Category Archives: Roman Catholicism
Catholic Response to Atheism
I was wondering when I’d see a Catholic response to New Atheism. Most books I’ve seen have been by Protestant authors, though I know Dave Armstrong has done a continuing series on his blog addressing an atheist on YouTube, and recently detailed the Top 10 Atheist Arguments and exposed their fallacies.
Now, Patrick Madrid has released a new book, The Godless Delusion, with coauthor Ken Hensley. Madrid’s book tackles philosophical objections to atheism, and isn’t a defense of theism per se. Madrid took note of some atheists commenting on his book at RichardDawkins.net. Fascinatingly enough, none of them had actually read the book. User xwizbit seems the lone voice of reason:
I have to point out that when I was (an admittedly very wishy-washy and doubting) Christian I challenged myself to test my faith against a reading of The God Delusion, for various and sundry personal reasons. It hammered home what I was already secretly thinking about god, and turned me into the radical atheist I am today.
Nevertheless, had I merely mocked and jeered at the book, I’d still be wandering about in a fog of confusion instead of splashing in the waters of a clear-thinking oasis. Is it too much to ask that we might dare to challenge a book by reading it and then commenting?
After all, thankful as I am to Mr Dawkins, I at least read his book before wholeheartedly embracing it!
Which, of course, meets with invective of its own, despite the fact that xwizbt all but recanted this position in the very next comment (after having read the introduction). This one from user TrumpetPower!:
xwizbt, in this case the very description is more than ample to dismiss the whole thing as purest nonsense: “With remorseless logic, wit, skill, and boundless, joyful enthusiasm it lays waste that stronghold, routs the enemy, occupies the high ground for Christ their king, and dares anyone to retake it.”
Anybody who thinks it’s a good thing to occupy the high ground for an ancient zombie hero in a religious snuff porn anthology isn’t deserving of serious consideration.
Defending the indefensible: sharp critique of a book that one hasn’t read. And a statement that clearly shows this person doesn’t understand anything about the Christian faith.
And an anonymous commenter said this:
It’s astonishing. Believers come about their superstition via faith, which has nothing to do with reason. Then they pretend that they can defend their faith with reason. It just makes no sense to me. All they should do–all that they are entitled to do–is to stand there and say “I have faith”. That’s it.
While most atheists scream at us to defend our faith, this guy says that we aren’t even entitled to defend our faith. Obviously, he doesn’t actually understand what faith is. Actually, no atheist I know of knows what authentic faith is. Faith and reason are certainly not incompatible; where did this serious error in logical thought originate? That might make an interesting e-book some time in the future.
Iowa Math Teacher Fired for Being an Atheist
I don’t get it.
Why are people so up in arms about this?
Abby Nurre, a math teacher at St. Edmond’s Catholic School in Fort Dodge, IA, was fired because she joined Atheist Nexus, a social networking site for atheists. She also posted some material on her Facebook page that leads one to the inescapable conclusion that she was, indeed, an atheist. (She denied it, but I’m thinking if you don’t believe in God, that necessarily makes you an atheist. But whatever.)
Why would this upset people? When we join a group, we limit ourselves in some ways by necessity.
A manager in my workplace recently got facial piercings. All facial piercings are forbidden by the dress code. She signed the dress code policy when she accepted employment. Moreover, as a manager, she is bound not only to follow the dress code but to enforce it. Despite this, she is shocked and very unhappy that her job is now in jeopardy unless she agrees that she won’t wear the offending jewelry during work hours.
When Anthony Flew, a prominent atheist, came out as a deist, most in the atheist community crucified him. Richard Carrier, for example, forwarded the theory that Flew’s new book wasn’t written by Flew at all. Others posited that, as an older man, Flew had probably succumbed to senility. Senility is the only way to explain God-belief manifesting in a convinced atheist like Flew, right? Either way, he has been excommunicated from whatever sort of community that atheists have.
Francis Beckwith, former president of the Evangelical Theological Society, announced his conversion to Roman Catholicism. He wanted to stay on as president, but the ETS is an Evangelical Protestant organization, so most felt that it would be a serious conflict of interest. While being a Catholic doesn’t necessarily conflict with the generalized statement of faith required of all members, Catholicism does have very different ideas for how grace and works relate, as well as what the “finished” work of the Atonement really means.
These examples demonstrate the point I’m trying to drive home: when we associate with a group, we implicitly agree to the underlying philosophies that set the group apart from all other groups. When we show, by word or deed, that we no longer accept the core group philosophies, we have eliminated ourselves from membership in that group.
Ms. Nurre didn’t get fired so much as eliminate herself from the ability to be included in that particular group. She doesn’t embrace the core philosophy of Catholicism: affirmation in the existence of deity, and the revelation of deity in the person of Jesus Christ. Her dismissal shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone. Why is it?
Ethical Dilemma
Sr. Margaret McBride
Mark from Proud Atheists tends to draw much criticism from me. Mark is a bit childish in his arguments against religion in general, and Christianity in particular. The set of atheists who continually refer to God as “Sky Daddy,” “Sky Fairy,” or compare the evidence for the existence of God to the evidence for the existence of garden gnomes do tend to be childish. These are also the same ones who refer to God as “your god” when addressing my rebuttals and accuse me (without proof) of believing that people who don’t adhere to my “concept of the Christian god” will go to hell. Because I’m just that mean and arrogant, I guess. As such, their arguments tend to be less than compelling. Or even outright stupid.
Mark holds a special place in my heart because he makes misunderstandings and mischaracterizations of Christianity into an art form. I’m currently working on answering this post bullet point by bullet point, and the misrepresentation would be laughable if it weren’t so annoying. If you’re going to criticize a position, at least have some basic understanding of it! Mark shows no evidence of understanding anything about God or Christianity.
Ready to give up on Mark yet? Well, I’m not. In a world of unbelievably dumb blog entries about the existence of God, this is, quite frankly, a stand out post. And I mean that as a compliment. Mark raises some good issues that should be considered from an ethical perspective. Read the rest of this entry
Arrest the Pope?
The atheist blogosphere has been positively buzzing as of late with calls to arrest Pope Benedict XVI. I’m no fan of the Catholic Church, but I have seen evidence that the media reports half-truths and pulls things out of context to make the Catholic Church look worse than it has to. The case of Father Lawrence Murphy is a great example.
The leader of the charge is the always pit bull-like Christopher Hitchens. Hitchens wants the Pope charged with aiding and abetting the scandal–or perhaps more serious charges, such as accessory to rape.
The problem is that the Holy See, of which the Pope is head, is treated as a state for the purposes of international relations. As head of that state, the Pope enjoys sovereign immunity, the controversial concept that the government can’t be the subject of a lawsuit or a criminal proceeding.
Sovereign immunity can be waived by the owner, and it’s very doubtful that either the Pope or the Catholic Church will do that. Or, courts can strike it down as inapplicable in the current case, as was done by the U.S. Court of Appeals in Cincinnati in November of 2008. A case against the Vatican was allowed to proceed because sovereign immunity doesn’t apply to tort law, according to the Fedeal Sovereign Immunities Act.
Sovereign immunity doesn’t apply to international tribunals, either. The Pope could still be charged in the International Criminal Court for patterns of human rights violations perpetrated by the Vatican under the previous two pontiffs.
It will be interesting to see if this actually comes to pass. I doubt that it will, but we shall see.
Media Sensationalism and the New Pedophile Priest Scandals
Maureen Dowd wrote an op-ed piece in the New York Times about the Catholic pedophile priest scandals that seem to be a dime a dozen now. This piece first came to my attention via Atheist Revolution, writing:
A priest molested 200 deaf boys and was ignored by Ratzinger. 200 deaf boys. Just when I think this sick enterprise cannot possibly get any worse, we learn not only that this happened but that the victims have spent 30 years of their lives trying to get the church to pay attention to them!
Then Cardinal Ratzinger was informed about this abuse and chose to look the other way. How can anyone reconcile this with the whole infallibility thing?
Regular readers know that I’m not apt to defend the Catholic Church. I am deeply sickened by moving priests who molest little boys from diocese to diocese, hoping no one will actually catch on. I’m sympathetic to the missions of SNAP and BishopAccountability.org. I think that something needs to change.
That said, I also believe in correctly representing those that you criticize. Dowd isn’t doing that at all. Neither is Vjack.
But should it surprise me? Nope. I’ve proven Vjack wrong before, and he keeps repeating the same mistakes. I’m thinking that he’s not going to take the correction here, either.
With regards to “the whole infallibility thing,” papal infallibility should be properly defined.
Papal infallibility is the dogma in Roman Catholic theology that, by action of the Holy Spirit, the Pope is preserved from even the possibility of error when he solemnly declares or promulgates to the universal Church a dogmatic teaching on faith or morals as being contained in divine revelation, or at least being intimately connected to divine revelation.
And it goes on:
This dogma, however, does not state either that the Pope cannot sin in his own personal life or that he is necessarily free of error, even when speaking in his official capacity, outside the specific contexts in which the dogma applies.
Not to mention that the actions which Vjack wishes to contrast with papal infallibility occured when Benedict was prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, before he was Pope. This is not a valid comparison. Even so, no one has ever claimed that the Pope is free of sin, only that he cannot teach error (though I should remind everyone that I disagree with that position vehemently).
But, Catholic theology aside, what about the fact that the future Pope looked the other way when faced with this case? Thing is, he probably didn’t. This is being misrepresented by the media. Grossly. Jimmy Akin has analyzed the available documents and presents a more accurate version of events here.
Again, I’m no fan of the Catholic Church. It seems to me that some of the criticisms in the Father Murphy case are unwarranted. But, let’s not lose sight of the fact that this man did molest boys by his own admission. He still deserved more punishment than just being moved to another diocese, though since he had to live with his mother some may argue that may have been punishment enough.
Both the civil authorities and the Catholic Church are to blame here. The police knew about the case and had investigated, but nothing ever came of it. And the Church should have done much more than just move Murphy to another diocese and call it a day.
Was it really necessary to open a trial with the purpose of defrocking an ill and frail old man who is a threat to no one some 30 years after the offenses took place? If civil authorites built a case against a murderer who had killed someone 30 years ago and recently suffered a second stroke leaving him in poor health, no one would bat an eyelash if the authorities elected to not prosecute the offender. Why is this different? (I’m really looking forward to your answers.)
Catholicism Amuses Me
Okay, during Lent Catholics must abstain from eating meat on Fridays, unless they don’t have to. Headache…
Is Masturbation a Sin? A Disagreement with Steve Hays
Steve Hays of Triablogue defends masturbation as a good thing here. Matthew Bellisario responds to that here. I weigh in, siding (for once) with Bellisario here. Hays responds to all three of us in one fell swoop here. I’ll let Dave Armstrong and Matthew Bellisario deal with his retorts to them on their own. I’ll consider Hay’s response to me.
[A] guy named Cory also raised some objections. Unfortunately, he doesn’t offer any arguments to respond to. Just assertions.
So, Hays isn’t going to respond to me at all. Darn.
I already dealt with the “lust” objection, both practically and exegetically. Of course, I could always be wrong, but no counterargument is forthcoming from his end.
Oh, whoops! He is responding to me. I’d better start paying attention. Let’s see. He’s already dealt with the lust objection. Unless I’m missing something, he did not deal with the issue at length. This is what he said:
Traditionally, the church has frowned upon masturbation. One reason is the relation between masturbation and lust. This cannot be denied. On the other hand, lust is also aggravated by the absence of a sexual outlet. That is, indeed, in the nature of sexual tension, of a tension between sexual desire and sexual release. Unrelieved sexual tension only builds.
Interesting. So masturbation is fine as an outlet for sexual tensions because otherwise the tensions would simply build and build. This is interesting because the atheist tends to justify things like pre-marital sex, pornography, and other things I would hope that Hays categorizes as sinful by appealing to the same sort of logic. It relies on the false assumption that you can’t deny yourself sexual pleasure. Read the rest of this entry
Bad Denver Archdiocese!
Archbishop Charles Chaput of the Denver archdiocese has recently backed a decision by a local school to expel a child because his parents happen to be a lesbian couple. Jimmy Akin, a staunch defender of Catholic moral theology, naturally sides with the bishop on this and writes his defense here. Of course, good Catholics don’t argue with the bishop once the decision is made.
I’m not Catholic anymore, so I have the luxury of disagreeing, which of course I do. Vehemently.
It is the unfortunate tendency of those who claim to be Christians to treat homosexuality as some sort of super-sin. Cries of “I’m gay!” mean that the crier is immediately ostracized from the Christian community. As if same sex attraction is somehow unforgivable.
Men, haven’t you ever seen a fine specimen of maleness and wondered what it was that drew women to him? Maybe you started to find yourself attracted, too?
I know that women judge the attractiveness of other women, so I’m not even going to as that same rhetorical question for the females.
This type of thing is hardly earth-shaking, and I much doubt that it would be sinful. Perhaps that attraction gets carried to its extreme and then you find yourself experimenting. Then you find yourself liking the results of your dalliance. It could happen to anyone.
Maybe you’re one of those who never found anything attractive about the opposite sex and always gravitated to the same sex. Again, this is hardly earth-shaking. This kind of stuff happens.
Isn’t this how any sin happens? I fantasize about killing my annoying neighbor. The fantasies become more real, and suddenly the opportunity presents itself to make them come true. Next thing I know, I’m on trial because the police found my hairs and a few carpet fibers from my house on the body.
I’ve previously argued that homosexuality is sin, but not a super sin. There is no super-sin that God will not forgive save one. The tendency of the Christian to treat homosexuality as some sort of super-sin and ostracize its practitioners is one of the largest failings of the church to reach sinners badly in need of the grace offered to us through Jesus Christ.
And now, Archbishop Chaput and his defenders are continuing this grave error. By not admitting this child because of his parents’ homosexuality, they are missing a great opportunity to witness to this young man and to teach him that his moms’ behavior is wrong. He will now grow up being taught by example that homosexuality is right and will miss what may be the only opportunity the church may ever have to show him it is sin.
No kudos to Chaput. He is eliminating whatever Christian influence that this boy may have had in his life, and sending the message that we don’t want him because his parents are sinners. Whatever happened to “Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest” (Mt 11:28)? Or, better, Deuteronomy 24:16?
Why I’m Not Roman Catholic
This post’s traffic numbers were up 33% for the week of July 15th. Then it flatlined for two weeks. This week, it’s up 495% in views thanks to this thread at the CARM forums.
The problem is that I no longer agree with a substantial amount of the content found in it. (See comments below.)
Therefore, I have removed it and I’ve left this placeholder. Fret not, however; I have an updated version of this post right here.
If you’d like to read more on why I’m not a Roman Catholic, please view these far more even-handed posts:
Heed the Words of Cardinal Pell
George Cardinal Pell, the archbishop of Sydney, Australia, gave us some wise words that we would do well to heed: Secularism is becoming totalitarian.
James White has said it, Michael Spencer has said it, now I’m going to say it: evangelicalism in America is on its way to enormous and spectacular collapse. Our influence in public policy is waning fast, and we have no one but ourselves to blame for it.
Read the Cardinal’s words for yourself and understand that the only way to fix this problem is to live the way that Christians are supposed to live, and to be the salt and light for the world that Jesus called us to be.
Back Rome Again 
