I believe

I believe

By Laurence Gonzaga

It has been about eleven years since I took the “leap” back towards the faith of my upbringing, and about ten years since I came back to Catholicism in particular. It has been quite a journey, filled with a few detours, as well as much that was lacking in the way of what can be called “purity of intention”, as a friend recently phrased it. I recently wrote a piece called, “The idolatry of worshiping God”, which had mostly good responses, and a few appreciated critiques. I will be more careful moving forward when I disseminate my writing. Sometimes it is hard to distinguish my theological/apologetical pieces versus what can be called “theological reflection”, also known as “opinion”. After all, my undeserved positive reputation from days gone by precedes me. That piece had to do with the same topic as this one, that is, the first words of the first article of the apostle’s creed, “I believe”.

It’s amazing how theologically and practically rich such a statement is. In today’s age, we believe in all sorts of things. I believe in “magic”; I believe that I can do it; I believe that is so; I believe and so it is… Some people believe in anarchy, and I wonder who they call when someone breaks into their home or when their home catches on fire. Some people believe in relativism, and yet, they will probably make a legal fuss when someone steals their car, or get frustrated when someone doesn't believe in relativism. Ironic, right? But the kind of belief that we are talking about here when we say these words every Sunday and at the beginning of every Rosary is a firm, un-doubting, conviction, that that something IS definitely so.

The Christian faith, as revealed by and in the Person of Jesus of Nazareth, is non-negotiable. We can only either accept or reject it. Take it or leave it. Many will simply say, “Okay then, I’ll leave it.” Unfortunately, those who already have the faith and strive to live by it often times take this truth and presents it to everyone, as such, with no distinction. This is what we believe, tough as it is, take it or leave it, heaven or hell, eternal bliss, or eternal flames. I’m sorry, but not everyone can appreciate that kind of bluntness and straightforwardness. As the Scriptures teach, some need milk, and some are ready for meat, and some need to go back to milk.

Today, is Pentecost Sunday. It is the birthday of the Church founded by Jesus Christ, the Catholic Church. It is the day when the Holy Ghost descended upon the Apostles and breathed life into the Church, as God breathed into the first man Adam, giving life once more to the world. Father, at Mass today echoed the recent lessons of the Holy Father, that we have become a Christian culture which is closed, self-referential, isolated, narcissistic, and therefore, ineffective. I sat there nodding my head with a big smile on my face, like I have always done when I hear the things I like to hear during the sermon, looking around, secretly judging everyone else who probably isn't doing just what Father is encouraging us to do. But, then I realize, relatively speaking, with the gifts that God has given me, I too have become lukewarm, even though I may already be doing more quantitatively than most. I may very well believe everything Father is saying, but I have to stop and think, is that belief, informing my life, in thought, word, deed, and prayer?

In this time of Pentecost, an opportunity is before all of us, my friends, to re-new our commitment to our God, our Church, our faith, and our brothers and sisters in Christ, but guess what, not just them, but our brothers and sisters in the world. Yes, the ones in the world, and sadly, of the world. The gospel is just as much for them as it was for you when you were lost, once upon a time. The priest’s job is to bring the gospel to the people of God; that’s you and me. Our job, as the laity, is to bring that same gospel, using the “tongues of fire” which God has gifted us with, by our state in life, use of language, profession, education, life experience, or what have you, to translate that same gospel for the people that God has placed in our lives.

God be with you!

The idolatry of worshiping God

By Laurence Gonzaga

 

A few weeks ago I had pulled into a local parking lot during my lunch break from work and a song came on the local Christian radio station. It was by no means appropriate for any kind of liturgical service, but one thing I will credit the Protestants for is that they know how to make music that touches the heart, not because of its technical or aesthetic beauty, but because it resonates with the challenges that modern Christians may face today. In that sense, it may only have transitory value, as opposed to a Mozart or Palestrina piece, but it serves a purpose. Considering the personal challenges I have been facing as of late, listening to the song and its lyrics drove me to tears; in fact, it was even a full blown sob, begging God for direction and clarity for my life. The lyrics for this song can be read here.

This evening I had a wonderful conversation with a friend. We spoke about many things, not the least of which has been my recent shift, once more, in my personal philosophy and emphasis in my planned apostolic work. I hope this new phase will be a bit more real, in a certain sense, focusing not on doctrine so much, and not even the more human aspect of religion, which I have been trying to write on these last three years. I plan for this phase to be a challenge, not only to myself, but for those who read these words, to think about whether they really are as far along the path as they think they are spiritually. I shared my thoughts of this song with that friend, and I shared how I thought it applied to our Catholic communities and he seemed to be rather moved by its application. So here goes.

The word idolatry, as we normally use it, simply means worshiping a false god. However, there are two ways you can be idolatrous; you can give true worship to a false god or false worship to the true God. So, what I gather from this song is a man who perhaps had the right initial intention, to provide for his wife and children by progressing in his career such that it would achieve just that; but at what cost? It seems like he had placed the value either on the career, or even worse, on a career which purports to be for the glory of God, at the cost of losing his own family. Let’s be honest with ourselves. How often has the practice of religion been a coping mechanism for ignoring the more “uncontrollable” aspects of our lives? How ironic, right? We can’t control our lives, and so we turn to the One Person Who has all the control, but we use our religious tools as means of controlling Him, in the end. You don’t think so? Have you ever counted how many rosaries you have said for an intention? Why? Do you think God is more likely to answer your same intention after 50 rosaries, rather than one? Do you get upset when your prayers seem to fall on deaf ears? Do you feel a bit more “holy” after having taught a Sunday school class of 50 kids, but you don’t even know what grades your own kids have in school?

I think we have to get our house in order, by that I mean ourselves. What is our vocation? What is God calling me to do, today? What are my duties to fulfill that vocation? Am I placing other things before those things, even things which purport to be for God, but in the end distract us from truly worshiping the true God? This is just food for thought. Nothing more. Just don’t forget, God wants us to fulfill all our duties, not just our religious duties. Remembering the greatest commandment will be helpful: love God; love neighbor. Who is my neighbor? My family, my friends, my acquaintances, my enemies. For me, I had forgotten my priorities. I had lost my way. I had lost my love. Don’t you make the same mistake I did!

God bless you.

http://youtu.be/OAKBXBXz1fo

Notes on the Silent Treatment

Notes on the Silent Treatment
Laurence Gonzaga
Notes are a summary of the blog articles linked above the notes

Dealing with the Silent Treatment - http://elyntromey.com/therapyblog/?p=78; http://elyntromey.com/therapyblog/?p=109

1.       The silent treatment is a manipulative tool usually used by the more passive partner in the relationship.

2.       If you are given the silent treatment, you are being punished for something but not being told what that something is and how to make up for it.

3.       Give yourself permission to stop trying to figure out your partner, and bring attention to your own feelings.

4.       Let your partner know you care, and invite them to express what has upset them, and remind them that unless they tell you, there is nothing you can do for them.

5.       Refuse to play the games and the games will fall apart.

6.       The pattern: one gets angry, the other shuts down, and so they get even angrier, and the other gets even more silent. Go to couples therapy at this point.

7.       Work on yourself first, then the less power the other’s inability has on you.

Mind-Reading, Guessing Games, and Communication Breakdowns in Relationships - http://elyntromey.com/therapyblog/?p=112

1.       When one partner offends the other, the other often retreats into silent treatment, and gets angry when asked what is wrong because they expect the other to already know.

2.       The offender feels they have been perfectly clear on what their needs are and gets frustrated at not being understood.

3.       Maybe in previous relationships the silent treatment yielded the desired response. Either way, the offender needs to use their words to explain what the problem is no matter how vulnerable this makes them feel.

4.       If you are the type that says, “If you don’t already know the problem, I won’t tell you”, then use your words to explain why you are hurt. If you are the recipient of this demand for mind-reading,  then you do not need to attempt to mind-read, but say, “I know you feel I should know what you are feeling, and I would like to, but unless you help me to understand, then I can’t do anything to make things right”.

Why do People Give the Silent Treatment? - http://elyntromey.com/therapyblog/?p=121

1.       People give the silent treatment because it gives them control over those whom they are treating with silence.

2.       This causes the other person to become increasingly frustrated trying desperately to get the person to break the silence.

3.       This causes them to be more silent because they are getting what they want, the loss of control of the other.

4.       It only works if the person being given the silent treatment relinquishes all control to the person being silent.

5.        The more you try to get them to break their silence, the less likely they will talk. They like to see you squirm. This then exposes all of your vulnerability and none of theirs.

6.       Give yourself the attention you are tempted to give your partner.

The Silent Treatment vs. the Cooling off Period - http://elyntromey.com/therapyblog/?p=117

1.       Each one may need different amounts of time to cool off.

2.       Communicate what the silence means and for how long.

3.       Say, “I feel” such and such.

4.       Once communication is re-established discuss the issue; don’t just drop it

5.       Avoid “mind-reading” of the other and bring your attention to your own fears and issues.

6.       The silent treatment is emotional abuse and it can destroy marriages.

Disengaging from the Silent Treatment - http://elyntromey.com/therapyblog/?p=126

1.       In attempting to break the cycle, both sides are tempted to respond from a place of pain, and to make the other person feel that pain. This is a problem because it focuses the attention on the other person.

2.       The best thing to do is notice how much you are ignoring yourself in your attempts to get the other person to see you.

3.       Even when you try focusing on yourself, notice how much you are tempted to want the other person to see you are focusing on yourself.

4.       Focus on your own pain and not how much of a jerk they are being.

5.       For the person being silent, notice how much focus you are giving the other person hoping they will be hurt by your silence. Use this time to explore why you are hurt. Realize that speaking is more effective in communicating your specific needs.

6.       The best way to change this dynamic is to change the part of you that contributes to it rather than changing the other person.

No Gender Has the Lock on Emotional Issues - http://elyntromey.com/therapyblog/?p=241

1.       Dysfunctional behavior begins in childhood and continues into adulthood when it “works” for the person.

2.       The only way to fix the problem is to look at yourself and how you fit into the dysfunction.

3.       You can’t change them, but you can change yourself. That’s the only thing you can control.

The Pain of the Silent Treatment and What It Might Be Telling You - http://elyntromey.com/therapyblog/?p=247

1.       If you feel pain in a relationship, it is telling you it is time to change something, and not ignoring the pain until the partner begins to “act rightly”.

2.       If the relationship is workable, then talk to your partner and both agree to work on it. If not, you have to leave the relationship.

3.       Stop focusing on your partner’s behavior and focus on your own feelings and what they are telling you to do. The pain guides you to a solution.

4.       Independence from manipulative behavior is possible and feels wonderful.

Not All Silence is the Silent Treatment - http://elyntromey.com/therapyblog/?p=264

1.       Some people retreat into silence when they are overwhelmed or scared.

2.       For it to be silent treatment, you are being silent at someone with the intention of hurting that person.

3.       A person may express silence when the person is overwhelmed when their partner expresses emotions more passionately then they are able to. This is the “slower-to-verbalize” partner who needs to think before talking.

4.        Silence can come from a person who needs more personal space than their partner needs.

5.       Silence can also come from a partner who is really listening to the other and thinking about what has been said.

6.       Whatever it is, the important thing is communicating about it. Don’t make them mind-read expecting them to know what you are thinking. Express what you are feeling, and what kind of silence you need and for how long.

7.       This may be something that is very difficult for your partner to give, and on the other side, may be something very difficult for a partner to ask for.

The Silent Treatment vs. Stonewalling - http://elyntromey.com/therapyblog/?p=309

1.       The silent treatment is a form of punishment to hurt the other person, whereas stonewalling is a tactic to buy time. The person believes that if he ignores the issue it will go away. It doesn’t, and so the presenter of the issue becomes more aggressive, with the stonewaller shutting down even further.

2.       In the above kind of relationship, one tends to the relationship more actively (over-waterer), and the other more passively (under-waterer).

a.       The under-waterer lacks trust that the relationship will work without constant attention, while the under-waterer thinks the relationship will magically sustain itself.

3.       The desire to seek out help is a good sign for the relationship.

4.       In a relationship all that you have control over are your own actions.

5.       By communicating how you feel, you inform your partner of how hurt you are, as well as admitting your own negative contribution, you invite the other to admit their role. A discussion can then take place.

The Things We Do To Avoid Asking Questions - http://elyntromey.com/therapyblog/?p=370

1.       We all have ways of avoiding the answer we don’t want to get. For example, after a fight one person wants to know everything is okay, but instead of asking for a hug, reaches over for contact, while the other person might need space because the fight brought up angry emotions, and now he pulls away because asking for space was scary.

2.       Asking for what you want instead of taking it will avoid a lot of heartache.

3.       Allowing the other person to say things you don’t want to hear, you are inviting truth into the relationship which avoids the game-playing and increases authenticity.

Communicating about Taking Space in a Relationship- An Alternative to the Silent Treatment - http://elyntromey.com/therapyblog/?p=379

1.       Often the need for space is interpreted as rejection of the partner.

2.       Sometimes we are afraid to ask for this space because it may offend the partner.

3.       If you are shamed into asking for it, it may lead to sudden retreat which triggers feelings of rejection in the partner. This causes the other person to give you even less space which may lead to anger for the partner not respecting the uncommunicated need for space. This leads to the silent treatment.

4.       Being intimate with your partner means sharing truths about yourself.

5.       Treat the truths as traits about you and so they can’t be judged good or bad, and so do not judge your partner’s traits either.

6.       Communicate how much space you need, and for how long.

7.       If you feel you need an indefinite amount of time, schedule check in times so it is fair for your partner as well.

Learning to Use Words - http://elyntromey.com/therapyblog/?p=563

1.       Words help the other person understand you’re hurt.

2.       We sometimes use “civilized” forms of avoiding using words like “the silent treatment” or flirtation with someone else to purposefully hurt our partner’s feelings.

3.       When we use words, our relationships avoid the painful drama, leading to deep enjoyment and exciting communication.

Ending a Relationship by Using the Silent Treatment - http://elyntromey.com/therapyblog/?p=597

1.       The problem with ending a relationship with “the silent treatment” is that communication of the end of the relationship was not made; only withdrawn communication.

2.       If the person who does the silent treatment manages to outlast the patience of the other, one thing is left, the relationship is unresolved, and will follow the person into the next relationship.

Prayers

I know I don't write on here as often as I used to, but I am going through a very tough time right now. All sense of direction and purpose for me seems to be lost and am sort of hanging on by a thread. Religion is certainly softening the blow, but that only goes so far. Please pray for me.

God love you, my friends.

It starts with me

I was leaving the restroom at San Secondo Catholic Church this late Thursday evening during Holy Mass and as I rounded the corner to walk back to Mass I overheard the teens, regular Guastiites, singing a rather vulgar 80's song. When they heard me passing by, they hushed. Sometimes I wonder what the solution is to the most deeply rooted problems in modern society. I have to keep reminding myself that the solution is from God and may work through me, not by teaching a class, or forming yet another mediocre young adult group, and not even writing about it. The solution begins with the reformation of my own life. May God help me to stay strong.

Message or Messenger?

 

and coming to his hometown he taught them in their synagogue, so that they were astonished, and said, "Where did this man get this wisdom and these mighty works? Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And are not all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things?" And they took offense at him. But Jesus said to them, "A prophet is not without honor except in his hometown and in his own household." And he did not do many mighty works there, because of their unbelief. 
(Matthew 13:54-58 ESV)

Do you ever wonder why your witness tends to be better received among those who know you the least? Of course this is not always the case. Not everyone can be a Scott Hahn right? However, in my observation, of my own life and the lives of others, I have found folks with rather powerful messages. Often times they are very popular figures, champions of truth even... but in their own families, you find characters in the outskirts of the church, of society, etc. One dimension of it is simply free will and God's grace, whom He grants to whomever He wishes, and by whatever quantity (or quality) He desires. However, beyond that, I believe there is yet another dimension, a psychological block perhaps, a bias against the messenger. The messenger's reputation precedes him/her. I can appreciate and respect that cognitive bias. I think, however, we need to shed ourselves of these biases, and realize we are all in the same boat. We are all sinners and have fallen short of the glory of God at one time or another. If God so chooses to use us as instruments, broken vessels as we may be, then so be it. Unfortunately, messages are often ignored or rejected because of past and even present sins. I can also appreciate and respect this bias as well. I'll give one relevant example here, and forgive me if you are involved in this scenario. Once I was invited to a little outing at a popular chain of restaurants. It was a mixed bag from the entire spectrum of Catholicism. When the food came, there was a rather visible and audible effort to make it clear this was a Catholic table. After all, I was told, we should not be afraid to be public with our Catholic identity. As the evening progressed, the table got louder and louder, sugar packets were being tossed from one end to the other. A mess was made and it was left that way. I also noticed the expressions on the faces of the older ladies in the booth next to us. I made my concerns known to my cohorts later on, that on the one hand it is laudable to not shrink away from public display of our Catholic identity, but it also behooves us not to then become jackasses after. Once it is known we are Catholics, we have now become the "official" representation of Catholic-Christianity, at least to those around us.

So in summary, I would propose two efforts for reformation for both the sender and receiver of truth claims. 

1) For the sender: If you wish to claim to be the bearer of truth, or at least a representative of that truth, then you now have an obligation to live it, especially publicly, since you may be the one who helps to bring a person back to truth, or sadly the person that brings them out of it.

2) For the receiver: Judge the quality of the message on the contents of the message and not the quality of the messenger alone. After all, there are those messages which are of good quality, delivered by not so great men, and there are very dynamic, exciting, and personable men whose messages are not of great quality. 

Jesus Loves Religion

Some months ago I was directed to a viral video making its way through the social networking universes, titled Why I Hate Religion, But Love Jesus (http://youtu.be/1IAhDGYlpqY). It was a Christian attack on “religion”, or at least, how the author portrays religion. I have to say, what makes his message so appealing, is the means by which it is packaged. Like it or not, we live in the modern world. Like it or not, the folks that need the Gospel message the most are not those who are already “well”, that is, those who already know Jesus and His message, but those that don’t, and perhaps don’t even want to hear it (Luke 5:31-32). I think this guy speaks a language or dialect if you wish that most Christians probably can’t or refuse to speak. It is in a similar sense that I think the Holy Ghost gave the apostles gifts of tongues to be able to preach the Gospel to others in their own languages (Acts 2:6). Some may argue it is “dumbing” it down; some will say it is taking sacred things and profaning it to the level of the streets. The way I see it, if it touches the heart of man, and moves him to seek further, then I will not be the judge of that approach. For me the real issue is not the medium, it is the content of the message. So, spoken word, rap, rock, hip hop, I really don’t care (outside of Holy Mass). The issue for me is: what are you saying?

So, I just want to examine his claims and maybe offer some bit of explanation for why religion is not to be hated, but the very means by which Jesus set up the salvation program in New Testament times.

Claims:

1)      Jesus came to abolish religion. Jesus came to abolish the Old Testament religious system of offering animal sacrifices for sins, which never took away sins anyway (Hebrews 8-10). He did not come to abolish religion, first of all because you will never find in the pages of Scripture that Jesus came to abolish “religion”. The Greek word “threskeia” (religion) occurs in the NT only 5 times, not once indicating an intended abolishment of religion (Acts 26:5; Galatians 1:13,14; James 1:26,27). The first three are St. Paul recounting his practice of the Jewish religion, fighting the Church of God, which by that time was the new and only legitimate religion, the Christian religion. We should not be afraid of the term “religion”, though many modern Christian apologists use it to distance themselves from “organized Christianity”, most often Catholicism. They will say things like, “Christianity is not religion, but relationship”. Those who major in languages will appreciate the exposition of the senselessness of such a statement since the word “religion” comes from “religare” which means “to bind” or “to fasten”. It is the way in which man “binds” or “fastens” to God. Religion is therefore a relationship between man and God. Old Testament religion, when it was legitimate, was the means by which the faithful man bound or fastened himself to God. Likewise, in the new covenantal administration, that is, by the Blood of Jesus, comes a new means of binding and fastening the faithful to Almighty God. One obvious religious observance that clearly permeates the New Testament is Baptism. Baptism is an act of religion, whether you like the term or not. It is ceremonial, required, and binding upon all would-be Christians. In fact, it is so much an act of religion, that it is said that it replaces circumcision, an Old Testament religious observance (Colossians 2:11-12). Furthermore, James 1:26-27 clearly says what true religion is: “Religion (threskeia) that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world.” And so, the Bible, which you say you love, doesn’t seem to have a problem with the term “religion”. I suspect your real beef is not with “religion”, but with religious hypocrisy. If that’s the case, I am with you. But, just remember, every time any of us sins, we become the hypocrites, just as much as anyone else (Hebrews 10:26-27)

2)      Religion is not great because it starts so many wars. Read the Old Testament. The religion of God does not necessarily exclude the idea of war. However, many “religious wars” are not so much wars on the basis of religion, but on the basis of fear of the “other”, nationalistic, or cultural. The point is Christianity does not exclude the possibility of war. Christianity is not pacifistic.

3)      Religion builds huge churches, but fails to feed the poor. The Catholic Church is the largest charitable organization in the world. The magnificent churches in Europe were not built only for the rich, but for the poor. They were first and foremost built for God. The Catholic Church is probably one of the few churches in the world that you will see no socio-economic divisions in the pew.

4)      Religion tells single mothers that God does not love them if they ever had a divorce. This is an unfair generalization. Religion doesn’t say that. If the message is that “religion” is against divorce, then so is the Bible (Matthew 19). Being against divorce is very different from being against the divorced person. If any single mother is treated so poorly, it is not the fault of religion, but the fault of individual men who claim to practice the true religion.

5)      In the Old Testament God calls religious people “whores”. The Hebrew word “zanah” is used 11 times in the Old Testament, not any of them used to describe the “religious”.

6)      Religion is like behavior modification, like a long list of chores. Jesus calls for “behavior modification”, “Whoever has my commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves me. And he who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and manifest myself to him." (John 14:21). Also, “Whoever says "I know him" but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him” (1 John 2:4). Ironically, the author suggests a behavior change as well, from being “religious” to relying solely on what God does. Christianity is all about behavior modification.

7)      Religion dresses up the outside, but does not get at the core. No, that’s not religion, that’s hypocrisy. The Pharisee is self-righteous. The Christian, who practices the true religion, humbles himself, recognizing he is a sinner who needs a savior, and cooperates with God’s grace to do the will and work of God, and sanctifying his soul in the process.

8)      Religion is a man-made invention. No, it is the system by which God facilitates the relationship between man and Himself. God invented religion.

9)      Religion says do, Jesus says done. Jesus says do as well: “Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:19). Jesus never said that he did it all. He never said we no longer have a part to play in the plan of salvation. In fact, he gave one clear command, go forth and baptize (Matthew 28:19).

10)  Religion says slave, Jesus says son. God calls us by many names: servant, slave, soldier, son, etc. The Greek word “doulos” which can be translated as servant or slave, is used 118 times in the New Testament and many times used in the context of man’s relationship to God, for example, “For he who was called in the Lord as a slave is a freedman of the Lord. Likewise he who was free when called is a slave of Christ.” (1 Corinthians 7:22). They all have their significance in context.

11)  Religion is bondage, Jesus sets you free. He sets us free from the bondage of sin (Romans 8:21), and makes us His children, which in turn has responsibilities, which some may call “bondage”. Consider, Martin Luther’s “De Servo Arbitrio”-On the Bondage of the Will. Our wills must be subject to the will of God. That is a free act of the will to submit to all that God demands of us.

12)  Religion is man searching for God, and Christianity is God searching for man. Man can never seek God without God first calling man to Himself (Ephesians 2). So, God calls man to Himself (prevenient grace; 1 Timothy 2:3-4), man freely responds to that call (conversion), seeks out the Church and Her Sacraments (justification; sanctifying grace), and continues to strive towards Christian perfection thereafter (sanctification; 1 Peter 3:11).

13)  Not based on my merits, but Jesus obedience alone. In John 19:30 when Jesus says “teleo”, translated as “it is finished”, it is left rather ambiguous at face value what Jesus is referring to here. Protestants have tended to use this passage to justify the position of “once saved always saved”, or the belief that Jesus paid the debt of sin and so, nothing more needs to be done other than accepting the credit paid by Jesus’ sacrifice on our own spiritual account. But it is clear that we have a role to play, otherwise the converted St. Paul would not have anything to worry about, and yet he was concerned of losing his salvation when he says, “But I discipline my body and keep it under control, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified.” (1 Corinthians 9:27). The Greek word there translated as “disqualified” is “adokimos” which means “unapproved/rejected/reprobate”. Salvation requires our obedience as well.

14)  Religion is to be hated because Jesus meant it when he said “It is finished”. “For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries.” (Hebrews 10:26-27). It depends on what you mean by “it is finished”. If you mean that nothing more needs to be done after Christ’s sacrifice, then you would be hard-pressed to figure out how the merits of the Cross are applied to the individual without any further work or activity on our part, at the very least to accept it.

In the end, I believe it is quite clear, that the author of the very popular spoken word poem above has his heart in the right place. He wants to serve God in the best way he knows how. But, he doesn’t seem to understand the important distinctions that need to be made to understand how religion and Jesus are not on opposite sides of the spectrum, but that Jesus Himself revitalized a dying religion, and ushered in the New Covenant in His Blood at the Cross. Jesus doesn’t hate or is opposed to religion, He is the author of the only true religion, the only religion that can truly bind and fasten man to God, and that is the historical and universal Christian religion, known by her four marks of authenticity: One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic.

+Feast of St. Josemaria Escriva, 2012

PS – Here is are some links to some great spoken word responses to the one above:

1)      Why I Love Religion, And Love Jesus || Spoken Word : http://youtu.be/Ru_tC4fv6FE

2)      Why I Love Religion, and Love Jesus || Spoken Word (Response Video) : http://youtu.be/_AFoIDsBTcc

Best Man Speech

First of all, I would like to thank all of those who have helped to make this day possible by their generous contributions of time, talent, and treasure. I would also like to thank Helen and Chito Seno, and John and Shirley Gomez for raising two wonderful young adults. I would also like to thank all the guests for being a part of this most joyous occasion to usher in Josef and Heather’s new life together.

Two of the most common tips that I have read online in how to prepare a good best man speech are to be yourself, and keep it short. Those who know me well enough know that I can only fulfill one of these right now as I do have a tendency of being long-winded. 

It’s probably a rare thing to find that the best man develops his friendship with both the groom as well as the bride. I first met Heather about 8 years ago at a youth retreat which I was speaking at. I was teaching how to explain the Catholic faith to others, and she so happened to be very interested in that topic. I was flagged down during lunch and we spoke about many topics. In fact, I am not sure she actually ate her food. She just wouldn’t stop talking… or slow down. 

In the years to come I would see and hear them sing around the parish on occasion. Then I met Jo at one of my talks at his retreat. He had the audacity to correct one of my statements, to which I humbly explained away the objection. I approached them after to admit my mistake and that was the first time I knew them as a couple. Months later, I had seen Heather and asked how she and her boyfriend were doing. She told me he was discerning the priesthood. I too was discerning the priesthood at the time and so Jo and I had many conversations about that in the next few years. We even visited a seminary together for about a week. I recall that day we were supposed to leave the seminary. We had been taking pictures of the exterior of the seminary and the church. He walked up to me, and said, “I don’t think I am called to the priesthood”. After that the conversations began to revolve around relationships and family life.

I recall one night where all our friends were finishing up dinner and I was talking about my communication with an old love interest of mine, and Heather for whatever reason started to challenge my decision. I wasn’t quite sure where it was coming from, but I only later determined there was some kind of projection going on there. When she left, Jo turned to us and told us of his intention to ask Heather to re-kindle their relationship and be his girlfriend once more. About a year later, I had more conversations with him encouraging him to be confident, make a decision about Heather and run with it. 

For the guys, most of all our memories with Jo, inevitably included times with Heather. They were and are inseparable. Jo’s go with the flow sort of attitude is balanced by Heather’s tendency to meticulously plan and itemize her daily schedule. Both are willing to strive to show the other how much love they have for the other, in the way they want to be loved. They share everything. They share their lives and their stuff. They seriously study their faith and put into practice ways to have kept their chastity strong all these years in preparation for marriage. They love God, they know their faith and love it. 

Finally, I would like to share a few quotes from the best source of modern philosophy, and that is, movies. In Rumor Has It, Jennifer Anniston says this to her love interest: “I didn't come here to tell you that I can't live without you. I can live without you. I just don't want to.” I think love is a choice, and I think Jo and Heather couldn’t agree with this more. The second comes from the lips of Matt Damon in The Adjustment Bureau, where he says about the woman he loves, “All I have are the choices I make, and I choose her.” Often times, insecurity can get the best of us and we feel like we are not good enough for the other. I know this was true for Jo and Heather as it has been for many of us here, but I think they each realized how much they really loved each other and no one else can fulfill that role for them and so they were faced with a choice. Every day is an opportunity to choose, and it is inspiring to have observed this first hand, that in spite of their occasional rough patches, they still choose each other. Lastly, in the recent film, The Way, we hear from the lips of Emilio Estevez the powerful statement, “We don’t choose a life, we live one.” And so, the lives we live, go beyond the choices we make in life, it is animated with an excitement and passion for truth, striving to make each day more meaningful and fruitful than the day before, and serving God and each other.

And so, Josef and Heather, may your love for God and each other continue to grow, all the days of your life! I love you guys! To Josef and Heather! *toast*

Responding to the atheists

By Laurence Gonzaga


Introduction

As a former atheist, it has become an area of interest for me to present simple presentations of some of the arguments which I fell in love with that brought me out of atheism. I don’t claim that these arguments have no responses or criticisms. They do, and they are good ones. I believe that those who are formally trained in philosophy would take more absolute positions on these arguments, but I look at it in more practical terms. Ultimately, for me, I approach my life with the goal of discerning its purpose and meaning. As an atheist I had taken moral stances and I behaved in certain ways, which had to be rooted in some kind of consistent moral framework, but I had none. That is not to say atheists cannot have one, but I have found that many of those whom I had encountered, never took the time to develop one. I heard much about “rights” and “freedom”, but when asked about what those words mean and who or what determines what they are and why individuals are obliged to abide by them, all I heard was crickets chirping. To be fair, many Christians can be the same way.

I have more respect for the atheist who takes a moral stance but can articulate why he believes it, than an atheist who takes a moral stance, ipso dixit, because he says it is so. Alright, but why should I agree with you? After all, anyone who says you ought to do such and such, and avoid doing such and such, ought to also be able to present a framework by which he is able to determine why he thinks such and such is right, or wrong. If not, he or she has no business discussing such matters with fellow atheists or agnostics, and certainly nothing to talk about with those who have a very specific traditional moral framework such as Hinduism, Buddhism, and the Judeo-Christian traditions.

I hope all who review the following will do so, at the very least, to try to understand the arguments which have been proposed to prove, or at least persuade reasonable folks to take a leap. Using reason alone, we come to the edge of the cliff, with what we know from what we can observe of nature, and reason by considering intellectual concepts, we make a choice: take the leap of faith towards God, in faith, where natural and sacred theology then picks up the ball towards things like Trinity, and Virgin Birth, etc., or do we take the leap of faith away from God? Only you can answer that. How you answer questions of where we come from and what is our purpose for being are the animating principles of our daily existence. It governs how we respond to the events which help to define who we are.

Arguments

              I.      What are apriori and aposteriori arguments?

1)      Apriori arguments (ex: ontological) - arguments for God which derive their premises independent of experience; one only need to clearly understand that proposition to see that it is true.

2)      Aposteriori arguments (ex: cosmological and teleological) - arguments for God which derive their premises only from experience of the world.

           II.      Cosmological arguments (Aquinas and Craig)

Aquinas’ First Way (from Motion)

1)      Things are moved.

2)      Whatever is moved, is moved by something else.

3)      Without a First Mover, no motions can exist.

4)      Therefore, a First Mover exists.

Aquinas’ Second Way (from Efficient Cause)

1)      There exist things that are caused.

§   You happen upon a sand-castle on the beach, and you presume that it was designed.

5)      Nothing can be the cause of itself (ex nihilio nihil fit, out of nothing proceeds).

§   The sand castle cannot bring itself into existence.

6)      There cannot be an infinite regress of causes.

§   If you trace the line of causality back, there must be a first cause, which itself was not caused.

7)      Therefore, there exists an uncaused first cause.

8)      The word God means uncaused first cause.

9)      Therefore, God exists

Aquinas’ Third Way (from Necessity)

§         Contingent means it depends upon something else to explain its being (humans, animals, etc.). Necessary means that the being requires no other being to explain its existence.

1)      Not every being can be contingent.

§         Contingent beings need at least one necessary being.

2)      Therefore, there exists a being upon which the contingent beings depend.

3)      A necessary being on which all contingent beings exist is what we mean by God.

4)      Therefore, God exists.

Aquinas’ Fourth Way (from Gradation)

1)      There exist degrees of goodness in different things.

2)      There exist degrees of being in different things.

3)      For degrees of being to exist, there must be something which has the highest degree of being.

4)      Therefore, a being with the highest degree of being exist.

Kalam Argument (William Lane Craig)

1)      Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence.

2)      The universe began to exist.

§         You cannot have an infinite regress of causes. The concept of infinity is a mathematical concept that does not and cannot exist in reality since it would lead to absurdities. See Hilbert’s Hotel.

3)      Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence

         III.      Teleological arguments (William Paley and St. Thomas Aquinas)

The Watchmaker Argument (William Paley)

1)      Complexity implies a designer.

2)      The universe is highly complex.

3)      Therefore, the universe has a Designer.

4)      God is a Being who is able to design a universe.

5)      Therefore, God does exist.

Aquinas’ Fifth Way (Design argument)

1)      All things have order, and have a goal/purpose.

2)      The order in the universe cannot be explained by chance, but by design and purpose.

3)      Design and purpose is the product of intelligence.

4)      Therefore, the universe is directed by a Divine Intelligence or Designer.

        IV.      Ontological argument (St. Anselm)

Argument 1, (Laurence Gonzaga, 04/20/2008)

1)      God is, by definition, the “greatest” (that than which nothing greater is possible).

2)      The notion of the “greatest” exists in the mind.

3)      The “greatest” may exist in reality.

4)      If the “greatest” only existed in the mind, and the “greatest” may have existed in reality, then the “greatest” [in reality] might have been greater than the “greatest” [in the mind].

5)      The “greatest” may be greater than it is.

6)      Therefore, the “greatest” is something that something greater is possible.

7)      This is not possible, reductio ad absurdum (reduction to the absurd).

8)      Therefore, the “greatest” (God) exists in both the mind and in reality.

Argument 1, variation (Laurence Gonzaga, 03/14/2009)

1)      There is an understanding in the “believer” and the “unbeliever” of God as “that than which nothing greater can be conceived”, which can be summarized as “the greatest”.

2)      The greatest can exist in the understanding alone, or in the understanding and reality.

3)      Things that exist in reality, even those things which existed in the past, are greater than things which exist in the understanding alone.

4)      If the greatest does not exist in reality, then there exists an absurdity (reductio ad absurdum ), since any object that exists in reality, even those which existed in the past, would be greater than “the greatest”, which exists in the understanding alone. So, “the greatest” would not really be the greatest.

5)      Therefore, “the greatest” must exist in reality. The greatest, is He who we call God.

Argument 2

1)      God is defined as the “greatest” (aliquid, quo nihil majus cogitari posit, that than which nothing greater can be conceived).

2)      It is greater to be a necessary being than not.

3)      God must be necessary.

4)      God necessarily exists.

           V.      The Desire Argument (C.S. Lewis)

1)      All human desires correspond to a real thing which can satisfy that desire.

§         Thirst is satisfied by drink; hunger is satisfied by food; fatigue is satisfied by sleep/rest; sexual desire is satisfied by marital relations; etc.

2)      There is a desire which nothing in this world can satisfy (desire for God).

3)      This desire must be satisfied in another world.

4)      Therefore, God must exist.

        VI.      The Wager (Pascal) – This does a cross between two dimensions: (1) the truth of whether God exists, God exists and God does not exist; and (2) how one chooses to lead one’s life, live as if God does exist and live as if God does not exist. This gives us 4 possibilities:

§         God exists and one does not live as if God exists – Hell (- infinity)

§         God exists and one does live as if God existed – Heaven (+ infinity)

§         God does not exist and one does not live as if God exists – neutral

§         God does not exist and one does live as if God existed – neutral

§         Therefore, wager that God exists.

§         Would you not wager $1 for the 50/50 chance of winning a million?

      VII.      Ways in which we may see the atheist:

1)      the atheist as a victim

§         They have bought into the secular and relativistic philosophy. This is where the notion of absolutes was once presumed without question, and now the notion of universal non-absolutes (how ironic) is presumed without question.

2)      the atheist as an apologist

§         If you believed as they believe, wouldn’t you promote it too? Aggressively, even. So don’t be offended when they try to “evangelize” you with the “gospel” of un-belief or non-belief!

3)      the atheist as an intellectual

§         They don’t want to hear about mysticism and non-materialistic evidence; rational argumentation is the best bet; this is the high-form of atheism.

4)      the atheist as a revolutionary

§         There is a popular culture of anti-conformity. It is now cool to be a jerk; This is the low-form of atheism. Don’t be offended. Don’t get emotional. If you fight fire with fire, you will be burned. Fight fire with water.

Conclusion

I am confident in my present belief in the existence of God. Since I used reason to come to the point of rational belief in the existence of a singular God (monotheism), I then took further steps which brought me to the point of Christianity, and furthermore, Catholicism as the expression of what I believe to be the authentic and complete historical and theological expression of Christianity. From here, we may now debate points of natural and sacred theology.

Appendix:

Why am I a Catholic-Christian?: A response to an agnostic friend

Mr. Laurence I have a question for you. What brought you to your religion? What made you decide this was truth for you? I remember you in high school being quite skeptical of religion. It’s funny how the tables have turned. I am just curious to hear what brought you to Catholicism. I don’t want to debate or anything I just am curious. Anyhow, I hope you are well. Take care

~ Z.H.

Z, you can call me Laurence or Mr. Laurence (it's an insider thing among my friends, we really aren’t that formal). You can get a long or short story, but I will try to give you the short story. Yes, I was quite skeptical of religion and Christianity in particular. I was raised a Catholic-Christian, but didn’t really know the basis of such beliefs. So, it was easy to let it go when science seemed to explain the things that religion claimed to. But it goes deeper than that not just for me but I’m sure for many people. Life just seemed more enjoyable without religion. No need to go to Church or say prayers, or follow rules. But, on top of that, I had friends who claimed to be Christian, brought me to their churches, and read me Bible quotes and such, and I knew they weren’t exactly living up to the teachings. So, it seemed hypocritical to me. Anyway, even in my most atheistic days, I never really rebelled against the moral teachings. So, basically I had Christian morals, but no philosophical system to hang them on. I then took a class in introductory philosophy at CSUSB, and there were a few sections on the existence of God, for and against of course. I was really impressed with the logical proofs of Thomas Aquinas, known as his Five Ways. Then there were the arguments for moral absolutes from Immanuel Kant. So, I would say that the foundation for my current belief is as follows:

1) I believe in moral absolutes, otherwise I would have no basis to discuss "right" and "wrong" with anyone.

2) As a creature that could die at any moment, and the same is true for all other sentient beings, I have to wonder, where these absolutes must reside. Eternal truth can only be observed or believed by temporary beings, but it must reside outside of them [for them to be consistent always]. So, it is reasonable to imagine that it resides in the mind of an eternal being. 3) The anthropic principle shows that there are many universal constants like the universal gravitational constant, which if tweaked just a little, would have no life anywhere in the universe, because things like hydrogen would not exist or any other number of necessary elements for life to exist.

4) If there is a God, is he many or one. Aquinas' proofs argue for a singular God. I am convinced of his proofs. [So-called gods such as Zeus and Athena are not the kind of God that Aquinas argued for. So, the cheap shots that Richard Dawkins makes about “Flying Spaghetti Monsters” are not a concern for me]

5) What religions are monotheistic? Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. Well, Judaism came first, and they prophesied a Messiah. Christianity came next and claimed that he came in the person of Yeshua bar Yousef (Jesus, son of Joseph). Islam came next as a sect of Christianity and claimed the first two went off the path. Judaism died with the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD, and there are many logical inconsistencies in the Muslim religion. That leaves Christianity. 
6) There are over 25,000 denominations of Christianity, but only one can claim to have the historical roots in the early Christian communities, and that is the Catholic Church.

Sorry, I said it would be short, but it was not exactly something I decided to just believe one day. haha.

I am open to any questions, I just wrote this off the top of my head.

Have a wonderful day, Z!

Well said. One of the best explanations I've actually ever heard. Although it doesn't change my personal convictions which is more in line with Agnosticism. That by far is on of the best explanations I've read spelled out. I would dive into where I disagree but I don't really want to online debate also I am working. I honestly asked because I viewed [you] in high school as some one with high intelligence and I tend to generalize theists particularly Christians as people with lower intelligence. This is unfair but it seems to trend that direction. I really just wanted to see what brought you to where you are today. Ok off to lunch. I would really like to meet up and grab lunch at some point. It's always good talking with you. Have a great rest of your day