Sorry it's been so long...

...since my last post. I've been rather busy. I had some difficulties with my computer, JohnnyK has been a big distraction lately (don't let it go to your head, JK)--see the many "comments" on the last post (Happy Easter!)--and miscellaneous other stuff.

Pope John Paul the Great, rest in peace!
God bless and long live Pope Benedict XVI!

I intend to post soon (God willing) on the topic of suffering based on thoughts by Dr. Alice von Hildebrand, so stay tuned....

Happy Easter!

May the Resurrection of our Lord and the promise of our own be a source of joy, blessings and peace to you all!

We can praise and thank God that Michael Schiavo has relented in the rigor of his "mercy" to permit his wife to receive the sacraments of the Church one last time. May God shower additional graces upon Michael for this act of kindness. We can rest assured that Terri now has the benefit of every grace that can be provided in this world to assist her soul in its entrance into the next.

God is indeed merciful!

A Clarification

Some folks who have left comments on this blog have occasionally made some statements that seem to indicate a misunderstanding on their part as to its purpose. I apologize now for being the possible occasion of this misunderstanding and offer this clarification in reparation for my shortsightedness and omissions.

Nothing I post on this blog is meant in any way to insult or provoke a verbal fight with anyone over their potentially opposing views. It is meant to provoke thought, but not a fight, and certainly not a knee-jerk "reaction." I don't doubt that emotions may be elevated, but I hope not tempers.

If I write something that seems unreasonable to someone, it is likely that either (a) I wrote it without sufficient reflection and stand ready for gentle correction, or (b) that person is himself unable or unwilling to engage his own powers of reason & is reacting on the level of emotion alone. If (a), then I would expect to see an example of superior insight to steer me back onto the right path. If (b), then I pray the person will take a "time out" to re-evaluate his own position & not waste his or my time with emotional appeals to a debased, random or somnolent conscience.

I write from my own personal convictions, opinions and beliefs based on what I have learned (seen, read or heard). That is my right--this is my blog. I publish my thoughts "for what it's worth" and for "anyone who cares." I expect many who visit here will not agree with me. That's OK. If they don't like it, they are free to leave and never return if they so choose. I have no idea who visits if they don't leave a comment, and I don't care how many "hits" I get (you'll notice I don't have a hit-counter & I have no particular curiosity to track my stats). My words are offered as a "public service" for anyone who may enjoy or learn something from them.

I do read every comment that is posted, even if I don't reply to it. I take no offense at people who disagree with me. They are certainly entitled to do so, but I hope they also realize that irrational or gut-based arguments are unlikely to make any impression, much less change my mind. (For example, if your opinion is that I am an unsophisticated bigot, well, I've been called that (and worse) to no effect. You'd be wasting your keystrokes by telling me again.) This shouldn't surprise anyone, since I would expect that same attitude from anyone who speaks from conviction.

If someone is excessively perturbed by what he reads here, I would be puzzled if he kept returning to torture himself.

If someone leaves provocative comments just to "bait" me for his own or his friends' amusement, I would hope he'd soon tire of wasting his wit on someone who just doesn't "get it."

If someone comes here looking for originality or novelty, he'd better just keep walking--he won't find that here. I feel it's better to be right than original. (Of course I mean these are just my own opinions & I don't claim to be absolutely right (aligned with truth) in and of myself. I am not the standard of truth. I only try to pass on any fragments of truth I may have gleaned from elsewhere. I leave you, the reader, to be your own judge.)

Sorry, I know I tend toward verbosity. I just don't want to leave any stones unturned. If this "clarification" has only had the opposite effect, I guess I'll just apologize again and leave it at that.

Happy Saint Patrick's Day

from the Green Flash.

Please pray for Terri Schiavo, her parents, her estranged husband and the judge who is deciding her case.

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.

+/- I

(Positive or Negative, part 1)

It has been said that everybody believes in something.

It's a truism; it's so obvious, nobody needs to explain it.

Or is it? Are there some people who don't believe in anything?

Background
Everyone, whether he knows it or not, sees the universe as a hierarchy in which some things are considered more important or valuable than others. Material objects and forces are all around him (such as his own body, other people, animals and plants, the sun, moon & stars, warmth, wetness, gravity, electricity) and he recognizes, labels and categorizes everything he sees and feels, whether he is aware of it--or admits it--or not. There are also various intangible ideas and concepts which he understands more or less well: joy, fear, anxiety, love, courage, confusion, trust, compassion, justice, anger,...calculus..., you get the idea. Mental labels (words or pictures) are the basis of thought & language. We give particular names to particular objects, actions & concepts that everyone is expected to generally agree upon. (A catalogue of these names/labels is called a dictionary or lexicon.) Without labels, no one would understand what anyone else was talking about and communication would be impossible.

There are at least three categories that EVERYONE uses about EVERYTHING: (1) "I like that (it's good);" (2) "I don't like that (it's bad);" and (3) "I don't care about that either way (it's neutral)." Of course there are usually innumerable subtle gradations of value within each of these (such as, "I don't know much about that but I'd like to learn more," or "I think that is weird in a pleasant (or unpleasant) sort of way"). There are also two other categories everyone uses: (4) "that's TRUE (whether I like it or not)" and (5) "that's FALSE (whether I like it or not),"--although not everyone admits to using them. There is a word that describes people who don't use categories AT ALL: they're called "comatose."

This process of categorization involves a faculty of the mind called judgment, and every thinking person uses it. Those who claim not to judge, label or categorize anything actually have an extraordinarily LARGE "I don't care" category and JUDGE that most people and things they encounter go into it. Either that, or they aren't very honest (either with themselves, or others, or both).

We--individually or collectively--are not always accurate in our judgments about things (we are frequently mistaken--e.g. "Just go through that puddle--we can make it ..."), but that doesn't change the objective nature of the thing(s) in question. People who refuse to accept or admit that most things have some kind of objective character that is independent of one's feelings toward them are usually considered "insane" (or disconnected from reality). A person might claim he can "define his own reality," but in reality, he does so at his own peril. (Or perhaps his self-defined "reality" consists merely of a number of outrageous claims that are difficult or bothersome for others to verify one way or the other, so people generally leave him alone, unless he becomes a recognizable danger to himself or others.) For example, if 99 people observe that object X is bright white, hard and rough, and 1 person says the same object (at the same time) is dark blue,soft and musical, the others would rightly judge that there must be "something wrong" either with his perception, judgement, mental process or honesty--and the rest may choose, depending on circumstances, to either "make allowances" for his exceptional claim, or take positive steps to correct it. (This is neither merely a case of majority rule nor a debate about the labels in conventional use, but a consideration of the nature (or objective character) of object X.)

OK, is everybody on the same page?

(To be continued...)

Why I am a Catholic (Part 2)

The Bible

The Bible is actually not one book, but rather a collection of several books (73 to be exact), a veritable library, which has been gathered together and (usually) put in one cover. But who made this collection, and why were these books included and others excluded?

The Old Testament books (those written before Jesus’ time) were written by (or are at least attributed to) Moses and numerous later members of the ancient Jewish/Hebrew religion (prophets (or their followers), kings or other leaders, and perhaps one or more anonymous writers). They consist of the Hebrew canon of 39 books, which are generally accepted by Jews, Protestants, Orthodox and Catholics alike: (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, I & II Samuel, I & II Kings, I & II Chronicles, Ezra (or I Esdras), Nehemiah (or II Esdras), Esther, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon (or Canticle of Canticles/Song of Songs), Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations (sometimes included in Jeremiah), Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea (or Osee), Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi), and the 7 Deuterocanonical books, which are generally accepted only by Catholics and Orthodox: (Tobit (or Tobias), Judith, Wisdom, Sirach (a.k.a. Ecclesiasticus), Baruch and I & II Maccabees)—these 7 are frequently (but erroneously) called "Apocrypha" by Protestants. All of these 46 books were included in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Scriptures used and quoted by the Apostles and all of the early Church fathers. They accepted them all as canonical, which is why the Catholic Church does so to this day.

The 27 New Testament books (written after Jesus’ time) were written by some of the 12 Apostles and some of their close collaborators, which are generally accepted by all Christians: (the Gospel according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, Acts (of the Apostles), Romans, I & II Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, I & II Thessalonians, I & II Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Hebrews, I & II Peter, I, II & III John, James, Jude and Revelation (or the Apocalypse of St. John)).

Some people (e.g. some, but not all, atheists, agnostics & neo-pagans) dismiss the Bible as "myth," fanciful stories made up, they claim, by various primitive peoples to explain the unknown, or for other, perhaps political, reasons. They can't be historical (they say), they contain such far-fetched things, "miracles" and such—just like the magic one encounters in ancient Greek mythology!

The books of the Old Testament are written in various genres, just like the variety of books one finds in a modern library. There are books of history, poetry, "wisdom" literature (e.g. Proverbs), even what we today might call "historical fiction," and perhaps a few styles we are unfamiliar with today. These differing styles of writing were all common and readily recognizable in the time in which they were composed. The trick in modern Biblical exegesis (interpretation) is knowing which book (or portion of a book) belongs in which category. For example, the deuterocanonical book of Judith appears on the surface to be straight history, but in all likelihood, is actually an elaborate parable, an allegory (symbolic "historical fiction"). The historical works, while they cannot compare to our modern standards of historical documentation, compare quite favorably with other non-religious ancient works in establishing the historical record. Frequently their claims are ("Surprise!") verified through modern archeology (e.g. the modern discovery of the Hittite race). Prophetic works are verified through the historical fulfillment of the prophetic utterances. And so on.

The historical books of the New Testament (the 4 Gospels and Acts) also measure up as good history when compared to contemporary examples, such as the works of Josephus and Tacitus. They place the events they recount within the framework of history by references to various rulers and other contemporary persons and events recognizable by the original readers/hearers (and in large part verifiable today by archeological and other secular documentary evidence), and by conscientious reliance on eyewitnesses. The letters (epistles) also fall nicely into the contemporary historical context. None of this can be said of Greek or Nordic mythology. There is no compelling reason not to accept them as authentic and reliable.

EXCEPT for all those miracles (and the bad science).

Well, the Bible makes no claim about teaching science. The events it describes which some people sometimes try to interpret as science are descriptions of real events as they appeared to the people who witnessed them. The creation accounts in Genesis 1 & 2 were passed on through oral tradition perhaps over several thousands of years before writing was even invented. We might call them "folktales" that describe essential truths about God and our relationship to Him (that He created the universe out of *nothing* by a pure act of will, we are His creatures, He created us not out of necessity, but out of love, and owe Him worship as the creator). They can still be accepted as true, but in a philosophical or allegorical sense rather than a strictly scientific (empirical) sense.

My guess is that people who reject the accounts of miraculous events described in the Bible do so simply because they deny the possibility of miracles at all. To their way of thinking, a claim in favor of a miracle must be made up fantasy or delusion, because (by their definition) miracles do not exist and cannot happen, period. "Since miracles do not occur in the natural course of events, and I admit only natural events (thus eliminating anything 'supernatural'), miracles cannot exist or occur, by definition." Those who deny the existence of miracles must not have witnessed one. But many other people have witnessed miracles (verified by the scientific community as having no natural explanation) and have come to believe as a result. Examples are the numerous miraculous cures documented in the files of the medical bureau at Lourdes, France; the eucharistic miracle at Lanciano, Italy (the host (bread) that visibly changed into bleeding human flesh at the consecration--and remains preserved to this day); the miracle of the sun that was witnessed by many thousands of people--and was reported in the secular newspapers at the time--on Oct. 13, 1917 in Fatima, Portugal; the incorruptable (not mummified, but fresh) bodies of several saints who've been dead hundreds of years; and innumerable less publicized (but no less authentic) miracles that occur periodically right up our own time.

Believers agree that a miracle requires a special intervention by a supernatural power (God) in natural events. That’s what it means to be a miracle. The only difference is that believers accept the existence of God and the possibility of His intervention, and non-believers don’t. (I’ll get into reasons for faith/belief in later installments.)

So I (and other believers) accept the Bible as a reliable document and use it as a rule of faith. As I said above, the Apostles and their disciples used the Septuagint version of the Old Testament scriptures. (Greek was the lingua franca of the whole Mediterranean world, including Palestine. The Jews spoke Aramaic and Hebrew amongst themselves but communicated with others (like the Romans and other foreigners) in Greek.) From the Septuagint they taught that the man Jesus of Nazareth was the fulfillment of all the messianic prophecies. Jesus claimed at various times and places that He was God (John 8:53-59; 10:30-38; etc.). In fact, this is the very reason the Jewish leaders wanted to kill Him and turned Him over to the Romans for crucifixion (Mark 14:61-64, 15:1).

He demonstrated through his miracles and His teaching that he had power from God, and when He raised Himself from the dead, he demonstrated that He WAS God. Was His resurrection simply an elaborate hoax as many have claimed throughout history? His followers believed in Him and gave their lives for this faith. Men may go a long way in promoting a hoax, but how many are willing to DIE for a hoax? But the first several generations of Christians happily died in the numerous periods of intense persecution as a result of their faith in Jesus Christ. They believed, and I believe on the word of their testimony.

Jesus established a church (Matt. 16:18) and gave it authority to teach and work miracles (to demonstrate their divine authority) in His name (i.e. with His own authority as God) (Luke 10:1, 9, 16, 17; Matt. ch. 10; 28:18-20). But Jesus did not write a word of scripture. As I said in Part 1, Jesus' teaching authority and power continues to this day through His Mystical Body, the Church (I Cor. 12:27) which He established for this purpose. With the exception of the visions recorded in Revelation, Jesus never told anyone to write anything. The New Testament scriptures were written by the authority of this Church and were derived fron its existing oral tradition. The authority of the New Testament rests on the authority of the Church, not the other way around. (Cf. I Tim. 3:15—it is the Church, not scripture, that is the pillar and foundation of the truth; I Thes. 2:13—the oral preaching of the Apostles, not only written scripture, is the word of God.) It was the bishops of the Church that determined which books were to be included in the canon of scripture. Some of the books we accept today were disputed well into the 3rd century, e.g. III John and Revelation—and there were many other disputed books that never "made the cut." Anyone who accepts the inspiration and authority of the Bible at all, receives it on the authority of the Catholic Church alone.

For this reason, the Bible cannot be the sole rule of faith for Christians. Along with the written scriptures there must also be the oral Apostolic Tradition to which the scriptures themselves give witness (John 21:25; I Thes 2:13; II Thes 3:15; III John 13-14) and the Magisterium, or teaching authority of the Church, which guarantees their proper interpretation. These three support each other like the legs of a milking stool. If you take any one of them away, the other two must fall.

Why I am a Catholic (Part 1)

The short answer is that I am convinced that Catholicism is TRUE.

I am, of course, aware that many people dispute this (even many who call themselves Catholics). (I hope everyone who does dispute it leaves a comment so I can address each one--there is an answer for every question.)

Let's explore some of the claims of the Catholic Church.

First of all, one must remember that Catholicism is NOT just another Christian denomination. Denominationalism started when groups started breaking away from the Catholic Church. This is not mere opinion, but historical fact. Anyone who accepts the New Testament and believes that Jesus was the Son of God ought to recognize that He intended to, and indeed DID, found a church, the one true church. He founded it on the 12 Apostles with Peter ("Rock") as their head (Matt 16:16-19).

A thumbnail sketch of Christian history

Originally, and for a few generations after the first Christian Pentecost (Acts ch. 2), those who believed in Jesus remained a sect within Judaism. (Gradually over many years, they grew more and more distinct from other Jewish sects, and eventually the "official" Jewish leadership expelled them from the synagogue and they became a separate religion.) Over the years this one group of Jesus' followers (or disciples) spread outward from Jerusalem, and in various places came to be known by various names. Some people called them Nazarenes because they followed the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. In Antioch (in present day southern Turkey), they were first called Christians (Acts 11:26).

The Apostles traveled from city to city and taught the people about Christ and many converted from Judaism and paganism by their oral preaching, and were baptized. The Apostles would frequently train and ordain men to lead these local congregations. (These men were called episcopoi (bishops, or overseers) and presbyteroi (priests, or elders).)

Here and there, a number of errors began to be taught by some of these local leaders. The first big error was taught by the Judaizers, who held that all Christians had to keep observing all the minutiae of the Law of Moses. The Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15:1-35) was called to deal with this question, and many of the letters in the New Testament deal with it extensively.

For the first couple of decades, all teaching was in the form of oral preaching. Nothing that appears in what we today call the New Testament was penned for at least 10 years after the death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus. No one followed Jesus or the Apostles around taking notes (their memories were much better in those days than ours are today because they didn't have the luxury of cheap books and common literacy--they HAD to remember what they heard). And, as I said, the Apostles would appoint leaders in the towns and cities wherever they went (1 Tim 4:14; 5:22; 2 Tim 1:6) and instructed them to pass this same apostolic teaching and authority on to other men, faithfully and in its entirety (2 Tim 2:2; Titus 1:5).

Eventually all the Apostles died, but their teaching and authority lived on in the persons of the bishops they appointed (Catholics today refer to this as "apostolic succession"). Whenever doctrinal disputes arose, the bishops within the affected area would come together in synods or councils and discuss the matter and sift through the issue to separate what the Apostles actually taught from the novel and erroneous teaching. (This wasn't always easy, since often the dispute wasn't necessarily one of outright error, but might have been just new ways of expressing true apostolic teaching. The bishops' job was to figure this out, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit according to the promise of Christ (John 15:13) and to declare the truth.)

Some errors refused to go away, however. People frequently decided they knew better than the bishops, forgetting that only the bishops (as a body or "college," not individually) had the apostolic authority to declare the true apostolic doctrine. So they went off in their own groups, and their false teachings were known as "heresies," many of which persist in one form or another to this day.

By the end of the First Century (certainly by A.D. 107 or 110 when Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, wrote his letter to the Smyrnaeans) it was apparently common to distinguish between the Christians that followed the bishops' (i.e. apostolic) teaching, and the various groups of "heretics" (those who "take out") by the word "catholic" ("of the whole," or universal). This same apostolic teaching is preserved to our own day in the one Catholic Church.

Next installment: The Bible

Some "lost" comments have been found!

Someone saved a copy of 14 of the comments that were posted on the old template (before they were deleted) and sent them to me. They were comments on the November 20th post (on same-sex "marriage"). I have now reproduced them in the comment box under that post [with a few minor editorial changes--order of some comments, corrected typos, etc.].

If anyone has similar records of any of the other comments (or can remember any of them) please e-mail them to me and I will restore them (or you can just post them yourself). Or post new ones.

"You call that an argument?"

(...or a funny thing happened on the way to the conclusion)

"...That's not a real argument! Why, the source of your premise that the sky is blue also said the earth is flat and the stars revolve on glass spheres! Hubble proved Socrates was wrong and Darwin was right long ago, and there's no turning back the clock, you idiot. And I happen to know that the source of your claim that light refracts through a prism ate over 16 eggs and smoked 5 cigars a week (and you can't deny it), so you know his cholesterol was way out of whack! And besides, your tie clashes with your suit! Who dressed you this morning? What you should do is go to this little shop down in Greenwich Village, called Straight Lines for Crossed Eyes--they make the sweetest little things that could make even you look good. And besides, my car is much faster than your's, and I'll bet you don't even donate to Planned Parenthood. (What kind of a snob are you!?) And if your people in Congress really cared about 'the little people,' money wouldn't be a problem and Greenspan would be out on the street! It's those selfish, greedy fat-cats in big hotels who think everybody else is worthless just because their idea of fun is a little different! And you're the same way! It's NOT MY FAULT!! You have no idea how much it hurt when my dad took away the keys when I was seventeen. He had NO RIGHT! And neither do you! You pompous ass! You can't possibly know what you're talking about!! Case closed ... I WIN! (You know, you really should have done your homework before you tried to tangle with the likes of me.)"

(Any resemblence between this diatribe and a REAL rebuttal is purely coincidental.)

Logical Fallacies (non sequiturs) (partial list)

I. Fallacies of Ambiguity

1. Begging the question (petitio principii): to employ circular reasoning by using one's conclusion (in a disguised form) as a premise.

2. Complex or Leading Question: a question that is phrased in such a way that it cannot be answered without granting some particular answer to some point at issue. (E.g. "Are you still beating your wife?")

3. Accident (fallacia accidentis): improperly applying a generalization or general principle to a particular instance. This is the opposite of the hasty or sweeping generalization (see II., 3, below).

4. Continuum or "Argument of the Beard" (as in, "exactly how many whiskers must a man have before he can be said to have a beard?"): an attempt to establish that the existence of a gradual continuum between extremes is proof against any real difference between them, because there is no absolute dividing line.

5. Bad Analogy: an attempt to equate two things when only a superficial similarity exists. This is refutable by reductio ad absurdum (reducing the analogy to a patent absurdity merely by extending the line of reasoning).

6. Post hoc, ergo propter hoc (after this, therefore because of this): to infer causality from mere temporal priority. (Just because one event happened before another does not mean that the first event caused the second one.)

7. Composition: an argument that a property which is affirmed or denied of every part of some whole must also be affirmed or denied of the whole. (E.g. the affirmation that since all members of the Catholic Church (on earth) are sinners, therefore the Catholic Church is sinful is a fallacy of composition. The truth is that the Church, being the Bride of Christ and the Mystical Body of Christ, is a sinless society by the promise of Christ and the agency of the Holy Spirit, despite the fact that all her members remain sinners.)

8. Division: the opposite of composition; an argument that a property which is affirmed or denied of a whole must also be affirmed or denied of each of its constituent parts. (E.g. it is fallacious to affirm that, since the Church is infallible in matters of faith and morals, each one of Her members must also be likewise personally infallible. This fallacy is employed by the "We Are Church" crowd.)

9. Equivocation (equivocatio or homonymia): playing upon the double meaning of a term in a misleading or erroneous fashion.

10. Amphiboly: A sentence with a built-in ambiguity due to its peculiar structure is said to be amphibolous. The fallacy of amphiboly is committed when the amphibolous structure of a sentence is played upon in a misleading or erroneous fashion.

11. Accent: Sometimes a sentence takes on different meanings as it is accented in different ways. The fallacy of accent is committed when a false or misleading inference is made from a sentence which is improperly accented (i.e. some of its terms are unnecessarily stressed) when the same sentence, when properly accented, is perfectly true and clear.


II. Irrelevant Appeals

Aristotle identified fallacies that were committed by people who were ignorant of the question at issue. These fallacies are classified in general as ignorantio elenchi, ignorant refutations, that is to say, the person committing them either proves the wrong point or he arrives at his conclusion by a set of premises irrelevant to the point at issue, or both. With the exception of the hasty generalization, these are informal fallacies, i.e. they do not necessarily involve a formal mistake in logic, they are merely irrelevant.

1. Abusing the Man (argumentum ad hominem, arguing to the man; as opposed to arguing ad rem, to the point): there are at least four basic types:
a. Name-calling
b. "Let's-play-amateur-psychoanalyst" (calling into question the opponent's mental health)
c. Casting aspersions on the opponent's moral character
d. Poisoning the wells (an attempt to discredit the opponent absolutely, to destroy his reliability for anything in the eyes of the audience).

2. Argumentum ad populum (appeal to the people or popular sentiments): there are three main types:
a. Argumentum ad captandum vulgas (appeal to the emotions of the crowd)
b. Argumentum ad invidium (appeal to the prejudices of one's audience)
c. Argumentum ad misericordiam (appeal to the pity or sympathy of one's audience)

3. Hasty (or Sweeping) Generalization: This is committed when, after observing that a small number or a special sort of the members of some group have some property, it is then inferred that the whole group has this property. One must not draw unnecessary conclusions or make a judgment about a large population on the basis of an observation of certain members of that population who have very special positions or functions or who happen to be in extraordinary or atypical situations.

4. Shifting the Burden of Proof: The burden of proof properly rests on the proponent, the one making the assertion; the opponent has no obligation to disprove the assertion or to prove the contrary. The proponent commits a logical error if he tries to force the opponent to prove the assertion to be false when he has not adequately proven it to be true.

5. Special Pleading: citing only those facts which seem to support one's position while avoiding those which seem to undermine it. Logic requires a proponent to consider all of the pertinent facts. Special pleading misrepresents the proponent's case by excluding any facts which might damage it.

6. Red Herring: an attempt to divert attention away from the topic at hand by bringing up side-issues or subtly changing the subject altogether.

7. Straw Man: This is a misrepresentation--a caricature--of one's opponent's position, which the proponent sets up so as to easily knock it down. Since a straw man is not an accurate statement of the opponent's position, what the proponent is actually attacking is not the true position at all, but a figment of his own imagination.

8. False Antithesis, Faulty Dilemma or False Dichotomy: assuming two options to be opposite and/or mutually exclusive when such might not actually be the case. There may be more than two options and/or they may not be opposed to each other, but rather complementary aspects of a unified truth. This fallacy is the flip-side of the "argument of the beard" (continuum). Both demand an absolute division between positions which may not in fact exist.

9. Argumentum ad ignorantiam (appealing to the ignorance of the opponent or audience): basing one's argument on some field of expertise of which one presumes the opponent or audience is ignorant--very dangerous if the proponent is himself ignorant of it.

10. Misuse of Authority, or argumentum ad verecundiam (argument to modesty or bashfulness-because the proponent is attempting to hide behind some authority rather than letting his own reasoning or evidence stand subject to evaluation or scrutiny): This fallacy is related to the argumentum ad ignorantiam. One must first understand the nature and use of authority and its overall context, as well as the limitations of any single authority, or the attempt to use it may backfire in fallacy.

11. Appeal to Force (Argumentum ad baculum): This is committed when a proponent attempts to sway an opponent to accept his view by applying some real or imagined threat of force or violence. Although the appeal to force is, logically speaking, irrelevant, it is often persuasive nonetheless.

12. Cliché Thinking: "the lazy man's guide to truth;" clichés and truisms, however convenient and appropriate in casual discourse, cannot substitute for sound reasoning and must not be the basis of one's argument or point of view.

13. Chronological Snobbery: to imply in one's argument that an idea that is old is therefore no longer true; a basis for the heresy called "Modernism."

14. Hypothesis Contrary to Fact: to base one's argument on a hypothetical situation, "what might have been." "If only…" and "what if…" statements cannot serve as valid premises.

Why would I want to read Gödel?

Kurt Gödel (1906-1978) was a brilliant logician/mathemetician, no question about it. But unless I was a mathematics graduate student, engineer or professor (which I'm not), I can't see myself being absorbed in his writings. My occupation, hobbies, personal interests, none of these are related to the field of mathematics. I nevertheless understand logic and how to use it. Logic is basically the rules for clear reasoning. I appreciate Gödel's contributions in the area of logic. I can follow a logical argument and can recognize a number of logical fallacies. My fundamental interests however are mainly directed toward getting myself to heaven (i.e., eternal life with God) and helping my family (and as many other people as I can) to get there too.

Some people (of self-described atheist, agnostic or pagan persuasion) have recently posted comments on other blogs (e.g., bloghogger) contrasting Gödel with Thomas Aquinas, saying "I'd take Gödel over Aquinas any day." True, they both deal in "proofs," but their subject matter is of an entirely different order. It's like comparing apples with oranges (or apples with angels). Is that logical? I can understand someone preferring Gödel's theorems and proofs over Aquinas'. The objects of Gödel's proofs (impersonal propositions and equations) make no claims on our lives as persons. They don't tell us how we are to behave. However the object of Aquinas' proofs (God) certainly does make such claims, claims that require a committed response on our part. We can choose to avoid this commitment (in this life), but it becomes unavoidable in the afterlife. (For now, I have no intention to attempt to "prove" that there is an afterlife. Let's save that for another time, shall we?)

Unfortunately, the place where we will be "committed" in eternity must be freely decided (by us) in the time we have on earth. Those people who avoid making the choice in this life (i.e., those who choose not to commit themselves to the love of God), ipso facto choose eternity without Him. That's what Christians mean by "hell"--eternity without God. God does not force Himself on us, requiring us to choose Him instead, and these are our only alternatives: God or no-God.

Of course, God cannot be "proven" logically (in a mathematical sense). He cannot be reduced to an equation, nor is He an experiment that can be viewed under a microscope. He is in no way material and cannot be analyzed by material creatures throught material means. Since He is pure spirit, in order to know Him you have to accept His invitation and open yourself up to Him spiritually.

It should be equally obvious that God's mercy and action are beyond any of us to observe, much less understand. That's why the Church is competent to declare someone to be in heaven with God, but never pronounces that anyone is in hell. Not Judas, not Hitler, not Stalin, not Mao, no one. And Christians must always resist the temptation to presume to judge the condition or status of any other soul but our own. But this in no way exempts us from the responsibility (or commission) to preach the gospel to every creature (always with our actions, sometimes with our words).

Gödel no doubt said many brilliant things about how a logical argument is technically constructed, but that, by itself, won't help me get to heaven. I feel my time would be better spent in other pursuits.

The New Look

Here it is. What do you think?
Sorry about wiping out all those interesting comments posted on the old template, but saving them would have been more trouble than it was worth (in my opinion).
New commenting system too, courtesy of Haloscan.com.

New Template

I'm thinking of changing my template in the near future. Unfortunately, I think this will wipe out all of the posted comments. (Or maybe I can find some way to preserve them. I'll see what I can do...) This won't happen for several days, maybe a week or so, but it is coming. I love these colors, but the body format is too narrow for my tastes, and I don't care much for this commenting system. I hope the new look will be easier to navigate. I'm a novice at this blogging jazz, but I know a teenager who can help the old geezer out.

Note: What you see now is the new template. Sorry, you'll never know what the old one looked like unless you have (or set up) your own Blogger account and view the ready-to-use template called "Son of Moto."