Matt Fradd's Blog, page 18

Is the West Dead?

For centuries, much of the Western world lived and breathed Christianity. This doesn’t mean everyone was a saint, but almost everyone in Europe and (later) North America embraced a Christian culture. C.S. Lewis mentioned how his old tutor, William Kirkpatrick, was a Presbyterian-turned-atheist who still gardened on Sundays in nicer clothes than other days of the week: “An Ulster Scot may come to disbelieve in God, but not to wear his weekday clothes on the Sabbath.”

Today, the West is post-Christian except for a few places — mostly in the United States. If you look at the latest polls for most Western European countries, they show a shocking decline in Christian practice.

And it’s not just that fewer people go to Church: It’s that they don’t even know basic religious knowledge that even non-believers used to know. In 2018, “The Daily Mirror” reported that two in five millennials didn’t know that Jesus was the baby in the manger in Nativity stories.

Things aren’t yet as bad in the United States, but Christianity is still fading here.

And the warning cries are coming from a surprising group: atheists and agnostics.

Many more atheists are nostalgic for the former Christian era.
Our friend Jonathon Van Maren recently interviewed atheist Douglas Murray. He asked Murray if he thought the Christian conception of human rights would survive into the post-Christian era.

Murray said that he didn’t think so.

Sir Roger Scruton never managed to fully embrace Christianity, but he started going back to Church later in his life. When Jonathon asked him why, Scruton replied that he hoped that practice would make perfect. He recognized that Christianity was a force for good.

Charles Murray is an agnostic, yet he told Van Maren that — barring a religious revival — America will go the way of Europe and die.

Then there’s the famous atheist Richard Dawkins. Christians have long known him as the author of “The God Delusion” and an enemy of Christianity. Yet now he has invited the ire of many Leftists by ridiculing transgenderism and claiming that there are only two genders. Many see him as holding onto remnants of our former Christian culture.

If you have atheists claiming that the West will die without Christianity, then we’d be foolish not to pay attention. It’s time to take our call to evangelization seriously. Let’s redouble our efforts to win the West back for Christ!

The post Is the West Dead? appeared first on Pints with Aquinas.

What Papal Infallibility Is (and Isn’t)

The words of God we have received are infallible, whether they come in written or unwritten form. In written form, they come to us in Scripture. In unwritten form, through Tradition. The Magisterium determines what is truly the word of God and what is merely of men.

The pope teaches that infallibility is what is contained in divine revelation. That simply means the Holy Spirit protects him from teaching error.

Many Catholics know this, but are not sure when the pope actually speaks infallibly. They hear Pope Francis say ambiguous things that seem to contradict prior Church teaching. They wonder how his off-the-cuff remarks relate to his supposed infallibility.

Here is a quick explanation of what infallibility is and isn’t.

The pope is only infallible when speaking on matters of faith and morals.
Christ made the pope the head of the Church, not of the World Health Organization or NASA. His task is to teach faith and morals, not health, science, or any other secular field (although he can speak on the doctrinal or moral implications of findings in secular fields).

Therefore, when you hear of past popes advocating for geocentrism or any other scientific idea, these do not undermine their infallibility. God does not protect them from error in all branches of knowledge.

The pope is not always infallible, even when speaking on faith and morals.
To speak infallibly, the pope must talk with the fullness of his authority and to the whole Church and make it clear that he’s pronouncing a definite teaching. (The phrase “I declare and define” in a papal document is usually a good sign of an infallible teaching.) He’s not infallible when speaking as a private theologian or as the bishop of the Diocese of Rome.

He’s also not infallible when teaching on faith and morals in a non-definite way. In this case, he may teach authoritatively, but not infallibly. You can read more about that difference here.

The Code of Canon Law has a good rule of thumb for identifying infallible teachings: “No doctrine is understood as defined infallibly unless this is manifestly evident.”

Infallibility doesn’t mean the pope will express things in the best way.
Infallibility means the Holy Spirit protects the pope from teaching error under the conditions listed above. It doesn’t mean the pope will state the teaching in the clearest way or offer it at the most opportune time.

Infallibility has nothing to do with the pope’s personal behavior.
Many Protestants — and even some Catholics — confuse infallibility and impeccability. Impeccability is the impossibility of sinning. That’s different from not teaching errors. Even if a pope is the greatest sinner of all, the Holy Spirit can still protect him from teaching the wrong doctrines.

Hopefully, this helps clear things up. Don’t be disturbed every time you hear a head-scratching statement from a pope. Popes rarely invoke their charism of infallibility, so all of the “contradictions” in papal teachings (which are not always contradictions if you study them closely) do nothing to undermine the credibility of the papal office established by Christ.

The post What Papal Infallibility Is (and Isn’t) appeared first on Pints with Aquinas.

Thank You to All Priests and Bishops!

There’s a bishop in Ukraine you don’t hear a lot about. Despite the constant threat of death from Russian forces, he refuses to leave his flock. When the windows were blown out of his apartment building by military fire, he stayed put even though it was winter.

Talk about having the smell of your sheep with you at all times! As you can imagine, his flock loves and supports him. He watches out for them as the wolves attack.

 

People love to complain about bishops and priests. The media spotlights clergymen beset by scandal. They give a pedestal to those who have left the priesthood. Even some faithful Catholics spend more time talking about how much they dislike such-and-such a priest or bishop than what’s good about them.

It’s Holy Thursday, a day when we commemorate the institution of the priesthood and the Eucharist. On that day, Christ celebrated the last supper with His apostles, the first bishops of the Church.

The priesthood is holy. Despite some bad apples, there are many exceptional priests and bishops among us. Yet, so often they are overshadowed by the bad ones.

Remember, without these men, we wouldn’t have access to the sacraments by which we participate and grow in the life of grace. They provide a prophetic witness to God’s eternal truth amidst the passing of time. They guide our souls to the eternal wedding banquet Christ has prepared for us.

To honor this holy day, the priesthood, and our Lord, let’s show our appreciation for the good priests and bishops in our lives.

Say “thank you” when you see them in person or by tagging them on social media.

Let’s show some love to our pastors, through whom Christ ministers to us.

Who’s with me?

The post Thank You to All Priests and Bishops! appeared first on Pints with Aquinas.

Why Being Culturally Christian Isn’t Enough

A lot of people focus on the pragmatism of Christianity. They may not be deeply religious themselves, but they see that Christianity’s teachings make society better. They treat it as a story that coheres with human nature, yet lacks a historical basis. They celebrate the joy of Easter, but don’t believe in the historicity of the resurrection.

But can you really be a cultural Christian without accepting the historical and metaphysical truth of Christianity’s teachings?

Here’s why the answer is a resounding “No!”

You can’t take the good from Christianity without embracing the religion.
Social studies distinguish between extrinsic and intrinsic religiosity. The extrinsically religious are our “cultural Christians”. If they go to church, they do it more to be part of a social club than to render to God the worship due Him. Even some atheists can be “Christian” in this sense.

An intrinsic Christian actually wants to follow the tenets of the religion. It’s a part of them. They respond to Christ’s invitation to follow Him, obey His teachings, and develop a personal relationship with Him.

Numerous studies show that all the benefits of Christianity come from intrinsic religiosity. It decreases aggression and extramarital affairs. It increases self-control, conscientiousness, and agreeableness.

These same studies show that extrinsic religiosity produces the opposite of all the effects listed above. In other words, extrinsic religiosity makes you a worse person!

The good in Christianity comes from people who actually believe it. They are not motivated simply by a desire to serve people. They serve and help people because they believe in the historical fact that Jesus Christ rose from the dead. By doing so, He proved He was God and therefore validated all His teachings.

Imagine going to another country and telling the people there to give up polygamy. If they practiced this for centuries, would they really stop because you tell them to?

Probably not. A greater motivator would be saying Jesus died for their sins, rose from the dead, and opened the kingdom of heaven to them and that monogamy shows Christ’s singular love for the Church.

There’s a difference between something being pragmatic and something being true. Pragmatism only gets you so far. It’s the truth that will ultimately set you free.

The post Why Being Culturally Christian Isn’t Enough appeared first on Pints with Aquinas.

Would Atheists Really Believe in God If They Had Proof?

Some atheists claim they would believe in God if they had enough evidence. While we Christians believe that evidence for God’s existence is out there, we admit it’s not completely obvious to those who don’t believe.

But would atheists really believe in God if He appeared in the sky and spoke to them? A few might, but many probably still wouldn’t. Here’s why.

Human psychology is complex.
Flat earthers exist, despite the strong evidence that the earth is round. There is no convincing evidence that Christmas was originally a pagan holiday, yet many will discredit the holiday on those grounds.

When our beliefs are attacked, our lizard brain lights up — the fight or flight response. No matter how much evidence we’re given, we still like to believe what we want to believe.

Some atheists have prepared responses for any sort of “proof” they may encounter. For example, If God appeared to them, they would think they were hallucinating. Even if this happened when they were fully awake, they’d find a reason to discount it.

The more fundamental the beliefs, the more difficult it is to change our views.
Atheists don’t want to suffer the radical life changes they’d have to make by becoming theists. And it’s not just them. We all like to stick to the beliefs that are comfortable to us.

We develop our worldviews over time. The more we build on our foundational beliefs, the harder it becomes to change the foundation.

God provides enough evidence for those who want to find Him.
Atheists who don’t want God to exist will ignore or explain away the evidence.

But God does provide the light for those who are open to it. The order and beauty of nature, the argument from causality, and other forms of evidence point to His existence, albeit not in an in-your-face sort of way. God doesn’t force His will on us. He leaves us an open door we can choose to go through.

This being said, don’t feel hopeless about the conversion of atheists. If you encourage them to objectively study the evidence, some will be convinced. For others, you’ll need to pray and make sacrifices. You may not be able to change their minds, but God’s grace can overcome even the most stubborn unbeliever.

The post Would Atheists Really Believe in God If They Had Proof? appeared first on Pints with Aquinas.

Roe v. Wade Was Overturned, So Now What?

On June 24, 2022, we rejoiced as the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade — the infamous 1973 court case that declared abortion a constitutional right. While last year’s decision didn’t outlaw abortion in the U.S., it did open the door for states to decide whether abortion should be legal, restricted, or outlawed within their borders.

So the battle for life continues. How should we proceed? Here are a couple plans of action to consider.

We need a liturgical renewal to bring about a cultural renewal.
After many of the great battles in the Old Testament were won by the Israelites, they erected altars of atonement and thanksgiving. Moses and Elijah made altars to the Lord, showing that they recognized God’s role in their victory.

Our current pro-life battles are not political, they are spiritual. The restitution of a godly order in our society has to begin with a spiritual and liturgical renewal. This is because our victory is dependent on God and the liturgy gives us the spiritual strength to persevere.

As important as activism is, liturgical renewal is more important. Let’s bring our pro-life intentions with us to Mass and Eucharistic adoration. Let’s pray for the victories God gave to His people in the past and make reparation for the horrible outrage of abortion.

Many in the pro-life community reach the heads of people with strong pro-life arguments. Others are putting their hands to work by joining pro-life marches and providing resources to pregnant mothers in need.

But we also need to reach hearts. That can only be done through a spiritual renewal.

We need to erect signs of victory for Christ’s kingdom.
We’re not losers. We’re victors. We know how the battle ends. Christ has already destroyed sin and death. At the Second Coming, evil will be destroyed. Let’s keep this in mind as we fight on.

We need visual signs to remind us of this coming victory. Let’s make statues of pro-life heroes. Our friend Fr. Jason Charron is building a shrine to the Blessed Mother in thanksgiving for the overturning of Roe v. Wade. The Left likes making memorials to its heroes, so why shouldn’t we do the same?

In the end, we must remember that the pro-life cause is God’s work, not ours. We can do nothing without God’s grace. If we rely on our own efforts — even for a great cause like the pro-life movement — we are bound to fail.

Let’s redouble our prayers and sacrifices that life may be respected by all!

The post Roe v. Wade Was Overturned, So Now What? appeared first on Pints with Aquinas.

Why Eve Was Made From Adam’s Rib

“The Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh; and the rib which the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man” (Gen. 2:21–23).

This passage about Eve’s creation is beautiful when rendered in English. But we lose some of the meaning hidden in the original Hebrew text.

One Hebrew word can have many translations in English. Sometimes these multiple meanings are related.

The Hebrew word for the main support beams of Solomon’s Temple is tsela. The Temple is where the Israelites worshiped God. It contained the life-giving divine services that preserved the Chosen People’s faith.

The same word is used for the sides of the Ark of the Covenant. The Ark holds within it — like a womb — the tablets of the Law, manna, and Aaron’s rod. Note that all of these are types pointing to Christ.

But here’s where it gets crazy. The word tsela is used in the Book of Genesis for the rib of Adam. This means that woman is made from tsela. Scripture compares women to the Temple and Ark of the Covenant.

Just think about what that says about the nobility of women! They embody the sanctuary that gives life to the whole universe. And given that Mary is called the Ark of the Covenant, women embody the image of the Blessed Mother, who contained within her the High Priest, Bread of Life, and fulfillment of the Law of Moses.

It goes even further. Remember that St. Paul says that the Church is the Bride of Christ, born from His side. This echoes Eve’s creation. Again, women are compared to a life-giving sanctuary, but this time it’s the Church itself.

And like the priestly Adam, a man is called to guard this lovely, life-giving sanctuary, which is his bride. This is why it’s so important that marriage remains a bond between one man and one woman.

When we defend the institution of marriage as God created it, we are not protecting an “outdated” understanding of human relationships. We are defending something full of rich theological symbolism.

The post Why Eve Was Made From Adam’s Rib appeared first on Pints with Aquinas.

Are Married Priests a Good Idea?

Priestly celibacy is one of the most contentious issues in the Church today. Some Catholics, even some priests, argue that they should be allowed to marry. Others say that discarding priestly celibacy will seriously harm the Church.

In order to better understand the ongoing debate, here are a few thoughts to keep in mind.

There have always been married priests.
Some of the Apostles were married, including Sts. Peter and Philip. Eastern Rite Catholic priests have long been allowed to be married. It’s Roman Rite priests who must remain celibate.

However, clerical celibacy has always been highly esteemed in the East. Many Eastern priests choose to remain celibate in imitation of Christ’s life. And Eastern monks and bishops are required to be celibate.

There’s a difference between a doctrine and a discipline.
A doctrine is something authoritatively taught by the Church for us to believe, such as Jesus’ presence in the Eucharist. A discipline is a practice regulated by Church authorities. Disciplines can come and go, although they should generally not be changed haphazardly.

Celibacy and married priests are issues of discipline, not doctrine. The Church has never taught that marriage and the priesthood are incompatible. But it has proposed celibacy as a way for priests to more closely follow Christ, who was celibate.

If priestly celibacy were a matter of doctrine, then why were some of the Apostles and other early saintly priests married? St. Paul said that the apostles had a right to take a wife, though he himself did not (showing that celibacy was still esteemed).

Celibacy may be a better option for priests.
Many people underestimate just how stressful having a family could be for a priest who’s devoted to his flock. You have to think about your wife and children. If you don’t, then you’re not a good husband and father.

But you also have to constantly be there for the people of your parish. There’s something beautiful about a priest with a singular focus on his people. He has nothing holding him back.

There are benefits to being a married priest.
A priest learns sacrificial love through his wife and children. And his wife provides an access point for the women of the parish, as she can relate to them in ways her husband can’t.
A holy family with a priest at its head is a living example of what Catholic family life should look like.

Ultimately, God calls some men to become priests and be married (in which case, they can become Eastern priests). Others he calls to an undivided celibate life.

We should respect both, while also submitting to the decisions of Holy Mother Church regarding celibacy and the priesthood.

The post Are Married Priests a Good Idea? appeared first on Pints with Aquinas.

The Problem With Islam

Many non-Muslims — even some Christians — are attracted to Islam. It appears to them as a much simpler faith. There are no difficult doctrines such as the Trinity and Islam believes in Jesus, although only as a prophet, not as God.

But Islam as a religion has many problems. Here are a couple of things to consider if you’ve thought about joining that faith.

The Quran has a weak sense of history.
While not everything in the Bible is history, many passages relate to real historical events. They even provide verifiable dates and places. In the Gospels, for example, you read about the birth of Jesus happening during the reign of Caesar Augustus. And St. Paul names individual witnesses to Jesus’ resurrection.

The Quran also recounts many historical events, but without the precision of the Bible. In the Quran, you don’t have as many ways to verify places and time periods.

Plus, most of the historical events in the Quran simply repackage stories found in the Bible and early Christian or Jewish apocryphal literature, like the Gospel of Thomas. We know where the stories come from. The Quran betrays the fact that it was written by men of a specific time and place, rather than prophets inspired by God.

Islam also denies that Jesus was crucified, yet the historical evidence is so great that even many non-Christian historians accept it.

Islam’s moral teaching justifies behaviors few find acceptable today.
For example, there is a passage in the Quran that seems to imply that men can sleep with girls who have not yet reached puberty. There is also justification for hitting women. The morality presented in the Quran stands in stark contrast to Jesus’ teachings.

While many Muslims don’t follow these outdated practices, they still claim that the Quran was dictated by God, which implies that everything in it is true. They have to face the fact that the morality of the Quran falls short of what many people today consider ethically acceptable.

Keep these things in mind if you feel drawn to Islam’s supposed simplicity. Also remember that we Catholics have the most beautiful gift on earth: the Eucharist! Islam doesn’t have anything remotely close to this precious gift. Stay close to Our Lord’s Eucharistic heart and you will want for nothing.

The post The Problem With Islam appeared first on Pints with Aquinas.

Science or Fiction: Which Is Superior?

Are you satisfied with exploring the world through a microscope and test tube? Or do you require escape into a fantasy world?

There are many people who love both science and fiction (and sometimes they marry those two into science fiction). But some strongly identify with one camp or the other.

Both are necessary. Here’s how science is disadvantaged compared to fiction.

Science can’t explain the ultimate meaning of things.
The ancient Roman philosopher and statesman Seneca described the difference between the Romans and Etruscans: The Etruscans believed that lightning happens because the gods want to convey meaning. The Romans thought that lightning was the result of natural forces coming together and they inferred meaning from that. Surprisingly, Seneca agreed that the Etruscans were right.

Science does a great job of describing the what and how of the universe. It falls short on the why. Fiction may not be able to answer the why as well as God’s revelation, but it gets closer to the mark.

Fiction is sometimes closer to the truth than science.
“What?” you may be asking. “How can an unreal story be truer than our observations of the real world?”

The answer is, fiction reveals truth. Unlike science, fiction can uncover the deep meaning of our existence, even if it uses made-up characters, places, and events to do so.

Take “The Lord of the Rings,” for example. Of course, there are no such things as hobbits, elves, and orcs (at least, we think so). Yet the story communicates truths about suffering, good versus evil, and other ideas that are beyond the scrutiny of a microscope. Many readers shed tears over the beauty and power of that story. Fewer people respond this way to a chemistry textbook.

Fiction can help us find deeper meaning in the natural world.
Science doesn’t have the only claim over the natural world. Poets and other artists have long looked to nature for inspiration and provided us with a deeper appreciation of creation by their focus on symbols therein (but in a sacramental, rather than a New Age, way).

We can’t truly say the poet is being fake by comparing a rose to love and suffering. The scientist may object, but the poet reminds us that the rose is a small revelation of the infinite goodness and glory of God and God may inspire meaning through created things that are not accessible through mere experimentation.

This isn’t to knock science. We need it. But we need much more. Let’s use science while remembering the big picture. We are ultimately not just molecules, but beings made in the image of God and called to eternal communion with Him.

The post Science or Fiction: Which Is Superior? appeared first on Pints with Aquinas.