On Public Prayer

A common argument between Catholics and Protestants alike, with the huge popularity of Tim Tebow springing up two seasons ago, is whether public prayer is permissible.  The Catholic teaching is no, but there are still two sides to the argument. On one hand, Tebow seems to serve as a role model for kids and others to follow, to believe in God and rely upon him. However, a public prayer goes directly against what Christ says in the Bible. In this article I'll clarify what each argument says and why Mr. Tebow is in the wrong.

Let's begin with the more utilitarian approach: it helps people see a role model. First, this is a terrible argument. The people public prayer is aimed at already have the disposition to believe in no God. Atheists commonly see evidence of miracles yet still firmly believe they are magic tricks. Wait until Monday for a larger elaboration on what it means to believe.  But besides all of that, this kind of prayer objectifies a subjective prayer.  When you try to convert people, it shouldn't be via a public theater where people have no choice but to see you. Doing that makes God seem like a distant being who we thank for everything we do. However, that's not at all what God is. God has a personal relationship with us. He helps guide us through our lives to become closer to him. A true Christian does not merely believe in God, but has a personal relationship with God. For that reason, an equally personal conversion is necessary to truly find God in what we do. Even if one were to use the argument of evangelization, nobody learns from watching someone else practice. We don't learn calculus by watching the teacher solve problems on the board. That's absurd! We learn by being taught, not necessarily being shown. What that means is praying in public doesn't even meet the utilitarian benefit its supporters claim it does.

The stronger argument, on the other side, starts with a Bible verse. "When you pray, don't be like the hypocrites who love to pray publicly on street corners and in the synagogues where everyone can see them. I tell you the truth, that is all the reward they will ever get." (Matthew 6:5)  When we pray in public, it directly contradicts this verse. Further, our prayer ought to be a private matter because it is personal. We shouldn't be pressed to pray when something happens or doesn't happen. Rather, we should pray to grow in our relationship with God, not our relationship with others.

On the New Pope

Now that Pope Francis has had a month to show his "Papal flair" if you will, I think it's an appropriate time to discuss what changes he will bring to the Church, and what the theme of his Papacy will be.  So far, what we have seen is humility. From checking out of his hotel in person, refusing the Papal apartment, and riding in the windowless Pope-mobile, it seems that our new Pope is displaying the true theme of the Church. The Church isn't about being a museum for the perfect. It's a hospital for the broken. In order to be a part of the Church, we must accept our flaws and be humble enough to truly trust God.  That's exactly what Pope Francis shows. His behavior displays the statement "I am the Pope but that only means I am a greater servant." Now, let's go through the possible explanations for his behavior.

Pope Francis checking out of his hotel after his election

First is the nature of the Papacy. Pope Francis seems to understand the role of the Pope as a role of servitude. He isn't meant to sit upon a throne. He is meant to be on his knees, serving God in evangelizing the world. From checking out of his hotel in person to taking the city bus as a cardinal to riding in a windowless Pope-mobile, he displays incredible humility. That seems to be the underlying theme beneath all of his actions: humility. He is trying to demonstrate that he is not a king, he is not a president, and his authority is merely the authority to serve. Rather than putting a king in charge of a country, his belief is that the Pope should be like a trusted servant, serving others instead of having others serve him. When you trust an employee, you know they do a good job. Otherwise you wouldn't bestow any trust upon them. That's how the Papacy is to Pope Francis. It's like being a trusted servant. God is entrusting the Church to him, not placing him on a throne.

The second, and perhaps less noticeable, reason for his humility could possibly be his Jesuit vows.  As a Jesuit, he has vowed to have a life of poverty, not seeking extravagance. Rather, as a Jesuit, he is to be a servant. That's how he takes the Papacy. He follows the Jesuit vows in his Primacy by remaining in poverty. While some may say there ought not be a Jesuit Pope, this shows why the Pope is a radically different kind of authority. Francis is not only performing the role of Pope, but he is redefining it. He's defining it as more of a servant's role than a king's role. It is not glory he seeks, it is the authority to follow the teachings of Christ and spread them to the world.

Why God is a Personal God

In all of the arguments I've seen for why God exists or doesn't exist, the most problematic argument for Catholics is the deist argument. If God created the world, why is that proof that he still exists. There are two main proofs today. First are miracles.

Miracles prove a personal God because it shows how God is still active in our lives today. God doesn't exist in a metaphysical vacuum. Rather, he carries out his plan through miracles. For the skeptical thinker comes the idea of "Why should I believe miracles?" Firstly, miracles are not some kind of magic trick. There's no real physical way to induce the stigmata overnight. You can't just will something like a miraculous healing to happen. Nor is it just people pretending. This is evident by the many martyrs in the Catholic Church. If the people who perform miracle's in God's name and those who are positively affected by miracles are just pretending, why would they be willing to die for that cause.

A second proof is love. Why is it that when a man sees one woman, he feels nothing, yet he feels a totally different feeling when seeing another woman? When you think about it, you don't just fall in love with random people. You don't walk down the road and fal in love multiple times with people you see. Love is an intimate connection with someone of the opposite sex. It doesn't seem to make sense why people fall in love when they do. At least, it doesn't make any earthly sense. When we factor God into the equation, it makes sense. People fall in love because there is a supernatural, metaphysical bond between them. You may respond by saying: That's all fine in a vacuum, but what about the fact we can determine what parts of the brain exhibit which activity? That's a valid point, but it has a key flaw. We can't read minds. There's no reason to believe these brain scans insofar as they just reflect the metaphysical soul doing its work. The soul thinks and feels, and the brain is just that bond from the soul to the body. It doesn't make sense to bind metaphysical things to physical things anyway. What does a thought look like? What does an emotion look like? Why can't we use our five physical senses to detect thoughts and emotions?

The final proof of the existence of a Personal God, and not a Deist God is that of the Church herself. People slam the Catholic Church for bad Popes and corruption and indulgences and everything in between. Yet the Catholic Church still stands.  Why? Well, the Catholic Church is guided directly by the Holy Spirit. Any other explanation is nonsensical as the Church has gone through so much crap and still exists. How many other institutions do you know of that go through bad leaderships, multiple wars, persecutions, yet still manage to become the most prevalent belief in the world? If you thought of zero, you are correct. The Church has gone through so much strife and come on top each time because of her metaphysical roots. She was founded by Christ and is guided by the Holy Spirit.

For those Catholics who aren't quite sure how to prove a Personal God, I hope this helps. All in all, there are plenty of mysteries on Earth that cannot be explained via the laws of science. These must all, inevitably, point to God working his magic.

NCEA: Necessary or an excuse to give us the week off?

Many people are skeptical of what the National Catholic Educator's Association convention in Houston really means.  In this post, I'll go into why it's important and where the source of this idea comes from.

The source of this convention is deeply rooted into the nature of the Church's Magisterium. The Magisterium is the teaching arm of the Church. At the head of the Church is the Pope, who uses the Deposit of Faith to determine and define doctrine. This means the Pope is creating the material we need to understand as Catholics and spreads it to the Bishops, who spread the word all across the world.  A large part of the Magisterium is Catholic schools. The NCEA convention, besides giving us an awesome second spring break, serves as a way for the Pope to spread the word.  The NCEA is a meeting of Catholic schooling institutions to help them understand better and worse ways to teach, better and worse materials to teach, and, most importantly, what doctrine is defined as. the NCEA is the forum in which the Pope's doctrine is converted to a format that can be easily taught. It enables teachers to determine the best ways to express God's word to their students. This means the NCEA is more than a big meeting for teachers. It is one of the most important Catholic forums in the US, as it spreads doctrine to a massive audience: students. Moreover, this kind of convention upholds the oneness of the Church. When these educators meet, they do more than talk about teaching. Rather, they become closer together and become more united through God. In this way, the NCEA convention unites all of the educators in America to help preach one powerful message: the message of God.

Animals in Heaven?

Animals in Heaven?

Are animals in Heaven? If so, what animals? Is there a limit to which animals? What are the Catholic Church's views on animals in Heaven. I have wondered this to extent ever since last year, March 28, when my dog passed away. As a result, I will investigate and discover and explain what knowledge there is on this topic.

According to the Hebrew teaching, animals are permitted into Heaven because they are defined with a soul. This is true because the Hebrew "spirit" or "breath" is given to all living things; therefore, anything with the spirit contains a soul from God. Also, do animals have free will or are they just fixed to what they were put on earth to do? This is the question in which defines whether animals go to heaven or not. 

The teaching of the Catholic Church is no, they do not have free will and intellect. Therefore, animals do not go to heaven or have an afterlife. The teaching on this is that God gives us, humans, graces that he does not give to animals. The major ones being human intellect and free will. St. Thomas Aquinas taught that the "souls" of animals can not survive death just by their composition. In hand, even though they shape who we are and we elevate these pets to a higher level because of the connection we feel with them they still are not physically elevated in a sense of humanity to be able to go to Heaven.

However, the fact that animals can not go to Heaven also results in the fact that animals deemed "evil" can not go to Hell. Therefore, evil animals such as snakes, mosquitoes, etc. can not go to hell. These animals may be able to alter, hamper, and harm someone during life as they are alive as well but they do not have an afterlife. They have no afterlife for the same reason that facilitating animals do not go to heaven according to the Catholic Church, the nature of an animal's "soul" is not fit to survive death. Therefore, neither good or evil animals exist in Heaven or Hell. 

Was Jesus Real?

A comment on our first post implied a question of Christ's physical nature. As such, this post will address what and who Christ really was. Christ was a true human being in the sense that he walked this Earth and spoke his parables. This is historically proven. However, the question is how God managed to become a physical entity though he is a metaphysical being. God merely transformed himself into Christ, his Incarnate being. The Incarnation is not merely a part of God on Earth. It isn't just God making a messenger on Earth. Rather, Christ is like God in a different language. For the sake of analogy, let's say the metaphysical is like books written in Latin.  To continue the metaphor, let's call the physical dimension English. While the "God Book" would be written in Latin, it can always be translated into English. When it's been translated, it's still the "God Book," meaning it is still the fullness of God in a physical form.  That's sort of how Christ is. He is GOd in an Incarnate form. He is fully human and yet fully divine. That is why Christ was the perfect person for Redemption. He is both infinite and he represents a finite being. Let's start on why an infinite sacrifice is required for redemption.

The first sin was a sin of pride. The reason it was such a great sin were because it was the first and that it violated God. Each sin today, tomorrow, and every day after originates from Original Sin. That sin essentially started a horrible streak of humanity to sin. Since sin will exist forever, the bad from all of these sins are summed up to be infinite. This means the first sin, since it got the ball rolling, is an infinite offense.  Further, the first sin was directly against God, making it egregious in its effect.

Now we address why it had to be incarnated God who redeemed mankind. If the sacrifice were not truly human, it could not be held as a sufficient sacrifice. See, mankind is culpable for Original Sin. As such, mankind must be the one to pay. The only way to truly have a combination of an infinite and human sacrifice is to  have an incarnate God.  That means Jesus not only had to walk the Earth, but he had to be human. While he seemed to defy the laws of this world, that is because he is God, not because he isn't human. That makes it clear that Christ did physically exist as a human being.