The scientific mind can neither prove nor disprove God. No experiment based on observation will serve as proof in either direction. I contend that the absence of evidence, once one contemplates the question why, serves as circumstantial evidence in itself, and provides ample room for a justifiable faith.
If God did make himself know in the world in a comprehensive and evidential way (for instance, God came to earth, stopped a hurricane on live television) the relationship between God and humanity would turn to one more related to master and slave, than creator and worshiper. In attaining that evidence, human freedom and liberty would be lost. People would feel compelled, required, or bound to serve God, and to a degree, these actions would become forced. In such a relationship, no authentic love can occur, because love is not mandatory.
Power is always, first and foremost, the principle character of a relationship. Hence if God showed his power in a clear and evidential way, that power would define our relationship, and ultimately, it would choke the choice/freedom that a relationship needs. Think of it in a less divine and more human example. Perhaps you are friends with your boss at work. There are certain advantages to this, but the power dynamic in that relationship still reigns over the rest. If you did not show up for work for a week, you would be fired, no matter how much you chit chat on an average day. There is no way out of that dynamic, unless the person who is your boss is no longer your boss. God averts this ratio by not providing the evidence of power, so the dynamic doesn't exist.
The next time your read an atheist essay on the existence of God, which contends that the absence of evidence is evidence of God's non-existence, remember that it may be in fact circumstantial evidence for existence.
Two requests made by lesbian parents in Denver and Boston to send their kids to Catholic Schools have turned heads in the past month. Boston's Cardinal Sean O'Malley admitted the petitioning student, citing that the purpose of Catholic teaching has always been the children.
On the other side of the coin, Denver Archbishop Charles Chaput requested that two girls not not renew their attendance in the next year because of their parents' lesbian relationship. Advocacy circles on all sides of the debate, from LGTB rights groups to Protestant pastors have commented in the press.
Chaput's decision seems heavy handed in this situation, but he took reasonable pastoral actions to facilitate the school. How genuine can the lesbian parents' actions be, when they attempt to give the children for which they care a Catholic Education, while living and unapologetically non-catholic lifestyle? In Catholic teaching, via Cannon Law (Can. 796 ß2), procreating and teaching children is primarily the parents' responsibility, and secondarily the school's. Chaput, as the head the of school, understandably must not react well to someone who, in a Catholic view, is not taking their primary responsibility seriously.
One might contend with Chaput's decision by saying that all the parents in that school and everywhere are imperfect, so why single out homosexuals? What about those who are cohabitating, of which there must be many. I believe Chaput would react similarly to those who actively intend to go against the teachings of the Church, thus implying or outright saying those teachings are wrong, and pursuantly disrupting the Parent - School - Child relationship. For instance, if a parent wrote an article in the paper claiming that marriage is no longer needed, Chaput would and should have the right to, at the least, confront that parent and question whether they truly desire a Catholic education for their child.
Many times in life, one can be wrong, even for all the right reasons. Chaput may be this type of wrong. The institution of the Catholic Church exists, among other reasons, but, principally for the communion of humanity with our Lord Jesus Christ, and the proselytization of that eucharist. Are we to deny these children a chance at such a relationship because of their parent's folly?
The homosexual parents on the other hand are right, even with some wrong reasoning. They are disrespecting the Church and its teachings, as well as the school-child-parent relationship. But in the end, they are giving their kids a chance at a connection with God and his Church.
--------------- 1096-1099 AD The First Crusade --------------- Part II
After the first 'people's army' aimlessly pillaged and made more enemies than converts, they were easily destroyed by the Turks. Later troops found safe harbor with Alexius and the Greek Right, which had been separate from the Latin right for fifty years. Alexius eventually saw the crusades as advantageous, because of common enemies, and because most of the crusading princes swore to return captured land to the Byzantine Empire.
The first city captured was Nicea, which had mostly Christians living there, but was controlled benevolently by Muslims. It fell even though it had 240 towers and four miles of wall. The region was return to Byzantine control.
Not all conquests were that successful or loyal. After Baldwin of Boulogne captured the city of Edessa from the Turks, he did not return it to Alexius; instead claiming himself to be the Count of Edessa and entering into treaties with local Muslims and Christians to assure his staying power.
The next acquisition was Antioch, which was a symbolic capture, as St. Peter had established the it to be a bishopric. They laid siege to the city for months and eventually bribed a Turkish soldier to give enterance during the night. All of the Turks were massacred and their homes were razed, including some Christians'. The crusading leader, Peter Bartholomew, claimed to see "visions" of Saints who told him to keep Antioch in Latin possession. After the Papal envoy died, who favored returning the city to Alexius, another crusader declared himself Prince of Antioch, because Bartholomew had died at his own hand.
Geographically, the subsequent and largest prize was Jerusalem. They city was controlled by the Egyptians, who had expelled all Christians from the city and hired scores of mercenaries from Africa in pretense to its defense. Around 1400 knights and 12,000 infantry laid siege the city, which meant that they prevented food, water, communication from entering it, and killed anyone attempting to leave it. They also may have used siege weapons like a catapult to take down towers that would slaughter any attackers. The army prayed and fasted for six weeks, asking for divine help in the siege. After that period, they constructed two large siege engines - which would help the men over the walls - and occupied the city. The crusaders massacred not only Muslims, but Jews still in the city in a fit of antisemitism.
Most crusaders returned home after Jerusalem to place the palm fronds from the region on their parish altar, as evidence that their vow was fulfilled. Almost none returned home rich, and some turned to priesthood or worked in the church upon reaching home.
Many cities were captured, from Edessa to Tripoli, but all them were isolated from each other and were open to retribution. As such, the crusaders who remained to bolster latin-christian life, eventually drafted Muslim alliances in order to procure protection from other Muslims or new crusading armies.
The Crusades are a part of Catholic history. Some parts of that rich history are not events in which one can be completely proud. It is important to remember them, however, because they define who we are as Catholics, as they depict from where we started, and point to where we are going. Our history needs to be memorialized; positive parts as blueprints for replication and negative ones as lessons already learned. According to historian Keith Lewis, "One can neither dismiss these 'armed pilgrimages' as pure secular ventures nor praise them as wholly religious. Similarly, it would be simplistic to condemn crusaders categorically because of the excesses of materials of some of the more powerful and influential among them." T.S. Elliot similarly remarks that there were, "a few good men, many who were evil, and most who were neither, like all men in all places."
A Sincere Thank Your to Keith Lewis for writing "The Catholic Church in History"
Mission: Joan, at the age of 13, heard the voices of and saw St. Michael, St. Margaret, St. Catherine, as well as God. These voices told her to see that the Dauphin was crowned at Rheims and to deliver France from her enemies. After finally convincing the Dauphin, she was given a white suit of armor and a small axe. She proved to be an able commander, leading France to victory at Orleans and many others until the Dauphin was crowned as Charles the V. Joan was later caught by the Burgundians and burned as a witch in 1431, in a trial not constituted by the Pope.
Feast Day: 30 May
Patroness: Soldiers, France
Miracles: Jumped from a high tower in castle of the Luxembourgs and was unharmed, she knew the exact position where an ancient sword was buried, won military battles over an empire with no training or education at all. She was canonized in the 20th century, but the church could not validate the three miracles needed, because of time and legend. The three miracles that were accepted for her were ones of intercession.
When the US was a fledgling power, struggling to congeal a proper governance, John Jay wrote the first four articles of what is now known as the Federalist papers.His arguments for a unified and central government when speaking of the thirteen separate states are useful in the debate for the formation of one unified church.The reasons he lists why the states needed to unite - internal order, efficiency, defense – are powerful arguments for the unification of the many states of Christianity that exist today.
------------------------------------
In his third article Jay writes, “The number of wars which have happened or will happen in the world will always be found to be in proportion to the number and weight of the causes, whether REAL or PRETENDED, which PROVOKE or INVITE them. If this remark be just, it becomes useful to inquire whether so many JUST causes of war are likely to be given by UNITED AMERICA as by DISUNITED America; for if it should turn out that United America will probably give the fewest, then it will follow that in this respect the Union tends most to preserve the people in a state of peace with other nations.”
Jay implies that unity will demand less causes of conflict by its very nature. If one examines that lesson through a religious lens, the result is no different.Disagreements in the past have already broke the church apart. Those schisms have lead to many more disagreements, that wouldn’t have otherwise existed. By division’s very nature, the notion of having separate churches that don’t struggle is impossible because of the “weights and causes” that arise from separation.Struggle doesn’t mean raising armies and battle on the field as it once may have.Today’s struggle is fought in the media, is fought in the minds of non-believers, and is fought on the battlefield of good deeds, where there should be no losers.
-------------------------------------------
Jay further writes in the third article, “The neighborhood of Spanish and British territories, bordering on some States and not on others, naturally confines the causes of quarrel more immediately to the borderers. The bordering States, if any, will be those who, under the impulse of sudden irritation, and a quick sense of apparent interest or injury, will be most likely, by direct violence, to excite war with these nations; and nothing can so effectually obviate that danger as a national government, whose wisdom and prudence will not be diminished by the passions which actuate the parties immediately interested.”
Jay asserts that it is difficult for a state to be immoderate or extremist when balanced by a larger population and the checks of such governments.He is proven right, of course, when the nation eventually fights the Civil War.In a religious scope, one sees that some denominations, either separated from the Catholic Church or congealed separately, will go rogue from conventional Christian beliefs and even find new extremes in comparison to Protestant belief.This point brings to mind Fred Phelps from the WestboroBaptistChurch, who chooses to display signs at the funerals of veterans which read, "God hates fags.” Where is the oversight, power structure, wisdom and tradition in his church to prevent such action?A less obvious but just as applicable example is Lutheran denominations who ordain openly homosexual priests.
-------------------------------------------
In the fourth article he writes, “One government can collect and avail itself of the talents and experience of the ablest men, in whatever part of the Union they may be found. It can move on uniform principles of policy. It can harmonize, assimilate, and protect the several parts and members, and extend the benefit of its foresight and precautions to each. In the formation of treaties, it will regard the interest of the whole, and the particular interests of the parts as connected with that of the whole. It can apply the resources and power of the whole to the defense of any particular part, and that more easily and expeditiously than State governments or separate confederacies can possibly do, for want of concert and unity of system.”
Jay is speaking of the marginal efficiencies that come from reducing the power structures from thirteen to one.“Uniform principles and policies” are important to a religion, because just as a state, these will “harmonize, assimilate and protect” the whole body of believers, and prevent further destructive dismantling.(I will speak about this principle more in an upcoming post)Religious “treaties” ecumenically translate into relationships with the secular world.Having one true church will ensure that it will “regard the interest of the whole,” and not be preoccupied with trying to insist that it is the one true form of Christianity instead of the myriad other contenders.
-------------------------------------------
Jay further explains in his fourth penning, “The people of America are aware that inducements to war may arise out of these circumstances, as well as from others not so obvious at present, and that whenever such inducements may find fit time and opportunity for operation, pretenses to color and justify them will not be wanting. Wisely, therefore, do they consider union and a good national government as necessary to put and keep them in SUCH A SITUATION as, instead of INVITING war, will tend to repress and discourage it. That situation consists in the best possible state of defense, and necessarily depends on the government, the arms, and the resources of the country.”
The founding father reveals that unification not only discourages war internally, but externally as well.In religious sense, having separated church structures will bear the same fruit.Why not attack the fifteen largest Church in the media?For that matter, why not attack the largest Church, the Catholic one?In the eyes of an onlooker, it is only 1 of 216 Christian options, similar to the cereal isle.If secular culture attacks one denomination, how and when do the other divisions of Christianity reply? Sadly, they often do not, and in most cases likely approve of the attack for their own vindication.
-------------------------------------------
This essay is the first in a series slotted to explain the benefits of the reunification of all denominations of Christianity into one church, and why that church should be the Roman Catholic order.
In the beginning of May, two to three Bishops from the Church of England flew to Vatican City to open talks of conversion. According to the AP, two of bishops said they were speaking about the Holy Father's invitation to disgruntled Anglicans to join Catholicism, and his clearing the path to do so easier. Such a decision is part of a larger effort by the Holy See to bring back denominations that previously left the faith.
For decades the two groups have held talks. This turn is brightened by the fact that the Anglican Church as admitted gay and female priests, which has almost led to a split in that denomination. The Anglicans making the trip were Rev. Andrew Burnham, the bishop of Ebbsfleet, Rev. John Broadhurst, the bishop of Fulham, and Rev. Keith Newton, the bishop of Richborough. They met members of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the bulwark of the Vatican's departments, which enforces doctrine.
Newton said the trip consisted of ''nothing more than exploratory talks." Neither church will make public comments, likely an effort not to inflame the anger of those who would not want a reunification.
If those breaking from the Anglicans were to join the Catholic faith, there would be little change for them, aside from recognizing the Pope as God's representative on Earth. In fact, the Vatican has compromised by allowing a married priest in defecting Aglican bodies to remain married (Bishops could not). What is known as the Anglican Church has been in communion with Rome longer (from 597 to 1535) than it has not, making the absence of 450 years a bit shorter than expected.
First of all, let us look at written law on the subject. The Bible does not mention any rules on rosaries. The Code of Canon Law, however, states:
"Sacred objects, set aside for divine worship by dedication or blessing, are to be treated with reverence. They are not to be made over to secular or inappropriate use, even though they may belong to private persons" (CIC 1171).
The important term being "reverence," which is defined as "a feeling or attitude of deep respect tinged with awe; veneration." The definition of jewelry is an "any ornaments for personal adornment or attractiveness." By these definitions, I do not believe that one can wear something for both personal adornment and reverence. For example, the picture above shows a lady wearing a rosary. It is clear by her attire that she is not treating the Rosary with reverence. This is similar to the images released of Madonna (singer) wearing a Rosary.
I believe there is room to wear a Rosary around your neck without violating the spirit of 1171. Nuns and monks often wear Rosaries around their belts, so there is precedent to have a Rosary adorned to one's person. If a person wears it to aid in their prayer regiment, as a tool for proselytization, or for any other spiritual reason which aids in their faith, and that person does nothing to deter from that reason (like wearing racy clothes), then I believe that reverence can exist, without any entanglements of adornment.
"Apologetics 101" defends the faith in everyday conversation
"Catholiphone Alarm" sounds for baseless attacks on the Church
"The Throne of St. Peter" reports news from the Holy See
Compellation of the Saints with "Saint of the Dei"
Live the Church Saga with "2000 Years of Rich History from Jesus to JP2"
Read Series on the One True Church and Angels
"The truth of our faith becomes a matter of ridicule... if any Catholic, not gifted with the necessary scientific learning, presents as dogma what scientific scrutiny shows to be false." - St. Thomas Aquinas
Posts
