The New Atheism

Yesterday, the Union of Catholic Asian News posted an article about the Universal Solidarity Movement (USM). (http://www.ucanews.com/2008/08/20/mirror-room-helps-people-discover-divinity-within-themselves/) According to its website, the Indian spiritual group defines itself as a movement “based on the spiritual foundations of all the world religions,” and its vision statement “promotes a paradigm shift from a narrow understanding of religiosity to a broad and liberative spirituality.” (And no, I don’t know what that means.)

The UCAN article focused mainly on the movement’s Meditation Room, which has elicited surprise from many worshippers who enter it for the first time. The room is empty, except for a ceiling fan, an overhead light . . . and a full-length mirror. No crucifix or Marian statue. No menorahs or postings of the Ten Commandments. No prayer rugs or incense. Just a mirror. And above the mirror is a sign written in English and Sanskrit. The English says, “God Within”. The Sanskrit is “Aham brahmasmi,” translated as “I am God”.

That’s right. “I am God”.

According to USM’s founder, Varghese Alengaden, staring at ourselves in the mirror is an effective way to learn that we are “the image of God”. Sister C. Lissy says that after initially laughing while staring at her own reflection, she realized that “God is within me, not in a church. I also realized I was confronting myself and this helped me behave better with others." USM’s director says that after a week “people become aware of ‘a divine presence’ there, and this divinity is exuded by your reflection, which in a way is just another image of God’”.

Today’s New Age spiritualities are a form of inverted atheism. Whereas throughout history an atheist was defined as one who disbelieves in God’s existence; today’s inverted atheists believe it is “Man” who is God. Believing that God is nothing more than an infinite source of energy that we all possess is no different than denying the existence of the one true God. Any system that denies the “Creator-creature” distinction is atheistic. It is why Pope John Paul II was correct years ago when he referred to Buddhism as atheistic. Belief in God presupposes an acceptance of a “Supreme Being”.

New Agers believe in something . . . but it isn’t God.



Donald Tremblay

We are the Author of Our Sins

An adage that irks me is, “Hate the sin; Love the sinner”. The clear implication is that the sin is distinct from the sinner, which encourages people to “view the sinner as a victim of his sin, rather than the author of the sin he commits”. (“Hate the Sin but Love the Sinner': Not Scriptural, Not Catholic Doctrine” by Erven Park , New Oxford Review, June 2006) This is a dangerous concept with eternal repercussions.

Separating the sin from the sinner implies that the offender is not damaged by his wrongful action. For ex., the man who slanders another needs to worry only about how the victim is hurt by his act—as if he himself is not adversely affected by it.

Quite the contrary, it is only by recognizing the sinner as the source of his sin that we can understand Canon Ripley’s warning that “sin is disastrous for both the soul and the body.” (This is the Faith, p 57) And as the catechism explains it, sin is like a snowball rolling down a hill, gathering speed and size as it travels:

“Sin creates a proclivity to sin; it engenders vice by repetition of the same acts. This results in perverse inclinations which cloud conscience and corrupt the concrete judgment of good and evil. Thus sin tends to reproduce itself and reinforce itself, but it cannot destroy the moral sense at its root.” (The Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1865)

Only through penance (reconciliation) can the marred soul be healed. “Those who approach the sacrament of Penance obtain pardon from God's mercy for the offense committed against him, and are, at the same time, reconciled with the Church which they have wounded by their sins and which by charity, by example, and by prayer labors for their conversion." (Catechism, 1422)

How can we ask for pardon if we don’t recognize ourselves as authors of our sin?

The biblical account of the stoning of an adulterer offers testimony to the importance of recognizing sinners as the source of their sin. An angry mob is on the verge of stoning an adulterer when Christ instructs, “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.” (John 8:7) Shamed, the angry mob disperses. Christ informs the woman that since nobody remains to condemn her, then neither will he. But he adds these departing words:

“Go, and now sin no more.” (John 8:11)

Christ’s warning is clear. He is telling the woman, “You may go, but do not assume that my words to the crowd were approval of your actions. You have sinned and are responsible for it. Do not offend my Father again.”

If hating the sin were enough, there would have been no need for this final warning.

Donald Tremblay

The 21st Century Televangelist

The National Post, a Canadian newspaper, asks whether Oprah Winfrey is a talk-show host or a spiritual guru. (http://www.nationalpost.com/arts/story.html?id=729239) I’ve always considered Oprah to be more misguided than manipulative. She is the poster girl for today’s feel good, “it’s all about me” spirituality. The adage that seems to best apply to her New Age philosophies is, “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.” But after reading the above article, I am reconsidering my assessment of her as genuine.

Just what exactly is motivating Oprah? Is it simply an “enlightened” desire to see people happy and “fulfilled”? Not quite, according to Kathryn Lofton, assistant professor of religious studies at Yale University . The academic says to look no further than Oprah’s commercial empire for the real inspiration: “"Her imperative is not to save souls. Her imperative is to give you a line that makes you want to return and consume the product."

That’s awfully cynical, Prof Lofton. Are you saying that behind the spiritual guru is nothing more than an opportunistic entrepreneur? How about the Katrina rebuilding and the Angel network? “"I think there is a sincere desire to give back - and you can see it on the documentaries that you can buy on the website for $29.95."

Ouch.

Jokes aside Lofton makes a good argument. Oprah’s rallying cry does seem to focus around, as Lofton phrases it, “’Buy this product, and I'll change your life.'” Chicago actress Robyn Okrant can offer one example as to how her life has changed. Okrant started a blog, “LivingOprah.com, recording her year-long efforts to live as Oprah would have her live. She watches the program, tracks what products Oprah says she ‘must’ buy, she reads the magazines, makes the recipes, buys the Favorite Things.” Okrant reports that she has spent nearly $2,000 and was forced to move into a smaller apartment after her rent was increased. (It was either move or abandon the Oprah project.)

Perhaps Oprah is the 21st century televangelist. The 20th century televangelist was a smarmy Southern man who promised that if you gave him money he would heal you and bring God’s grace down upon you. Maybe the 21st century televangelist is an intelligent, wealthy woman from a major metropolitan city who will teach you the secrets of your divinity and how to empower yourself . . . if you send her your money.


Donald Tremblay

The Wrong One

“And now I am not in the world, and these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep them in thy name whom thou has given me; that they may be one, as we also are.” (John 17:11)

What if the Church itself is a big reason why Christ’s followers are not “One”?

The schism in the Anglican Church has raised the possibility of a mass conversion to Roman Catholicism. However, experts in greater numbers are openly questioning whether certain elements in the Roman Church will try and prevent this unity. Syndicated columnist Rod Dreher points this out in his Beliefnet.com column, “Ex-Anglicans: The Wrong Kind of Catholics?” (http://blog.beliefnet.com/crunchycon/2008/08/exanglicans-the-wrong-kind-of.html) The traditional, conservative bloc of the Anglican Church is in revolt over the American Anglican Church’s decision to ordinate homosexuals and women as bishops. Serious discussions are ongoing about this disaffected group uniting with Rome in some capacity. More priests, more Catholics, and more supporters for the Vatican . Why would anyone in the Roman Church object? “Some Catholic clergy don't want those traddie Episcopalians, presumably because they would be a force for Catholic orthodoxy.”

Bingo.

Dreher hits it on the head. The Roman Church, particularly the American branch, contains a strong liberal contingent among its clergy. The shift toward tradition already underway thanks to Pope Benedict is already marginalizing these liberal factions. What could be worse for their careers than an influx of religious conservatives who will diminish their influence even further?

Dreher relates a story “about a former Episcopal bishop of Fort Worth who wanted to convert to Rome but was sabotaged by Catholic clergy”. It’s worth reading.



Donald Tremblay

Downloading the Adversary

Anyone who grew-up during the 1980s crack epidemic knows that Satan exists. I was raised in a NYC neighborhood that lies on the border of Brooklyn and Queens . As a teenager I remember the horror and sadness I felt watching guys from the neighborhood become shells of themselves under the influence of drugs like crack cocaine, cocaine, angel dust, etc . . . People remember crack cocaine most because of the violent crimes people committed while under its influence, but the other drugs were just as bad in their own ways. It’s a heartbreaking sight watching a 20-year-old man obliviously staring off into space because his brains had been fried from too many hits of angel dust and acid. Heroin is another wonderful drug. A friend of mine who graduated third in his high school was living in an abandoned building within a few years of graduation. Daily he could be seen hurriedly pacing the streets wearing his NY Rangers hockey jersey begging for money. It might be 90-degrees and humid, but he was still wearing that jersey.

Whatever the drug, the proof of its evil was in the eyes of the user. The haunting look branded an impression into your mind. Instantly, you recognized that there was nothing this person wouldn’t do to get his next fix.

I raise this issue today because of an ABCnews.com article that appeared over the weekend entitled, “Web Delivers New Worry for Parents: Digital Drugs”. (http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=5547519&page=1) According to the article, “websites are targeting your children with so-called digital drugs. These are audio files designed to induce drug-like effects. All your child needs is a music player and headphones.” I confess that I had never heard of digital drugs until I read this article. Apparently, they are based on something called binaural beats, which are “ambient sounds designed to affect your brain waves.”
The writer of the ABCnews.com article says she found sites on the web that “sell audio files (‘doses’) that supposedly mimic the effects of alcohol and marijuana. But it doesn't end there. You'll find doses that purportedly mimic the effects of LSD, crack, heroin and other hard drugs. There are also doses of a sexual nature. I even found ones that supposedly simulate heaven and hell.”

How appropriate that something which mimics drug use can simulate hell.

St. Paul warns us that “our wrestling is not against flesh and blood; but against principalities and power, against the rulers of the world of this darkness, against the spirits of wickedness in the high places.” (Ephesians 6:12). Do not doubt for a moment that it is through mechanisms such as drugs, real and digital, that the Evil One attempts to destroy our young people. Protect your children by staying involved. Know the music they listen to, the friends they spend time with, and the websites they log onto. Don’t wait until that haunting look appears before you start asking questions.

Donald Tremblay

Freedom...Even to be a Disgrace

A few weeks ago a depraved man used his internet web show to desecrate the Eucharist. Determined to flaunt his contempt for religion, University of Minnesota biology professor Paul Zachary Myers hammered a nail through the Eucharist and then threw it in the garbage. Many Catholics demanded that the university fire the self-proclaimed 'godless liberal'. (National Catholic Register, August 10, 2008) They argued that if he had used a swastika as the backdrop for his program or had walked around the set wearing a Klan hood, the university would have fired him instantly. And they are right. In today's politically correct climate certain groups are protected, while others can be denigrated without anyone raising an eyebrow. So I guess I am among those who want Myers fired, correct?

No.

I am incensed by what Myers did, but my reason for objecting to his dismissal has a lot to do with Matthew 5:25:

"Be at agreement with thy adversary betimes, whilst thou art in the way with him: lest perhaps the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison."

In this passage Jesus warns that we shouldn't assume that a third-party will side with us in our disagreements with others. We may confidently approach a judge believing that our case is guaranteed, only to walk away on the losing end of the judgment.

Our Lord’s instruction applies in this case. Sure what Myers did was offensive and his firing would elicit little sympathy from anyone. But if we as a society allow the “powers-that-be” to dismiss others because of their unpopular views, what is to stop others from applying that same litmus test against us when it is our views that are unpopular? And let's face it: the Church's views are hardly popular. As Jesus warns in Matthew, we may be the ones delivered to the judge and cast into prison. For example, a Myers dismissal would open the doors to many anti-Church groups who view the Church’s teachings as offensive, such as the homosexual lobby. What would prevent the homosexual lobby from demanding that the university dismiss Catholic professors because gays and lesbians find the Church’s views offensive?

A better approach than firing Myers would be to let the Law of Supply and Demand run its course. Catholics should widen the publicity net exposing Myers’ views and actions. As more people learn about his wickedness, fewer students will register for his courses and overall enrollment at the university may even suffer as parents opt to send their children elsewhere. Eventually, Myers will either realize that his own atheism doesn’t give him carte blanche to denigrate the faith of others, or he will be forced to slither away to his burrow, shamed into obscurity.


Donald Tremblay

Cohabitation vs. Marriage

We’ve all heard it before: “Marriage is just a piece of paper. We don’t need a piece of paper to prove our love.” Or, “We’ve lived together for x years. It’s like we’re married.”

Wrong. No, it’s not.

Cohabitation is not marriage. There is a huge difference. Anyone who has stood at the altar and pledged his/her vows under the eyes of God, family and friends, and the Church can tell you that it is a commitment like no other in life.

It’s understandable why young people today would wish cohabitation and marriage were the same. In today’s world the chances of a new marriage ending in divorce are better than the betting odds you’d get from a Vegas Sports Book. And the financial strain on married couples who divorce can leave people in debt for years to come. Plus, theoretically, it seems logical that if you live with someone to confirm compatibility there’s a better chance of your relationship surviving. Well, as with many things in life, theories that sound great on paper often don’t survive the reality test. The New Oxford Review’s website has re-posted an article they ran in Sep 2007 entitled, “Cohabitation: Ten Facts”. (http://www.newoxfordreview.org/article.jsp?did=0907-schneider) It was written by Patrick Schneider II, M.D., M.P.H., who holds boards in family and geriatric medicine and who received a Masters in Public Health from Harvard University .

Here are some of the facts listed:

· One in ten [cohabitating couples] survives five or more years

· The rate of divorce among those who cohabit prior to marriage is nearly double (39 percent vs. 21 percent) that of couples who marry without prior cohabitation

· Cohabiting women often end up with the responsibilities of marriage -- particularly when it comes to caring for children -- without the legal protection (ibid.), while contributing more than 70 percent of the relationship's income

· A UCLA survey of 130 published studies found that marriages preceded by cohabitation were more prone to drug and alcohol problems

· Three-fourths of children involved in criminal activity were from cohabiting households


Marriage supporters are not surprised. There is a reason why the family, led by a married man and woman, has been the basic building block of every human society since the dawn of civilization. Why is marriage so much better than cohabitation, with or without the addition of children?

People cohabit because they fear commitment. Both sides enter the living arrangement with a (usually) unspoken agreement that they’ll “try it out”, and if it doesn’t work they’ll go their separate ways, no questions asked. The problem with this plan is that both partners live with one foot pointing to the exit. At the first sign of trouble their thought is, “How do I get out of this?” and not, “How do we get through this?”

Relationships do not work unless both parties are committed to one another. There will be many ups and downs in a relationship, and sometimes the downs can be very down. Standing on the altar and promising to remain “until death do us part” will be the single greatest commitment you will make in your life. I’ve heard cohabitants argue that they’ve bought a house together to show their commitment. It’s not the same thing. A house can be sold, proceeds split, with the partners going their separate ways as if the experience never happened. A “do-over” is not as easy when you’re married. Aside from the legal and financial ramifications of an ended marriage, there are emotional and spiritual ones as well. Even when there are legitimate reasons for a marriage to end, be it through infidelity or physical/mental abuse, both spouses will always remember that there was a time when, in front of God and their loved ones, they promised to stay united till death.

That’s an oath no individual can forget.

Donald Tremblay