Why I am a Catholic (Part 3)

What is faith?

Faith n.
"1. allegiance to duty or a person; loyalty. 2. belief & trust in God. 3. confidence. 4. a system of religious beliefs." --The Merriam-Webster [pocket] Dictionary, 1974

"1. confidence or trust in a person or thing. 2. belief that is not based on proof. 3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion. 4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, or the occurrence of a future event. 5. a system of religious belief: the Jewish faith. 6. the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc. 7. the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise, oath, allegiance, etc.: to act in good faith. 8. Christian Theol. the trust in God and in his promises as made by Christ and the Scriptures by which man is justified or saved. --Syn. 5. doctrine, tenet, creed, dogma, persuasion, religion. --Ant. 1, 2. distrust, skepticism." --The Random House College Dictionary, Revised Edition, 1980

"The acceptance of the word of another, trusting that one knows what the other is saying and is honest in telling the truth. The basic motive of all faith is the authority (or right to be believed) of someone who is speaking. This authority is an adequate knowledge of what he or she is talking about, and integrity in not wanting to deceive. It is called divine faith when the one believed is God, and human faith when the persons believed are human beings." --Modern Catholic Dictionary by Fr. John A. Hardon, SJ, Doubleday & Co. 1980

"Faith is 'the realization of what is hoped for and evidence of things not seen' (Heb 11:1). It is an act of the understanding and a Divinely infused virtue whereby we accept as true all that God has revealed, because He has revealed it. The matter of faith is what God has revealed and through His Church teaches us to believe. The motive is the truthfulness of God. Faith is necessary for salvation.
"It is not enough, however, to hold as true the truths of faith. For faith to be complete, its teachings must bring us into a more personal relationship with God. In other words, we must live according to what we believe. Every religious truth should bind us more closely to God. Faith then becomes our response to God's call to follow Him.
"In this connection, the Liturgy is the most complete and most perfect expression of faith, for it is the active adherence of the ecclesial community to the God of the Covenant.
"Thus Christian faith us faith in the redeeming love of God, in the Divine and eternal life of human beings, in the Incarnation and Resurrection of Jesus Christ the Savior. Faith is the encounter of Jesus in the Church and the Liturgy. Belief in Christ means practicing the Liturgy. Faith has need of the Liturgy because it is in the Liturgy that Christ comes to us.
"By the same token, the Liturgy has need of faith; it is for believers. It celebrates faith. 'Christian worship...is a work which proceeds from faith and is based on it' (Code of Canon Law (1983) Can. 836).
"Faith also refers to the set of beliefs, the Divinely revealed truths. As such, the Faith vitalizes and directs the Liturgy, while in return the Liturgy avows and bears witness to the Faith." --Dictionary of the Liturgy by Rev. Jovian P. Lang, OFM, Catholic Book Publishing Co. 1989.

--------------------

No matter what he chooses to call it, everybody holds to a personal set of beliefs (which may or may not correspond to some external system of doctrine held in common by a whole group of people--e.g. a religious body or political association), and tends overall to act according to those beliefs, revising them as time goes on as new information is aquired. We tend to hold on to our beliefs more or less strongly "until something better comes along." This is all good and natural.

Even newborn infants instinctively have a kind of faith that they will be taken care of (fed, kept warm and comfortable) until and unless they begin to be ill-treated (neglected, left hungry, dirty and uncomfortable, slapped or otherwise mishandled). They want to trust that their parents will take care of their needs, and that their environment will not harm them. They generally will maintain this initial trust unless a series of events (it usually takes several, not just 1 or 2) leads them to believe that things are substantially changed. For the first few years, this trust (or lack thereof) forms the foundation of the temperment/disposition/personality that they will likely retain (with slight modifications) throughout their lives.

This describes human faith in very broad and general terms.

As we grow through the several stages of maturity, we see, hear & read all kinds of things. Since it is not possible to experience everything directly (firsthand), we gradually learn to accept as valid things other people tell us, but which we haven't actually experienced ourselves. We also learn over time to recognize that some sources of information are more worthy of trust than others. This most often happens if & when we see others operating from selfish motives and not out of love or concern for us personally or the truth in general. We rightly suspect that such a one is untrustworthy as a source of reliable information. We decide where and in whom we will place our trust (faith). We choose to believe some sources of information and not others.

God's Family

I count it my good fortune to have been born into a strong Catholic family (so I didn't have far to look before finding the truth). Over the years, I have heard about God and His infinite love for me (and for everyone) from people and sources I trust. Everything I have experienced (so far) about God and His action in my life and in the world is consistent with what I have been taught (that's why I trust it). I have heard just about all the arguments there are against the Catholic faith. (I say this because it's been many years since I've heard a new one--although I recognize the theoretical posibility of there being one or more out there that I haven't heard yet.) Upon careful investigation I find that none of them hold water. The Catholic Church teaches the most consistent, most unified system for understanding the universe, both visible (material) and invisible (spiritual), and I remain confident that it can withstand any challenge ("the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (Matthew 16:18)). The Church doesn't teach science or mathematics, of course, but recognizes that everything that is true comes from God and ultimately points toward God, so natural reason and supernatural faith--properly understood and applied--can never be in conflict, but rather assist and support one another. God is truth itself.

Catholic doctrine (the deposit of faith), like our Lord's tunic for which His executioners cast lots (John 19:23-24), is a seamless whole. You can't remove a single teaching without doing violence to all the rest. Each doctrine is interrelated to all the rest. The Trinity, the Eucharist, obedience to one's parents, charity toward others, sexual morality (all of it), the historicity of the gospel accounts, baptism and the other sacraments, the papacy, purgatory, heaven & hell, angels (both the good and the bad), the Blessed Virgin Mary & the communion of saints, bearing suffering graciously with the crucified Christ, trusting in God's providence, sacrificing oneself for others, etc., etc. They are all different facets of a beautiful, unified whole.

Once you recognize this and no longer view its various doctrines as a random and eclectic mess, you'll understand that the Church isn't just another human institution (with merely human rules and restrictions) but is in fact the family of God. Now, every family must have rules. An essential part of familial love is obedience to those rules ("If you love me, you will keep my commandments" (John 14:15)). Any parent can attest to this fact. A good parent commands ultimately out of love for his children, and God infinitely more so. I trust God's word for the same reason that I trusted my own earthly father (may God rest his soul): I recognize that He loves me (but infinitely more than my own father did/does), and that I can do no better than to love Him in return. I am an (adopted) child of God. My Father is the King of the universe and I am (therefore) royalty.

I am a Catholic because I rest in the love of God.

+/- II

(Positive or Negative, part 2)

In part 1, I attempted to demonstrate that most things (objects, actions, concepts) have some kind of objective character which is independent of how any one of us may feel about them. (I said most things. There are some things, I'm sure, which could best be characterized subjectively--based on our personal feelings, which of course vary from one individual to another. However, it is NOT my intention to discuss those things--whatever they are--at this time.)

I also tried to show how people tend to "label" (identify in some fashion) & "categorize" (sort) the experiences they have and the people & things they encounter--at the very least as to whether they like, dislike or are indifferent to someone/something. (This is not the same thing as "judging" someone in the sense of determining the final state of another's soul, something we reserve to God alone.) This process is very basic and necessary for memory and reason to function at all, not to mention communication.

We must first mentally identify and sort things in order to "file them away" in our short term (& eventually long term) memories in order to process the information that those things represent so we can make sense out of the world around us. And we have to "coordinate" this process (to a greater or lesser degree) with others in order to communicate with them. (If there is no commonality of understanding about certain basic images/words/experiences between Joe's mind and Sue's mind, Joe and Sue cannot communicate.)

The various disciplines within the fields of science, mathematics and language, for example, depend fundamentally on the objective character of things in the universe (and the universe as a whole). If there's nothing solid "out there" (and not just inside my head), then how can we study anything? If "reality" was truly up for grabs, awaiting each individual to define it for himself, nothing could be predicted (like the orbits of planets, local weather patterns or the result of a mathematical equation) and the universe would make no sense. The word truth itself--like everything else--would be meaningless.

(Now it should be admitted that some people do have some trouble making sense out of the world around them, but that's not the fault of the world around them, nor does Mr. X's failure to recognize its objective character take anything away from that character. In other words, reality is still objective even if crazy Mr. X says it isn't and keeps trying to redefine it to suit himself.)

Now we get down to the whole point of this long essay, which is the existence of objective truth. Here are a few examples of things that are objectively true:

2+2=4 (not 5).

Oak trees sprout from acorns, grow into strong trees of a predictable size, shape and structure (given enough sun, moisture and nutrients in the soil) and eventually die, fall over and decay (acorns do not sprout holly bushes or tulips).

There is insufficient breathable oxygen on the surface of the moon to sustain life (if you remove your helmet on the moon you will die very quickly).

Household current is useful for running refrigerators and hair dryers, but can be lethal if misused (don't drop a plug-in radio into bathwater or someone may die).

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.

A large amount of arsenic is not fit for human consumption (if you eat it you could die a painful death).

It is always and everywhere wrong to intentionally take the life of an innocent human being (that's called murder).

Human embryos and fetuses are innocent (they've done nothing wrong) and they are human beings (they are not fish or dogs, even if superficial visual similarities may exist).

The sole function of the anus is the elimination of the solid waste of digestion (so introducing foreign objects into the rectum for the sake of a thrill, such as pencils, fingers, penises, knives or gerbils, can harm the body).

Sodomy is a very immuno-depressive behavior (those who engage in it regularly will get seriously sick).

Sin darkens the intellect and weakens the will (after a while, one who persists in grave sin begins to call what is evil good and what is good evil, and gradually becomes unable to control his own unruly passions).

Confession is good for the soul (people need to "unburden" themselves to another human being to achieve spiritual healing).


Now, anyone is of course free to deny the truth of any one or all of these statements if he so chooses. But he does so at his own peril, and he shouldn't blame anyone else for his own foolish behavior. A good friend would try to point out (warn) if someone he knew had problems recognizing or conforming to objective truth (reality) and was involved with embarassing, stupid, self-destructive or evil activity.

If I saw someone, for example, following a metaphorical path on which I knew there was a huge pit, I would be sinning against charity if I failed to warn him of the danger. I would not be "judging" him if I shouted over, "hey, buddy, the path you've chosen leads to destruction--you going to fall into a pit!" That person should not get angry with me simply because I tried to warn him of danger. He is free to disregard my warning, but if he falls into the pit anyway, at least it won't be on my head since I knew about the danger and TRIED to warn him of it. (If I am mistaken and there actually IS NO danger, there is no real harm in my well-intentioned warning--one should always be cautious anyway.)

If a thing--anything--is objectively true (+), it cannot at the same time also be false (-). A person may be unwilling or unable to recognize the objective nature of this truth, but it remains true nonetheless. Getting angry and complaining about it changes nothing. A person can be truly happy only by conforming to objective truth.

(On the other hand, if I'm a raving lunatic and everything I've said in this essay is a load of hogwash, getting upset about it won't help either, since I would be (according to that scenario) a raving lunatic and your "reasoning" would be lost on me anyway.)

So (to answer my original question) if a person ever tells you he doesn't believe in anything in particular (e.g. regarding religious faith or human behavior), or that he doesn't accept the notion that truth can be objective, since (he says), "what's true for YOU isn't necessarily true for ME" or "MY truth is different than YOUR truth," he is either lying or doesn't really understand what truth is. This would not be a positive situation. Perhaps he's just being negative.