Response to an Irish Atheist

Fetus IIThe following piece is part of an online exchange I recently had with an Irish atheist who claims to be a medical doctor and enthusiastically voted for abortion.  He obviously feels that Ireland has gradually emerged from its Catholic darkness, with the outcome of the referendum of May 25 being only the latest proof.  I do expend a lot of time and effort responding to such people, with the expectation that I will probably not be given a response from them.  Regardless, my comments are there for others to read, so it’s worth the effort.

I’m posting this exchange because I think it offers a useful example of the manner in which a Catholic should respond to such charges made by an opponent of this nature.  I do not believe in the milk toast, saccharin, hyper-sensitive, coddle-them-like-little-babes approach that is common today.  If such an approach were effective, then the Church would be filled to overflowing with converts, since everyone in the Church has been using it for decades – popes, bishops, priests, deacons, and lay people.  The fact is, such an approach was not used by Our Lord when confronting His staunch opponents, nor by the Apostles, nor by the great apologists and evangelists of the Church.  It has the effect of misrepresenting the Christian religion as an ideology for the timid and effeminate, so I do not use it.  At all times, Christian charity – absolutely – but charity often requires firmness and directness, as every parent knows.  Treat people like adults, and they just might behave like them.  Treat them like babies, and babies you’ll have.

The atheist’s comments have been altered for obvious reasons, but the substance is exactly the same.  I’ve also given him a new name which I think is appropriate, in reference to Herod the Great, that maniac responsible for the slaughter of the Innocents.  His taunting comments are typical anti-Catholic rubbish such as we hear all the time, which is the reason I’ve decided to post them, along with my response.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Doctor McHerod’s Comments:

I’m thrilled to know that you admit Ireland is no longer a Catholic country!  Catholicism is a rancid wicked body of beliefs that I had the misery of enduring for a long time.   But now the pedophile priests have had their day and I’m very happy about it.

The Catholic Church bears the responsibility for the happy outcome of the abortion referendum.  You folks have driven away the good and enlightened people of Ireland, so that they can’t get far enough away from you.   But I noticed in your previous comments that you enthusiastically encouraged people to vote against the introduction of abortion in Ireland.   Well, where were you during the pedophile rampage?!  I couldn’t find your enthusiastic posts denouncing such crimes.

The Catholic religion is so filled with flaws, as are all religions.  There are 7,000 supposed gods, and none of them exist, just like your god.   And that’s the reason you don’t stand a chance.

The Irish today are an especially well-educated people that can easily perceive your deception.   But you can’t, so you are doomed!  They have voted for divorce, contraception, gay marriage, and now abortion.  And you still don’t understand it all; you haven’t gotten the message.

The Irish people are finally awake, and they no longer want you around.  So, GOOD BYE FOREVER!!!  CHEERS!!!

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

My Response:

Doctor McHerod,

Let me answer your questions directly.  I live in the United States.  When it was discovered that perverted priests and bishops were molesting people here and elsewhere, I was immediately screaming about it more angrily than you are now, – online, in the classroom, and on the radio, and at some risk to myself in my own diocese.  So please spare me the self-righteous finger-pointing.

I noticed that you twice referred to “pedophile” priests.  Nice dodge.  The vast majority of sexual crimes committed by priests – approximately 90% in the US – were not between men and very young children, but between men and boys and men and young men.  That’s not pedophilia, that’s homosexuality, so call it what it is.  The Catholic Church was, and still is, a rat’s nest of homosexual clergy.  As a man who went to seminary for one year and almost entered a religious order, who’s been Catholic since 1990 and worked in the Church all that time, I can tell you this firsthand.

And by the way, what’s so bad about men sodomizing children?   The only aspect your side really objects to is the forced nature of the act, that it was rape.  Well, I couldn’t agree with your side more on that point, but I would go much further with my outrage.  The evil in these sexual attacks is not only that they were forced on others, but in the very nature of the act itself: sodomy.  Whether it’s forced or consensual, whether it’s between a man and a child, a man and another man, or a man and a woman, sodomy is a disgusting, unnatural, perverse, and damnable act.  Do you agree with this?  I don’t know; let’s hear from you.  But if you do disagree, as the radical left does, then the only thing that actually upsets you in these scandals is the forced nature of the acts, and not the acts themselves; which means that, if only they had been consensual acts of sodomy, you would have been fine with them.  And that is disgusting.  But again, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt for now and let you answer for yourself.  But that’s the social, cultural, political left – crying out with indignation over the sex scandals in the Catholic Church, while promoting and defending sodomy far and wide, night and day, as just another intimate expression of affection.

Now go ahead and say it: “You should be ashamed to still be a Catholic.  You’re directly supporting and condoning an institution of rapists.  If you were truly opposed to it all, you would have left the Church years ago.”

No, Doctor McHerod, I’m directly condoning and supporting an institution of truth and grace that helps people of every type to grow in wisdom, sanctity, and the love of God, and to attain the end for which they were made – salvation.  But are there rotten apples in the Church?   To answer in the affirmative would be an understatement.  There are rotten orchards in the Church – whole hillsides of stinking decaying fruit!  But all such rot is the antithesis of Catholicism.  If you want to know what genuine Catholicism produces, look to the saints, not the unrepentant sinners.  Saints are the by-products of authentic Catholicism, while unrepentant sinners and scandal-mongers of all types are the result of the rejection of it.  So, to heap the whole Catholic Church into one mass of guilt is to make an entirely emotional judgment, not a rational one.  It is to accuse the numberless innocent Catholics – both clergy and laity – of guilt by association.  Well, in that case, we are all guilty because we are all associated with corruption – both that of others, as well as our own.

I know how to support the good in the Church, but avoid the evil, how to condone the Gospel, the virtues, and the sacraments, but condemn whatever is contrary to them.  I direct my resources and support very carefully and attend only the best of churches.  Any Catholic who cared enough could do the same.  If I see something contrary to goodness in the Church, then I withhold my support from it.

How about yourself?  Do you support evil of any type, in any way?  Yes, you do.  You just supported it with your pro-abortion vote.  You are part and parcel of a movement that kills many millions of innocent human beings in the womb.  They will die for the “crime” of being young and defenseless in a society with no heart for them.  In order to pacify your consciences, you redefine them as non-persons.

And do these “non-persons” feel pain?  Why don’t you watch a video of an abortion, and see for yourself whether that tiny victim embraces the abortionist’s deadly instruments, or desperately tries to escape them.  No pro-life propaganda in that approach, but just the demonstrable facts.

Instead of looking to these pre-born children with any sense of humaneness, you take from them their right to live, and concern yourself only with their mothers, whom you care for by allowing them to become the murderers of their own flesh and blood.   In taking from one the most fundamental right of life, you give to another the invented liberty to kill the innocent.

And apparently, this is motivated by your hatred for the Catholic Church and religion in general?  Killing babies in the womb – babies who aren’t even Catholic – is a strange way of getting back at the Church.  In fact, it’s a complete miss that strikes dead a perfectly innocent party.

But let’s take another approach.  By any chance, do you pay federal taxes?  Is your government in any way corrupt?  Have any of your officials committed crimes, been bribed by donors, or failed to fulfill their campaign promises?  Has your government ever supported unjust violence or war any place in the world?  Those were rhetorical questions, of course.  But do you at all give financial support to your government?

Did you ever attend a public school or a college?  Our public schools are filled with sex scandals.  There are now countless instances of female teachers having sex with very young male students.  The latest involves a thirty-two-year-old Ohio woman who had sex in her classroom with a fourteen-year-old boy, and who told him to lie about it to the principal.  The pictures of middle-aged women accused of rape have become a semi-regular feature in the news these days.  Out of a consistent indignation, should we not, therefore, denounce the public school system as a whole?  Should we not withhold all taxes that will be used to support it, and withdraw our children from it?

And what about Hollywood and its decades-long practices of systematic widespread abuse, harassment, and rape of countless girls and boys and women and men?  You know, those rich and famous Hollywood elites who live in mansions or gated communities, who are outspoken anti-gun activists, and yet, make a living shooting guns and glamorizing violence on the big screen?   Surely you’ve heard about Roman Polanski, Harvey Weinstein, Oliver Stone, Kevin Spacey, and most recently Morgan Freeman – that darling of the left?  Except for Harvey, who interestingly has a knack for distributing anti-Catholic films through his company Miramax, all of these people are still out free and enjoying life.  I’ll stop there with the names, but the list goes on and on.

Now are you still supporting the horribly corrupt institution of Hollywood by watching its movies, or have you been too busy taking part in anti-Hollywood protests?  And can you point me to your outrage online?   By your own reasoning, you should be publically denouncing and permanently boycotting Hollywood by refusing to enjoy any of its movies.

Come to think of it, are any of our famously outspoken social justice warriors presently boycotting Hollywood and all its movies?  Hmph, I can’t think of even one that is.

What about the medical field?  Have you ever considered the barbaric practices of medicine in recent centuries, including the horrific mental institutions and state hospitals from the twentieth century which used, for example, electro-shock therapy?  Have you considered the countless doctors in all fields of medicine who have groped women during examinations, or neglected or misdiagnosed patients who then went to early deaths?  How about the countless surgical errors that have resulted in the mistaken removal of healthy limbs or organs, or the errors on the operating table that resulted in worse health crises than the patients had when being prepped?

Doctor McHerod, have you been busily denouncing your own field of medicine and all its personnel for their intolerable cruelties to the innocent?  Or rather, do you save all your indignation and righteous anger exclusively for the Catholic Church, or for religion in general, which you personally dislike?  I see a double-standard of righteous anger here.

We could play this game all day and all night, moving on to such fields as science, the military, the police, and the media.  I hope by now you’ve gotten my point.

The fact is, if you want to play the indignation game and be consistent about it, then you need to withdraw from all institutions and society as a whole to the innocent woods, where you can live in peace with your sensitive social conscience and high standard of social justice.  Until you’ve done so, please spare me the selective indignation directed only at the Catholic Church.  It’s old-fashioned calculated bigotry of the most obvious kind.

The truth is, you’re perfectly fine with corruption and injustice.  The proof is in the fact that last week you voted for the most corrupt and unjust act imaginable – the slaughter of the innocent in the womb.  The abused, the molested, and the raped have a second chance.  With counseling and the compassion and support of others, they have the hope of recovery and a new beginning.  But for the aborted there can be no such hope, but only a voter-approved agonizing end to their brief little lives.

May the God that you reject move you to repentance with His grace, restore your empathy and understanding, and have mercy on your soul before the Day of days when the opportunities for repentance will be past.  I am praying for you, Doctor McHerod.

Addendum:

If anyone would like to propose atheism as a solution to the problems of religion turned rotten, please consider the following atheistic regimes casualty numbers:

  • Jozef Stalin (USSR 1932-39 only): 15,000,000 people murdered
  • Pol Pot (Cambodia, 1975-79): 1,700,000 people murdered
  • Kim II Sung (North Korea 1948-94): 1.6 million people murdered
  • Tito (Yugoslavia 1945-1987): 570,000 people murdered
  • Suharto (Communists 1967-66): 500,000 people murdered
  • Ante Pavelic (Croatia 1941-45): 359,000 people murdered
  • Ho Chi Min (Vietnam 1953-56): 200,000 people murdered
  • Vladimir Ilich Lenin (USSR, 1917-20): 30,000 people murdered
  • Adolf Hitler (Germany 1939-1945): 12,000,000 people murdered
  • Mao Ze-Dong (China, 1958-61 and 1966-69, Tibet 1949-50): 49-78,000,000 people murdered

Dwarfing these numbers is the casualty count of abortions in America since 1973: 61,000,000 babies murdered.  The present US rate is about three thousand per day.

According to the CDC, the deaths of women due to abortion is a matter of voluntary reporting by abortion clinics.  Chillingly, the number is therefore unknown.

Advertisements

Jesus Christ, the Great Divider

crucifixionThe Gospel reading for the Twentieth Sunday in Ordinary Time contains an important teaching that is fundamental to the faith:

“Do you think that I came to give peace upon the earth?  No, I tell you, but division.  For henceforth in one house five will be divided, three against two, and two against three.  They will be divided, father against son and son against his father; mother against daughter and daughter against the mother; mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law” (Lk. 12:51053).

This teaching is so important that Jesus dwells on it for a moment, explaining and emphasizing it almost to the point of being redundant.  Simply, following Him will produce all types and degrees of division between people, even between members of the same family.

This is not the message we hear from the world, or from the world in the Church.  Rather, Christ is allegedly the great harmonizer Who “heals” all divisions.  If we follow His Gospel of unity, then we will find ourselves generally at peace with the world and with those around us.  In fact, the mark of the true Christian who “gets it” is that they are relaxed and open to others and to the life styles and beliefs of others.  They are peacemakers in the sense that they object to nothing and accept everything.  They simply live and let live.

It is a lie.  The worldling’s notion of peace and harmony is, in fact, the sin of religious indifference  and the vice of cowardice.  And these common moral failures are far more popular than the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  Hence, you will hear this indifference and cowardice preached far and wide, from both pulpit and podium, from both Church and State.

Jesus did not come in order to bring division.  Dividing people was not His immediate purpose.  But because He has come and called all of us to accept Him, His teaching, and His Church, there will be divisions even between the closest of persons – between spouses, parents and children, and best friends.  Why?  Because some will accept Him while others will reject Him.  Some will embrace His teachings and others will denounce them.

Let’s not be subjective about “accepting” Jesus.  In using the term, I don’t in any way refer to a vague and sentimental sort of acceptance, so that we merely have warm feelings towards Christ.  For genuine faith ultimately is theological; it is specific and holds with undying certainty to clear defined ideas about God, man, the world, and the future.  And this is the reason that true faith brings hardship and division: it holds uncompromisingly to certain defined truths which concern all human persons.

In the last Beatitude, Jesus said,

“Blessed are you when men reproach you, and persecute you, and speaking falsely, say all manner of evil against you, for my sake.  Rejoice and exult, because your reward is great in heaven; for so did they persecute the prophets who were before you” (Mt. 5:11-12).

This passage refers to unjust persecution for the sake of Christ.  In other words, one is mistreated and mocked by others specifically because one is faithful in some matter to Christ.  This is the division that the faithful cannot, and must not, avoid.  As the world and its adherents increasingly immerse themselves in the most depraved forms of immorality and irreligiosity, and as they continue to promote these – first as an enlightened way, and then as the only permissible way – as a result, standing firm in the truths proclaimed by Christ and His Church will increasingly identify us as “different,” and therefore, as divisive.  Fidelity to the Gospel will separate us from those around us.  Loyalty to the God of revelation will divide us from those who overtly or covertly reject that revelation.  This concerns both doctrines and morals, for to accept one thing as true requires that we accept the contrary thing as false, and this is precisely what Christ asks of us: to adhere to the light and renounce the darkness.  But it’s also the consequence of being creatures endowed with reason.  Hence, it is only logical and consistent that, to believe in one body of beliefs is to disbelieve in all contrary bodies of beliefs.  Of course, the modern knee-jerk reaction to this view is to say that one should remain open to all beliefs.  But this is ultimately to say that nothing is true; therefore, belief is irrelevant.  It is doctrinal and moral relativism and the vice of indifference parading as the virtue of tolerance.

To accept as true the teachings of Christ and His Church, and to strive to practice them and teach them to others that they, too, may accept them, is to be divisive.  Sorry, but truth divides, as do love, goodness, and beauty.  Hence, when considering the religion of Islam, one is faced with two  very different Gabriels.   In the Gospel of St. Luke, the angel Gabriel announced to the Virgin Mary that she would bear a Son who would be called the “Son of the Most High” and the “Son of God” (Lk. 1:32, 35).  (Incidentally, at Jesus’ trial before the Sanhedrin Council, the high priest asked Him if he was the Son of God, and Jesus answered, using a Jewish mode of affirmation, “Yes.”)  And yet, the Quran – allegedly revealed to Mohammad by the angel Gabriel – asserts that it is below the majesty of Allah to have a son.  Therefore, it flatly denies the divine Sonship of Christ.

This presents the faithful with a dilemma: we cannot accept both Gabriels, for one denied what the other affirmed.  Both revelations cannot logically be true, for they are opposites.   In addition, at #67 the Catechism says,

“Christian faith cannot accept ‘revelations’ that claim to surpass or correct the Revelation of which Christ is the fulfillment, as is the case in certain non-Christian religions and also in certain recent sects which base themselves on such ‘revelations.'”

This passage certainly refers to Islam, since Muslims claim that wherever the Bible and the Quran disagree, the Quran is to be followed since it corrects the corrupted biblical text.

To accept the Christian revelation as true requires that we reject the veracity of the alleged revelations of Mohammad.  This will cause division between Christians and Muslims (though there need not be violence), but there is no other way except the way of indifference, of feigning agreement by avoiding the facts of our respective religions.

Notice that I referred above to the “veracity” of Mohammad’s revelations, and not to their historicity.  It is entirely possible that Mohammad received the contents of the Quran through a real angelic revelation.  I don’t dispute that.  The question is, however, What was the nature of that angel?  And here I’m obviously suggesting the possibility of a demonic event.

Would you like to avoid all division with others?  Would you like to be thought of as an easy-going laid-back and peaceable sort of character who gets along with everyone at all times?  Would you like to escape those tense disagreements about morality with others, those agonizing discussions with your homosexual son, lesbian daughter, cohabitating friends, or transvestite co-worker?  Are you tired of being called “judgmental” purely for mentioning the idea of right and wrong conduct?  It’s very simple and the approach is sure to work: simply be a lukewarm Christian, a cafeteria Catholic, a closet Catholic, a fair-weather friend of God.  Pick and choose from the Deposit of Faith only the happier and easier items.  Follow the spirit of the times and hold only the popular opinions.  Simply omit from the ancient faith whatever the world deems inappropriate, and therefore, divisive.  Let the campaigning politicians, the Hollywood whores, and today’s most militant special interest groups be your savior and redeemer, your Mater et Magistra (Mother and Teacher).  If you follow the world, then the world will let you be.  It will let you be its slave, that is, and permit you to think and act only as it thinks and acts – minute by minute and trend by trend.

The disciples of Christ are not called to be mundane slaves, but free men and women who follow their Lord wherever He leads.  And to the degree that we do follow Him – yes, we will often be divisive in the opinion of the world, dividing truth from error, good from evil, and light from darkness.

“You are the light of the world.  A city set on a mountain cannot be hidden.  Neither do men light a lamp and put it under a measure, but upon the lamp-stand, so as to give light to all in the house” (Mt. 5:14-15).

 

 

 

The Progressive Nature of Liberalism

Sodom and GomorrahPerhaps the most outstanding and dangerous aspect of liberalism is its perpetual progressivism.  Put simply, liberalism is never happy, never finished with its agenda, never content with the “progress” thus far made, and never will be.  There will always be the next liberal step.  And after taking that next step, there will always be another and another and another, all in the same direction.  This relentless progressivism can only be stopped by an unforeseen and dramatic event – a great awakening, a divine intervention, a war, or societal collapse.  Civilization cannot and will not survive the extremes of liberalism.

The liberal politician cannot be known or trusted.  Whatever he or she presents to the public as an agenda is only a portion of a much larger scheme.  And possibly even that politician is unaware of the larger scheme, because liberalism is endless and bottomless.  As a radical social experiment that presses into unknown moral territory, it is by nature ever on the move, always pressing for one objective, achieving it, and then pressing on to the next thus far unmentionable objective.  Can even a devotee keep up?

The most grotesque demonstration of these truths is seen in the sexual revolution.  In the mid-twentieth century, this revolution presented itself as a cause of justice.  Women needed to be liberated from the cruel consequences of intercourse and marriage.  Hence, the liberalization of contraception and divorce.  When these were not sufficient, the next step was abortion. Additional steps included infanticide and the sanitization of pre-marital sex, cohabitation, and homosexuality.  Step, step, step, and liberalism finally arrived at the great cause of same-sex “marriage”.  Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy redefined marriage to include same-sex couples, and yet another giant step was taken.

Are we there yet?  Have we arrived at the magnanimous liberal utopia?  Has the entire agenda been revealed and completed?  Absolutely not.  What are the next steps?  They are polygamy, polyandry, legalized prostitution and pedophilia, incest, bestiality, necrophilia, and the total elimination of the idea of gender.

Now what in the world makes me think I can foresee what’s coming?  Simply, reason.  If a Supreme Court Justice can redefine marriage to include same-sex couples, and if that definition can become legally binding on all citizens, such that wedding cake makers and wedding photographers can be sued for objecting to it, county clerks can be jailed for refusing to issue marriage licenses to homosexual couples, and priests, ministers, and rabbis find themselves performing their ministries in fear of the government, then what reason is there to believe that the same will not happen regarding these other extreme forms of perversity?  Such steps are only a mass of propaganda and the stroke of a pen away.

I remember hearing a certain lesbian comedian once joke, when the same-sex “marriage” debate was only just beginning, that the standard Christian lunatic response was, “Oh sure, once you get gay marriage, then you’ll want to marry your pets as well!”  She and her audience burst out laughing.  Sorry, but it’s the truth and it’s only logical.  Step, step, step.  After all, a Massachusetts justice re-defined marriage as an “evolving paradigm”.  How’s that for a purposefully open-ended all-inclusive notion?  What sort of relationship could not fit into that definition?  Actually, it’s not a definition at all; it’s an anti-definition.

Now let’s follow the reasoning to its natural conclusions.  If marriage is not a pre-defined, concrete, objective reality, if, on the contrary, it is a malleable abstraction that can be re-defined by whatever potentate rules the day and in accord with the spirit of the times, then why should anyone believe that it will not be re-defined again and again to include each of the above-mentioned sexual aberrations?  Again, all it takes is a mass of propaganda by a special-interest group and the stroke of a politician’s pen.  All it takes is another liberal step.

If marriage can be re-defined from a life-long covenant between one man and one woman to that of a life-long covenant between two men or two women, then why can it not be re-defined again to that of a life-long covenant between a man and two women or a woman and two men, or between three women or three men?  What could prevent this from happening – the current definition of Justice Kennedy that doesn’t recognize such relationships as marital?  But wait!  Hey-hey, ho-ho!  Injustice!  Intolerance!  Narrow-mindedness!  Judgmentalism!  Bigotry!  Polygaphobia!  Following the identical tactics that the same-sex “marriage” crusade used against traditional marriage, the next group could just as legitimately ask, what right does anybody else have of imposing their restrictive definition of marriage on us?  What sort of fundamentalist mentality holds that two homosexuals can marry, but not three or more heterosexuals, or a cowboy and his horse, or a brother and his sister, or an adult and a child, or the living and the dead?  Would homosexuals be so narrow-minded, self-righteous, and exclusivist as to withhold from such persons a “civil right” that they now enjoy?  What would be the difference between a Christian who says homosexuals cannot marry, and a homosexual who says polygamists cannot marry?  If the Christian is intolerant, then isn’t the homosexual intolerant as well?  This is the inevitable chaos that will follow from same-sex “marriage”.  It’s only logical in a sick sort of way.

If homosexual relationships can be called marriage, then any relationship can be called marriage.  The logical and inevitable result of re-defining marriage is the ultimate meaningless of marriage.

At this point in the moral collapse of our civilization, the great question is no longer, what is marriage, but rather, what is not marriage?  Is there any consensual relationship on the face of earth that, by its very nature, could not ever be called marriage?  Tragedy of tragedies, we can no longer answer this simple fundamental question, so essential to our happiness, dignity, and survival.  Perhaps a Neanderthal could help us out?