Is the Catholic Church losing our younger generation? II

Repeating what we said in the previous blog: On March 4th, 2011, the Pew Research Center Poll found that “Americans were opposed to gay marriage by nearly 2-1 a decade ago, the latest poll showed 45 percent in support of it, with 46 percent in opposition.” Hence, for the last several decades, the cause for gay-rights is steadily winning the minds of the American people. As stated previously, the entertainment industry has long been an unabashed advocate for the moral legitimacy of homosexuality. However, the institution which has even a greater impact on the minds of the youth is public education. As we have seen, the social agenda of favoring homosexual unions in public schools as the moral equivalent to heterosexual unions is a national phenomenon. And in many schools, it is every bit as important as teaching math or reading. Indeed, in terms of winning the majority of people to same-sex rights, what the entertainment industry began the public schools will finish.

The wide acceptance of homosexuality and same-sex marriage will pose an even greater threat to the moral fabric of American than legalized abortion. What Roe versus Wade was to the human dignity of the unborn, the sanction of same-sex rights is to the dignity of every human being. In other words, the pro-choice ideology changed what some people believe about the unborn, but the belief that same-sex marriage is the moral equivalent to traditional marriage will change what people believe about every human being.

Nevertheless, what people believe about human nature and human sexuality does not change the truth of either one. Just as the DNA molecule contains information about the individual prior to his birth- information that cannot be changed or manipulated by the individual himself -so too does human nature come with pre-existing laws independent of what the community or State believes or says about it. Indeed, human nature is not a blank sheet of paper upon which we can write whatever we want without consequence. Instead, human nature has been given to mankind by God with instructions; its called the natural or the moral law. A child thrives, for instance, when he or she is loved as opposed to being ignored or hated. We cannot will it otherwise.

The point is we can no more redefine marriage than we can redefine human nature. But let there be no doubt, if same-sex unions are regarded as being equal to a marriage between a man and woman, then people will take it to mean that human nature is a blank sheet of paper upon which they can write whatever they want; which is to say people will live by their own rules. The result of which can only be dysfunction for the family and social disorder for society

One of the revolutionary contributions Christianity made to civilization is that it presented the human person- as if from the hand of God himself -with instructions, that is, with certain moral absolutes ingrained in its very nature. With the preaching of the Gospel people came to understand that they were created by God, created for God and created in the image of God. As such, the Divine Architect of human nature had something definite to say about it; something quite independent from what was commonly believed up to the time of Christ.

Let the historical record speak for itself. Compare how Christians treated women, children, the sick, the disabled, the imprisoned and even slaves; compare their services to their pagan counterparts. You will find, in fact, there is no comparison. It's not even close! The early Christians invented charity and in many cases carried out their Christian service even at the expense of their own lives. The dignity of the individual person, no matter what his social or political status, demanded recoginition in the Church. This was a stark contrast to even the most civilized parts of the world. Therefore, the Catholic Church has an impressive 2000-year resume of lifting up the lowly. But her Christian duty to love the individual person did not necessitate the approval of immoral acts and lifestyles. A distinction was always made between the sin and the sinner. The sinner was to be loved at all costs; the sin was to be opposed at all costs.

In any case, the approval of same-sex marriage or even homosexuality itself will have a counter revolutionary effect on how we view the world. As I said before, if the union of man and woman (especially in wedlock) is the very image of God through which we understand God and ourselves, then the legitimacy of the same-sex marriage or unions will alter our perception of reality. As with ancient pagan civilization, human laws and human relationships will be arbitrary, unjust and oppressive. That's right! If traditional marriage and the nuclear family is not venerated as exclusively superior to all other partnerships and lifestyles then anything goes.

What Catholics can do on the next blog-

Is the Catholic Church losing our younger generation?

Is the Catholic Church losing our younger generation on some very important issues? In terms of numbers, yes. It's probably not news to anyone that an increasing number of young people are gravitating closer to Hollywood values and than they are to Gospel values. With regard to premarital sex, this has certainly been the case for three to four decades. However, a new attitude is emerging about the very essence of marriage. This, to be sure, has far reaching consequences. But I have to wonder if the Catholic Church is on top of it. I have not witnessed an urgency proportionate to the crisis at hand among our Shepherds. Keep in mind that this same Church was slow in responding to the Reformation in the sixteenth century. Luther broke away from the Catholic Church in 1517. Soon thereafter, an avalanche of Christians leaving Mother Church was well underway. By the time the Catholic hierarchy took the crisis seriously it was in 1545. It was at this time they convened the Council of Trent. But much of the damage had already taken place. Again, I wonder if Catholics are finding themselves unprepared for another storm. Let me explain.

In a Fox News article, I discovered that my personal experience as a faith formation teacher was not an isolated one. The Pew Research Center Poll found that “Americans were opposed to gay marriage by nearly 2-1 a decade ago, the latest poll showed 45 percent in support of it, with 46 percent in opposition.” No doubt, gay rights activism has long advanced its cause through the entertainment culture, the media and in universities. However, in public high schools, and even in the lower grades, the gay rights agenda has become part of the curriculum.

Even here in Northeast Wisconsin, which, I believe, is considered part of the heartland, educators celebrate a gay rights day. Now, if the heartland is regarded as mainstay of traditional values, certainly the East and West coast in America is even more aggressive in pushing gay rights. To be sure, the social agenda is every bit as important, if not more so, than academic excellence in public education.

Whenever I can, I seek to find out where the younger generation is on the issues. In my faith formation classes I took surveys on my students views- ages ranging from ninth and tenth graders - on same-sex marriage and cohabitation. Two years in a row the majority of my students opted in favor of both lifestyles. Now, the parish I belong to is considered to be a “flagship” parish of the diocese; that is, a parish that the bishop sets up as a model to be imitated. Indeed, it is a Christ-centered, orthodox parish. But the public school students who have attended its faith formation classes on a weekly basis have been, at least with regard to sex and marriage, more influenced by Secularism than by Catholicism.

To interject a positive note: There is little doubt that God is raising up a new generation of youth and young adults in the Catholic Church. These young men and women who are devoted to Christ and the mission of his Church are, in my opinion, the most zealous and well formed youth we have seen in centuries. With that said, however, I also believe they are a remnant in comparison to the scores of adolescents and young adults that are being lost to the world.

As the Pew Research Center Poll indicates, gay marriage is gaining acceptance in our younger generation. Although the majority of California citizens voted for Proposition 8 (a ballot proposition and constitutional amendment passed in 2008 which provides that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized) 66 percent of voters under the age of thirty voted against it. When this younger generation comes of age and assumes key leadership positions in our country, the campaign to redefine marriage will be close to being realized.

Keep in mind that if a redefinition of marriage succeeds, it also succeeds in redefining the image of God; which, as we know, is the union between a man and a woman. After all, it is through the father and the mother that a child comes to know God, the world and himself. When this image is blurred then the perception of God and the world is blurred as well. Therefore, the redefinition of marriage has far reaching consequences.

Another disturbing trend which is emerging in tandem with the growing acceptance of same-sex marriage is more and more couples are choosing not to get married. They are simply cohabitating. We should expect this if marriage is arbitrarily defined to include homosexual unions. People intuitively know that if something is subject to change because of a little political pressure here and a little social pressure there, then it is not that important; certainly not important enough to make sacrifices for it. Not only is the incentive to get married lessened, but the will to have children is challenged as well. This, we have seen in Europe, Japan, Russia and we are seeing the beginnings of it in America. The Western population is aging quickly; or one can say- dying!

We have seen that some significant social shifts are occurring. But where is the Catholic Church in all of this? Or a better question might be: Are Catholics equal to their mission? I do not get the sense that leadership in the Church- both clergy and laity –are ahead of this curve. Sermons, pastoral letters, ecclesiastical documents and even papal encyclicals have not addressed these trends head-on. There is still a great deal of reluctance to offend people. And I am afraid that this trepidation of speaking and writing about these issues forthrightly plays no small role in the decline of Western Civilization.

More on the next blog-

_________________________________________________________________________________

If you wish to continue reading this series please click on part II of Is the Catholic Church losing our younger generation? in the March archives of 2011.

Accepting all things with equal reverence

For new readers, the following blog is a repost from the April, 2010 archives.

In the book, The Dialogue, God tells St. Catherine of Sienna that his servants accept all things with equal reverence. Their discerning eye sees everything as being ordained by Divine Providence. God the Father goes on to say that the faithful disciple of His Son "holds all thing in reverence, the left hand as well as the right, trouble as well as consolation, hunger and thirst as well as eating and drinking, cold and heat and nakedness as well as clothing, life as well as death, honor as well as disgrace, distress as well as comfort. In all things he remains solid, firm and stable, because his foundation is the living Rock."

This was the spiritual and missionary secret behind the success St. Paul enjoyed in laying the foundation of Christianity. At the beginning of his ministry, the Lord showed him "all that he would suffer." To press forward, even after being beatened, imprisoned and rejected by his own people, he had learned to rejoice in the Cross. This is why he can, with credibility, write the following about himself: “I know indeed how to live in humble circumstances; I know also how to live with abundance. In every circumstance and in all things I have learned the secret of being well fed and of going hungry, of living in abundance and of being in need. I have the strength for everything through him who empowers me.” (Philippians 4:12-13)

What a difficult thing to do: to not only accept but to will all that God sends us in our daily circumstances, be they pleasant or painful. But that is what it means to be a Saint: to will what God wills because he wills it.

This grace was given to yet another Saint: St. Edith Stein, a convert from Judaism to Catholicism. St. Edith, because of her Jewish identity, was one of the millions of victims in the holocaust. Like no other victim, however, she demonstrated a calm and resolve in the concentration camp of Auschwitz . Being a Carmelite nun, she was used to daily prayer and spiritual sacrifices.

According to one eye witness at Auschwitz, she was taking care of all the children who were abandoned by their mothers. These women simply couldn’t cope with the situation they were in. Indeed, they had every reason to be terrified. They heard the stories of how the Jews were exterminated. St. Edith Stein was well aware of her fate too: which was to die in the gas chamber. Still, she found peace in God and was able to help those in need during her last week on earth. All this was possible because she willed what God willed. Belonging entirely to Christ, her will was no longer her own.

Heroism, such as the one St. Edith displayed, begins in the daily acceptance of God's will, whatever the circumstance. Chipping away at the preferences, desires, and false ideals we hold on to is certainly a kind of death to self. However, it is hastened by a frequent examination of conscience, an honest admission of our faults and a continual turning to Christ for making up what is lacking in us. The reward is incalculable! St. Dorotheus couldn’t have said it better: “The man who finds fault with himself accepts all things cheerfully – misfortune, loss, disgrace, dishonor and any other kind of adversity. He believes that he is deserving of all these things and nothing can disturb him. No one could be more at peace than this man.”

What at first appears to be a drudgery of sorts becomes an instrument of peace. This union of wills- between Christ and his faithful follower -is the beginning of heaven here on earth. But before we possess this peace, we have to accept all things with equal reverence as coming from the wise counsel of God.

Reclaiming education from the State

The following blog was originally published on the The Edmund Burke Institute in the Reflections column. The picture to the right is from the documentary Waiting for Superman. Although my blog does not make reference to the documentary, it nevertheless advances similar arguments.

America's Founding Father, Noah Webster, once said, "Information is fatal to despotism." No one knows this better than President Barak Obama and his entourage of progressive politicians.

The recent exploitation of the Tucson shootings is a fine illustration of how the left views the influx of unregulated information. Although the assailant, Jared Loughner, was an enthusiast of leftist’s authors such as Karl Marx, Friedrich Engel and Adolf Hitler, in a twist of political irony, the events of this tragedy were used in yet another attempt to silence talk radio, Fox News and other conservative venues. U.S. Republican Illinois Senator Richard J. Durbin, Sheriff Clarence Dupnik of Pima county Arizona and later Democratic Tennessee Congressman Steve Cohen showed themselves to be opportunistic when they associated the shootings of Tucson with the rhetoric used by the conservative media. This is only one exploit among many. Indeed, a campaign against too much information has already emerged.

In a speech given to Hampton University in May, 2010, Mr. Obama indicated that the influx of too much information can be a burden to the individual and a threat to the nation. He said, "You're coming of age in a 24/7 media environment that bombards us with all kinds of content and exposes us to all kinds of arguments, some of which don't always rank all that high on the truth meter." "Information," he continued, "becomes a distraction, a diversion, a form of entertainment, rather than a tool of empowerment, rather than the means of emancipation." And as far as America is concerned, the bombardment of information is "putting new pressures on our country and on our democracy..." Evidently, the Obama administration would like to relieve us of this "pressure." Federal Communications Commission Commissioner, Michael Copps, in a speech to Columbia University on December 2, 2010 proposed that a "public values test" be administered as part of a license renewal process for radio and TV broadcasters. In the name of diversity and serving local interests, Fox News and conservative talk radio would be subject to new federal criteria.

An unprecedented challenge to the right of free speech by the federal government is looming. Understandably, the conservative media instinctively knows that this is a battle worth fighting. After all, it does have a direct bearing on its service to the public. However, if the right of free speech—and free enterprise and religious liberty for that matter—is to be long secured, then conservatism must also take a serious look at public education where information is most effectively communicated to our youth. Indeed, the classroom is where the war for freedom will be won. Statists are well aware that the control of information, especially with regard to a nation's education, is but the necessary groundwork for the control of the nation itself. The Democratic Party has capitalized on this principle with great success in the latter part of the twentieth century. History tells us that the end to which state-run education is ordained is the state itself.

"Whoever wishes to know the future must consult the past; for human events ever resemble those of preceding times." Perhaps, this is why the English historian, Hilaire Belloc, accurately envisaged what a universal state-run education would portend for Western Civilization. As early as 1929, before a monopoly on education by the state had fully taken effect in England and in the United States, he wrote in his book, "Survivals and New Arrivals," "that if compulsory elementary universal instruction be captured and used to a certain end, it can completely transform the character of all society."

Belloc went on to say that compulsory universal instruction, or public education as we know it today, is but the strongest political instrument of the state. He warned that "the universal machine imposed upon all in the years when the character is formed, will imprint its own philosophy, both directly and still more by indirect influence."

Belloc further elaborates on how this liberal enterprise would operate: "A universal and compulsory system of instruction has for its first and main effect uniformity.” He goes on to say that this uniformity will produce a rigid pattern of learning among students; this, at an age when their mind is being developed. With the backing of the state, this system will create a universal character and will have the power to promote one set of ideas to the exclusion of others. As for teachers, they will be imbued with a corporate spirit. A body of national teachers will emerge from this only to be trained under the shadow of a vast bureaucracy. To be sure, they will march to the beat of the same drum; that is, to the drum of an army of government officials.

According to Mona Charen, author of “Do-Gooders: How Liberals Hurt Those They Claim to Help,” (Sentinel, 2004) the U.S. Department of Education had a budget of $14 billion in 1979. Of course, like any government program, the department went from big to bloated. It started off with 450 administrators and by 2001 its workforce increased to 4,800 with a budget of $43 billion. She further adds that, "from 1960 to 1984, student enrollment increased by 9 percent while the number of teachers employed increased by 57 percent." Moreover, this well-funded, universal machine grew considerably in the 1960s. The percentage of students attending public schools increased from 59 percent to 73 percent. Today, approximately 90 percent of America's children are being educated in public schools. With this expansion of federal control over education, can there be any doubt that the authority of parents and local communities over their children's education have diminished in proportion?

The threat state-run education poses for the American republic is not simply one of bureaucracy. What also must be considered is its power to shape minds and influence beliefs. It's not just the raw content of the national curriculum we should fear; but even more so the hierarchy of values, the sequence of topics and the emphasis given to certain ideas. "Truth lies in proportion," said Belloc. "It is proportion which differentiates a caress from a blow, a sneer from a smile. It is the sequence and the relative weight of doctrines, not the bald statement, which makes the contrast between what damns and what saves. Let a child experience through the working day and through most days of the year that this or that is emphasized in its teaching, and what is so emphasized becomes, for it, and for all its life, the essential." And the essential in public education today is not primarily academic development; nor is it inspiring a sense of patriotism or the training in virtue which is so necessary in a democracy. Rather, the essential thing has become the promotion of environmentalism, animal rights activism, gay rights and eating healthy—all of which invoke state regulation and political solutions. From this new "essential" a politicized world view is communicated to the child and the transformation of a society follows.

In the last 50 years, a low priority in public education has been the instruction on the Founding principles of this nation. In “Render Unto Caesar,” Archbishop Charles Chaput stated that, "In 2003, only three major colleges in the United States required students to take a course on the U.S. Constitution to graduate-the three armed service academies. Only 11 percent of U.S. high school seniors test as proficient in their own national history." Even fewer students understand the contribution Christianity has made to the cause of liberty and progress. Indeed, education has transitioned from an indifference towards the Christian religion to one of hostility. Step by step, from 1948 to the present day, the U.S. and state governments forbade religious instruction (1948), prayer (1962), reading from the Bible (1963), the posting of the Ten Commandments (1980), observing a moment of silence (1985), and even prayer at high school football games (1989). The Democrat Party has traditionally been the guarantor of this continued discrimination. In 1994, for instance, U.S. Massachusetts Senators John Kerry and the late Ted Kennedy both voted to keep prayer out of public schools. And it is fair to say that their votes are representative of the official position of the Democratic national platform.

The discarding of sound civic and religious instruction from the public schools has not only yielded poor academic results but higher crime rates. Over 100 years ago, Pope Leo XIII cautioned European governments who wished to dispense with religious principles by saying that, "Every form of intellectual culture will be injurious; for young people not accustomed to respect God, will be unable to bear the restraint of a virtuous life, and never having learned to deny themselves anything, they will easily be incited to disturb the public order." Without the respect for divine authority, respect for human authority falters. And when human authority—i.e.parents, teachers, and school administrators, loses its binding force—it is virtually impossible to maintain discipline and order. This, of course, makes for a poor learning environment. To understand this is to understand human nature.

Yet, if there is one thing liberals do not understand, it is human nature; so they concentrate on those variables that are within their control. For instance, the quantity of education is easier to manipulate than its quality. Instead of focusing on what would work in our schools they promote more of what is already being used, regardless of the results. Democratic politicians are notorious for this. Their approach to education can be summed up as follows: Proposing to invest more money, recruiting more teachers, reducing class size and to have children start school at an earlier age; as if getting more of the same will benefit our nation's children. Al Gore, for instance, in his bid for the presidency in 2000, promised to invest $176 billion dollars over 10 years in our nation's school system. With that investment he pledged to recruit 100,000 new teachers and reduce class size. Along similar lines Nancy Pelosi said, "Investing in our children is the best investment we can make. And Head Start is an extraordinarily effective instrument."

Restoring the greatness of the American republic requires that we return to those principles which brought it about. Historically, a nation's educational system is the instrument by which these principles are transmitted. Having carefully studied political history, the Founding Fathers knew that in order for democracy and liberty to endure, the education of America's youth required that the provider come from local communities; not some bureaucratic agency hundreds of miles away from the school. With equal weight, the Founders stressed the importance of patriotism, virtue and religion. In his famous farewell address, George Washington said that we ought not "indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion." John Adams went even further by saying, "Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." And finally, Samuel Adams gave this sobering reminder: "We may look to armies for our defense, but virtue is our best security. It is not possible that any State should long remain free, where virtue is not supremely honored."

These principles enumerated by America's Founding Fathers have not only gone unheeded, but they have become an object of derision in many of our state-run schools. Easy access to information on the Internet and freedom of speech over the airwaves is unsustainable in the long-term if the state monopoly on education does not come to an end soon. If truth be told, America's public schools have been and continue to be the strongest political instrument of the left. One of the greatest contributions Christians and conservatives can make towards the renewal of America is to reclaim this instrument.

Only Great Men Can Make Great Men

The following is a reposted blog. To read the remaining series of blogs on Only Great Men Can Make Great Men please click on April, 2010 archive on the righthand column.
________________________________________


Only great men can make great men. Great systems, great programs and great schools do not make great men.

Out of 265 popes, the majority of them have been good men and good leaders. Some prove to be great and only a handful turned out to be a real disappointment.

However, if one takes a look at the list of these 265 popes, one cannot help but notice something. If you were to divide the list of popes into two equal parts, you will see that the first half of this list is front-loaded with Saints; the second half contains just a few Saints.

For instance, in the first millennium of Christianity there were 74 canonized popes; popes who reached sainthood. In the second millennium, however, there were only 5 canonized popes. Out of all the popes of the first thousand years, about 54% of them were Saints (74 out of 139). In the second thousand years, however, there was a precipitous drop of saintly popes; a little over 4% of all the popes reached Sainthood (5 out of 119).

You might be asking: So what? The reasons behind the huge gap between the first and the second millennium popes will go a long way in explaining why the Catholic Church does not have the influence on civilization it once had.

As a matter of fact, Pope Benedict XV in 1917 asked a very important question in his encyclical, On Preaching the Word. Indeed, many Catholics are asking this same question today: Why is it that the Church in the twentieth-century does not enjoy the same success as the Church in the first three or four centuries?

After all, Christianity was legalized in 313 A.D. with Christians only making up about 10% of the total population of the ancient world. Just 50-60 years later, Christianity was made the official religion of the Roman Empire. In just over 300 years, beginning with the Apostles, the Gospel spread like wildfire. The most powerful empire ever to exist went from suppressing Christianity and executing Christians to worshipping Christ and honoring the Saints. Soon thereafter a Christian civilization was born.

Pope Benedict XV goes on to remind us that Catholic Church in modern times possesses the same Sacraments, the same Gospel, and the same Holy Spirit as did the early Church. So, why do we have different results? Why is it that Christianity seems to be losing ground while Secularism appears to be making great strides?

The answer to this last question has a great deal to do with why the first thousand years of Christianity enjoyed so many popes who were Saints; popes who were truly great men!

For Only Great Men Can Make Great Men II, please go to the April, 2010 archives.

The Enmity Between Catholicism and Totalitarianism IV

Only the Church stood squarely across the path of Hitler’s campaign for suppressing truth. I never had any special interest in the Church before, but now I feel a great affection and admiration because the Church alone has had the courage and persistence to stand for intellectual truth and moral freedom. I am forced thus to confess that what I once despised I now praise unreservedly.

Albert Einstein, Time Magazine 1940

We ought to truly acknowledge and heartily proclaim: Bishop Cornelius of Rome occupied his episcopal see at a time when a hostile tyrant was making threats of punishments...against God's priests. Yet the emperor admitted that he would have received more calmly and tranquilly the news of a rival emperor than the report of the recent election of another bishop of Rome. Cornelius first
defeated with a bishop's strength the tyrant who later died in battle by force of arms.

Eusebius, History of the Church Fourth century A.D.
_________________________________________________________________________________

2. The Papacy: The Standard Bearer of Catholicism and the Bulwark Against Political Tyranny:

We come to the second reason why the Catholic Church can answer the claims of the Totalitarianism of the State:

Unlike Protestantism, Judaism and Islam, the Catholic Church possesses a centrally defined office and an authoritative voice who gives official interpretation to what it teaches; and that voice is that of the Bishop of Rome; better known as the pope or the papacy. His entourage of Church officials- mostly comprised of Cardinals and Bishops –is the prophetic teaching office of the Church; also known as the Holy See or the Magisterium. For two thousand years faithful Catholics have believed that the authority of the pope, who is the successor of St. Peter, not only originates with Jesus Christ but is exercised in his stead. Such an authority cannot be easily dismissed by factions and dissenters.

There are two advantages of having a well-defined, central authority in the Catholic Church:

First, the pope provides clarity as to what an authentic Catholic is. It furthermore represents the longstanding teachings of the Church. It is possible, therefore, to identify faithful or orthodox Catholics from dissenters or nominal Catholics. In the last fifty years, the confusion between the authentic and the nominal Catholic resulted from a failure of the clergy to exercise its God-given, disciplinary authority. On the other hand, one of the challenges which face Westerners with regard to Islam is that it is difficult to discern between an authentic-mainstream Muslim and a radical Muslim who preaches jihad as it understood by terrorists. Indeed, there is no leading imam who can authoritatively speak for Sunni, Wahhabi, and Shia Muslims; or who can authoritatively render an official interpretation of the Koran; especially with regard to the true meaning of jihad. There may be consensus among some circles, but certainly no follower can be reproved by a central authority founded by Mohammad, the founder of Islam.

The same difficulty applies to Judaism and Protestantism. In the Lutheran denomination alone, there are several divisions; some differing on doctrinal matters. Both Judaism and Protestantism are fluid and quite adaptable to the times and the conditions in which it finds itself. As Albert Einstein indicated, when the tidal wave of totalitarianism comes ashore, religions or ideologies that are fluid and impressionable break down quite easily and are silenced.

The second among the advantages of a well-defined, central authority in the Catholic Church is that it is much more resistant to being absorbed into the State. From the very beginning of the life of our Lord, the State proved to be a menace. Even as an infant, the Messiah proved to be a threat to King Herod. Certainly, it does not have to be this way nor was it this way all the time throughout the history of the Church. Nevertheless, in her early years the Church felt the full wrath of the pagan State. The teaching by Jesus to his followers that they should give to God what belongs to God and give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar resulted in much bloodshed. After all, in ancient paganism, everything belonged to Caesar. And let there be no doubt, the Roman Emperors and many political leaders to come took great offense to this new and revolutionary doctrine of Christianity. Today, it is greeted with even less enthusiasm by Totalitarian States.

The Catholic Church, therefore, has a demonstrated heritage of reminding governments that its power is limited and is meant to be at the service of the people. Time and time again Catholic bishops checked and pushed back the overreaching advances of the State. In matters relating to the liberty of the soul or the sovereignty of the Church, civil authority had no jurisdiction.

Bishop Ossius of Cordoba, who presided at the first General Council of Nicea on behalf of Pope St. Sylvester, wrote tin 356 A.D. to the Roman Emperor Constantius, reminding him who he was before God. He said, “Cease these proceedings, I beseech you, and remember that you are a mortal man. Be afraid of the Day of Judgment and keep yourself pure thereunto. Do not intrude yourself into ecclesiastical matters; neither give us commands concerning them but learn from us.” Writing to the same emperor, Bishop of Cagliari, reinforced the message of Ossius by writing: “I want you to know that despite all of your cruelty you lie helpless at the feet of God’s servants and all your imperial pomp Is for us nothing for us you are with all of your authority of your empire only a passing breeze.”

That same century, St. Ambrose, bishop of Milan, was engaged in a physical confrontation with the Christian Roman Emperor, Theodosius II. It just so happened that the emperor killed 6,000 Thessalonians in an uprising. After this unjust onslaught, the emperor presumed to enter the cathedral in Milan. However, St. Ambrose physically withstood him, demanding that he do public penance; and public penance he did.

These confrontations between the Shepherds of the Church and the Roman Emperors were monumental. Interestingly enough, they did not simply draw the line between the Church and State by simply writing letters and books; with a face to face confrontation as St. Ambrose did with the Roman emperor Theodosius II and as Pope St. Leo the Great did with Attila of the Hun, they put their lives on the line. They impressed upon Christians that heads of State whose authority was not absolute or supreme but instead it was be at the service of the people. As St. Paul said in Romans 13 reminds us, their authority is from God. Our Lord himself reminded Pilate, "You would have no power over me if it had not been given to you from above."

Among the two hundred and sixty six popes in the Church’s history, there are countless letters to Emperors, Kings, Presidents and Dictators. Animated with the Spirit of Christ, they gave voice to the rights of God and the superiority of the spiritual order over that of the political; reminding rulers of the fleeting nature of civil authority and that one day it they will be held accountable. Their words to the powerful took on a similar tone to the following passage from the book of Wisdom: “Hearken, you who are in power over the multitude and lord it over throngs of peoples! Because authority was given you by the LORD and sovereignty by the Most High, who shall probe your works and scrutinize your counsels!” (6:2-3)

The Catholic Church has within its storehouse the means of not only resisting political tyranny but building up, once again, all that was good in Christian civilization. But chief among the means by bring this about is the successor of St. Peter, the pope. Through his ministry, dissenters can be distinguished from faithful Catholics and the Church Universal is prevented from being co-opted by the State. These are two important advantages which strengthen the enmity between Catholicism and totalitarianism.

Next blog- The third reason why Catholicism can give answer to the claims of the Totalitarian State: The intellectual heritage of its moral and political theology.

The Enmity between Catholicism and Totalitarianism III

It lies in the very nature of man that something must be supreme, something must take the place of the divine when this has been excluded; and this substitute for God, according to a predominant philosophy, is the State.

James Cardinal Gibbons, 1919 Pastoral Letter to the Catholic Church in America
____________________________________________

I. Catholicism is Spiritually Totalitarian:

We come to the first reason why Catholics can answer the claims of the Totalitarian State:

First, Catholic spirituality is totalitarian in nature. Totalitarianism is only a blessing in the spiritual realm. But when the life of faith wanes and ceases to inform daily life, the political order takes its place. The State is more likely to be a servant when granted limited power. However, when assuming unlimited power, it invariably behaves like a master. Hence, dedication to a religion or ideology on a part-time basis or adherent who put forth half measures is in no position to withstand the Totalitarian State, be it Secular or Islamic.

It has become more apparent that the drive of Secular totalitarianism in the United States will spare no part of daily life if left unchecked. What was considered off limits by imperial and autocratic States of old, is now subject to scrutiny by the modern State. The following areas, once considered to be of the private sector, is now within the control of federal, state and local governments: a child's diet in public schools, light bulbs, student backpacks, corporate profit margins, health care and banking. With a few setbacks here and there, the political momentum is favoring an unprecedented expansion of the jurisdiction of the State. When we consider the Islamic State, on the other hand, it will undoubtedly have different priorities; nevertheless, it will be no less totalitarian than its secular counterpart. In either case, religious liberty among Christians will not be tolerated.

An alternative, therefore, to Secular and Islamic totalitarianism must be all-encompassing and every bit as totalitarian. This cannot be emphasized enough. In its truest essence, the Catholic Faith is meant to be a way of life twenty four hours a day and seven days a week. The reason why Dawson assigned religion to the sphere of the absolute is because God, eternity, morality and spirituality touches upon every aspect of human existence. With respect to the Church, there is no phase of life that does not fall under its purview. Indeed, it encompasses the totality of life.

In every parish, for instance, a priest baptizes infants, oversees the education and sanctification of children and adolescents, prepares young couples for marriage and presides at their wedding, and most important, prepares the dying for eternity. What is more, confessions are heard from people whose age ranges from eight to a hundred years of age. And to be sure, there is not a sin that a priest hasn’t had to absolve.

The Divine Liturgy (or the Mass) is yet another expression of the life of the Church which is celebrated every day. In this venue, the same Scripture readings are proclaimed throughout the world. The clergy also prays the Divine Office (composed of Scripture and prayers of the Church) at least four times a day, and in every continent so that there is a uninterrupted hymn to the Lord throughout the whole world.

To repeat, the impact of Catholicism on the human person, by its very nature, is spiritually and morally totalitarian; this, more so than any other religion. But as Dawson indicated, when the Faith is relegated to the relative or private sphere, hence only occupying a small portion of human existence, what fills the void is too often a political form of totalitarianism. This has been demonstrated time and time again throughout history.

The Catholic Faith, if it be fully applied, orders life from within; thus making political interventions less necessary. No doubt, the regularity of prayer, the examination of conscience, spiritual reading and a firm resolve to amend one’s life are just a few means through which a Catholic becomes a better person and a law abiding citizen of the State. From these daily spiritual exercises, a network of sound relationships is bound to result; relationships between husband and wife, between parents and children, among neighbors, among citizens and the political give and take between the State and the citizen is better secured.

The second reason why the Catholic Church can best answer the claims of the Totalitarian State…on the next blog.

The Emnity between Catholicism and Totalitarianism II

Overview:

There are two kinds of totalitarianism that are mounting a campaign against the American way of life: Secular totalitarianism from within and an Islamic totalitarianism from without. Both are poised to radically change life as we know it.

Historically, the Catholic Church inspired principles and virtues which led to the veneration of the individual person over that of the State or any institution. Public institutions come and go but unlike institutions the individual person possesses an immortal soul. As Pope Pius XI said in his encyclical On Atheistic Communism, man is a microcosm, a world in miniature. With the Light of the Gospel illuminating the dignity of the human soul, the State ceased to be supreme. In early Christianity, the Bishops of the Church reminded emperors, kings and civil leaders that they are the servants of the people. But as the influence of Christianity faded in modern times, the cult of the State reared its ugly head again. Unlike its pagan predecessor, however, the post-Christian or the modern State has, as the twentieth century has shown, capable of being totalitarian. With modern technology, it is possible for the State to be omnipresent, controlling every component of society.

There are four reasons why Catholicism can answer the claims of the Totalitarianism of the State. Ultimately, any kind of sectarian religion or ideology which relies only on ideas- and here I include Conservatism -can help stem the tide of an all-powerful State as a defensive measure but only with a temporary result. The answer to totalitarianism has to go deep and it has to cover the spectrum of human existence for favorable results to be permanent.

First, Catholicism is totalitarian in the best sense of the word. There is not a facet of life which does not come under the purview of God and which is not ministered to by the Catholic Church. The response to the Totalitarian State cannot be met with partial commitments or half measures; the answer must be total.

Second, unlike Judaism, Islam or Protestantism, the Catholic Church possesses a central authority that is well-defined and one that speaks for all Catholics. It is the prophetic teaching office of the pope which is also known as the papacy. This two-thousand year old office through which St. Peter continues to minister has served to keep the Church from being absorbed into the State.

Thirdly, the Catholic Church is the only religious body that has a two thousand year moral and political theology. With developed and well-defined principles Catholics can mount a consistent and coherent response to political totalitarianism; one that is grounded in the truth of God and human nature. However, if a church is as fluid as, let’s say, the Anglican Church has been over the last century, changing fundamental doctrines, then conformity to an all-powerful State is all the more likely.

Fourth and last point, and probably the most important, is the fullness of grace and moral vigor the Lord confers through the Catholic Church. Through the Sacraments, and principally through the Divine Liturgy, Jesus Christ gives his life; and it is in the initiation of these mysteries of Christ that people were not only sanctified but civilized. Ideas alone or even truth alone is insufficient in sustaining a Christian civilization.

More on the next blog-

The Enmity between Catholicism and Totalitarianism

For if the State has become too totalitarian, that is because the average Christian has not been totalitarian enough.

Christopher Dawson, Religion and the Modern State 1935
________________________________________

In previous blogs I proposed that the only religion capable of withstanding totalitarianism is the Catholic religion. With other points to be made about the issue or topic at hand, there was little room to elaborate on these auxiliary points. As a postscript to the blogs which stated that there is a natural enmity between Catholicism and the Totalitarianism of the State, below is an attempt to give its rationale.


Preface:

Christopher Dawson, a Catholic historian, wrote in 1935 just a few years before World War II that it is only by belonging to the City of God, or the Catholic Church, that “we shall find an answer to the claims of the Totalitarian State. For if the State has become too totalitarian, that is because the average Christian has not been totalitarian enough." From the nineteenth century into the twentieth century Europe had become more and more secular. What Christianity lost in terms of influence, totalitarianism gained. As James Cardinal Gibbons said in 1919: “[I]t lies in the very nature of man that something must be supreme, something must take the place of the divine when this has been excluded; and this substitute for God, according to a predominant philosophy, is the State.”

As history bears witness, one of the saddest episodes of human cruelty in the twentieth century was the Third Reich's campaign against the Jews in Germany. Albert Einstein, who was of Jewish descent, was surprised by who would and who would not come to the defense of his persecuted people. Due to his prejudices, he could not anticipate who would answer the claims of the Totalitarian State. In the December’s edition of Time Magazine, 1940, he said that he looked to the universities and the great editors of newspapers for help as his people were being rounded up and sent to concentration camps. However, these so-called champions of freedom were silenced. But one institution did publicly resist Hitler’s ruthless totalitarian campaign and that was the Catholic Church. He continues:

Only the Church stood squarely across the path of Hitler’s campaign for suppressing truth. I never had any special interest in the Church before, but now I feel a great affection and admiration because the Church alone has had the courage and persistence to stand for intellectual truth and moral freedom. I am forced thus to confess that what I once despised I now praise unreservedly.

Time and time again throughout her two thousand year history, the Catholic Church served as the balance against the overreaching arm of the State. From the very beginning, in the Apostolic era, the followers of Christ were persecuted by the State. Indeed, the Catholic Church was always conscious of that tension between her mission to save souls and the State's duty to govern. And the future is sure to bear out that she is the only one that can ward off the Totalitarian State. This is not to say that Catholics will be only ones resisting the totalitarian claims; indeed there are many who are unaffiliated with the Church who are fighting the good fight. However, as we will see, the Catholic Church possesses the God-given ability to salvage all that is praiseworthy in Western Civilization. After all, it is due to her inspiration that this civilization came into being to begin with.

The overview and the four reasons why there is an inherent enmity between Catholicism and the Totalitarianism of the State in the next blog.

The Sermon on the Mount: Raising the Moral Standard III

As opposed to the Mosaic Law, Jesus, in the Sermon on the Mount, puts the emphasis first and foremost on a person's interior; that is, on his thoughts and desires. As the saying goes: “Sow a thought, reap an action; sow an action, reap a habit; sow a habit, reap a character; sow a character, reap a destiny.” But in the absence of God's presence in souls, the Mosaic Law was powerless to restore morality. It was an exterior system of rituals which had more symbolic value than anything else. But with the coming of the Holy Spirit, a new spiritual order would be forthcoming.

The prophet Ezekiel prophesied the following: “I will give you a new heart and place a new spirit within you, taking from your bodies your stony hearts and giving you natural hearts. I will put my spirit within you and make you live by my statutes, careful to observe my decrees.” Jesus came to fulfill this passage from the prophet Ezekiel through his public ministry, his death and resurrection and the sending of his Spirit from heaven. In the Sermon on the Mount, he raises the moral aim of his followers. With the impending infusion of the Holy Spirit into willing souls, Christians would be given a new moral power; as such, the demands of the moral law would be elevated.

It is important to understand that the new family of God would not only be given a new law but would also have a divine model in which to imitate. Nevertheless, the observance of the moral law and the imitation of his example would prove to be insufficient. In the New Covenant, the people of God would be called to live the very life of Christ. The interior life of God- which is none other than the Holy Spirit -is communicated through the Sacraments. From this union with God, we can think with Christ and live as he did.

The Sermon on the Mount: Raising the Moral Standard II

The Hebrew religion with all the prescribed rituals would have to appeal to the senses, that is, it was physical in nature and its observances had to be exact. All this was to symbolize man's lot in relation to God. To be sure, the Lord had not abandoned mankind completely but his fellowship with him was strained. In many ways, God assumed the role of a master instead of a Father. All this because the Sons of God (Seth's descendants) chose to marry the Daughters of Men (Cain's descendants); in so doing they signaled their faith was secondary thereby taking a fateful step away from their Creator and Friend.

If, after reading the Old Testament, God seems severe and even caustic at times, it was because man had created this relationship. But God, who is a loving Father, did not let man walk wander too far off the path.

Some time had passed when the descendants of Noah and his three sons wanted to make a name for themselves by building the famous tower of Babel. This enterprise, however, was displeasing to the Lord. He subsequently intervened and divided humanity along ethnic lines into seventy-two nations. Confusing their language, God has prevented this enterprise from going forward.

It wasn't until Pentecost that the Holy Spirit once again descended upon humanity to restore both its moral power and fraternal unity. This would be realized only through Jesus' relationship with the Father; and this divine relationship would not only be revealed by the Spirit who binds them together but men, women and children would be invited to partake of this relationship.

With this backdrop in mind, the significance of the Sermon on the Mount can be better understood. Jesus fulfilled his Father's will with perfection; and he did this in the Spirit. Knowing that his followers would possess the same Holy Spirit he possessed, he would then elevate the demands of the moral law. In other words, he raised the bar and demanded more than what was previously demanded by God in the Old Testament. For instance, he said, “You have heard that it was said to your ancestors, 'You shall not kill; and whoever kills will be liable to judgment. But I say to you, whoever is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment.'” Our Lord continued: “You have heard it said, 'You shall not commit adultery.' But I say to you, everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”

More on the next blog-

The Sermon on the Mount: Raising the Moral Standard

Jesus fulfilled the law because he lived out his life in the Holy Spirit. That is to say, the Spirit of God dwelling within him, inspired every one of his thoughts,words and deeds. Our Lord perfectly conformed to the will of his Father by means of the gifts of the Holy Spirit. The prophet Isaiah foretold this when he said, “The spirit of the LORD shall rest upon him: a spirit of wisdom and of understanding, A spirit of counsel and of strength, a spirit of knowledge and of fear of the LORD, and his delight shall be the fear of the LORD.” However, prior to the descent of the Holy Spirit at Petecost, the human race, as a rule, was devoid of these divine gifts.. Indeed, man was at the mercy of his own human frailty.

Before God flooded the earth- even after Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit -his Spirit had abided with mankind. But when the descendants of Seth (God's faithful) had relations with women who belonged to the tribe of Cain (the unfaithful), known as the “Daughters of Men.” (Gen. 6:4). It was this act of infidelity on the part of Seth's tribe that moved the Lord to punish humanity and baptize the world, as it were, with forty days and forty nights of rain. As the story goes, God's favor fell upon Noah and his family; and the rest is history. But even more important than the flood itself was the withdrawl of his Spirit. He said, “My spirit shall not remain in man forever, since he is but flesh.” Upon the departure of his Spirit, knowledge of God, the spiritual gifts, the theological virtues of faith, hope and charity, and that mark of civility which characterized Christian civilization centuries later, would scarce in the Old Testament world.

After exiting the ark, the Lord established a covenant with Noah. But the world would not be the same: as when the Lord had walked side by side with Enoch. No. The new rules that were to govern mankind resembled what Charles Darwin coined as “the survival of the fittest.” Indeed, God inaugurated an “eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth” policy; murder would be met with the death penalty; instead of living on plants alone, man would eat animal flesh; and in the post-flood world animals would become ill-disposed towards humans through fear. The main point to keep in mind is that from the flood onward, the standard of morality lowered considerably. For instance, God never approved but nevertheless condoned polygamy and concubinage among his servants such as Abraham, Jacob, Moses and David. Warfare was brutal, capital punishment merciless, and divine punishment was severe and even dramatic at times. Human beings without God's Spirit were like little children who did not understand a well reason argument as to why certain things were morally good or evil. Like a spoiled and unruly child, they were only able to appreciate the impact of God's heavy hand against their backside.

More on the next blog-

What America can learn from Caesarea Philippi IV

[B]y pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient Church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul, that Church has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the Apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all Churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world; and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the Apostolic tradition.

Just as there are four regions of the world in which we live, and four universal winds, and since the Church is disseminated over all the earth, and the pillar and the mainstay of the Church is the Gospel, the breath of life, it is fitting that she have four pillars [i.e., four Gospels], breathing immortality on every side and enkindling life in men anew.

-St. Irenaeus, 180 A.D.

____________________________________________________________________________


In the eighth century B.C., the descendants of Abraham had fallen away from the worship of Yahweh, the one true God, and turned to other gods. From amidst this religious confusion, the prophet Isaiah raised his voice and told them to return to the rock from which they were hewn; the rock being father Abraham. It was on this rock where God's lighthouse shined the light of truth. Similarly, St. Irenaeus, Bishop and Martyr in the second century A.D., found himself surrounded by those who had succumbed to error and had fallen away from the Gospel preached by the Apostles. In order to demontrate the truth of the Gospel it wasn't enough debate his opponents using Scriptural passages; instead, he simply pointed to those churches that were founded by the Apostles. The most important among them, he said, was the church of Rome where St. Peter and St. Paul had laid its foundations. This Church, he continued, is superior in origin and all other churches must agree with it. Because from her proceeds the breath of immortality which enkindles life in men anew.

As we have said, Jesus founded his Church upon the Rock, who was St. Peter. This Rock became a mountain which covered the earth. (cf. Daniel 2:35) For centuries, the nations would stream toward this mountain to receive the knowledge of God. The ministry of St. Peter continues to this day through Pope Benedict XVI. From him comes the religious and moral certainty amid a confused world. It is the same Rock that Abraham represented; it is the same Rock upon which Christ built his Church; and this Rock is none other than God himself. As our Lord promised, the gates of hell would not prevail against it. If hell cannot prevail against it, neither can Islamic and Secular totalitarianism.

On the other hand, the ambivalence of religious pluralism and egalitarianism is no match for Islamic and Secular totalitarianism. The deference paid to other religious leaders by Liam Neeson may be the etiquette in Hollywood; disavowing the Christian identity of America by President Obama during a press conference in Turkey may have been a politically correct posture; however, this neutrality and open-mindedness, so highly esteemed now days, makes for a poor foundation for any civilization.

Western Civilization, if it is to retain the blessings of God, must return to the Rock from which it was hewn. From the ministry of St. Peter, better known as the papacy, the truth about God, life, love, sex, marriage, contraception, abortion and euthanasia can be known with certainty. From this Church comes “the breath of immortality and the enkindling of life anew.” But the further we drift from this mountain, the further we drift from Christian morality. As history bears witness, the alternative to Christ's moral law is the darkness of pagan morality. If you recall, this pagan morality is aptly represented by ancient Caeserea Philippi where the cult of the State and the worship of many gods flourished. Inseparable from this religious confusion was the prevalence of human cruelty and incivility.

There are many opinions about Christ today and what he actually taught. Nevertheless, the truth of faith and morals, so necessary for our stability and happiness, is to be found coming from the Rock upon which Christ built his Church.

What America can learn from Caesarea Philippi III

In regards to religious truth, the open-mindedness and the non-committal attitude of actor Liam Neeson and President Barak Obama is reminiscent of the pre-Christian world. Yet, it is believed to be a mark of politesse and civility. Despite the fine trappings, it is a step backwards. Deference to and tolerance of all religions has value up to a point. If such a gesture is taken to mean that all religions have equal value then it is pushed too far. Apathy towards the differences between religions, in the end, leads to the rejection of all religions. As such, principles pertaining to God and his laws lose credibility and hence fail to bind the consciences of people. What is left are man-made moral codes which are invented to serve the interests of the powerful.

This brings us to Caesarea Philippi where St. Peter stepped forward to proclaim that Jesus was the Messiah, the Son of Living God. As stated earlier, his profession of Faith was inspired by God the Father. And it is through the office of St. Peter and his profession that God would guarantee religious certainty. St. Peter, the first of among a long list of popes, would err and falter as a man. But as the Shepherd of the Universal Church his profession of Faith and his teachings would be preserved from error. Indeed, he would be the voice of Christ for the Church and for the world. This charism that was given to him at Caesarea Philippi was a charism that would be communicated to every one of his successors. In every era, through the successors of St. Peter, God provided a standard bearer of spiritual and moral truth.

To express the permanence and reliability of God's instrument of communicating truth, Jesus used the biblical image of a Rock to name Peter. In fact, the name “Peter” itself means Rock in Aramaic. In the Old Testament, the term “rock” was originally applied to God. But it also was used by the prophet Isaiah in reference to Abraham: “Listen to me, you who pursue justice, who seek the LORD; Look to the rock from which you were hewn, to the pit from which you were quarried; Look to Abraham, your father, and to Sarah, who gave you birth...” (51:1-2) Therefore, in the Old Testament, the name, “Rock” was not exclusively applied to God; it was also bequeathed to Abraham as well. It had a two-fold meaning of fatherhood and security from evil and error. As the Psalmist prayed, “LORD, my rock, my fortress, my deliverer, My God, my rock of refuge, my shield, my saving horn, my stronghold!” Similarly, in the New Testament, St. Paul said that Christ was referred to as the spiritual rock that followed Moses in the desert. And yet, Jesus himself changed the name of Simon to Peter, meaning Rock. His ministry as the Rock of the New Testament was, like Abraham, a father of God's people and a source of religious certainty. To be sure, as the First Vatican Council taught, religious truth can be known with certainty.

In the meantime, there was the huge rock in the background at Caesarea Philippi; the hollowed cave, which was impressed into the rock, is where the multitudes from many nations worshipped false gods. But upon a new rock, a rock that would be made into a mountain, our Lord would build his Church. This rock or stone would strike down the Roman Empire with a spiritual sword as the prophet Daniel prophesied: “But the stone that struck the statue [the iron statue represented the last of the great pagan empires...the Roman Empire] became a great mountain and filled the whole earth.” About this mountain Isaiah said, “The LORD'S house shall be established as the highest mountain and raised above the hills. All nations shall stream toward it...” (Isaiah 2:2-3)

Conclusion: What America can learn from Caesarea Philippi IV

What America can learn from Caesarea Philippi II

Jesus asked his Apostles, “Who do men say that I am?” The place where this pivotal question was answered to this question is every bit as important as the answers the Apostles give.

After the Roman army destroyed Jerusalem in 70 A.D., almost forty years after this question by our Lord was posed, thousands of Jewish fugitives were caught and were forced to participate in gladiator games in Caesarea Philippi; most of whom died. If truth be told, first century Caesarea Philippi epitomized what was wrong with the world. Human cruelty was sponsored by the State and the cult of the State, through which Augustus was worshipped as a god, was prominent. Furthermore, the famous cave near the ancient city hosted the worship of Canaanite, Greek and Roman gods. From this, superstition flourished.

Religious confusion and uncertainty is never an isolated phenomenon. Invariably, it begets moral uncertainty which in turn gives birth to social disorder. Religion, morality, the social order and the political order are indivisibly linked together. What we believe about God determines how we live, how we treat others, how we understand the family and how we govern. In the case of ancient paganism, the endless number of fictional gods was symptomatic of man’s attempt to make God into his own image. When religion becomes this arbitrary, so does the moral code by which people live. And let there be no doubt, when the moral law is subject to such easy manipulation, the body politic and the State can justify any behavior. Slavery, blood sports, infanticide and even human sacrifices were all State-sanctioned practices in every part of the globe at one time.

This moral darkness was only to be dispelled when God took the initiative to reveal himself in the person of Jesus Christ, the long awaited Messiah. And it is only through an exclusive and singular dedication to this Divine Person in human flesh that the Light of God was to disseminate throughout the world.

In Caesarea Philippi, the question posed by Jesus Christ demonstrated just how the light of religious certainty was to be established. Again, he asked: "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?" The Gospel of Matthew continues: “They replied, ‘Some say John the Baptist, others Elijah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.’ He said to them, ‘But who do you say that I am?’ Simon Peter said in reply, ‘You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.’ Jesus said to him in reply, ‘Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.’” (Matthew 16:13-19)

As the Apostles indicated, there was no consensus as to who Jesus was. Making reference to the rumors in Palestine, the Apostles cited four different answers as to who he might be. When human beings are left to their own devices, when they rely on their own wisdom, what inevitably follows is contradiction and error. In the Gospel of John, during Jesus’ sermon on the Eucharist, there were hecklers among the crowd who protested the eating of raw human flesh. Of course, they misunderstood our Lord’s message. However, their misunderstanding was an occasion for Jesus to remind his listeners just how limited human wisdom is. He said, “It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail.” Not his flesh, but it is human flesh, that is, human ways of thinking that are the problem. And the problem is to be remedied by the infusion of the Holy Spirit. It is the Third Person of the Holy Trinity that compensates for the limitation of human understanding. St. Paul puts it yet another way: “For the Spirit scrutinizes everything, even the depths of God…Now the natural person does not accept what pertains to the Spirit of God…The spiritual person, however, can judge everything but is not subject to judgment by anyone.”

Going back to Caesarea Philippi, the Apostles gave the indication that the Jewish people were just as confused about Christ as the Gentiles were about their many gods. But St. Peter, inspired by the Father, came forth to profess Christ as the Messiah, the Son of the living God. A new day had dawned. Religious certainty would be possible, not only for St. Peter and the Apostles, but for the whole world.


More on the next blog-