What does it mean to be Man Fully Alive?

Saint Irenaeus, who created the saying

The first order of business is analyzing the sentence grammatically. The question that arises is whether Man Fully alive describes the Glory of God, or the other way around. Because this question can only be answered by personal opinion, we'll just show the meaning of both and say they're both true.

Let's begin with the original saying. The Glory of God is Man Fully Alive. This sentence is a simple sentence. No commas. Only one clause. Yet, it has an incredible amount of meaning. The surface of this quote seems to say that God's awesomeness is only when man is fully alive. That's false. Remember, God is perfect. Nothing can make him better. So let's draw a distinction between glory and awesomeness. Being awesome is when you're awesome. Glory is when you're awesome and people see it. Glory is when a pro baseball player hits a home run in the finals of the World Series. Awesomeness is when he does that same hit during practice. So God's glory is something we see. From here, I think the conclusion is that Man Fully Alive is what allows us to see God's glory. So let's discuss what God's glory is. God created mankind to be with him, meaning we are supposed to follow his calling. All that we do ought to be given up to God. Otherwise, we would be violating our purpose of existing. As such, we must do what we can to witness God. So that means we need to listen to that internal voice to be with God.
So what is God's message to us? Well, this comes in many forms. The first is pretty subjective. THe most obvious way God speaks to us is through some kind of vocation. While we can verify that God calls everyone to follow a career path or act in a certain way, there isn't some definite example of God's call to us, as everyone is called to do something different. The second way, the more important way, we are called by God is to love others. As Christ said, we should "Love others as I have loved You." What makes love such a central part of what it means to be Catholic? Well, we're all equal. God made us to be in union with him, meaning we all have an equal "dose" of humanity. This means we can't just arbitrarily assign what it means to be human. All people are different. That's what makes us similar. In that way, God calls us to love others as we lover ourselves, because others have the same human dignity and moral worth as we do.
So now let's go further and analyze why being fully alive means accepting the Glory of God. Man was created by God for one reason: to be in his presence. This means that in order to truly be happy, to be true to our essence, we've gotta be with God. This is where the saying really culminates in a simpler meaning. In order to be fully alive, in order to fulfill our purpose, in order to be happy, we have to be with God. God's glory is the only thing that makes us happy. That means we must do thigs for God's glory and not our own. We shouldn't have the idea that everything we do is for us. We should do things for God. That also means doing things for others. Since, again, God created us equal, we have to respect that and follow that. Honoring God and God's will means helping others, bringing glory to them and not ourselves. So, to sum it up, being man fully alive, acheiving the Glory of God, is treating others as God treats us in order to respect him as we respect ourselves.

What is Evil?

Artistic Depiction of Satan

If God exists, why is there evil? That's a common question asked by atheists and Christians alike. Whether you believe in God or not, it's hard to understand what evil is. That's because of the way our society deals with evil. As a society, we treat evil like a condition that people have, and like something that had to be created. But that's not what evil is. Evil is a corruption of good. Let's elaborate on that further.
When we discuss what evil is, we discuss something we perceive as negative. The human body is great, but it experiences sickness. Does that mean a sick body is bad? No. A sick body is merely a body corrupted by a virus or bacteria. Another analogy for evil is cold. Cold isn't something that actually exists. It's a lack of heat. To apply the analogy, good is like heat. Good is God. Anything that isn't close to God is therefore evil. That's where the corruption comes from.
The next question is why that corruption exists in the first place. If God created everything to be good, how did it get corrupted? This is a little long-winded, so get comfortable.
First, we start at where evil came first. God did not create evil. Rather, he created angels. At the time of their creation, he revealed parts of his plan to each one of them. Remember, God and the angels are metaphysical, so they aren't bound by time. At their creation, with the knowledge of God's plan, some of them "fell." The Fall refers to those who chose to take their own power. We can agree that this seek for power on their part is bad. So since we can agree that they did something evil, how did it come about? If everything was good, what made something have a bad thought? Well, the thought of being second to God served as a temptation for some. In the beginning, authority and power were good. They were corrupted during the Fall when some demons chose to take power and authority for themselves  Their autonomy allowed them to take what was good and turn it against God. If you have a screwdriver that you use to build, you can just spin it the other way to make it destroy. In the same way, power is a neutral object. It exists, but can be good or bad. In the Fall, some angles turned the screwdriver the wrong way. They simply turned it in a different direction and started the corruption.
Here's another analogy. Think again of the human body. It's pretty good. There are some sicknesses that are corruptions, however. So separate from these corruptions, lets see if the human body is perfect. It isn't. It has some corruptions that exist for no reason. People have wrong numbers of chromosomes, different DNA structures that become cancerous, and corruptions in the body that exist without outside influence. These exist because corruption is not an evil in itself. I've been wrong in this article calling it "corruption." It's actually change. You can change something for the better or for worse. Change itself, the action of change, is not swayed either way. Evil stems from change. People change and use free will to turn away from God. That caused the Fall, and it causes sin to this day.

Now, this concept does seem to fall to an infinite regression. While it would seem to suggest that evil is a corruption, that would also beg the question of what corrupted force corrupted it in the first place. If you thought that, I commend you, you seem intelligent. The answer to that is a clarification mod a corruption of good. Since God is infinitely good, anything away from god is the perception of evil. That means anything finite is subject to evil. Since God is also infinite, anything he creates is finite. Creating something infinite would clash with God's infinity itself, meaning he would never do it. Thus, everything God creates is finite and thus subject to error. You can't have two infinities. It's just not possible under the whole concept of infinity.

On Young Priests

CBSlocal recently published an article on a twenty year old mand who is deciding to become a priest. This prompted me to think about what God's call truly is for us. Far too often today we use our Earthly desires to try to find happiness. We are motivated by peer pressure, money, sex and everything in between. however, all of us fail to recognize an aspect of God in everything we do. While it seems extremely unusual for someone to go into the priesthood at such a young age, Mr. Meltzer (the subject of the article) is undeterred.  What he cites is more than a rational thought. It's a meta-rational, metaphysical feeling in his gut that drives him toward priesthood. Yea, he feels the temptations of the average man of his age tugging at him, the temptations for sex, for money, to continue in a secular way. But his faith is pushing him on. Why? God is speaking to him.  Although the article doesn't address this specifically, I guarantee you he can't explain why he wants to become a priest. He can't give you reasons. He can only give you an explanation of the gut feeling he feels from God when he reflects on his vocation. So how does this apply to the rest of us?
This post isn't a "be a priest" post. It's a "follow God" post. We seek money in our jobs, to be successful, and to be rich and famous like other people we've seen. But is this fulfilling? Referring to a previous post, we can look at how the Church is not rational. As part of the laity of the Church, all Catholics are called to follow God in their respective ways. Some will be engineers, others doctors. Some will turn out as multimillionaires, others will live a life of poverty as priests. Whatever God's call, we ought to follow it. Happiness isn't rational. You can't reason your way to happiness. Instead, you can reflect and follow God's will. God's will, that meta-rational vocation you feel somewhere deep, isn't there to be ignored. It's there to lead you to your own true happiness.

Why Homosexuality is a Sin

As a clarification: I'm not saying "God hates fags." I'm not saying we ought to stone people who are of homosexual orientation. For a better, longer, explanation, and an alternative, look at this post.
As another clarifiaction: This post in particular only deals with the Catholic view on homosexuality. This is not a post addressing the constitutionality of gay marriage. For information on the Catholic view on what powers the state has for gay marriage, see this post.
Why is homosexuality frowned upon? What is the reason why the Church condemns it? These are very common questions. In this post I plan on establishing what makes homosexuality a sin. I will also clear up the Church's teaching on homosexuality and pre empt many arguments people will make against this post. If you are for gay marriage or believe the Church ought to allow for gay marriage, I suggest you stop reading. The points in this post will disappoint you.

Let's start on why homosexuality is considered a sin. God's very first commandment towards man, even before the rule of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, was to be stewards of the Earth and to populate all of the lands of the world. The first beef with homosexuality ought to be obvious. It doesn't allow for reproduction. As much as people try to say God just wants us to not be bad and kill people, he did specifically say in Genesis that we are to populate all of the lands of the Earth. If that isn't a condemnation to homosexuality, I don't know what is.
Another point of reference our creation in God's image. This means we ought to follow what our bodily function is in order to be in a presence with God. Did God give both sexes both sets of reproductive organs? No (a quick look down should verify that). So what does that mean? That means that, in order to align with the will of God, we must accept heterosexuality. Homosexuality violates what God has created. He created a man and a woman for the sake of a marriage by flesh. Such a marriage, a bond, is not meant to be possible between man and man, or woman and woman. As such, God's will was to create us as heterosexual.

To be more philosophical about it, we are meant to fill a certain form. The form we were created with is defined by God. If we are to choose to follow God's will, we would follow his map for how we ought to live. By creating us in a certain way, God defines a nature we ought to follow. This means that following God first requires that we do not corrupt the ways we use our bodies.

Now let's refute common arguments of those who support "homosexual rights."

The first, and most common argument, is that it isn't a choice. While this argument seems like a superbly clever move, there are quite a few problems with it. The first, and most important, is concupiscence. A result of Original Sin is that we are more inclined towards sin. This means that the idea that it 'isn't a choice' is, in fact, unimportant to the question of sinfulness.
Another problem with this argument is that we are not condemned for our temptations of the flesh. We are sinners because of our choices to act upon them. That means the feelings you may feel about your sexual orientation do not matter in terms of your salvation. Rather, you must be able to choose God's will and not follow those desires.
The final problem with this "It's not a choice" argument is that it fails to establish a temptation. In an ideal world, there is no temptation. Nobody sins. However, there's always that odd nagging feeling at the back of our mind that has dark thoughts we never tell anyone. Whether it's the odd, involuntary temptation to use a gun in the wrong way, or imagine using a knife to inflict self harm, or getting the feeling of "I'll just jump," while staring over a cliff, we've all felt odd desires from some pretty dark places. But the reason those seem horrible to think about is that we don't listen to that voice. That voice is there, it talks to us, it feeds us evil thoughts, counterintuitive thoughts, but we don't ever listen to it. When people say there's no choice in being homosexual, it's that same idea. You feel it involuntarily, and think that it must be a deeper part of you because of it's irrational nature. But that's far from the truth. Just as Adam and Eve were tempted, Satan and other demons of hell tempt everyday people in a way that seems like it's us doing the thinking. That's not it. That's an alien force tempting us to do something, a force we don't quite understand because it escapes physical bounds. It's not a higher part of the human soul, but a lower part of our humanity ingrained in our concupiscence. It is a temptation of the flesh, twisted by the evil of demons. It's definitely not us. It's definitely not God.

Another argument made is "if it's not natural, why do so many species of animal do it?"I'm not gonna sugarcoat it; that's a stupid claim. First of all, not all animals were created in God's image. As humans, with rationality, the ability to form a community, self awareness, and, most importantly, consciousness, we are called to be more than just animalistic.
Second, humans are unique in regards to other animals. We have a rational intellect and a conception of God. We are self conscious. Discussing human sexuality and animal sexuality together is like comparing apples and oranges.
Third, there are plenty of other counterintuitive things animals do that we choose not to do. Other animals walk on four legs. Should we start making shoes for our hands? Wait, we couldn't do that, since animals don't have shoes. Why are we even talking? All other species of animal kind of grunt and gesture at the nearest food source.

Now, let's hypothetically say the above arguments are false. Why can't the Pope change doctrine? The Pope never tells us what doctrine is. He tells us what it means. There is a distinction. He doesn't change what the rule is, or what Christ said. Christ is God. That's just a given part of the Holy Trinity. As such, that which Christ teaches must be true. Since God is infinitely good, Christ must be as well. Thus, all that Christ teaches is infinitely true. That means the Pope can't change doctrine. He merely redefines it to meet current standards of the world.

What are Angels and Demons?

Angels are rational beings created by God. At the beginning of the creation of everything, God created the Earth, and Heaven. At the "time" of this creation, God also created metaphysical, yet finite, beings called angels. These angels are all revealed a certain amount of God's plan. Whether they be archangels, guardian angels, or anything in between, they all chose to be with God or against him. At the time of their creation, they are all revealed a part of God's plan for the world and for humanity, and they choose to be with God or be against him. As such, some of them chose against God. These are what we call "demons," or fallen angels. The greatest of these, Lucifer, was revealed God's plan most of all of the angels. He had the seed of power, a neutral force, that drove him to create a negative force, which caused him to separate from God. By doing so, he created a place in hell for him and his fellow fallen angels to exist.

So what exactly is an angel? Other than the brief description above, an angel can be described as a finite, metaphysical, rational being created by God to assist him in his plan for human salvation. While some turned away from God at their creation, others have stayed with God. The Church teaches that there are at least as many angels as there have ever been, and ever will be, people. That means there's a guardian angel for Johnny who lives down the street, Brad Pitt, and you. These angels are all revealed an equal amount of God's plan. Other than that, there are angels that assist God in his plan in a more general sense.

So now let's discuss whether fallen angels can be redeemed. No. That's the quick answer. The long explanation is that they have an intellect and rationality, but not a body. Because of that, they are transcendent of time and have no chance to learn more to change. While angels are not confined by time, humans are. That means we have time to change and be redeemed. Angels, on the other hand, do not. They are outside any conception of time, meaning they do not have the "time" to be redeemed. Furthermore, they cannot learn more than what is told them at their creation. As such, they can't develop any new knowledge. So salvation isn't that they never had a choice, it's that they can't make another.

Perfect and Imperfect Contrition

What's the distinction between perfect and imperfect contrition? It stems from their reasonings. Imperfect contrition isn't confessing because we love God, but because we don't wanna go to hell. Perfect contrition means we do it purely because we are sad that we have hurt God, not because of its consequences. I'll explain both in detail here.

Let's begin on what contrition means. Contrition is a word that describes the feeling of sorrowfulness that we feel because of our sins. While it's topically a similar feeling, pierce the surface just a little and you notice exactly why it's different. THe intention is what really counts here. In this case, the end is affected by the intention. Imperfect contrition aligns with "well I don't wanna be condemned to hell, so I'll go to confession." Is that the holy thing to think? Absolutely not. We are meant to love God and to cherish him. That means we should value our relationship with him for more than avoiding eternal damnation. As Catholics, we should strive to love God. Moreover, the feeling of fear of hell is a selfish feeling. When we rationalize in the way that would best benefit us it makes us selfish in the sense that we are still thinking of ourselves and only ourselves. That means imperfect contrition not only allows the possibility of future sin, it re-entrenches it.

So how do we achieve perfect contrition? It's a simple and nuanced thing we call love. We should love God, not fear his wrath. What's the distinction? First of all, one of them is a negative feeling. We're afraid of God instead of embracing him. We try to do what he says to flee his actions. The other involves us embracing his ideals and his actions to become closer to him. That means imperfect and perfect contrition are fundamentally different. Second, a fear of God means we aren't truly understanding the justification behind his rules. He doesn't make rules to have power over us. He makes rules because they are the just and moral things to do. Recognizing the rule and the justification behind the rule and the fact that God is creating these rules out of love means we can be perfectly contrite and truly accept redemption. Otherwise, there's no way we can have true contrition because we just fear the effects of breaking the rules rather than understand the justifications for them.

Why Do We Confess to a Priest?

When it comes to confession, there are quite a few misconceptions of what it truly is. People see the sacrament of Reconciliation as something where you tell a priest what you did wrong and that's the whole thing. But that's not the whole picture. Rather, we are to serve penance in an effort to rectify our sin. But the question that most commonly arises is why we have to confess to a priest. I'll show the first reason in a two step process, then give some general reasons afterward.

The quick answer is "penance." Penance is how we repay God after our sins. So why is penance necessary? Here's an example. A nine year old kid is playing baseball in his backyard and hits a ball into his neighbor's window. The window shatters and you quickly hide the evidence of your baseball game. After a couple of days, you feel guilty and tell your neighbor it was you. Is that the end of the story? No. Of course not. You're gonna apologize right? Maybe mow his lawn for free a couple of times. That's the penance. Saying "sorry" is the part that actually matters for forgiveness.

So where do priests come in? Well, priests are objective evaluators. You tell them your sins and they tell you what your penance should be. We can't just confess directly to God because we wouldn't be able to have a metric to objectively evaluate our penance. That's like a job applicant evaluating whether or not he gets a job. Of course he's gonna give himself the job! In the same way, we need a priest to objectively evaluate what our penance ought to be. Because of that, we confess in front of a priest.

Here come some interesting justifications as well. Similar to that of the previous paragraph, we cannot evaluate if we have sinned objectively. How on earth could we confess our sins directly to God if we can't objectively evaluate them? Because of concupiscence, and our inherent sinful nature, we cannot objectively evaluate what's right. That's why we sin in the first place. As such, we need someone else to objectively evaluate our sin.

The Church and its Availability

In the Church everyone is welcome, but there are always some stipulations. For example, if an owner of a sports team offers everyone to play, then anyone is welcome to play as the owner said; however, if someone never dribbles while they are playing and the owner yells at the, the owner is somewhat at fault or should at least have not yelled, but the player is at fault as well.

Should the owner have yelled? Should he not have? Is he wrong for getting angry? There is no fully correct answer to any of these questions. The best answer or one of the better ways to handle this would be to call him off the court and teach him the rules and the workings of the game of basketball with demonstrations illustrating what and how he intends everything to be perceived, understood, and performed. In hand, that is why there are coaches of teams, in order to teach and educate about the game.

Now, is the player at fault for not dribbling, assuming it was done so unintentionally? Knowing that he lacked knowledge on the game of basketball was he wrong to participate? The player is in no way at fault and should have participated and not scolded as one only gains knowledge through experience. Although, the player should have at least taken some interest or at least demonstrated some effort in how or what goes into what he is doing. It is not using all the information available or truly any at all in finding out about something but really taking a blind leap into something that we have absolutely no knowledge about. Instead, the better thing to do is discover at least some knowledge or a basis of knowledge about something before diving into it.

There are both better ways to accomplish what each person was trying to accomplish but sometimes at the time these ways are not clear. However, if the mistake is realized and the end goal is accomplished then it can be considered successful. On top of that, if this situation arises again then the right way must be performed otherwise it truly is a mortal sin because they are aware of the other way to better take care of this situation.