Saturday, January 31, 2009

Faith, Science, and the Year of Astronomy

In commemoration of the 400-year anniversary of Galileo’s first discoveries, this year has been declared the International Year of Astronomy. While the Catholic Church has been branded as un-scientific because of her role in the unfortunate demise of Galileo, the Church is nevertheless celebrating astronomy with everyone else. Most people don’t know this, but for centuries the Catholic Church helped fund scientific discoveries and many of the great scientists were Catholics. Copernicus, the guy who proposed what Galileo was supposedly killed for, was a devout Catholic and some historians believe he was even a Catholic priest. Why wasn’t he silenced, too?

For one reason, he, unlike Galileo, believed in miracles.

Galileo believed in a closed system – that God created the universe and has no interaction with it. This view, similar to Deism, denied the incarnation, the bible, and any miracles. In other words, it was directly opposed to Christianity and the Catholic Church. This may lead one to ask: doesn’t science oppose religion all the time? Well, no. Science can tell us all about the world God has created. Each and every discovery should lead us to wondering more and more about, while leading us to praise, the God who made everything from nothing. Remember after all, “the heavens declare the glory of God” (Psalm 19:2).

One Catholic author commented on scientific discovery during the times of Galileo: “The empowering of human vision [through telescopes] stimulated artists, writers and theologians. As the eyes of the body were enhanced, so could man look to enhance his eyes of faith. That which had been invisible was now visible, reinforcing the idea that the invisible world of angels and the Real Presence was there, simply out of reach to mortal eyes. Discovery didn’t bring fear of contradiction; it brought a promise of knowing more.”

Today, however, secularist politicians and scientists seek no harmony with faith but rather see faith as a wall against what they see as progress. They will stop at nothing to keep their lives comfortable – not even at killing unborn embryonic human beings. The same author from above looks at “progress” and “cures” from Obama’s agenda and from another politician 1700 years ago:

[Obama] spoke of the many errors and wrongs of the previous years and in his platform of change he vowed that “We will restore science to its rightful place.” What is this rightful place? We found out soon enough.

The next day the new U.S. president lifted the Bush administration’s ban on embryonic stem cell testing. The inevitable conclusion is that for Obama, the “rightful place” of science is above ethics, morals and life itself. While once the domain of the laboratory, today some would raise it to the altar. With this carte blanche to scientific research at the expense of human life, the prospects for the future of ethics in science look grim indeed.

Oddly enough, a 13th-century “Golden Legend” contains a similar story. Emperor Constantine, afflicted with leprosy, had tried every known remedy without success. He was assured that the only sure cure would be to bathe in the blood of newborn infants, as their pure blood would restore his withered flesh.

As 3,000 infants were gathered for his cure, the emperor shrank before the prospect of such violence. He declared that “the honor of the Roman people is born of the font of piety. Piety gave us the law by which anyone who kills a child in war shall incur the sentence of death. What cruelty it would be, therefore if we did to our own children what we are forbidden to do to our enemies!”

That night, Sts. Peter and Paul told Constantine in a dream to go to Rome and find Pope Sylvester to be cured. Pope Sylvester told him that the best way to relieve his sufferings was baptism. In accepting the sacrament of baptism, Constantine was cured.

While this is pious legend, it is interesting to note that the worst cruelty imaginable in Constantine’s world was to sacrifice infants to save the life of a man, as well as the horror expressed at the lengths one would go for a “miracle cure.” What some call progress, others might call regress.

Check out the full article here!

Sunday, January 25, 2009

Learning to Argue from the Movie Thank You For Smoking

Nick Naylor works as a lobbyist for Big Tobacco. His job is to spin the truth to make sure that the tobacco companies don't get outed as cancer salesmen. To do this he uses all the logical tricks (and logical fallacies) in the book. The following is an exchange Nick has with his young son, Joey, about argumentation:

Joey: “So what happens when you’re wrong?”

Nick: “Joey, I’m never wrong.”

Joey: “But you can’t always be right.”

Nick: “Well if it’s your job to be right then you’re never wrong.”

Joey: “But what if you are wrong?”

Nick: “Okay, let’s say that you’re defending chocolate and I’m defending vanilla. Now if I were to say to you, ‘Vanilla is the best flavor ice cream.’ You’d say..?”

Joey: “No, chocolate is.”

Nick: “Exactly, but you can’t win that argument. So I’ll ask: ‘So you think chocolate is the end all and be all of ice cream, do you?’”

Joey: “It’s the best ice cream. I wouldn’t order any other.”

Nick: “So it’s all chocolate with you, is it?”

Joey: “Yes, chocolate is all I need.”

Nick: “Well I need more than chocolate. And for that matter I need more than vanilla. I believe that we need freedom and choice when it comes to our ice cream, and that Joey Naylor is the definition of liberty.”

Joey: “But that’s not what we’re talking about.”

Nick: “Ah, but that’s what I’m talking about.”

Joey: “But you didn’t prove vanilla was the best.”

Nick: “I didn’t have to. I proved that you’re wrong – and if you’re wrong, I’m right.”

Joey: “But you still didn’t convince me.”

Nick: “Because I’m not after you. [pointing to a group of everyday Americans] I’m after them.”

Horrible logic - but it works. Sophism and relativism at it's best (or worst?) What can I say? I love dark comedies!

Saturday, January 24, 2009

George Weigel Thanks President Bush

A Thank You to President Bush (by George Weigel)

The following is best appreciated if read aloud in the best Irish accent you can manage: Paddy, the local scoundrel, was dead. The entire population of the village where he spent a lifetime making others miserable attended the funeral Mass -- some, doubtless, to make sure he was really gone. Knowing the congregation's sentiments, the wise old pastor said to his people, before the final commendation, "Now, dear brother and sisters, before we commit our brother to the sod, it would be an act of charity if one of you were to come forward and say a good word about 'im." No one moved. "Come, now, brothers and sisters," the pastor pleaded, "surely there's someone who can say a good word for the man." Total silence. "My dear people, I'll be tellin' the sacristan to lock the door in a minute, and not a one of you's goin' to leave this church until someone comes forward to say a good word for this departed brother." Finally, an ancient villager got up, shuffled to the side of the casket, turned his back to the pastor, and said in a clear voice, "I think his brother was even worse."

As he leaves office, George W. Bush could be forgiven for feeling like Paddy, were he a man given to self-pity. Happily, he isn't. And it's emphatically not in the spirit of, "Well, James J. Buchanan and Herbert Hoover were even worse" that I should like to praise President Bush at the end of his two terms. For what, you ask? For many things that ought to count for Catholics.

I should like to praise him for his steadfast support of the pro-life cause, domestically and internationally. Thanks to President Bush, we have two more Supreme Court justices who likely know that Roe vs. Wade was terrible constitutional judging, and dozens more federal district court and appellate court judges with similar convictions. Thanks to President Bush, the U.S. government drew an important moral line in stem cell research, even as the administration accelerated bioethically sound research strategies that have produced real results. Internationally, the Bush administration stood firm against the Gadarene rush to use international law to declare abortion an international human right and a necessary component of the emancipation of women; as one senior Vatican official put it to me, a year ago, "We know we're never going to have another American administration as supportive of our core issues as the Bush administration has been."

I should like to praise the President for his work to rid Africa of the plagues of AIDS and malaria and to relieve the suffering of those afflicted with those awful diseases. George W. Bush may be an object of ridicule in certain U.S. zip codes; he is the subject of veneration among those in the "bottom billion" whose lives his policies have saved or enhanced. I should like to thank the President for offering Pope Benedict XVI such a warm welcome on the South Lawn of the White House on April 15, 2008 -- a welcome that ought to have put paid, once and for all, to the notion that there is something incompatible between robust Catholic faith and a mature gratitude for the political miracle of American democracy.

I should like to thank President Bush for his personal decency, manifest in his (unpublicized) personal attention to our wounded and to the families of the fallen; in his refusal to become bitter in the face of outrageous slander; and in his calm amidst tribulations that most of us can't imagine. I should like to thank him for his unapologetic confession of Christian faith, and for his testimony to the importance that prayer plays in his life. And I should like to thank him for not giving a hoot about the mockery that such a witness draws from a secularized mass media, from American high culture, from cretins like Michael Moore, and from Euro-secularist snobs who spent eight years sneering at the evangelical cowboy in the White House while their continent was dying from spiritual boredom.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Friday, January 23, 2009

Desire Cannot Be the Foundation for the Law

Monsignor Carlos Simón Vazquez, subsecretary of the Pontifical Council for the Family, offered the clarification on a recent statement by Cardinal Ennio Antonelli regarding homosexuality. The following contains the three main points the cardinal was speaking on. As you read, notice that the first part deals with a natural reason to reject homosexual activity and marriage while the last part (the third) deals with a religious reason to reject the same. The second point stresses the fact that, while homosexual acts go on behind closed doors regardless of what right and wrong, those struggling with homosexual desires must live the virtuous life of chastity.

Various interpretations have been made regarding the reference Cardinal Ennio Antonelli, president of the Pontifical Council for the Family, made in his words at the opening of the Theological-Pastoral Congress of Mexico. The cardinal wanted to underline three important aspects:

1. Homosexuality is not a necessary component of society, as is the family. Society is organized around the relationship of the couple that is formed by a man and a woman. They find each other in conjugal life and in family life. In this sense, the couple and the family enter into the sphere of social life, and because of this, of civil law. The relationship between two persons of the same sex is not the same as the relationship of a couple that is based on the sexual difference. These two situations depend on structures that are not of the same nature. The homosexual relationship does not enter into this social sphere. It is, as such, a private question. Legislators make an anthropological error when they want to socially organize homosexuality. They run the risk of provoking an intellectual confusion, as well as confusion of identity and relationships. It should not be forgotten that confusion frequently favors insecurity, unstable relationships and violence, when legislators don't respect the fundamental sense of human relationships. The family is a common good of humanity that is not at the free disposition of legislators to respond to the subjective and problematic demands of today. The individual desire cannot be the foundation for the law. Here we find ourselves in the presence of a confusion between the law, which is of the public domain, and the desire, which is subjective.

2. Affirming that homosexuality is a private fact, the president of the Pontifical Council of the Family is not justifying it. The cardinal simply underlined that homosexuality does not contribute favorably to the organization of individuals and of society. The exercise of homosexuality does not reflect the truth of friendship. Friendship is inherent to the human condition in that it offers relationships of proximity, help and cooperation, in a courteous and amiable climate. Friendship should be lived chastely.

3. The Church maintains its preoccupation of welcoming and accompanying homosexual persons. Every person that has difficulties to live their sexuality properly is called to find Christ and to live, consequently, in accord with the demands of liberty and responsibility of faith, hope and charity. On the other hand, it is contrary to the truth of the human identity and the design of God to live a homosexual experience, a relationship of this type, and even more to attempt to demand same-sex marriage. It is contrary to the true interests of the persons and of the needs of society. It constitutes a transgression of the sense of love as God has revealed to us through the message of Christ, of which the Church is a servant, as an expression of love toward the men and women of our time.

Monday, January 19, 2009

The Difference between a Minister and a Priest

Well perhaps I could say that all priests are ministers but not all ministers are priests. There exists an important difference between the two. This difference answers questions regarding priestly celibacy, women priests, and even about the nature of God.

But before looking at that, I thought I’d give you a practical difference between a priest and a minister – and between Catholic and Protestant worship. The following is a quote from author Thomas Day:

“Probably before the last apostle died, the church discovered that there are two basic solutions to [choosing a pastor]:

The Protestant Option. Let a Community choose its own liturgical ‘style’ and have a say in picking its own presiding minister from a large assortment of candidates (married and unmarried men and women). Indirectly and certainly not overtly, the community will also be selecting the kind of members it wants.

The Roman Method. The bishop picks the priest who will minister unto ‘the people,’ and they accept this arrangement as long as the ritual does not somehow depend on liking the appointee. The presider agrees to become a ‘nobody’ during worship, so that he may serve ‘everybody.’ To make sure that he keeps his end of the bargain and stays a ‘nobody’ the church puts liturgical brakes on the priest – such as vestments and a prescribed liturgical text."

I can’t tell you how many of my Protestant friends move to a new town and have a hard time “finding a good church” to go to. One of the best features of Catholic worship is that no matter where you go, you get the exact same Mass. Of course, each priest may give his own take on the Gospel when he preaches, but Catholics do not (or rather should not) go to church for the personality of the priest but rather for the Eucharist – the source and summit of the Christian faith (according to the Second Vatican Council and 2,000 years of Christianity).

The Eucharist, being Christ himself, is the draw.

Speaking of his own death, Christ said: “When I am raised up, I shall draw all men to myself” (John 12:32). To this I can only think of the elevation of the host at Mass – where the very same sacrifice of the cross is made present across time and space. This “once and for all” sacrifice has drawn all peoples to Jesus and brought them to true Communion with God and the Saints. There’s nothing as moving, as inspirational, and as epic as this! And this brings me to the key difference between a minister and a priest: a priest offers sacrifice. Compare a preacher with priest – while they appear to be similar, only a priest offers the sacrifice of the Mass.

To me, a Catholic deacon is much more similar to a Protestant minister.

They both are involved in preaching, baptizing, presiding at weddings, and working in some degree with church administration and charitable works. What’s more, both the deacon and the minister can be married. The duty of the priest brings with it a whole-hearted commitment to service and complete abandonment to the mercy of God. Jesus spoke of the “eunuchs for the kingdom” in the Gospel – these are the priests and bishops who have left the good of marriage for the vocation of Christ. Paul himself was called to this and today young men respond to the very same call and find themselves in the middle of the greatest adventure of all.

Atheists in England Sued for False Advertising

Okay, they’re really agnostics, so that’s a little false advertising on my part. In case you don’t know, agnostics (from the Greek word gnosis meaning knowledge) claim no knowledge of God. Atheists, on the other hand, claim that there is no God and that they are certain of it.

Anyways, a group of agnostics started and advertising campaign via eight hundred of England’s public transportation buses. Each bus displayed a sign which read: "There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life."

So now the agnostics are being sued for false advertising by Christian Voice, an organization in England which seeks to defend Christianity in a secular society that works to oppose it more and more.

Apparently it all comes down to England’s rules for advertising. “According to [Advertising Standards Authority] codes,” reads one article on the issue, “advertisements are not allowed to mislead consumers, so advertisers must hold evidence to prove the claims they make about their products or services before an ad appears.”

In other words, the agnostics must have some proof related the probable non-existence of God!

All I can say is well done Christian Voice!

Click here to read more.

My Thoughts on a Night of Ecumenism

When I first read that the event was described as the 101st ecumenical prayer gathering, I wondered if they met two or three times a year – thus I was quite surprised to see that they had in fact been meeting since 1908! And while that seems like an impressive feat, I was surprised that there weren’t a greater number of participants. I had hoped that after a hundred years, more pastors, priests, and bishops could gather their flock for such an important gathering.

In any case, each religious leader chose some reading of scripture as their theme (which they personally read) or else they lead the people in some short prayer in between the readings. I personally found it funny to see the text of each reading coming from a different translation of the Bible. Combining this with the chosen texts really let one know where each leader was coming from on theological and political basis! One pastor (from a liberal Church of Christ congregation) not only used the most liberal translation she could find but she changed its words when it described God as ‘he’ – it made me wonder if she even believes in the Trinity!

That fact alone would make me rethink participating in the service if I were Archbishop Nienstedt.

Of course, the desire for Christian unity is very strong in the Catholic Church. The question is: can one really sit down to pray with someone who seems to have rejected the Gospel itself? To me, if one does this the whole act ends up being a façade – a nice show to render the appearance that there is a movement towards unity when in fact there is not.

Nevertheless I truly believe Archbishop Nienstedt is committed to Christian unity. The motto he chose for his episcopacy is: Ut Omnes Ut Unum Sint – That They All Might Be One. This motto is of course based on the words of Christ in John 17 when he prayed to his Father regarding Christian unity. Here Jesus, on the evening before he died, connected three important e-words: Ecumenism, Evangelization, and Eucharist.

First the Eucharist. Why did Jesus choose the Last Supper to pray for unity? Because the Eucharist is the visible sign of unity among Christians. Reception of the Eucharist means true communion with God, with each other, and with the entire Catholic Church. The Last Supper was also a gathering of the Apostles, the first bishops. To these men have been entrusted the preaching of the Gospel, the sanctification of souls, and service of mankind. Because they have been given the mission of making present the Eucharist, communion with the bishop is central for true Christian unity – or as Ignatius of Antioch said in 107 AD: “Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.”

Second, Evangelization. Jesus expressly connected the work of evangelization with Christian unity. “That they may be one… so that the world might believe that you sent me.” If we are not one, we will not be effective in spreading the Gospel. To this end it is important that we do not agree to disagree. There are eternal souls on the line for our accepted division. Enough is enough.

Lastly, the Ecumenism which is guaranteed to happen! The prayers of Christ are always efficacious – this prayer for Christian unity has to work! Jesus knew that human beings are flawed and that they must be as reliant on God for unity as they are in everything else. I really believe that Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox have much to give each other. While from the Protestant comes the ardent love of scripture and a devout personal life, the Orthodox gives great insight into aesthetic forms of worship and deep communal piety. Catholics, on the other hand, offer to both true visible unity along with an emphasis on both of the beautiful aspects of Protestantism and Orthodoxy. It seems to me that various Protestant denominations and Orthodox Christianity have taken an isolated part of the Catholic whole and overemphasized it. Catholicism enters one into the epic ocean of universal Christianity!

I briefly spoke with Archbishop Nienstedt after the prayer service was over. He and I made a connection between authentic ecumenism and some short term goals related to ecumenism – the chief short term goal was unity against abortion. In case you didn’t know, this month includeds the March for Life to shout out against the Supreme Court's ruling that the unborn are free to be killed. This is one issue that ought to unite Christians immediately and will, if done, be an incredible step towards both authentic Christian unity as well as a better America.

Saturday, January 17, 2009

Congratulations Sharon as the New Archdiocesan Respect Life Coordinator!

I was so happy to hear that Sharon Wilson, a long time friend of mine at Divine Mercy Catholic Church, is now at work for the Archdiocese in defending the right to life! Sharon is a go-getter, team player, hard worker! She’ll get the job done!

Sharon was recently interviewed by the Catholic Spirit – the Archdiocese’s newspaper. Here are some of my favorite quotes:

“What struck me is that the general media will talk about abortion as being a medical procedure. If it really was a medical procedure, you wouldn’t have women and men suffering from the aftermath, emotionally — 20, 30 years after. You don’t have retreats for people who have knee surgery.”

“I love the whole idea that the Respect Life Office is fully integrated with Marriage, Family and Life. It goes back to the whole broader spectrum of how we view life. We teach it in our families. We learn it in our marriages. That’s where it comes from.”

As to what Sharon would like to do in her position: “I’d like to see a three-pronged approach. [1] I think we need to change people’s heads, by giving them the right information. [2] Change their hearts, by conversion and prayer, and helping those in need. [3] And to be aware of and change the laws. We have to be aware of what is happening in our Legislature [and] politically, how we vote our conscience…”

The last quote is of central importance. Many people are ignorant about the life issues and especially about the science behind abortion. Second, no matter what information you give someone it’s conversion we’re really after. Lastly, people need to fight it out in the courts and know what is going on. It is especially imperative to fight FOCA (the Freedom of Choice Act) which will undo all the work the Pro-Life cause has fought for over the past forty years!

Click here to read the full article!

Catholic versus Athiest: The Argument of the Month

Last Tuesday night I was able to attend 2009’s first Argument of the Month Club session. Somewhere around 350 other men came to eat, drink alcohol, and defend the Faith. This particular night’s debate was theism versus atheism – or as Fr. Eckert introduced the speakers: Dr. Hippler, “The Hulk” versus “Godless” George Kane. After this introduction, Father asked for the all the atheists present to raise their hands – only to warn them that their cars my be lit afire before they left.

Of course it was all in good fun.

The atheists had their shot, too. The president of a Minnesota Atheist League spoke before the debate calling blasphemy against God a victimless crime.

The debate went well – it was a little less edgy then debates between others I know. For example, Fr. Eckert debating Dr. David Pence is a firestorm waiting to happen, Dr. Hippler, “The Hulk” versus “Godless” George Kane was an intellectual matchup that spared over a Socratic dialogue with Euthyphro in which Socrates posed the question: “Is an act good because the gods will it or do the gods will it because it is good?” If one believes in the former, morality is arbitrary and can be changed at god’s choosing (it’s called the divine command theory, Muslims and some Protestant Christians believe in this). Now if someone agrees with the latter, then morality is above God and God is subject to it and therefore not really an all-powerful God.

If one, however, really believed there were only two ways of answering Socrates’ question, then he would be committing the logical fallacy of false alternatives (also called false dichotomy or false dilemma). This logical fallacy presents two answers as the only options when more actually do exist. In this case, there is at least a third alternative which I’m not going to share with you.

Can you guess what it is? How would you answer the question of Socrates?

To any extent, the night was again one of my favorite monthly experiences. Good natured Catholic men getting together to eat, drink, and laugh while seriously discussing important matters of faith. But there was also diversity there. I sat at a table with an atheist, two Protestants, three Catholics. We ate, joked, and poked at each other’s peculiar religious or non-religious affiliations. We laughed at each others good-natured jabs and rolled with the punches. There was nothing fake about what we did. Fr. Eckert jokingly said that: “Of all the ministries I’m involved with, this is the only one that works!”

It works because it lets men be men. Good food + good beer + good laughs + faith = success!

The Argument of the Month Club has grown from 120 attending men this time last year to over 350 men this year. So if any of you guys out there in the Archdiocese would like to be part of something huge, something powerful, and something that will strengthen your faith, then please join us on February 10th!

Friday, January 16, 2009

Vindication for Pro-McCain Catholics

Breaking news yesterday gave a little vindication for those Catholics who supported McCain on the basis of ethical issues like abortion and gay marriage. Eric McFadden, a leading Catholic liberal and former head of Catholics for Faithful Citizenship, Catholics for Kerry, and Ohio’s Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives – not to mention he also led Hilary Clinton’s Catholic outreach program for her campaign while later speaking out in favor of Obama – was arrested on seven prostitution-related felony counts.

Columbus police labeled him the city’s guru of prostitution – a name coined by McFadden himself on his prostitution website.

One article talks about the website run by McFadden in which he reviewed the city’s prostitutes. “The ‘hooker-review’ website rated workers from escort agencies, as well as street prostitutes, at least one of whom was a 17-year-old minor. The site ran a raffle, at $10 per ticket, that gave the winner a night of free sex with a local prostitute, for which McFadden would cover the costs.”

During this past presidential campaign, McFadden attacked the head of the Knights of Columbus (a nation-wide Catholic men’s association) who called on Catholics to vote for Pro-Life political candidates. “Carl Anderson should resign as Supreme Knight so the good work of the Knights of Columbus can continue without the stain of partisan politics," McFadden, a Knights of Columbus member, wrote. I certainly hope no one takes McFadden seriously about anything any more.

Especially who to vote for.

For more, click here.

Wednesday, January 14, 2009

Winning the Culture War

Let’s be honest, the moral integrity of our society is collapsing more and more every year. Moral relativism (which states that there are no moral absolutes and that morality is different for different people – so please don’t impose your morality on me!) has steadily eroded the moral foundation of this great country. Aided by the secular media establishment, a culture war has been waged for nearly half a century.

But often times the examples of Christians don’t help.

Ghandi once said that he loved Christ but didn’t know what to say about Christians. Thus we who have entered into a real relationship with Jesus have an added responsibility to evangelize and help our brothers and sisters to be holy. As a proud American, I personally I also feel the weight of freedom which our country has given me – a freedom not to do what I want but a freedom to do what I ought; the freedom to be the best human I can be. This is what it means to be a free American.

More still, secularists in America have used the example of Christians as a ploy to further their own ends. Gay “marriage” proponents, for example, have said that while Christians believe in the sanctity of marriage, they nevertheless accept the use of divorce – an acceptance which runs contrary to the words of Christ in Matthew 5 and Paul’s words in Ephesians 5. This is one of a hundred reasons why I am a Catholic; there’s no theological teaching of the Church that secularist can use against her (i.e. we do not have divorce)!

Personally, however, I like to tackle moral issues with a little philosophy. Truth, goodness, and beauty are the three transcendentals that to me form the battleground in the war against secularism. So often today, it is the moral framework being attacked – the “center” of the battle line (truth-GOODNESS-beauty). When someone attacks this part of the line, I try not to counter with some other moral point but rather hit him on the flanks with either truth or beauty. While truth is truth, however, it is usually much more difficult to help someone see and accept the truth (we live in an age of suspicion and ‘clever’ argument after all).

Thus beauty, which most everyone can appreciate, is always good way to go about bringing people out of moral decadence. When arguments fail, it is the beauty of the saint that wins souls for God by softening their hearts to the grace of the Holy Spirit.

A similar message was spoken today in regards to the culture war by the charismatic preacher Fr. Cantalamessa at the 6th World Meeting of Families – a gathering which is right now amassing over a million people! At this colossal event, father spoke out in living the call of marriage and witnessing to its beauty to others. As one article says: “The Christian idea of matrimony and family does not just need ‘defending,’ [father] affirmed. The most important thing is the ‘task of Christians rediscovering it and living it in plenitude, such that they again propose it to the world with their actions…’” More still, reflecting on the history of Christianity, he said that: “The first Christians changed the laws of the state with their customs; we cannot expect today to change the customs with the laws of the state.”

In other words, if Christians would just be Christian, the world would be won for Christ!

Clich here to read more about Fr. Cantalamessa's talk!