Gospel truth he was said to have taught. Rather, a clear and coherent vision of Jesus of Nazareth can only best be seen in the context of the Christian faith, which, as historical criticism shows, arose from a very complex time period in the history of Judaism and the Roman empire. Jesus then is more than a man or a Jewish rabbi. The truth that the Roman Pontiff, Pope Benedict XVI and the German theologian, both eloquently articulate is this: the Second Person of the Holy Trinity entered mysteriously into the human condition and “dwelt among us” as a person, whom was called Jesus of Nazareth and to us “he brings love and salvation from God.” And this is the truth of the Roman Catholic faith.

Can You Be Catholic and Disagree with Doctrine?

Catholic Dissenters Should Call the Episcopalians

I found this article to be a good read. I agreed with all the points and it is a much needed response to the growing dissent of Roman Catholics from the dogmatic truths of our faith. Granted, I wish the article articulated this message in a less "preachy" or easy-to-perceive-as condescending manner. I don't think this was the author's intent at all, either way, and I can understand the author’s impatience with this growing disrespect and scandal within the Body of Christ by cafeteria Catholics who pick and choose what they will believe as if the Gospel is just some other ideology. We preach Christ the Savior not Christ a Savior.

St. Augustine in the fourth century said, “If you only believe what you like in the gospels, it is not the Gospel you believe in, but yourself.” The Catholic Church claims to bear the entirety and fullness of the truth about human existence—not scientific truths or the accurate answers to historical mysteries, but the truth about man, the truth about the human condition, it’s meaning and it’s purpose and the true eschatological end of all of mankind. Based on this vision of the human person, a certain and rich moral framework for life can be drawn forth. Hence, the Church teaches infallibly on matters of faith and morality. We believe in a Christ who proclaimed that His Spirit will come upon His Church and protect His Gospel until the end of time—not a Christ that said we will come to understand the truths He wished to teach at some time in the future. Catholics who dissent lock themselves in a position of contradiction by holding that Catholicism is the true faith while simultaneously believing that the Church has erred on matters of faith and has some sort of authority to “edit” the whole, entire Gospel truth she has received. If the credibility of the apostles, of the Holy Spirit’s protection of the Church is compromised, with it goes the credibility of Christ.

The truth is accepted whole and entire or not at all. Truth does not and cannot change. This is not a matter of unyielding compromise, but it is simple logic: the Church cannot be wrong on a matter of faith or morality in its teaching or else it contradicts its own doctrine that it cannot err in regard to such matters, and thus, the position of the cafeteria Catholic validates the idea that the the Church of Rome is the Whore of Babylon many Protestants make her out to be.

Quotations from Pope Benedict's Address to the U.S. Bishops

Secularism
“While it is true that this country is marked by a genuinely religious spirit, the subtle influence of secularism can nevertheless color the way people allow their faith to influence their behavior. Is it consistent to profess our beliefs in church on Sunday, and then during the week to promote business practices or medical procedures contrary to those beliefs? Is it consistent for practicing Catholics to ignore or exploit the poor and the marginalized, to promote sexual behavior contrary to Catholic moral teaching, or to adopt positions that contradict the right to life of every human being from conception to natural death? Any tendency to treat religion as a private matter must be resisted. Only when their faith permeates every aspect of their lives do Christians become truly open to the transforming power of the Gospel.”

Materialism
“For an affluent society, a further obstacle to an encounter with the living God lies in the subtle influence of materialism, which can all too easily focus the attention on the hundredfold, which God promises now in this time, at the expense of the eternal life which he promises in the age to come (cf. Mk 10:30). People today need to be reminded of the ultimate purpose of their lives. They need to recognize that implanted within them is a deep thirst for God. They need to be given opportunities to drink from the wells of his infinite love. It is easy to be entranced by the almost unlimited possibilities that science and technology place before us; it is easy to make the mistake of thinking we can obtain by our own efforts the fulfillment of our deepest needs. This is an illusion. Without God, who alone bestows upon us what we by ourselves cannot attain (cf. Spe Salvi, 31), our lives are ultimately empty. People need to be constantly reminded to cultivate a relationship with him who came that we might have life in abundance (cf. Jn 10:10). The goal of all our pastoral and catechetical work, the object of our preaching, and the focus of our sacramental ministry should be to help people establish and nurture that living relationship with "Christ Jesus, our hope" (1 Tim 1:1).”

Individualism
“In a society which values personal freedom and autonomy, it is easy to lose sight of our dependence on others as well as the responsibilities that we bear towards them. This emphasis on individualism has even affected the Church (cf. Spe Salvi, 13-15), giving rise to a form of piety which sometimes emphasizes our private relationship with God at the expense of our calling to be members of a redeemed community.”

Formation
“In an age that is saturated with information, the importance of providing sound formation in the faith cannot be overstated.”

Leaven
“Crucial in this regard is the role of the lay faithful to act as a "leaven" in society. Yet it cannot be assumed that all Catholic citizens think in harmony with the Church's teaching on today's key ethical questions. Once again, it falls to you [bishops] to ensure that the moral formation provided at every level of ecclesial life reflects the authentic teaching of the Gospel of life.”

Sacrament of Matrimony
“To some young Catholics, the sacramental bond of marriage seems scarcely distinguishable from a civil bond, or even a purely informal and open-ended arrangement to live with another person. Hence we have an alarming decrease in the number of Catholic marriages in the United States together with an increase in cohabitation, in which the Christ-like mutual self-giving of spouses, sealed by a public promise to live out the demands of an indissoluble lifelong commitment, is simply absent. In such circumstances, children are denied the secure environment that they need in order truly to flourish as human beings, and society is denied the stable building blocks which it requires if the cohesion and moral focus of the community are to be maintained.”

Priestly sex-abuse crisis
“Among the countersigns to the Gospel of life found in America and elsewhere is one that causes deep shame: the sexual abuse of minors. Many of you have spoken to me of the enormous pain that your communities have suffered when clerics have betrayed their priestly obligations and duties by such gravely immoral behavior. As you strive to eliminate this evil wherever it occurs, you may be assured of the prayerful support of God's people throughout the world. Rightly, you attach priority to showing compassion and care to the victims. It is your God-given responsibility as pastors to bind up the wounds caused by every breach of trust, to foster healing, to promote reconciliation and to reach out with loving concern to those so seriously wronged.”

Moral sexual formation
“If they are to achieve their full purpose, however, the policies and programs you have adopted need to be placed in a wider context. Children deserve to grow up with a healthy understanding of sexuality and its proper place in human relationships. They should be spared the degrading manifestations and the crude manipulation of sexuality so prevalent today. They have a right to be educated in authentic moral values rooted in the dignity of the human person. This brings us back to our consideration of the centrality of the family and the need to promote the Gospel of life. What does it mean to speak of child protection when pornography and violence can be viewed in so many homes through media widely available today? We need to reassess urgently the values underpinning society, so that a sound moral formation can be offered to young people and adults alike. All have a part to play in this task - not only parents, religious leaders, teachers and catechists, but the media and entertainment industries as well.”

Imitation of Christ
“If you [bishops] yourselves live in a manner closely configured to Christ, the Good Shepherd, who laid down his life for his sheep, you will inspire your brother priests to rededicate themselves to the service of their flocks with Christ-like generosity. Indeed a clearer focus upon the imitation of Christ in holiness of life is exactly what is needed in order for us to move forward. We need to rediscover the joy of living a Christ-centred life, cultivating the virtues, and immersing ourselves in prayer. When the faithful know that their pastor is a man who prays and who dedicates his life to serving them, they respond with warmth and affection which nourishes and sustains the life of the whole community.”

Personal Piety
“Time spent in prayer is never wasted, however urgent the duties that press upon us from every side. Adoration of Christ our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament prolongs and intensifies the union with him that is established through the Eucharistic celebration (cf. Sacramentum Caritatis, 66). Contemplation of the mysteries of the Rosary releases all their saving power and it conforms, unites and consecrates us to Jesus Christ (cf. Rosarium Virginis Mariae, 11, 15). Fidelity to the Liturgy of the Hours ensures that the whole of our day is sanctified and it continually reminds us of the need to remain focused on doing God's work, however many pressures and distractions may arise from the task at hand. Thus our devotion helps us to speak and act in persona Christi, to teach, govern and sanctify the faithful in the name of Jesus, to bring his reconciliation, his healing and his love to all his beloved brothers and sisters. This radical configuration to Christ, the Good Shepherd, lies at the heart of our pastoral ministry, and if we open ourselves through prayer to the power of the Spirit, he will give us the gifts we need to carry out our daunting task, so that we need never "be anxious how to speak or what to say" (Mt 10:19).”

Secularism
“Perhaps America's brand of secularism poses a particular problem: it allows for professing belief in God, and respects the public role of religion and the Churches, but at the same time it can subtly reduce religious belief to a lowest common denominator. Faith becomes a passive acceptance that certain things "out there" are true, but without practical relevance for everyday life. The result is a growing separation of faith from life: living "as if God did not exist". This is aggravated by an individualistic and eclectic approach to faith and religion: far from a Catholic approach to "thinking with the Church", each person believes he or she has a right to pick and choose, maintaining external social bonds but without an integral, interior conversion to the law of Christ. Consequently, rather than being transformed and renewed in mind, Christians are easily tempted to conform themselves to the spirit of this age (cf. Rom 12:3). We have seen this emerge in an acute way in the scandal given by Catholics who promote an alleged right to abortion.”

Catechesis
“What is needed, I am convinced, is a greater sense of the intrinsic relationship between the Gospel and the natural law on the one hand, and, on the other, the pursuit of authentic human good, as embodied in civil law and in personal moral decisions. In a society that rightly values personal liberty, the Church needs to promote at every level of her teaching - in catechesis, preaching, seminary and university instruction - an apologetics aimed at affirming the truth of Christian revelation, the harmony of faith and reason, and a sound understanding of freedom, seen in positive terms as a liberation both from the limitations of sin and for an authentic and fulfilling life. In a word, the Gospel has to be preached and taught as an integral way of life, offering an attractive and true answer, intellectually and practically, to real human problems. The "dictatorship of relativism", in the end, is nothing less than a threat to genuine human freedom, which only matures in generosity and fidelity to the truth.”

Youth
“I think in particular of our need to speak to the hearts of young people, who, despite their constant exposure to messages contrary to the Gospel, continue to thirst for authenticity, goodness and truth.”

Loss of the practice of the faith
“The issue clearly involves factors such as religious individualism and scandal. Let us go to the heart of the matter: faith cannot survive unless it is nourished, unless it is "formed by charity" (cf. Gal 5:6). Do people today find it difficult to encounter God in our Churches? Has our preaching lost its salt? Might it be that many people have forgotten, or never really learned, how to pray in and with the Church?”

“I think we are speaking about people who have fallen by the wayside without consciously having rejected their faith in Christ, but, for whatever reason, have not drawn life from the liturgy, the sacraments, preaching. Yet Christian faith, as we know, is essentially ecclesial, and without a living bond to the community, the individual's faith will never grow to maturity. Indeed, to return to the question I just discussed, the result can be a quiet apostasy.”

“We need to discover, as I have suggested, new and engaging ways of proclaiming this message and awakening a thirst for the fulfillment which only Christ can bring. It is in the Church's liturgy, and above all in the sacrament of the Eucharist, that these realities are most powerfully expressed and lived in the life of believers; perhaps we still have much to do in realizing the Council's vision of the liturgy as the exercise of the common priesthood and the impetus for a fruitful apostolate in the world.”

“Suffice it to say that faith and hope are not limited to this world: as theological virtues, they unite us with the Lord and draw us toward the fulfillment not only of our personal destiny but also that of all creation. Faith and hope are the inspiration and basis of our efforts to prepare for the coming of the Kingdom of God. In Christianity, there can be no room for purely private religion: Christ is the Savior of the world, and, as members of his Body and sharers in his prophetic, priestly and royal munera, we cannot separate our love for him from our commitment to the building up of the Church and the extension of his Kingdom. To the extent that religion becomes a purely private affair, it loses its very soul.”

Vocations
“Let us be quite frank: the ability to cultivate vocations to the priesthood and the religious life is a sure sign of the health of a local Church. There is no room for complacency in this regard. God continues to call young people; it is up to all of us to to encourage a generous and free response to that call. On the other hand, none of us can take this grace for granted.

“In the Gospel, Jesus tells us to pray that the Lord of the harvest will send workers. He even admits that the workers are few in comparison with the abundance of the harvest (cf. Mt 9:37-38). Strange to say, I often think that prayer - the unum necessarium - is the one aspect of vocations work which we tend to forget or to undervalue!

“Nor am I speaking only of prayer for vocations. Prayer itself, born in Catholic families, nurtured by programs of Christian formation, strengthened by the grace of the sacraments, is the first means by which we come to know the Lord's will for our lives. To the extent that we teach young people to pray, and to pray well, we will be cooperating with God's call. Programs, plans and projects have their place; but the discernment of a vocation is above all the fruit of an intimate dialogue between the Lord and his disciples. Young people, if they know how to pray, can be trusted to know what to do with God's call.

“It has been noted that there is a growing thirst for holiness in many young people today, and that, although fewer in number, those who come forward show great idealism and much promise. It is important to listen to them, to understand their experiences, and to encourage them to help their peers to see the need for committed priests and religious, as well as the beauty of a life of sacrificial service to the Lord and his Church. To my mind, much is demanded of vocation directors and formators: candidates today, as much as ever, need to be given a sound intellectual and human formation which will enable them not only to respond to the real questions and needs of their contemporaries, but also to mature in their own conversion and to persevere in life-long commitment to their vocation. As Bishops, you are conscious of the sacrifice demanded when you are asked to release one of your finest priests for seminary work. I urge you to respond with generosity, for the good of the whole Church.

“Finally, I think you know from experience that most of your brother priests are happy in their vocation. What I said in my address about the importance of unity and cooperation within the presbyterate applies here too. There is a need for all of us to move beyond sterile divisions, disagreements and preconceptions, and to listen together to the voice of the Spirit who is guiding the Church into a future of hope. Each of us knows how important priestly fraternity has been in our lives. That fraternity is not only a precious possession, but also an immense resource for the renewal of the priesthood and the raising up of new vocations. I would close by encouraging you to foster opportunities for ever greater dialogue and fraternal encounter among your priests, and especially the younger priests. I am convinced that this will bear great fruit for their own enrichment, for the increase of their love for the priesthood and the Church, and for the effectiveness of their apostolate.”

Catholicism and Islam: Needed Dialogue for Peace

This statement was released at the conclusion of the colloquium between the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue and the Center for Interreligious Dialogue of the Islamic Culture and Relations Organization. The group discussed the theme of faith and reason in Christianity and Islam. The participants agreed upon the following:

1. Faith and reason are both gifts of God to mankind.

2. Faith and reason do not contradict each other, but faith might in some cases be above reason, but never against it.

3. Faith and reason are intrinsically non-violent. Neither reason nor faith should be used for violence; unfortunately, both of them have been sometimes misused to perpetrate violence. In any case, these events cannot question either reason or faith.

4. Both sides agreed to further co-operate in order to promote genuine religiosity, in particular spirituality, to encourage respect for symbols considered to be sacred and to promote moral values.

5. Christians and Muslims should go beyond tolerance, accepting differences, while remaining aware of commonalities and thanking God for them. They are called to mutual respect, thereby condemning derision of religious beliefs.

6. Generalization should be avoided when speaking of religions. Differences of confessions within Christianity and Islam, diversity of historical contexts are important factors to be considered.

7. Religious traditions cannot be judged on the basis of a single verse or a passage present in their respective holy Books. A holistic vision as well as an adequate hermeneutical method is necessary for a fair understanding of them.

My Thoughts: As someone with a very diverse group of friends, I think this is a vitally important engagement. The controversy that arose from Pope Benedict XVI's Regensburg lecture certainly brought about tension. This certainly wasn't the intention of the Holy Father who fundamentally asserted that faith and reason cannot contradict one another as both are endowed by God whom is the end of the search for truth and truth cannot self-contradict. Therefore, it possible for us to know that violence to spread religion goes against the nature of God.

The assertion that something "goes against the nature of God" is not a theological claim binding only on Catholics, but it is a philosophical claim and is binding on all humanity. Therefore, the Holy Father thinks that we can know something about God by unaided reason and such a reality is crucial. In an age of terrorism and violence, if we cannot know anything about God, if we cannot raise a moral flag and say something is objectively immoral because it violates some universal standard that we can all know then there is no hope for achieving peace. What right to life, to liberty, and to happiness do we have if there is no objective moral truths that dictates that we do?

St. Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle. Be our protection against the wickedness and snares of the devil. May God rebuke him, we humbly pray; and do thou, O Prince of the heavenly host, by the power of God cast into hell Satan and all the evil spirits who wander through the world seeking the ruin of souls. Amen.

Religious Freedom and Same-sex "Marriage"

Homosexuality is a very sensitive issue. Rightly so, it involves a very intimate aspect of humanity for many men and women. The moral position one takes in regard to same-sex attractions either invites homosexuals to love one another romantically or a life of mandated celibacy (or change of sexual orientation for certain fundamentalist Christian groups).

Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, reminded Catholics of the authentic Christian position on the question of marriage and homosexuality. He said in an interview back in 2004, "Above all, we must have great respect for these people who also suffer and who want to find their own way of correct living. On the other hand, to create a legal form of a kind of homosexual marriage, in reality, does not help these people."

At present, one U.S. state legally recognized same-sex unions. Two more may join in as California and Connecticut battle it out in their Supreme Courts where judicial activists are legislating from the bench (despite the fact this violates their constitutional powers). The article below shows us what the Holy Father warned us about in regard with the legalization of same-sex "marriage." There are unforseen side-effects that undermine religious liberty and perpetuate moral depravity in secular society.

The Unintended Consequences of "Same-Sex Marriage"

Also read the Pope Benedict's Interview:

Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger: An Aggressive Secular Ideology Which Is Worrying

"The obscuring of the difference or duality of the sexes has enormous consequences on a variety of levels. This theory of the human person, intended to promote prospects for equality of women through liberation from biological determinism, has in reality inspired ideologies which, for example, call into question the family, in its natural two-parent structure of mother and father, and make homosexuality and heterosexuality virtually equivalent, in a new model of polymorphous sexuality." - Pope Benedict XVI

Lost in the Cosmos: the Plight of Man in the Modern World

The famous atheist-scientist Richard Dawkins, author of The God Delusion arguably would have almost certainly failed any philosophical course on Logic unless he had the wonderful luck of studying under a professor who is also elementary in his reasoning skills. I read his book. It is not convincing. It was an absolute riot from cover to cover. There is no scientific argument that contests the existence of God. There is no sound philosophical argument that makes the existence of God unlikely. He talks about how intelligent design theorists point to ‘seeming designs’ in the universe without qualifying how things can only seem to be designed without actually having been designed. Are computers only ‘seeming designs’ despite their complexity and obviously designed-construct? He even rants about how ‘irreducibly complex’ universe is and jumps to the conclusion because this is so a Creator would be infinitely more complex and thusly improbable. Does that even make sense? I don't think it does. He throws around scientific facts and theories using eloquent terms without qualifying how this negates the existence of God or how his idea of an ‘irreducibly complex’ universe that somehow (conveniently) just exists is superior to the idea of creation by God. He fails to show why belief in God is irrational and fails in his mission to show that belief in God is delusional. So why is there so much hype about the book? It is a book about God.

A three letter word, such a small word, brings to mind the question of the Divine Reality; it induces a complicated multi-tiered emotion of both love and hate. In the history of our species, people have fought, died, bled, sweat, loved, hoped, and found moral rebirth in the name of God. The prevailing question in the modern world is, why believe in God at all? It is quite fashionable to believe that all the findings of science, one and all, are completely adverse to and inconsistent with the propositions of any religious tradition. Any atheist asks himself, how could any rational human being believe in God? As an atheist-to-Catholic convert, I will admit, this was a mind-boggling question. I was baffled that some of the most intelligent people I knew were devout religious believers. But in my journey, I found more than an answer, I found a new question: how can any rational human being not believe in God?

Despite my near idolatrous worship of intellectualism—Lord have mercy—I am admittedly a closet-case romantic heart. In the spirit of romanticism, imagine gazing into the celestial sky, lost in the beauty and splendor of the heavens above. It fascinates us all. Internally, we all wonder, what more is there? Beyond the specks of light lies a mystery of how it all came to be. The simple gesture of staring into the night sky can raise the most profound questions for all who share in the human condition. Why is there something rather than nothing? Why do things exist? Why is there life at all? Why is there evil and suffering? The scientific field of cosmology is essential to these questions, in it we study the universe as a whole—its structure, origin, and development. Our understanding of the universe is so fundamental to our everyday life. It shapes our worldview, our philosophy of life, our view of the human person, and thus our moral framework of life and behavior. The advances made in this field and of any human discipline are—or should be—oriented toward helping mankind attempt to answer the fundamental questions of human existence.

It is hardly surprising that many have come to expect modern science to answer all human questions to their satisfaction. This is not to say that science cannot provide us with incredible amounts of valuable information. The sciences offer knowledge that is properly secured by proofs, established methodically, and logically consistent. We know more now about the development of the world, of human life, the laws that govern nature and of the mystery of man himself and all that regulates our relationships with one another in this web of life on earth than our ancestors. It is profoundly perplexing to consider this reality. We have relieved ourselves from unbearable physical labor, eliminated the threat of many diseases with diagnosis and cures, and through this, we have raised the human life expectancy. In the past two hundred years, particularly, mankind has faced changed at unimaginable proportions. But with all of this change brought by science, we face new challenges. We face environmental destruction and the exploitive and dehumanizing effects of technology, to name a few. Progression is ambivalent—with development comes the potentiality of ruin.

The question of ruin and of, perhaps, changing or abolishing our human nature via technology—particularly with the growing transhumanism movement—begs the question of what it means to be human. Inevitably to question what it means to be human will lead to the question of God. In the modern world, there are countless religious and non-religious views to the question of God. In fact, the modern approach to religion involves this curious notion that every religion is of equal value and therefore, equally true. Logically, this is impossible as it goes against the intellectual principle of non-contradiction. Judaism and Christianity can’t simultaneously be true because Jesus of Nazareth would simultaneously be God and not God. All religions cannot simultaneously be true, which implies that either they are all wrong or one has supremacy over the others by the merits of being completely true. Surely, two plus two equates only four, not five, six, and seven as well. Truth by its very nature entails one answer. The answer in itself may contain many parts and be rather complex. However, if you were to remove any part of the answer it would no longer be a true, full, and authentic answer.

Arguably, there are certain truths that all religions possess. I am speaking mostly of major world religions. Most eastern world religions—Taoism, Confucianism, Buddhism, etc—are in fact life-philosophies that were established as religions arguably for political reasons and even Hinduism itself comes across as a philosophy of life at first glance before taking into account the pantheon of gods that manifest the one Divine Reality and belief in reincarnation. A certain truth that appears all across the world is that we cannot reach the “divine realm” and be before the Divine Reality imperfectly. According to Christian revelation, we may reject this entire possibility or attain Heaven, but not without a process of purification. In Hinduism, a person must go through multiple cycles of life in order to attain communion with this Divine Reality whatever this Being may be. The understanding is similar, not the same certainly and the application is different. But both understand a common religious truth, if you will.

The world's religions may all equally hold certain truths that are fundamental, but only one logically may contain “the fullness of truth” in the words of St. Paul, if any of them are true at all. Certainly most religions embrace a God and a detailed moral code, but when you began to get definitive and specific, the religions of the world began to diverge greatly even within themselves. The differences may seem small at first glance, but they are often profound differences that cannot be said to be childish theological disputes. But, the truth of the matter remains, either every religion is wrong to some degree if not entirely or one of them is completely right. Rationally, there is no other possibility. The accounts of human origin recorded in religious scriptures most certainly are not naïve fairytales or stolen, integrated work of a foreign culture. Each is a unique understanding of creation and the human person in light of that understanding. Genesis, in the Judeo-Christian tradition, represents the fruit of ageless meditations of believing people and the thought of inspired authors sure of their faith. The writing may be considered primitive, but when properly interpreted in historical context and in the light of its theological tradition, Genesis is an exceptional understanding of God, humanity, creation, and the “sin condition.”

Man has a unique situation in the natural order. The cosmos is a mystery. But what is even more mysterious to man is himself. What it means to be human is not given with being human. Man is an embodied spirit—matter that is aware of itself. This is simply mind-blowing. Man is literally thrown into existence faced with this ineffable reality, faced with suffering and decay, and faced with the ominous mystery of death. In ancient and medieval times, not perfectly so and not with the same advanced knowledge, this human reality was the focus of human thought. Philosophy dominated in education. In the modern world, this isn’t the case at all. It seems that every morning we rise to carry on as though we are immortal and nothing is ever going to change. We endure human existence feeling bored, fed up, or at best, blasé. We cannot see what we have: the gift of life. It is heartbreaking that we never notice how much we take for granted…until it's denied us. Often enough, we then become angry with God. There are times that our minds do not have enough to occupy it—when we're at leisure, the vulnerable moments before we fall asleep, long car rides, in quiet places—and it is only then we realize that souls walk within us, restless spirits that can perceive the silence and begin their roaming…drawing forth all the questions of life that we try so hard to ignore because no one wants to see their own sins laid out before them.

The world today is riddled with distractions from the fundamental questions of life—television, music, nightclubs, gambling, videogames, et cetera. The fashion industry, for example, makes millions on selling images and identities because in a world without God, without a clear sight of what it means to be human. We need an identity. We need something to feel the void of emptiness. But it seems even the teens in our society who aren't satisfied with the 'norm' and must be 'different' may go out and find a proper 'different' identity at, say, Hot Topic instead of at Abercrombie and Fitch entirely unaware that the two, Hot Topic and Abercrombie and Fitch, have the same owner. But the cool look and identity of today isn't the same as it was ten years ago, five years ago, and in some ways, it is not even the same as one year ago. The marketing industry must subtly dissatisfy their customers so that they can continue to sell and collect profits; they must continue to sell identities that are temporary because more money is to be made.

We accept whatever science tells us. We accept the status quo. We don’t open ourselves to anything. We create tight little world-constructs and allow very little room for any new information and ideas. Never mind that every 3.6 seconds someone dies from starvation, 48,000,000 million unborn children are slaughtered worldwide in a single year, or that the United States uses somewhere between 70 and 90 percent of the world’s resources to ill-effect of third world countries and impoverished nations. We just change the channel, watch reality-TV and are caught up in someone else’s lives and not evaluating our own. It seems that everyone wants to stay busy and distracted from reality because when we're idle, we're bored in our feeble meaningless and unfathomable existence.

Why has the world become so bitter, cold, and selfish? Perhaps, it has always been this way. But with what we know, should we not be changing? “Progress!” We all proclaim. Yet, again, in must be in accord with our humanity. But what does it mean to be human? Philosophy can help us address this almost impossible question. Through the centuries, religion has also provided answers. These answers, contrary to what many will argue, are not solely in theory and speculation, but in life as a whole, in rites and practices, in prayers and songs, in stories, symbols, images, feasts, art, ministries, in communion, and in intellectual tradition. Religion is written into history. Religion calls man out of himself, to be a moral creature, to be selfless, and loving. Man often neglects this vocation and because this is so today, as in the past, there are those who question God and criticize religious practitioners. Today, many religious people have unquestionably lost their sense of God in the midst of the crisis of our age—God has been obscured in the secularity of everyday life—in culture, peer pressure, ideologies, politics, habits, experiences, and personal choice.

We live in a world where we don’t have time for anything especially God. In the past, the day ended at sunset, which made time for long evenings of conversation, communal time, reflection, or leisure. When people were sick they stayed in bed and rested until they were better. Now we have electricity and we can stay up all night writing term papers, reading, watching Youtube.com, playing videogames—totally isolated from everyone else and free not to think of our responsibilities. We take antibiotics immediately when sick, which we should to preserve our health, but in doing so, we also don’t take a day off, we don’t miss a day of work—we stay busy, busy, busy. The structure of American society makes it difficult to include God in your life, to ponder the most profound questions there is to ponder, and to really devote yourself to charitable causes in addition to a full work load.

All of our human challenges endlessly bring us back to the question of God. God is irrevocably intertwined with the questions that have driven us rational animals since we began to inscribe words on tablets of clay. Who am I? From, what, why, and for what purpose am I? Can I really believe anything? That is, can I trust? What should I believe, and whom may I believe and trust? It is such questions that follow man as his life flows along, day by day, week by week. Anyone could concur that man from his beginning is perpetually trying to master and understand the human condition. It is obscenely evident in the million questions a child will pose in the course of a single day. What is that? Why is that so? What is that for? And in trying to answer these questions, we all find that we don’t know as much as we thought or the things that seemed so overly self-evident before are now hidden. The question of life comes differently to each of us, but it takes the same impact on each individual. Despite sincere intellectual conviction, Richard Dawkins and other atheists, should see that the God they reject, perhaps, has more to do with our existence than just being a convenient explanation of things yet to understood. Ultimately, it is the search for our origin, our purpose, and our meaning that drives us. And in seeking an answer, we are forced to look to the beginning, and He who made us is waiting for us.

Words of Wisdom from the Holy Father:

"The world needs God. We need God. But what God? In the first reading, the prophet tells a people suffering oppression that: 'He will come with vengeance' (Isaiah 35:4). We can easily suppose how the people imagined that vengeance. But the prophet himself goes on to reveal what it really is: the healing goodness of God. The definitive explanation of the prophet's word is to be found in the one who died on the cross: in Jesus, the Son of God incarnate. His 'vengeance' is the cross: a 'no' to violence and a 'love to the end.' This is the God we need."

"We are not some casual or meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
- Pope Benedict XVI

Further Reading: God and Evolution by Avery Cardinal Dulles