Dave Armstrong's Blog

This Blog and its Existing 1500 or So Posts Will Soon be Moving to Patheos

Not sure how all that works, but I have re-edited all my old papers, preparing them for the move, with a book ad to my e-booksite on each one. It may be by the end of today (8-10-15). There will be forwarding links (I dunno how many).

I'll have to reorganize everything once the "exportation" occurs. It'll be a painstaking process of several weeks. The header above, that was professionally designed for my blog some years ago, will be retained. Over there they have the cool drop-down menus that I have never had, so navigating my many "topical web pages" should be at least as easy, if not easier, than it has ever been.

Here is my blog page at Patheos.

And here is my introductory post.

Readers can subscribe to Patheos itself and to my own posts (see the sidebar). That seems to have never worked properly here.

I get paid per so many page views, so if you are reading my stuff (especially multiple posts in one reading), you are helping me earn income. Very exciting, as I've never had that opportunity before . . .

I'll be cranking out more articles than ever under this new system. Please come read, and you can always follow the ad on each page to my e-booksite for some rock-bottom prices for ePubs and mobis ($2.99) and $1.99 for PDFs!


***

New (?) Analogical Argument for Veneration of the Saints and Angels from the Prohibition of Blasphemy of the Same

By Dave Armstrong (8-8-15)


The Bible looks negatively on what it describes as "blasphemy" -- not just against God, but against holy persons or those set apart for His purposes (Moses: Acts 6:11; St. Paul: Acts 13:45; 18:6; saints in heaven: Rev 13:6; Christians in general: 1 Pet 4:4), and against angels (2 Pet 2:10; Jude 8; Rev 13:6). The same words for blasphemy are used for men, angels, and God.

This is because these men and angels serve as His messengers (2 Cor 8:23), direct representatives (Matt 10:40; Lk 10:16; Jn 13:20), ambassadors (2 Cor 5:20; Eph 6:20; Phlm 1:9), or witnesses (Jn 15:27; 19:35; 21:24; Acts 1:8; 2:32; 3:15; 10:39-41; 23:11; 1 Pet 5:1; Rev 1:2; 6:9). Indeed, Christians are even described as "fellow workers" with Him (1 Cor 3:9; 2 Cor 6:1; Phil 2:12-13). The Church is equated with Jesus Himself (both being persecuted in the same actions: Acts 26:11, 14-15), and there is also an identification of the Church "Body of Christ" with Christ Himself (1 Cor 12:27; Eph 1:22-23; 5:30; Col 1:24).

The aspect of divinization, or theosis, is a biblical motif of very close identification and union with God:

Acts 17:28 (RSV) for 'In him we live and move and have our being': . . . 

2 Corinthians 3:18 And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being changed into his likeness from one degree of glory to another; for this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit. (2 Corinthians 3:18)

Ephesians 3:19 . . . to know the love of Christ which surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled with all the fulness of God.

Ephesians 4:13 . . . mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ.

2 Peter 1:3-4 His divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and excellence, [4] by which he has granted to us his precious and very great promises, that through these you may escape from the corruption that is in the world because of passion, and become partakers of the divine nature. 

In other words, the key is affinity with, or closeness; proximity to God. Just as God can be blasphemed, in a lesser but still very real sense, so can His ambassadors and witnesses. There is the primary Being: God, and the secondary ones: His vessels. They reflect and represent God; therefore, as such, people can scorn and reject and blaspheme them just as they do God.



It seems to straightforwardly follow, then, by analogy, that if a rejection or blasphemy of God can be expressed via an essentially lesser but connected rejection or blasphemy of His ambassadors (the lesser vessel being in close affinity with the greater source), by the same token and principle and logic, conversely, the worship of God can be expressed via an essentially lesser but connected  veneration of His ambassadors.

In this manner, the wider application of blasphemy in Scripture to creatures suggests by symmetrical analogy, a wider application of honoring: expressed in veneration of creatures, which is distinct (but not altogether disconnected) from the adoration that God alone is entitled to, as Creator. The creatures reflect the Creator like the painting reflects the painter, or moonlight, the sunlight that is the source of it.

Moreover, we see that the Bible refers blasphemy of men almost solely to the most eminent of God's followers (Paul, Moses, and perfected saints in heaven): and angels even higher in the scale of things. Thus, by analogy, the relatively greater veneration would be towards those who had attained a higher holiness and sanctity; hence in the Bible we see a differential "system" of blasphemy / veneration not unlike how the Catholic Church ranks lesser and greater saints, with the greater receiving more veneration.

Lastly, the biblical data about blasphemy of immaterial holy things (the gospel, Christian doctrine, the law, the Temple) leads to the opposite analogy of reverence of those same holy things and places ("The Holy Bible": as even Protestants call it; the Holy Land, icons, Church sanctuaries, statues representing saints, etc.). The essential and fundamental, presuppositional  principles of all these things are clearly laid down in the Bible, if not explicitly in every jot and tittle.


***

Why Is It That We Have Been Blessed With Legally Institutionalized Sodomy Masquerading as "Marriage" in Our Day and Time?: Some Off-the-Cuff Ruminations

See my Facebook post.

Books by Dave Armstrong: "Proving the Catholic Faith is Biblical: From Priestly Celibacy to the Rosary: 80 Short Essays Explaining the Biblical Basis of Catholicism"

 [completed on 2 August 2014; 245 pages. Accepted for publication by Sophia Institute Press on 11 November 2014; published on 7 July 2015]

[cover design by Coronation Media in collaboration with Perceptions Design Studio]

----- To purchase, go to the bottom of the page -----

ENDORSEMENTS


“Dave Armstrong is a master of biblical citation and compressing arguments. He does in a few pages what many apologists take chapters to accomplish.”
Al Kresta, Host of Kresta in the Afternoon
“A treasure-trove of biblical texts demonstrating the veracity of the Catholic Faith. This is a must-read for Catholics and non-Catholics alike.”
Tim Staples, Catholic apologist (at Catholic Answers) and Author

FACEBOOK INTRODUCTION / ANNOUNCEMENT OF ACCEPTANCE FOR PUBLICATION / SOPHIA PAGE

[Read my public Facebook post]
Sophia book page and promotional write-up

TABLE OF CONTENTS  
[slightly different chapter titles in some cases, from the published book, which also doesn't contain the larger categories (in Roman numerals)]
Dedication I. Bible and Tradition (Authority) 
1.Tradition is Not Always a Bad Word in Scripture +2. The Catholic “Three-Legged Stool” vs. Sola Scriptura 3. Tradition: Short Reflection & Basic Explanation4. The Bereans & “Searching the Scriptures” 5. Ten Deuterocanonical References in the New Testament  II. Doctrine of the Church (Ecclesiology)
6. The Catholic Church: Why we Accept Her Claims7. Catholic Ecclesiology & the Jerusalem Council [read original longer dialogue]8. Three Biblical Arguments for an Authoritative Church +9. “Call No Man Father” & Calling Catholic Priests Father * 10. We Believe All that the Catholic Church Teaches11. On the Scandal of the Outrageous Claim to be a Church 12. On Whether God Would Protect His Church from Error [read original longer dialogue]13. Are Church Councils More Authoritative than Popes?
III. Priestly Celibacy
14. Short Exposition on Catholic Priestly Celibacy 15. The Celibate Priesthood as a Higher Calling 16. A New (?) Argument for Mandatory Priestly Celibacy [read original post and Facebook discussion]
IV.Theology of Salvation (Soteriology)
17. Works Can be Good or Bad, Just as Traditions Are 18. Faith & Works (But Not Justification) in Isaiah Ch. 1 19. Catholic Soteriology in John 3:36 (“Disobey the Son”) 20. Hebrews 3:14 (Lots of Catholic Theology on Salvation) 21. Unanswered Prayers of Jesus as a Counter-Reply to Limited Atonement 22. John 12:32 vs. John Calvin & Limited Atonement 23. God Doesn't Predestine the Damned (2 Thess 2:10-12)
V. Purgatory and Penance
24. Prayer, Penance, & the Eternal Destiny of Others 25. The Abundant Biblical Support for Lent *26. Divine Chastisement (or, Purgatory in ThisLife) *
VI. The Holy Eucharist and the Sacrifice of the Mass
27. Mystery is No Basis for Rejecting Transubstantiation *28. On the Nature of Idolatry 29. “The Apostle Paul Says He is a 'Priest'?! Where?!”
VII. Sacramentals, Devotions, and Worship
30. Sacramentalism & the Bible +31. Biblical Support for Ritualistic & Formal Worship +32. Is the Rosary “Vain Repetition”? *
VIII. The Communion of Saints and Angels
33. Asking Saints to Intercede is a Teaching of Jesus *34. Praying to Angels & Angelic Intercession *35. Worshiping God Through Images in Holy Scripture36. Martin Luther's Belief in the Invocation & Intercession of Mary & the Saints, as Late as 1521 [read online]37. The False Doctrine of “Soul Sleep”38. New (?) Biblical Argument for the Veneration of Saints: God “In” & “Through” St. Paul
IX. The Blessed Virgin Mary (Mariology)
39. Biblical Arguments for the Perpetual Virginity of Mary *40. Holy Ground & the Perpetual Virginity of Mary *41. Rationalist Objection to the In Partu Virginity of Mary42. Martin Luther & the Immaculate Purification of Mary*43. Mary's Immaculate Conception & the Bible*44. Quick Biblical Proof that Mary is the Mother of God 45. The Bible & the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary *46. Mary the “Queen Mother” & “Queen of Heaven”47. Mary as the Woman in Revelation 12 [read longer original dialogue]48. Biblical Analogies for Marian Apparitions
X. Papal Infallibility
49. Protestant Difficulties Regarding Papal Infallibility50. The So-Called “Infallibility Regress” Objection [read original longer dialogue]
XI. Christology and Trinitarianism
51. The Bible “Never Says that Jesus is God”? Wrong! +52. The Holy Trinity Proven from Scripture + 53. Is Trinitarianism Demonstrable from Scripture Alone? 54. Trinitarian Baptismal Formula & “Jesus Only” Baptism 55. Should God the Father be Visually Depicted in Paintings? 56. Satan's Tempting of Jesus as a Proof of His Divinity57. Jesus' Divinity & Matthew 21:16 (cf. Psalms 8:2) 58. Jesus is Explicitly, Directly Called “God” (Romans 9:5)59. Jesus' Agony in the Garden vs. “Be Not Anxious” [read original longer article]
XII. Marriage and Sexuality
60. Annulment is Not Catholic Divorce 61. Contraception: “Be Fruitful and Multiply” * 62. Contraception: God Blesses Parents with Children * 63. Contraception: Onan's Sin & Punishment [read online]64. Reply to an Attack Against NFP & Spacing of Children65. Contraception, Murder, & the Contralife Will66. Does the Bible Condemn Homosexual Acts?67. St. Paul's Argument from Nature Against Homosexual Acts (Romans 1) [read original longer 
version]68. The Prohibition of Premarital Sex in the New Testament 69. Does 1 Corinthians 7:36-38 Sanction Premarital Sex? [read original longer dialogue]70. Thoughts on Women's Ordination
XIII. Hell, the Devil, and Demons
71. Philosophical Defense of the Necessity of Hell [read original longer dialogue: Parts One and Two]72. The Stupidity of the Devil 73. Demon Possession & Modern Bible Translation Bias 74. The “Conditional” Possibility of Universalism Refuted
XIV. Philosophy, History, and Apologetics
75. Thoughts on a Perfect God Creating an Imperfect World 76. Can God be Blamed for the Nazi Holocaust? 77. The Inevitability of Development of Doctrine *78. New Testament Proofs of Noah's Historical Existence * [read online] 79. Jesus' Use of Socratic Method in His Teaching [read on my Facebook page]80. Apologetics Isn't Saying You're Sorry for Your Faith! + [read online]
* * * * *
* = originally published in Seton Magazine : The Premier Online Magazine for Catholic Homeschoolers (from March to July 2014). See my author page with links to all the articles.

+ = originally published in The Michigan Catholic : the official newspaper for the Archdiocese of Detroit (from May to August 2014). See my author page with links to all the articles.

INTRODUCTION 
This is a collection of essays that are (1) short (usually two or three pages), (2) characterized by lots of biblical argumentation, and (3) written in defense of Catholicism (apologetics). Most of them came about as a result of my ongoing efforts to comment on issues that regularly come up in “worlds” of Catholic apologetics and theology online.The brevity of the chapters indicates the trend in my apologetic writing for many years now: “quick,” precise answers to apologetics questions. For better or ill, this is the world that we live in, and the apologist must make efforts (as St. Paul did, and as Vatican II stressed) to meet people where they are. I don't deny the continuing utility and necessity of longer treatments (my “corpus” still contains plenty of those!), but most people prefer shorter essays, and their interest in theology and apologetics generally doesn't extend to treatise-length expositions. This is all the truer for beginners in theology.Many of these essays were written as columns for Seton Magazine, which is devoted to Catholic homeschoolers. Others came from my regular column in The Michigan Catholic, the official newspaper for the Archdiocese of Detroit. Some were originally posted as part of my work in the Internet forum of the Coming Home Network from 2007-2010 (I was the head moderator during that period), and several were initiated on Facebook. All of these essays are meant to answer the questions that people ask and to make the Catholic Faith more understandable, leading to a confident belief and the ability to “make a defense” (1 Pet. 3:15) for this Faith as opportunities arise. I hope by God's grace I have accomplished these goals.
Thanks so much for reading, and God bless you!

PURCHASE OPTIONS




Paperback from Sophia Institute Press ($19.95)


$9.99 



Sophia E-Book [ePub + mobi]
$9.95



$9.99 



Paperback from amazon.com ($19.95)

Last Update: 16 July 2015

Dialogue with an Atheist Concerning My Semi-Satirical Critique of Atheism

This came about as a result of an atheist responding to my paper, Why Atheists Are Far More Religious Than we Think. It occurred on a public Facebook page. His name will remain anonymous (unless he requests otherwise), but all the words are his, and will be in blue.
* * * * * 

It really is just kind of semantic. The atheist, at least the scientifically minded one, would not starkly claim that there is no possible way that a god created the universe. We are simply saying that there is no more reason to believe a god created it than to believe it was created by the tooth fairy or a dragon.

Exactly my point in reverse. Thanks for verifying my reasoning. I was arguing that there is no more reason -- and that it requires as much faith [which might be defined very broadly as a belief in unproven axioms] -- to believe that atoms and cells can do the remarkable things they do by their own self-generated power (which came from . . . ?) than to believe that there is a spiritual entity called God that put it into them in creating them.

There is some reason to believe that there is a completely natural explanation as every single scientific inquiry that has ever been solved has been solve through a natural explanation, not a supernatural one, so that is where we are going to focus our efforts of explanation.

There is plenty that is unexplained at the presuppositional level, as my post gets into. No one really knows by what conceivable process life came from non-life. There are several theories bandied about, of course, but by no means any definitive answers. So it requires "faith." You guys don't know why life is here or how the big Bang could start a process that led to it (by what laws and mechanisms?), and so you know no more than we do. You have to believe in faith that the processes that brought about these remarkable things were completely natural , whereas we agree that they are largely natural but that the missing ingredient that explains origins is indeed God. You have faith in the remarkable inherent qualities of atoms. We have faith in God. One is no more plausible than the other in this basic "brass tacks" sense.

Many great philosophers and other thinkers have believed in God, based on various arguments, as well as internal experience or intuition, so the belief can't be dismissed with a wave of the hand as mere fairy tales or on the level of a belief in unicorns, etc.

Might we be wrong in the end? Um... sure I guess. But most atheists would then put it to the theist: why your God and not another religion? Why not a tooth fairy? Why not a dragon?

And we say: "why atoms, that supposedly developed the power to create the entire universe by themselves?" Is that not an incredible blind faith? I would say that is more of a blind faith even than belief in tooth fairies or dragons as alleged possible agents of creation.

Bottom line: Jesus Christ. He revealed that God exists and what He is like. As an apologist I can give a host of reasons why I believe in God, Christianity, and Catholicism in particular. It's like asking someone "why do you love your wife?" There are a host of reasons, and the usual immediate response is to hesitate, precisely because there are so many; you don't know where to start in describing your feelings of love.

These are not questions (whatever one's view is) that are given to short, sound-byte answers. It just doesn't work that way. As I said, many great minds (arguably the vast majority of the best, most original ones) believed in God. Certainly atheists would have a hard time arguing that they were all gullible fools and anti-rational simpletons?. . .

There is no more reason for me to believe in that god than any of the hundreds upon hundreds of other gods that have made sense to their followers throughout time.

There certainly is. Christianity is based on historical argument. We can point to concrete things in history that happened, that confirm the existence of God. That's already very different off the bat from the eastern religions. But most secularists / atheists / agnostics today are ignorant of the huge differences between religions, and tend to collapse them all into an irrational box.

So atheism being a religion is really just a word game. 

Not at all, as I carefully explained in the paper. To believe what you guys do about mere material atoms requires an extraordinary, quite childlike, non-rational faith.

Atheists believe that the origin of the universe most probably has a natural explanation simply because nothing... nothing else ever has had an explanation otherwise.

Sheer nonsense. What you have in effect done is worship matter rather than spirit (that we worship). Why one rather than the other? It's completely arbitrary. You put all your faith in science, which is a variant of philosophy, that starts with unproven axioms just as every imaginable belief-system does. You have to believe that 1) the universe exists; 2) that matter follows discernible predictable laws (uniformitarianism); 3) that our senses can be trusted to accurately convey these laws and observations to us.

This is why modern science began in a thoroughly Christian culture (Europe in the Middle Ages) and why the founders and developers of virtually all scientific sub-fields were Christians or at least some sort of theist: because Christianity offered these necessary presuppositions, to start doing science. Hence, the Lutheran Kepler's famous statement that the scientist was "thinking God's thoughts after Him."

If anyone can claim credit for historic, foundational science, it is Christianity, not atheism. I wrote a whole book about it.

I have never met an atheist who didn't say that if you showed them any actual evidence to the contrary that they wouldn't change their mind. But no religion has yet done so. Not one. And that is the difference between atheism and a religion.

These are merely empty (and rather sweeping, dogmatic) claims. How do you know no religion has ever offered a rational answer to the sort of garden variety questions that atheists bring up? How much of religion have you studied? If you were once a Christian, what books of apologetics and philosophy of religion have you read? Have you read debates between Christian philosophers and atheists, etc.?

It's always easy to make sweeping, dramatic claims (such as you have done) without backing them up.

My argument is of a different nature. I'm not saying that atheists are dummies or immoral, just because they are atheists, but rather, that the faith they claim that Christians exercise and they supposedly don't, is a Grand Myth: that they, too, exercise faith, just as anyone does who believes in any worldview (including science, which is a form of philosophy called empiricism). It's impossible not to start with some unproven axioms, and they are, well, unproven. That means they weren't arrived at through observation or empirical evidence or even reason. They can't be absolutely proven.

So there is no reason for atheists to look down their noses at the supposedly "gullible" or "childish" Christians on this score. There is equally no reason to claim that Christianity is allegedly inexorably opposed to scientific inquiry. It's all atheist fairy tales and talking points, exhibiting a huge ignorance of the history of both science and philosophy.

Atheists (in my experience) are ready to change their mind for evidence.

And in my 34-year experience discussing things with atheists it is just the opposite: they are largely impervious to reason and fact if they go against their views already held in faith, without reason at the axiomatic level.

But there are atheists who have converted and become Christians by means of reason. I know several of them. I just haven't seen it happen in my own experience. I've had several atheists tell me, though, that my books were key in convincing them to become theists and eventually Catholics.

If one changes their mind without evidence, what is to stop them from drifting from one religion to another to another every time someone presents them with a new perspective? 

I fully agree. Reason has to be exercised in any rational, plausible worldview, or it ain't worth much.

What each religion is asking the atheist to do, is to take their un-evidenced word for it, but not the next person's un-evidenced word for it.

That's what an unsophisticated Christian might do: "just accept our beliefs with a blind faith" -- but that is not the view of either the Bible or the Christians who devote themselves to rational defense of the faith (apologists like myself) or those who are philosophers of religion or theistic philosophers.

I literally have no reason to choose one religion over the next besides my own comfort with its message.

This clearly exhibits your non-acquaintance with the competing truth claims of various religions. Again, I ask you: what have you read of Christian apologetics? How much did you even understand the theology if you were once a Christian? Neither can a person cannot reject what they never understood, or fully understood, either. They are, instead, rejecting a caricature or straw man, which they proceed to pillory the rest of their lives if they are atheists.

I have shown this again and again in analyzing atheist "deconversion stories." Soon I will be compiling a book about that, too, and how so many atheists vainly fancy themselves as such experts on the Bible, whereas they are in fact profoundly ignorant and don't know the first thing about proper biblical hermeneutics or exegesis or the various literary genres in the Bible, etc., or the ancient Near Eastern (i.e., Mesopotamian) cultural background that is a crucial component of both Judaism and Christianity.

Moreover, I would point out that no message is more appealing (in one big sense) to human beings than atheism. You're accountable to no higher being. You can do whatever you want or desire to do, including the usual sexual desires and freedoms that people so often seek after. You can go the hedonist route and live merely for pleasure, or have fun deriding Christians and having a sense of self-importance and superiority in so doing (I've met many atheists of that sort; but many are not).

In other words, it's a wash. Human beings of whatever belief-system tend to follow what personally appeals to them. If you want to claim that this is the exclusive characteristic of Christians or all religious folk, it works the same way in criticizing atheism, so this "argument" proves nothing one way or the other.

The more honest atheists, such as Aldous Huxley, even freely admitted that they ditched religion precisely for the purpose of sexual freedom.

. . . which honestly Christianity's message in the end comforts me in no way.

Exactly! But atheism does, and makes you feel good, which is what you accuse Christians of doing. You do the same thing that you have just derided. You choose it because it suits you. We believe, on the other hand, that we choose Christianity, not because it makes us feel wonderful and warm fuzzy happy, but because it's true.

The great apologist G. K. Chesterton stated, "Christianity has not been tried and found wanting. It has been found difficult and left untried."

It's a difficult life, but I wouldn't trade it and its joy and peace with anything. I've tried to seriously live the Christian life for now 38 years. It has never let me down. But it is not without suffering. Joy is deeper than suffering. This is why Christians have been willing to die as martyrs through the centuries. They weren't trying to avoid suffering, but rather, hell.

This is what you have just revealed to us is how you approached the matter: based on your desires and the comfort-factor, not based on an objective, dispassionate search for metaphysical and/or moral truth. At least that is how it appears or sounds at first glance. I'm just going by your own words . . .

As for the different faiths, theists (of the Abrahamic vein) are fully convinced that there are no gods at all... except for their one god. Why is it completely rational for Christians, Muslims, Jews to discount every other god that people follow except for this one, but the atheist who believes in just one fewer gods is absolutely wrong?

Yes; that is the nature of monotheism, because we believe that this one God has revealed Himself. We do for various reasons, that can't be briefly summarized, because there are so many of 'em.

It's not that you believe in "just one fewer god" but that in so doing you have to explain the universe according to pure naturalism or materialism, and it just doesn't make any sense and comes off sounding rather fantastic and irrational, when closely scrutinized, as I did in this paper.

You're welcome to explain to all of us how these atoms managed to do all that they have supposedly done, by themselves, with no outside or spiritual or supernatural aid, as a result of an explosion 15 billion years ago (or however long ago it is believed to be now).

We're waiting with baited breath. But no atheist has done so thus far, and I would bet good money that you will not be the first one. It's such a mystery that atheists are now fond of postulating "multiverses" so that they can simply ignore their huge problem of explaining origins, and push it back to earlier universes that they are equally ignorant of, as to process and origin. Very convenient, isn't it? If you can't explain something, invent a completely arbitrary fairy tale, with no rational or empirical evidence whatsoever to back it up . . .

And we Christians get accused of "God of the gaps" with this sort of desperate avoidance analysis going on among materialist scientists? It's a joke!

We are effectively living the same process with one minor tweak further. All religions have equal amounts of evidence (zero) so why one non-evident religion over the next? 

You are merely assuming what you are trying to prove here, which is circular reasoning. You have not provided any actual reasons for believing these things. You simply make bald assertions. And I can tell you from my own long study in apologetics that they are not true statements. I do have the papers and books that already contain my reasonings.

There may very well be a god/goddess/gods/goddesses,

If you truly believe that, you should assume an agnostic stance, rather than an atheist one (but it sounds like you self-identify with the latter).

but since he/she/it/they have elected to give no evidence to the empirical senses with which they created us,

Once again, you assume what you think you prove. There is all kinds of empirical evidence for Christianity. Jesus was an actual human person, identifiable in history. He performed miracles, which were witnessed. He rose from the dead and was seen by more than 500 eyewitnesses. There is an empty tomb that hasn't been adequately expained. It was guarded by Roman soldiers, under the pain of death if they failed to guard it. We know that the tomb was empty, from hostile reports and theories that the body was stolen, etc. People were willing to die for this faith, etc. There is all sorts of hard evidence that has to be grappled with.

There is no way to know who it is without relying solely on personal subjective interpretation and heresay [sic] from supposed eyewitnesses from centuries ago in books which no one has any reason to believe other than faith in certain groups of human being who have supposedly preserve the integrity of these first hand accounts hundreds of years ago.

This is incredible "reasoning." We rely on eyewitness and firsthand testimony for all historical accounts whatsoever. You don't doubt those when it comes to the existence of Socrates or Alexander the Great or even Abraham Lincoln. But all of a sudden when religious faith is involved, all these people were gullible idiots, who made up a bunch of fairy tales, and then were willing to die for the fairy tales.

It makes no sense at all. What this amounts to is a huge double standard, where you accept history, except when anyone religious is the testifier or witness of what happened at a particular point. Then you dismiss it. That's irrationally arbitrary, self-defeating, and bigoted.

The Bible has, time and again, been backed up, as to its extraordinary historical accuracy, whether through manuscripts (e.g., the Dead Sea Scrolls) or archaeology or textual analysis. It's accurate. It reports history. But someone who denies the existence of miracles beforehand simply dismisses any miraculous account.

That's not a strictly "rational" analysis. It's not rational to arbitrarily choose to disbelieve that a miraculous event can ever happen, and so dismiss any such account because it doesn't fit the arbitrary axiom already accepted for no good reason.

Many things in science would have been thought totally impossible or implausible before they were proven (e.g., quantum physics or black holes or relativity). Yet what was "impossible" because possible and even "proven" in the usual scientific fashion.

Why could not miracles be the same sort of thing? How can you or anyone else say in a blanket way that they could not ever possibly have happened? You cannot . . .

Unless someone has a "Damascus road" experience, personally, their faith isn't in god anyway, 

At some point, experience must enter in, yes. We Christians claim to have various spiritual experiences that confirm our faith and beliefs. I have had several, myself. My life changed.

it's in people: the person who wrote the Scripture they believe, the person who they passed it onto; the person they passed it on to; the person who passed it on to you. 

Every belief-system has an internal tradition and a heritage which has been passed on. There's nothing new under the sun. You as an atheist argue the same way that atheists did 3,000 years ago. And that is because you all start from the implausible axiom that I have discussed in my paper. Because you have so little reason to back yourself up, you have to content yourselves with bashing Christianity, to make yourselves feel so intellectually superior to us. It just won't fly.

It may with some construction worker in a bar or an old lady with purple tennis shoes, who don't know apologetics or philosophy from a hole in the ground, but not with someone who is acquainted with those things, and how the atheist / secular mind works. I used to think in largely the same terms, and I was spoon-fed secularism in school.

If people want to say atheism is a religion, I guess thats fine if one wants define what one means by religion.

My argument in my paper was that it was not a whit more reasonable, nor does it require any less faith (defined as acceptance of unproven and unprovable axioms). You have not really overcome my actual argument at all. You're just preaching . . . That's usually what atheists do. Not always (I've had some extremely interesting and constructive dialogues with several atheists), but usually.

Just note the the faith in atheism is in a logical system, that has heretofore been the only system that has ever offered a correct answer to the way anything works. 

Where to begin? It's not logical at all, as I think I have shown: not at the presuppositional, axiomatic level. It's a profoundly faith-filled, arbitrary, implausible view. Secondly, atheism doesn't own science. Quite the contrary: it was begun by Christians and completely dominated by them for hundreds of years. Even now, some 40-45% of scientists would identify as some sort of theist (as well as a probably lesser, but significant number of philosophers: many among the best ones). Yet atheists routinely assume that they are the reasonable ones and own science. It's a lie.

What we Christians say is that science (or matter) is not all that there is. There are other forms of knowledge, and religious faith is real, and rational, and can be defended as such.

I don't consider logic my "god" because I don't believe in a god. 

I can see that, because from where I sit, you are not arguing very logically at all. Your belief-system is arbitrary and meaningless irrationality (which I would argue is what all atheism always logically reduces to).

I believe it's a system through which we have found answers and has thus far been the only such system.

That's simply not true. Science (begun and dominated by Christians), philosophy, and religion have all given us plenty of answers and solutions.

Is that faith? Sure? I guess? Sort of? But in a very different way. Semantics.

I think there are lots of word games that atheists play. I have offered what I believe is a solid, logical critique.

Nothing personal! Thanks for the dialogue.


* * * * *

Why Have Legal Same-Sex Unions Come About in Our Day and Time?: Some Off-the-Cuff Ruminations

By Dave Armstrong

PREAMBLE
I love the history of ideas. When something this momentous occurs it is useful, I think, to step back and take a look at what has transpired in recent history to bring about such a tragic breakdown of societal morals and traditions. These are my own speculations along those lines.


1. THE CRUCIAL, FUNDAMENTAL CONTRACEPTION CONNECTION

The initial "intellectual opening" to the notion of a so-called "gay marriage" came about, I believe, in a two-step process, 30 years apart: the acceptance of contraception (in "hard cases" of course) for the first time among any Christian group, by the Anglicans in 1930, and the widespread introduction of the birth control pill around 1960. Thus, the current revolution in thinking has occurred over an 85- or 55-year period, depending on where one wishes to start in the causal chain. The longer period is within the lifetime of my parents; the shorter span, within my own lifetime. The sexual revolution might also be said to have started around 1960 (especially after 1967: the "summer of love"), as the large baby boomer generation came of age.

Now, how is this related to same-sex "marriage" and homosexual acts? It has to do with the fundamental purposes of things, and what is natural as opposed to unnatural. The primary, essential purpose of marriage is procreation: producing of children as the fruit of the sexual oneness of a married couple. That's not to deny the unitive / pleasurable function of marriage, but it is the most important purpose. Obviously, this can only occur between a man and a woman. Thus, in order to prepare a population for the notion that, somehow, two men or two women can "marry"; first it is necessary to break this immemorial and instinctive connection between sexuality / marriage and procreation.

Once this heretofore casually assumed link was questioned, then we had the related notion of sex merely for fun; for the relinquishing of desires and biological needs only, rather than for the purpose of having children; or, more specifically, being open to conception when and if it occurs.


2. THE FRUITS OF CONTRACEPTION AND THE SEXUAL REVOLUTION

That was the first necessary break in the ongoing moral tradition of western civilization. It broke the intrinsic connection between [heterosexual] sexuality and procreation. Sex could now be utilized for pleasure purposes only (and without "consequence"); utterly disconnected from its deepest purpose. This leads, of course, to a breakdown in marriages, due to a much easier promiscuity and widespread premarital sex, which runs contrary to both procreation within marriage and the idea of being committed solely to one person, sexually and exclusively within [heterosexual] marriage. It was the triumph of the "playboy" lifestyle.

Women had at last given up the fight for traditional sexuality and surrendered to those who wished to reduce them to mere objects of pleasure. And so we have seen those fruits, in the alarming rise of illegitimate births and now cohabitation. Families are breaking down (usually meaning that fathers aren't present). This in turn leads to massive, debilitating poverty, crime, and hopelessness (those direct connections all being massively confirmed by secular social science). If you want to see the way that things are progressing, look at the inner cities. That is the fruit of secular liberalism and it's so-called "progressive" economic and sexual viewpoints and policies. That's our future. A wonderful sight and prospect, isn't it?


3. GENOCIDE OF PREBORN CHILDREN: THE NEXT LOGICAL STEP

Legal childkilling [aka abortion] came along in the US in 1973: by judicial fiat, just as this ruling was. At that point, we could no longer in any way, shape, or form, be considered a "Christian" country, or guided (even vaguely) by Christian principles. Just as contraception had separated moral married sexuality from children, in an abstract (theoretical) way, so abortion literally separated the children from life and the womb and from their place in the scheme of things, by depriving preborn children of their very lives, solely based on the will of the mother. This was the decisive Step Two in separating both marriage and [heterosexual] sexuality from children.


4. "DIABOLICAL LOGIC"

Once that was accomplished, then homosexual acts and homosexual "marriage" became far more thinkable. As we have seen, the entire process took 55 years (since the Pill) or 42 years (since Roe v. Wade). After all, if sex need not have any intrinsic connection to children, then, homosexual sex is just as supposedly "natural" or defensible as heterosexual sex. It simply took a while for society to get used to the inexorable "diabolical logic" involved.


5. LEGAL LICENSE, LIBERTARIANISM, LIBERALISM, AND LIBERTINISM

Active homosexuality was so counter-intuitive (and so clearly condemned in the Bible), that it took a massive 40-year propaganda campaign to break down cultural resistance to it. Here is where a relentless, ferociously motivated secularism allied with libertarianism took over. The Big Stupid Idea of the sexual revolution was "do your own thing" or "do whatever feels good." In strictly legal terms, the notion that government could no longer say anything about sexuality or what goes on behind closed doors, came about with Griswold in 1965 (contraception), which was a direct legal precursor or precedent to Roe in 1973 (the so-called "right to privacy" nonsense).

Libertarianism, in its purest secular or popular form (a half-sister of the beloved liberalism), dictated that it was no one's business (last of all, the government's) to interfere with people's "personal lives." Thus, we see that not only in sexual matters but in things like physician-assisted suicide, euthanasia, and drug use. The related myth is that none of these things affect anyone else. This ties into active homosexuality. It's thought that it does no harm to anyone else, even though we know for a fact that homosexual sex (whatever one thinks of it, morally) has dire health consequences (that go far beyond the conquered AIDS virus).


6. THE "BIG LIE," PROPAGANDA, AND BRAINWASHING

So how was same-sex "marriage" able to be pushed upon a society greatly opposed to it as recently as twenty, even five or ten years ago? This was accomplished by good ol' propaganda and re-education in the public schools, combined with an increasing cultural moral relativism. If you want to advocate something, then what you do is simply proclaim (not argue) it, over and over. It's the old thought of the Big Lie: if you repeat something often enough, people start to believe it, wholly separately from rational argument and fact and previous tradition. This is standard tactics of the Left. They understand this. They learned it from Hitler and his propaganda campaign against the Jews.


7. THE "BAD TREATMENT" / SYMPATHY TACTIC

Specifically, how this is done is to appeal to cases where homosexuals have been treated abominably (particularly, sad murders). This is something that any kind-hearted person could agree with. But what happens is that admonitions to be kind and loving to all people become mixed-up with accepting immoral acts that the same people were involved in. This is our society today. No one can disagree with what anyone else does (in many areas, including this one) without being accused of being "hateful" and "intolerant." To disagree is to be a bigot and a hater: a bad, wicked person. That is the fruit of moral relativism and sexual libertinism.


8. OUR FAILURE TO SEPARATE THE SIN FROM THE SINNER

This was really all it took: years of that: drumming into everyone's head that homosexual sex is not a whit different from heterosexual sex, and that homosexuals have been treated so badly. This was our failure, too: those of us traditionalists who did not exercise charity, and separate the sin from the sinner. The secular world, as always, took that ball and ran with it; milked it for all it was worth. It was the equivalent of the "back alley abortionists / coat hangers" card of the pro-aborts that was exaggerated a thousand times over: far more than the actual case numbers and facts would suggest. These tactics work.


9. THE FASHIONABLE BOGUS GENETICS ARGUMENT AND THE IGNORED LEGITIMATE ENVIRONMENTAL ONE / AND REMEMBER THE BIBLE?

After years of that, sympathy developed for the "underdog." We also see the "argument" that homosexuality is "genetic" and therefore, cannot be resisted. The problem there is that there is no compelling scientific evidence for a genetic inevitability. Studies of separated twins have confirmed it. We also know that homosexual sex can be a learned or environmental thing (prisons being a prime example). There is a lot of evidence that disruption of proper relationship with one's father has a direct causal relationship to later active homosexuality. But we're not allowed to even bring up such things anymore.

The second problem is that the Bible casually assumes that the sin of homosexual sex can be resisted, since it is assumed that it is serious sin, and God doesn't forbid what is impossible for human beings to avoid. It would be like God condemning the drinking of water.

But since our society as a whole couldn't care less anymore what the Bible teaches (it's regarded as an outdated, outmoded, irrelevancy from ancient times), it doesn't have any societal effect on the discussion.


10. SUCCESSFULLY BRAINWASHED YOUNG PEOPLE LEAD THE CHARGE

Young people are polling some 80% in favor of same-sex "marriage." This is why society changed so rapidly. Politicians (and Supreme Court Justices) saw the trend, and started jumping on the bandwagon. Liberal Democrats love anti-traditionalism in morals, and so they were entirely predictable (with Obama and the Clintons flipping on a dime, just as Bill Clinton (like Gore and Jesse Jackson; even Teddy Kennedy) had done regarding abortion.

Less predictable was the Republican or conservative espousal of these sins. But since much of conservatism or Republican "thinking" these days is dominated by a secular libertarianism, it started breaking down, too. Pretty soon it was a fashion, and no one wants to be out of fashion or unpopular, or regarded as a bigot, and all of a sudden a New Norm was here and people jumped on the bandwagon, not having the spine or principle to disagree and be unpopular.


11. POLITICAL CONSIDERATIONS AND HOW "REPUBLICANS" BROUGHT THIS ABOUT EVERY BIT AS MUCH AS LIBERAL DEMOCRATS

Politically, our beloved independents, swing voters, third party types, and libertarians, widespread among conservatives (in the "Stupid" Republican Party), have directly helped bring about same-sex "marriage" just as they have prolonged abortion. We had a golden opportunity to overthrow the latter and prevent the former. It only came about by the vote of one man, after all (Justice Kennedy, supposedly a "Catholic"). The third-party types became disenchanted with Republicans because they weren't perfect, or canonized saints (as if they ever were or could be), and either voted for an irrelevant third party candidate or sat home on their hands on election day. The irrational, mindless fanaticism for the pro-abort Ross Perot in 1992 literally (undeniably) cost the elder President Bush the election.

We shot ourselves in the foot, as so often, and have now reaped what we have sown. This led to four terms since 1992 of liberal Democrat Presidents, who in turn appointed morally radical Supreme Court Justices. Had Clinton and Obama at least not been re-elected, the Court would likely look different and we wouldn't be in the mess we're in. But because the myth among libertarians is that both parties are exactly the same, they enable Democrats to get elected, and the Supreme Court is able to make an atrocious ruling like this.

It's true that Justice Kennedy was appointed by Reagan, but as a result of the Democrat travesty against Robert Bork. Bork died in 2012, so had he been on the court, Obama would have replaced him with another radical, even if he had been defeated in 2012, because he would still be in office. In any event, presidential elections have huge repercussions. Because conservatives have failed in their in-fighting and compromises, and snatched defeat from the jaws of victory, secularism now reigns supreme, and increasingly intolerant.

President Clinton blessed us with the liberal Justices Ginsburg (1993) and Breyer (1994). If the third-party / swing voters, etc. hadn't handed him the election in 1992 by absurdly voting for Perot, those would have been likely conservative appointees and this vote would have been different. President Obama has appointed Justices Sotomayor (2009) and Kagan (2010). All four, of course, voted for "gay marriage" (liberal appointees always remain liberal / leftist / secularist). Again, presidential voting has great consequences. We could have easily won this cultural / political battle. But the myth and fairy tale that the two political parties are exactly the same has been a large part of the cause of our downfall. Thanks, secular libertarians and RINOs!

As recently as 1986 (Bowers v. Hardwick), the Supreme Court upheld anti-sodomy laws. According to the article on this case in Wikipedia:

The majority opinion, written by Justice Byron White, argued that the Constitution did not confer 'a fundamental right to engage in homosexual sodomy.' A concurring opinion by Chief Justice Warren E. Burger cited the 'ancient roots' of prohibitions against homosexual sex, . . . Burger concluded: 'To hold that the act of homosexual sodomy is somehow protected as a fundamental right would be to cast aside millennia of moral teaching.' . . .
The opinion . . . [stated] 'to claim that a right to engage in such conduct is "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition" or "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty" is, at best, facetious.' White was joined by Justices William Rehnquist, Sandra Day O'Connor, Warren E. Burger, and Lewis F. Powell in upholding the anti-sodomy law, while Justices Harry Blackmun, William J. Brennan, Jr., Thurgood Marshall, and John P. Stevens dissented, viewing the law as unconstitutional.

Yet in 2003 (Lawrence v. Texas), this ruling was reversed (as conservative rulings can be, but hardly ever leftist / secularist rulings), and anti-sodomy laws in 14 states were struck down. The so-called "right" to sodomy was now sanctioned, and it took only 12 additional years to create out of whole cloth a supposed right to "same-sex 'marriage'". Justice Kennedy wrote this ruling, too, joined by three liberal Justices, renegade elder Bush appointee Souter, and Sandra Day O'Connor. The three dissenters were all Republican appointees: Justices Scalia, Rehnquist, and Thomas.

It's true, as we see, that sometimes Republican appointees (e.g., Souter, O'Connor, Kennedy) "go liberal," but on the other hand, virtually the only Justices that can be counted on to uphold legal and moral traditionalism, are Republican appointees.

Yet we are told that the two parties are Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dee. Don't believe it! Go by the facts, not fanciful rhetoric.


12. OUR FAILURE TO PRESENT A PLAUSIBLE PRO-ACTIVE VIEW OF MARRIAGE AND SEXUALITY

On the flip side, we Christians have failed to explain why contraception is wrong; how it led to abortion and now same-sex marriage; and have failed in our task to convey a full, vigorous proactive case for abstinence until marriage and the wrongness of sex outside of heterosexual marriage (a subset of apologetics). Thus, children were left open to being brainwashed by societal propaganda, with few Christian alternatives being visible or available or even thought of. Why, then, would we expect anything different of our children? They have taken in what society and their schools offer them (with their mother's milk), and no one wants to go against the grain. The sad irony is that Pope St. John Paul II has given us he gift of his magnificent teaching on the Theology of the Body. But our society (and even many compromised Catholics) no longer cares enough to even read, let alone accept it.


13. CONCLUSIONS, SUMMARY, SOLUTIONS, AND WHAT LIKELY LIES AHEAD

All of this is why I think legal same-sex marriage is here at this time. It was an inevitable development, and diabolical progression of false ideas, one leading to the next; just as it is also quite arguably inevitable now that traditionally moral Christians will be persecuted in the not-too-distant future, and will be pariahs and outcasts in our wonderfully fulfilling and happy secular society.

All we have to do is to live and share our faith to counter this, and above all, to have lots of children, to alter demographics, and with it, society. It's not complicated at all. But since Christians now have no more children than anyone else (having bought the secular anti-child mentality), that option is off the table until we see a massive revolution of serious Christians, deciding to have lots of children and to raise them as disciples of Jesus Christ, who accept all that the Bible (and the Church) teaches. That would transform our society.

It's a long way off, but it could, and I believe will happen. The immediate [human] cause of it will be the persecution which now will inevitably come; indeed, has already begun in several ways.

My mentor, Servant of God Fr. John Hardon often noted that "the worst centuries were always followed by the best." We're only 15 years into this new century. Revival (based on past history) could very well come. But we're so far gone now that it will take incredible suffering to wake us up, precisely as was required again and again for ancient Israel. Let's pray for revival, and in the meantime, continue to live out and boldly, charitably defend traditional moral teaching.

For my past writings on this topic, see this web page of mine.


* * * * *

Apologetics-Oriented Biblical Commentary on Colossians (RSV)

By Dave Armstrong (1998)

Chapter 1

1 Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, and Timothy our brother, 2 To the saints and faithful brethren in Christ at Colos'sae: Grace to you and peace from God our Father. 3 We always thank God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, when we pray for you, 4 because we have heard of your faith in Christ Jesus and of the love which you have for all the saints, 5 because of the hope laid up for you in heaven. Of this you have heard before in the word of the truth, the gospel 6 which has come to you, as indeed in the whole world it is bearing fruit and growing--so among yourselves, from the day you heard and understood the grace of God in truth, 7 as you learned it from Ep'aphras our beloved fellow servant. He is a faithful minister of Christ on our behalf 8 and has made known to us your love in the Spirit. 9 And so, from the day we heard of it, we have not ceased to pray for you, asking that you may be filled with the knowledge of his willin all spiritual wisdom and understanding, 10 to lead a life worthy of the Lord, fully pleasing to him, bearing fruit in every good work and increasing in the knowledge of God. 11 May you be strengthened with all power, according to his glorious might, for all endurance and patience with joy, 12 giving thanks to the Father, who has qualified us to share in the inheritance of the saints in light. 13 He has delivered us from the dominion of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son, 14 in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. 15 He is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation; 16 for in him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or authorities--all things were created through him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18 He is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning, the first-born from the dead, that in everything he might be pre-eminent. 19 For in him all the fulness of God was pleased to dwell, 20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross.
21 And you, who once were estranged and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds, 22 he has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death, in order to present you holy and blameless and irreproachable before him, 23 provided that you continue in the faith, stable and steadfast, not shifting from the hope of the gospel which you heard, which has been preached to every creature under heaven, and of which I, Paul, became a minister. 24 Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ's afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church, 25 of which I became a minister according to the divine office which was given to me for you, to make the word of God fully known, 26 the mystery hidden for ages and generations but now made manifest to his saints. 27 To them God chose to make known how great among the Gentiles are the riches of the glory of this mystery, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory. 28 Him we proclaim, warning every man and teaching every man in all wisdom, that we may present every man mature in Christ. 29 For this I toil, striving with all the energy which he mightily inspires within me.


* * *

apostle: Gr. apostolos=sent one or ambassador: Mt 10:2; Lk 22:14; Ac 2:37; 8:18; 15:2-6,22-23; Rm 1:1; 11:13; 1Co 1:1; 9:1-5; 12:28-29; 2Co 1:1; 12:11-12; 1Pt 1:1; 2Pt 3:2; Jd 17; Rv 21:14

God, the Father: Is 9:6; 64:8; Jr 31:9; Ma 2:10; Mt 5:45-48; 6:1-32; 11:27; Jn 3:35; 5:18; 6:27; Rm 1:7; 8:15; 1Co 8:6; Gl 1:1-4; 4:6; Ep 5:20; Ph 2:11; Cl 3:17; 1Th 1:1; Hb 1:5; Jm 1:27; 1Pt 1:2-3; 1Jn 2:1,14-24

grace of God: Lk 1:28; Jn 1:17; Ac 4:33; 6:8; 11:23; 13:43; 14:26; 15:11,40; Rm 5:15; 16:20; 1Co 3:10; 15:10; 16:23; 2Co 8:1; 9:14; 13:13; Gl 2:21; Ep 3:2,7-8; Ph 1:2,7; 1Th 5:28; 1Tm 1:14; Ti 2:11; Hb 2:9; 1Pt 5:5,10,12; 2Pt 3:18; Jd 4; Rv 22:21

good work(s): Jn 10:32; 14:12; Ac 9:36; 2Co 9:8; Gl 6:4,10; Ep 2:10; Ph 1:6; 2Th 2:17; 1Tm 2:10; 5:10,25; 6:18; 2Tm 2:21; 3:17; Ti 1:16; 2:7; 3:1,8,14; Jm 2:14-26; Rv 20:12

redemption: Lk 21:28; Rm 3:24; 1Co 1:30; Ep 1:7,14; 4:30; Hb 9:15

his body, that is, the church: Rm 7:4; 12:5; 1Co 10:17; 12:12-27; Ep 1:22-23; 4:4,12,16; 5:30; Cl 1:18; 2:19; 3:15

Christ in you: (the indwelling): Jn 14:17-18,20,23; 15:4; 16:7; 17:23; Rm 8:9-11; 1Co 2:12; 3:16; 6:19; 2Co 6:16; Gl 4:6; 1Jn 3:24; 4:12-13

Image of the invisible God: God the Father is invisible, and can't be seen, as He is a Spirit (cf. Ex 33:20,23; Jn 1:18; 5:37; 6:46; Cl 1:15; 1Tm 1:17; 6:16; 1Jn 4:12). But Jesus reveals, and is the eikon=image of, the Father (cf. Jn 1:18; 12:45; 14:7-9; 2 Co 4:4; Cl 1:15; Hb 1:3; Rv 22:1-4). Thus, the passages about the invisible God are adequately explained in a non-contradictory manner. Only trinitarianism can make sense out of, and harmonize all the biblical teaching about God's nature.

First-born of all creation: Gk. prototokos=firstborn: here means preeminence and eternal preexistence, not first-created as some Arian sects hold. OT usage is instructive. David is called first-born in Ps 89:27, not because he was the literal first child of Jesse (for he was the youngest), but in the sense of his ascendancy to the kingship of Israel. Likewise, Jr 31:9 refers to Ephraim as the first-born, whereas Manasseh was chronologically first (Gn 41:50-52). The nation Israel is called my first-born son by God (Ex 4:22). The Jewish rabbinical writers even called God the Father Bekorah Shelolam, meaning firstborn of all creation, precisely as St. Paul uses the phrase here. Prototokos is also used as a title for Jesus in Hb 1:6. In context, Jesus is described as omnipotent (1:3), the reflection (image) of God's glory (1:3), Creator (1:10), worthy of worship (1:6), and is called God by the Father (1:8). All of these characteristics can only apply to God.

In him all things were created: Jesus is both eternal and the Creator (cf. Is 9:6; Mc 5:2; Jn 1:1,3,10; 8:58; 13:19; 1Co 8:6; Cl 1:15-17; Hb 1:2,8,10; 13:8; 1Jn 1:1; Rv 1:17-18; 22:13). Besides the above direct indications, Holy Scripture also says that only God is the Creator (cf. Gn 1:1; Ps 33:6; Is 40:28; 44:24; Rm 11:36; 1Co 11:12; Ep 3:9; Hb 2:10; CCC 295-308).

Beginning: Gk. arche, from which is derived the word architect. Its literal meaning, according to Greek scholars, is origin, active cause, source, uncreated principle. So Jesus is the architect, or Creator of the Universe, as Cl 1:16-17 make clear (and see entry immediately above). He was in the beginning (arche) with God the Father (Jn 1:2; Hb 1:10). He created all things, and is before all things, so He Himself cannot possibly be a thing (i.e., a created entity). In Rev 1:8 (often rendered Alpha) and 21:6 (cf. Is 41:4; 44:6; 48:12) arche is applied to the Lord God, the Almighty (God the Father), so it can't possibly mean created being, as Arian-influenced sects maintain. Similar terminology (first and last, Alpha and Omega) is applied to Jesus in Rv 1:17-18; 2:8; 3:14, and 22:13,16. Thus, both Father and Son are God. Scripture teaches the Holy Trinity: the one God exists eternally in three Persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

In my flesh I complete what is lacking . . .: This is the most striking example in Scripture of what Catholics call redemptive suffering or vicarious atonement, whereby the sufferings of a Christian, as fellow workers with God (1Co 3:9) can be applied - like prayer or fasting or evangelism - to the benefit of another, either on earth, or in purgatory (2Mc 12:39-45 with 1Cor 15:29; CCC 1032). Our sufferings (Mt 16:24) can be literally offered up to God (Rm 12:1), meritoriously and redemptively on behalf of others or ourselves. Explicit biblical indications of this teaching - much disputed by non-Catholic Christianity - are numerous (cf. Ex 32:30-32; Nm 16:46-48; 25:6-13; Rm 8:13,17; 1Co 12:24; 2Co 1:4-9; 4:10; Gl 2:20; Ep 3:13; Ph 2:17; 3:10; 2Tm 4:6; Hb 11:39-40; 1Jn 3:16). Paul even serves as a co-redeemer or co-mediator of God's grace, since he was a steward of grace and salvation (Ep 3:2; cf. 1Co 9:22) - precisely as Catholics teach concerning the Blessed Virgin Mary. He informed Timothy that he, too, could be a savior of sorts, for himself and his hearers (1Tm 4:16). All grace comes from God, but creatures have a share in its dispensing and application, in God's Providence (e.g., Rv 1:4). See related commentary for Ph 1:29; 3:10, and cross-references for libation, Ph 2:17; also CCC 307,618,1508,1521.


* * *



Chapter 2

1 For I want you to know how greatly I strive for you, and for those at La-odice'a, and for all who have not seen my face, 2 that their hearts may be encouraged as they are knit together in love, to have all the riches of assured understanding and the knowledge of God's mystery, of Christ, 3 in whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. 4 I say this in order that no one may delude you with beguiling speech. 5 For though I am absent in body, yet I am with you in spirit, rejoicing to see your good order and the firmness of your faith in Christ. 6 As therefore you received Christ Jesus the Lord, so live in him, 7 rooted and built up in him and established in the faith, just as you were taught, abounding in thanksgiving. 8 See to it that no one makes a prey of you by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the universe, and not according to Christ. 9 For in him the whole fulness of deity dwells bodily, 10 and you have come to fulness of life in him, who is the head of all rule and authority. 11 In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of flesh in the circumcision of Christ; 12 and you were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead. 13 And you, who were dead in trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, 14 having canceled the bond which stood against us with its legal demands; this he set aside, nailing it to the cross. 15 He disarmed the principalities and powers and made a public example of them, triumphing over them in him. 16 Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a sabbath. 17 These are only a shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ. 18 Let no one disqualify you, insisting on self-abasement and worship of angels, taking his stand on visions, puffed up without reason by his sensuous mind, 19 and not holding fast to the Head, from whom the whole body, nourished and knit together through its joints and ligaments, grows with a growth that is from God.
20 If with Christ you died to the elemental spirits of the universe, why do you live as if you still belonged to the world? Why do you submit to regulations, 21 "Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch" 22 (referring to things which all perish as they are used), according to human precepts and doctrines? 23 These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting rigor of devotion and self-abasement and severity to the body, but they are of no value in checking the indulgence of the flesh.


* * *

wisdom: Gr. sophia: Mt 13:54; Lk 2:40; 21:15; Ac 6:3,10; Rm 11:33; 1Co 1:17-24; 2:4-7; 3:19; Ep 1:8,17; 3:10; Cl 1:9,28; 3:16; Jm 1:5; 3:13,15,17; 2Pt 3:15

knowledge: Gr. gnosis: Lk 1:77; Rm 2:20; 11:33; 15:14; 1Co 1:5; 8:1,7,10-11; 12:8; 13:2,8; 14:6; 2Co 2:14; 4:6; 6:6; 8:7; 10:5; 11:6; Ep 3:19; Ph 3:8; 1Tm 6:20; 1Pt 3:7; 2Pt 1:5-6; 3:18

human tradition: cf. Mt 15:3,6; Mk 7:7-9,13; Ac 20:29-30; 1Pt 1:18; 1Jn 4:1-3 - in contrast to Apostolic, Christian Tradition, which is regarded entirely positively by the biblical writers. See commentary for Ph 1:4 ("Gospel")

principalities and powers: Rm 8:38; 1Co 15:24; Ep 1:21; 2:2; 3:10; 6:12; Cl 1:13,16; 2:10; Ti 3:1; 1Pt 3:22; Rv 13:4-5,7,12

world: Gr. kosmos (as world-system, hostile to God): Jn 1:10; 7:7; 8:23; 12:31; 14:27; 15:18-19; 16:11,33; 17:6,14,16,25; 18:36; Rm 3:6,19; 5:12; 12:2; 1Co 1:27-28; 2:6-12; 11:32; 2Co 5:19; 7:10; Gl 6:14; Hb 11:38; Jm 1:27; 4:4; 1Jn 3:13; 4:3-4; 5:4-5,18-19

Fulness of deity dwells bodily: (cf. Cl 1:19). This is a remarkable proof for the divinity of Christ. The Father and the Son are presented as fully and essentially in union (monotheism), yet the distinctiveness of Divine Persons (trinitarianism) is also evident. Jesus is fully God, yet God Who has taken on human flesh (the incarnation). Ph 2:6-8 offers a similar description of the incarnate God (cf. Jn 1:1,14; Ac 20:28; 1Tm 3:16). St. Augustine wrote:

The same One who is God is Man, not by a confusion of nature but by a unity of person . . . He that is the Son of God by being generated and who is coeternal always with the Father, - that same One begins to be Son of Man from the Virgin. And so too humanity is added to the Son's divinity; and yet, no quaternity of Persons results, but the Trinity remains (Sermons, 186, 1).

Buried with him in baptism: St. Paul here connects baptism - which regenerates - with justification. This is a common teaching of Holy Scripture - though denied by many Christians. Ac 2:38 speaks of being baptized for the forgiveness of your sins. 1 Pt 3:21 says baptism . . . now saves you (cf. Mk 16:16; Rm 6:1-6). Paul recalls how Ananias told him to be baptized, and wash away your sins (Ac 22:16). In 1Co 6:11 the Apostle seems to imply an organic connection between baptism (washed), sanctification, and justification. Ti 3:5 informs us that he saved us, . . . by the washing of regeneration (cf. Mt 28:19; Jn 3:5; Gl 3:26-27; Ep 4:5; 5:26; Hb 10:22; 1Pt 3:20).Cl 2:11-13 also establishes a connection between baptism and circumcision. Israel was the church before Christ (cf. Ac 7:38; Rm 9:4). Circumcision, given to 8-day old boys, was the seal of the covenant God made with Abraham, which applies to us also (Gl 3:14,29). It was a sign of repentance and future faith (Rm 4:11). Infants were just as much a part of the covenant as adults (cf. Gn 17:7; Dt 29:10-12; also Mt 19:14). Likewise, baptism is the seal of the New Covenant in Christ. It signifies cleansing from sin, just as circumcision did (cf. Dt 10:16; 30:6; Jr 4:4; 9:25; Rm 2:28-9; Ph 3:3). Infants are wholly saved by God's grace just as adults are, only apart from their rational and willful consent (see, e.g., Mk 2:1-6; 1Co 7:12-14). Their parents act in their behalf. Infant baptism is taught by Scripture (cf. Ac 16:15,33; 18:8 with 11:14; 1Co 1:16). See CCC 405,628,683,977-978,1113,1210-1213,1220,1250-1252,1263-1270,1992

Sabbath: (cf. similar texts about excessive legalism with regard to observance of days: Gl 4:9-11; Rm 13:8-10; 14:4-13). Cl 2:12-17 is a disproof of the belief of some that Christians ought to observe Saturday as the Sabbath / Lord's Day (Rv 1:10). From the beginning, Christians met and worshiped on Sunday, due to the Resurrection of Christ (cf. Ac 20:7; 1Co 16:1-2; vast patristic testimony: e.g., Didache 14; St. Ignatius, Magn 9:1; St. Justin Martyr, Apol 1:67; CCC 2168-2175,2190).

Worship of angels:The Bible forbids all creature worship (cf. Ac 10:25-26; 14:11-15; Rv 19:10; 22:8-9). God alone is to be worshiped (cf. Nh 9:6; Mt 4:10; Lk 4:8; Rv 4:9-11). Jesus - being God - often receives (and fully accepts) worship in the NT (cf. Mt 8:2; 9:18; 14:33; 15:25; 20:20; 28:9,17; Mk 5:6; Lk 24:52; Jn 5:23; 9:38; 20:28). The Apostles also teach that Jesus is to be worshiped (cf. Ph 2:9-11; Hb 1:6; Rv 5:8,12-14; 7:9-12,15-17).


* * *

Chapter 3

1 If then you have been raised with Christ, seek the things that are above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God. 2 Set your minds on things that are above, not on things that are on earth. 3 For you have died, and your life is hid with Christ in God. 4 When Christ who is our life appears, then you also will appear with him in glory. 5 Put to death therefore what is earthly in you: fornication, impurity, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry. 6 On account of these the wrath of God is coming. 7 In these you once walked, when you lived in them. 8 But now put them all away: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and foul talk from your mouth. 9 Do not lie to one another, seeing that you have put off the old nature with its practices 10 and have put on the new nature, which is being renewed in knowledge after the image of its creator. 11 Here there cannot be Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scyth'ian, slave, free man, but Christ is all, and in all. 12 Put on then, as God's chosen ones, holy and beloved, compassion, kindness, lowliness, meekness, and patience, 13 forbearing one another and, if one has a complaint against another, forgiving each other; as the Lord has forgiven you, so you also must forgive. 14 And above all these put on love, which binds everything together in perfect harmony. 15 And let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, to which indeed you were called in the one body. And be thankful. 16 Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teach and admonish one another in all wisdom, and sing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs with thankfulness in your hearts to God. 17 And whatever you do, in word or deed, do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him. 18 Wives, be subject to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord. 19 Husbands, love your wives, and do not be harsh with them. 20 Children, obey your parents in everything, for this pleases the Lord. 21 Fathers, do not provoke your children, lest they become discouraged. 22 Slaves, obey in everything those who are your earthly masters, not with eyeservice, as men-pleasers, but in singleness of heart, fearing the Lord. 23 Whatever your task, work heartily, as serving the Lord and not men, 24 knowing that from the Lord you will receive the inheritance as your reward; you are serving the Lord Christ. 25 For the wrongdoer will be paid back for the wrong he has done, and there is no partiality.


* * *

raised with Christ: Mt 10:8; 22:31; 27:52; Mk 12:26-27; Lk 10:27; 20:36; Jn 5:21,29; 11:24-25; Ac 23:6,8; 24:15,21; 26:8; Rm 6:5,8-11; 8:11; 1Co 6:14; 15:12-13,21,29-52; 2Co 1:9; 4:14; Ep 2:6; Ph 3:10-11; Cl 2:12; Hb 6:2; 11:19,35; Jm 5:15; Rv 20:5-6

right hand of God: Ex 15:6,12; Ps 16:11; 48:10; 60:5; 63:8; 98:1; 110:1,5; 118:15-16; Is 41:10; 62:8; Mt 19:28; 22:44; 25:31; 26:64; Mk 14:62; 16:19; Lk 22:69; Ac 2:33-34; 5:31; 7:55-56; Rm 8:34; Ep 1:20; Hb 1:3,8,13; 8:1; 10:12; 12:2; 1Pt 3:22; Rv 5:1-14; 7:17; 22:1-4

you have died (i.e., spiritual or metaphorical death): Rm 5:15; 6:2,8,13,16,21,23; 7:4,6,9-10,13,24; 8:2,6,13; 1Co 15:22,31; 2Co 5:14; Gl 2:19; Cl 2:20; 2Tm 2:11; Rv 2:11; 20:6,14; 21:8

old nature: Mk 2:21-22; Jn 8:44; Rm 5:12-14; 6:6; 7:5-6,8-11,14-25; 8:5-8,19-23; 1Co 5:7-8; 15:53; Ep 2:3; 4:22; 2Co 4:16

new nature: Ez 11:19; 18:31; Mk 14:25; Lk 5:36-39; Jn 3:3; Rm 6:4; 7:6; 8:1-17,21,23,29-30; 12:2; 13:14; 1Co 5:7; 2Co 3:3,18; 4:16; 5:17; Gl 6:15; Ep 2:15; 4:23-24; 6:11; Hb 8:10; 9:15; 10:20; 1Pt 1:3; 2Pt 1:4; 1Jn 3:2

inheritance: Mt 5:5; 19:29; 25:34; Mk 10:17; Lk 10:25; 18:18; Ac 20:32; Rm 8:17; 1Co 6:9-10; 15:50; Gl 3:18,29; 4:7; 5:21; Ep 1:11,14,18; 5:5; Cl 1:12; Ti 3:7; Hb 1:14; 6:12,17; 9:15; 11:7; Jm 2:5; 1Pt 1:4; Rv 21:7

reward: Mt 5:12; Lk 6:23,35; Hb 11:26; 2Jo 8; Rv 22:12

Forgiving each other: Forgiveness is, of course, a distinguishing characteristic of the Christian life. We are to lovingly forgive others (cf. Mt 5:24; 6:12-15; 18:21 ff.; 18:35; Mk 11:25; Lk 6:37; 17:4; 2Co 2:7,10; Ep 4:32), because God has forgiven us (cf. Mt 6:14-15; 9:6; Mk 2:7,10; Ac 10:43; 13:38; Rm 5:10-11; 2Co 5:18-19; Ep 1:7; 4:32; Cl 1:14,20,22; Hb 9:22; Jm 5:15). The recipient must repent, however, in order to ask for, and obtain true forgiveness, which is not absolutely unconditional, as many falsely teach (cf. Mt 3:11; 11:21; 12:41; Mk 1:4,15; 6:12; Lk 3:3; 5:32; 13:3,5; 17:3-4; 24:47; Ac 2:38; 3:19; 5:31; 8:22; 11:18; 13:24; 14:15; 17:30; 19:4; 20:21; 26:18,20; Rm 2:4; 2Co 5:20; 7:9-10; 12:21; 1Th 1:9; 2Tm 2:19,25; Hb 6:1,4; 1Pt 3:11; Rv 2:5,16,21-22; 3:3,19; 9:20-21). True repentance is a heartfelt acknowledgement of one's sin (Lk 7:36-50; 15:7), a firm resolve to try to do better (Mt 3:8; Lk 3:8; 22:32; Ac 26:20), and a determination to cease engaging in that sin (Jn 5:14; 8:11; Gl 4:9; Cl 1:21-23; 2Pt 2:21). Our willingness to mercifully forgive anyone who repents and asks for forgiveness ought to be unconditional. The Catholic notion of priestly absolution is grounded in Holy Scripture (cf. Mt 16:19; 18:18; Lk 24:47; Jn 20:21-23; 2Co 2:5-11; Jm 5:15). The unforgivable sin or sin against the Holy Spirit is a rejection of God's offer of salvation (cf. Mt 12:31-32; Mk 3:28-29; Lk 12:10). This provides further evidence that even God cannot and will not forgive a person who doesn't repent and accept the forgiveness (in this case, salvation itself - see 2Pt 3:9). For to forgive everyone unconditionally would reduce to universalism, whereby everyone is saved, with no one being consigned to hell - itself a most unbiblical doctrine (see commentary for Ph 1:28).

Wives, be subject to your husbands: In his Apostolic Letter On the Dignity and Vocation of Women (1988), Pope John Paul II wrote:

Wives, be subject to your husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife (Eph 5:22-23) . . . to be understood and carried out in a new way: as a mutual subjection out of reverence for Christ (cf. Eph 5:21). This is especially true because the husband is called the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the Church; he is so in order to give himself up for her (Eph 5:25) (section 24).

The greatest among you will be your servant (Mt 23:11; cf. Ep 5:28-31). The highest of God's created beings, according to Catholicism, is a woman (the Blessed Virgin Mary), and a woman - Mary Magdalene - first saw the risen Jesus (Jn 20:11-18). Wives are equal to husbands in the same way that Jesus is equal to the Father (Jn 10:30; Cl 2:9), even though in subjection to Him (Ph 2:5-8). Analogously, marriage, by nature, creates a spiritual oneness (Mt 19:5-6) which nevertheless incorporates male headship and differential gender roles. Masculinity and femininity are ontological realities created by God, not human culture (cf. 1Co 11:3,7-9; 1 Tm 2:12-14; 1Pt 3:7), thus accounting for marriage roles and exclusively male ordination. Yet men and women are fundamentally equal, according to St. Paul: there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus (Gl 3:28).


* * *

Chapter 4

1 Masters, treat your slaves justly and fairly, knowing that you also have a Master in heaven.
2 Continue steadfastly in prayer, being watchful in it with thanksgiving; 3 and pray for us also, that God may open to us a door for the word, to declare the mystery of Christ, on account of which I am in prison, 4 that I may make it clear, as I ought to speak. 5 Conduct yourselves wisely toward outsiders, making the most of the time. 6 Let your speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how you ought to answer every one. 7 Tych'icus will tell you all about my affairs; he is a beloved brother and faithful minister and fellow servant in the Lord. 8 I have sent him to you for this very purpose, that you may know how we are and that he may encourage your hearts, 9 and with him Ones'imus, the faithful and beloved brother, who is one of yourselves. They will tell you of everything that has taken place here. 10 Aristar'chus my fellow prisoner greets you, and Mark the cousin of Barnabas (concerning whom you have received instructions--if he comes to you, receive him), 11 and Jesus who is called Justus. These are the only men of the circumcision among my fellow workers for the kingdom of God, and they have been a comfort to me. 12 Ep'aphras, who is one of yourselves, a servant of Christ Jesus, greets you, always remembering you earnestly in his prayers, that you may stand mature and fully assured in all the will of God. 13 For I bear him witness that he has worked hard for you and for those in La-odice'a and in Hi-erap'olis. 14 Luke the beloved physician and Demas greet you. 15 Give my greetings to the brethren at La-odice'a, and to Nympha and the church in her house. 16 And when this letter has been read among you, have it read also in the church of the La-odice'ans; and see that you read also the letter from La-odice'a. 17 And say to Archip'pus, "See that you fulfil the ministry which you have received in the Lord." 18 I, Paul, write this greeting with my own hand. Remember my fetters. Grace be with you.


* * *


watchful: Mt 24:42-43; 25:13; Lk 12:37; Ac 20:31; 1Co 10:12; 16:13; 1Th 5:6; 1Pt 5:8; Rv 3:2-3; 16:15

open to us a door: Ac 14:27; 1Co 16:9; 2Co 2:12; Rv 3:8

mystery: Mt 13:11; Mk 4:11; Lk 8:10; Rm 11:25; 16:25; 1Co 2:7; 4:1; 13:2; 14:2; 15:51; Ep 1:9; 3:3-4,9; 5:32; 6:19; Cl 1:26-27; 2:2; 2Th 2:7; 1Tm 3:9,16; Rv 1:20; 10:7; 17:5,7

Let your speech always be gracious: Jb 27:4; Ps 19:14; 39:1; 141:3; Pr 10:11; 15:26; 21:23; 22:11; 31:26; Ec 10:12; Mt 5:22; 12:34-37; Lk 4:22; 6:45; 1Co 13:1; 16:10; Ep 4:29-31; 5:4; Ph 1:27; 2Tm 2:14; Ti 3:2; Jm 1:19,26; 3:2,5-10; 4:11; 1Pt 2:1,12; 3:9-10,15-16; Rv 14:5

assured: Jn 14:20; 15:11; 16:24; Ac 2:28; Rm 2:18; 8:16,28,38-39; 15:13-14; 2Co 7:4; Ep 1:18; 3:12,19; Cl 2:2,10; 1Th 1:4-5; 2Tm 1:12; Hb 6:11,19; 10:22; 11:1; 1Jn 3:2,14,19,24; 4:18; 5:13

ministry: Gr. diakonia: Ac 1:17,25; 6:1,4; 12:25; 20:24; 21:19; 1Co 12:5; 16:15; 2Co 3:6; 4:1; 5:18; 6:3-4; Ep 3:7; 4:12; Cl 1:7,23,25; 1Th 3:2; 1Tm 1:12; 2Tm 4:5,11

Continue steadfastly in prayer: (cf. 1Ch 16:11; 2Ch 7:14; Ps 5:1-3; 27:8; 109:4; 116:2; Mt 7:7-8; 21:22; Lk 2:37; 11:1-13; 18:1; 21:36; Jn 14:13-14; Ac 2:46-47; 6:4; 10:2; 12:2; Rm 1:9; 12:12; Ep 1:15-16; 6:18; Ph 4:6; Cl 1:9; 1Th 3:10; 5:17; 1Tm 2:8; 5:5; 2Tm 1:3; Hb 4:16; 10:25; Jm 5:16; CCC 2564-2565,2592,2607,2612,2621,2659-2669, 2725,2738-2745,2752,2779-2802). Venerable John Henry Cardinal Newman, in his sermon The Daily Service (1836), exclaimed, with typically magnificent eloquence:

Stated and continual prayer, then, and especially united prayer, is plainly the duty of Christians. And if we ask how often we are to pray, I reply, that we ought to consider prayer as a plain privilege, directly we know that it is a duty, and therefore that the question is out of place . . . When thoughts such as these are set before the multitude of men, they appear to some of them strained and unnatural; to others, formal, severe, and tending to bondage. So must it be. Christ's commands will seem to be a servitude, and His privileges will be strange, till we act upon the one and embrace the other. To those who come in faith, to receive and to obey, who, instead of standing at a distance, reasoning, criticising, investigating, adjusting, hear His voice and follow Him, not knowing whither they go; who throw themelves, their hearts and wills, their opinions and conduct, into His Divine System with a noble boldness, and serve Him on a venture, without experience of results, or skill to defend their own confidence by argument: who, when He says 'Pray,' 'Continue in prayer,' take His words simply, and forthwith pray, and that instantly; these men, through His great mercy and the power of the Holy Ghost working in them, will at length find persevering prayer, praise, and intercession, neither a bondage nor a barrenness . . . May He lead us on evermore in the narrow way, who is the One Aid of all that need, the Helper of all that flee to Him for succour, the Life of them that believe, and the Resurrection of the dead!

Will of God: (cf. Mt 6:10; 7:21; 12:50; 26:42; Mk 3:35; Jn 5:30; Ac 21:14; 22:14; Rm 1:10; 2:18; 9:19; 12:2; 1Co 1:1; 2Co 1:1; 8:5; Gl 1:4; Ep 1:1,5,9,11; 5:17; 6:6; Ph 2:13; Cl 1:1,9; 1Th 4:3; 5:18; Hb 2:4; 10:7-10; 1Pt 2:15; 3:17; 4:2,19; 1Jn 2:17; 5:14; CCC 2611).

Men do not take for the object towards which they act, God's will, but certain maxims, rules, or measures, right perhaps as far as they go, but defective because they admit of being subjected to certain other ultimate ends, which are not religious. Men are just, honest, upright, trustworthy; but all this not from the love and fear of God, but from a mere feeling of obligation to be so, and in subjection to certain worldly objects (Ven. John Henry Cardinal Newman: sermon Obedience Without Love, 1838).

Critique of Chris Ferrara's Radical Reactionary Hit-Piece in Opposition to Pope Francis' Christian Environmentalism

By Catholic apologist Dave Armstrong

Radical Catholic reactionary and quasi-schismatic Christopher A. Ferrara published a critique of Pope Francis' encyclical Laudato si at the reactionary Remnant website. It's entitled, On the Pope's Encyclical, 'Laudato Si’: Talk to the Animals - After All, You’re One of Them (6-18-15). I shall proceed to write a rebuttal of it. Ferrara's words below will be in blue.
* * * * *
. . . Pope Francis attempts to fashion yet another post-conciliar novelty in the Church: a call to “ecological conversion,” 

This is no novelty at all. In fact, it is such an old-fashioned, non-novel Christian worldview that it hearkens all the way back to Genesis and Adam and Eve:

Genesis 1:28 (RSV) And God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth." 

The crux of the "issue" in many ways, is what "dominion" means. The pope has given us an extended treatise on that very thing, and many others. This entails ecology or environmentalism: stewardship over God's creation. The staunchly orthodox, saintly Fr. John A. Hardon, in his Modern Catholic Dictionary , defined "dominion" as follows:

Ownership of material goods, entitling the owner to proprietary rights, i.e., to use, change, keep, or dispose of what one owns. Christianity views dominion as not absolute, but always relative to the common good of society.

See that last part? Applied to Genesis 1:28, it means that man's dominion is not absolute" but rather, integrated into the common good of society (and by extension here, the earth). This is not a new thing in Catholicism, but a very old thing in man's existence. The pope deals forthrightly with these fundamental aspects of Christian environmentalism and stewardship:

67. We are not God. The earth was here before us and it has been given to us. This allows us to respond to the charge that Judaeo-Christian thinking, on the basis of the Genesis account which grants man “dominion” over the earth (cf. Gen 1:28), has encouraged the unbridled exploitation of nature by painting him as domineering and destructive by nature. This is not a correct interpretation of the Bible as understood by the Church. Although it is true that we Christians have at times incorrectly interpreted the Scriptures, nowadays we must forcefully reject the notion that our being created in God’s image and given dominion over the earth justifies absolute domination over other creatures. The biblical texts are to be read in their context, with an appropriate hermeneutic, recognizing that they tell us to “till and keep” the garden of the world (cf. Gen 2:15). “Tilling” refers to cultivating, ploughing or working, while “keeping” means caring, protecting, overseeing and preserving. This implies a relationship of mutual responsibility between human beings and nature. Each community can take from the bounty of the earth whatever it needs for subsistence, but it also has the duty to protect the earth and to ensure its fruitfulness for coming generations. “The earth is the Lord’s” (Ps 24:1); to him belongs “the earth with all that is within it” (Dt 10:14). Thus God rejects every claim to absolute ownership: “The land shall not be sold in perpetuity, for the land is mine; for you are strangers and sojourners with me” (Lev25:23).

which requires a subtle demotion of man to merely a part of the natural world.

This is sheer nonsense. The "superiority" of man is casually assumed:

We do not understand our superiority as a reason for personal glory or irresponsible dominion, but rather as a different capacity which, in its turn, entails a serious responsibility stemming from our faith. [220; my bolding]

The passage above about dominion makes it crystal clear that man is "above" the other creatures of the earth; having dominion over them. There is no difference here at all, with historic biblical, Catholic theology. But if a cynical, reactionary mind like Ferrara's wishes to invent one, according to his erroneous preconceived opinions, it is always easy to state a falsehood without demonstrating it (as he does throughout his piece). He engages in extended soliloquies of his own fancies and imaginary myths, while I prefer to stick to documentation from the actual text, and citations of it, with commentary; along with relevant biblical citations.

. . . an Orthodox Archbishop by the name of John Zizioulas, representing the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, who—don’t you know?—is very big on environmentalism.

Of course he is, because it is a Christian responsibility to be good stewards of the earth : God's creation and gift to us. Why is this perceived as a bad thing? It's similar to the radical Catholic reactionary (and, too often, mainstream traditionalist) jaded view of ecumenism. They take the worst examples of corruptions of it (liberal indifferentism and religious relativism) and collapse that into the supposed entire (or orthodox) meaning of the word ecumenism. It just ain't so. But they continue doing it, as part of their own isolated, self-absorbed, warped pseudo-tradition.

The same (analogously) is done with environmentalism. The radical "ecclesiological right" assumes that left-wing politicians completely own that discussion and that there is no such thing as a Christian, biblical, legitimate environmentalism or conservationism. That just ain't so, either. Jesus is Lord of all of life, and that includes care of the earth and its natural resources. Pope Francis has done us all a great service by engaging in the entire discussion under the grand framework of biblical / Christian premises and assumptions and categories. He "unsecularizes" the conversation. It will never be the same again, for anyone who takes this encyclical seriously.

Yesterday I completed the task of slogging my way through the Italian “draft” of this 185-page book-length excuse to tie the Church’s credibility to eco-fascism and the global warming scam, which appears to be identical to the final document released today. As the world knows, Sandro Magister leaked the “draft” to the press two days ago at the cost of his Vatican press credentials.

Isn't it interesting that Ferrara has no qualms whatsoever about reading a mere "draft" (in Italian) of the encyclical, that he himself admits was leaked. He's very transparent, indeed brazen, about it. Why would any serious commentator do such a stupid thing? He couldn't wait another day or two before opening his big mouth and proceeding to trash the caricature of the straw man that he creates of the document? Is this some juvenile desire to be "first" or something?

By contrast, I carefully read the whole thing before making my commentary on it, complete with many extended citations, from the official English document, posted on the Holy See website.

Ferrara published a "summary" of his hostile analysis at Lifesite News. Time-permitting, perhaps I will critique that as well, in due course. Now, for those of you who wonder why I have urged folks to avoid this website, here is a prime example. It publishes the bilge of one of the most notorious radical Catholic reactionaries, trashing the pope. That alone is grounds for any orthodox, obedient Catholic to ignore Lifesite News altogether. With all the alternative news and theological sources out there, you don't need to patronize a venue that sees nothing wrong whatsoever in Ferrara's radical reactionary analysis. It spreads poison and cancer in the Body of Christ.

. . . the massively verbose Vatican documents of the post-conciliar epoch, . . . 

This is a plainly empty-headed remark. Who cares about length? I could document many examples of the Remnant's own hyper-verbosity, but anyone can check that out for themselves. Surely, our era is not unique in terms of prolixity, nor in nuanced or "difficult-to-read" expression. To give but one historical example, how about St. Thomas Aquinas' 13th century five-volume Summa Theologica? He considered that to be merely an introductory work of theology. He wrote at the very beginning of it:

Because the doctor of Catholic truth ought not only to teach the proficient, but also to instruct beginners (according to the Apostle: As unto little ones in Christ, I gave you milk to drink, not meat -- 1 Corinthians 3:1-2), we purpose in this book to treat of whatever belongs to the Christian religion, in such a way as may tend to the instruction of beginners.

Yet to today's reader it appears almost impossibly complex; so much so that several recent attempts have been made to summarize or abridge or selectively quote it (I undertook one such effort, myself).

Not to mention the Bible itself . . .  Has Ferrara read that all the way through (I did, 37 years ago)? Did he not suffer through the usually remarked-upon dry legal passages of Leviticus, or all the "begats"? Or how about reading in the two books of Chronicles, basically the same thing that was already recorded in 1 and 2 Kings? The four Gospels overlap, for heaven's sake! Would Ferrara go after them, too, for unnecessary length and reiteration?

I have found that those who complain about length of other writings, invariably engage in long, long pieces of writing, themselves. I often observed this with regard to anti-Catholic opponents. They would critique my writing, and proceed to write, -- unashamed and blissfully unaware --, tedious, boorish tomes of four, five times greater length. I concluded that such complaints (due to the double standard) were in fact, almost wholly reflective of their underlying hostility to a given document. If they agreed with it, such remarks would never be made. But since they don't, they complain about mere length. It's much ado about nothing. It's what is called obfuscation or obscurantism.

I would like to focus on one of the most troubling aspects of what we all expected would be yet another eruption of a Vesuvius that has been burying everything in its path with rhetorical lava over the past two-and-a-half years. 

Now here is a prime (textbook, classic) instance of the very thing he (unjustly) complains about. He condemns supposed "rhetorical lava" in Pope Francis, yet engages in it himself, with this abjectly idiotic, sophistical remark. In fact, I would characterize pretty much his entire hit-piece as "rhetorical lava" (or much worse, but we are in mixed company).

He cites, undocumented, a portion of the "leaked" document:

The human being, even supposing evolutionary processes, involves a novelty not fully explainable by the evolution of other open systems. Every one of us has in himself a personal identity able to enter into dialogue with others and with God Himself. The capacity for reflection, reasoning, creativity, interpretation, artistic elaboration, and other original capacities demonstrate a singularity that transcends the realm of the physical and biological. The qualitative novelty involved in the emergence of a personal being within the material universe presupposes a direct action of God, a peculiar calling to life and to the relation of a Thou to another thou.

Presumably, this is some version (from who knows where?) of what the official Vatican document translates as follows:

81. Human beings, even if we postulate a process of evolution, also possess a uniqueness which cannot be fully explained by the evolution of other open systems. Each of us has his or her own personal identity and is capable of entering into dialogue with others and with God himself. Our capacity to reason, to develop arguments, to be inventive, to interpret reality and to create art, along with other not yet discovered capacities, are signs of a uniqueness which transcends the spheres of physics and biology. The sheer novelty involved in the emergence of a personal being within a material universe presupposes a direct action of God and a particular call to life and to relationship on the part of a “Thou” who addresses himself to another “thou”. The biblical accounts of creation invite us to see each human being as a subject who can never be reduced to the status of an object.

Note the difference in the first sentence ("novelty" vs. "uniqueness"). Remember the old debate about "liberal" translations of the Vatican II documents? It's deliciously humorous that now, radical Catholic reactionary Ferrara does the same thing: citing a non-official "leaked" translation of an official papal document, rather than exercising the supreme patience of waiting all of a day, or two at the most, to get the Real Thing. Ironies never cease, among the endlessly foolish reactionaries.

Ferrara makes one of his more remarkably ludicrous assertions in response to this portion:

I searched in vain for a reference anywhere in the main text of LS to what we fundamentalist Catholics commonly, however quaintly, refer to as “the soul.” There is none, save a passing reference in paragraph 233, occurring in the final few paragraphs of the document as part of a kind of “Catholic supplement” to an otherwise thoroughly humanistic presentation of the “ecological crisis.” 

It does nothing of the sort. Let's tackle these fathomless imbecilities one-by-one. The argument over the lack of the word "soul" is a (to me, quite comical) version of the old Jehovah's Witnesses "argument" that the Bible doesn't contain the word "Trinity." Indeed it doesn't. But is the concept there? Absolutely! I have pages and pages of trinitarian passages from he Bible in two of my books. The term "virgin birth" is not in the Bible, either. "Magisterium" isn't there; nor is "pope" or "Blessed Virgin Mary" or "sacred heart" or "immaculate conception" or "ecumenical council" or "transubstantiation" or "Assumption" [of Mary] or a host of other good Catholic terms.

Likewise, the concept of the soul is found in several places in this encyclical, when the Holy Father discusses man made in the image of God (see sections 65, 67, and 84), or the notions of human uniqueness among creatures, as seen in section 81 above and often elsewhere. What the pope states in section 81 is perfectly consistent with St. Thomas Aquinas' statement about the soul in his Summa Theologica:

The rational soul can be made only by creation; which, however, is not true of other forms. The reason is because, since to be made is the way to existence, a thing must be made in such a way as is suitable to its mode of existence. Now that properly exists which itself has existence; as it were, subsisting in its own existence. Wherefore only substances are properly and truly called beings; whereas an accident has not existence, but something is (modified) by it, and so far is it called a being; for instance, whiteness is called a being, because by it something is white. Hence it is said Metaph. vii, Did. vi, 1 that an accident should be described as "of something rather than as something." The same is to be said of all non-subsistent forms. Therefore, properly speaking, it does not belong to any non-existing form to be made; but such are said to be made through the composite substances being made. On the other hand, the rational soul is a subsistent form, as above explained (75, 2). Wherefore it is competent to be and to be made. And since it cannot be made of pre-existing matter--whether corporeal, which would render it a corporeal being--or spiritual, which would involve the transmutation of one spiritual substance into another, we must conclude that it cannot exist except by creation. (I, q. 90, a. 2c)

Remember, the above is for "instruction of beginners" according to St. Thomas. Yet we are supposed to bristle under Pope Francis' intolerably difficult and lengthy prose. The pope reiterates what Pope Pius XII stated in 1950 in Humani Generis  (section 36): that man's soul is a direct supernatural creation by God. He is saying that biology (including a posited evolution) cannot explain it; that it "transcends the spheres of physics and biology." Yet Ferrara calls the encyclical a "thoroughly humanistic presentation." Poppycock! Has anyone ever heard a biology professor or teacher discussing the supernatural creation of the soul? That's theology, not biology.

Ferrara is full of hot air if he wants to make out (rather astonishingly) that this is a secularist-type "humanistic" presentation. It is anything but that; the utter opposite of it. I collected in my initial commentary many examples of the pope's virtual defiance of mere "scientism" (a thing that both C. S. Lewis and G. K. Chesterton wrote a lot about) and materialistic science:

It cannot be maintained that empirical science provides a complete explanation of life, the interplay of all creatures and the whole of reality. This would be to breach the limits imposed by its own methodology. If we reason only within the confines of the latter, little room would be left for aesthetic sensibility, poetry, or even reason’s ability to grasp the ultimate meaning and purpose of things. [199]

Dialogue among the various sciences is likewise needed, since each can tend to become enclosed in its own language, while specialization leads to a certain isolation and the absolutization of its own field of knowledge. This prevents us from confronting environmental problems effectively. An open and respectful dialogue is also needed between the various ecological movements, among which ideological conflicts are not infrequently encountered. [201]

Environmental education should facilitate making the leap towards the transcendent which gives ecological ethics its deepest meaning. [210]

Then too, there is the recognition that God created the world, writing into it an order and a dynamism that human beings have no right to ignore. [221]

The universe unfolds in God, who fills it completely. Hence, there is a mystical meaning to be found in a leaf, in a mountain trail, in a dewdrop, in a poor person’s face. The ideal is not only to pass from the exterior to the interior to discover the action of God in the soul, but also to discover God in all things. [233]

Standing awestruck before a mountain, he or she cannot separate this experience from God, and perceives that the interior awe being lived has to be entrusted to the Lord . . .  [234]

As an apologist (34 years and running, including nine years in my evangelical Protestant period) who has been openly, frequently skeptical of the rampant materialism present in much of science today, I was ecstatic to see reflections such as these, which are thoroughly biblical, and  literally soaked in biblical and Catholic tradition. Yet Ferrara is so blind that he can't see it. It's truly amazing.
In fact, at the beginning of Chapter Two of this book called an encyclical Francis poses this amazing question (not accurately stated in the official English translation): “Why insert [inserire] in this document, addressed to all men of good will, a chapter referring to the convictions of faith?” That a Pope would view the “convictions of faith” as an insertion (or inclusion) in a papal encyclical tells us all we need to know about the problem with Laudato Si’.

This is as stupid as his previous barb. There are different functions of documents, even papal ones. Different things are directed to different people. The pope stated outright that he is writing more so to "all men" in this encyclical:

3. More than fifty years ago, with the world teetering on the brink of nuclear crisis, Pope Saint John XXIII wrote an Encyclical which not only rejected war but offered a proposal for peace. He addressed his message Pacem in Terris to the entire “Catholic world” and indeed “to all men and women of good will”. Now, faced as we are with global environmental deterioration, I wish to address every person living on this planet. 

There is nothing whatsoever wrong with that. The pope writes to all men, as a great leader of mankind. He receives much respect from many non-Catholics. He is using his "bully pulpit," so to speak (to borrow a phrase from Theodore Roosevelt). Why is this objectionable? It's entirely biblical, as well as in accord with some of the emphases of Vatican II. St. Paul wrote about "I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some" (1 Cor 9:22). He sought common ground with the pagan Athenians, when addressing them (Acts 17:16-34). Jesus commended pagan Roman centurions. St. Peter interacted with the Roman centurion Cornelius, and brought Gentiles into the Church (Acts 10). Pope Pius XI wrote his encyclical,  Mit Brennender Sorge  (14 March 1937), in German, in order to address the growing Nazi menace. Ferrara acts, dumbfounded, as if all this were the most novel thing in the world. Thus, the pope writes:

62. Why should this document, addressed to all people of good will, include a chapter dealing with the convictions of believers? I am well aware that in the areas of politics and philosophy there are those who firmly reject the idea of a Creator, or consider it irrelevant, and consequently dismiss as irrational the rich contribution which religions can make towards an integral ecology and the full development of humanity. Others view religions simply as a subculture to be tolerated. Nonetheless, science and religion, with their distinctive approaches to understanding reality, can enter into an intense dialogue fruitful for both.

He is merely using diplomatic, ecumenical language in this section. It's as if he is conveying the message: "I have sought to write, above, in the spirit of what all men have in common. Now please permit me to more specifically address my own Catholic flock [unspoken assumption: where we share common premises not shared with all other men]." I've done a similar thing, many times, in conversations with atheists (I just met with six of them over dinner, eleven days ago). I will be defending Christianity in general or speaking about areas where we agree, then I note that I am talking specifically about Christians, or Catholic Christians. It is a reminder that people talk in different ways to different people (back to Paul in 1 Cor 9:22). That's the reality of effective, adult, constructive discussion.

But Ferrara doesn't get it. This inability to grasp differences in genres or styles of language, or various approaches to diverse audiences, is widely characteristic of radical Catholic reactionaries; strikingly in common, in many ways, with the wrongheaded woodenly literal biblical and theological analyses of Protestant fundamentalists, and also with comically flawed and fallacious atheist analyses of the Bible and Christian beliefs. The latter tendency is a thing I will deal with in my next book.

Let us assume that the words to which Francis has apparently put his name are to be taken according to the ordinary signification of words, as opposed to what Jimmy Akin will undoubtedly tell us they “really mean” in one of his “things to know” con jobs.

My friend Jimmy Akin has to write his frequent analyses of the pope's words precisely because of nitwits like Ferrara who can't figure them out on their own, and must cynically distort them, to their own nefarious ends (quasi-dissent, quasi-schism, Luther-like private judgment, and radical Catholic reactionary error). If it weren't for the liberal dissidents and reactionary fools like Ferrara, and those who swallow up the dim-witted "analyses" of same, Jimmy could do many other things. But he, like myself, is forced to deal sometimes with such folly, in order to help protect the flock from being hoodwinked. It's part of our duty as apologists.

I've written two books about radical Catholic reactionaries like Ferrara [one / two] and have a large web page devoted to them. I'd love to do many other things, too, believe me, but as an apologist, I sometimes have to spend time (as I am today on this Saturday afternoon, for no pay) refuting silly, idiotic stuff like this: precisely because some (not a small number of) Catholics will fall for it. If there is any "con" here, it is assuredly Ferrara's flatulent pseudo-analysis, not Akin's.

LS declares that by some unspecified “direct action” of God, man has “emerged” as a “personal being” from the material universe, but possessed of a “qualitative novelty” that distinguishes him from the other animals that have also “emerged” from the material universe via “evolutionary processes.”

Yes; this is Catholic dogma: the soul is a supernatural creation (i.e., not, by definition, subject to any biological processes or laws at all), and man is above other creatures. Ho hum. ZZZzzzz . . . . This is some sort of supposed "scandal" for Ferrara's oh-so-fertile brain to confront? Ferrara makes a big deal of the phrase, from his "leaked" version. The official version simply has "uniqueness" (twice in sec. 81, seen above). Is that objectionable to Ferrara, too: that man is "unique" among creatures? Man was created from matter by any account: whether evolutionary or a special instantaneous creation. Catholics are freely allowed to take either view. What is not permitted is to believe in a "materialistic 'creation'" that excludes God. That is where the essence of the battle in theology and apologetics -- with the secular world -- really lies. The Holy Father takes great pains in this document to emphasize that very thing time and again.

In Genesis we read that “the Lord God formed man of the slime of the earth: and breathed into his face the breath of life, and man became a living soul.” We do not read that man is “qualitative novelty” emerging from an evolutionary process as a “personal being.”

Nor do we read it ("qualitative novelty") in this (official) document; only in Ferrara's "leaked" one. By making hay of this one phrase that isn't even there (and taken out of context), he only makes himself look even more silly and foolish than he already is, many times over. But these unsavory tactics have become part-and-parcel of the ongoing cottage industry or misrepresenting and misunderstanding this great pope.

If Ferrara insists on waxing indignant over evolution (like all good fundamentalists do), it should be noted that it is only mentioned three times in the document (sections 18 and 81, twice), and in the latter, he states, "even if we postulate a process of evolution, . . ." (my emphasis). That is hardly an enthusiastic advocacy of the theory of evolution, although the pope himself likely believes in theistic evolution. It has never been a mandatory belief for Catholics. It's permitted as one interpretation of the origins of creation and human life in particular.

But some Catholics seem to have the most difficult time accepting different permitted beliefs among other catholics (e.g., the debate of Thomists and Molinists regarding predestination). They demand that everything be dogmatic and infallible at the highest levels. the question of biological evolution is simply not in that category. Durational process as part of creation was held or at least discussed as a possibility at least as far back as St. Augustine; also by St. Thomas Aquinas. Let Ferrara quibble with them if he chooses to. I won't be reading . . .

Because man has a soul, he is ontologically superior by his very nature to every other living creature, indeed all living creatures put together.

. . . which is why the pope taught this very thing, casually referring to "our superiority" in section 220. Pope Francis maintains the traditional concept of "dominion" (mentioning it eight times). All he does is deny that the dominion should be "absolute" (67, 117) or "tyrannical" (83) or "irresponsible" (83, 220), and deny that it should include "attacks on nature" (66); and he positively asserts that it essentially amounts to "stewardship" (116): which anyone who understands the biblical teaching on this has already been quite aware of, long before this document. One might regard the encyclical as a helpful development (even a "striking" one) of the biblical and Catholic notion of dominion over / stewardship of the earth, but as such, it is not at all inconsistent with what has come before.

God does not forget even things as trivial as sparrows sold at market for a pittance; infinitely less so each man with his immortal soul, who is worth far more than any mere animal. That is the point of Our Lord’s teaching. . . . But man has not lost his intrinsic superiority to all other animals, nor his title to governance over them.

No kidding. DUH!!!!! Nothing in this encyclical is inconsistent with this understanding. It's standard practice of the radical reactionaries to fight straw men, rather than actual opponents or views. The RadCathRs have been doing this for two years with Pope Francis. Why should Ferrara be any different? He's the quintessential radical reactionary; the poster-boy, so he can't depart from the template.

So why does Francis not state the simple truth that God endowed man with an immortal soul of infinite worth, thereby setting him above all other creatures?

He does do exactly that, as I have been showing! Here's some more: he refers to the "unique worth" of human beings (90). He notes "the inalienable worth of a human being" (136) and "our unique place as human beings in this world and our relationship to our surroundings" (15). This isn't good enough for Ferrara? Well, whoop-de-doo! Who cares? The pope has in fact done what our relentless critic claims he has not done.

To the extent that he does not do so as explicitly as Ferrara would like (which is a much more minor question), I submit that it is because it is elementary Catholicism, known to any sharp, adequately catechized fourth-grade Catholic kid. One need not state the obvious over and over. It is assumed, and stated more than enough in this document. "It's in there" (like the old soup commercial said). Ferrara even chides the pope for not citing additional words of a particular Gospel passage, as if he wished to exclude certain elements. This is beyond childish. It's embarrassing to have to even have to take my time to refute such patent nonsense. But if I convince even one person to start ignoring Ferrara and his reactionary crowd, it will have been well worth it.

Ferrara goes on to even greater heights of attack and ridicule at the end of his screed, most of which I will not dignify with specific point-by-point reply. Suffice it to say that the pope has reiterated man's dominion, and has not taught any form of vegetarianism. That's all anyone needs to know, in order to disregard the last third of Ferrara's empty-headed attack.

He quibbles, for example, with Pope Francis' A Christian prayer in union with creation near the end of the encyclical. Here again he shows his profound biblical ignorance. Many Catholics suffer from this deficiency. I'm grieved (but not surprised) that Ferrara is among them. Holy Scripture indeed contains passages such as the following:

Psalm 69:34 Let heaven and earth praise him, the seas and everything that moves therein.

Psalm 148:3-5, 7 Praise him, sun and moon, praise him, all you shining stars! [4] Praise him, you highest heavens, and you waters above the heavens! [5] Let them praise the name of the LORD! For he commanded and they were created. . . . [7] Praise the LORD from the earth, you sea monsters and all deeps,

Isaiah 42:10-12 Sing to the LORD a new song, his praise from the end of the earth! Let the sea roar and all that fills it,the coastlands and their inhabitants. [11] Let the desert and its cities lift up their voice,the villages that Kedar inhabits; let the inhabitants of Sela sing for joy, let them shout from the top of the mountains. [12] Let them give glory to the LORD, and declare his praise in the coastlands.

Luke 19:37-40 As he was now drawing near, at the descent of the Mount of Olives, the whole multitude of the disciples began to rejoice and praise God with a loud voice for all the mighty works that they had seen, [38] saying, "Blessed is the King who comes in the name of the Lord! Peace in heaven and glory in the highest!" [39] And some of the Pharisees in the multitude said to him, "Teacher, rebuke your disciples." [40] He answered, "I tell you, if these were silent, the very stones would cry out."

Romans 8:19-23 For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God; [20] for the creation was subjected to futility, not of its own will but by the will of him who subjected it in hope; [21] because the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and obtain the glorious liberty of the children of God. [22] We know that the whole creation has been groaning in travail together until now; [23] and not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies.

That's a lot of Bible to ignore! Right from King David, the prophet Isaiah, our Lord Jesus, and the apostle Paul. Are we to believe that they can write these sorts of thoughts, but Pope Francis cannot simply say, "Father, we praise you with all your creatures"? It's absolutely asinine.

Rather than search for Scripture to support (or refute) his views, Ferrara prefers to cite St. Francis of Assisi in supposed opposition to his namesake pope. And the key word there is "supposed" . . .

Ferrara, most appropriately, ends with wholesale mockery:

Today I read a blog post . . . accompanied by a still shot from the TV series All in the Family, whose title expresses quite well the deepening absurdity of this pontificate: “Time to Turn off the Francis Show and Stay Faithful.” I would love to turn off The Francis Show, but the problem is that The Francis Show cannot be turned off. If only it could.

Friends, I strongly recommend that you turn off the Chris Ferrara farce of a "show." Follow the Holy Father; not clowns in a sideshow. He won't lead you astray. This is how God designed His Church. Popes aren't perfect. Paul rebuked Peter for hypocrisy. But they can be trusted for doctrinal and pastoral instruction. Ignore bloviating boorish boobs like Ferrara (except to read refutations of him, such as this post). But don't ignore the pope, whom God selected to lead His One true Church.

This encyclical is a wonderful way to become acquainted with Pope Francis' ever-insightful orthodox teaching and ingratiating style.

* * * * * 
See also my initial enthusiastic reaction to Laudato si. [on Facebook]

Pope Francis' Encyclical "Laudato si": A Beautiful and Profoundly Wise Statement of Christian Environmentalism and Theology of Creation

By Catholic apologist Dave Armstrong (6-18-15)
I read the whole thing a short while ago. There are innumerable riches here, and a fabulous integrated treatment of environmental / resource problems. This will clearly become the definitive Christian statement on the topic. For too long, Christians have been accused of being (or, too often, actually were in practice) indifferent to the problems of the earth and the environment: as if we merely want to exploit the earth and her resources, rather than (the biblical view) being stewards of God's marvelous creation. I think this encyclical will go a long way towards dispelling those notions. The secularists don't "own" this discussion, anymore than they own economic or demographic or "nature of the marriage and family" discussions. Along these lines, the Holy Father observed:

An inadequate presentation of Christian anthropology gave rise to a wrong understanding of the relationship between human beings and the world. Often, what was handed on was a Promethean vision of mastery over the world, which gave the impression that the protection of nature was something that only the faint-hearted cared about. Instead, our “dominion” over the universe should be understood more properly in the sense of responsible stewardship. [116]

Once we start to think about the kind of world we are leaving to future generations, we look at things differently; we realize that the world is a gift which we have freely received and must share with others. Since the world has been given to us, we can no longer view reality in a purely utilitarian way, in which efficiency and productivity are entirely geared to our individual benefit. Intergenerational solidarity is not optional, but rather a basic question of justice, since the world we have received also belongs to those who will follow us. [159]

. . . a mistaken understanding of our own principles has at times led us to justify mistreating nature, to exercise tyranny over creation, to engage in war, injustice and acts of violence, . . . [200]

It must be said that some committed and prayerful Christians, with the excuse of realism and pragmatism, tend to ridicule expressions of concern for the environment. Others are passive; they choose not to change their habits and thus become inconsistent. So what they all need is an “ecological conversion”, whereby the effects of their encounter with Jesus Christ become evident in their relationship with the world around them. Living our vocation to be protectors of God’s handiwork is essential to a life of virtue; it is not an optional or a secondary aspect of our Christian experience. [217]

[W]e are not disconnected from the rest of creatures, but joined in a splendid universal communion. [220]

I particularly like the Holy Father's emphasis on blending and harmonizing Catholic "environmental" and social teaching:

There can be no ecology without an adequate anthropology. [118]

Today, the analysis of environmental problems cannot be separated from the analysis of human, family, work-related and urban contexts, nor from how individuals relate to themselves, which leads in turn to how they relate to others and to the environment. There is an interrelation between ecosystems and between the various spheres of social interaction, . . . [141]

He "humanizes" and "Christianizes" important scientific discussions that are usually hyper-secularized in the false dichotomy habitually drawn between science and God. I love that! It's a direct "punch to the nose" to a ludicrously compartmentalized and intellectually bankrupt secularism and excessive scientism (i.e., a materialistic version of science that is logically self-defeating, given the origin and history of that same science: which was overwhelmingly theistic):

It cannot be maintained that empirical science provides a complete explanation of life, the interplay of all creatures and the whole of reality. This would be to breach the limits imposed by its own methodology. If we reason only within the confines of the latter, little room would be left for aesthetic sensibility, poetry, or even reason’s ability to grasp the ultimate meaning and purpose of things. [199]

Dialogue among the various sciences is likewise needed, since each can tend to become enclosed in its own language, while specialization leads to a certain isolation and the absolutization of its own field of knowledge. This prevents us from confronting environmental problems effectively. An open and respectful dialogue is also needed between the various ecological movements, among which ideological conflicts are not infrequently encountered. [201]

Environmental education should facilitate making the leap towards the transcendent which gives ecological ethics its deepest meaning. [210]

Then too, there is the recognition that God created the world, writing into it an order and a dynamism that human beings have no right to ignore. [221]

The universe unfolds in God, who fills it completely. Hence, there is a mystical meaning to be found in a leaf, in a mountain trail, in a dewdrop, in a poor person’s face. The ideal is not only to pass from the exterior to the interior to discover the action of God in the soul, but also to discover God in all things. [233]

Standing awestruck before a mountain, he or she cannot separate this experience from God, and perceives that the interior awe being lived has to be entrusted to the Lord . . . [234]

He takes on unisexism as well:

[V]aluing one’s own body in its femininity or masculinity is necessary if I am going to be able to recognize myself in an encounter with someone who is different. In this way we can joyfully accept the specific gifts of another man or woman, the work of God the Creator, and find mutual enrichment. It is not a healthy attitude which would seek “to cancel out sexual difference because it no longer knows how to confront it”. [155]

He (quite appropriately and relevantly) ties in the incarnation and eucharistic theology with environmentalism:

For Christians, all the creatures of the material universe find their true meaning in the incarnate Word, for the Son of God has incorporated in his person part of the material world, planting in it a seed of definitive transformation. [235]

It is in the Eucharist that all that has been created finds its greatest exaltation. Grace, which tends to manifest itself tangibly, found unsurpassable expression when God himself became man and gave himself as food for his creatures. The Lord, in the culmination of the mystery of the Incarnation, chose to reach our intimate depths through a fragment of matter. . . . Joined to the incarnate Son, present in the Eucharist, the whole cosmos gives thanks to God. . . .The Eucharist joins heaven and earth; it embraces and penetrates all creation. The world which came forth from God’s hands returns to him in blessed and undivided adoration . . . [236]

He even includes a magnificent passage on the Blessed Virgin Mary:

Mary, the Mother who cared for Jesus, now cares with maternal affection and pain for this wounded world. Just as her pierced heart mourned the death of Jesus, so now she grieves for the sufferings of the crucified poor and for the creatures of this world laid waste by human power. Completely transfigured, she now lives with Jesus, and all creatures sing of her fairness. She is the Woman, “clothed in the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars” (Rev 12:1). Carried up into heaven, she is the Mother and Queen of all creation. In her glorified body, together with the Risen Christ, part of creation has reached the fullness of its beauty. She treasures the entire life of Jesus in her heart (cf. Lk 2:19,51), and now understands the meaning of all things. Hence, we can ask her to enable us to look at this world with eyes of wisdom. [241]

I very much resonate with the pope's social ideas, since I am a distributist ("Let us keep in mind the principle of subsidiarity, which grants freedom to develop the capabilities present at every level of society, while also demanding a greater sense of responsibility for the common good from those who wield greater power" [196] ), and critic of the many excesses of corporate capitalism and materialism ("profit cannot be the sole criterion to be taken into account" [187] / "nor should the economy be subject to the dictates of an efficiency-driven paradigm of technocracy" [189] ), as well as the evils of Marxism and Communism (and pollution, strip mining, etc.). I'm also a strong critic of anti-child contraceptive mentalities, and (obviously) pro-life, as any Catholic should and must be.

The pope refused to ignore the wholesale slaughter of preborn human beings:

Since everything is interrelated, concern for the protection of nature is also incompatible with the justification of abortion. How can we genuinely teach the importance of concern for other vulnerable beings, however troublesome or inconvenient they may be, if we fail to protect a human embryo, even when its presence is uncomfortable and creates difficulties? [120]

Is it not the same relativistic logic which justifies buying the organs of the poor for resale or use in experimentation, or eliminating children because they are not what their parents wanted? [123]

The mindset which leaves no room for sincere concern for the environment is the same mindset which lacks concern for the inclusion of the most vulnerable members of society. [196]

I am a passionate nature lover and conservationist, and very concerned with the preservation of nature's beautiful resources. My actual views are often in stark contrast with the gross and slanderous caricatures of some (online; several, former friends or supposedly friends) who have sadly made themselves my "enemies."

I've been absurdly accused of being "more Republican than Catholic" and a "neo-conservative" etc. (not to mention, a supposed "defender" or "advocate" of torture: something that has never been true at any time). Nothing could be further from the truth. I am in many ways what is called a political conservative, but I'm also a distributist and strong advocate of Catholic "third way" social teaching. I can't be cynically put into a box that I am not in fact in. The Church is infinitely more so a guide to my worldview and approach to life and thought than any flawed, always-compromised-in-some-way mere political party would or could ever be. My positive reaction to this encyclical is but one of innumerable indications of my true positions on issues.

In the next two weeks, for example, I will be visiting the magnificent Redwood trees on the coast of California. These forests are but 10% as large as they used to be. Someone got wise and took efforts to preserve the small remnants of the once vast forest. The national forest system gathers needed resources of lumber without destroying the ecosystems in the forests. We have learned about how to respectfully treat mother nature and mother earth. I visit old-growth forests in every state where I can find them. Often, they are just a few acres in areas that were once completely covered with these primeval forests.

Since it is the hot-button issue usually coupled to analysis of this encyclical (from many folks, even before they have read it), I note in passing that I disagree with a very tiny portion of it: the section about global warming (I disagreed with virtually nothing else, upon first reading). "Warming" is mentioned only nine times in the entire encyclical. This is a question of scientific "facts" and interpretations, that have nothing to do directly with the Catholic faith or the magisterium; hence, a Catholic is completely at liberty to respectfully disagree. Briefly summarized, this is my position:

1. There are indeed some real and verifiable changes in climate and the global environment in recent years.

2. Global warming is a myth. The actual temperature data regarding the entire earth shows no temperature gain over the last twenty years or so: in stark contrast to the previous alarmist predictions. This is an indisputable fact; not mere speculation or theory. The doom-and-gloom prophets have been wrong again and again; including, e.g., dire warnings about population growth and inability to feed ourselves. Al Gore stated in 2000 or so that the polar ice cap (surrounding the north pole) would be no more by now. It is in fact flourishing and growing. There simply is no discernible "trend of global warming" [167; also, 175]. With all due respect, the pope is mistaken in this regard.

3. It is highly questionable (based on various scientific evidences) that man is primarily or even significantly responsible for these changes (by use of fossil fuels, etc.). Many scientists believe that they are almost entirely the result of the natural cycles of nature.

4. It is highly questionable (based on various scientific evidences) that climate change will be catastrophic anytime soon, if ever.

Another quibble I would have is the absence of an espousal of nuclear energy, which is a very practical and attainable alternative to fossil fuels (which are blamed for much in the encyclical). It is mentioned in passing, twice: negatively (section 184) and semi-negatively (104). This appears to presuppose the leftish opposition to nuclear energy, which is "dissed" almost without argument anymore. Thus, one prime, existing alternative to what is deemed (rightly or wrongly) to be one of the primary environmental "problems" is ruled out from the outset.

Pope Francis wrote:

There are certain environmental issues where it is not easy to achieve a broad consensus. Here I would state once more that the Church does not presume to settle scientific questions or to replace politics. But I am concerned to encourage an honest and open debate so that particular interests or ideologies will not prejudice the common good. [188]

I urge everyone to read and digest this wonderful and positively innovative encyclical. It's a goldmine of wisdom. I could easily quote 200 parts of it as especially noteworthy and "quoteworthy." Here are a few examples of its innumerable gems of insight:

113. . . . [H]umanity has changed profoundly, and the accumulation of constant novelties exalts a superficiality which pulls us in one direction. It becomes difficult to pause and recover depth in life. If architecture reflects the spirit of an age, our megastructures and drab apartment blocks express the spirit of globalized technology, where a constant flood of new products coexists with a tedious monotony. Let us refuse to resign ourselves to this, and continue to wonder about the purpose and meaning of everything. Otherwise we would simply legitimate the present situation and need new forms of escapism to help us endure the emptiness.

114. All of this shows the urgent need for us to move forward in a bold cultural revolution. Science and technology are not neutral; from the beginning to the end of a process, various intentions and possibilities are in play and can take on distinct shapes. Nobody is suggesting a return to the Stone Age, but we do need to slow down and look at reality in a different way, to appropriate the positive and sustainable progress which has been made, but also to recover the values and the great goals swept away by our unrestrained delusions of grandeur.

Since the market tends to promote extreme consumerism in an effort to sell its products, people can easily get caught up in a whirlwind of needless buying and spending. Compulsive consumerism is one example of how the techno-economic paradigm affects individuals. Romano Guardini had already foreseen this: “The gadgets and technics forced upon him by the patterns of machine production and of abstract planning mass man accepts quite simply; they are the forms of life itself. To either a greater or lesser degree mass man is convinced that his conformity is both reasonable and just”. This paradigm leads people to believe that they are free as long as they have the supposed freedom to consume. [203]

The emptier a person’s heart is, the more he or she needs things to buy, own and consume. [204]

Many people know that our current progress and the mere amassing of things and pleasures are not enough to give meaning and joy to the human heart, yet they feel unable to give up what the market sets before them. [209]

If someone has not learned to stop and admire something beautiful, we should not be surprised if he or she treats everything as an object to be used and abused without scruple. [215]

A constant flood of new consumer goods can baffle the heart and prevent us from cherishing each thing and each moment. To be serenely present to each reality, however small it may be, opens us to much greater horizons of understanding and personal fulfilment. Christian spirituality proposes a growth marked by moderation and the capacity to be happy with little. It is a return to that simplicity which allows us to stop and appreciate the small things, to be grateful for the opportunities which life affords us, to be spiritually detached from what we possess, and not to succumb to sadness for what we lack. This implies avoiding the dynamic of dominion and the mere accumulation of pleasures. [222]

[N]o one can cultivate a sober and satisfying life without being at peace with him or herself. An adequate understanding of spirituality consists in filling out what we mean by peace, which is much more than the absence of war. [225]

Here is the URL of the encyclical on the Holy See website.

Read it for yourself! We can do that now. It's easier than ever. Let the Holy Father in his great wisdom and charity guide you. You don't need apologists like myself to be your interpreter, if you can read and think for yourself. Perhaps this post can be a sort of general introduction, but no more than that. We need to read and ponder and digest his words; not have them spoon-fed to us through the multiple filters of the secular media (or the equally ridiculous histrionics of the radical Catholic reactionary crowd), or apologists or Catholic journalists, or anyone with a blog and an opinion. The very notion of any of those scenarios is a farce.

You will be edified and enriched beyond measure.

* * * * *
See also my Facebook cross-posting.

Pope Francis' Encyclical Laudato si: A Beautiful and Profoundly Wise Statement of Christian Environmentalism and Theology of Creation

Acadia National Park, Maine
See my Facebook post.