Regretfully, Brittany Maynard—the 29-year old woman diagnosed with glioblastoma (terminal brain cancer)—took her own life on November 1^st.  She moved to Oregon from her home in California so that she could take advantage of the state’s “death with dignity” law, passed in 1997.  I will not convict Brittany Maynard of some irredeemable sin nor will I call her a coward.  But I will take to task the Christians who support this grisly, inhumane, and impersonal law and reprimand them for their moral cowardice in the face of the seductive platitudes and dishonest pressures of the world—all of which can ultimately be traced back to Satan, the “father of lies.”  I will also attempt to forge a solution to the plight of euthanasia—one that can be embraced and promoted by people of any religious faith (or no faith at all) and is consistent with our common, inherent, and immutable human dignity, properly understood.

Over at The Huffington Post, Reverend Chuck Currie wrote a piece called “BrittanyMaynard Made A Moral Choice.”  Yes, Maynard did make a “moral choice”—if by moral, he means “of a moral nature.”  If, however, he means that the choice was “moral”—as in “good”—then it is my duty to disagree wholeheartedly.  The piece is a quandary to me because the good reverend actually sympathizes with and endorses Maynard’s decision to kill herself!  His main claim reads as follows:

Death with dignity is not about freedom, at least not in the way Archbishop Sample understands it.  [The Archbishop holds the view that there is no freedom to be found in choosing death and that we need to accept death as a force beyond our control in order to experience true freedom.]  We cannot escape death.  There is no freedom to change the reality of human existence.  Too often we try to pretend there is by tying ourselves to machines and medicines that prolong both life and suffering.  Unimaginable human suffering need not precede eternal life.  Jesus sought to end suffering.  It is difficult to hear a Christian extol suffering as a virtue.

Why, pray tell, Rev. Currie, is it difficult to hear a Christian extol suffering as a virtue?  After all, it was not beneath God Himself to suffer for His creatures—rebellious and wicked ones at that—a gruesome, torturous, and ignoble death on a cross.  If suffering is not beneath even the Son of God, why is it that you believe that we, His mere creatures, have a right to simply “opt out” of life because it hurts?  It sounds to me as though we have a replay of the Garden of Eden on our hands: the reverend—out of a fear of death—has bought the serpent’s empty promise—“you will be like gods, who know good and evil”; euthanasia is the fruit of the tree of which we are forbidden to eat, and Man, yet again, is falling for the tempter’s lies and deceit.

Here’s the thing, reverend: life is always good; life is always intrinsically good, in fact.  Without life, all other rights and social goods of which we speak and to which we cling—rights to liberty, property, free speech, etc.—are merely illusory because life itself is the prerequisite—the ground, so to speak—for them all.  Life does not become “bad,” “evil,” “not worth living,” or “inherently worthless” just because suffering, grief, a loss of autonomy and/or rationality, or something else (or a thousand other something-elses) enter the picture.  Nor do pleasant and noble sounding euphemisms—“aid in dying,” “death with dignity,” “the right to die”—alter the reality that euthanasia is murder perpetrated upon a sick, scared, and “consenting” individual.  (Think about how desperately you desire—what you would not give—to end something as minor as a particularly nasty stomachache.  Consent?  Really?)  Problems, setbacks, and hardships in life only make an inherently good gift—life—more unpleasant or difficult to bear.  Yes, sometimes life is a cross, reverend, but it is always one that we should bear gladly for nothing other than sheer love of our Blessed Lord, supported and strengthened by His Divine graces, favor, and especially the Sacraments.  Jesus said it Himself: “Whoever does not carry his own cross and come after me cannot be my disciple” (Lk. 14:27).  For these people, this is their cross.  It is not to be thrown off and cast aside—none of them are, big or small.

Rev. Currie then proclaims that “[U]nimaginable human suffering need not precede eternal life,” but this is a false application of the reality of mercy, the virtue of courage, as well as a dubious view of God Himself.  Yes, God is a “god of love” as he says, and it is precisely because of this awesome reality (not in spite of it) that we should, in our sufferings, rest in God—who is Love Itself—not kill ourselves to escape His embrace.  Christians are called to be courageous, not commit suicide when the going gets rough.  Rev. Currie’s view would enshrine in the minds of people the notion de facto that only the truly “heroic” (in some Western, secularized sense of the word—think Superman) could suffer till natural death (i.e., without recourse to suicide drugs or some other means) what Maynard had suffered.  No, all Christians are called to a life of heroism in Christ, not just the “best ones.”  But Rev. Currie’s standard would implicitly lower that bar, signaling to Christians (and others) the world over that only the “heroes” can endure the entirety of end-of-life suffering.  Try telling that to the early martyrs (i.e., “regular” people) when they were being devoured by lions, reverend.

Additionally, no one is saying that we must endure all suffering, always.  We have access to very creative and effective pain management treatments nowadays.  Do they always work?  Probably not, but that fact actually makes no difference in this discussion.  Pain does not make suicide a viable option.  Pain is pain; it is not an excuse to kill oneself.  Extraordinary means of care need not be utilized, but ordinary means must be.  We are not permitted to kill ourselves to avoid discomfort (massive though that discomfort may be) when ordinary means may preserve our lives.  Try the Catechism on this one.

Now, as for what can be done to stem the tide in this particular flare-up of the broader culture war.  Obviously, the legislative process is a must: if we can keep laws like Oregon’s off of the books to begin with, then there is nothing to rail against or to support.  Media portrayal also needs to be monitored.  Coverage of stories like this cannot be allowed to be so sympathetic—at least not without a fight.  Brittany Maynard committed suicide.  In any other more “traditional” context (e.g., she hung herself), that fact would be regrettable and would be lamented with a thousand tears and a thousand wails.  Now, her action is hailed by society as “courageous,” as if it is the only viable option for someone in her situation, but this, as we will see, is wrong.

There are many good arguments against euthanasia—practical, legal, philosophical, and scientific.  Humanlife is inviolable because of our inherent and immutable human dignity.  The current “right to die” movement will slowly but surely morph into the ugly “obligation to die” movement.  The widespread proliferation and societal acceptance of euthanasia will lead to the abuse of the weakest and most vulnerable in our societies.  Euthanasia promotes a conception of radically autonomous freedom heretofore unseen in entirety of the drama that we call human history—one where the will and desire of the individual is absolute and comes at the expense of the traditional notion of Man as an interdependent and indispensable part of a community of persons.  Laws like Oregon’s will act as teacher, making it more likely that people seek out euthanization—something that they might have been less likely to choose otherwise—as the law conditionssociety to be more accepting toward euthanasia.  And, finally, the act itself—necessarily utilizing medical professionals whose formal charge is to (at the very least) “do no harm”—will create a warped perception of what medicine is for: life and healing, not death.  While all of these are worthy and powerful arguments, there is one in particular upon which I would like us to focus.

The most important thing for us to do as Christians (and any other people of faith and of good will who abhor suicide) is to love these people.  These people do not want to die.  They want to be loved.  They want to not feel like burdens.  They want to be loved.  It is only when we enter into their suffering, mirroring Christ Himself who suffered for and with us, that the deathly pallor and utter despair that these people feel as they crawl toward death can be transfigured and so reflect the salvific nature of Christ’s Passion.  When we suffer with them, we participate in the divine economy of grace and mercy, mysteriously atoning in some invisible way (though in no way less real because of that) for the sins of Man.

A large majority of people (at least in Oregon) cite the “fear of being a burden” as the reason for their seeking euthanasia—not because of any unmanageable pain or existential crisis.  That should tell us something.  Love is the answer!  It is staring us right in the face, and we fail to see it.  Either that or we will not see it.  It is too pure and noble for our culture now, I fear.  As soon as something is inconvenient or makes demands of us, we run.  Marriages are delayed (in part) because they require sacrifice.  Abortions are had (in part) because babies are a burden, a hassle, a drag on resources and “free living.”  The societal ethos (typified currently by this euthanasia discussion) of avoiding suffering at all costs is poisonous and must be repudiated and beaten back.

It is time we step up to the plate and realize that Man is a social creature, made for community with his neighbor through and with God.  Man is made for love; indeed, it is his highest calling, given to him by Almighty God.  It is time we start showering the people in these terrible plights with all the love that we can possibly muster.

Love conquered the world once.  I am confident it will do so again.

After all, real people’s very lives depend on it.

Follow @DeionKathawa

*For evidence of the title’s claim, see The Advocate’s Pope Francis “Person of the Year” December 2013 issue.

(They really show once again that they have—at best—a superficial familiarity with Christianity.)

LGBT people and allies are consistently showing that they neither know, nor care to understand, the particulars of essential Christian doctrines, like, say, love (in this case), and sports writer for The Advocate, Annie Hollenbeck, is no exception, unfortunately.  I will probably never know the joy of mischaracterizing and misrepresenting the force and appeal of an opponent’s argument, but that is exactly what Ms. Hollenbeck does from as early as her second paragraph.  But you see, there’s the rub: many of these people—the Leftists, LGBT people and allies, atheists, secularists, humanists, non-theists—don’t think that we actually have any legitimate points on the issue of same-sex marriage (among other things, let’s not forget).

Hey, there I am!  (Not really: It's a joke.  Calm down.)

To them, we are the rough equivalent of white supremacists, neo-Nazis, segregationists, and the rest of their ilk (maybe even all rolled up into one nasty, sludgy pool of bigoted-ness?)—to be tolerated for now, but only because polite society hasn’t yet found the nerve to banish us from its presence like those other, now illegitimate, groups.

Ooh!  Ooooh!  Those are my friends!  Those were the days....
(Another joke.  Calm down.  Yeesh.)

If you don’t believe me, just read The Daily Signal’s recap and analysis of the Twitter exchange between Ryan T. Anderson (a research fellow at the Heritage Foundation and proponent of the conjugal, man-woman view of marriage) and Josh Barro (a writer for The New York Times and proponent of same-sex marriage).  Teaser: he wants us “stamped out.”

Anyway, to the article.  You can read it here.  I will take the title and sub-header to be Ms. Hollenbeck’s thesis of sorts.  It reads: “Hating the Sin Is Hating the Sinner: An executive for the Baltimore Ravens invokes the tired ‘hate the sin, love the sinner’ philosophy, but is that truly Christlike?”

Hmm, are the Ravens homophobic and deserving of our ire?

In a word, yes. Yes, it is in fact extremely Christlike.  In fact, it may just be the most Christlike thing about Christ (next to His being the Son of God, Savior of the world, and the Bread of Life, of course).  Allow me to explain.  You see, Christ came to separate sins from sinners.  That was essentially the whole point of His atoning sacrifice on the Cross.

In the Old Testament, to a certain extent, we saw people lumped together with their sins.  That was why there were prescriptions for stoning, banishments, ritual cleansing ceremonies, etc. for the Israelites, who, last I checked, were indeed sinners just like the rest of humanity, past and future.  The sin was bound up with the sinner, the actor, and there was just no way to separate the two—not yet anyway.

When Christ came, His sacrifice acted as a kind of “reverse epoxy” (as Peter Kreeft puts it): We could now repent, and be truly forgiven, as Christ covered our infinite debt to the Father.  He now pleads eternally before the Father, advocating on our behalf and displaying His wounds as a never-ending display of love and fidelity to us, thereby placating the Father’s just judgment.

So yes, Ms. Hollenbeck.  Loving the sinner but hating the sin is Christlike.  Sorry to rain on your parade.  Now, to the rest of the op-ed.

She is definitely correct when she writes, “you simply will find no instance where Jesus Christ looks a gay person in the eye and tells him that he is going to hell.”  Hell, I agree 110% with that statement (play on words most definitely intended).  But I am confused when she writes (not even one sentence earlier): “As a Christian, I am floored when I hear people like Swayne claiming that while they are taught to love and accept everyone, Jesus Christ teaches against homosexuality.”  Why is this hard to believe, exactly?

Christ elevated marriage to the level of sacrament: an indissoluble union recognized by God as binding on both parties involved for all time.  And Christ confirms the reality of the union as orthodox Christians now understand it when He says, “Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female’ … ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?”

It would seem that Ms. Hollenbeck is attempting to make a case from Jesus’ silence on the issue of same-sex marriage.  “Since Jesus never preached against homosexual unions,” her reasoning goes, “he must be in support of them, or at the very least, neutral toward them.”  Well, Jesus never spoke out against genocide or racism, but I am confident that Ms. Hollenbeck would say that Jesus would not support those particulars ills.  And one has to wonder if Ms. Hollenbeck has ever considered the reality that Jesus likely never spoke out against same-sex marriage because it was just so radical and unrealistic—both politically and morally—that it just never crossed His mind to explicitly condemn it—it was just understood implicitly as being out of the question.

A parallel example might look something like this: Jesus’ explicit condemnation of same-sex marriage would be like a cultural elite or politician today condemning traditional slavery in America.  No one is seriously advocating for it; if they are, they are not taken seriously; it is most definitely not being practiced; and it has no real chance of making a comeback (as far as I can tell, though I could be wrong).  Essentially, it is so far removed from reality that if, say, a 2016 presidential candidate called for us as a nation to never again own slaves (in the sense of pre-Civil War America), we would rightly ask if s/he needed his/her head checked.  I can see it now.  Aide: “Maybe some water and shade will do you good Mr./Ms. Candidate?  It is awfully warm out here,” as he dials for a psychiatrist.

The rest of the op-ed consists of thinly veiled attacks upon Christianity and intimations that faith and religion should just be private endeavors and/or something that you leave at the door of the church, synagogue, or mosque when you leave there at 10 am—“Swayne is more than entitled to his opinion, and he has the right to practice his faith as he sees fit.  However, considering the times, and particularly the state of affairs this season with Michael Sam in the NFL, this message isn’t as innocuous as Swayne and others may try to claim it is.”  Because, really, enlightened society is clearly not in your favor; how can you bear to be so in the minority and actually live out your faith considering “the times” (whatever the heck that means)?  That’s so passé!  So 12^th century!  Basically, you are entitled to your opinion and can live out your religious faith and convictions… except where it matters: in the public square.  Because, really, you’re making a scene and upsetting the children.

Next up, the conflation of homosexuality and homosexual acts: “Being gay isn’t something you do.  It’s something you are.”  Here, she seems to imply that being gay is one and the same as acting on those impulses, as if gays and lesbians must act upon them—that they have absolutely no say in the matter.  Not only does Ms. Hollenbeck imply that these people have no self-control, but she also makes a critical error: Christians do not oppose gays, never have, in fact.  What we are opposed to are homosexual acts, based upon natural law theory, a 2,500 year-old tradition of thought (ctrl/Command+F “2,500” for the tweet in question) and philosophy stretching all the way back to Sts. Augustine and Aquinas, running through such titans as Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, Locke, and Kant, and, recently, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.  Disagree with the theory or the thinkers’ employment of it if you so choose, but don’t insinuate that we don’t love gay people as a way to take the moral high ground, Ms. Hollenbeck.  Thank you, from Christians everywhere.

Ms. Hollenbeck ends her op-ed with a reference to St. Paul’s description of love and a sobering observation: “‘Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs.’  You may love the homosexuals, Mr. Swayne, but love with judgment isn’t love at all.”

The man himself, ready to boss it up.

Here’s the problem: I would assume that she is appealing specifically to the “does not dishonor others” bit of that passage in order to vindicate active homosexuals in their pursuit of marital and moral “equality”/liberation and simultaneously disparage Christians who make life so difficult for these people by telling them what they think about their future goals.  That’s all well and good, except that Christians do no such thing when they express the truth about human sexuality and its purpose, ordered toward married life.  Telling people the truth is part of loving them, Ms. Hollenbeck; lying to them to keep them comfortable while they do what is contrary to the moral order is not.

As for her final pronouncement, I would argue that love minus judgment is not only anti-love but that for love to be true, it necessitates that judgment be involved.  Judgment is simply discrimination (selection and preference, not hate) among ideas, actions, and persons.  If I love you, I will tell you when I believe that you are acting contrary to good sense and upright moral behavior.

Let me know what you guys think in the Comments section!  And share this post with your friends as well!

Follow @DeionKathawa

I know what you’re thinking: what the heck is he thinking?!  There is literally no way that an Iggy song can possibly relate to anything even remotely associated with religion.  Fist-pumping awesomeness?  Maybe.  But Catholicism and all of its ancient institutions and doctrines?  Fat chance.

The Iron Lady is not impressed with your lack of confidence.

Margaret Thatcher says: “Prepare to be proven wrong you nay-sayer, you.”

Now, to anyone who is not aware, here’s the 411 on Catholicism: it’s all about love.

Plain and simple.  All practices, beliefs, institutions, doctrines, etc. are motivated by love.  Catholics say that love is the greatest thing ever, and ya know what?  They would be right.

Nietzsche believed the greatest thing ever was the will to power,

While I think he was dead wrong on many things,
I must admit: his mustache is quite breathtaking.

Hindus and other eastern religions believe it is enlightenment and its accompanying cosmic connection with the one All,

The symbol of Hinduism.

Muslims believe that it is submission to the will of Allah (“Muslim” means “one who submits”).  Out of all of these, it is perhaps the Muslims who are the closest;

The symbol of Islam.

Catholics, however, refer to it as surrender to the Holy Spirit, Who calls us to a daily conversion of our hearts and minds to God.

The Holy Spirit, in all its dove-like badassery.
(Yes, that's a word....  Okay, not technically, but who cares?)

Anyone who claims that the Catholic Church is really just secretly (or not so secretly, depending on your particular suasion on the topic) all about oppression is simply wrong.  Human flourishing?  For sure.

Anyone who says that the Catholic Church is in the business of “turning back the clock” in a fit of all-encompassing reactionism is likewise wrong.  The Church holds fast to philosophically sound principles concerning the human person and Man’s inherent dignity.  It is our world, not the Church, which is confused because of its embrace of modernism, radical individualism, and its spurning of objective truth and moral soundness.

Anyone who claims that the Church needs to “get with the times” has it all backwards: the “times” (whatever that really means, I likely will never know) need to get with the Church, as Catholic blogging titan Marc Barnes so eloquently writes.

One need look no further than love for an explanation of anything Catholics believe.  Why did God become man in Christ Jesus?  “For God so loved the world…”

Why did He die on the Cross for us?

Out of love for us and out of a desire to save us from our brokenness and stubbornness and hardness of heart and addictions and jealousies and tempers and anything that separates us from Perfect Love Itself.

We can apply this same interiorly consistent logical framework to any number of issues.  Abortion unmakes the self-giving love of the couple; contraception frustrates the total and fully loving self-giving-ness of the act; pornography perverts the sexual act to one of base pleasure for all parties involved and turns the mystical, loving sex act into a mere commodity; gay “marriage” is a simple confusion in terms: it’s not about love at all—more on that in a later post, for sure—and euthanasia ends the life of a person whose suffering we cannot bear, not out of any kind of authentic love.  One can easily see now that love is the fabric from which the beautiful tapestry of all of the Church’s doctrine and rituals is woven.

Now, enter Iggy, and her hit “Black Widow.”  I would draw your attention to the first verse, specifically these parts I have reproduced for our analysis:

We went from nothing to something, liking to loving /
It was us against the world and now we just f****** / …

/ I wanted all or nothing for us ain’t no place in between / …

/ Like it’ll last forever but now forever ain’t as long

Iggy and her partner, separately, she has come to realize, were “nothing”—until they came together as a couple.  She has also seen that their relationship was “nothing” while it was in its nascent—beginning—stages.  She sees that there is much more in store for the two of them if the bond holds, as it should, she feels, implicit in the meaning of the term “relationship” itself.  (She seems to feel that the bond was made to last forever and feels cheated when it falls short of this “mystical standard”: “Like it’ll last forever but now forever ain’t as long”.)  In addition, their love is appropriately exclusive (“us against the world”) as well as properly ordered to the infinite, as evidenced by the most important line—the last one: (“I wanted all or nothing for us ain't no place in between”).  Iggy realizes that true love is as the traditional understanding has it: “to have and to hold, from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, until death do us part.”  

She realizes that this relationship that she is so serious about is an effective bridge burning to all of her past history with anyone else and any and all future encounters with anyone else.  That she should remain with this person forever, and that the only thing that will separate them is Death, but that, even then, her hope is that love will transcend death, is the defining ethos of her song, “Black Widow.”  This holds even as her hopes are dashed by the separation.  Just because she has fallen short of the standard does not mean that the ideal does not exist; it simply means that she—we—must try harder to reach it.

The second verse is appropriately intense and scary, for it reveals to us the full meaning of the phrase “Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.”

It is the natural human reaction when a good thing goes very, very bad.  Oftentimes, the bad things that happen to us and that we do ourselves (sin) are not truly bad: they are merely very good things and desires gone sour, perverted until they hurt (see pornography, contraception, etc.)

There are other themes for sure.  The feminists will read female empowerment out of the song—“I'm-a make you beg for it, plead for it”—spurned lovers will get their fill as well.  Throuple union supporters (“throuple”: marriage, but just with three people; how do you NOT know that?) will see all the failings of only having one person to explore and live with (what a drag), and open marriage supporters will see the frailties and *obvious* limitations of monogamy.

But not Iggy.  No, Iggy-Igg, like a good and faithful Catholic warrior, sees the foolishness of entering a union without total permanency, exclusivity, and a yearning for the ocean of the infinite, like a soldier without his weapons or an explorer without a map.  Only then will she be sated.

So, in light of all this, I ask anyone and everyone who reads this post: is THE Iggy Azalea Catholic?  Christian?  Searching?  And if she is not, in fact, a Catholic, I wholeheartedly invite her to become one!

Come on Iggy: try the zeal!

After all, in my estimation, she understands this love business better than most people I have met—Catholics included.

Follow @DeionKathawa

I just had to get this off of my chest.  It’s been nagging at me for a while now, and I thought I should get it out into the open so that there can be the start of a legitimate dialogue on the subject: it’s about how atheists engage in argumentation.  It has struck me that atheists often do not have very good, solid arguments that actually address the Catholic position: they simply play off shallow crowd sentiment and popular perception of religion, the “minimum standard” of empiricism, or a circumvention of actual points in favor of straw men.  This is not to say that Catholics and other Christians do not do similar things during debates at times, only that I always see popular atheists like Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins do this quite frequently.

Sam Harris

Professor Richard Dawkins

Shallow Crowd Sentiment and Popular Perception of Religion

You’ll notice in this clip of Sam Harris v. William Lane Craig that Harris simply makes emotional appeals in his attempt to “disprove” Christianity.  He says nothing of substance and only makes the standard non-believer’s appeal to mass suffering as evidence of God’s utter fakeness (didn’t’cha know?) as well as the supposed “impossibility” of transubstantiation, in the process dismissing Catholics as loons and morons.

He cares nothing for the explications of Augustine, and, more recently, of Dr. Peter Kreeft, on the so-called “problem of evil,” nor does he care for the rich exegesis of Scripture and long and rich theological tradition of the belief in transubstantiation.  Nope.  No sirree.  He is after the zinger.  The one line or two that’ll get the Internet fired up with irrational Catholic-bashing.  I suggest you watch the full debate.

Now, you will notice that Craig makes it known that Harris must meet certain benchmarks in order to make his case for atheism.  He must show that 1) Craig’s arguments are flawed—cast a negative pallor upon Christianity and Craig’s arguments—AND 2) put forward a positive argument FOR atheism.  Harris does neither.  He simply avoids Craig’s arguments and plays off of supposed “self-evident” truths about how stupid religious beliefs are.

Harris essentially latches on to something that appears “awful” or contradictory of God to do (“If you believe in the wrong god, you are doomed, in Dr. Craig’s universe.”) and then (metaphorically, of course) flaps his arms and exaggeratingly expresses his utter disbelief and disdain for the thing.  Imagine Harris, upon finding some doctrine or teaching or practice of Catholicism (like the Trinity or transubstantiation), yells really loudly in a drawn-out tone, “Hey guys [atheists, skeptics, agnostics, non-believers, et al]!  Look at how dumb this thing is!  I can’t believe any sane person actually believes in any of this mumbo jumbo. Haha!”

Harris, frantically flagging down his supporters so they can
all engage in a therapeutic religion bashing session together.

He allows his degrees and scientific background to speak for him, while playing off of a shallow and misinformed crowd hankering for its next superstitious idea to lambaste.  There’s only one problem, Harris: Catholicism is not a superstition or a myth: it is TRUE, and until you actually demonstrate otherwise, just cut the shenanigans.

Science Alone!

Another tactic atheists use nowadays is to demand that all knowledge must pass muster with *drum roll please!* the scientific method.

Here’s the problem with this worldview: atheists say that something must be proven via the scientific method for them to accept that that something is true.  There are two problems with this view:

1) The statement and standard, “I will only believe what science tells me is true” cannot itself be validated by science or by the scientific method.  Said another way, the statement, “The only true things are those which can be proven by science” can in no way be validated by precisely the only thing (supposedly) that can be trusted to give us accurate information: science.  How can atheists rely solely on science to lead them to truths if the only thing that can lead them to said truths cannot even tell them that it itself is indeed the only thing that can do so?  Methinks there’s a problem there….

2) The worldview is also circular in validation.  Atheists only accept scientific findings as true; therefore, anything outside of science is false.  This is obviously circular logic: I will only accept what science can prove as true, and science cannot prove anything outside of science; therefore, all things outside science are false.  Their worldview leaves no room for anything outside of science, but it was chosen essentially arbitrarily so as to rid themselves of the pesky reality of the supernatural.  Plain and simple: science can NEVER disprove God because He is, by definition, SUPERnatural: science can only deal with that-which-can-be-found-and-experimented-upon-in-the-natural-realm.

Furthermore, just because God cannot be tested for scientifically does not mean that He is not real.  That’s like using a ruler to measure the temperature of a pot of boiling water and then claiming with certainty that trees can swim because the ruler isn’t giving you a darned temperature reading.

That darn pot....

There are many things that science simply cannot speak to, or if it can, we don’t employ it for that purpose in practical matters.  For example, science cannot adequately explain, beyond the hormones and chemicals involved, love and beauty.  Why the two have almost transcendent elements intrinsic to them is beyond the scope of science.  Additionally, let’s assume science could speak to love.  Even if it could, what good is it, really?  Ask yourself: does Dawkins really go home every night, and before even speaking to or kissing his wife, perform the requisite scientific test to determine if she still loves him?  Of course not!  The bottom line is that this sole reliance on empiricism is a self-fulfilling prophecy: science will never find God.  I only trust science.  Therefore, God is not real.  Juvenile reasoning at best.

Avoiding the Actual Topic at Hand

Finally, a last favorite tactic of atheists is the simple circumvention of an actual point in favor of a foray into foggy emotionalism or simple wrong-headedness.  Some examples are in order.

First, we have the Kalām Cosmological Argument, popularized by Dr. Craig, which proceeds thusly:

Premise-1: Nothing can begin to exist without a cause.

Premsise-2: The universe began to exist (some 13.75 billion years ago).

Premise-3: Therefore, the cause of the universe would have to be something transcendent and extraordinarily—infinitely—powerful.  This being is classically referred to as God.

This argument relies on the “hidden” premise of the definition of God, or at least of one of His attributes.  God, as He has always been classically understood by Catholics, is He Who Must Exist, He Who Is Being Itself, He Who Cannot Not Exist, Ipsum Esse.

So, what do atheists love to do in the face of this argument?  Simply ask the wrong-headed question: “Well, then who or what created God?”  The problem here is that atheists fundamentally misunderstand WHAT God is.  They view Him as just another trumped up being or a really, really, really, powerful creature.  This is simply not the case.

To ask, “What created God?” is as misguided and ignorant as asking, “Why can’t we have a five-sided triangle—in Euclidian geometry—with more or less than 180°?”  You can see why this is a nonsensical question: bound up in the definition, in the reality of a Euclidian triangle itself, is that it has exactly 180° and is three-sided: no more, no less.

If it were to have five sides, it would be a pentagon, not a triangle; if it were to have more or less than 180°, then it would lose one of its essential properties.  The same logic applies to God.  God must exist; it is His nature as much as it is the triangle’s “nature” to be three-sided and contain precisely 180°.

(Nota bene: this last line of reasoning also does not even speak to the impossibility of an infinite regress, a necessary fixture of metaphysics if God is removed from the picture.)

Dawkins has said:

“If you believe this is the only life you're going to get, it’s a precious life.  We should live to the full.  Where if you believe in another life, you don’t live this life to the full because you think you’re going to get another one.  That’s an awfully negative way to live a life.”

Here’s the problem: what Dawkins mistakenly believes (either willfully or out of ignorance, the world may never know) is that the afterlife is simply more of an Earthly existence, or perhaps that it is some kind of “cosmic do-over.”  He is fundamentally wrong on this point.  The afterlife is a quantum leap, so to speak, in degree of difference from Earth and this mortal life.

Jacob's Ladder

You can see all the ways Dawkins goes wrong in his assessment of the afterlife in this post regarding the nature of Heaven.  He simply avoids the necessary background study in Catholic theology and then makes bold, sweeping conclusions about the faith.  I suggest he study more of that which he is attempting to discredit and/or mock before he actually attempts to discredit and/or mock the thing.

So those were just some of the annoying bits of the ways atheists argue concerning God and religion.  Let me know what you guys think in the Comments section!  Did I miss anything?  Was I spot-on or nah?

Follow @DeionKathawa

If I could but etch in stone one of the most prominent, yet unspoken,
mores of our age, this would be it.

I’m always on the lookout for new and provocative content to read.  I like to keep abreast of the vast number of moral and social issues that emerge in our world.  This incredibly interesting article that I stumbled upon recently had an interesting biological perspective on pregnancy, an interesting look into sociological factors contributing to society’s changing mores regarding pregnancy, and interesting and important moral components as well: all components integral to the functioning of our world at large as well as for my enjoyment of a piece.

The article talks about how women are attempting to “beat biology”—their biological clocks in regard to their fertility—by freezing their eggs so that they can become mothers later in life: an interesting concept for sure and one with many dimensions.  The first that springs to my mind is the moral dimension and the practice’s obvious flaw: it is deeply offensive to and beneath human dignity.

The eggs will need to be thawed out, and the impregnation process will require in vitro fertilization, a practice the Church condemns.  The action is contrary to natural law, for it separates the gift of husband and wife, sex, from the natural fruit of the act, a child.  A child is created, yes, though not in an intimate exchange of total, self-giving love, but in an economic transaction.

It prompted thought about our world’s perception of pregnancy, motherhood, and family.  That women feel the need to advance their careers at the expense of a fulfilling family life because of a so-called “pressure” is shameful.  The feminism of yore and in our own day has degraded the mystical quality of femininity and swapped it out for a cheap view of woman as an organism that must choose between society and family—children or success in the workplace.  Oftentimes, however, the choice is framed so negatively against domestic life and motherhood that these incredibly fulfilling options are shunned outright, though perhaps chosen begrudgingly—as a mere after-thought—if they are ever chosen at all, that is.

Perhaps one of the greatest joys of this life.

It is indeed a testament to the branding power of this movement—as well as the incredible fumble by Catholic leadership for the last several decades—that this procedure is quickly gaining credibility.

I will not be discussing the moral, social, or political factors as they relate to this procedure; rather, I would like to make a simple connection between the growing legitimacy of this procedure and our everyday lives—what this procedure says about us as a society and as people, more simply.

Fact of the matter?  We are paralyzed by indecision.  Our modern world offers so many enticements and pleasures and distractions and whatnot that, in the pursuit of “keeping our options open,” we never actually make a single meaningful decision.  We are not decisive.  We are wishy-washy and weak.  Don’t get me wrong: I’m all for keeping my options open as much as the next guy.  What I am not for, however, is a society that so praises and enshrines and validates keeping our options open—of living in a potential state, rather than in a determined and convicted state—an actual state—that we never actually shape our lives and destinies.  We live in a dimly real present, saturated with visions of future pleasures and advancements and improvements.  We live passively, and, in waiting for, as the first article says, “Mr. Right” to come along, we lose our nerve, our grit, or whatever you want to call it, to actually do something meaningful.

I keep hearing that he may fit the bill, but I don't know to be honest.

We freeze our eggs, waiting for the “perfect moment” in which to take the plunge of motherhood, fatherhood, parenthood. We live in extended adolescences, never truly rising to the occasion of our destiny to be providers and nurturers—adults. We cohabitate, a fanciful euphemism for “extended dating,” never biting the bullet (so to speak) of finally admitting that this person is “the one.” We contracept away our most fruitful child-bearing years, in favor of frivolous, and, ultimately, unfulfilling sex. We abort away our futures willy-nilly because we cannot face the fact that our actions (sex) have consequences (babies and diapers and formula).

As Pope Francis said to a crowd of millions of young people while in Rio de Janeiro for the World Youth Day 2013: “I am asking you to rebel against this culture that sees everything as temporary and that ultimately believes that you are incapable of responsibility (emphasis mine).”

Now, what does authentic Catholic Christianity have to do with this shameful paralysis of our culture, of our world?  A paralysis so gripping it threatens to destroy everything it touches? It means living with conviction! With purpose, with drive, with that mystical something that changes potentiality to actuality, inaction to action, fear of acting and messing up to courage in the face of doubts about the outcome of our actions. In essence, indecision and the endless trope of “keeping our options open” and “waiting for something better to come along” are incompatible with an authentic Catholic life.

Look to the Apostles, the early Church Fathers, the martyrs, the saints, our recent popes: all are men and women of conviction, of resolve, of determination, of grit, of action!  They see the will of God, and they do it.  Sure they are afraid, or feel that they are unworthy, and yes, even they hesitated, but they ultimately acted, and when they acted, they acted decisively.  They saw the goal, and when they had brought themselves to act, it was with purpose, with a single-minded dogmatism that is one of the most glorious attributes of a true Catholic.  The ability to pursue any number of tasks, all for a single end—the further glorification of God Almighty—is a characteristic of the greatest men and women of the Church.

But no: our culture praises the floater, the one who can do all things at all times because he has never chosen anything to the exclusion of anything else.  He has never started to truly live!  We are creatures of potential.  We are always moving from one state to another.  We are either advancing or falling back, improving or devolving—this is our nature.  As such, choices must be made, otherwise, we do not truly live and reach our goal.  And what is our goal, ultimately?  To reach God!  To come to the Beatific Vision in fulfillment of all of our desires.  We are to be partakers in the divine nature, to return home to our Father and His Son, Christ Jesus.

Trust me; this picture doesn't do Heaven justice at all.

So get out there people! Live with fire! Run reckless through life and make decisions as if your eternal futures depended on it—because they do! Because as St. Augustine said “Love God and do whatever you please: for the soul trained in love to God will do nothing to offend the One who is Beloved,” and as Christ says in Revelation 3:16, “So, because you are lukewarm, neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth.”

A wispy, weak, and undisciplined will is our worst enemy.

tl;dr Carpe Diem!

Follow @DeionKathawa