Contending For The Faith---Part 24

 

In St. Jude 1:3, we read, "Dearly beloved, taking all care to write unto you concerning your common salvation, I was under a necessity to write unto you: to beseech you to contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints." [Emphasis mine]. Contending For The Faith is a series of posts dedicated to apologetics (i.e.,  the intellectual defense of the truth of the Traditional Catholic Faith) to be published the first Monday of each month.  This is the next installment.

Sadly, in this time of Great Apostasy, the faith is under attack like never before, and many Traditionalists don't know their faith well enough to defend it. Remember the words of our first pope, "But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect..." (1Peter 3:16). There are five (5) categories of attacks that will be dealt with in these posts. Attacks against:

• The existence and attributes of God
• The truth of the One True Church established by Christ for the salvation of all 
• The truth of a particular dogma or doctrine of the Church
• The truth of Catholic moral teaching
• The truth of the sedevacantist position as the only Catholic solution to what has happened since Vatican II 

In addition, controversial topics touching on the Faith will sometimes be featured, so that the problem and possible solutions may be better understood. If anyone had suggestions for topics that would fall into any of these categories, you may post them in the comments. I cannot guarantee a post on each one, but each will be carefully considered.

"Personal" Morality and Nonsense Questions

I decided to tackle two issues that often come up in apologetics. With the heretical Fiducia supplicans ("Supplicating Trust") allowing sodomite couples (as well as fornicating and adulterous heterosexual couples) to be "blessed," I have heard the drivel that nothing can really be sinful "as long as you're not hurting anyone." This false idea will be dealt with first. Second, I overheard an atheist challenging someone who believed in God, "So tell me, if God is all-powerful [omnipotent], can He make a rock so big He can't lift it?" The upshot was if God cannot lift the rock, he can't do everything. If God cannot make the rock, He still cannot do everything since He can't lift it. Therefore, God (allegedly) can't do everything and is no all-powerful.

These questions, meant to sound erudite, are nonsense that prove nothing. It will be the second issue I will address this week. (N.B. I take no credit for the information in this post. I have collected much apologetic materials over the years in the Philosophy of Religion, both books and online, far too numerous to list. All credit to those authors. I only take credit for compiling the information into a terse and readable post which I hope can be useful.---Introibo). 

"As Long As You're Not Hurting Anyone, It's OK"

 God has given us the Ten Commandments to be meticulously observed. The Magisterium of Holy Mother Church tells us exactly what people must do (and refrain from doing) regarding each of those Commandments. Furthermore, the Natural Law, written on the hearts of all human beings, allows us to know what's right and wrong on many aspects of morality even apart from the Church.

When you tell someone something is wrong (especially sins against the Sixth and Ninth Commandments) they will tell you that nothing is wrong as long as no one is getting hurt.  People object because they’ve been told virtue is out of vogue, to be dismissed as a relic of the Dark Ages. Modern society actually uses four tactics to wiggle out of morality:

1. It rejects morals as antiquated.

Virtue and vice, righteousness and sin are old-fashioned. We’ve progressed beyond the primitive level of people in biblical times. Yet no one reading the Bible and the morning paper side by side would ever claim this, for they both describe the same dynamics.

2. It replaces virtue with “values.”  The vocabulary of virtue has suffered a serious downgrade. Originally, we were supposed to value what was valuable—not trash. When Plato spoke of “the good,” or the priest expounded on “sin,” there was general agreement that good and evil are meaningful categories, and that words about good and evil are connected with a real moral world. Not now.  Instead of actions and lifestyle choices being good or evil, they become subjective “values”—which are private. People often say, “Virtues may be real for you, but they aren’t for me.” Educators, media pundits, film stars, and Bergoglio's "priests" have all bought into this attack on virtue. They seem to be terrified of being thought judgmental or bigoted, and are quick to parrot the vocabulary of the world.

3. It separates private life from the public sphere.

Modern society naively imagines that one’s private character shouldn’t be taken into account when it comes to one’s public life. Yet surely someone who has made thousands of little compromises is more likely, given something of importance to do (like run a company or a nation), to make a few big compromises. Further, a man who betrays his wife (adultery) may think little of selling out those who trust him to do what is right.

4. Most importantly, any behavior is acceptable if you are not "hurting anyone."

At first this sounds somewhat reasonable. “Leave me alone—I’m not hurting anyone.” However, is this true? Moral choices affect everyone. Virtue has a leavening effect through society. Vice, like pollution, diminishes the quality of life for all us. Further, while all sins are not equal, all sins are serious, from the  venial sins to mortal sins. People may be horrified by murder, but  ironically, what about abortion? What does the average person think of fornication?  How about slander, or disrespect? All sin is a violation of God’s Will, and is destructive.

Let's see the falsity of "any action is good as long as I'm not hurting anyone," with some examples:

• A person may think, “I’m not hurting anyone by throwing this trash on the ground.” But is littering harmless? We all pay: collectively by higher taxes, or aesthetically by being forced to behold ugliness in place of natural beauty. 

• Now consider gluttony. Are there any victims besides the gourmand? Yes; higher health premiums affect us all.

• All crimes, from tax evasion to bank robbery, drive up the cost of living, even if it wasn’t my bank that was robbed.

• Indulging in porn assures the victimization of a steady stream of young women (and men and even children). 

• Even if a drunk isn’t driving, his poor judgment still affects others: absenteeism in effect lowers our wages (others have to work harder to cover him); he probably uses more than his fair share of health care, too.

• Gossip may seem trivial, but it unfairly affects how we view and interact with third parties. 

• Academic cheating lowers educational standards, and confirms the cheater in patterns that may continue in the workplace.

• Materialism—the Church calls it greed—feeds consumerism, which often furthers the exploitation of workers in the developing world.

Sin twists our character, saps our moral strength and integrity, and weakens our love for others. Sin affects the individual, but it also has social consequences, like alienation. Until now, I've listed only temporal/material consequences, so even those who scoff at "organized religion" can understand.

However, the most serious consequence of sin, is weakening (venial) or destroying (mortal) our life and friendship with God. No one wakes up one day and decides to rob a bank and take illicit drugs. Those little unchecked venial sins, lead to more venial sins, until mortal sin is committed; the greatest evil there is in the world. The consequence of mortal sin is eternal torment in Hell, unless the person sincerely repents (or converts if not Traditionalist Catholic)  with contrition prior to the moment of death. Even if someone doesn't believe this to be true, it is objectively true nonetheless. The secular examples above should be enough to make your point to an atheist or agnostic. 

Responding to Common Slogans

1.“It’s my choice.”   I agree. Everyone should take choices seriously, and all should be glad other people recognize their choices are up to them. However, not all choices are good and you must consider all consequences. These leads to the second slogan. Ultimately, all sin is between each person and God. Most sin affects other people, directly or indirectly. However, since every sin is an offense against God, it’s simply not true that poor moral choices don’t hurt anyone else.

2. "Who are you to judge?"

I'm not judging. God judges, and we can and should apply the principles of morality to the actions of others in the external forum. God alone will judge guilt or innocence in the internal forum. It may be hard to believe in this age of Bergoglio, but sin also affects others, even if it is committed in private. Sin diminishes our capacity to love. It erodes character. Like certain beverages and medications, it influences judgment. Sooner or later somebody is going to be hurt. 

The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other. (Galatians 5:19-26).

 Responding to "Nonsense Questions" About God

Now, I will address some trick questions skeptics use to “prove” that the concept of God is illogical. Skeptics call them “contradictions;" but they are really nonsense upon examination.  The questions are usually like these: 

If there’s really a God . . . 

•  could he create loud silence? 
• could he make a square circle? 
• could he make a rock so heavy that even He couldn’t lift it?

In each case, the skeptic expects an answer of "no." (The answer is no.) However, the skeptic will then declare that God isn’t all-powerful, since He is unable to accomplish these tasks. The all-powerful God is mere fiction.

Let's examine the first nonsense question: Can God make a loud silence?  Loud silence is impossible by definition, since "loud silence" isn’t silent. How can non-silence be silence? Unless one tinkers with definitions, or subverts logic, the combination is absolutely impossible. The concept is incoherent. Loud silence could be reworded “non-silent silence.” That would violate the simple law of identity (A = A). The revised query becomes: Could God create non-silent silence?

Put this way, the question is exposed for what it is: a trick. The same goes for the square circle. How about the impossibly heavy rock? It’s another nonsense question. An infinitely powerful God could move any rock—granted. But he could not exceed his own infinite powers in creating an even more infinite chunk of stone, for this would require that "infinity > infinity" which is mathematically/logically impossible.

Therefore, it is not that the rock can't be made, but rather that the very terms of the question render it jabberwocky. You have not really "asked" anything. It reminds me of the pagan Buddhists who ask themselves "What is the sound of one hand clapping?" as they meditate. The fact is that "omnipotent" does NOT mean "the ability to do anything at all." God cannot do anything that contradicts His Nature. 

Therefore, God cannot lie. That by two immutable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie, we may have the strongest comfort, who have fled for refuge to hold fast the hope set before us. (Hebrews 6:18). So if ever someone asks you a question like these, take a moment. Think about what kind of question it is. It may well be a nonsense question, one that once reworded turns out to be meaningless.

Conclusion

Even sins that people commit in private have both public and eternal consequences. "Blessing" sodomites gives this wretched sin  an aura of legitimacy; that it's not so bad, and "Who am I to judge?" Likewise, there are atheists and agnostics who consider themselves wise, and attempt to disprove God with nonsense, worshipping only themselves and doing as they please. The two ideas go together. 

Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.

Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. (Romans 1:22-25).