Archives for category: Apologetics

St. Francis of Assisi, pray for peace in our time.

The Boston Bombings are just another symptom of a very sick disease plaguing our decadent society. Just how long are we going to continue on our path to self destruction before we realize we’re the orchestrators of our own demise? Our Beloved Mother, pray for us.

‘The Problem of Evil’ is a term that has recently made its rounds in ethical discourse. It is a necessary term because in our world, moral relativism has no room for the idea of an objective evil. Naturally, I don’t like it. There is no ‘problem’ of evil. Such a term obfuscates its reality. It attempts to trivialize and remove ourselves from evil things, but in doing so, ironically increases our ability and capacity to do evil things.

It is like being ignorant of food nutrition. Say you like drinking soft drinks (fizzys as it’s called in the States). It is quite a popular beverage, and full of sugar. Say you love it so much, you begin to ignore the nutritional information on the label in the first year so you don’t feel guilty from excessive consumption. Your health deteriorates. Then in the next year, you become sceptical to the unhealthiness of soft drinks, perhaps suavely persuading naysayers that you have cut out other sugary foods anyway, while your health continues to deteriorate. Then the next year, you lash out at anyone that dares to try and tell you you’re slowly killing yourself. You know all there is to know about soft drinks right? So why the bloody hell wouldn’t you know what you’re doing? Your health continues to deteriorate. By the next year, you can’t ignore your body any longer. It might have even developed diabetes, and yet you continue to silently suffer in your own sugary addictions, probably still in denial. You try to find the ‘problem of nutrition’, except you are too far in obfuscation to accept your love for soft drinks was the cause of it all.

That is how the discourse of evil has come to its ‘problem’ in recent years. At first, we let our guard down to objective evil (for example, eternal union in holy matrimony). We then start talking about necessary evils (for example, divorce). And before we even realized it, we pretend evil doesn’t exist (for example, the problems of pre-marital sex). But it is real, and when it hits us, our elite intellectuals attempt to figure out why it exists. The idiots.

What I’m about to say next is what has been said a thousand times before. I find the only reason people won’t accept the premises is because it seems too easy to grasp, and the key to unlocking it of course, is a matter of faith.

In a perfect world, there would be no evil. We know this in our hearts. From the beginning, God desired to create a perfect world, a perfect union between Him and his creation. It was also to be a perfect union in love. In order for such a union to happen, a key component was freedom: the freedom to love. Without the freedom to love, a perfect union would be nothing. We would all simply be automatons bidding to His will, and our God isn’t the narcissistic type. With the freedom to love, however, comes the freedom not to love; a freedom to be selfish, and thus destructive; a freedom to be evil. Knowing that some of his creation would use their freedom to choose to not love him, God still created each and every single one of us. Why? Out of His own pure freedom to love, it seems.

Our brothers and sisters who choose evil have a very real effect on the rest of us, let alone themselves. Almost officially even, our society has chosen not to love God, but itself. It is no wonder so many hurtful things are happening in the world today, especially in the United States this past year. It is not even external forces it has had to be worried about, it is its own damned citizens that are wreaking terror amongst the population. This is not normal.

It is not stretch to say that in our time, we are at one of the furthest points away from God than we have been throughout history, and we have chosen this ourselves. Sacred Scripture clearly depicts what happens when we lose sight of the truth of our being, instead turn inwards towards our own selfish lusts. I’m reading 1 Maccabees at the moment, and boy is that one tragic story. It is also a very hopeful one, but only if the few and valiant turn back to God out of love.

Here’s a beautiful quote from Pope John XXIII about evil:

“All the evils which poison men and nations and trouble so many hearts have a single cause and a single source: ignorance of the truth–and at times even more than ignorance, a contempt for truth and a reckless rejection of it. Thus arise all manner of errors, which enter the recesses of men’s hearts and the bloodstream of human society as would a plague. These errors turn everything upside down: they menace individuals and society itself.” -
 
Ad Petri Cathedrum, June 29, 1959

If that doesn’t succinctly describe the dreck we find ourselves in right now, I don’t know what does. May the peace of Christ be with us all.

Advertisements

St. Matthias, positively male.

It’s amazing how the Catholic Church inspires Her enemies to put their two cents on how it should run. Didn’t the Devil, the greatest enemy of the Church, also tell Jesus how it should be done? My response to his increasingly fervent anti-Roman posts below, and yes, I’m aware I made a mistake of calling Barnabas the Apostle the original disciples added to the Twelve. St. Matthias, pray for us!

“Such a move would, overnight, confront the global mindset that the Roman Catholic Church denies equality and justice to women. By permitting women to serve as cardinals, the obsessions over male priesthood and episcopacy would be dispelled. This is not some superficial feminist revolution: it is Catholic theology incrementally adapting.”

It is a good thing, then, that the Roman Catholic Church does not care what the world thinks of it. In fact, in the words of Our Blessed Lord, they will hate the Church because they hated Him first. Christ did not care for his perception, and died because of it. I mean, that’s Christianity 101 (Or maybe it’s 304 now. It seems people think Jesus was a hippie peace-and-love figure who, through some ambiguous logic, volunteered himself for the Cross).

So we care not for perception. Which is good, because we do have a history of venerating women who strove to perfect their Christian virtue. The Blessed Virgin would be the first one, and ironically, the one every non-Catholic faith has trouble with us exalting. Next in line, Mary Magdalene, who we do not distinguish from Mary of Bethany nor the anointer of Jesus, and so venerate her incredible repentance and devotion to Our Lord and His Mother.

Then there is the Medieval Era, from which saints such as Hildegard von Bingen, Catherine of Siena, Joan of Arc, and Teresa of Avila hail from. That would be the same Hildegard von Bingen who could rival even the most learned male theologians, Catherine of Siena who even commanded the Pope’s respect, Joan of Arc who shaped France through her zeal for Christ, and Teresa of Avila, the monastic reformer.

And then there’s also that poor case of Catherine of Aragon, who was cast aside by Henry VIII, but not before he and his English diocese decided to “reform” the Church in England so he could do so. It really didn’t matter if she couldn’t produce an heir, the Catholic Church could not annul the marriage based on her physical conditions (and/or the King’s infidelity). It would have been, y’know, against God’s will, precisely because it’s pretty sexist.

Now, come to think of it, the 15th century “reforms” had a lot to do with how reformers viewed women, and they weren’t for good either. Martin Luther could not keep it in his pants, and neither could the King of England. Hence married priests in Lutheranism. Hence divorce and remarriage in Anglicanism. The seeds for misogyny and sexism were engendered in the period of the Reformation, not Roman Catholicism.

So again, we’re not entirely concerned with our perception. The world will always distort the One True Faith. When Christ set out to appoint only men for administrative positions in the Church, it was probably for a reason. Surely if women were perfectly fine he would’ve chosen his Mother and Mary Magdalene, who were as zealous as even Paul and Peter for the love of God. Instead, he chose the twelve apostles to govern his Church. One man would betray him, and another ten deserted him at his Passion. When they regrouped at Pentecost, the Holy Spirit inspired them to chose Barnabas to replace their ranks. Maybe they should have sought a Barbarella instead.

Perhaps Cranmer, it was another case of where Our Blessed Lord had some silly ideals about how to live a Christian life. Already the reformers thought Christ’s command of the Sacrament of Marriage was naive, and then to hand down his Church to foolhardy men, and men only?

How silly the Son of God could be.

Cranmer, you are popular because you are a brilliant conservative political commentator, with a witty and sharp insight into a lot of the issues facing the world today. But if there was ever proof that the Catholic Church contained the Truth, your mental gymnastics in criticising her ways – far more bizarre than any of your other opinions – are certainly a good showcase.

I only hope that you pray as fervently as you blog.

In Christ.”