Anti-Catholicism | Blogger Priest

Intercessory Prayer & the Saints

Posted on May 16, 2015 by Father Joe

ROB:

Where do we ever see person praying to another human being in the Bible?

FATHER JOE:

We see plenty of instances where people pray together and where prophets pray over their people. Catholicism sees almighty God as the proper object of all prayer. Obviously we are not going to notice much in the way of praying for sanctoral intercession while the gates of heaven are closed and the righteous dead are still awaiting their Savior in the limbo of the fathers. I am often amazed that Christians still interpret so very much with the eyes of the Old Testament instead of the New.

ROB:

Please don’t say tradition or something like that.

FATHER JOE:

In other words, you want me to accept your terms from the very start and deny a basic element of Catholicism and true Christianity. The New Testament itself arises from Sacred Tradition. This font of revelation did not disappear after the complete Bible was composed and compiled by the Catholic bishops at Hippo.

ROB:

Think about what you are saying.

FATHER JOE:

The trouble is that YOU are not thinking enough about what you are trying to say. None of us come to God alone.

ROB:

How God ever forget to tell us such an important part of our faith?

FATHER JOE:

God did not forget anything. The trouble is that bigots dismissed the authority instituted by Christ, threw out Christian traditions going back to the apostles, and then settled on an edited version of the Bible missing books.

ROB:

How can it never be in the Bible? Do you ever ask yourself why? Or do you just believe because it’s tradition.

FATHER JOE:

I already said the Bible is not silent. When Catholics pray to the saints, they are asking that they pray for and with them. We do not pray to them as deities. This is the same intercessory prayer that was realized among the Jews and later in the community of the Church. In Christ, all are alive. Do you argue that the saints are asleep or that they cannot hear us? Have you no appreciation of the communion of the saints? Look at the petition or supplication of the Hail Mary Prayer: “Pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death.” Is your faith so personalized that you will allow no one, walking on earth or among the blessed of heaven, to pray for and with you?

The Catholic practice is based upon a profound hope in the resurrection. Here are some pertinent verses in the Bible where supplication is offered for others: 1 Timothy 2:1; Matthew 18:19-20; James 5:13-16; Ephesians 6:18; Isaiah 62:6; Philemon 1:1-25; and Job 1:1-22.

Filed under: Anointing of the Sick, Anti-Catholicism, Apologetics | 2 Comments »

Clarification on the Mediation of Christ

Posted on March 27, 2015 by Father Joe

Giby writes:

The ONLY mediator between man and GOD is Jesus Christ!

Mary and all the saints are only people God used for his purposes. We respect but do NOT worship them. Do NOT make them mediators.

Our whole praise goes to God the heavenly Father only. God bless you!

Father Joe responds:

It is true that our one Mediator is Jesus Christ. He is the bridge or pontifex between heaven and earth. He heals the breech with our heavenly Father caused by sin. Jesus is the Way and the Truth and the Life. There is no way to the Father except through the Son. All this is Catholic teaching… YES!

However, our Lord can use human beings and sacraments as his instruments. We see this especially in the ministry of priests in whom Christ makes himself and his power active… as in the absolution of sin and in the Eucharist. The saints are like windows that allow the light of Christ to shine through. We might even say that some magnify or help us to discern this light. The saints have an intercessory role than cannot be dismissed. We come to God, not just as individuals, but as members of a faith community, the Church. This Church is also a unique vehicle of the Lord’s presence, as the Mystical Body of Christ. The Catholic view of intercession and mediation must take into consideration the full significance of the incarnation. We ask the saints to pray for and with us. All true prayer, even intercessory prayer, has as its true object, almighty God. Peace!

Filed under: Anti-Catholicism, Apologetics, Catholic | 4 Comments »

King Henry VIII is Guilty as Charged

Posted on March 22, 2015 by Father Joe

P. MCCOY: Catholics should quit telling the lie that Henry VIII wanted a divorce; he wanted an annulment because he WAS married to his sister Catherine.

FATHER JOE: Since an annulment was not possible, what you are arguing is semantics. The fact remains that he put her aside and many others as well in his search for a fertile mate that would give him an heir and satisfy his lusts. Further, she was not his sister but the widowed wife of his brother Prince Arthur (he died five months into the marriage). In other words, she was his former sister-in-law.

P. MCCOY: It doesn’t matter what she said; people have all kinds of reasons to lie-hers was a unhealthy fondness for her brother-in-law. You had an unscrupulous Pope giving her a dispensation to marrying her brother instead of persuading her to return to Spain and marry a non-relative, live as an lay widow, or enter the monastic life.

FATHER JOE: Actually, it was a marriage that the British crown initially wanted as it shored up tensions with Spain. Catherine was more the pawn here. The fact remains that the King wanted a male heir and that he wanted to advance the standing of his mistress Anne Boleyn and the rights of succession to any sons she might give him.

P. MCCOY: The Pope who refused the annulment request did out of fear of being slaughtered by Catherine’s nephew Emperor Charles V than having the courage to correct a prior mistake.

FATHER JOE: Annulments can be given or withheld for many reasons, but in this case fear or no fear, the Church acted rightly. Catherine was his wife. This was more a matter of divine than Church law. The case made was deemed insufficient for an annulment and no one deserves such Church intervention. In this case, it would have corrupted Church authority and sent Catholicism down the slippery of slope of scandal with all the so-called wives or paramours of Henry VIII.

P. MCCOY: But had Henry VII been more assertive, he would have sent his daughter-in-law on the first ship back to Spain right after Prince Arthur’s funeral. He would have then immediately arranged for a marry by proxy for Henry with a princess from various Catholic kingdoms: German city/ provincial states, choices of the Italian city states (a Medici or a d’Este would have made excellent English Queens!), Norway, Denmark or Sweden-OR, in a tribute to the illustrious Henry V, he could have married a French princess of the House that England was having friction with at the time. A Navarre princess could have made a good union too.

FATHER JOE: Science fiction might have us delight in alternative histories, but such armchair speculation really has little meaning in objective reality. It is like saying that Judas might have made a great saint had he repented instead of despairing and committing suicide. It makes for a quaint aside but the errant apostle is none the better and the fires of hell remain just as hot. No matter what prospects the reign had in Henry VIII’s regard, the trajectory of history remains unchanged: he became increasingly self-obsessed, exploitive of resources and Satan’s minion against the monasteries and the true Church.

P. MCCOY: Without the threat of incest gad flying him and realizing that he was not “god”, Henry VIII probably would have accepted the idea of a Queen ruling England after him. The Medici line would have raised up an exceptionally savvy and politically experienced and well supported by her Medici relatives English Queen!

FATHER JOE: Henry VIII had a contemptable view of women and would never have been satisfied with a woman on the throne. His life readily illustrates that females were merely a means to an ends— to satisfy the lust of his loins and to act as hens for his eggs. When the chicken failed to put out, he deemed it was time to have its head removed.

Filed under: Adultery, Anti-Catholicism, Apologetics, Bishops, Catholic, Church, Discipleship | Leave a comment »

Argument Over Jesus & Intercession

Posted on February 11, 2015 by Father Joe

Georgios argues:

The primary role and purpose of the devil is to take the believer’s attention as far away as possible from the truth and the blue-prints or foundations of Christians, which is the Bible.

He would have us compromise them with unbiblical diatribes so that the believer loses focus upon JESUS.

He would have the Christian weakened by diminution from 100% fidelity to the doctrine of JESUS.

JESUS is the Way and the Truth and the Life— the only way toward the Father-God.

JESUS taught with parables and he is our answer to all intentions in the spiritual process.

The parable of the sinful rich man and poor Lazarus is sufficient to verify that the saints who died are in a place where intercession for people on earth is impossible! What this means is that only the living saints have the right to do so.

God does not give exemptions to the prohibition of acting outside his Word, which is JESUS.

If Mary can intercede for us, then God is lacks constancy with his Word and that is something that God will not do. He will not oppose his Word. If God made such exceptions then he would not be God at all.

Receive this revelation of the Spirit of God— what he is saying to you Now in the mighty NAME OF JESUS!

Father Joe responds:

The devil’s primary aim is one of eternal spite. He would have us corrupted so as to offend God. He would have us embrace selfishness and a disordered love.

The devil knows well the Bible. The trouble is that what he knows, he utterly rejects. While the devil is certainly involved with error, this in itself is not his primary purpose. Good men and women might be confused or ignorant about many matters of faith. They may yet be saved. The devil places an emphasis upon the will. HE especially delights in one who comes close to the truth and then rejects it. The more you know the more that you will be held accountable.

Much of the confusion and fracturing of the Church after the Reformation has to do with men and a rejection of the shepherds appointed by Christ. You seem to infer that the Bible is self-sustaining and interpreting. This is simply not the case— historically or theologically. I suspect that the “diatribes” you condemn are efforts within the Church to prayerfully reflect upon the saving kerygma.

If you have rejected the sacraments and the teachings of the Catholic faith then you have quite literally separated yourself from elements of the revelation received from Jesus Christ. The Church follows the Lord and his two sources for Christian revelation: Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. Only the reformation churches, and not all of them, would utterly reject the second tier established by Christ.

Jesus is also one with the Mystical Body or the Church. That is why the early Church spoke about Christ and our life in the Church as the WAY.

Jesus taught in many ways. Yes, his parables give us insight into the kingdom of God. But he also prophesied, made commands, and witnessed the message of the Gospel.

The parable of the rich man and Lazarus does indeed speak to life after death, although there is some question as to whether Lazarus was in heaven or the limbo of the fathers. Similarly, was the rich man in hell or in purgatory? The gates of heaven are only opened by Christ, and at the telling of this parable, Jesus had yet to undergo his saving trial. Further, the parable does not offer us an instance of attempted intercession as understood by the Church. He requests that Abraham send a message to the living or make an appearance to warn them. The intercession of the saints is directed, not to another saint, but to almighty God. We pray that they will add their prayers to ours in asking God for his mercy and favor.

Actually, the trouble here is you have a very narrow notion of how the Word operates. The Word is written upon human flesh in the incarnation. The Word is breathed into the Scriptures. The Word becomes one with his Holy Church. The Word is given perpetual efficacy through the sacraments. The Word takes to himself a human mother, sanctifies her and gives her to us as a model of the Church. The Word conquers death and all who are alive in Christ can pray for themselves and others, including the saints of heaven.

Who are you to tell God his business? Who are you to make yourself the interpreter for all Christianity, including attacking a Church that was instituted by Christ, gave us the Bible and is the Mother of all the breakaway Protestant denominations? Mary can do as she did at Cana… intercede when the wine runs out.

I would caution you again hubris. You are not God’s special messenger or prophet. You are just one poor confused soul putting on airs to others.

Filed under: Anti-Catholicism, Apologetics, Bible, Catholic, Evangelization, Faith, God, Hell, Jesus, Mary, Prayer, Purgatory, Redemption, Religion, Saints | Leave a comment »

ATHEIST COMMANDMENT 10

Posted on January 21, 2015 by Father Joe

“Leave the world a better place than you found it.”

This is a nice platitude but that is about all it is. The truth is that we have very little control over the world. We can try to make a positive difference over our small piece of it, but even here things often do not go our way. Indeed, we might be in conflict with one another as to what makes the world better. Is it technology, more parks, electric cars or gas guzzlers, laws that promote “choice” over human life, legalizing sodomy, what? Those who promote justice for some often want it revoked for others. That was a facet of the religious liberty fight between the Church and the current government administration. Often we experience life as a mess and leave the world in a mess. Despite progress can we say that the world is a better place than in the past? There are still acts of terrorism and genocide. This year it was estimated that the one percent of the world population owns over 50% of the world’s wealth and resources. There is an old saying about this— the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

We live and we die. Many people just scrape along, try to find some happiness and deal with dreams realized and/or broken. Relationships give comfort and belonging but there is also betrayal and abandonment. We are a society of givers and takers and critics debate as to which it might be better to be.

Catholic Charities is the largest social service organization in the world just behind the U.S. government. Believers are often very generous to those in need. I heard one atheist share his deep regrets that they were frequently shamed by believers in how they respond to the needy and human suffering. Why is that? What is it about the so-called “pie-in-the-sky religion” that also focuses on earthly struggles and pain? Why is it that by comparison non-theistic forms of humanism often become oppressive and part of the problem?

Filed under: Anti-Catholicism, Apologetics, Atheism, Catholic, Commandments, Conscience, Discipleship, Faith, Morality, Philosophy, Politics, Pro-Life, Reflection, Religion, Right to Life, Sin, Social Justice | Leave a comment »

ATHEIST COMMANDMENT 9

Posted on January 20, 2015 by Father Joe

“There is no one right way to live.”

And what is this supposed to mean? Would the atheist tolerate a radical Islam that covered a woman’s face and body, reducing her to property, denying her an education and life outside the home? Would they turn a blind eye to a pre-civil war south where slavery allowed a genteel life for some and one of brutal servitude for others? This so-called commandment is actually nonsense. The truth is that while there are many different states of life and a certain cultural diversity; nevertheless, there are ways of living that countermand human decency and the laws of God. Keeping harems or same-sex partners would also fall within prohibited acts; however, I suspect the atheist critic wants to make room for deviancy. Once more there is a problem with specificity. Who decides what an appropriate lifestyle is and is not? Failure to make any judgment will lend legitimacy to anything and everything.

The Christian would argue that there is a right way to live and that is to live in right relationship with God and man. Sex outside of heterosexual marriage is a sin. A lifestyle that depends upon the oppression of others is a sin. A life that is addicted to booze and drugs is one that faces imminent destruction. Commercialism and materialism will ultimately fail to satisfy the longing of the soul. We live in such a way, in accordance with our nature, so that we can draw out the best that makes us human. We are social creatures which need to interact with each other in a manner that both preserves human freedom and insures the healthy functioning of society. Putting it bluntly, there are right “ways” of living and there are wrong ways, too.

I am somewhat surprised that that a man who promotes science would suggest this dictum. The Mythbusters devote each episode at dispelling myths and trying to ascertain the truth. There is little truth in this so-called new commandment. As with the proper fuel for a car a protocol before a dangerous experiment or explosion— there is a right way and a wrong or dangerous way to proceed.

This new law is really just an excuse for liberality and unhampered toleration. Not that I think he really means it because I suspect there are elements to the Christian life that he would find personally objectionable. In other words, the rule here is biased with unspoken exceptions. He would stretch the definition of marriage and family. Marriage, itself, might be viewed as an unnecessary human construct. Obviously, the atheist critic would not interpret it as a sacrament configured to give grace.

Man is not the final arbiter of right and wrong. The rejection of this truth is at the heart of many contemporary problems. Everything is politicized, even human behavior. If the law says something is right, many presume that it must be okay. The war against drugs goes badly, so advocates argue for their legalization and taxation. When the prostitution situation resists resolution, there is a lobby that suggests making it legal with defined health or safety standards. Assault against children, even in the womb was reckoned as manslaughter and a war crime but now it is regarded as a right of women to choose. Within living memory homosexuality goes from being criminalized to being protected and promoted as a basic civil right. No matter what the issue or behavior, people no longer turn to ministers or philosophers but to lawyers and politicians.

This process promotes a lie… about human nature, about God and his commandments… and about our sphere of influence. The subjective eclipses the objective. The relative dominates over point of permanence. The end result is that we damage ourselves and all our associations. Not only is there a loss of a sense of sin but also of any concrete definition.

Filed under: Anti-Catholicism, Apologetics, Atheism, Catholic, Commandments, Discipleship, Faith, God, Homosexuality, Morality, Philosophy, Politics, Pro-Life, Reflection, Religion, Right to Life, Sexuality, Sin | Leave a comment »

ATHEIST COMMANDMENT 8

Posted on January 19, 2015 by Father Joe

“We have the responsibility to consider others, including future generations.”

Why? God is out of the picture, so why care? No matter what we do, top scientists tell us that the universe is doomed. It is hard enough to care for ourselves and find happiness. Does it really make sense to care for others and generations unborn? We already abort half a million unborn children in the U.S. each year. If the living does not matter then caring about prospective people seems arbitrary and meaningless. Cold and honest atheistic logic cries out: “Maybe it would be better to let the poor and the defective die outright? If we eliminate the world’s refuse, then there will be more for us and the Western elite. We can make the world safe for endangered species by subtracting overcrowding populations of humans. Do we have any more right to the earth than the animals? Show me scientifically that we have an obligation to others and the future! Prove it or give it up. Our personal world might be better off if there were a few less mouths to feed.”

Anyway, we are all such hypocrites. Look at all the stuff we buy these days that comes from slave labor and where people are oppressed. If it is cheaper, it is better… that is today’s mantra. We take advantage of the poor and the worker. The host of Mythbusters can make up this commandment… but even his television show bobble heads and DVDs are manufactured in Chinese sweatshops. We can thus avoid paying local workers at all and pay others a non-livable wage. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer! Yeah, we really care about others… NOT!

As a Christian, I believe that every person has an incommensurate worth. All human life is sacred and we are called to be good stewards of creation. I believe that there is something immortal and lasting about every person conceived into this world. We are all God’s children and God loves you no more or less than he does me. I believe there is an order and a divine plan. It is important to play our part as instruments of divine providence.

Filed under: Anti-Catholicism, Apologetics, Atheism, Catholic, Commandments, Creation, Discipleship, Faith, God, Morality, Philosophy, Pro-Life, Providence, Reflection, Religion, Right to Life, Uncategorized | Leave a comment »

ATHEIST COMMANDMENT 7

Posted on January 16, 2015 by Father Joe

“Treat others as you would want them to treat you, and can reasonably expect them to want to be treated. Think about their perspective.”

Earlier I spoke about how there is a certain Christian spillage into the non-theistic environment. There is no table rasa for the atheist in the creation of his godless Decalogue. Here he has essentially borrowed THE GOLDEN RULE from Jesus: “Do to others whatever you would have them do to you. This is the law and the prophets” (Matthew 7:12). Stripped from the commandment is the underpinning of a divine imperative. Also missing is the unique appreciation of sacrificial love espoused by Christ. Our Lord tells us to lend without expecting repayment. He urges us to love those who hate us. He says we must forgive those who hurt and persecute us. This means that we would treat others with compassion and generosity and not measure the cost. Without this appreciation, the Golden Rule might be interpreted as a quid pro quo situation: you rub my back and I will rub yours. There is no bartering when it comes to the quality of love. Once again, there is an element of uncertainty. What can we “reasonably” expect? We might want someone to show us charity and mercy, but in earthly terms are they obliged to do so? Similarly, how far do we put ourselves out for others? Each of us has his own problems and debts. I have heard hard men say, “I ask nothing of others and in return I would like to be left alone by all the panhandlers!” In a cold and cruel way this might be applied to the rule here. I have also heard people say, “Nobody ever gave me a free lunch so why should I have to buy for everyone else?” This reductionism can reach a level where the rule is no more than this: “Don’t try to kill me and I won’t kill you!” The rule is echoed in many cultures and among many religions. However, the full meaning and truth comes clear within the Christian dispensation. God has been good and generous to us. We need to extend this generosity to others. The matter is deeper than “their perspective” but rather how does God see it?

Filed under: Anti-Catholicism, Apologetics, Catholic, Church, Commandments, Discipleship, Evangelization, Faith, God, Morality, Philosophy, Reflection, Religion | Leave a comment »

ATHEIST COMMANDMENT 6

Posted on January 13, 2015 by Father Joe

“Be mindful of the consequences of all your actions and recognize that you must take responsibility for them.”

This is not so much a commandment as it is a quality of good character. All of us need a level of integrity in how we approach the world and behave. This does not tell us what to do. Rather, it is a premeditation and a later resolve to carry through and accept what comes. I was surprised to see this one on the list because it is the edict that atheists and secularists so often seek to escape.

Notice what is left unsaid.

1. How does one judge the consequences?

2. How far can one go to change the consequences?

3. Should the weight of the consequences upon the agent and others be equally measured?

4. Do others have a right to weigh in upon the consequences of acts that one proposes to perform?

5. As long as one will accept responsibility for acts, what determines that these acts are good and moral?

6. What exactly does it mean to take responsibility… obedience, dissent, not getting caught?

The Church urges this dictum when it comes to sexual activity between men and women. Couples should first be married and they should be mindful that this activity is how lovers become mothers and fathers. Sexual intercourse is geared to fecundity and fertility. Of course, the critic objects to this necessary connection. He would prefer a reflection so that an escape clause or out might be found. Thus, as an example, sexual acts might be manipulated or the faculty of generation destroyed through contraception. Instead of avoiding such acts that are inherently life-giving, the act is distorted into one where bonding and pleasure are now the only ends. If the contraception should fail, the traditional believer would say then the child should be welcomed. However, here the so-called commandment is violated or expanded again to include abortion. In truth, responsibility for acts is avoided.

As a Catholic, a difficulty I see is the ingredient of atheism itself. What if Christians should be right about the last things: death, judgment, heaven and hell? Then there are obviously consequences for our actions that the non-believer has failed to evaluate. The tragedy here is that there will be an eternity to suffer remorse.

Filed under: Anti-Catholicism, Apologetics, Atheism, Catholic, Commandments, Conscience, Contraception, Discipleship, Faith, God, Morality, Philosophy, Pro-Life | 1 Comment »

ATHEIST COMMANDMENT 5

Posted on January 12, 2015 by Father Joe

“God is not necessary to be a good person or to live a full and meaningful life.”

What does it mean to be a good person? What makes life meaningful or worth living? It seems to me that God is like the paper upon which we write. Without him we do not even have the tools or perspective to answer satisfactory either question. The atheist critic contends that the believer is greedy and wants a better deal than the universe gives. Unhappy with a broken world, he argues that theists imagine another world where there is a God who cares and an order that will make sense of the present mess. Karl Marx made much of this “pie-in-the-sky” interpretation of religion. These critics contend that eternal life and the joys of heaven are imaginary rewards fabricated to placate those who are currently suffering or doing without. Note that the rise of American atheism has followed the fall of Soviet communism and the red threat. Many Americans once viewed socialist leanings and atheism as stripes belonging to the same animal. In contradiction, we still find a lingering merger of faith to patriotism. It is almost always the atheist or secularist who throws down the gauntlet: challenging “under God” in the pledge, public prayer, the Bible in schools, the teaching of intelligent design along with evolution and civic toleration of religious symbols.

It is true that sinners and the godless can know good fortune and a level of earthly happiness. But what happens when things do not go our way? The believer finds consolation in his faith, particularly in the face of disappointments, suffering and struggle. Other than taking a mood pill, what does the atheist do when he is facing the prospect of failure, pain and death? What is the meaning of life when everything must be defined in terms of limited mortality? Apart from God, do we even know what it means to be a good person? Why be charitable or self-sacrificing when it costs us and this is the only life we will ever know? Are fornication and homosexuality good? Is adultery only bad when you are caught? Is it okay to steal if you think you can get away with it and there will be no negative consequences? If life gets too hard is it good to take an overdose of pills and end it all? If drugs make you happy then should it not be a personal decision to take them? Is it good to help a scared girl to have an abortion even if believers contend it is the murder of a child? Christians are confused about such matters, too. Many think that simply being good will save them or that following their conscience, even an erroneous one, absolutely frees them from culpability. It does not.

People who reject God might stumble upon being good persons, and there are such things as natural virtues, but I suspect it is usually because they have been touched or “contaminated” by the faith of people around them. It is hard to argue for supernatural virtue or ethical principles or defined commandments when there is no belief in God. It strips the law of any genuine imperative. Precepts become arbitrary or capricious. We see this with the current transition of homosexuality from a crime and defect to a right and gift. Instead of civil laws backing up the laws of God, the laws of men become the final authority and they can change at any moment with the current fads and fashions. Politicians become the new priests and prophets, demanding that vice be regarded as virtue and that moral evil be rendered as good. Morality becomes a matter for vote and legislation, not something imposed by a God in Scripture or from a principal agent behind nature and creation.

Liberalism might rule the day at present, but views can change and we may see an atheistic secular world fighting itself over what is right and wrong. A person might tolerate sodomy but condemn pederasty. The pederast or pedophile might object to bestiality. The bar is increasingly lowered but not every atheist may find he can bend so low in reference to certain indignities. Killing the child in the womb might earn his or her remarks of gratitude as a feminist for women’s rights; but kill a three year old that no one wants might make the same critic puke in disgust. Such is the brave new world we are creating. What we have forgotten is that even Hitler and his Nazis thought they were good persons doing good work with eugenics and holocaust. Today we would stamp them as evil although many of their stratagems against the innocent have been put back into place. I will say it again and again. Without God, we do not know how to be good. Of course, this is a different question than, are Christians actually good? The believer acknowledges that he is a sinner who has fallen short. We need the mercy of Jesus. While God’s grace can make us saints; his law reveals how much we have fallen short and how much conversion we still require. If there is no God then there is no sin and no need for forgiveness. We must also then face a universe that could not care less about us. We can live for a few seconds of a hundred years, but eventually the world will get its way and we will die. We are children of nature and we are destined to die. A fallen world will kill us. We will get cancer or diabetes or heart trouble or something else. The atheist says he is not afraid to live and die. I suppose those who feel they have achieved something might feel this way. But what if you are a “nobody” with nothing going right in your life? Suppose you think that nobody loves you. No one wants you. You might conclude, “I would be better off dead,” and if the atheists are right then you would probably be right. In any case, you will get your wish. You will die. We all do. The atheist has to face the prospect that he will be forgotten. It will be as if he never were. Nothing he did will have any permanent significance. How can one be really happy when the transitory is all that one believes to exist? The story of Job was in response to such concerns. The ancient Jews gave little thought to an afterlife. They saw God’s reward in earthly success: wealth, property and family. But what if evil men should flourish and good or innocent people should suffer? Where is the justice in that? Here is the conundrum and it leaves us with one of two possibilities. Either there is no God or at least none that cares a damn for us or there is a good God who will balance the scales in another life where some will be rewarded and others punished. The former argues that we live in a universe where ultimately there is neither justice nor mercy— a prospect that many of us find too terrible to conceive. The latter claims that there is more to reality than we know and that a just God has given us an innate desire for life and happiness that he will satisfy— not in this world but in the kingdom of Christ.

Filed under: Anti-Catholicism, Apologetics, Atheism, Catholic, Conscience, Discipleship, Evangelization, Faith, God, Morality, Philosophy, Reflection, Religion, Resurrection, Salvation | 3 Comments »