Truth or Tolerance?

After a quick google search of the title, this seems like a question that is predominantly asked by Catholics about religion and by Christians in general about homosexuality. I would like to discuss the former.

So, this began with curiosity over whether there was any... historical... logical... proof that Buddha reached Nirvana. The point of Nirvana is that you never come back. This is on top of the fact that reincarnation through "karmic energy" at con. I wonder how abortion works in karma? If you die before you're born, then get reincarnated in someone else's womb, get aborted again...

Anyway, just searching for 'Buddhism' led me to an interesting site: www.religioustolerance.org
So naturally, it would be fair to see what they believe truth to be:
"Absolute Truth"
"One True Religion?"

The main points being:

• Unless God were to take the initiative, it appears that there is no way for humans to determine which religion is "true."
• If one set of theological beliefs is absolutely, objectively, universally true, then its corresponding set of moral truths would also be absolute. But there is no way in which we can currently know which set, if any, is true...Until we can all reach a consensus on a common set of theological beliefs, we will never achieve agreement on moral questions.

It then goes on into a  discussion over how if people lessened their grip on truth, they could increase their tolerance of other religions.

I personally don't want truth and tolerance to be mutually exclusive like this. We need to hold to the absolute truth, otherwise we are living in a fantasy we created, not the world as it is, or I could say, not the world God created. But it is impractical to completely reject other faiths because they only agree with the truth for X%, and not 100%. Catholics are not either-or people, we are both-and people.

There's also the problems of imperfect people and demonic influence. People grow up in a particular religion and just accept the practices without much questioning of the doctrine, sometimes. Thus, even if their religion held the truth, they are not able to defend it. For the second, should Satanism and Voodoo really be tolerated, even if its proponents aren't killing people en masse? Religions come from three sources: worship of God, worship of Satan or demons, or worship of yourself. Only God is worthy of worship. Does it jeopardize tolerance to tell someone they're worshiping a creature rather than the creator? If you force them to accept God, then you hurt their dignity and free will, then that is the real intolerance. 

Should tolerance be viewed from and Enlightenment perspective (which is the foundation of most of the secular, atheist culture we live in). Is democracy really the way to solve religious law, and thus, moral issues? What about "gender equality" or "sexual orientation equality?" To the Enlightenment, (after reading a lot of Buddhist explanations, the name 'enlightenment' now sounds anti-Christian to me, interestingly) the physical differences between women and men are superficial and do not indicate an underlying complementarity. Sadly, I believe feminism in this country has stopped being about doing what's best for women, as God made them, and has become more about promoting abortions and making men feel bad.

Is being tolerant really tolerant? In our country we've had a epidemic of vocal "tolerant" people who do nothing other than attack the "intolerant" people. Nobody can be "tolerant" of everything: no human society could hold together if we were (along the same line, if atheism really practiced what it preached, no moral law would hold and thus no human society could hold together). Thus to be tolerant, you must be tolerant of intolerance. If you tell both a Buddhist and a Catholic "you're right" then both will be insulted  at your misuse of tolerance and truth. If you stand on the ground of a Catholic and say to a Buddhist "you have some things right", then the neither is insulted, and the truth is not jeopardized, it is applauded. 

Besides, who controls truth? God. To try to deny truth in the name of tolerance is a injustice to tolerance, and it holds the arrogance and pride of saying you know better than God.

CCC

2104  "All men are bound to seek the truth, especially in what concerns God and his Church, and to embrace it and hold on to it as they come to know it."²⁶ This duty derives from "the very dignity of the human person."²⁷ It does not contradict a "sincere respect" for different religions which frequently "reflect a ray of that truth which enlightens all men,"²⁸ nor the requirement of charity, which urges Christians "to treat with love, prudence and patience those who are in error or ignorance with regard to the faith."²⁹

2105 The duty of offering God genuine worship concerns man both individually and socially. This is "the traditional Catholic teaching on the moral duty of individuals and societies toward the true religion and the one Church of Christ."³⁰ By constantly evangelizing men, the Church works toward enabling them "to infuse the Christian spirit into the mentality and mores, laws and structures of the communities in which [they] live."³¹ The social duty of Christians is to respect and awaken in each man the love of the true and the good. It requires them to make known the worship of the one true religion which subsists in the Catholic and apostolic Church.³² Christians are called to be the light of the world. Thus, the Church shows forth the kingship of Christ over all creation and in particular over human societies.³³

2106 "Nobody may be forced to act against his convictions, nor is anyone to be restrained from acting in accordance with his conscience in religious matters in private or in public, alone or in association with others, within due limits."³⁴ This right is based on the very nature of the human person, whose dignity enables him freely to assent to the divine truth which transcends the temporal order. For this reason it "continues to exist even in those who do not live up to their obligation of seeking the truth and adhering to it."³⁵

2107 "If because of the circumstances of a particular people special civil recognition is given to one religious community in the constitutional organization of a state, the right of all citizens and religious communities to religious freedom must be recognized and respected as well."³⁶

2108 The right to religious liberty is neither a moral license to adhere to error, nor a supposed right to error,³⁷ but rather a natural right of the human person to civil liberty, i.e., immunity, within just limits, from external constraint in religious matters by political authorities. This natural right ought to be acknowledged in the juridical order of society in such a way that it constitutes a civil right.³⁸

2109 The right to religious liberty can of itself be neither unlimited nor limited only by a "public order" conceived in a positivist or naturalist manner.³⁹ The "due limits" which are inherent in it must be determined for each social situation by political prudence, according to the requirements of the common good, and ratified by the civil authority in accordance with "legal principles which are in conformity with the objective moral order."⁴⁰ 

^{(Emphasis is mine: if the CCC had emphasized parts it would ALL be bolded... each word and sentence were selected with that much care and meaning)}

Lies We'd Best Unlearn

So, on the way to and from confession, I was listening to shuffled CCM (contemporary christian music, in this sense... not Catholic campus ministry, of course) and a couple of Newsboys songs came up and the first one I just enjoy... and the second one really hit me, especially the "lies we'd best unlearn" that I need to unlearn.

Joy -- Newsboys
If life is water, I was dry as Tuscon dirt
If it's a gamble, I'd already lost my shirt
If it's a journey, I was dazed without a clue
I flipped a 'U' back to the first love I ever knew

If life's a battle, the invasion is complete
If it's a rhythm, I have found the perfect beat
If it's a renaissance, I've got a new birthday
The world don't give it
And the world can't take it away

The Full Song 

Truth and Consequences -- Newsboys

I would just pull excerpts from this one too... but the chorus is vague and depends on the scenario in the verses for the correct meaning. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDNCiIq4iNs

Poster child for the Christian single.
Dumped on more than a birdhouse shingle.
Tired of the same old crowd, she starts to
Mingle where she don't belong.
All God's bachelors hanging in a bunch.
Wolves in Wool-ite beat 'em to the punch.
Score another knockout, barely bought her lunch.
What went wrong?

Let's talk about real life,
Truth and consequences,
And coming to our senses,
And lies we'd best unlearn.

Let's talk about real love,
Truth and propaganda.
Are you really gonna stand for
Love that waits its turn?

I am the voice of the male agenda.
Sensitive, strong, or shy, I tend to
Act anyway that would possibly send you
Somewhere we can be alone.

You're so sure I'm a would-be Christian.
Suckered by the "Untamed Heart" condition.
Love that feminine intuition.
Seen that movie, too

Let's talk about real life,
Truth and consequences,
And coming to our senses,
And lies we'd best unlearn.


Let's talk about real love,
Truth and propaganda.
Are you really gonna stand for
Love that waits its turn?

Okay, okay, okay - you've got me figured out. I'm a sham.
I never actually studied for the priesthood.
I've had lost of destructive relationships,
and I know I don't deserve someone like you anyway.
It's just, there's this strange purity about you...almost a radiance.
Maybe it comes from your religious beliefs. I don't know.
I guess what I'm trying to say is, you're unlike any woman I've ever met...
Is it getting hot in here? Can I help you with that jacket?

Oh, let's talk about real life,
Truth and consequences,
And coming to our senses,
And lies we'd best unlearn.

Let's talk about real love,
Truth and propaganda.
Are you really gonna stand for
Love that waits its turn?

Real love, let's talk about real love,
Let's talk about real love,
Let's talk about real love.
Let's talk about real life,
Let's talk about real life,
Let's talk about real life,
Let's talk about real, real, real

Let's talk about real life,
Truth and consequences,
And coming to our senses,
And lies we'd best unlearn.

Let's talk about real love,
Truth and propaganda.
Are you really gonna stand for
Love that waits its turn?

Let's talk about real life,
Truth and consequences,
And coming to our senses,
And lies we'd best unlearn.

Let's talk about real love,
Truth and propaganda.
Are you really gonna stand for
Love that waits its turn?

No, no. I know you've got to go...oh oh! No, it's nothing.
I've just got this really back pain in my neck
You don't suppose you could just massage it a little, could you?

By Steve Taylor

Holy Mary, pray for us.
Holy Mother of God,
Holy Virgin of virgins,
Saint Mary Magdalene,
Saint Agatha,
Saint Lucy,
Saint Agnes,
Saint Cecilia,
Saint Catherine,
Saint Anastasia,
Saint Clare,
All ye holy virgins and widows, pray for us.
All ye holy men and women, saints of God, make intercession for us. (Excerpt from "Litany of the Saints")

And this has nothing to do with the topic of this post but I love it:
In the Belly of the Whale--Veggietales Jonah/Newsboys.... some parts are a little... not-Jonah-ish... but the synchronization between lyrics and video is done well

Happy the Sinner Whose Fault is Removed

How do you tell your Lutheran friend that you are delaying doing homework together in order to go to confession? It probably felt more awkward for me than for him. Oh well.

What I wished I had:
Prayer before examination of conscience:

"Come Holy Spirit into my soul. Enlighten my mind that I may know the sins I ought to confess, and grant me Your grace to confess them fully, humbly and with contrite heart. Help me to firmly resolve not to commit them again.O Blessed Virgin, Mother of my Redeemer, mirror of innocence and sanctity, and refuge of penitent sinners, intercede for me through the Passion of Your Son, that I may obtain the grace to make a good confession.
All you blessed Angels and Saints of God, pray for me, a most miserable sinner, that I may repent from my evil ways, that my heart may henceforth be forever united with yours in eternal love.
Amen."

Psalm for after Confession (which I would only have known about because of my goal to read the Bible and CCC in a year):
Psalm 32

Happy the sinner whose fault is removed,
whose sin is forgiven.
Happy those to whom the LORD imputes no guilt,
in whose spirit is no deceit.
As long as I kept silent, my bones wasted away;
I groaned all the day.
For day and night your hand was heavy upon me;
my strength withered as in dry summer heat.
Then I declared my sin to you;
my guilt I did not hide.
I said, "I confess my faults to the LORD,"
and you took away the guilt of my sin.
Thus should all your faithful pray in time of distress.
Though flood waters threaten,
they will never reach them.
You are my shelter;
from distress you keep me;
with safety you ring me round.
I will instruct you and show you the way you should walk,
give you counsel and watch over you.
Do not be senseless like horses or mules;
with bit and bridle their temper is curbed,
else they will not come to you.
Many are the sorrows of the wicked,
but love surrounds those who trust in the LORD.
Be glad in the LORD and rejoice, you just;
exult, all you upright of heart.

Day 30

I've hit the end of the first month! Day 30 was Genesis chapters 46-47, Psalm 29, Matthew 16 and CCC 238-248. I didn't end up having anyone (that I know of) doing this everyday with me... which is kinda sad, I was hoping to have someone else with me so that we can keep each other accountable for it.

So far I've skipped one night: I was up til 5am writing an essay and wanted to get a modicum of hours of sleep. I was able to make it up the next day and have been on track since so far. I'm still pumped about doing this every night... I'm amazed at the number of verses I recognize.

My biggest downside so far is that I am not remembering what I've read so far. Especially for the Catechism passages.

I also intended to share my thoughts on the readings here... but schoolwork should come first! Keeping up with monthly milestones on here should be a good way to keep accountable to myself (I hope).

Was Martin Luther crucified for you? How about your nondenominational pastor?

So one of my friends invited me to see the former lead singer of a Contemporary Christian Music band at her church… what I didn’t originally realize was that 1) he would be talking rather than singing and 2) it would be at her weekly Sunday church service. And, honestly, I feel awkward at other denominations’ church services. So once this misunderstanding was corrected, I did decide not to go. I wouldn’t feel as awkward going to another Catholic rite’s church because… well… we’re all Catholic. But the separation with other denominations is actually significant. This probably isn’t an interesting topic for a blog post, except that this is what this Sunday’s second reading was about.

 “I urge you, brothers and sisters, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ,
that all of you agree in what you say,
and that there be no divisions among you,
but that you be united in the same mind and in the same purpose.
For it has been reported to me about you, my brothers and sisters,
by Chloe’s people, that there are rivalries among you.
I mean that each of you is saying,
“I belong to Paul,” or “I belong to Apollos,”
or “I belong to Cephas,” or “I belong to Christ.”
Is Christ divided?
Was Paul crucified for you?
Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?
For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel,
and not with the wisdom of human eloquence,
so that the cross of Christ might not be emptied of its meaning.” (1 Cor 1:10-13,17) (NAB)

I couldn’t help thinking… Is Christ divided? Was Martin Luther crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of John Calvin? Or whoever the creator of your denomination is. I feel awkward around other denominations because Christ should not be divided! All Christians should be “in the same mind and in the same purpose… to preach the gospel”! It’s a scary thought to say that splitting from the Catholic Church (the Church founded by no one but Christ) empties the meaning of the cross of Christ! And we have thousands upon thousands of not only denominations, but independent non-denominational churches, set up by one pastor and based on the interpretation of the Bible of that one pastor. I don’t know whether Martin Luther actually said it, or whether it’s been paraphrased to death but he essentially said “I sought to take down one pope, and in the end I had hundreds.” Instead of getting rid of the papacy, the reformation told people “you can be your own pope.” People set themselves up in competition to the Pope as the source of truth. Kinda reminds me of when Adam and Eve set themselves up in competition to God as the source of good and evil. Even today, people try to say that there is good-for-me/true-for me and good-for-you. In retrospect, the one good thing Adolf Hitler has done for the world is he has become a perfect refutation of this argument. Besides, we still have a criminal justice system… anyone who believes the good-for-you argument and believes in making sure murderers end up in jail is contradicting themselves. It’s not a livable ideology: to use scientific terms, the evidence does not support the conclusion.

Other thoughts on this weeks readings are:

The first reading and Gospel are generally designed to go together. If the Epiphany readings didn’t convince you of that, then this week’s readings will. Jesus quotes the old testament! “The people who sit in darkness have seen a great light.” I would propose that if you’re a Catholic who has sat in church weekly, you would probably recognize a lot of Bible verses if you heard them… you just wouldn’t be able to find them or remember them easily. We know them, we just can’t quote them. Maybe that’s just me because I’m a lector and am beginning to see the same readings for a particular Sunday over and over (Pentecost… Christmas… I wouldn’t remember where to find the readings (other than Acts) but I recognize them when I see them again). Like psalms. We go through so many psalms… Last night, when I was reading the parts of the Bible and Catechism for today, I had psalm 22, which Jesus referred to when on the cross: “My God, my God, why have you abandoned me?” Psalm 23 is “The Lord is my shepherd.” Psalm 27 is “The Lord is my light and my salvation.”

You should recognize that one at least. It was the responsorial psalm for this week. The point is, Catholics who go to Mass would probably recognize more of the Bible than they think they do (and more than some Protestants think they do).

This is probably my favorite version of Psalm 27: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x9m77bfUvI4&feature=related

The main point, I would say, of this Sunday’s gospel was the call of the Apostles. And the question proceeding from it is “What is God calling you to?” And I would say, that is the Catholic way of saying “Do you have a personal relationship with Jesus?” Only not selfish sounding.

CCC 97 “Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture make up a single sacred deposit of the Word of God”

        95 “Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture, and the Magisterium of the Church are so connected and associated that one of them cannot stand without the others”

Will the real Catholic please stand up?

I don’t usually end up on the Washington Post, but I got directed there for news about the falsified autism study (which is a separate rant of mine on bad science… both in the study and how it’s being reported… a false study doesn’t prove or debunk anything!!! Anyway…)

"A Tale of Two Catholics"

When I learned that our current (2011) majority leader, John Boehner, was a Catholic, I was amused that we have had two Catholic majority leaders in a row. I wonder if that’s a first… doesn’t matter. But, as this article shows, there are some major issues on which these two politicians’ views couldn’t be more different. The most obvious one being abortion.

The journalist then goes on to try to create a debate where there is none. There is a head to the Catholic Church, and the “who decides?” paragraph does not even mention the Pope as an option. Heaven forbid the Pope influencing Catholics who are in political office. If the journalist had done her research, she would have known, and it would have fit very well to say, that there is an objective definition for “being a Catholic.”

People are not Catholic because they choose to call themselves Catholic. It is more than a label.

People are not Catholic because of the culture they grew up in, though that can be a factor leading to “being a Catholic.”

People are not even Catholic based on what they do. Though what Catholics do should reflect what makes them Catholic.

People are Catholic because they hold as true all that the Catholic Church, the repository of all Truth, puts forth as doctrine. Any Catholic who rejects a doctrine excommunicates themselves, though the term has fallen out of fashion.

The Church will not stop any Catholic from rejecting its teaching, but it still waits with open arms for whenever they want to come home. Any Catholic can choose whatever they want to be truth, but they need to realize they are putting down their Catholicism, and again, the Church is still there, waiting with God’s reality. If they continue to feel that they are Catholic, then they give scandal to the Church, and provide a false image of what Catholicism is. Which leads to the confusion of people like this journalist.

Originally written/meant to be posted Friday January 7, 2011

The Mirror Image

How can there be a loving God if there is so much meaningless suffering in the world?

Well, a loving God would not be the source of suffering. So, the source must be from us.

Then what do we do that causes suffering?

Everyone suffers. Some unjustly. All suffering is a consequence of sin.

In what is called original sin, humanity lost sanctifying grace. It is not committed, it is a condition transmitted like a disease through the whole human race. At the same time, humanity became internally divided: excessive physical “good” does spiritual harm, and what is good for the spirit comes through a physical suffering.

Other sin causes suffering due to moral wrongdoing. This affects both the person who commits the act and others who are affected as a consequence of the action. The objective morality that holds the truth, holds the code by which humanity functions well. A machine cannot work to its full potential if the owner ignores the instructions of proper use and care. A human cannot live well, if they do not follow rules. Some are obvious, like “wash your hands”, “eat a reasonable amount of balanced food types”, “exercise regularly”, or even “don’t do drugs.” We don’t always do these things, but we don’t object to them as a code to live by. Similarly, our spiritual life has a code to live by as well. But at this point, some people illogically want to only “believe” in only what they can see, experiment on, and so forth. Experimentation is a good process to find knowledge about what can be experimented on. It sheds no light on the possibilities that cannot be experimented on. Through history, religion has created spiritual codes to live by. Many codes. So what is the objective truth?

Depends on what is important. If we are part spirit, and spirit cannot die, then determining what happens to us then is most important, as that will be taking up the most time of our lives: we can get through suffering now because we know it is only temporary. It is important to make sure it is only temporary.

Well, how do we know which religion has the truth?

Because God told us. What religion has roots that stretch back to the beginning of humanity? What religion has lasted? What religion collects prophecy that comes true? What religion has been so irrefutable? What religion puts up people from history, who have followed the moral code, as examples of success? Think about the number of saints. Think about how many scientifically and humanly unexplainable events have taken place as a testament to sainthood. 

Suffering. It’s the mirror image of “there is no right or wrong.” I think people feel like victims or feel compassion for victims when they claim a suffering world is a Godless world. But they forget that suffering has a cause. Maybe they are that cause, maybe someone unknown. Not only are we all victims of suffering, but we all cause suffering in the world as well. We live in a perfect-human-less world. God doesn't necessarily like it, but He will permit it, so that we can become like Him. Yes, God can do everything, knows everything, and sees all time, but no where have I found anything that says God makes people give Him what He wants. Jesus suffered. Imagine the suffering that comes from, not only knowing that people are misusing the gift of free will, but that God also supplied them with the life and breath and energy, that people go and do evil with.

All I’ve said means nothing without God. God set the moral code to be like our “operating manual” but we rejected God and God’s ideas of how we should work. We tried to take into our hands determining good and evil. And every time we try, it fails. Every human who attempts to make themselves God fails, and suffering is the result.

I feel I must say I'm only still learning, and will probably look back on this post as needing editing and clarification. But I've procrastinated posting it at least in its current state long enough.

Originally intended to be posted Wednesday January 5 2011