Think About It

These are the things you need to think about.

Category: Uncategorized

March 13, 2025

The Human Person

It’s been more than two years since the Supreme Court issued the Dobbs Decision that overturned the infamous 1973 Roe v. Wade Case. The majority of the Court held that abortion was neither a specific nor implied right protected by the Constitution and returned the authority to regulate abortion to the States. The decision has had little impact on the number of abortions performed annually.  In fact, the use of telemedicine to prescribe abortion pills has actually led to an increase in the number of abortions.

While Dobbs appears to be a pro-life victory, it really isn’t, because what Dobbs effectively does is to give the states the power to define a person.  Think about it. Only people have human rights, and our human rights are dependent on us being a person. And doesn’t the question of abortion ultimately hinge upon when a human life becomes a person? Now, each individual state gets to make that decision; legislative bodies and politicians get to decide on who is a person and who is not. Of course, that’s been tried before, and it didn’t work out too well. 

In 1860, the Southern States insisted that black people were not people but “property.” The result was a Civil War in which one out of every twenty Americans was killed or wounded.  In 1935, Germany passed a series of laws that classified people as “Untermensch.” The term literally means “sub-human.”  It was initially applied to non-Aryans, specifically the Jews, but was expanded to include Poles, Slavs, Czechs, Ukrainians, Russians, Serbs, homosexuals, the physically and mentally disabled, and just about anyone else the Nazis deemed unworthy of living. The result was eleven million people exterminated in the gas chambers and ovens of the holocaust.

Legislative bodies or the judiciary cannot determine who is a person and who is not because, as history has shown, the consequences will be disastrous. There must be a universal definition that applies equally to everyone everywhere.

Most pro-abortion advocates embrace John Locke’s definition of a person which states that a person is, “a thinking intelligent being that has reason and reflection and can consider itself as itself, the same thinking thing, in different times and places.”  Although Locke’s definition seems reasonable, it is dangerously flawed because personhood is dependent upon one’s ability; the ability to think, the ability to reason, and the ability to reflect.  However, we know that there are people who do not possess these “abilities.”

Infants and babies, those with severe mental and developmental disabilities, and perhaps even those with advanced dementia or Alzheimer’s. These people are certainly human beings, but they do not necessarily possess those abilities that Locke says makes them a person. Our personhood, our human essence, must exist at a fundamental level that’s deeper than an ability that can be diminished or never actualized, and that level must be evident in the process by which human life originates.

We know that biological life originates at the cellular level. The sperm fertilizes the egg, a single cell zygote is formed, it starts to divide, and the process of life begins, but how does a human being come into existence?

Human beings, like everything else in creation, come into existence at the quantum level of reality.  The quantum level is the subatomic boundary where waves of energy take on mass and become matter. In terms of creation, it is where the rubber meets the road.

Scientists theorize that when the sperm and egg merge, the Higgs fields of their subatomic particles become entangled, creating microscopic black holes through with human consciousness passes affixing itself to the mass of the embryo, and triggering the release of 20-billion zinc atoms in a “zinc spark” or flash of light which initiates the process of life.

Where does the consciousness come from? The theory is that the black holes create Einstein-Rosenberg Bridges that connect the physical reality of our space-time to whatever is on the other side; the quantum field, the Source, or some Universal Consciousness that permeates all of creation, no one really knows.  However, the result is a single cell embryo that is imbued with an individual consciousness and contains a unique and never duplicated blueprint of life, which is a combination of the parent’s DNA.

It is a fascinating theory, and if true would mean that general relativity, quantum gravity, and human consciousness are unified at the moment of fertilization.  There is, however, a simpler and more eloquent explanation of what happens at the instant of conception.

The Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, creates a human being in the likeness and image of the Creator, with an eternal and immortal soul.

Religion calls it an immortal soul, the spiritual and immaterial essence of a person, that animates life, is capable of moral judgement, and survives and separates from the body at death.

Science calls it consciousness, the animating life force that possesses the awareness and intelligence to direct and sustain the evolution and development of the human organism.  A consciousness that near-death studies indicate, and the New York Academy of Science has concluded, survives bodily death.

Think about it, aren’t science and religion saying the same thing?  They describe the phenomenon of conception in the vocabulary of their own disciplines, but they have come to the same conclusion. That at the moment of conception we are imbued with our essence, that unique, intrinsic characteristic that defines us and makes us who we are.

At conception we are imbued with a consciousness or soul that will survive the death of our biological body. This occurs long before there are organs or a brain. At the instant of fertilization, it is a human life, a unique an individual human being.

There is no need for any political body or judicial decision to define a person because our personhood is inherent in the life force which animates us and gives us life.  We are endowed with our inalienable rights at the instant of our creation, and we are a person from the moment of our conception to the death of our biological body.

Human institutions the govern our societies need to recognize this truth and pass legislation and enact laws that are needed to protect the human person.

Leave a comment
September 20, 2024

“I am one of the ways, and the truth, and the life?”

Some time ago in the very distant past, one of our ancestors was lying on a grassy hill looking up at the stars spanning across the night sky and asked him or herself, “Where did all this come from? Where did I come from? Why am I here?”  And from that day on, that need to know has been embedded in our DNA.

Okay, it did not actually happen that way, but you get the picture. The need to know, our desire for an understanding of our origins and place in creation is an innate component of our human nature. It is the thirst for the divine, or the pursuit of God.

Now, most people associate the pursuit of God with religion, but that is not necessarily the case. While religion relies upon revelation and sacred scripture in its pursuit of God, philosophy relies solely upon the intellect and reason, and there are numerous philosophical proofs of the existence of God.

Aristotle and Plotinus successfully argued for the existence of a prime mover and first cause. Augustin and Aquinas reasoned for the existence of a divine mind and a subsistent existence. And the Islamic philosopher Avicenna and German philosopher Gottfried Leibniz proved the existence of a necessary and non-contingent being. Although these proofs are strictly products of the human intellect, they prove the existence of an infinite, immutable, self-sufficient, omnipotent, omnipresent, non-material, and perfect being that we refer to as God.

These philosophical proofs may appear to be just academic exercises that have no real impact on the real world. However, in reality their influence on humanity cannot be overstated because they are embedded in the theologies, doctrines, and traditions of the world’s great religions.

While there are thousands of religions, the five great religions of the world are Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, and Judaism because eighty percent of the world’s population belong to one of these faiths. Hinduism is the oldest of these religions and Islam is the youngest. Christianity is the most populous with 2.3 billion members and Judaism is the least populus with only 15.7 million Jews in the world. Hinduism and Buddhism are the most geographically concentrated with the majority of Hindus living in India and most of the Buddhist living in Indonesia and China. Christianity is the most geographically disbursed having a presence on the six inhabited continents. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are related in that they are Abrahamic religions, that is, they are the descendants of the Abraham found in the Hebrew and Christian Bibles as well as in the Quran, and Buddhism because of the proximity of geography has a common origin with Hinduism.

Other than age and membership what makes these religions great? What has enabled these faiths to thrive while others have faded away? What is the appeal that makes so many people willing to subscribe to one of these religions?

Well, if you think about it, religion must help people navigate the pilgrimage of life. What benefit can people derive from belonging to one of these faiths? Pragmatically, all of the great religions have a moral code that helps bring order and structure to the societies that embrace them. There are the Ten Commandments of the Abrahamic religions, the Rgveda or Five Commandments of Hinduism, and the Ten Grand Precepts of Buddhism that all basically say the same thing; do not kill, do not commit adultery, and do not lie, cheat, or steal. Basic common-sense rules that help people coexist and societies thrive.

However, beyond social harmony and coexistence religion needs to offer something more. There needs to be something that helps people find purpose and meaning in their existence, and the ritualistic practices of these religions along with the act of gathering to worship with others who share a common belief can help do that. The understanding that you are not alone, and the belief that you are a part of something eternal can add a level of consolation and comfort to a life that faces the certitude of death.

Finally, there needs to be a spiritual component of religion that assists the individual in their quest for the divine. All of the great religions, with the exception of Hinduism, have founders, spiritual guides and teachers that help people along their path to God. Judaism has Abraham and Moses, Christianity Jesus, Islam Muhammad, and Buddhism Siddhartha Gutama (the “Buddha”). Of course, there have been many other Spiritual Masters throughout the ages, Confucius for example, and what they all have in common is that they were real people, not myths or fictions, but actual human beings. Extraordinary people certainly, but regular people, who made no claim of divinity, but taught truths that directed people toward the divine. All of them, except Jesus.

Jesus is the exception. He did not proclaim himself to be just another spiritual master among many. Jesus claimed that he was divine, the Word made flesh, the Second Person of the Trinity. He proclaimed, “I and the Father are One,” and professed himself to be God. In fact, that is why he was tried for heresy and crucified. None of the other founders claimed divinity, only Jesus. So, how are we to take this?

Well, we cannot dismiss his claim as a misinterpretation of his teachings because he repeatedly professed his divinity, “I am the bread of life” “I am the light of the world” and “I am the resurrection and the life.” As C.S. Lewis observed, Jesus does not give us the option of accepting him as anything less than what he claims to be, and he did not intend to. He is either who he says he is, or he is a lunatic, or something worse, he is evil itself.

What proof is there that Jesus is who he claims to be? The proof is the resurrection. Now, scholars and theologians far more capable than me have argued, debated, and presented proof of the resurrection, so that is beyond the scope of this narrative. The point is that Jesus was either crucified, died, and was buried, and on the third day rose from the dead or he did not. If he did not, he would be the ultimate conman. If he did, he is exactly who he says he is and who Peter said he was, “The Christ, the Son of the living God.”

If all that is true, where does that put Christianity relative to the other religions? Well, if religion is the search for God, then Christianity is the fulfillment of that search, and if religion is man reaching out to God, then Christianity is God reaching out to man. There is no other alternative.

Recently, Pope Francis was in Singapore at an interfaith meeting of young people and remarked that “All religions are paths to God.” Now, given the context of where he was and who he was talking to, he is not necessarily wrong. However, the Holy Father knows that Jesus did not say I am one of the ways, and the truth, and the life. Jesus said, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; and no one comes to the Father but through me.” (John 14:6)

Leave a comment
August 21, 2024

Opinions

I am usually pretty good at not biting at internet click bait, but the one topic that always hooks me is, who is the best quarterback in the history of the National Football League? Now, most lists put Tom Brady at the top, and I agree with that, but trust me when I tell you that my opinion has nothing to do with the fact that I was born and raised in New England and have been a lifelong Patriots fan, because it is as they say, “settled science.” However, I still enjoy debating the issue. Maybe it is Joe Montana, or Payton Manning, or someone from a previous era that I never got to see play or was not old enough to appreciate? Otto Graham or Johnny Unitas perhaps? What is the criterion we are using? Is it the most Super Bowl Championships or the most MVP Awards? Because it makes a difference. Now, I am a little more than a casual fan, but I am not a football historian or fanatic, but I have no qualms about letting everyone know what my opinion is, regardless of how uninformed or biased it may be.

There is nothing wrong with having an opinion and sharing it with others, but not all topics are created equal. Sure, people can get emotional debating who the best quarterback in the history of the NFL is, but it is a fun and meaningless subject. So, do not hesitate to join the debate and throw in your two cents. However, there are other topics on which you might want to avoid weighing in on. Investment or retirement advice for example. If you do not know what you are talking about, do not be so quick to give your opinion or dispense advice. It is someone’s life and financial security about which you are talking. It is not a topic for amateurs. Relationships is another tricky subject that you might want to avoid, unless it is someone you know very well, care deeply about, and they specifically ask for your opinion.

In the arena of public discourse, there is one topic on which most people seem to have a very strong opinion, and that is abortion. It is a subject that is extremely contentious and emotional, but if you engage with someone on either side of the issue, and truly try to understand their point of view, you quickly discover that most of their opinions are uninformed and not very well thought out. Most people cannot speak about abortion with any knowledge or insight and are unable to articulate what they believe and why they believe it. Their responses are sound bites and talking points from whatever side of the issue they happen to be on, and their reactions when asked to explain their position are reflexive and preprogrammed.

Abortion is not something that should be debated in the local sports pub. It is a very serious issue that literally determines life and death. People should not be so quick to join the debate or give their opinion unless they truly understand the issues and have thoroughly thought them through. However, if you want to be able to address the question of abortion in an intelligent and rational manner, the three concepts you need to be able to comprehend and discuss are life, personhood, and the hierarchy of rights.

Abortion is the termination of a human pregnancy resulting in the death of an embryo or fetus. That is what it is and that is how it is defined. But what is being terminated? Is it a life?

Life is that which differentiates organic from inorganic matter, or a living organism from a non-living or dead organism. It is a state of animation characterized by the capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction. Does this definition accurately describe an embryo or fetus? Yes, it does because embryos and fetuses metabolize, grow, react to stimuli, and undergo the cell division and reproduction which are unique to living organisms. Additionally, an embryo or fetus contains human DNA, which makes it a human life. Therefore, an abortion terminates a human life.

An embryo or fetus may be a human life, but do the qualities of being alive and being of human origin automatically endow a human life with human rights? Well, we know that people have human rights. So, the question becomes is personhood and inherent characteristic of human life?

This is where most of the differences of opinion emerge and why the topic of abortion is so contentious. We are all people, but somehow, we are unable to come to a consensus on the definition of a person. Most of those who support abortion, either knowingly or unknowingly, subscribe to John Locke’s definition of a person which is, “a thinking intelligent being that has reason and reflection and can consider itself as itself, the same thinking thing, in different times and places.” However, Locke’s definition is inadequate and lacking.

Locke defines a person in terms of abilities, as in having the ability to reason and reflect. However, there are people who we can all agree are people that do not have these abilities. Infants, individuals with severe developmental disabilities, and perhaps even those with advanced Alzheimer’s or dementia. They are unquestionably people, but they may not possess those abilities that Locke says makes them a person.

There is a more classic definition that defines a person as an individual substance of a rational nature. In this definition, “of a rational nature” does not denote ability. It refers to the essence or essential properties of a thing. So, anything of which rationality is essential property, is a person. While this definition is certainly more expansive and inclusive than Locke’s definition, it too may be inadequate. It could apply to other forms of intelligence either on this planet or elsewhere in the universe if they exist, which may be fine, but what is a substance? Is artificial intelligence a substance? We live in an age where technology is beginning to blur the boundaries between what is human and what is not. We need a more concise and applicable definition. A more apt definition might be an individual living organism of a rational nature.

Is an embryo or fetus a living organism of a rational nature? Yes, they are because rationality is an essential property of being human, and an embryo or fetus is a human life. Therefore, personhood is an innate property of human life, and an embryo or fetus are endowed with human rights.

We all possess human rights that are inalienable and inherent in our human nature. In other words, we all have human rights that cannot be taken away from us and that we are entitled to because we are human beings or people. However, what happens when the human rights of two individuals are at odds with each other? What happens when the exercise of one person’s human rights infringes upon the rights of another person? How do we determine whose rights take precedent?

There is a hierarchy of rights. Rights are either conditional or absolute. Most of our rights are conditional. That is, we have the right to exercise them on the condition that they do not infringe upon the rights of someone else. I have the right to listen to my music as loud as I want, but I do not have the right to keep my neighbor up at night. I have the right to smoke, but I do not have the right to expose others to the dangers of my secondhand smoke. Therefore, my right to smoke can be restricted or temporarily suspended, and I can be prohibited from smoking on an airplane or in a restaurant.

Even our rights guaranteed by the Constitution are conditional. For example, a journalist has the rights of freedom of speech and freedom of the press. They are expressly enumerated in and protected by the First Amendment. However, they are not absolute. If a journalist had a story that was going to infringe upon another person’s rights to due process and a fair trial, which are also protected by the Constitution, a judge can issue a gag order and prohibit the journalist from publishing the story. Then, when the trial is over, the gag ordered can be lifted and the journalist’s rights restored.

The critical concept to grasp here is that the rights may be temporarily suspended or denied, but can in fact, be restored. However, there is one human right that is absolute because once it has been denied it can never be restored, and that is the right to life. The right to life is atop the hierarchy of our human rights and cannot be infringed upon or denied by the exercise of anyone else’s rights, including a woman’s right to choose.

An embryo or fetus is a human life, personhood is an inherent characteristic of human life, and an abortion infringes upon a human life’s absolute right to life. That is my opinion. It is a well thought out and rational opinion, but it is still only an opinion. Others may disagree. They may have a different definition of a person or reject the hierarchy of rights, but that too, is only an opinion.

The abortion debate is not about mere differences of opinions. We a not debating whether Super Bowl rings are more important than MVP trophies. What we are debating irrevocably impacts the lives and rights of two people. The mother, and her right to live her life and pursue happiness and the manner that she chooses, and an unborn human life and its inalienable right to life. It does not matter what side of the debate you are on, simply holding signs and shouting slogans is not good enough. If you are going to have an opinion it needs to be an informed and well thought out opinion. You need to understand what you believe and why you believe it.

The abortion debate, like any debate of meaning and substance, should take us down the path of knowledge towards truth. But be warned, it is a difficult and arduous journey, that just may lead you to a truth that many would rather ignore.

Leave a comment
July 26, 2024

The Bread of Life

The ministry of Jesus lasted only three years, but it has been analyzed, studied, and written about more than anything else in human history. The first year of his ministry is referred to as the Year of Obscurity. It is the period in which Jesus began his public teaching but was still relatively unknown. It lasted from his baptism to his second Passover and arrival in Galilee. The second year of his ministry is the Year of Popularity. It is the period in which Jesus’ reputation spread across Judea, with his Sermon on the Mount, miracles and healings, and the resurrection of Jarius’ daughter. The third and final year of his ministry is the Year of Opposition, or Year of Rejection. It started with the feeding of the five thousand and lasted until Palm Sunday and his entrance into Jerusalem. It was a period were many of his followers abandoned him and the religious authorities started to conspire against him. But what happened? What caused the crowd to turn on Jesus? It was his Bread of Life Discourse.

After Jesus multiplied the loaves and fish and fed the five thousand, he returned to Capernaum. The crowd followed him there wanting to see more signs and wonders and hoping for more miracle bread to eat. However, when Jesus told them that he was the bread that comes down from heaven, and that they must eat his flesh and drink his blood to inherit eternal life, they were shocked; “How can he give us his flesh to eat?” “This sort of talk is hard to endure.” And as John tells us, many of his followers left and would no longer remain in his company. Even the twelve were confused. So much so, that Jesus asked them directly, “You do not want to leave too, do you?” To which Peter replied, with some timidity but resolutely, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.”

Despite the crowd’s reaction, Jesus did not retract what he said. He did not try to regain the favor of the crowd by apologizing or trying to explain himself more fully. In fact, he guaranteed that this doctrine would become a focal point of his Church when he instituted the Sacrament of the Eucharist about a year later.

The doctrine of transubstantiation, the belief that Jesus is truly present, body, blood, soul, and divinity in the Eucharist, confused and bewildered people in Christ’s time and continues to do so today. It has always been difficult for people to comprehend, and through the centuries, has been constantly challenged and criticized by theologians, reformers, and non-believers. However, like Christ, the Catholic Church has remained steadfast in its teaching. Ecumenical Council after Council, and Papal Encyclical after Encyclical, the Church has reaffirmed that Jesus Christ is truly present, body, blood, soul, and divinity in the Eucharist.

Regardless, people still struggle with the doctrine. How can bread and wine be transformed into the body and blood of Jesus? This is not something that anyone can fully comprehend. However, it is something that we can begin to grasp when we remember who Jesus is, and where, for lack of a better word, he resides.

Jesus is God, the Son, the Second Person of the Trinity, both fully man and fully God. As a man, he resided in time and history, in Palestine two thousand years ago. As God, he resides outside of time in eternity. There is no past or future for God. Everything for God resides in his ever present now. When Jesus broke the bread, blessed it, and gave it to his disciples to eat, he did that as a man in the upper room the night before his crucifixion and death. As God, he does it in eternity, in his ever present now.

But how is it done? How is the essence, the substance of the bread and wine changed? It is done by the word, the same word that continually speaks creation into existence. Creation exists because God wills it. If God stopped willing it, it would cease to be. We exist because God loves us. If God stopped loving us, we would cease to be. But that cannot happen because God is love and his will is love. God continually loves and wills us into existence. The same word that creates and sustains the universe transforms the substance of the bread and wine used in communion into its own body and blood. It is the word of God, that makes it happen in eternity and in his ever present now.

When the Priest is on the alter consecrating the Eucharist he is doing it “In persona Christi,” in the person of Christ. It is not Father Mike or Father Marcos saying the words, it is Christ himself consecrating the bread and wine we consume at Mass, joining it with the bread and wine he consecrated in eternity at the Last Supper. The Priest is speaking in the first person as Christ, using Christ’s words when he says,

“Take this, all of you, and eat of it, for this is my body, which will be given up for you. Take this, all of you, and drink from it, for this is the chalice of my blood, the blood of a new and eternal covenant, which will be poured out for you and for many for the forgiveness of sins. Do this in memory of me.”

The bread and wine transforms into the body and blood of Jesus because Jesus commands it. The same word that speaks creation into existence, speaks itself into the substance of the Eucharist.

There are seven sacraments but only the Eucharist is referred to as the Most Blessed Sacrament. This is because while the power of Christ is present in the other sacraments, Christ himself is present body, blood, soul, and divinity in the Eucharist. The Eucharist is the Bread of Eternal Life and the Sacrament of Our Salvation.

When we consume the Eucharist, Christ consumes us and more fully and completely incorporates us into his Mystical Body.

If it is difficult for those of us, who have the benefit of hindsight to comprehend, imagine how bewildering it must have been for the Apostles. Although Jesus told them why they were going to Jerusalem, they could not possibly have known what was going to unfold.

“You know that in two days’ time it will be Passover, and that the Son of Man is to be handed over to be crucified.”

Imagine what was going through the minds of the Apostles when at the Passover meal Jesus took the bread and wine, blessed it, told them that it was his body and blood, and that they were to not only eat it, but do it again in again in perpetuity in remembrance of his sacrifice. What sacrifice? None of them could have foreseen what was about to happen, that in a few short hours Jesus was going to be betrayed, tortured, and crucified. Then three days later he was going to rise from the dead, appear to them in the upper room, show them his wounds, and share a meal with them. It probably was not until Pentecost, until the Holy Spirit descended upon them and enlightened their minds, that they even began to start to comprehend the events that had transpired.

It is not surprising that people have difficulty understanding the Eucharist because it is the mystery of our faith. However, like the Apostles, we can rely upon the Holy Spirit for understanding because that is what Jesus promised.

“But the Holy Spirit will come and help you, because the Father will send the Spirit to take my place. The Spirit will teach you everything and will remind you of what I said while I was with you.”

And again, like the Apostles, we must have faith and trust Jesus, even if we do not completely understand what he is telling us.

So, how should we approach the Eucharist? Well, we need to look internally, examine our conscience, and think about the outpouring of grace and love it offers us, and the opportunity it provides us to partake in the sacrifice of Christ and share in his resurrection.

We need to approach the Most Blessed Sacrament with reverence. A profound sense of awe, respect, and love needs to overwhelm us. We need to stay in the moment and focus on what we are doing. We are entering into communion with our Lord and Savior, the one who by his death and resurrection has set us free. We are receiving The Bread of Eternal Life and sharing in the divinity of Christ.

We need to be humble because there is nothing, we can do to merit the sacrifice that Jesus makes for us. We have to understand that none of us are worthy of receiving the gift that is being offered. Not even the Saints are worthy, and they understand this better than the rest of us, which is the primary reason they are Saints, and we are not.

Finally, we need to be grateful and show our gratitude by allowing Christ to enter into our hearts and change us. If we are willingly being incorporated into the Mystical Body, we need to allow ourselves to diminish so Christ can emerge in everything we think, say, and do.

The truth that Jesus is truly present, body, blood, soul, and divinity in the Eucharist is difficult to fully comprehend. However, occasionally, God gives us a gentle reminder.

On August 18, 1996, after Sunday Mass concluded in the quaint Parish of Saint Mary’s Church in Buenos Aires, Argentina, one of the parishioners noticed a host left on the base of a candlestick and brought it to the celebrant Fr. Pezet. Normally, Fr. Pezet would have consumed the consecrated host, but because he did not know if the it had been desecrated or tampered with, he put it in a container of water and locked it in the tabernacle. The protocol is to wait until the host dissolves and pour it out onto the ground. However, after a couple of days, they noticed that the host was transforming and growing into a “jelly-like” substance that was red in color. About a month later, it was sealed in a jar of distilled water and remained there for three years.

Eventually, a sample of the substance was given to Professor Fredrick Zugibe, the chief medical examiner for Rockland County, New York. Professor Zugibe was a cardiologist with decades of experience. He was not told where the sample came from, only asked to identify what it was.

Professor Zugibe studied the sample and concluded that it was heart muscle tissue, coming from the left ventricle. He noted that the cardiac muscle was inflamed and came from a person who had suffered trauma to the chest. He concluded that because of the abundant presence of white blood cells, the sample was alive when it was taken. When Professor Zugibe was finally told of the sample’s origin, he was astounded and replied, “Absolutely incredible! Inexplicable by science!”

Leave a comment
June 20, 2024

The True Presence

The doctrine of transubstantiation is central to the Catholic faith. It is the belief that during the consecration at Mass, the whole substance of the bread and wine used for Communion changes into the substance of the body and blood of Jesus Christ. Presently, only about thirty percent of Catholics believe this doctrine is true. Most are either unfamiliar with it or reject it outright, believing instead that the Eucharist is merely a symbol that represents the body and blood of Jesus.

Why is there such a big disconnect between what the Catholic Church teaches and what its members believe?

Many of those that reject the doctrine have difficulty reconciling it with science. The bread and wine do not change shape. If you put them under a microscope their molecular structure does not change. It is an irrational belief that violates the laws of science.

Ah, the never-ending battle between science and religion. A battle, which we all know, must always be won by science. Well, maybe not.

Science and religion look at creation and try to explain it but from different perspectives and with different vocabularies. They both pursue the truth, and ultimately, if they are honest and sincere in their pursuit, they might just arrive at the same place.

The conflict between science and religion has been historically rooted in the way they each view creation. The Church contends that the universe was created, and that God is the causeless first cause, which brought it into existence. Science, on the other hand, has contended that the universe itself has always existed. Certainly, things within the universe change, stars explode, and new planets form, but the universe itself has always existed. Subsequently, science had no need for a creator, and that was their position for over a thousand years. That was, until the twentieth century.

In 1915, Albert Einstein published his theory of general relativity and set off a revolution in science that eventually produced the Standard Model of Cosmology, which states that the universe exploded into existence about 13.75 billion years ago with the Big Bang. There are theoretical physicists who continue to develop theories that eliminate the need for a beginning, but so far, they have all fallen apart because the math does not work. Science is running out of theories. We are rapidly approaching the point where it is almost impossible to explain the existence of the universe without a beginning and without a first cause.

But you cannot get something from nothing. Where did it come from? What was the first cause that ignited the Big Bang? That unfortunately, is a question that science may never be able to answer because science can only explain the things it can observe, measure, and test. The first cause that ignited the Big Bang, whatever it is, exists outside of space and time, which makes it unobservable, and therefore for science, unknowable. However, religion has an answer. The spark that ignited the Big Bang is the word of God (the Logos). God said, “Let there be light” and the universe exploded into existence. God brings forth and sustains creation with his word and will.

We use the present tense “wills” creation into existence because God is not confined by the flow of time. For us, there is always a past, a present, and a future. For God, there is only his ever-present now. This is impossible for the human mind to comprehend because we are limited by the constraints of our space and time, but God is not. All that ever was, is, and ever will be, is known by God in his ever-present now.

If we live in a universe that is continually willed into existence by God, wouldn’t the universe have to exist within the mind of God? Well, some scientific theories indicate that possibility.

Quantum physics studies energy and matter at the most fundamental level of creation trying to understand how the basic building blocks of reality fit together. Its goal is to develop one elegant equation that explains how everything in the universe works. A daunting task made even more difficult by paradoxes and phenomenon that seemingly defy reality. Paradoxes and phenomenon that can only be reconciled by the existence of a universal consciousness that some scientists theorize emerged during the first moments of creation in a Big Wow.

If God is the metaphysical consciousness that wills the physical universe into existence, wouldn’t there have to be an intersection, a point where the metaphysical and physical meet? And wouldn’t that intersection be at the very fundamental level of reality? So, is quantum physics looking at the mind of God willing creation into existence?  Could be!

It is interesting that a 2009 Pew Center Study on Science and Religion found that sixty-six percent of young scientists believe in God or a higher spiritual reality. Think about that, two-thirds of the young people who study this stuff for a living believe that there is indeed “a man behind the curtain.”  It is quite possible that science has finally arrived at the point that Astrophysicist Robert Jastrow wrote about.

“For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance, he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”

It appears that we now live in a world where science is moving towards religion while the rest of the population is moving away from it. Talk about your paradoxes.

So, science is evolving, and an ever-increasing number of scientists are willing to concede that the universe had a beginning and possibly a creator, but what does that have to do with the doctrine of transubstantiation?

Science may change but the doctrines of the Church do not because they remain fixed upon the divine truth. The Church has never wavered from its teachings on transubstantiation. Century after century, council after council, and encyclical after encyclical, the Church has reaffirmed that Jesus Christ is truly present, body, blood, soul, and divinity, in the Eucharist.

But how? How is the substance of bread and wine transformed into the body and blood of Jesus Christ?

We need to remember that Jesus is the Second Person of the Trinity, both fully Man and fully God. When he consecrated the bread and wine at the last supper, he did that at a specific moment in history as a man. However, as God he consecrates the Eucharist outside of time in perpetuity. When a Priest initiates the consecration, he is not simply a man reciting the Eucharistic Prayer. He is acting “In persona Christi,” in the person of Christ. It is Jesus who consecrates the bread and wine, joining it to his eternal consecration by his word and will. The same word (Logos) that speaks creation into existence changes the substance of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Jesus Christ.

Think about it. Is it reasonable to dismiss the doctrine of transubstantiation because it violates the laws of science while science is still trying to figure out what those laws are and how they work? But it is unreasonable to believe that the God who wills creation into existence also wills himself into the substance of the bread and wine used for Communion?

But transubstantiation cannot be true because it would require a miracle – Right?

Exactly, a miracle that occurs at each and every Mass with the Consecration of the Eucharist.

Creation is a miracle because it does not have to be here, but it is. And life is a miracle because it does not have to exist, but it does. It is like Einstein said.

There are only two ways to live your life. One is as though nothing is a miracle. The other is as though everything is a miracle.

Leave a comment
March 27, 2024

His Never-Ending Passion

His Never-Ending Passion

Although our faith can be demanding, it will never demand that we surrender our intellect.  It is true that there are mysteries of our faith that are beyond our ability to comprehend. However, this does not mean we are to stop trying to comprehend them.  On the contrary.  It is when we push our intellect to its limits that we break through into revelation and faith.  We are created in the likeness and image of God with a free-will, an intellect and an immortal soul.  It is by engaging our free-will and using our intellect that our immortal soul is uplifted to the Divine Truth of revelation.

As we proceed through Lent towards Holy Week, we should grow more attentive to the Passion of Jesus. Mournfully meditate on the Sorrowful Mysteries of the Rosary and you will be better prepared to receive the joyful promise of Easter Morning. Reflect more deeply on the Hidden Passion of Christ and you will find yourself being drawn into the embrace of His Divine Mercy.

The Ever Present Now

When we say God created the universe, we use the past tense because we exist in the finite realm of space-time. We are subject to the flow of time and everything that we experience happens sequentially. For us, there is always a past, a present, and a future. However, God exists outside of creation and is not subject to the constraints of our space-time. For God there is no past, present or future because He exists in the ever present now. Everything that has ever happened or will ever happen in our flow of time happens to God in His ever present now.

We say that God created the heavens and the earth because that is how we perceive it from the flow of time. To us, creation is an ever-evolving process that began almost fourteen billion years ago and will end sometime in the distant future. However, God exists in the ever present now. The universe exists inside the mind of God, and it is His will that gives it form and substance. He wills creation into existence and loves us into being. He has known us since before the world began because for God, there is no before. His love creates and sustains our eternal and immortal souls giving purpose and meaning to our existence.

Sin

God did not create sin. He created the Heavens and Earth, and when He beheld His creation, it was “very good.” Initially, creation was rightly ordered towards God, but then the angel Lucifer (Satan), corrupted by his own pride, sought to elevate himself above God. Satan, one of God’s created beings rebelled against God and introduced sin into creation. He is the author and father of the sin that corrupts and deforms God’s creation.

We exist because God loves us into existence. He created us for eternity and wills only what is best for us. God’s love gives our existence purpose and meaning. It is the life force that animates and sustains our being. If we are cutoff from it, we wither and die. Sin is an act of the will that opposes and rejects God’s love. It creates a disorientation that turns us away from the ultimate good and impedes the flow of God’s love and grace.

The effects of sin are tangible and evident in the broken and dysfunctional world around us. Sin acts like a cord tightly wrapped around our souls choaking off the flow of God’s love.  It creates a void of God’s grace and goodness into which suffering and death flow.

The Passion

When we meditate on the Passion of Jesus, we usually think about the physical suffering he endured. The scourging that tore His flesh, the agony of the nails driven through His hands and feet, and His slow and painful asphyxiation upon the cross. Because Jesus was fully man, he endured physical pain and suffering. We can comprehend this and even empathize with it.  When I meditate upon Christ’s Passion, I cringe and become physically uncomfortable and squeamish. I can relate to the physical suffering of a man because I am a man. However, Jesus is both fully man and fully God, and there is a dimension to His Passion that eludes human understanding.

Jesus suffered the death of his physical body because He was a man, but He is able to take away the sins of the world because He is God. The Catechism tells us that Jesus took upon himself the “sins of the world.” We profess this with the Liturgy of the Eucharist; “Behold the Lamb of God, behold him who takes away the sins of the world,” but what does it mean to take away the sins of the world?

Again, sin is a tangible and real impediment that restricts the flow of God’s love and grace.  It doesn’t stop God from dispensing His love, because His love flows from an endless and inexhaustible fountain of mercy.  However, sin hinders our ability to receive God’s love.  It’s a corrosive and negative energy that repels God’s love. 

All the human pain and suffering, all the agony and misery that sin has inflicted throughout all of time, is experienced by Jesus upon the cross in His ever present now.  The physical suffering of Jesus’ Passion ended when the man was taken down from the cross and placed in the tomb. However, the spiritual agony of the Passion continues as Jesus hangs on the cross as God, taking upon himself the sins of the world.

Jesus is the Son, the Second Person of the Trinity. He is consubstantial with, and inseparable from the Father, “I and the Father are one.” Yet, Jesus takes upon himself the sins of the world.  Sin, the very thing that separates us from God, is taken by Christ onto himself upon the cross. Try to imagine the spiritual agony tearing at the unity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit as the Trinitarian God is tormented and tortured by the sins of the world. It is beyond human comprehension but is something we need to meditate upon.  We need to delve deeper into the Passion of Christ and the spiritual agony which compels Him to cry out, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” Think about the agony of our sins that compels Jesus to cry out not just from the cross two-thousand years ago, but right now, in his ever present now. Jesus’ Passion did not end.  It continues. He continues to endure the spiritual agony of the cross and sacrifice himself for our salvation as we continue to sin, because there are no limits to his love and mercy.

Your Sins are Forgiven

God will never violate our free-will.  Jesus will continue to endure the spiritual agony that our sins inflict in His ever present now until we give him permission to take them away. We must seek forgiveness to be forgiven. It is not until we enact our will to confess and repent of our sins that they can be taken away.  If we trust Jesus, have faith, and ask him with a sincere and contrite heart, he will say to us, “Your sins are forgiven.”

He Descended into Hell

The Apostle’s Creed tells us that Jesus was crucified, died, and was buried and descended into hell, but why would Jesus descend into hell?

Aquinas tells us that Christ descended into hell to deliver us from death, deliver the captives detained in hell, and to manifest his power in hell. This is speculative theology, but there might be a more fundamental reason for Jesus’ descent into hell.

Jesus can take away the sins of the world because he his God, but He can die and descend into hell precisely because he is a man.  The death and descent of the man Jesus enables God, the Second Person of the Trinity, to take away the sins of the world and deposit them in hell.  Christ’s descent into hell returns sin to it source, removes it from creation, and rightly reorders creation towards God.

Sin disfigures creation. It creates a void, an absence of goodness and life into which suffering and death flow.  Christ’s descent into hell mends that disfiguration by restoring the goodness and life that was absent and enabling God’s love to flow freely into creation.  This is victory over death. This is salvation.

Access to His Divine Mercy

Because Jesus understands our brokenness and our vulnerability to sin, he gives us access to his Divine Mercy through the Sacraments of the Church. Baptism absolves us of original sin and incorporates us into the Mystical Body of Christ, the Church. It is the sacrament of initiation that gives us access to the other Sacraments. The Eucharist, which is offered at each mass in reparation for the sins of the living and the dead, is the actual body and blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus. It increases our union with Christ, forgives our venial sins and preserves us from grave sin.  It is the heart and summit of the Church Life and the spiritual nourishment that sustains us on our journey to Heaven. Confession is the sacrament by which the contrite and penitent sinner, motivated by their faith and love for God is absolved of their sins and reconciled to Christ.

Prayer, the Corporal and Spiritual Works of Mercy, and the forgiveness of others are also ways that we can access Jesus’ mercy. However, it is by regularly participating in the Sacraments of the Eucharist and Confession that we are continuously reconciled to Christ. These are gifts, sacraments established by Jesus himself that we cannot afford to forgo or ignore.  They are the keys given to us by Jesus that open the door to His Divine Mercy and our eternal salvation.

We are created in the likeness and image of God with a free-will, an intellect and an immortal soul. We need to use the entirety of our being to fully open ourselves to the Divine Mercy and love of our Savior.

Leave a comment
April 17, 2021

Our Founding Truths

The Declaration of Independence is the most important document in American history because it created the United States. Most of the document is a list of grievances against King George III that our Founding Fathers resolved justified our separation from Great Britain. However, the first two and concluding paragraphs are particularly important because they establish the philosophical and political foundation of the nation, and the Declaration of Independence sets that foundation upon the Judeo-Christian truths that God is the Creator, the Law Giver, our Providence, and the Supreme Judge of the World.  

The first truth is God created man in his own likeness and image, endowing each of us with a free-will and the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Our human and civil rights come from God and cannot be taken away or infringed upon by the government. Because we are all equal in the eyes of the Creator, we are all equal under the law of man. Every human being is an independent moral agent entitled to live their life free from the intrusion or oppression of a ruling class. Our Founding Fathers embraced this truth and created a nation in which the rights of the individual supersede the power of the state.

The second founding truth is God is the author of the Laws of Nature and the Natural Law.  The Laws of Nature are the laws of Physics, Chemistry and Biology that create reality and govern everything from the orbits of the planets to the cycle of procreation, life, and death. The Natural Law is the understanding of right and wrong inherent in every human being that governs their conduct and that of the societies they create.  The Laws of Nature are revealed by the Creator through the human intellect and form the basis of what we call science. The Natural Law is revealed by the Creator through his divine presence in sacred scripture and in the human intellect and forms the basis of what we call morality and justice.  Both the Laws of Nature and Natural Law are eternal and immutable, meaning they exist and apply everywhere in the Universe, and cannot be changed. Man’s Law is created for the betterment of human society and must flow from the Laws of the Creator. No human law can be considered moral or just unless it is rooted in the Law of God.

The third founding truth is God is our Divine Providence. He is the all-knowing and all-powerful force that sustains and directs the evolution of the universe in a beneficial and benevolent manner. God is the source of all goodness, the well of infinite mercy from which we draw direction and purpose. Our Founding Fathers understood that the United States could not survive or flourish without the constant assistance and intercession of the Creator, and to that end they created a nation that was dedicated to, and dependent upon, the freedom of religion and the right to worship God.

The fourth founding truth is God is the Supreme Judge of the world. In the Declaration the Founding Fathers appeal to God as the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of their intentions. It is an appeal and submission to the will of God. They understood that the new nation they were creating would be subject to the scrutiny and judgment of the Creator, and it was their hope and prayer, that God would view their separation from Great Britain as morally just, and bless their efforts, because they understood that whatever was contrary to the will of God, could not endure.

These four Judeo-Christian truths are the philosophical and political cornerstones of the United States. Our Founding Fathers created a nation and formed a government for a people of faith.  As John Adams said, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”  Obviously, a society of immoral people cannot survive, but why did Adams insist that America was created for a religious people?

Up until the American Revolution, human history had been the continuing saga of the few, ruling the many.  An aristocracy or permanent ruling class imposing their will upon the masses.  The objective of government was to rule, to force compliance, and above all else, to maintain the status quo. Our Founding Fathers rejected this practice and created “a government of the people, by the people and for the people.”  The idea of self-government, the notion that a people could govern themselves is what is so truly revolutionary about the American Revolution. America has no aristocracy or permanent ruling class because the power to rule resides with the people.

How can a people be trusted to govern themselves? What will constrain them? What authority will regulate and limit their use and abuse of power?  That authority according to Adams and the Declaration he helped draft, is the same authority that creates us equal and endows us with our inalienable rights. That authority is God.

A truth is not a belief or an opinion, it is a truth, something that is true because it is true. It cannot be debated, argued, modified, or compromised, it can only be accepted or rejected. Our founding truths are religious truths that can only be accepted and embraced by a religious people.   Our country is built upon Judeo-Christian truths that acknowledge the authority and the supremacy of the Creator.  Our country is dependent upon that Creator and upon a people who willingly submit themselves to his authority. Our system of government is wholly inadequate for any other type of people.

For the majority of our first two centuries, the United States was a nation of religious people. As recently as 1960, ninety-seven percent of the population claimed some type of religious affiliation.  That does not presume that everyone either practiced their faith or devotedly followed their tenets, but by all objective measures, America was a Judeo-Christian nation. Today however, only about seventy-five percent of the population claims a religious affiliation, and the number that practice their faith by regularly attending worship services is only about thirty-seven percent. So, if it is not already, America is rapidly becoming a secular nation.

What will that look like?  What will happen if America becomes a secular nation?

Since secularism rejects the truth of the Creator there would be no such thing as inalienable rights because inalienable rights come from God.  They cannot come from the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, or any other secular authority because those things can be amended and changed and are always subject to the interpretation of men. If there is no Creator, there are no inalienable rights, and by default the state becomes the authority that can either grant or take away our rights. In a secular society the rights of the citizens come from the state, or more accurately those who control the state, the political class, the permanent bureaucracy, the wealthy and powerful.

The nullification of our inalienable rights would lead to an erosion of civil liberties because freedom makes people unruly and difficult to govern. That of course, threatens the people in power, and people in power will always do whatever is necessary to maintain their power.  They might create a cancel culture to regulate speech and silence opposition to their authority.  They would intimidate those who challenge their policies into compliance by forcing employers to fire them and deny them the right to earn a living. They would corrupt the press and use it to bolster their position and spread their propaganda.  They might even use a public health crisis as the pretense for restricting people’s movement, stifling their freedom of assembly, and closing their houses of worship.

In a secular state the Natural Law would be replaced by the imperfect and often immoral law of man.  There would be no divine presence in the human intellect or sacred scripture to rely upon.  The Ten Commandments would no longer be the guiding determinant of what is right and wrong. That would be subjective, a function of the human ego and the will to enforce it. Life would no longer begin when God created it, but when human opinion determined it was convenient. Even the immutable Laws of Nature would be challenged.  People would be free to disregard reality and create their own alternate reality. Even the laws of biology could be denied allowing one’s self-perception instead of their chromosomes to determine their gender. Then the power of the state could be brought to bear to force everyone else to accept that alternate reality, and there would be no higher authority or law giver whom to appeal.

There is no equality in a secular state because there is no God to create everyone equal, and equity, the redistribution of wealth as opposed to the promotion of equal opportunity becomes the function of the state. There is no equality under the law and no equal application of justice because everything is relative to who you are and how much power you wield.  Without a Supreme Judge of the World to determine right and wrong there are no absolute moral standards. Ethics become situational and an individual’s intent rather than their actions become the criteria on which people are judged. Even rioting, looting and arson become acceptable forms of public expression if they are well intentioned.

Has the United States become a secular state? That remains to be seen, but without question there are powerful forces working to “fundamentally transform” the nation. The reasons why we must change are somewhat vague, but apparently, a nation dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal, is systemically racists, and a meritocracy that rewards people based on the contributions they make, is inherently unfair.  And although these change agents are incapable of explaining what the New America should look like, they know with absolute certainty that it is time for the Old America, the one based on Judeo-Christian truths, to change.

What is so bewildering is that the people who are advocating for this “fundamental transformation” already have the power to make that change.   If Congress wants to clean up corruption and eliminate crony capitalism, they can limit their own terms and set up publicly funded elections.   If Silicon Valley wants to promote the freedom of speech and the free exchange of ideas, they can breakup their own monopolies and stop censoring people.  If Wall Street really wants to promote human rights, they can stop doing business with countries that put people in concentration camps. It is still unclear just what type of America these advocates envision but based on the agenda they are promoting; it appears to be some form of secular-socialism. However, America was never designed to be either secular or socialist, and that of course is the biggest obstacle they face in “fundamentally transforming” the nation.

The United States is a Constitutional Republic with a free market economy. It promotes individual liberty and freedom by decentralizing political power and delegating it to the States, and more importantly, to the people. Its detractors claim that the Free Enterprise System or Capitalism, is inherently unfair and inequitable because it creates a society in which the rich get richer while the poor get poorer.  The truth is that no economic system has promoted more freedom, created more wealth, and lifted more people out of poverty than the American Free Enterprise System. However, it is not immune from human corruption. If the central government becomes too powerful it will inevitably abandon the needs of the common citizen to cater to the desires of the wealthy and influential.  The check on this corruption is a citizenry that is well informed and actively involved in their own self-government, and a free press that monitors the workings of governments and fairly and truthfully reports on its activities.

Socialism is a political and economic system in which the means of production are controlled by a central administrative authority. There is no private property or private enterprise because the government owns and controls everything. The promise of Socialism is that it is more equitable because everyone receives a “fair” share. The citizenry need only surrender its right of self-government and the bureaucracy will administer its duties in a just and fair manner. However, history could not be clearer; it does not work. The same human corruption that infects Capitalism infects Socialism.  Those who refuse to learn from history and continue to promote Socialism are blinded by their ambition to rule and the certainty of their own infallibility. Socialism is a return to the few, ruling the many, and is not suitable for a free and independent people.

Corruption infects every political and economic system because its inseparable from the human condition.  There are always people who believe that they a better than others, not simply better educated or more intelligent, but better people, more virtuous, and therefore better suited to rule.  This has always been and always will be the single greatest threat to liberty and freedom.  The threat has always been there, but it metastasized around the turn of the twentieth century with the emergence of the progressive movement and the birth of big government.  We now have a permanent political-class that uses identity-politics to pit the American people against themselves to divide and conquer. They strive to convince everyone that they are victims of some oppressed group, and that they need the federal government to be their advocate. They promise that if we just give them more money and power, they will solve everyone’s problems and take care of everyone from cradle to grave.  That is the big lie that they have been selling for the past 60-years, and the lie that we have unfortunately been buying.  Secular-socialism is destroying the country enabling the ruling class to become more entrenched and powerful as we the people become poorer and less free.

It is ironic that the “woke” progressives view our descent into secular-socialism as progress when the most significant and meaningful advancements in American society have come after periods of spiritual and religious revivals known as the Great Awakenings. The First Great Awakening occurred around 1740 and sowed the seeds of democratic thought that led to the American Revolution.  The second Great Awakening occurred around 1850 and led to the rise of the abolitionist movement and the end of slavery. The Third Great Awakening occurred around the turn of the twentieth century and helped usher in the labor movement and women’s suffrage.  And the Fourth Great Awakening occurred in the 1960’s coinciding with the civil rights and women’s rights movements. It appears that America moves forward when it comes back to God, but sadly that is not the direction we are heading.

Today, for the first time in our history less than fifty percent of our population belongs to a church, mosque, or synagogue.  We are moving down the path of secular-socialism away from Divine Providence and the source of our greatness.  Andrew Reed and James Matheson, two English ministers who traveled to the United States in the 1830s wrote that, “America will be great if America is good. If not, her greatness will vanish away like a morning cloud.” Our Founding Fathers understood this truth and created a nation dependent upon the freedom of religion and the right to worship God.  This is what John Adams was referring to when he talked about a “moral and religious people.” America cannot be great if she is not good, and she cannot be good without God.

Not since the Civil War has the country been so divided. We are allowing ourselves to be balkanized into identity tribes and manipulated by a corrupt and incompetent ruling-class.  Yet, we continue to believe that there is a political solution to what ails us.  That if this candidate or that party gets elected, they will be able to turn everything around. That is not going to happen because the root of our problem is not political, it is spiritual. We are not going to find the solutions to our problems at the poles, we are going to find them, in the pews. We have abandoned the Judeo-Christian truths which created the greatest nation in history and until we return to them, we will continue our descent into secular-socialism and closer to the end of America.

2 Comments
October 23, 2019

The Theology of Capitalism

The shift to the left of the democrat party and the policies and programs being advocated by its Presidential candidates has rekindled the century old debate between capitalism and socialism. Although the debate was settled during the 20th century in favor of capitalism, it might be beneficial to revisit it.

What are capitalism and socialism? Capitalism and socialism are political and economic systems.

Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production and the distribution of goods and services is determined by the free market. The free market is comprised of individual people who exchange their skills and labor for the goods and services which the market produces.  It is a free enterprise system; people working in voluntary cooperation with each other to determine what products are produced, and the prices of those goods and services.

Socialism is an economic system in which the means of production and the distribution of goods and services is determined by a central planning authority.  There is no private ownership of property in socialism. All decisions concerning production, distribution and pricing are made by the government.  In a socialist system the people rely upon the state for everything from food and housing to education and healthcare.

The initial justification of socialism was that it was a more efficient way to control the means of production.  The experience of the 20th century has proven that wrong.  Russia, Greece, Spain and most recently Venezuela, are just a few of the many countries that ruined their economies pursuing a socialist utopia. As an economic system socialism is an abysmal failure; poverty, despair and famine are its legacy, want, deprivation and tyranny are its guarantee.  There is not an honest economist on the planet that would argue that socialism is the superior economic system.

Next the advocates of socialism argued that it was a more just and humane system.  Again, the 20th century begs to differ.  The biggest abusers and violators of human rights during the 20th century were the communist and socialist nations.  Russia, China, North Korea and Cambodia alone murdered and starved over 100 million of their own people.  Socialism consolidates the wealth and power in the hands of the ruling class and crushes the common man.  The widest disparities between the rich and poor are in the socialist countries of the world.  It is a system that entitles the few, at the expense of the many.

Despite this inconvenient truth of history, socialists are now telling us that we must embrace socialism to combat the existential threat of “climate change.”  If we don’t surrender the economy to their rule the planet is destined for an ecological meltdown. Well, it’s been almost 50-years since the “global warming” alarm first sounded with its apocalyptic predictions. Have any of them come true?  The polar icecap has not melted, 200 million people a year are not dying of starvation, and Manhattan is not under water. So, no! That’s not to say that human beings cannot adversely impact the environment, but the belief that we must surrender our economic freedom to a socialist state to save the planet is insane.

Most socialist begrudgingly acknowledge the historical failure of socialism but insist its failure is not due to a fundamental flaw in the system, but to the ineptitude of those who tried to implement it. However, this time they assure us they will succeed because they represent the new generation of democratic socialists who are more compassionate, enlightened and dedicated to the common good. They are totally sincere in this belief, which is why they are so extremely dangerous. They believe that the free market is too messy and disorganized, and that only woke socialism can bring it under control and guarantee social justice for all. But remember, the free market is the people, that’s you and me. Socialist believe that they have the right and responsibility to tell the rest of us how to live our lives, and the obligation to force their will upon us if we don’t comply. Socialism is not about economic prosperity, social justice or saving the planet. It’s about power.

The major criticism of capitalism is that it breeds corruption by giving the powerful and influential the ability to manipulate the system. There is an element of truth to that, but corruption is not an innate characteristic of capitalism. Corruption is an innate characteristic of human nature.  All human beings are corrupt.  We all single-mindedly pursue our own self-interest.  Lord Acton put it best, “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”  People with power will abuse that power.

So how do you solve the problem of human corruption? By taking away the power from the people and consolidating it in the hands of a ruling class that’s absolutely guaranteed to abuse it? That’s the socialist’s solution.  However, history teaches us that giving more power and authority to the government never works out for the benefit of the people.

Capitalism is superior to socialism because it is theologically sound. God did not create collectives, politburos, or bureaus for economic planning.  God created individual human beings with an intellect, a conscience and the free-will to make our own decisions.  We were not created to be subjects of the state or the servants of the ruling class. We are autonomous moral beings, the sovereigns and rulers of our own lives, endowed with the right to reach as far, and to rise as high as our talents, abilities and ambitions allow. Capitalism is the only economic system that gives the common man the opportunity to realize their potential in accordance with the divine design of the creator.

The verdict of history is clear; no economic system yet devised or discovered by man has provided more opportunity, created more wealth and prosperity, lifted more people out of poverty, and improved the lives of the common man more than capitalism.

Leave a comment
June 18, 2019

The Debate

The closer we get to the 2020 election, the more we hear about the abortion debate. Let’s get something clear, it isn’t a debate.  The participants in a debate understand the issues and engage in a fact-based exchange of ideas and opinions. We have only angry and emotional people yelling at each other.  So, for the sake of civility and sanity, we shall attempt to identify the main issues and present the alternative points of view.

The abortion debate is over two seemingly contradictory rights. The right of a woman to choose and the right to life of the unborn. These rights are derived from the truth that we are endowed with the inalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.   The right to life is an expressed right because it is enumerated in the Declaration of Independence. The right to choose is an implied right because although it isn’t specifically mentioned in the Declaration, it is necessary if one is to exercise their liberty and pursue happiness.  Therefore, they are both fundamental rights.

However, there is a hierarchy of rights.  A right can either be absolute or conditional. Most of our rights are conditional.  That is, we are free to exercise them on the condition that it does not infringe upon the rights of another.

People have the right to smoke, but they don’t have the right to expose others to the hazards of secondhand smoke.  Therefore, the state can regulate or restrict the exercise of that right.  That’s why the government suspends the right to smoke on an airplane.  When the smoker is no longer in a public space, their right to smoke is restored.

Our right to choose is conditional because it can be temporarily denied and restored.  However, our right to life is absolute because once it is denied it can never be restored.  Thus, the right to life will always supersede the right to choose.  No person’s choice can infringe upon another person’s right to life. Consequently, the main issue in the abortion debate is when does life begin, and when does that life become a human being.

Science tells us that life begins at conception because a single cell embryo has the capacity for growth, reproduction and functional activity.  That is the definition of life.  Furthermore, it contains human DNA.  Therefore, it is a human life. If fact, if science discovered an embryo on Mars it would be the greatest discovery in history.  Not only would they declare that life was discovered on Mars, they would declare it was human life.  Its indisputable, life begins at conception.  Although science has answered the first part of the question, the second and more significant part remains. Is that life a human being?

When does a human life become a human being? That’s the question on which the debate hinges, and on which there is so much uncertainty. An uncertainty that’s a result of the 1973 decision that legalized abortion.  In Roe v. Wade, the Burger Court ruled that a woman has the right to an abortion up until viability; the point in time when the fetus is “potentially able to live outside the mother’s womb, albeit with artificial aid.” Accordingly, viability is when a human life becomes a human being, viability is the point at which the right to life takes president over the right to choose, and viability is when the state assumes its obligation to protect that life. However, the problem with using viability as the determinant of a human being is that it is vague and ambiguous, and dependent upon too many external factors.

A fetus may only be viable if it has access to advanced postnatal care.  Are we willing to concede that a child born in a country with advanced neonatology care is more human than a child born in an underdeveloped country that doesn’t have that level of care? Of course not. Viability can’t be the determinant.  Whatever criteria we use to define a human being, it can’t be vague and ambiguous.  It must be certain and verifiable.

So, the question remains, when does a human life become a human being?

The first alternative is at birth. In this case a life in the womb may indeed be a human life, but it is not a human being. The carrier is not an expectant mother but a host, because mother denotes a child, and a child denotes a human being. In this scenario a life in the womb has no individual identity until it exists independent and autonomous from the host.  Subsequently, it has no inherent or inalienable rights and is subject to termination up until the moment of birth, be that natural or cesarean. The hierarchy of rights does not apply because a non-human being has no rights that can be infringed upon.

The second alternative is at conception. In this case there is no distinction between a human life and a human being, they are synonymous because life is an evolutionary process.  Just as life outside the womb evolves from an infant, to a child, to an adult.  A life inside the womb evolves from an embryo to a fetus. A human life’s right to life is inherent and inseparable from the condition of being alive.  Any choice to intentionally terminate a human life in the womb infringes upon and denies a human being it’s right to life.

The third alternative is that a human life becomes a human being somewhere between conception and birth.  Is there a point during the forty-week gestation period, a determinant that is both certain and verifiable?  That point could be when a heartbeat and brain activity are detected.  That’s the condition used to legally determine when a human being ends; perhaps it could be the condition used to legally determine when a human being begins. In this case a woman can freely exercise her right to choose up until that determinant point.

Abortion is an emotional issue because a pregnancy is a life altering event.  An unplanned pregnancy can be psychologically devastating, and the circumstances of the conception may be tragic, but regardless of how real or compelling these factors may be, they are not relevant to this debate, because they in no way alter the truth that every human being’s right to life is absolute. No one can choose to deny a human being their right to life because they are unwanted or undesirable.

When does a human life become a human being?  That’s the questions, the central issue of the debate. We need to find the answer to that question, but we need to be careful.  It must be an answer that’s found in principal and truth, and not in political expedience or convenience, because in the end, the answer will absolutely define us.

Leave a comment
March 26, 2019

Vlad’s Pals

Robert Muller concluded his investigation and submitted his findings to Attorney General William Barr. After more than 25 million dollars, 2,800 subpoenas, 500 search warrants, 500 interviews, 13 requests to foreign governments, and the efforts of 40 FBI agents and 19 lawyers, what have we learned?

We learned that the Russians attempted to meddle in our election, but Donald Trump and his campaign did not collude with them.

The Russians tried to interfere with our election. They posted Facebook adds and hacked the unsecured email accounts of the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton. That’s not new. The Russians have always tried to do that. We know about it, we prepare for it, and in most instances, we stop it before it happens. We do it too, but we’re much better at it than the Russians. We actually topple the governments we don’t like. Our problem is our inability to manage the situation after we instigate the regime change. That’s neither an apology or a condemnation, it’s simply a statement of fact.

The President of the United States is not a Russian agent. That’s a relief. Can you imagine what would happen if Muller concluded that he was? Global markets would crash, the economy would go into free fall, and millions of hardworking Americans would watch helplessly as their 401K’s and retirement savings disappeared. We should all be thankful that the President of the United States is not a Russian operative. Well, apparently not.

Several members of Congress, the media, and Hollywood are disappointed with Muller’s findings. Now, are they more disappointed that the Russians attempts to subvert our election failed, or that the President of the United States isn’t a traitor? Perhaps they’re upset about something else? Perhaps they’re disappointed that the coup d’état failed, and Donald Trump is still President. Make no mistake about it, this was an attempt to overthrow an existing government by illegal and unconstitutional means.

Senior members of our government initiated a counter intelligence investigation into the campaign of a Presidential candidate without any evidence of either a crime being committed, or our national security being compromised. They knowingly used politically motivated, unsubstantiated and fabricated accusations provided by Russian sources, and compiled by a foreign agent to illegally secure a warrant to spy on US Citizens and surveil the campaign of candidate Trump. They leaked classified information to the media to bolster their investigation and repeatedly lied to and misled the American public about the scope and intent of the investigation. This was an attempted coup; a conspiracy between the deep-state, congressional democrats, and the media to remove the lawfully elected President of the United States from office.

The list of the conspirators includes; John Brennan, former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency; James Clapper, former Director of the National Intelligence Agency; James Comey, former Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation; Andrew MacCabe, former Deputy Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation; Bruce Ohr, Senior Official at the Department of Justice; Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, former members of the FBI; Congressmen Adam Schiff and Eric Swalwell, Senator Richard Blumenthal and others. Also complicit in this conspiracy are members of the media who willingly and gleefully disseminated propaganda and lies intended to smear, discredit and undermine the President of the United States. This is the worst case of political corruption and abuse of power in American history.

The coup could have succeeded had not Robert Muller refused to cooperate with the conspirators. He did his job, let the facts and not political prejudice and unsubstantiated inuendo guide his investigation, and found no evidence of collusion by any citizen of the United States.

Why did they do it? Why did these conspirators violate their oaths of office and shred the very Constitution they swore to defend?

Most of them probably believe that what they were doing was right. Conspirators usually do. That’s what makes them so dangerous. They believe, and many have publicly stated, that Donald Trump is unfit to serve as President of the United States. That he is a threat to our democracy, and they had “A Higher Loyalty” to save the American people from themselves.

They should have paid closer attention in their High School Civics Class because that’s not the way it works in the United States. A group of self-appointed deep-state bureaucrats don’t get to decide who’s President. The American people get to decide, and they did back in 2016 when they elected Donald Trump. If the opposition party is unhappy with the President’s personality, policies or performance our system provides the means to remove him from office. It’s called an election. You select a candidate, present your ideas to the American people, and unseat him at the polls. That’s the American way.

In retrospect, if Vladimir Putin’s plan was to subvert our election and undermine the American people’s confidence in its political institutions, then he succeeded. But who are Vlad’s real pals; the non-existence Trump colluders, or the DNC, deep-state, and media?

The Muller investigation may have concluded but the crisis persists. We live in a time where the power of Government has never been greater. It’s ability to surveil, investigate and intrude upon the lives of its citizens is immense and virtually unchecked. We now know that given the opportunity, political ideologs and deep-state operatives will misuse and abuse that power. The American people can no longer trust the governmental agencies empowered to protect and safeguard its liberties and freedoms. We can no longer count upon the fourth estate to objectively and fairly function as our watchdog against governmental overreach and political corruption. The very institutions that were created to protect and preserve the Constitution have betrayed it. We are literally at the crossroads of tyranny.

It falls to Attorney General William Barr to bring us back from the brink. He must fully investigate, prosecute and punish those who violated their oaths of office, abused their power and betrayed the American people.

Leave a comment