We all know that person. They are not a part of organized religion because it’s too “oppressive.”  It controls people, hoards money, and judges those who are different.  This view of being spiritual but not religious can take many forms.  I believe that many adopt it out of a desire for flexibility, as a way to affirm their own innate sense of being more than simply material beings, but I believe that even more take up the practice out of a desire to “not judge” or “infringe upon someone else’s truth.”  If done correctly, it leads to foolishness such as claiming to hate religion, but love Jesus.  I will freely admit that the blame for the “spiritual but not religious” craze probably falls most squarely upon the members of the Catholic Church.  Fact of the matter is that we Catholics have not done a good enough job connecting with people and spreading the One Truth.  I plan to fix this, one blog post at a time.

Witness the Eastern spiritualite who adheres to the spiritual principles of reincarnation, karma, and meditation.  That each man is his own and on his own journey, yet somehow ethereally connected to all other men within some sort of transcendent “All.”

  

Or the more Westernized version of the same sort of idea: renegading “free thinkers” who feel that organized religion is either uncool or just so Dark Ages that they can’t be bothered with it.  But when pressed as to why they practice yoga?  (“No way brah!  Yoga is so chill.  (As they ignore the fact that yoga predates Christianity.))  The meaning and purpose of their lives are what they make of them, not what some stodgy old cleric who’s probably never even had sex or smoked pot before says they are.  They decide their own spiritual path, damnit!  Then, we have the better, but still grimace-inducing quasi-Protestant, who feels that it’s all about his “personal relationship with Jesus.”  Everything else he does is extra—it’s that really personal, lovey-dovey “happy-happy times” feeling he gets when he thinks about Jesus that really matters.  That’s what counts, not some ancient tradition, or rituals, or anything like church attendance—Heaven forbid!

The unifying, undergirding maxim of all three of these “spiritual but not religious” folks’ respective iterations (and I am sure that there are many, many more) is quite nicely summed up with a reference to pop culture.  Will Ferrell, playing candidate Cam Brady in The Campaign, in response to the question, “Is it true that you have not been to church in over nine months?” had this to say: “My relationship to God is not measured by taking attendance.”

I’d like to press the point a bit, if I may: is what Ferrell is saying here really true?  I know it sounds really good and appealing.  God is everywhere!  God loves and accepts all people!  Religion divides and controls people!  Boo religion!  It’s icky and the leaders just want to hoard as much money as possible and rape altar boys and yada-yada-yada.  We’ve heard it all before.  And guess what guys?  I am quick to agree with him on this one!  (Shocker?  Maybe; depends on how well you know me, I guess.)  My relationship with God is certainly not measured by how often I attend church….  Except when it is.  Said another way: if I have a true relationship with God, then I will be at church, as paradoxical as that sounds.

Allow me to explain.  All this “spiritual but not religious” jargon is akin to a man who, when asked if he loves his mother, says, “Of course I love my mother: I think about her all the time.”  When asked how often he calls her, he replies, “You know, I would say that it’s usually when I have nothing better to do.”  When asked how often he visits her, he replies, “Well, maybe on Christmas, but that’s about it; she knows I love her, though.”

We would all cringe at these answers, would we not?  It is almost instinctive that we reject this person’s responses about his actions concerning his love for his mother.  Why is this so?  It is because, like it or not, ideas have consequences, and this man is not showing, by his actions, that he loves his mother as much as his lip-service is claiming he does.  It is a very simple concept.  My ideas about the world, the things in it, the people I am involved with, all have consequences.  If I believe that there are such things as shoe-upside-down hobgoblins who will steal my shoes in the dead of night if I leave them upside down, and I want to keep my shoes, well, I am going to make damn well sure that my shoes stay right-side-up, right?  If I believe that trees can talk, and I want to talk to trees, well, I am going to spend my time trying to communicate with trees, right?  And if I believe that my friend is mad at me, and I care to have a good relationship with my friend, then I am going to try to figure out how best to make amends with my friend, right?

In the same way, if I believe that there is a God, and I wish to have a connection with Him/have a relationship with Him/be in communion with Him, then I will strive to do that-which-will-permit-me-to-do-this-best, right?  It is true that He is omnipresent—He is everywhere.  I get that when you tip your waitress a little extra, or volunteer at a homeless shelter, or even when you just meditate or pray in your room, that He is present.  This is not news, people.  But, from a Catholic perspective, there is a radical difference between being at Mass and being anywhere else, because, at Mass, God makes Himself present to us in a unique and special way.

Let’s run through it really fast.  Let’s just say that there was an institution that purported to have been founded by God’s Son.  Let’s just say it also purported to have never fallen into true error in an official capacity (nor will it ever).  Let’s just say it’s been around for, oh, just about 2,000 years now (ahem, oldest institution on the face of the earth *cough* and still chuggin’ along, I might add *cough*).  Let’s just say it also kick-started the Scientific Revolution.  Let’s also add in the fact that this institution claims that you can (and should!) eat the flesh of the ever-living God-man, Christ, and drink His most Precious Blood EVERY. DAMN. DAY!  (If you so choose, of course.)  And this institution cares so much about this practice that it actually requires its faithful to come every Sunday to partake in the meal (provided they are properly disposed, of course).  Now, I’m not saying that those who are “spiritual but not religious” can’t connect in some meaningful sense with God, or be saved, etc. etc., but if there were an institution that claimed all this, wouldn’t you be in the least bit curious about it?  Wouldn’t you at least seriously investigate it?  And at most, be a part of it wholeheartedly?

In case you haven’t figured out that the Catholic Church was the glorious subject of that last paragraph, I will make it painfully obvious: yes, I was referring to the Catholic Church.  And let me just add that going to Mass is not some requirement to be checked off of our proverbial cosmic to-do lists on our way to salvation (or at least it shouldn’t be).  Mass is a fundamentally relational activity.  A man is more in a relationship with God at Mass than he is anywhere else, doing anything else.  In fact, he is as in communion with God at Mass as he ever can be here on Earth, this side of death.

So the next time you run across that “spiritual but not religious” person, ask them if they take pleasure in depriving themselves of the activity that most fully places them in communion with that which they claim to be seeking—God.  Ask them if they regularly settle.  Because that’s what “I’m spiritual but not religious” means: “I’m settling.”  It means, “I know of this other activity which can satisfy my desire for God better, but I won’t partake in it, just because, well, because rules (or fill in your particular pet peeve here).”  Sounds pretty nonsensical to me.  How about for you guys?

Follow @DeionKathawa

One of the most fundamental complaints of non-believers is the supposed contradictions between the Old Testament and the New Testament.  It is a commonly espoused view of the uninitiated that the Old Testament represents Yahweh’s cruelty, unshackled justice, and so forth, whereas the New Testament introduces to us Jesus, God’s mercy, love, turning the other cheek, thou shalt not judge, and so forth, until we have what seems to be two completely different religions and faith traditions.  It may be legitimately asked: is God bi-polar?  What is the nature of the madness that presents itself to us in the Bible?  On the face of things, it appears plausible; however, this assessment is wrong: the Old and New Testaments are simply two sides of the same coin, and they contradict each other inasmuch as a mother and father’s different parenting styles contradicts their love for their children.

I would like to target the issue of homosexuality in this post, as well as direct it toward your average Reddit-using atheist/agnostic—may God bless them all the days of their lives—whose posts concerning this issue often run along these lines: “Leviticus also says ‘no haircuts,’ but I guess we’re skipping that one!?”  These posts are directed toward Christians—Catholics in particular—who oppose gay “marriage,” marriage equality, as it is so charmingly referred to now.  These cynics list a number of supposed offenses that Christians breach, Leviticus being their favorite whipping boy.  They claim that we arbitrarily pick and choose which rules and commands we would like to follow; therefore, the accusations go, we Christians maliciously choose to quote Leviticus 18:22—“You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination” (in my opinion, a pretty clear ban on homosexual relations as far as bans on homosexual relations are concerned)—whilst ignoring some 60+ other bans, ranging from getting a tattoo to even touching a sea animal without fins or scales.  (The full list is here if you care to see just how badly we are all breaking the rules.)

Now, as much as these hecklers would love to hear me sputter and say what your typical Christian would: “Well, the Old Testament doesn’t count anymore because of Jesus!”—(whatever that actually means is beyond me)—I will (sadly?) do no such thing.  The simple fact of the matter is that I need not backpedal in the face of these “Free Thinkers’” onslaughts, for there exists no contradiction between the two testaments of the Bible: they are in perfect unity with one another and with God.  Two reasons: first, the proper context—ah, that wrench that gets thrown into just about every argument!  Curse it till the sun shineth no more!—must be had in order to accurately understand both testaments in conjunction with one another; and second, Catholicism does not encounter the same problem with reconciling the Old and New Testaments as the numerous non-Catholic Christian faiths of the world do.

Now, the Old Testament can be clearly placed during a certain time period in recorded history.  No need to dig too deeply into the details, but, suffice to say, it is set several thousand years ago in humanity’s history.  The Old Testament essentially chronicles God’s plan of salvation for the Israelites.  He promises a vast number of descendants to Abraham, leads the Israelites out of Egypt, guides them in the desert, sends numerous prophets to them to lead them back to Him when they stray, and so forth.  The Old Testament is a kind of record of the Jewish people’s exploits during a specific period of time.  God wishes to make the Israelites His own special people, a nation set apart from all the godless heathens in the land of Canaan.

This is the backdrop against which the various laws of the Old Testament can be properly understood.  Why weren’t the Israelites allowed to cut the hair on the sides of their heads or trim their beards?  Because God wished to set them apart from the nations in the land which He was to give to them!  They were to be special.  All the odd rules?  Well, they would have indeed been quite odd, and that was the whole point!  God wanted a people for His own: “For you are a people holy to the LORD your God; the LORD your God has chosen you to be a people for his own possession, out of all the peoples that are on the face of the earth” (Deut. 7:6).

Now the New Testament, at first glance, appears to cast off these seemingly small-minded and arbitrary rules.  Those who oppose Christianity love to quote Jesus’ words on “not judging” and “turning the other cheek,” yet ignore the painfully inconvenient fact that these admonitions by Christ do not in any way behoove Christians to simply lie down on the proverbial train tracks of sin and allow a “train of a particular sin” (in this case, homosexual “marriage”) to destroy them.  Sorry world! The Church will forever be a “sign of contradiction” because Christ, the True Contradiction of the world (Luke 2:34), personally established it and promised that it would remain so until the end of time (Matt.16:18).

And like I said, the New Testament actually does no such thing.  What Christ accomplished, by the merits of His birth, life, death, Resurrection, and Ascension (The Paschal Mystery) was a “de-exclusification” of the Old Covenant between God and the Israelites.  He has invited all peoples to celebrate in the joy and promise of His victory over sin and death because His Cross has sufficiently and perfectly atoned for all the sins of humanity—past and future—in order to reconcile the entire world to Himself: hence, a New Covenant that includes all peoples.

Now a word about Yahweh’s harshness and apparent cruelty is in order. On the face of things, it appears cruel, those things that God commands the Israelites to do to other nations in the land (like slaughtering everything, in this case).

But it is entirely in line with His will that they be a special nation, one for Him alone, He Who is Holiness Itself.  He understood how alluring the sins of the heathens were: orgies, idolatry, soothsaying, etc.  He had to be strict with them, lest they stray from the path of what was good, true, righteous, and holy.  In terms of the rules that they had to follow internal to their nation (e.g. bans on homosexual activity): it is evident that, whatever God commanded them to do, or not to do, in pursuit of having a special people for His own possession obviously worked.  They kept the moral law, but even then not always perfectly.

Our own experiences in today’s day and age will hint at why God had to be so strict and uncompromising in His justice with the Israelites: do we keep the moral law?  It is very difficult to do, is it not?  Doesn’t having a strong, driving force to do good help us all to seek and do the good?  Think about it: how many times growing up were we admonished by our parents not to “hang out with the wrong crowd”?  The idea being that hanging out with bad people makes us more likely to engage in bad behavior, while hanging around good people tends to promote the opposite.  That was the purpose of all the rules and their corresponding consequences in the Israelites’ case: deterrence from sin (and just punishment for said sin).

Now, Catholics are in a unique position in this discussion.  Other Christian groups are forced to accept the Bible alone as their teaching authority (a practice called sola scriptura), as they have forsaken the pope, the Vicar of Christ, the Rock of the One True Church.  It is then difficult for these sects to consistently justify why they are not abstaining from cross-breeding animals and stoning adulterers to this very day (putting aside for the moment the glaring flaws in the doctrine itself).  The Catholic Church, on the other hand, bases Her teaching on three distinct, though interrelated and complementary, branches: Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Magisterium.  The Magisterium (the teaching authority of the Roman Catholic Church) interprets—authoritatively—the meaning and proper adherence to all of Sacred Scripture, and Sacred Tradition—since the very beginning of the Church’s life—has consistently backed up this position.  Protestant denominations must fumble and stumble and blubber as to why they follow this verse and not that one and why another denomination (one of 40,000, mind you!) does it differently.  The Catholic Church is the only Christian church to never contradict itself and to never have fallen into error.  What She teaches now had been believed and espoused by the Apostles, the Early Church Fathers, Doctors of the Church, and every single pope since the first, St. Peter.

As such, it is right and just that the moral law within the Old Testament (thinking broadly, though certainly not exhaustively, of the Ten Commandments) is still followed but dietary restrictions and customs are not.  It is quite simple: the moral law set forth in the Old Testament is binding (and yes, this includes bans on homosexual relations, which is certainly a moral issue) because it is eternal and objectively true; hence, it is to be followed by all peoples, regardless of time or place.  The dietary restrictions and customs, on the other hand, were confined to a certain nation and time period: the Israelites.  They are better thought of as “culturally conditioned” (for all you anthropologists and anthropology majors out there), as they were specific to the Israelites and, as such, need not be followed by Christians today.

Kinda makes you wonder which other genius Reddit posts are actually not-so-right after all, huh?

Follow @DeionKathawa

The homosexual lobby, in response to Christian’s labeling homosexual acts and unions (so-called “marriages”) as unnatural, often fires back with their own claim that the Catholic tradition and discipline of a celibate priesthood is just as “unnatural”—if not more so.  Man, they claim, has sexual organs, and it is Man’s right, his duty, to use them to fulfill their obvious purpose: sex.  It is “unnatural,” in light of this readily present fact, for him to forgo sexual pleasure and fulfillment, these same people say.  It is especially unnatural, they further claim, for males to do this.  Because men are, after all, no more than insatiably red-blooded beasts when confronted with the slightest sexual provocation.  They almost never use their heads (the one perched atop their necks) and prefer to listen to the one between their legs (or at least, the popular media likes to portray them in this way).  I think that this is a disingenuous claim by the homosexual lobby.  The claim devalues the institution of the priesthood, males, and Man himself, all in the name of sodomy legitimization.  Not a very good trade-off in my opinion.

Now, I believe that it is both legitimate and sensible to stake the claim that Man is a composite of the natural and the supernatural.  There is no need to appeal to religious texts, clerics, or divine revelation to see this.  Now, for those who reject this assessment of the anthropology of Man, allow me to offer a few examples that will demonstrate strongly, though not prove outright, this reality.

Man creates music.  There is no animal on this earth that could create the glory of Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven’s symphonies.  Their music is beautiful in every sense of the word and seems to transcend this world and lift us up to something more.

Man creates art.  The beauty of the masterpieces of Michelangelo, Raphael, Donatello, da Vinci, Picasso, van Gogh, and many others is utterly astounding: show me an animal that can come even remotely close to producing anything so awe-inspiring and stir in us such powerful emotions!

Man can reason.  I have yet to encounter an animal which could deduce the laws of mathematics or logic.  Could a mere animal look up into the night sky in all its beauty and even wish to understand it, let alone devise an entirely new branch of mathematics to do so?  (Sir Isaac Newton invented calculus to do just that… then he turned 23.)

Man has a powerful intellect.  This intellect is similar in kind, though not in degree, to certain animals in the world.  Show me a single species of animal which can create an airplane, set-up a modern civilization, economy, or land on the moon: let alone all of these—and much, much more!

Lastly, and most importantly, Man can will.  Man can choose to love or to hate.  A man may remain in his anger, his addictions, his optimism, simply because he wills it.  He can choose to do that-which-is-detrimental-to-himself.  He can choose to starve himself, forgo meat, go without sleep, hold his breath indefinitely, or hop on one leg in the middle of a grocery store simply because, well, “why not?”

Another example is in order: no animal chooses to rock climb simply because it relishes a challenge.  With animals, as evolutionary biology tells us, there is always a concrete and immediate purpose in performing an action.  Animals go out to hunt because they want food; they compete for mates in order to reproduce; they sleep because they are tired.  No animal abstracts a meaning onto its hunting trip.  The purpose is food, plain and simple.  The over-arching purpose to which all of these actions lead is for one purpose and one purpose alone: the transmission of advantageous traits based in an organism’s genetic code.  Man, on the other hand, can choose to climb that same mound for no other reason than because the climb in and of itself is valuable to him.  The climb—during which he might die or become grievously injured—is its own reward!

It cannot then be argued that since animals can do these things to some extent, Man is suddenly not special.  Nonsense!  Of course animals can do some of the things that Man does to a lesser degree: I never claimed that Man was a completely supernatural creature; I said that he was a unique fusion of the natural and supernatural, the material and immaterial.  We too must eat, sleep, exercise, and keep hydrated.  Man is a part of the natural world.  It would be exceedingly odd, given this obvious scientific fact, if Man did not share certain qualities and characteristics with animals. But that’s the point: Man merely shares a portion and degree of these qualities with the animal kingdom.  His dominion over the animals in his possession of these qualities is not a simple 10x10 increase; it is more akin to a quantum leap: a 10¹⁰ increase in ability is more accurate.

In light of this assessment, I think it reasonable to state two things.  One, that Man is indeed a fusion of body and soul in psychosomatic (soul-body) union.  And two, that a Catholic priest is well within his rights to forgo sexual pleasure for a deeper union with and conformity to Christ, the first High Priest: He who was both priest and sacrifice upon the Cross.  The Catholic priest forsakes a wife and natural fatherhood for the privilege of wedding the Bride of Christ, the Church, and of being a spiritual father.  He has no earthly children to care for and devote his energies to so as to more readily nurture the spiritual children entrusted to him and to spend his days building up the Kingdom of God.

I think that it is quite safe to say that the homosexual lobby’s vicious assaults on the “perverse” nature of a celibate priesthood are unfounded and should not be heeded in light of this complete (though brief) anthropology of Man as a combination of spirit and matter.

And thank God for that.

Follow @DeionKathawa

You guys all know what I’m talking about right? You’re maybe watching the news when it cuts to commercial. Then, an overhead sweep-in camera pans onto an immaculately made bed, with perhaps a gorgeous woman lying upon it—apparently asleep—as rather soothing and contemplative music plays softly in the background. Then, an authoritatively powerful and masculine voice sounds from off camera right: “Get the rest you deserve. You deserve a Sleep Number® bed.” Now, because I am a rather eccentric person in some regards (I mean, I am writing this blog after all), I tend to notice things about commercials (or at least with this one) that many others do not. I have discerned a connection between this commercial and Man’s sinful state. “Impossible!” you say. “You must be really reaching now, Deion; you don’t honestly expect us to believe that a bed commercial gave you some kind of special insight into the fundamental nature of Man-as-sinner, now do you?” Ah, but this is precisely what I mean. Don’t believe me? Read on and see for yourself: “and do not be unbelieving, but believe” (John 20:27).

(Yeah, yeah, I know that verse is taken from the story of Thomas and the Resurrected Christ, when Thomas expressed his doubt to the other disciples that Jesus had indeed risen. You’re probably wondering why I shamelessly made use of such an important line from Sacred Scripture for seemingly no other discernible reason than because I have a penchant for trivialization… and perhaps a smidgen of pride—and a dash of folly. Well, so am I; so just go with it!)

Anyway, back to how the bed commercial relates to Man-as-sinner. It is no secret that, in the Gospels, Christ demands of us true repentance. He wants us to be moved to take on a new life, complete with new habits and thoughts and desires. He is never more plainspoken in this regard than when He says to the crowd, “‘If anyone wishes to come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me’” (Luke 9:23). Christ demands that we die to ourselves each and every day and follow Him in love and obedience. He demands that we lessen—our wills, prejudices, meanness, bitterness, and on-and-on—so that He can increase in us. St. John the Baptist said this far before I write it now, and much more plainly and clearly: “He must increase; I must decrease” (John 3:30).

Now, in contrast, what do these commercials tell us we need to do? They promise a “perfect night’s sleep,” “the best sleep you’ve ever had,” and (my personal favorite) “when you wake up and your back doesn’t hurt at all: wow!” (Note: what I say in the rest of this post has nothing to do, and is no way targeted at, those who actually have back problems, and may you all experience God’s tender healing and mercy.) I just really cannot stand that last quote! The commercial is literally indicative of the state of our entire society! We shirk hardship, reject pain and suffering, and seek only the easiest and shortest way to complete any given task (when we can even muster up the will to get off of our computers and phones and actually start said task!) Our sex is guiltless, string-less, loveless, childless; our elderly are “put down” in their frailty and infirmity—their utter vulnerability—not to lessen their suffering, but to lessen our having to be a part of that same suffering; and our children are made, not conceived in an act of total self-giving love, but in cold, economically viable business transactions among three consenting adults and a lab. Let’s just face it and own up to it: we are “all-in” on the business of minimizing suffering. Suffering is seen as a mark of failure, of shame, and it is to be avoided at all costs.

And guess what? I would be inclined to agree with that sentiment, if not for one small problem: Jesus. As tempting as it is to listen and give myself over to the message of a cleverly crafted, 21st century commercial advertising a product designed to make my life more leisurely, made by a corporation whose primary concern is their bottom-line, I cannot—in spite of myself (imagine that!)—seem to shake Christ’s words from my mind. I think (and I could very well be wrong here; you guys be the judge) that the Son of God ought to be heeded well before a mattress company is!

“The Sleep Number® conforms to you.” –some guy named Greg (probably). Again, the height of folly in our modern society, embodied in a freakin’ two-minute commercial! Gone—it seems—are the days where we conformed to others, when we genuinely cared for and worried about our friends and neighbors, when we would put such high-minded things as morals and the common good before the ravenous desire for comfort by our bodies. This commercial makes truly evident to me just how far our society has fallen from the ideal that is the Kingdom of God. There is no such thing as a self-centered existence that also aligns with God! For Christ Himself said:

“Amen, amen, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains just a grain of wheat; but if it dies, it produces much fruit. Whoever loves his life loses it, and whoever hates his life in this world will preserve it for eternal life.” (John 12:24-25)

Christ is saying, somewhat paradoxically (and the Church absolutely eats this stuff up: true God and true man, Virgin Mother, death brings everlasting life, etc. etc.), that unless we live outside of ourselves—lives rooted in His eternal kingship, lives of love and obedience—we will die. We will remain grains of wheat, never to realize our true destinies as divinized (made more similar to God) sons and daughters of God.

None of us are long for this world, and it would pay dearly for us to remember that. Earth is not our true home: we were created for something far more wonderful and awe-inspiring. We must shake the fog from our eyes and tear away the glamorously gilded veneer of the modern world that so audaciously promises us heaven-on-earth. It is an effort doomed to perpetual failure, my friends. Heaven is where God is, and it is achieved only by conforming ourselves to God’s only begotten Son, Christ Jesus, “the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation… the beginning, the firstborn from the dead” (Colossians 1:15, 18b), and principally by God’s grace, for we can do nothing apart from it.

(I would also like to add a small note about my choice of company with whose commercial’s I have chosen to malign in this post. Really, any mattress company would have been acceptable. I know it seems like I have an ax to grind with Sleep Number®. I really and truly do not: they were simply the first corporation (that also sold mattresses) that popped into my head.  And for all you company execs, employees, sympathizers: take this as a mark of the effectiveness of your marketing teams, give them a raise, and, for the love of all that is good and holy, don't sue me!  It could just have easily have been TempurPedic®, after all.)

Follow @DeionKathawa

Much has been written on the subjects of faith, reason, and faith and reason. It is often said faith is contrary to reason, that they are at odds, that faith is blind, but it is reason that helps us to see. This is often the approach taken by many secularists and atheists. The main thrust of their message is that reason is better than faith, and that faith is useless—that it is an instrument of the stupid and the blind. Then, there are those on the other side, the fideists, who believe that faith in God is so vastly better than fallible human reason that reason is discarded almost entirely as a means to know truths about the world. The Catholic Church is very comfortable, and perhaps even happy, to soundly disagree with both of these points of view. And I believe that She (the Church, for She is the Bride of Christ) is right. Faith and reason, as Blessed Pope John Paul II wrote in his encyclical Fides et Ratio (Faith and Reason):

“are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth; and God has placed in the human heart a desire to know the truth—in a word, to know himself—so that, by knowing and loving God, men and women may also come to the fullness of truth about themselves.”

I wish to take a somewhat novel approach to this idea of faith, reason, and their inevitable interplay. I believe that there is an entirely different way to view faith and reason: with faith as precursor to reason.  As St. Augustine said, “I believe, in order to understand; and I understand, the better to believe.”

The traditional view is one espoused by Dr. Kreeft in his book, Handbook of Catholic Apologetics, wherein he says something to the effect of, “Reason is the guide that brings us to the door; faith is what takes us through it.” This almost gives the implication that reason is our sole guide up to a certain point, faith past that point, and that the two are distinct (insofar as they never overlap); that is, reason takes us from point A to point B, then faith takes us from point B to point C: linear, clean-cut, simple. I believe that this is simply not the case: I would like to expand upon the existent framework—the architecture—of our view of faith and reason. I propose that faith presupposes, and therefore guides, reason. Said another way: one must have some semblance of faith in order that reason may lead him unto deeper faith... until that one fateful, and glorious day, in which reason bid him farewell, and he may now swim in the ocean of faith: ever careful to remain in its warm embrace, moving ever onward—and inward—in the Hope of Christ.

Imagine Reason as a formidable man who leads us unto knowledge of reality. He is a powerful ally, and we are gifted by him with rationality, logic, and powers of deduction and mental juxtaposition in order that we may defeat all those heinous enemies—irrationality, illogic, oversimplification, and unchecked emotion—that lie between us and Perfect Truth, Beauty and Goodness: in a word, God Himself. Reason, however, has one fatal flaw: he has only to work with what we offer him—our finite (and sometimes depressingly fallible) minds. As a result, he cannot lead past the door, or into the water.

Reason, however, does not guide us unaided, for Faith is close at hand, and here is where it gets interesting. I propose that Reason guides, not unaided, but aided—by Faith. I propose that Faith is the unseen, though ever-present guide, on our life-long journey to the Triune God.

Think about it briefly. Why would you pore through book after book, video after video, talk after talk, if you expected to find nothing of use to you concerning a particular subject? If you expected not to find the information that you required, you would not have wasted your time in the first place, right? Therefore, Reason cannot tell us that we should believe in God until Faith has so prompted it to begin seeking Him out. Reason can provide us logical evidence to believe, but only Faith can tell us that it is a worthwhile pursuit at all.

But Reason and Faith most definitely complement each other—there is no doubt about this. St. Thomas Aquinas wrote, “I would not believe if I did not find it reasonable to believe.” Buried in that sublime and beautiful statement, however, is a pearl of wisdom that we could all benefit from: what does Aquinas not mention that almost assuredly presupposed his finding it reasonable to believe in the first place? Faith! He could not have deigned to so seek reasons to believe if he did not first have faith that he would find something—the answer to his question, his life—its origin, purpose, and ultimate end. It is a bit like a man who has lost his watch: he searches in all the places he has been previously, turning up sofa cushions and stray magazines, all in an attempt to find his watch. Note, however, the way in which he does it. He does not simply check in random places: he checks in places in which he has faith that he will find it; indeed, he checks with the overall faith that he will indeed find his watch somewhere. Reason has no part in the genesis of this search: the man is distraught, upset that he has lost a precious possession, he is running on pure emotion—yet what does he cling to? His faith that the watch will be found! Once Faith has said, “There, there, my child: do not fret, for we will see this thing through,” Reason then has purview to begin his quest.

There is abundant evidence from Sacred Scripture that speaks to this idea as well, but I shall focus on two of the most powerful examples. The story of Abraham immediately springs to mind, and we all know the story: Abraham hears a call from God to perform a gut-wrenching deed—to kill his son. God says, “Take your son Isaac, your only one, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah. There, offer him up as a burnt offering on one of the heights that I will point out to you” (Gen. 22:2). Is it logical to conclude that God’s command made any sense whatsoever to Abraham, who had waited until he was an old man to finally be gifted a son by God? Did it appeal to Abraham’s reason in any way? Of course it didn’t! But what does Abraham do? He takes his son to the place that the Lord shows him, and just as he is about to sacrifice him, an angel of the Lord appears and says to him, “Do not lay your hand on the boy…. For now I know that you fear God…” (Gen. 22:12). Notice the convention about which I have been writing: faith leads to reason. Abraham understands that Isaac was never in harm’s way to begin with—but it is only after he had the initial faith in God did his reason finally make sense of any of it at all.

My second example will be Mary, the Virgin Mother of God. Mary was perhaps only 14 years old when she was betrothed to Joseph. One day, an angel of the Lord, Gabriel, appears to her and says, “Behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name him Jesus” (Luke 1:31). Mary, full of grace and gifted with the eyes of faith, replies, “Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord. May it be done to me according to your word” (Luke 1:38). Mary, a self-professed (and actual) virgin “was greatly troubled at what was said” (Luke 1:29), but what does she ultimately do, even in the face of fear? She has faith in the Providence of the Lord! Faith preceded reason in this case. It was only later that all of it fell into place for Mary, just like it did for Abraham.

And do you know what the best part about this whole story is, my dear readers? It is found in our relationship with and to God: “For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him might have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through him” (John 3:16-17). We can approach our search with Hope—not some wishy-washy version of hope that we find in our sad modern-day world, but, rather, authentic, supernatural Hope in God who is ever-faithful and cannot deceive or be deceived, the One Who keeps His promises. The Father, by His Son’s perfect atoning sacrifice on the Cross, has now sent Their joint Holy Spirit, Their Perfect Love for one another, Their very Breath, for the sanctification of the world and the conversion of sinners just like me and you. So have faith, my friends!—even if you do not yet recognize it.

Follow @DeionKathawa

For starters, I would just like to say that I am overjoyed that you are reading this blog. I believe that the time you spend here will be time well spent. I hope you leave having learned something, and that you continue to come back if you have. (And if you don’t, come back anyway: I’m sure something that I write will eventually make sense!)

As to why I decided to write this blog. I was, in part, inspired by what I saw around me every day. I saw friends, people on the news, and complete strangers seemingly struggling with questions and grappling with existential crises that I, by the grace of God, had found answers to. I did not want to see these people continue to struggle so mightily with these crushing doubts. I wanted to help.

I also cannot deny that I have always had a penchant for writing. The practice has always soothed me, brought me comfort and clarity, and has always had a certain draw over me. Most people that I know aren’t terribly fond of writing (you guys know who you are!); they would prefer to spend their time solving math or physics problems, writing code, or some other thoroughly non-writing activity; just the thought of those makes me shudder.

Finally, I must give credit where credit is due. I have God to thank for instilling in me the zeal to share my faith, the will to carry it out, the intellect to make this blog any good, and for His grace which allows me to persist in this life at all. He has thoroughly inspired me: and how could He not? He is my Creator, my Redeemer, and my Sanctifier. He is my origin and my end; He is the reason for my existence and the object of my ever-striving love. He alone is the purpose for which I live—all else is fanfare and extra.

Now, for the purpose of this blog. I will not bore you with lofty notions and high-minded idealism. (Who am I kidding? I’m totally going to do that!) My hope is that this blog, above all, informs you, dear reader. I hope it inspires you to look deeper, live more deeply, and, above all, love to the fullest. I hope it causes you to seek your origin, your identity, your purpose, and your end. What are my answers to you if I were asked these questions? My origin is the Father, the Creator and Sustainer of the universe and myself; my identity is an adopted son of the Father and joint-heir with Christ, His Beloved Son, the Second Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God Incarnate; my purpose in this life is to know, love, and serve the Lord; my end is the contemplation of God, face-to-Face, in Heaven, my true home. I write these things with utmost confidence. This leads me to realize that there is another hope that I have for this blog: I hope that this blog aids you on your own personal journey and encounter with Jesus Christ, the Logos of the Father, Who will give you assurances to these four most important questions if you but seek Him sincerely and ask Him with confidence.

(And by the way: I’m sure you noticed that there is actually no hint of megalomania anywhere in this post. I know, I know, I didn’t technically tell the truth; I’ll try not to make it a habit.) Well, let’s get to it then!

Follow @DeionKathawa