Matt Fradd's Blog, page 6

Do Pets Go to Heaven?

For many people, pets are family. Pets can be more loyal than many people and at times the affection they give often seems more sincere than love from our fellow humans.

In light of this, some people hope to reunite with their deceased pets in heaven. We hear of human beings attaining salvation, but not cats, dogs, birds and turtles.

Do pets go to heaven? If Fido’s really such a good boy, shouldn’t he enjoy the fruits of eternity? Let’s investigate.

Short answer: We don’t know what happens to animals after death.
God hasn’t revealed the fate of animals to us. It’s reasonable to think there will be animals in heaven. While heaven primarily consists of the vision of God, we will be aware of being united with other people and (possibly) animals.

But will they be resurrected pets from Earth or newly created creatures? Either answer — or both — is a possibility.

Why pets may not go to heaven.
Each group of living things has a different type of soul. There are plant, animal, and human souls. Plant and animal souls aren’t spiritual, meaning they don’t carry out operations that transcend the bodily organs in which they take place. For example, a dog’s experience of eating and sniffing is limited to the organs associated with those two acts.

This seems to suggest that when a plant or animal dies, the entire organism passes out of existence.

Humans, on the other hand, have spiritual souls. We have two powers animals and plants lack: intellect and will. While these powers make use of corporeal organs (such as the brain), their activity also transcends those organs, attaining to a spiritual act.

Not being composed of matter, a spiritual soul cannot perish. That’s why we know human souls persist even after their bodies break down.

Animals don’t have spiritual souls. That doesn’t mean God can’t preserve them for the next life in some way, but we don’t know how that would happen.

It’s fine to have hope for your pet’s salvation. Just know that even if it doesn’t survive past death, there will be nothing lacking in heaven. There we will encounter God face-to-face, the fulfillment of all of our desires.

The post Do Pets Go to Heaven? appeared first on Pints with Aquinas.

The Best Argument for the Existence of God

The Contingency Argument is probably the best proof of God’s existence. When we consider the universe, there are three ways to explain its existence: It either has no explanation, it is its own explanation, or it needs to be explained by something else.

The third option — the heart of the Contingency Argument — is the most plausible of the three.

Here’s why.

Introducing the Principle of Sufficient Reason.
To say the universe has no explanation seems to violate the Principle of Sufficient Reason, which states that when things exist, we look for the reasons why they exist.

This principle governs our lives and all scientific research. When you come home to spilled milk on the floor, you know there’s an explanation. The milk didn’t suddenly appear there. The same is true with science. Scientists don’t approach an experiment exclaiming, “This chemical just happened for no reason.”

If something is contingent — meaning it doesn’t have to exist — you must find the reason for its existence in something else.

You can’t keep tossing the problem to a larger structure.
Some people may contend, “While it’s true that you need explanations for things in the universe, you don’t need an explanation for the universe itself.”

One philosopher gave us an example that illustrates the problem with this thinking. Imagine you find a glowing orb on the ground. Naturally, you’d wonder where the orb came from and seek an explanation. If the orb were as large as a planet, you would really want to know why it exists.

It’s the same with the universe. There’s no reason to stop asking “why?” in the same way we do for trees, bees, and the breeze.

The universe is extremely regular.
If the Principle of Sufficient Reason weren’t true, we’d expect to see many more unexplained occurrences. We’d observe things randomly popping in and out of existence all the time. But we don’t.

Based on what we observe in the world, it seems impossible that the universe has no explanation or explains itself. That leaves the last option: The universe requires an explanation outside of itself.

Atheists may still find that improbable, but remember the words of Sherlock Holmes: “When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.”

The post The Best Argument for the Existence of God appeared first on Pints with Aquinas.

Transhumanism is Just a Religion for Atheists

Atheists pride themselves on their lack of religious faith. But can anyone ever fully escape their innate religious inclinations? Often, you’ll find that supposed nonbelievers have substituted another ideology for religion.

Transhumanism is one of these replacements for faith, as writer and agnostic Meghan O’Gieblyn’s life shows. Transhumanism is the belief that we can use technology to create an advanced human nature possessing greater physical and mental capabilities.

Meghan O’Gieblyn grew up Protestant, studied theology, and even spent some time at the acclaimed Moody Bible Institute. She then fell away from her faith.

After abandoning Christianity, she met Ray Kurzweil, the former head engineer for Google and a writer/speaker on transhumanism. She was enthralled by what she thought was his rational, scientific account of life that gave her life purpose without bringing God into the picture.

She then started noticing parallels between Kurzweil’s transhumanist ideas and the teachings of Christianity, such as transhumanism’s proposal of a mysterious future apocalyptic moment in which human nature rises to a higher redeemed state.

Basically, transhumanism is a secular end-times account. It demands faith and hope that this “salvation” will be achieved.

If you think about it, many of the human enhancements proposed by transhumanism function as surrogates for the Christian sacraments. The sacraments elevate our humanity to a higher state.

O’Gieblyn came to the conclusion that transhumanism is simply Christianity repackaged and a religion atheists can cling to.

Disillusioned, she rejected transhumanism and is now an agnostic. Prayers that she’ll come back to Christ, and for all those who put their trust in secular ideologies instead of God!

The post Transhumanism is Just a Religion for Atheists appeared first on Pints with Aquinas.

7 Reflections to Calm Your Heart at Holy Hour

We live in an age dominated by fear and anxiety, and it is destroying us. Granted, we can’t wholly avoid the troubles around us as long as we live in this vale of tears. But we can’t let them consume our lives.

Now more than ever, we need the strength and peace that comes from the Holy Eucharist. If more people would take the time to make a Holy Hour at least once a week, many things would change for the better!

Sometimes it can be hard to still our souls in Jesus’ presence. To help, here are seven passages to reflect on during your Holy Hour. Share them with family and friends!

Psalm 46:10
“Be still and know that I am God.”

St. Padre Pio
“Often place your confidence in Divine Providence and be assured that sooner heaven and earth shall pass away than that the Lord neglects to protect you.…My past, O Lord, to your Mercy; my present, to your Love; my future, to your Providence!”

St. Francis de Sales
“Do not look forward to what may happen tomorrow; the same everlasting Father who cares for you today will take care of you tomorrow and every day. Either He will shield you from suffering or He will give you unfailing strength to bear it. Be at peace, then put aside all anxious thoughts and imaginations.…”

John 14:1-4, 18-20
“Let not your hearts be troubled; believe in God, believe also in me. In my Father’s house are many rooms; if it were not so, would I have told you that I go to prepare a place for you? And when I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and will take you to myself, that where I am you may be also. And you know the way where I am going.…I will not leave you desolate; I will come to you. Yet a little while and the world will see me no more, but you will see me; because I live, you will live also. In that day you will know that I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you”

Luke 12:22-25
“Therefore I tell you, do not be anxious about your life, what you shall eat, nor about your body, what you shall put on. For life is more than food and the body more than clothing. Consider the ravens: They neither sow nor reap, they have neither storehouse nor barn and yet God feeds them. Of how much more value are you than the birds! And which of you by being anxious can add a cubit to his span of life?”

Jesus to St. Faustina
“All grace flows from mercy and the last hour abounds with mercy for us. Let no one doubt concerning the goodness of God; even if a person’s sins were as dark as night, God’s mercy is stronger than our misery. One thing alone is necessary; that the sinner set ajar the door of his heart, be it ever so little, to let in a ray of God’s merciful grace and then God will do the rest.”

St. Teresa of Avila
“Let nothing disturb you. Let nothing frighten you. All things are passing away: God never changes. Patience obtains all things. Whoever has God lacks nothing; God alone suffices.

The post 7 Reflections to Calm Your Heart at Holy Hour appeared first on Pints with Aquinas.

Why Do We Call Mary ‘Co-Redemptrix’?

For some time there has been talk of the Church declaring another Marian dogma: Mary as Co-Redemptrix. This has ruffled some feathers inside and outside the Church, although the teaching has been part of Catholic theology for some time.

Many Protestants are alarmed by this title of Our Lady and think that it means we’re making Mary equal to Christ. Some Catholics even wonder whether it makes too much of a humble handmaid of the Lord.

As Scripture shows, this is not the case. In 1 Cor. 3:9, St. Paul says that he is a co-laborer with Christ. He means that he’s an instrument by which the Corinthians have come to believe in Christ. It does NOT mean that St. Paul is equal to Jesus. He cooperated with the Lord in bringing salvation to the people, such that they could say, “Without Paul, I would never have known Jesus.”

It’s the same with Mary. When we say she is “Co-Redemptrix,” we don’t mean that she equally shared in Jesus’ work of redemption. We simply state that she cooperated in a special way as an instrument of the Lord.

All of us are called to be co-redeemers with Christ. Even our Protestant brothers and sisters acknowledge that Jesus wants them to freely participate in His mission to save souls. When they accept this mission, they become co-redeemers. You can’t escape that title!

But why do we single out Mary with this title instead of, say, St. Francis of Assisi or St. Teresa? The answer is simple: Mary is a unique instrument in God’s plan of salvation. After all, she alone can claim the title “Mother of God.” When God asked her to become the Mother of the Lord, she said yes. Things would have turned out very differently if she declined.

She also committed no personal sin and was free from the stain of Original Sin. This made her a more effective instrument in the Lord’s vineyard.

There is no reason to fear the title “Co-Redemptrix.” If nothing else, it shows what a powerful intercessor Our Lady is.

The post Why Do We Call Mary ‘Co-Redemptrix’? appeared first on Pints with Aquinas.

Why No Catholic Can Support Socialism

There’s a lot of talk about capitalism and socialism today. As we discussed in a recent blog, capitalism can be compatible with Catholicism in certain ways, although extreme capitalism leads to violations of human dignity.

What about socialism? Here we repeat the words of Pope Pius XI: “No one can be at the same time a good Catholic and a true socialist.”

Here’s what socialism is and the problem with it.

What is socialism?
The socialist system is characterized by the state owning the means of production and allocating goods and services to people based on their needs. This differs from capitalism since private entities, instead of the state, hold control in the capitalist system.

Some people say the difference between socialism and communism is that socialism is peaceful and communism relies on violence. But, there have been peaceful communists and authoritarian socialists. Violence or peace could be found in either system.

Why Catholics can’t be socialists.
Socialism contradicts important social teachings of the faith. Pope Leo XIII, Pius XI, and many other pontiffs have condemned the system.

Pope Leo XIII taught that there should be ways for the oppressed to share in the greater wealth in society, but not by having it taken by force. He observed that if wealth were taken by governmental force, the sources of wealth would eventually run dry.

According to the pope, socialism violates the human person’s right to private property and the right of families to support themselves. It also undermines the Church’s support of subsidiarity — the idea that leadership should be kept at a local level as much as possible.

Don’t misunderstand this. The popes have all taught that individuals and families who can’t support themselves should receive help. But putting the state in charge of everything isn’t the answer.

Capitalism says, “Give me what I want and I’ll give you what you want.” Socialism says, “Give the state what you have and it will give you what it thinks you need.”

Depending on how closely the state aligns with Christian values, you can’t always trust that it will give you what you really need.

The post Why No Catholic Can Support Socialism appeared first on Pints with Aquinas.

Is Capitalism Destroying the World?

Many Catholics are aware of the Church’s condemnation of socialism. But are there also issues with capitalism? While popes have praised many values often associated with capitalism, they have also warned against extreme forms of the system that undermine human rights.

Here are some problems with capitalism that we see in our world today.

Capitalism, like socialism, can lead to a concentration of power.
G.K. Chesterton famously remarked that, historically, the problem with capitalism is there are “too few capitalists.” As a result, power is taken from families and put in the hands of a small number in charge.

We see these problems when a few big businesses dominate certain industries. Not only is competition weakened, but these corporations end up having more political power and money and can more easily exploit their workforce.

Extreme forms of capitalism may ultimately lead to socialism.
When capitalism gets out of hand, the government has to enact regulations. That’s fine as long as these genuinely protect the legitimate rights of businesses, their workers, and their customers.

When big business continually undermines the rights of workers and the public at large, people more readily embrace extreme government intervention, as socialist and communist societies demonstrate.

The ultimate measure of an economic system is how well it respects and protects the dignity of the human person, who is made in God’s image.
One may argue that capitalism does this better than socialism. But even capitalism needs to be reigned in, as Pope St. John Paul II taught: “….Can it perhaps be said that, after the failure of communism, capitalism is the victorious social system, and that capitalism should be the goal of the countries now making efforts to rebuild their economy and society?.…If by ‘capitalism’ is meant an economic system which recognizes the fundamental and positive role of business, the market, private property and the resulting responsibility for the means of production, as well as free human creativity in the economic sector, then the answer is certainly in the affirmative, even though it would perhaps be more appropriate to speak of a ‘business economy,’ ‘market economy’ or simply ‘free economy.’ But if by ‘capitalism’ is meant a system in which freedom in the economic sector is not circumscribed within a strong juridical framework which places it at the service of human freedom in its totality, and which sees it as a particular aspect of that freedom, the core of which is ethical and religious, then the reply is certainly negative.”

The Church doesn’t officially endorse a particular economic system. It does teach the values that any truly just economy should have. It’s incumbent upon us to let our minds be molded by these teachings as we participate in political life.

The post Is Capitalism Destroying the World? appeared first on Pints with Aquinas.

Be Careful When Using This Argument for God’s Existence

There are many powerful arguments for God’s existence, such as St. Thomas Aquinas’ argument from contingency.

Then there are trickier ones, such as invoking our free will to prove that there must be a creator. This explanation can work, but it does have some pitfalls.

Here’s how to frame (and not frame) the argument from free will when you’re debating an atheist.

Don’t act like the existence of God automatically follows from the existence of free will.
For those who don’t accept God’s existence, it’s easy to account for free will by referencing natural causes through biological evolution. It’s a similar mindset to the scientist who — though witnessing the extraordinary order in creation — thinks that natural explanations suffice in lieu of a creator.

Many atheistic philosophers and scientists have written and lectured extensively on how free will could have arisen without divine guidance. Their arguments are faulty, but be wary of debating them without being able to refute these arguments.

Adding love to the free will argument makes it more convincing.
It helps to point out that love can’t be mere subjective desire, but it is ordered toward the divine. You can demonstrate that it’s something we’re responsible for and can freely choose.

The problem with arguing for free will without love is that many atheists embrace an isolated, ego-centered view wherein they see themselves as masters of their own fate. To them, free will merely proves their own power, not God’s. It’s this mindset that leads some atheists to say that if they did discover God was real, they’d shake their fists in defiance of Him.

Theists have yet to find an argument from free will alone that convincingly leads to the existence of God. As it stands, various metaphysical arguments are much more effective.

But if you have developed a good argument building from this point, please share!

The post Be Careful When Using This Argument for God’s Existence appeared first on Pints with Aquinas.

Was Jesus an Only Child?

Catholics believe that the Blessed Virgin Mary always remained a virgin. She never had intimate relations with St. Joseph — Jesus being conceived in her womb by the Holy Spirit.

While many Protestants believe in Christ’s miraculous conception, they hold that Mary and Joseph had other children after our Lord was born.

But Scripture, the Church Fathers and even the early Protestant Reformers are against them.

Here’s the evidence that Jesus was indeed Mary’s only child.

The “brothers” of Jesus mentioned in the Gospels are not his blood brothers.
In Matthew 13:55 we read, “Is not this [Jesus] the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brethren James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?”

Sure sounds like Jesus had siblings!

The first-century Jews used the word “brother” to mean more than blood brothers. It also meant “cousin” and, in some cases, “uncle.” The Hebrew and Aramaic languages don’t have a word for “cousin.”

Scripture confirms that James and Joseph are not Jesus’ blood relatives. In Matthew 27:56, they are identified as the sons of a different Mary than Our Lady.

The Church Fathers defended Mary’s perpetual virginity.
From The Protoevangelium of James (written c. A.D. 120) onwards, there is a clear consensus among early Christians that Mary remained a virgin after Jesus’ birth. The first record we have of someone challenging this universal belief is Tertullian (A.D. 160-240), but this was after he became a heretic. The Church Fathers roundly criticized him and later heretics for their doubts about the Blessed Mother’s perpetual virginity.

The Reformers believed in Mary’s perpetual virginity.
Ulrich Zwingli was one of the most extreme early Protestants, yet his words on Mary’s perpetual virginity sound Catholic: “I firmly believe that Mary, according to the words of the Gospel as a pure Virgin, brought forth for us the Son of God, and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure, intact Virgin.”

Martin Luther had this to say about our Lady: “Christ…was the only Son of Mary and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him.”

Even some later Protestants — such as Methodist founder John Wesley – believed in the ancient teaching, saying, “as well after as before she brought [Christ] forth, continued a pure and unspotted virgin.”

Here’s a question for our non-Catholic Christian brothers and sisters: Why contradict the unanimous voice of Scripture, the early Church Fathers, and the early Protestants?

The post Was Jesus an Only Child? appeared first on Pints with Aquinas.

Did God Really Command Genocide?

Among atheists, a popular objection to Christianity is the so-called “dark passages” of the Old Testament, wherein God seems to command the slaughtering of an entire people. Even many Christians are troubled by these passages, which include Deut. 20:16-18:

“But in the cities of these peoples that the Lord your God gives you for an inheritance, you shall save alive nothing that breathes, but you shall utterly destroy them, the Hittites and the Amorites, the Canaanites and the Per′izzites, the Hivites and the Jeb′usites, as the Lord your God has commanded; that they may not teach you to do according to all their abominable practices which they have done in the service of their gods, and so to sin against the Lord your God.”

If our Lord is a God of love, why would He command the killing of an entire people, which seems to include non-combatant children and women?

Here are a few explanations:

1. God has the right to take life. If God has the right to take life, He has the right to deputize others to do so. In other words, He can choose the methods by which He takes life. For example, He sent plagues that probably killed innocent people. He is free to choose the sword as well. While this view is technically correct, it’s probably not the best one to use in a debate with an atheist.

2. These passages don’t literally describe the killing of noncombatants. Instead, they were written several centuries later, using exaggerated warfare rhetoric. This was meant to highlight that the Israelites shouldn’t mix with the other nations. Evidence for the exaggerated rhetoric view comes from the Book of Judges, which states that not all members of the nations mentioned in Deuteronomy were destroyed. This continues in modern times. For example, a friend asks, “How’d the basketball game go?” You respond, “We slaughtered them!” Obviously, you didn’t kill off the team.

3. These passages are provisional. There are elements of the Old Testament that are imperfect and provisional and are meant as temporary rules or directives for God’s people until they reach the capacity to accept the fullness of His law of love in Christ. In other words, God was working with what He had: creatures with free will who weren’t ready to embrace certain truths, including the immorality of slaughtering innocent people in combat.

Of these three explanations, number two is the best one to share with most atheists. However, they all show that our God is not the capricious killer some atheists portray Him to be.

The post Did God Really Command Genocide? appeared first on Pints with Aquinas.