In nomine Patri et Filii et Spiritu Sancte

Yikes, this is a hard topic to discuss.
But, I will be giving a lecture on the subject tomorrow, with respect to how the Mormon Church views it, so I better be able to say something.
The Mormon view of the Trinity is that the Trinitarian formula has specifically Hellenic formulaic components. I'm not sure how this is the case. With Platonic and Aristotelian Providential formulae, God is seen as a single source of wisdom, light, goodness and truth in the universe. But Hellenism generally has polytheistic roots (viz Zeus, Hercules, Hermes, Hera, Hades, Poseidon, etc).
But I have specific reasons for believing in a Trinitarian formula. I will explain this as I explained it to my sister. When we speak of perfection, we generally speak of it in terms of some specific quality. A perfect circle would only be perfect in terms of its roundness. But, there could be other perfect circles because if the circle is only perfect in terms of its roundness, then other cirlces, of different sizes can also be perfect.
However, if the circle is perfect in all aspects, then there can be no other perfect circle. Another perfect circle would be the exact same circle (mathematically speaking). If a perfect circle has a radius of 2 centimeters, then every perfect circle has a radius of 2 centimeters, but there every single perfectly round circle that has a radius of 2 centimeters is exactly the same in every way possible with regards to its circleness. Thus, it can only be the same circle. If there are no differences, there can be no way of distinguishing between them, then they cannot be different.
With regards to human beings, we can say that people are different because they also have some distinguishing characteristics that mark them as separate. There cannot be more than one perfect thing of any particular genus. Otherwise, the two would be indistinguishable from each other.
So, let's say there's something that is complete perfection. Not "a perfect thing x," but actual perfection itself. Thus everything about this particular thing would be perfect. There would be no flaws, no problems, nothing "wrong" about this thing. Then obviously, as I think I've explained there could never be anything else that could be perfect.
So we'd have to call this one perfect thing something. Let's call it God. This fits in with a Thomist metaphysical view of God. God is Goodness, Beauty, Oneness, and Truth. Furthermore, this fits the "omni"s: omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence. So let's say there's one of these. How can there be a second perfect thing? There can't. So, if there's a God that fits these descriptions, there can be only one.
Then, if Jesus is God, if the Father is God and if the Holy Spirit is God, then there can be only one God. These three can be perfect, and perfection, but if and only if they are one.

What would Jesus do?

So I saw something that I would label not only as offensive, but also in bad taste. The man above, who looks like such a great citizen with his family, hired a plane to fly around my campus showing the entire Notre Dame and South Bend communities an image of a dead human fetus.
Why did he do this? He looks like such a great family man, complete with American flag and small children to show how much of a great guy he is. This is Randall Terry, and he is a terrorist. No, he doesn't blow things up, take hostages or kill people, but he has threatened the joyous events of Notre Dame's graduation and has even gone so far as to send proponents of abortion dead fetuses.
He does all these things in the name of Christ and supposedly against abortion. There is more than a little in his claim that makes my skin crawl.
Christ advocated peace, mercy, and a mild-manner. "Blessed are the meek," he said, "blessed are the poor in spirit...blessed are the peacemakers." Where in Christ's teachings are extremist measures propagated? Where does Christ advocate offending children, women, and people with dignity? What place do shock-and-awe efforts have in the Kingdom of God?
A lot of people have called President Obama a great many things. Some have called him a murderer. Some have compared him to Hitler.
But what would Jesus do? Jesus mingled with the publicans in the market place. Jesus ate with publicans at supper. Jesus stood before Pontius Pilate, a man who killed thousands in his tenure as governor, and faced him, not scorning or abusing him, but respectfully entering in dialogue with him.
It is my personal, and I would argue supportable, opinion that Jesus Himself would have been fine with President Obama speaking at Notre Dame's commencement. Yes, he might support legislation with terrible, immoral consequences. But this is no reason to turn him away. St Paul stood before King Agrippa and, instead of railing against him, met him as an equal, which ledd to the king's statement "Almost you have convinced me to become a Christian."
Christ was the perfect example of reaching out to people in friendship. He befriended harlots, beggars and tax collectors. He attacked the elite, those who thought they were justified in their religious beliefs. Christ's message is clear: we must reach out to those who we think we should despise. On the other hand, we should not feel secure in our convictions of our security and our own righteousness.

Fides et ratio

I stumbled upon the image above one night while procrastinating instead of homeworking. It's a photo-shopped image of one of the "Atheist buses." The actual buses are driving around London preaching to everyone that since there is "probably no god" they should "just enjoy [their] live(s)." Somebody thought it would be funny to make an even stronger comment on religion with photo-shop. I disagreed, and commented my thoughts on the subject and became engaged in a nice little conversation with some anonymous poster.
But this is a position I have heard in various forms many times. I have heard many people talk about how dumb religion is, or how bad religion really is for humankind or how many attrocities have been committed by religions.
I would like to reply.
The fact of the matter is that if religion is responsible for a massive amount of bloodshed, science is just as culpable. Science in the twentieth century advanced so that we can now kill unparalleled numbers of people, all with the push of a button. Even the nineteenth century saw a new capability for bloodshed.
Starting in the 1800s Dr. Richard Gatling created the first automatic firearm, and shortly after, Alfred Nobel's work with nitroglycerin, gun cotton and dynamite led him to have such a guilty conscience that he created a peace award to make up for it. World War I brought in the horrors of mechanized warfare, the flame thrower, and, worst of all, the use of poison gases, the use of which prompted a special Geneva treaty against the use of chemical and biological warfare. Then came World War II and the catastrophic destruction wreaked when on August 6, 1945 we dropped the atom bomb on the Japanese city of Hiroshima. Of course, following this were nuclear proliferation treaties and various other acts against nuclear war (excepting the invention of Hydrogen bomb and the Cold War). Even after this, we used Agent Orange in Vietnam.
And what of religion in all of this? None of the nations involved in either World War were fighting for religion. But, in Vatican II, nuclear warfare was strictly condemned. The atrocities of the NAZIs have been repeatedly condemned by the Church.
On the other hand, religion has done great things in the last hundred years. Mother Theresa of Calcutta and Dorothy Day fed the hungry. Thomas Merton protested war. Rev Martin Luther King, Jr fought injustice and inequality. Pope John Paul II helped liberate Poland. Dietrich Bonhoeffer was arrested for encouraging students to not fight for the NAZIs.
Granted, there have been attrocities committed by people claiming religion as the cause. But we must really ask ourselves, "Is religion the true motive?" Religion never teaches a man to kill his neighbor, nor does it ever teach him to take advantage or commit any injustice. However, evil men have used the name of religion to confuse others into committing horrible acts. Religious doctrines have never taught people to engage in mindless destruction or merciless violence.
However, against atheism, both Hitler and Stalin directed atheist states. Even more recently, Bosnia, still coming out of its socialistic, atheistic days, engaged in a effort of "ethnic cleansing."
Believers have a long tradition of examples to look up to. Jesus, the Buddha, the saints, the martyrs, and other have provided for us the lifestyles we should follow.

Human expiration dates

I'm not really sure how to address this topic. It's one I've given a lot of thought to over the years. But how does one go about when speaking on human mortality?
I've always seen the job of the priest and the job of the physician as opposites. The physician's job is to prevent death and to keep it as far away as possible. The priest's job is to prepare people for death, to teach them how to accept the reality of it.
A basic part of our biology teaches us to fear death. And for most of us, we also fear that there may just be nothing after death after all. If this was your outlook and fear, there's no wonder that you would work so hard to prevent death. So, from the time of Hippocrates we've been trying to delay death as well as we could. Within the last hundred years, we've eradicated polio, malaria and tuberculosis (in the US). We've increased our life expectancy so much that i continually climbs. But now, rather than dying of pneumonia or influenza, we die of cancer and heart disease.
My theory is this: human beings have built into them an expiration date. We all die at some point. All our medical advances have one goal in mind: immortality. We try to prolong our lives as much as possible, by putting death off indefinitely. But this is not our purpose. We were not designed to never die.
So, should we really be continuing on this endless quest for godliness? In my previous post I briefly made comment about some doubts about the Bible. One such doubt circles around the story of the Tower of Babel. However, even if I doubt the validity of the historic virtues of tale, it does have a lesson to be learned, as all passages of Bible have. The Tower of Babel teaches us not to try to exalt ourselves to the position of God. Humankind was not designed to try to take what God has set aside for Godself. We are not going to achieve immortality.
That being said, we should not despair either. If we all die, we all meet the same fate. In Pascal's words, we either disappear into nothingness, or fall into the hands of a wrathful God. I don't hold as much to the wrathful part, but I do think that we will end up in a similar place no matter who we are. A lot of Medieval pastoral theology focused on providing the hope for a better life for those who do lived seemingly meaningless lives.
But we haven't moved that far from the Middle Ages. Thanks to Nietzsche and the existentialists, we have another reason for considering our own existences. Kierkegaard emphasized the fact that we are hurtling uncontrollably towards our own deaths.
I don't wish to say there is no merit to medical technology or advances. Rather, I think we should turn our focus from living longer to living fuller.

The full article

So I promised I'd put up the full report from the Indy Star once it came out. I'm not actually mentioned in the article, but I am in the photo gallery.

Apology

Not apology in the "I'm sorry" sense. Apology in the sense of the apologists, defending their faith.
Recently, I've come to have to defend my reasons for converting in different venues, at different times. I have yet to truly give my real reasons in complete explanation. So I will try to do so here. Please keep in mind, this is not my conversion story, not my Confessions, if you will. This is merely a defense against my previous religious beliefs and for my new ones.
A lot of the reasons why I don't believe in Mormonism are simple and sensible. I say sensible because I believe that the single biggest gift that God has given humankind is our intellect. This is truly the one thing that separates us from other animals, what makes us the "rational animal." I have seen this time and again in my theological studies when I read such men as Augustine, Origen, Jerome, Athanasius, Bonaventure, Anselm, Thomas Aquinas, and others have verified this fact. I have read the accounts of some of the greatest minds, read some of the greatest conversion stories and some of the most compelling arguments.
Then comes a 14 year-old farmboy who says that God has called him, and has told him that there are no correct Churches on the earth. 2000 years of the greatest thinkers and most devout believers are wrong. And then some farm boy is called to reveal the truth? Of course, as a Christian, I cannot dismiss the seemingly miniscule, as Christ comes from humble beginnings. But the wise men found him. The prophets of old weren't considered wrong. So why were the previous theologians dismissed?
Furthermore, there's the issue of scripture. So much of the Book of Mormon is derived from the Bible. Chapters from Isaiah are lifted straight from the source. Matthew 5-7 is also copied. There's not a lot of evidence for the peoples of the Book of Mormon. I don't see the resemblence between Native Americans and Jews. The timeline doesn't make sense to me either. Nor does the use of steel. Finally, I have problems with the Bible itself, which creates a multitude of problems for my beliefs in the Book of Mormon.
I guess if I were to sum it up, I find a lot of comfort in the intellectual tradition of the Roman Church. The Mormon Church does have its scholars, but theology is not something one can practice therein, nor is there any room for debate on doctrines.

Ex nihilo ad Omnium

Please excuse my Latin.
I was reminded earlier today of a key difference in Mormon theology and Catholic theology. That difference is the doctrine of "creation ex nihilo" or "creation out of nothing." What it basically means is that God created the entire universe from nothing.
Mormons believe that God "fashioned" the universe. He was more of a cosmic carpenter or watchmaker. Along with this doctrine comes the notion of divination and a procession of Gods (not to be confused with gods). For Mormons, there's a pseudo-doctrinal idea that God became God in such a way that mankind may also become God. This leads to a question of whether or not God had a God, and that God had a God.
However, St. Thomas Aquinas assures us that it is impossible for there to be an unending procession of necessary things (viz the Third Way). A necessary thing for Aquinas is something which is not "contingent," that is, generated and corrupted. God is neither generated nor corrupted. God is. "I am that I AM" He proclaims in Exodus to Moses. He is Aquinas' "first mover," that which cannot be moved by His own creations.
But what of creation then? Well, Genesis tells us that God "created" all things. Christians believe that God created all that is. The Big Bang theory suggests that everything that is exploded from nothingness. Is this the same? Perhaps it is. Nothing in the Big Bang theory suggests that there was no cause of the explosion. Perhaps God said, "let there be everything."
Then we come to the tricky business of creation of mankind. Evolutionary theory suggests that man evolved from an ape-like ancestor. Pope John Paul II allows for this, provided that humankind shares one original set of parents, an Adam and Eve, if you will.
But what about all the diversity in the world? We cannot hold to the assumption that in 6 thousand years (according to the Bible), the human race went from being 2 people of similar traits to all the different ethnicities to be found throughout the world. Furthermore, the Bible was not written in real time. The Torah was written about 1000 BC. At this point, everything written therein is orally handed down. So the question of the authenticity of the accounts comes into question (a topic which I hope to further discuss in later posts).
So, with this new information brought to light, what are we to think of humanity? Anselm, Athanasius, and almost every other theologian asserts that humankind was made in God's image and likeness. This is where I think our true question must be answered: If man is in God's image, how can we know this, and what does this say about evolution?

Katholikos

"We believe in one holy, catholic and apostolic Church" (Nicene Creed).
What does "catholic" mean? And what does it mean when we say "Catholic Church?"
the Greek word "katholikos" means "universal." (Thus making the term Roman Catholic not only an oxymoron but also a mix of Latin and Greek). The term was first used after the Christian Church got used to being called Christian.
The reality of it is that Christian was meant to be an insult. The Greeks and Jews used it to call the believers "followers of Christ," pointing out that they didn't worship the Greek gods nor did they follow the normal Jewish customs. After awhile, the believers took pride in this term. When the leadership of the Church (viz Paul and Peter in Acts) allowed Gentiles into their ranks, they earned the distinction of being "universal."
Fast forward a few centuries. The Church gets the distinction of Roman after Great Schism. It becomes a matter of Rome versus Constantinople. Hence we end up with Greek Orthodox and Roman Catholic.
Within the last few centuries, the Catholic Church has distinguished itself in as a conservative way as possible. Trent and Vatican I established the Church in a reactionary light. Then, in the twentieth centuries, figures such as Thomas Merton and Dorothy Day step into the picture. Both of them "leftists."
Then, after the reactions of Trent and Vatican I, Vatican II comes along and establishes many liberal policies for the Church. Pope John Paul II then preaches his doctrine of solidarity, and Mother Theresa of Calcutta. Over the course of fifty years, the big figures of the Church become some of the most liberal figures in the world.
Thus, the term "universal" truly becomes applicable. On one hand we have such conservative figures as Cardinal Ratzinger, and on the other hand, we have people like Dorothy Day. In the Catholic Tradition one can be anarchist, republican, democratic, socialist, capitalist, or libertarian.
So here's where it becomes applicable. In the news recently, and in viewpoint articles, Notre Dame has received a lot of flack for allowing President Obama to speak at our commencement. Some proclaim that this is against our Catholic identity. But, truth be told, it seems as though not only is taking a leftist stance within Catholic Tradition, but there are, in fact, great examples for it.

Round 2 of blogs about me

So I'm not trying to be boastful or anything, but somebody apparently read the blog about me (the previous one I mentioned) and decided to actually inquire more about who I am. He called me up earlier this evening and he and I chatted, and he blogged about our conversation
I think he represents me a lot better than the reporter did, and this is a much fairer look at my conversion process.
By the way, he is a priest in the Syriac tradition, a branch of Christianity that separated from Constantinople with the Council of Chalcedon.

Being blogged about

This is kind of a weird post. Recently, I was interviewed by a guy at the Indianapolis Star about my faith journey. He blogged about our discussion. It can be found here
Pay special attention to the comments made by "Roymondo." I would hate to meet this man in real life.
I posted a comment in apologetic form, we'll see how well that goes over. Also, they're going to run a full story with the interview he conducted with me and with Father Tom with the pictures they took from Mass. I'll keep you updated when that happens. But for now, the reporter also jotted down a bit about Notre Dame here.

Abortion

I know, it's the dreaded A word. And I'm sure you are expecting a tirade against how evil it is and how it is an affront to all that is good and right in the world.
Sorry to disappoint.
The truth is, there's something faulty in the way that anti-abortion lobbyists lobby. One cannot attack abortion from a strictly Catholic standpoint, and here is why.
A lot of pro-life activists claim that abortion is "the murder of innocents" (not to be confused with innocence). There is one very large doctrinal problem here, and we have St. Augustine to thank for it.
First off, the issue of abortion is not about whether or not we are murdering babies. It gets turned into that by those arguing from a purely pathological standpoint (appealing to one's feelings=pathos). When we use terms like "murder" especially around something as cute as a baby, then it evokes strong emotions. But really, the issue of abortion is about two things: redemption and conception.
Conception is easy enough to understand. The argument is focused on when life begins--whether or not it starts with the unification of egg and sperm or sometime after. This is precisely why abortions are illegal in the third trimester. This is why infanticide is illegal. Proponents of abortion point out that there is something very different about an embryo and a real baby. Anti-abortionists point out that it is still living in a somewhat scientific way (imagine that, using science to back up theology (thanks Vatican I)).
Redemption is the question of letting natural consequences go as they should. This argument isn't heard as often, but once in awhile an pro-lifer will say something like, "Well, I don't support abortion except in cases of incest and rape" (viz official Mormon Church doctrine). This asks the question of whether or not somebody can be forgiven for their sin, or whether they must suffer the natural consequences (viz The Scarlet Letter by Nathaniel Hawthorne).
But aside from these arguments, the question of innocence must come up. Calling unborn babies innocents is an entirely Protestant, even Zwinglian (most especially the Anabaptists) approach. From a Catholic approach, babies are not innocent. Thanks to St. Augustine, and later emphasized through the Council of Trent, the official Catholic Church states that babies are born into the world stained with the sin of Adam (original sin). This is why Catholics baptize their babies before anything can happen, to remove that sin and make the baby finally innocent. Thus we cannot argue that we are "murdering innocents."
Secondly, Thomas Aquinas can step into the picture and show us why and how Euthanasia and the death penalty are far bigger causes to take on than abortion. According to Aquinas' metaphysics, all things are made up of a combination of potential and action. That which does, has more action, and that which might possibly do is more potential. Rocks have more potential, and angels have more action. Human beings sit somewhere between animals (potential) and angels. While this is kind of hoaky, this goes to show that unborn baies are almost completely potential, as they haven't done anything yet. Thus, an elderly person, who has done a lot with his or her life, or a convict should therefore be more defended than a guilty, mostly potential entity.
So, if we're attacking abortion, let's not mince words. Why don't we flat out say that we prefer people to accept the consequences of their actions, or that we think the fetus is ethically alive?

Civitas contra religionem

So many people laud the founding fathers' decision to establish a policy of separation of Church and state. But I have to ask: is this really the best thing for us?
A lot of the argument for the separation of Church and state lies in the fact that with a government tied with a church, there will be no freedom of religion. We have plenty of examples in the history of the world to draw from: England, Rome, Germany, France, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Lebanon, Iran, etc. Some countries have failed to allow religious diversity, but not all. England no longer does. Israel and Lebanon have always allowed religious freedom. None of these countries are considered disasters (though, to be fair, none of them are really driven by the Church anymore).
So what does separation do for us here in the states? First and foremost, anybody can join whatever faith they'd like, for better or worse (viz Heaven's Gate, David Koresh and Jim Jones). Furthermore, politics supposedly isn't influenced by religions (like Hell it's not). But if politics is supposed to be fair, and representative, why is it that the most dominant Christian religion in America (the Catholic Church) has only ever had one of its members become president?
But what I really get upset about is this: American Christianity is so often influenced by the state. What does this mean? How many churches today in America are predominantly war-like? How many good Christians are afraid to protest what they think is unjust? How many Christians view the Beattitudes as a higher standard than political practice? How many consider the command to love one's neighbor more important than the constitution? How many people consider Jesus to be a more important political figure than George Washington?
The problem is that we live in a world affected by World War I nationalism that we have never overcome. Christians, in word, proclaim a life that is independent of the state. Jesus proclaimed "My kingdom is not of this world." The early Christians suffered at the hands of the state, often to imprisonment and even death.
Now, we live in Kierkegaard's Christendom. We don't actually need to be Christ-like in order to be Christians in our world. We go to war, we impose taxes on the poor and increase the wealth of the poor. We turn against our neighbor and engage in unvirtuous enterprises. Christianity in America is like a new Rome. We have lost our sense of Christianity for our sense of politics. We worship the God of the state, the God whose name is printed on our money, not the God of Christianity.

On Pascal

So a lot of theologians and philosophers have attempted to prove the existence of God. A lot of them have used tricky arguments and slightly unfounded premises or unsound conclusions. Some of them take assumptions that presuppose theistic notions.
Bultmann said that there were no perfect philosophies. Since there have been so many, and so many with such different conclusions, it seems that he's right. So what can we say?
If there is any way to prove God's existence, I think that C. S. Lewis has the best formula for it. However, I think this denies the need for faith, one of the defining characteristics of Christianity
So what of Pascal? The man neither tries to prove God, nor does he really speak about faith. Pascal is the gambler's philosopher.
Pascal's wager is one of the most famous "proofs" for Christianity. But I wouldn't call it a proof, just a reasonable supposition.
For those unaware of Pascal's wager, it goes something like this: There is either a god or there isn't. If there is a god, then the theists will be saved, and the atheists will not be. If there is not a god, then all human beings suffer the same fate, and it doesn't matter whether you believe or not. The only negative outcome in this proposition is that of the Atheist if there is a god. All others are either neutral or beneficial.
Pascal was the man who invented probability statistics. For him, it was all about playing the odds. The gambler, then, should definitely be a theist. And people who aren't gamblers still ought to play the odds.
However, this is not a preaching lesson. I like the man because he is an apologist for Christians. In a world where we are surrounded by irrational "believers," where the rational people have abandoned God in the name of science, and God is seen as a foolish notion, Pascal's arguments provide a refreshing boost for the believer.
Pascal also says that believing in God, or searching for God, is the only true rational thought process. How can one be satisfied with his life if he has nothing to look forward to after death? The rational person either finds God and is satisfied or is seeking to find God and is not satisfied.

Quid gaudium est

Today I had an interesting epiphony. While at Mass I noticed a young man, a little older than I am, a senior here. In his arms was, as far as I could tell, his infant child. I don't know this young man personally, but I do have friends that know him and his girlfriend.
For the brief moment I saw him, a lot of thought came into my mind. How difficult of a journey has it been for him? How did his girlfriend react when she found out she was pregnant? What bumps did they encounter on the road to where they were? Did the thought of abortion cross their mind? Was it a difficult decision?
And as all these questions emerged, I had a realization: This is what love is. And this is what life is all about. I wondered if what people were really looking for in this world of misery and pain was simply love. What makes a couple with nothing going for them get married? What makes a young man decide to enter the seminary and become a priest?
I think that all humans really want is love. Love of God, love of a spouse, of a significant other. Love is what causes a basketball star to move to a different team for his child's well-being? What makes an adult take in an aging parent to her home? Love is what really drives us, what really makes us happy. This is why so many people who have nothing material going for them can be so happy. And this is also why people who have so much materially can be so miserable. The cliche, "All you need is love" maybe is true. Maybe if we stopped focusing on trying to get ahead in life and shifted our attention to how to love, we would be much more blessed people.

Quid caritas est?

"You shall love the Lord, your God, with all your might, with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. The second is like unto it: you shall love your neighbor as yourself. Upon these hang all the law and the prophets." (Matthew 22:37-40)
I find it perplexing how often this one small passage is ignored (by the way, St. Luke includes a similar passage whereby we get the parable of the "Good Samaritan") by those who would claim to be Christians. Jesus himself states "Upon these hang ALL the law and the prophets." There is nothing more important than these two commandments.
But what kind of a name has Christianity earned for itself within the last few years. Better yet, what of the last few decades? Last few centuries? Last thousand years? It is true that Christianity has a lot of atoning to do for the acts committed in the name of the Prince of Peace.
However, there is no way to change the past. The most we Christians can do is apologize for our past mistakes (viz Vatican II, In Eo Tempore) and pray that we make no more such egregious decisions. We must start now. The true Christians of today must work hard to shine brighter than the darkness brought upon us by such groups as the Westborrough Baptists and Randall Terry and his squad of fetus crusaders.
I use the term we, but I by no means wish to exclude any non-Christians from reading this. As a theist, and one who has had a very real struggle in finding my faith, I adhere to the Muslim notion of "لا اكراه في الدين" meaning "there is no compulsion in religion." Jesus commanded us to be lights on the hillside, not torches in people's faces.