Three Keys to Evangelization

Evangelization is a word that can make people uncomfortable – especially Catholics. This discomfort comes from having seen it done wrong far too many times. There are two extremes on the evangelization spectrum, neither of which are good. On the one end you have Catholics who are bad at evangelization because, well, we don’t ever do it. The opposite extreme is embodied by Jehovah’s Witnesses who evangelize constantly but go about it all wrong. Effective evangelization lies somewhere in the middle.

Before we go any further, however, we should first ask ourselves a question: as a Catholic, why does

it matter whether I evangelize or not? The answer: because Jesus commands it. Towards the end of Matthew’s gospel, we find a passage known as ‘The Great Commission.’ In this passage (Matthew 28:19) Jesus demands of His followers that they “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations…” So, we are required to evangelize by the express command of none other than Jesus Himself. Unfortunately, that doesn’t magically make it easy.

When we picture evangelization, many call to mind that one relative who is always bitter and crotchety. The type of person who judges the virtue of others based solely upon their mass attendance and who has a long list of things other people need to change about their lives. This relative is constantly giving advice they weren’t asked for – the literal embodiment of a ‘Bible Thumper.’

In American pop culture these Bible Thumpers have unfortunately become the caricature of Christians in the 21^st century. If we evangelize for no other reason, let it be an attempt at changing this stereotype. If bitter, judgmental Christians are the only people willing to speak out about the faith, then how can we expect the collective perception to be any different than it is?

The following are my Three Keys to Effective Evangelization.  I don’t pretend to be an expert on the subject, but I have seen plenty of examples of how not to evangelize. Hopefully this list can help you to avoid some common mistakes without having to first endure the trial and error.

1. Be happy. If you aren’t happy it shows. If the way you live your life doesn’t make you happy, why would anyone want to emulate you? People in commercials are always smiling because joy sells. If your faith doesn’t bring you joy, then you are not ready to evangelize. You should take some time to flesh out your own spiritual life before you attempt to share it with others. Finding a reliable spiritual adviser is a great place to start. You absolutely cannot successfully evangelize until your faith becomes a source of joy. If your faith isn’t joyful you run the risk of becoming that crotchety old Christian stereotype.

2. Don’t evangelize without a relationship. This brings us back to the Jehovah Witness dilemma. The reason that the door to door cold sell doesn’t work for evangelization is because you must first have a relationship. It’s not like selling a vacuum cleaner. A person’s faith is one of the most intimate aspects of their life. For most of us, we don’t discuss religion with casual acquaintances. For some of us, it’s hard to talk about our faith with even our closest friends and family. If you want to evangelize you need to be a people person and that takes time and effort. It doesn’t happen on accident and it doesn’t happen casually.  First build a relationship, then evangelize.

3. Don’t give advice you weren’t asked for. After completing the first two steps, it’s difficult to wait for that moment of evangelization. Once you have developed a rapport it can be tempting to dive right in - to force the conversation - but that can be a death blow to the relationship. When someone is open to what you have to say, they will let you know by asking those big questions. Until they ask, don’t answer. Nobody is receptive to advice they didn’t ask for, especially when it comes to religion.  

There is so much more to be said about evangelization. These three, super condensed principles are more of an introduction than anything – a starting point. It’s important to remember that evangelization takes time. It is over the course of many years that most people experience a conversion of heart. Our job is to be a source of joy in a world of suffering because joy is attractive. Once we develop a relationship, the source of our joy will eventually compel them to ask those deep questions. That is where evangelization takes place.

“Always be ready to give an explanation to anyone who asks you for a reason for your hope.” - 1 Peter 3:15

Jesus: The Original Savage

Savage: (’savij/noun/eng. slang): a person who is (without trying) an obvious legend and never fails to live up to his/her title as ‘a savage.’ (per: Urban Dictionary)

No other historical figure has come anywhere near leaving a social footprint as large and distinct as that of Jesus Christ - despite His humble beginnings. Jesus lived in a backwater district of a long-dead empire almost 2,000 years ago. He never held a political office, He worked as a common laborer for most of His life and was executed as a criminal after a court case that lasted less than twelve hours.

Many thousands of lives throughout history have met a similar end and yet none of them were remembered even one generation later. The contrast is mind boggling. Fast-forward 2,000 years and the name of Jesus Christ is known in every region of the world; He is worshiped as Divine by over 2 billion followers.

The claims put forward by His disciples in the aftermath of His execution were extraordinary, yet His followers went to their own deaths refusing to withdraw these shocking assertions. The disciples stuck to their story through persecutions that are unimaginable to the modern mind. They received no worldly power, wealth or acclaim in return. The fruits of their labor were suffering, ridicule and death.

Even skeptics and atheists must admit: the life of Jesus Christ is a story without equal, an event the likes of which has never been paralleled.

What is baffling however, is that so many well-intentioned believers attempt to reduce Jesus’ story down to a quaint little nursery rhyme. They condense the entirety of His teachings down to two words: ‘be nice.’ They want us to picture Jesus in a Hawaiian shirt patterned with peace signs and flowers in His hair.

As nice as Jesus may have been at times, you don’t suffer the death He suffered for politely asking people to be nice to each other. As loving as Jesus could be, nursery rhymes don’t end in crucifixion. Jesus was a rebel. His teachings were revolutionary. His followers were zealots. Jesus was the original savage.

Not buying it? Let’s open our Bibles and try to picture ‘Hippy Jesus’ saying some of the following:

·  Questioning your faith? Better not mention it to your kids, or else: “… it would be better for that person to have a large millstone tied around his neck and be drowned in the deep sea.” (Matthew 18:6)

·  Or remember that time one of the disciples wanted to bury his deceased father and Jesus’ advice was, “Let the dead bury the dead.” (Matthew 8:22)

·  Or that other time, when Jesus assured us that sinners would be thrown ‘into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’ (Matthew 13:50)

·  Are you having trouble overcoming temptation? Jesus has some advice for you: try cutting off your hand and gouging out your eye! (Mark 9:43)

These events are not in isolation. Jesus once called his best friend Satan. He promised to bring ‘not peace but a sword,’ and to set the world on fire, to turn fathers against their sons and mothers against their daughters. He told one of His followers that he would have been better off if he’d never been born.

Jesus was a radical and His message was polarizing. In John 6, we see many of His followers abandon Him because His teachings were ‘hard.’ If you aren’t made uncomfortable by the gospels, then you haven’t read them thoroughly enough. If the only message you take away from the gospel is that we all need to be nice to each other, then you have the wrong perception of Jesus. Jesus wasn’t a tree hugging flower child.

Jesus was the original savage.

I, Zacchaeus

For most of us the story of Zacchaeus is one of our earliest biblical memories. I can only assume this is because of the annoyingly catchy song that we all grew up singing (Zacchaeus was a wee little man). And for most of us, we had the same bland themes drummed into our heads: Jesus loves everybody, Jesus is willing to seek us out, Jesus was a friend of sinners, and so on.

Those themes are all present in this story but to say that the story of Zacchaeus is about ‘Jesus loving everybody’ is like saying that Harry Potter is the tale of a boy who got bullied by his cousin. There is so much more to the story. We tend to focus on Jesus when we read stories from the gospel – which is understandable. The real spiritual exercise for the Zacchaeus story, however, is found in the character of Zacchaeus himself.

Before we go any further, let’s take a minute to refresh ourselves on the story (Luke 19:1-10).

Jesus comes to visit the town of Jericho. There lives a man named Zacchaeus who is a sinful, tax collector and who is also very short. Zacchaeus is curious about this Jesus character and wants to get a look at Him; the only problem is that there is a large crowd and Zacchaeus is short. So, to solve the problem Zacchaeus runs ahead and climbs a Sycamore tree. Out of everyone assembled that day, Jesus singles out Zacchaeus the sinner and invites Himself over to Zacchaeus’ house for dinner.

If we focus solely on Jesus then yes, the theme is that of Jesus seeking out the sinner, the lost sheep, the lost coin, etc. But we must place ourselves in the shoes of Zacchaeus if we truly wish to grow.

 It’s easy to picture Jesus seeking us out. It’s a comforting thought and it’s true; God is constantly seeking relationship with us. If that’s all we learn from the story, however, then we are headed for disappointment. If our approach to the spiritual life is to sit back, kick up our feet and wait for God to come find us then we are setting ourselves up to fail. More importantly, if that’s our approach then we didn’t learn anything from the story of Zacchaeus.

Remember: Zacchaeus is short. Rarely if ever, do we see the gospel writers go to such great lengths to emphasize someone’s physical characteristics. There is a reason why they accentuate his height. It is a stumbling block that prevents him from encountering Jesus. 

What things prevent you from encountering Jesus?

Maybe you are struggling to pay attention to the gospel and the homily because of a new baby. Maybe you are having trouble forgiving a family member and often find your quiet time disrupted by irritated thoughts about the situation. Maybe you are angry at God because you have suffered tragedy or loss. Whatever it is that may be hindering you, it puts you squarely in the place of Zacchaeus – so learn from him.

Don’t sit back and wait for God to break down your door. Don’t cross your arms defiantly and wait for a miracle to bring you back into the fold. God is searching for you always, but He won’t force Himself against your will. Put yourself in a place – physically and spiritually - where you can encounter Him. Keep in mind, it may not be easy.

The story of Zacchaeus implies a certain level of physical exertion. They use the verbs ‘run’ and ‘climb’ when they describe Zacchaeus’ efforts to encounter Jesus. Don’t overlook this detail: Zacchaeus must work to make it happen. It’s easy to become frustrated, especially if you have tried and failed in the past, but Jesus is speaking to you through this gospel.

Jesus is reaching out to you in the promise He gives to Zacchaeus – the promise He is extending to you, this very second. “Today salvation has come to this house, because this person, too, is a child of Abraham. For the Son of Man came to seek and to save what is lost.” – Luke 19:9-10

Jesus is waiting.

Find your tree and begin your climb.

Judas Was a Protestant

When most people think of the first protestant they call to mind Martin Luther. Some people like to give John Calvin the credit. Still others consider the twelve apostles to be a form of proto-protestant. My claim is that the apostles as a whole were not protestants, but one of their number – Judas Iscariot – seemed to have a very protestant-esque theology.

Now before I go any further allow me a disclaimer: this article is deliberately tongue in cheek. I do not believe that Judas was actually a protestant (although there are conspicuous similarities). As Catholics we have many beliefs in common with our protestant brethren and a much smaller number of theological differences.  

It is, however, with one of the aforementioned points of contention that I begin this reflection: sola fide. Protestants believe that we are saved ‘by faith alone.’ As Catholics, we believe that having faith is a necessary prerequisite, however, what gets us into heaven is the works we did (or didn’t do) while we were alive. Another common way of articulating faith alone theology is with the expression: ‘once saved, always saved;’ meaning that once you acknowledge Jesus as your personal Lord and savior, then you are going to heaven, period. It doesn’t matter what sins or shortcomings you might display afterwards – it’s all good – you’re still headed for the pearly gates.

Now let us consider Judas.

We moderns are quick to deride poor Judas. It’s always easy in hindsight to criticize decisions made in the moment. For example, when Simba went to that Elephant Graveyard after Mufasa strictly forbid it – obviously a terrible decision in retrospect. Even those with a cursory knowledge of the gospels could tell you that Judas made a terrible decision; hindsight is 20/20 after all. But as a protestant it would be easy – dare I say compulsory - to make the claim that Judas, despite betraying the Son of God, still made it to heaven… somewhere in the world, a protestant just spit out a mouthful of coffee after reading that – but humor me.

According to the tenets of ‘once saved, always saved’ theology, Judas has a strong case. Did he accept Jesus as his personal Lord and savior? You better believe it. Judas dropped everything to follow Jesus; he literally gave up hearth and home to travel around the desert in the footsteps of Christ. He suffered persecution, poverty, hunger and thirst. No one alive today could claim a more intimate relationship with our Lord and savior than did Judas Iscariot. Sure, he flubbed things up pretty bad there at the end, he had his ‘Elephant Graveyard moment.’ But the theology of ‘once saved, always saved’ is very accommodating to Judas (and Simba, I’m sure).

The Catholic perspective is pretty cut and dried. The Church will never claim to know for certain that any one person went to Hell. But the Church does claim the possibility that anyone (even baptized or ‘saved’ Christians) could wind up in Hell. At the end of the day the decision is God’s and God’s alone, but the status of salvation is dynamic and subject to change based on our actions (a.k.a. works).

Jesus frequently references the ‘vine and branches’ analogy. He is the vine and we – Christians in a state of grace (a.k.a. ‘saved’) - are the branches. But does Jesus say that those ‘saved’ Christians (branches attached to the vine) will stay in that state forever? Negative, ghost rider. Jesus addresses this issue in the gospel of John, Chapter 15. He says the branches that do not bear fruit will be “taken away” by God and the people will “… gather them and throw them into a fire and they will be burned.” Jesus doesn’t sound too optimistic about the ‘faith alone’ cause.

Now let’s return to poor Judas, hanging in the balance all this while. Is he saved or not? According to protestant theology it would be difficult to claim that he isn’t. According to Catholic theology however, his odds appear much less certain. Why leave it up to us though? Let’s ask Jesus Himself, since He already addressed this very question 2,000 years ago (open your Bible to Matthew 26:24 if you want to follow along).

Me: “Jesus, did Judas go to heaven?” ß Not an actual Bible quote.

Jesus: “Woe to that man [Judas]… It would be better for that man if he had never been born.”

So, there you have it folks. Whether Judas was truly a protestant or not, he was certainly led astray by protestant-like theology. Which then begs the question: Is hindsight really 20/20? I guess I can’t answer that. I can however, leave you with this piece of advice: don’t be like Judas.

Faith, Mystery and Star Wars

There are things about the Catholic faith that are hard to believe. There are some teachings of Catholicism that I don’t want to believe. There are doctrines that are difficult to rationalize. And what is (seemingly) worse is that some of these dogmas the Church Herself has formally declared to be mysteries. For many people this is a hard teaching. We are put off by the idea of a ‘mystery.’ In our vanity, we don’t like to be told that we can’t know. For hyper rationalists and skeptics this can lead to frustration, even despair. For the devout atheist this is the cause of much smug condescension.

But what about the rest of us? What about the committed Catholics, who aren’t afraid to open our minds to difficult matters of faith? We have all heard empty platitudes such as, “That’s for God to know, and for us to find out!” or “You’ve just gotta have faith!” As much as I can appreciate that stalwart certitude, it is cold comfort to many of us. So how do we approach the dogmas that are defined as mysteries?

I’ll begin with a story.

When I was a kid Star Wars was to me what the wall is to Donald Trump. I obsessed over it; I talked endlessly about it to anyone who would listen. I needed more and more Star Wars merchandise, and I was convinced that I could force Mexico to pay for it… oops, I got my analogies crossed there; but I digress. The point is, I loved Star Wars.

When I was about twelve years old Star Wars released a computer game titled Jedi Knight: Jedi Academy. I wanted that game for an agonizingly long time, but my parents had a strict rule and wouldn’t buy us anything unless it was for Christmas or our birthday. I was forced to wait while saving up the money myself. When I finally purchased the game, it was everything I had hoped for. I spent every free minute of every day battling the Evil Galactic Empire and saving the galaxy from the Sith. To this day there has never been another video game that I spent that much time playing.

As much as I loved Jedi Academy, however, the day inevitably came when I was bored with it. I had seen and done everything there was to do. I had beaten all the levels and tried out all the different light sabers; the game no longer held any wonder for me.

The human mind is made to learn; we literally hunger for new information to consume. It naturally follows then that once we know something fully we move on from it to our next fascination. Just like my 12-year-old self and the computer game, we abandon things as soon as the mystery is gone. This is not only true for video games but also for movies, books, new phones, gadgets, and so on.

What if we could add God to that list? That is after all, what modern skeptics demand. What if we were able to fully understand and quantify the essence of the Divine? The reality of our biological design answers that question for us: If we could fully understand the mysteries of our faith in this life, then we would cease to pursue them.

The good news for us is that God knows us better than we know ourselves, and why shouldn’t he? He made us, after all. We are perfectly designed to engage in the divine mysteries. It gives us something that we can pursue without exhausting, an intellectual stimulant that knows no bounds. That pursuit is the essence of the spiritual life. That relentless search for the True, the Good and the Beautiful is what constitutes the life of the Christian. Praying, studying and meditating upon the great Christian mysteries extends to us a never-ending invitation to move perpetually closer to Christ. To lose that is to lose everything.

When we are confronted with mystery we shouldn’t view it as a barricade. Only a closed mind would turn and walk away. It is not a barrier. Too many people think of mystery as an immense ocean separating us from Truth - separating us from Christ. But the ocean itself is Truth - the living water. Christ stands before us, offering us a straw, and commanding us to drink from the well that will never run dry. Thank God for mysteries. 

Suffering Amplifies Our Joy

We have all experienced a head cold. As a teacher, I am particularly susceptible to them since I spend every day around children. They come on suddenly, when out of a clear blue sky we feel that ominous, tickling sensation deep in our sinus cavities, often accompanied by a sneeze or two. For a brief while we convince ourselves that it’s just allergies, or a little dust in our sinuses. We mollify our fragile psyches with false assurances: “it’s not a cold… I’ll be fine.” But the moment inevitably arrives when our nose becomes a faucet and our head a throbbing, pressure cooker. The congestion eventually settles in our chest as we begin the agonizing cycle of coughing, exacerbated by a sore throat.

This is suffering. It strikes unforeseen, sadistically disrupting our daily routines.

There is a moment during every cold where the same thought inevitably crosses my mind: “How on earth could I have taken for granted the wonderful feeling of being able to breathe through my nose, having no congestion, being able to finish a sentence without coughing up a lung.” Suddenly, the simplest blessings, things we take for granted every day, become our heart’s greatest desire. And when the cold finally abates, there follows a day or two where we truly are appreciative of our good health. But that period of gratitude comes and goes all too quickly… until the next cold, that is.

I assume most people can relate to the trials of a head cold. I write about the experience with a healthy dose of hyperbole (in case you couldn’t tell), but the sensation, exaggerated as this account may be, is all too real. A head cold in the grand scheme of things is low on the list of actual tribulations. As terrible as it may seem at the time, it pales in comparison to the true suffering of a terminal illness, the death of a loved one, financial catastrophe, unanswered prayers, unrequited love. These are the experiences that have tortured human existence for time immemorial, leading many to nihilism and misery. No matter what our station in life, no matter the size of our bank role or the strength of our arm, we are all subject to the world-shattering travails of human suffering. Suffering and death are the two great equalizers.

But what if we could eradicate misery? How many of us at different times in our lives have wished it could be so? Imagine a world without suffering, without death. At first glance it seems like Eden reborn, like a perfect utopia. And if it came to be it certainly would feel wonderful… but only for a little while. Eventually however, true Joy would become a distant memory, unattainable. Our greatest achievements would be as straw upon the wind or a single grain of sand upon the seashore. Existence, life, the very act of being itself would cease to possess even the tiniest sliver of meaning.

In truth, it is suffering, imperfection, death and misery that allow us to experience and appreciate the absence of sorrow, the ordinary, the everyday. In the same way that a head cold helps us to value good health; in a much more powerful way death and suffering allow us to treasure life because of its fragility – rather than in spite of it.

There is a scene in the movie Troy where the hero Achilles speaks of the inherent beauty of mortality. He makes the claim that the gods of the Greek pantheon who are immortal and exponentially more powerful than humans, are in fact envious of our humanity. Achilles says:

“The gods envy us. They envy us because we’re mortal, because any moment may be our last. Everything is more beautiful because we’re doomed. You will never be lovelier than you are now. We will never be here again.”

This perspective is certainly cold comfort to anyone in the midst of grief. Grief is inescapable, it is the natural reaction that our body makes in response to tragedy. You could no more prevent grief than you could stop your hair from growing. But for those of us who are not currently struggling through misery, those of us who are in the middle of our seemingly ordinary, day to day humdrums, should take a moment to reflect upon this thought. There is no such thing as an ‘ordinary day.’ Every day is beautiful. Every day is a gift from God. Every day ended, is gone forever. And that is beautiful. Suffering is in our future, death lies ahead, misery waits… But beauty is in the contrast, happiness is in the ordinary, joy is in the now.

“But seek first the kingdom [of God] and His righteousness, and all these things will be given you besides. Do not worry about tomorrow; tomorrow will take care of itself. Sufficient unto the day, is the evil thereof.” – Matthew 6:33-34

Killing Credibility: How Catholics Undermine the Church's Teachings

For years now the Catholic Church’s teachings on same sex attraction have been falling upon deaf ears. As Catholics, we are quick to point to the secular culture and decry the deterioration of morals so evident in our television and media. This cultural decline is very real and certainly has not helped the cause of traditional values, but to place all the blame there is a straw man argument.

When Catholics argue against same sex unions in the public sphere there is an inherent, yet confusing lack of credibility to our claims. It took me many years to put my finger on just why that is. From the time I was in Catholic school as a child I could quote what the Bible and the Catechism teach about same sex unions, but there has always seemed to be a hollow ring to those arguments.

The truth of the matter lies in the scope and scale of the Church’s teaching on sexuality. When we discuss same sex attraction and same sex unions we are only scratching the surface of a much more broad and rich teaching on the purpose of sexuality. Yes, the Church teaches that to act upon the impulses of same sex attraction is sinful because that is not what sex was designed for. As true as that may be it is unfortunately, the only carnal sin that most Catholics are willing to publicly decry. Meanwhile, many of those same Catholics are willing to turn a blind eye to their friends and family who engage in all sorts of other carnal sins: adultery, fornication, masturbation, divorce and remarriage, etc. That is cherry picking. It is the equivalent of lambasting someone for stealing a gold watch while simultaneously sheltering a friend of yours who has stolen a diamond necklace. It is hypocritical.  

The truth of the matter is that Christians destroyed marriage many years before the status of civil marriage was extended to include same sex unions. The sexual revolution tore sexuality into a thousand pieces and has left future generations like ours to try to make sense of a shattered picture. Many argue that it was during the 1970’s with no fault divorce that this downward trend began; but faithful Catholics would point to the Lambeth Conference of 1930 as the true catalyst.

The ideas put forth at this conference started the ball rolling in mainstream Protestantism for the acceptance of contraception. From the moment that sex was separated from it’s natural ends, the procreative (and unitive) bond between spouses, the lid was off Pandora’s Box. Rather than having pleasure as a means and procreative unity as the ends; we were able to make pleasure the end and the means subjective. Once pleasure became the end goal then there was practically nothing off limits in the pursuit of sexual pleasure - sodomy being just one item on a tragically long list. To single out same sex unions generations later and try to paint them as the culprit is not only incorrect – it’s insincere.

Imagine that you went to visit the Eiffel Tower but kept your head down as you approached it and immediately ducked into the restroom. Now imagine that you spent your entire afternoon in the restroom of the Eiffel Tower, thoroughly examining and investigating each urinal, stall and sink. As you leave, you march briskly back to your hotel without a single backward glance, coming and going without ever actually glimpsing the tower itself. You would walk away from that experience thinking that the Eiffel Tower was disgusting, smelly and dirty. But would your perspective of the Eiffel Tower be an accurate one? Of course not. You only viewed one small portion of the Eiffel Tower. Bathrooms are a necessary part of the design of any public place (as unpleasant as they may be), but they are not the main attraction. Likewise, same sex attraction is just one necessary part of the Church’s teachings on sexuality but it’s not the main attraction. When viewed in isolation it is difficult to understand for the average lay person.

If we as Catholics only ever criticize same sex unions then of course the secular world is going to believe that we are prejudiced and bigoted. Until we can just as readily speak out against living together before marriage, adultery, civil divorce and all the rest, then we are playing right into all of those ‘Christian bigot’ stereotypes that we so greatly loath. There are many faithful Catholics who do a great job in this regard; if you are one of them then kudos to you. But for the rest of us (I know I struggle with this as well), we are hurting the credibility of the Church’s teaching. The true victims of this error are those who suffer from same sex attraction. The fullness of Truth rests in the Church that Christ founded. When we live lives that alienate certain groups of people from this Truth, the mistake is not theirs’. The true culpability rests squarely upon our shoulders.

The Question of Same Sex Attraction

In the year 2018, there is no topic more polarizing than that of same sex unions, or what the secular culture would call “gay marriage.” I don’t use the term “gay marriage,” because in a Theological sense it is a self-contradictory statement. Sacramental Matrimony, as understood by the Catholic Church, can only take place between a man and a woman. So as a Catholic, I use the term same sex union.

As people of faith, we have become timid about the Church’s teachings. Witnessing the savagery that has surrounded the new era of identity politics, we have become hesitant to voice our opinions for fear of the backlash we might incur. That backlash is becoming increasingly severe in western civilization as we see almost weekly, cases of private business owners being sued and stripped of their livelihood for trying to live lives consistent with the demands of their conscience.

Amidst the noise and confusion, we must ask ourselves this question: what is the Church’s vision for people with same sex attraction? The answer is profoundly simple: the Church’s vision for homosexuals is no different from Her vision for heterosexuals. We are called to know, love and serve God while discerning the vocation that He is calling us to live out. This is a reality that comes as a surprise to most gay rights activists. There is a common misconception that Catholics with same sex attraction are given a separate, and much more difficult set of rules to adhere to – but that’s simply not true.

At the end of the day you hear a lot of talk about love. Slogans like, “Love is Love” and “Love Wins,” are plastered all over social media. The common liberal mantra is: “People should be able to love whoever they want to love;” to which the Catholic should respond, “Absolutely!” In fact, we must take it even one step further because Christ called us to love everyone, not just the people we ‘want to love.’

This is where the modern secularist becomes frustrated and befuddled. The point of confusion surrounds the use of the word ‘love.’ We take the word love at face value (meaning: to will the good for another), but when the left talks about the license to love freely, what they are really talking about is sex. And that is where the Church draws a very necessary line. Why? Because we hate gays and want to ruin their lives? Because we think homosexuals should be held to a higher standard? Because we are closed minded prudes? No, no, and no.

We have very strict rules about sex because we know that sex was created by God (not Miley Cyrus), and that it was created for a very specific purpose. That purpose is the unitive and procreative expression of love between two spouses united in the sacrament of Holy Matrimony… Period. Anything and everything that falls outside of that exclusive definition is considered sinful. It doesn’t matter if you are an unmarried couple, or a husband having an affair, or a gay couple; the answer to all of them is: that’s not what sex was designed for. In fact, the group of people who the Church holds to the highest standard of sexual ethics are Catholic priests (no sex for you, ever, period). It’s not about singling out homosexuals and telling them what they shouldn’t do. It’s about determining the divine purpose of sexual intimacy and telling everyone (gay and straight alike) what they should do, regarding sex.

Sex is the single most powerful tool at the disposal of humanity. It is because of sex that humanity has existed for thousands of years and will continue to exist. Like all great and powerful things at our disposal we must treat them with the respect they are due. You shouldn’t use an iPhone to hammer a nail. Even though you probably could, that is not what the iPhone was designed for. You shouldn’t use sex outside of the bounds of Holy Matrimony. Even though you’re physically able to, that’s not what sex was designed for. We are all called to uphold this standard in our lives, no matter what type of sexual temptation we may face.

As for the separate issue of love, we are called to an even higher standard in that regard. It’s not enough to just “love whoever we want to love” (as the mantra goes); we must love everyone – straight or gay, friend or foe, neighbor or stranger, liberal or conservative. These are all just labels to hide behind while hurling insults in the arena of identity politics. They are barriers that must be torn down if we are to truly live out God’s radical call to love as we were intended. Then, and only then, can we truly say, “love wins.”

Liberal Logic, Or Lack Thereof

As a Catholic, and therefore a social conservative, I find flaws in virtually every argument that I hear from the secular left. The intellectual culprit behind this is the cornerstone of modern Liberalism: Relativism. Relativism is essentially the belief that there is no such thing as absolute Truth; or in other words, what’s true for you is not necessarily true for me. There are numerous falsehoods within this mindset. Firstly, Relativism is self-contradictory. If I say, “There is no such thing as absolute truth,” well, that statement itself is an absolute truth and therefore self-refuting. So, what you are actually saying is, “there is no truth, except my truth.” Which isn’t a valid argument – unless you’re three years old.

Another serious objection to Relativism is found in the very nature of Truth. Truth, by definition, is exclusive and eternal. This concept of ‘my truth vs. your truth’ is irrational. Just like in Highlander, ‘there can be only one’ truth, and I promise you that it doesn’t care about your feelings. For instance, if I asked two people what the answer to three plus two is, and one of them says “five,” while the other says “Abraham Lincoln,” it’s illogical to say, “they are both right, they are just living out their ‘own’ truth.” They’re not both right, because truth is exclusive. One of them has spoken the truth, and the other one is a moron.

I could go on for days about the logical fallacies of Relativism, but that’s not what this article is about. These first two paragraphs simply serve to demonstrate how the underlying foundation of modern liberalism is inherently flawed. This will help you to understand how it is, that so many of the arguments we hear from the secular left are completely irrational. I have chosen the top three (for the sake of brevity) and I will spend this post demonstrating why they are totally illogical.

1.   “I believe that abortion is wrong, and I would never get one. But I can’t tell other people what to do with their bodies.”

This argument is commonly used as a last-ditch effort, made by a reeling liberal, after getting completely pummeled in a debate about abortion. Unable to justify abortion in its own right, they have pulled the intellectual equivalent of jumping out of the plane (without a parachute). If this argument were true, then by the very nature of Truth, it would have to be true in all circumstances – so let’s try it on for size. “I believe murder is wrong, but I can’t tell others what to do with their bodies… I believe people should drive the speed limit, but I can’t tell others what to do with their vehicles… I believe that wearing clothes in public is a good thing, but…” I’ll stop there, because the list could go on (literally) forever. And therein lies the problem. If this particular liberal argument were true, then it would be impossible to pass any laws, not just abortion laws. Because at the end of the day, every law ever passed limits, in some way, what other people can do with their bodies.

2.   “A person can be biologically male but identify ‘psychologically’ as a female.” (And vice versa).

This is an argument that has similar repercussions to the previous one. If this statement is true, then there is literally no limit to where we can take it. For instance, if I made the assertion that I am actually Napoleon Bonaparte reincarnated, there would be just as much evidence to corroborate that claim as there would be to support the claim that I am a ‘psychological female’ in a man’s body. The underlying problem is that this argument is based in feelings, and not facts. Male and Female are determined by your 23^rd chromosome pair (the sex chromosome); if you have an XX combination you are female and if you have an XY pair then you are male. People are best equipped to thrive, when their psychology matches up with reality. Your sex chromosome is a reality, and people are infinitely better off if their psychological status aligns with that reality. No matter how many people I convince to refer to me as “General Bonaparte,” I will never truly be satisfied, because my damaged psyche is out of alignment with reality. Attempting to skew reality to align with a form of psychological trauma will only ever lead to suffering and confusion for everyone involved.

3.   “If you don’t condone someone’s actions, then you are prejudiced against them as a person.”

This line of thinking is generally associated with (but not exclusive to) same sex unions. As a Catholic, I believe that acting upon same sex attraction is a sin, but simply experiencing an attraction towards the same sex is not sinful in and of itself. In the same way, a heterosexual, married man, might be tempted to have an affair. Simply feeling tempted, is not a sin (so long as he doesn’t dwell upon the thought). The second that he acts upon that temptation however, he has crossed over the line into sin. I have loved ones who drink too much, friends who do drugs, cheat on their spouses, cheat on their taxes – you name it. I love them all, while at the same time disagreeing with their sinful actions. In the same way, we can objectively declare abortion and same sex unions to be sinful, without hating the people who carry out these actions. Blurring the line between opposing actions and opposing people, is just a form of labeling. Taping your opponents mouth shut with a label is just a subtle form of oppression.

Truth is eternal, and exclusive. What is true will still be true, even if there is no one left who believes it. What is false, will continue to be false, no matter how many people become tangled in the falsehood. The finality and absolute nature of Truth can be intimidating at first glance, but it shouldn’t be. Human flourishing can only manifest fully, when we align our psyche with reality. As a wise man once said, “The Truth will set you free.”

The Abortion Debate Is Over... Or Is It?

In public discussions about abortion there seems to be a “dead end pattern” to the dialogue. The constant refrain from pro-choice advocates goes something like this: “Abortion is legal, deal with it.” or “If you don’t like abortion then don’t get one but you can’t deny others their rights.” There is a confident air of finality to pro-choice rebuttals as if they are arguing that the earth is round, or the sun is the center of our solar system. They truly believe the debate about abortion is over and that they have won. But the debate is not over. In fact, the debate about abortion has yet to begin.

Allow me to explain.

Think back to the last time you discussed abortion with someone who was pro-choice. Did the conversation center around the act of (and therefore morality of) destroying a child in the womb? Or did you find yourself arguing over secondary issues such as: women’s rights, healthcare, rape, and incest? My money is on the latter. Now ask yourself this: in hindsight, was your debate really about abortion or was it about a secondary issue?

Don’t get me wrong, all these secondary issues are important and many of them are heartbreakingly tragic. As a husband and father I understand the gravity of these painful realities. But they are, nonetheless, secondary. This is the point in the conversation where rabid pro-choicers will generally try to paint me as a heartless, misogynist who kicks puppies and leaves the toilet seat up. But let’s be honest, you could debate something as benign as aspirin vs. Tylenol and they would probably still accuse you of being a racist bigot. Also, in the spirit of full disclosure I do have a bad habit of leaving the toilet seat up.

Hate me if you must but I will go even one step further. I assert the claim that it is important to keep rape, incest and women’s health secondary when discussing abortion - because they are significant in their own right. It is because rape is a horrific tragedy that it deserves its own discussion rather than being a footnote in a debate about abortion. The same goes for incest, women’s health and all of the above. We’re not making these issues secondary; we are making them the primary concern of a separate discussion.

Once you get past secondary issues you can finally cut to the core of the abortion debate. In doing so you find that there is only one question that matters: does the act of destroying a child in the womb end a human life? The answer is a simple yes or no but the ramifications of that answer are world-shattering. If the answer is yes (and I believe it is), then are there really any secondary issues that can rationalize infanticide? As tragic and emotional as they may be, do they justify the murder of a child? I assume that the average person would answer no to that question and rightly so.

Maybe you are someone who would answer no to the original question, asserting that abortion is not murder. If so, that’s a great place to begin a meaningful conversation with someone on the other side of the aisle. Debating that question and that question alone, is the only conversation that constitutes a true debate about abortion.

It sounds simple, but it is not. Keeping a pro-choicer on the topic of abortion is like wrestling a greased pig.  The pro-choice mind has been trained to immediately segue the conversation into any one of a whole subset of secondary issues. It is how we as a country managed to legalize the greatest evil our world has ever known. It shouldn’t surprise anyone that we have used bad arguments to pigeonhole the abortion debate. For most people it is a tactic that is learned at a very young age.

As a teacher I encounter this strategy all the time in dealing with children. When a child is caught red-handed doing something they know is wrong they will never attempt to justify the wrong that they did. In the same way, pro-choicers won’t try to argue that abortion is a good thing because they know inherently that it is evil. What they do instead is point to a secondary issue that is also evil and use it in an attempt to rationalize the evil of abortion. Likewise, a child who is in trouble won’t attempt to claim that what they did was a good thing; instead they will try to vindicate their wrong by drawing attention to a separate incident that is also wrong. You can imagine how these excuses go: “But he pushed me first… But she called me a name… But he was cheating…” and so on. I guess what I am saying is that we all start out with a pro-choice mindset; the only difference is that some of us grow up.

I have learned to treat pro-choice people the same way I treat children at school. If something is wrong, it can’t be justified by another wrong. A secondary issue, tragic as it may be, does not justify the evil of abortion. The debate about abortion is summarized with one question: Is abortion murder? That is the only question that truly matters in this discussion. 

So let the real debate (finally) begin. 

Just Say No - To Yourself

We have all seen plenty of self-help books that emphasize the importance of being able to say ‘no’ to people. Growing up we were taught by our local D.A.R.E. officer to “just say no,” to drugs. We have heard frequently and tragically, the mantra “no means no,” regarding sexual predation. These are all common examples and make for some useful advice. However, the most important person you must learn to say ‘no’ to is yourself. Saying no to ourselves seems simple, so simple in fact that you might think it asinine but I can assure you that’s not the case.

We live in a consumeristic society that is driven by advertisements. Even our

Facebook videos are interrupted by ads now (and don’t even get me started on YouTube). The point of every single commercial ever made is to overpower your ability to say no to whatever item they are peddling. Caving in to this temptation one time is usually harmless. However, each time we say yes to an advertisement we increase the likelihood that we will say yes to the next one as well and the next one after that and so on. We all know people who have lost control of this situation and have room after room in their home so stuffed full of junk you can’t tell what color the carpet is.

Extreme cases are easy to identify and make us quick to justify our own shortcomings. We call to mind a friend or relative who is a hoarder and tell ourselves, “Well I’m nowhere near that bad,” as we purchase a bigger television to replace the (smaller) one that works just fine. Or when we immediately run out and buy the new iPhone, because…. well… it’s the new one. If we only ever compare ourselves to the worst-case scenario then it becomes all too easy to rationalize our own weaknesses. A healthy spiritual life isn’t determined by the absence of evil, but rather by the presence of virtue.

We fight these miniature battles against ourselves dozens of times every day without even realizing it. The reason that we don’t think of them as battles is twofold: 1) we usually give in before we notice a struggle and 2) because they generally pertain to (seemingly) small decisions. For example, when we’re watching Netflix and the dishes need to be done but that next episode pops up, ready to start itself; we have a brief opportunity to say no to ourselves. How often do we lose that battle? When we order the #6 combo at Taco Bell (Chalupa’s are my Kryptonite) but we have already had our daily quota of pop and we know we really should get water, but the meal comes with a fountain drink. How often do we lose that battle?

Again, these examples seem small and harmless and in isolation they may very well be. But any skill at which we become proficient begins with baby steps. We learn to crawl before we learn to walk and we learn to say no under seemingly trivial circumstances before we have the willpower to say no in serious situations. This is a vitally important skill to master. When we look at the big picture, how many of our life-long problems are caused by an inability to say no? Obesity, alcoholism, budgeting, child rearing, drug addiction, promiscuity, credit card bills, clutter, etc.; the list applies to every facet of our lives. It naturally follows then, that learning to curb our appetites has the potential to improve every facet of our lives. Stop for a moment and reflect upon that simple, lifechanging statement.

When we learn to say no to ourselves over the little things we are building the intestinal fortitude to overcome temptation. Matthew Kelly has described it as doing a ‘spiritual pushup.’ The Church in her wisdom, has given us opportunities to build virtue by saying no to ourselves through a process called mortification. Every week, for an hour before mass we are required to fast; which seems trivial but it is a spiritual pushup nonetheless. All throughout lent and even during advent we have opportunities to practice mortification. These incidents seem small, even irrelevant but they are not. One pushup by itself is useless but a lifetime spent doing pushups will see tremendous gains. Our spiritual life is no different. Mortification is the spiritual practice that we need in order to be able to compete at the highest levels of spiritual warfare.

My challenge to you, is to implement this in your life right now, today. Nothing life changing - something simple. Most diets fail because people try to change every aspect of their life on day one; like diving into the deep end before you have learned to swim. Don’t do that. Pick something small today and something a little bigger tomorrow. Stay off Facebook after 7p.m. or limit yourself to one episode on Netflix or have a glass of water when you want pop. It seems simple, but it is (literally) how saints are made. Take it from a future Saint, Archbishop Fulton Sheen, who said it best, “A man’s character is dependent upon his ability to say no.”