Love and Intelligence, Faith and Reason

Last week's post started with this excerpt:

"...Charity does not exclude knowledge, but rather requires, promotes, and animates it from within...."
("Caritas in Veritate," 30)

I liked the metaphor in that section of Caritas in Veritate, about wisdom seasoning knowledge with the salt of charity.

Two more excerpts, and I'll move on to the next section:

"...Deeds without knowledge are blind, and knowledge without love is sterile...."

"...Human knowledge is insufficient and the conclusions of science cannot indicate by themselves the path towards integral human development. There is always a need to push further ahead: this is what is required by charity in truth[76] Going beyond, however, never means prescinding from the conclusions of reason, nor contradicting its results. Intelligence and love are not in separate compartments: love is rich in intelligence and intelligence is full of love."
("Caritas in Veritate," 30)

"Love is Rich in Intelligence" - "Intelligence is Full of Love"

I thought recapping last week's post made sense, since section 31 of Caritas in Veritate continues the ideas discussed in section 30:

"This means that moral evaluation and scientific research must go hand in hand, and that charity must animate them in a harmonious interdisciplinary whole, marked by unity and distinction. The Church's social doctrine, which has 'an important interdisciplinary dimension'[77], can exercise, in this perspective, a function of extraordinary effectiveness. It allows faith, theology, metaphysics and science to come together in a collaborative effort in the service of humanity...."
("Caritas in Veritate," 31)

Faith and reason, science and religion, get along just fine. Or, rather, they should. I've said this before. A lot:

• Faith and science are compatible
  (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 159)
• Science and technology
  • Can help people
    • Provided ethics are not violated
      (Catechism, 2292-2294)
  • Scientific medical research is a good idea
    (Catechism, 2292-2296)
    • Within reason
      (Catechism, 2294-2296)
• Health care
  • Concern for health is a good idea
    (Catechism, 2288-2291)
    • Within reason
      (Catechism, 2289)
  • Organ transplants are okay
    • Breaking down a living person for parts is wrong
      • Even if it helps someone else
    (Catechism, 2296)
  (March 5, 2012)

If science and religion are compatible, why do so many folks think they're not? A scientist from the Vatican Observatory said that it's a fairly recent idea, and a crazy one. I've posted about the Victorian-era snit before. (March 20, 2009)

"Recent" is in the eye of the beholder: Brother Guy Consolmagno said "the 'crazy idea' that science and religion conflict" dates back to around the middle of the 19th century. (March 14, 2012) For me, that's 'recent.' But I'm interested in ancient history and cosmology, among other things, so my timescale may be a little different from yours.

Benedict XVI comes at the (unnecessary) discord between religion and science from a different angle, pointing out how it affects more than just Bible thumpers and wackadoo secularists. Not that the Pope used those terms:

"...The excessive segmentation of knowledge[80], the rejection of metaphysics by the human sciences[81], the difficulties encountered by dialogue between science and theology are damaging not only to the development of knowledge, but also to the development of peoples...."
("Caritas in Veritate," 31)

Conscience, Science, and the Golden Rule

The Catechism of the Catholic Church discusses respect for the person and scientific research. (Catechism, 2292-2296) What the Church says might be frustrating to folks who'd like to be "beyond good and evil:" Nietzsche and all that. (March 9, 2012)

What the Catechism says about scientific research is, as far as I can tell, a matter of pointing out that rules about moral choice apply to science and technology. That's covered in a section about conscience:

"Some rules apply in every case:

• "One may never do evil so that good may result from it;
• "the Golden Rule: 'Whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them.'⁵⁶
• "charity always proceeds by way of respect for one's neighbor and his conscience: 'Thus sinning against your brethren and wounding their conscience . . . you sin against Christ.⁵⁷ Therefore 'it is right not to . . . do anything that makes your brother stumble.'⁵⁸"

(Catechism, 1789)

'Don't do evil so that good may follow.' 'Do to others what you'd like them to do to you.' It doesn't sound complicated. I don't think ethics is, really. Not when folks bother to look at the basics.

I think the Vatican archives take up about 85 kilometers of shelf space, at last count, in large part because folks have been trying to weasel out of simple principles for two millennia. More. (Job 5:7) And that's another topic.

"Obedient to the Truth"

I don't see a conflict between faith and reason, religion and science. But then, I converted to Catholicism partly because once I started learning about the Church: what they said made sense. I didn't like everything I read: but I couldn't deny the logic. More topics.

We live in an era that's been changing: fast. Computers were the stuff of science fiction when I was growing up. Today a computer manages the family minivan's engine, and I spend hours a day at a computer's keyboard.

I remember when permanent press was still a new wrinkle in fabrics technology. The NDSU Plant Diagnostic Lab has a Facebook page. you get the idea.

I don't see having clothes that don't need ironing as a problem: and I certainly don't think disease-resistant crops are a bad thing. But I don't think that science and technology are a 'values-free' zone, either.

It's like Benedict XVI said:

"...The scientific ethos, moreover, is - as you yourself mentioned, Magnificent Rector - the will to be obedient to the truth, and, as such, it embodies an attitude which belongs to the essential decisions of the Christian spirit. The intention here is not one of retrenchment or negative criticism, but of broadening our concept of reason and its application...."
("Address at the University of Regensburg," Benedict XVI (September 12, 2006))

---

More posts about "Caritas in Veritate" (Charity in Truth)
"Caritas in Veritate"

---

Related posts:

• Science and Technology
  • "Beauty, Science, and a Crazy Idea"
    (March 14, 2012)
  • "Upset Applecarts: A Hopeful Sign"
    (March 5, 2012)
    Particularly
    • Science, Technology, and Rules
  • " 'Inevitable Progress;' 'We're All Gonna Die;' and Getting a Grip"
    (January 16, 2012)
  • "My Take on the News: Stem Cells, Science, and 'The Man with the X-Ray Eyes' "
    (November 18, 2011)
  • "When to Call Tech Support, When to Read the Bible"
    (January 14, 2011)
• Living in a big world
  • "The Beauty of the Universe, God, and Respect"
    (March 21, 2012)
  • "The Visible World"
    (March 7, 2012)
  • " 'In a State of Journeying' "
    (January 18, 2012)
  • "Evolution, Space Aliens, and Two Millennia of Dealing With People"
    (July 5, 2011)
  • "God's Creation: He Seems to Think Big"
    (September 23, 2010)
• Truth and weasels
  • "Lie and Hype for a Good Cause?!"
    (November 28, 2011)
  • "Having Good Judgment isn't Being Judgmental"
    (October 12, 2011)
  • "Ancient Style and Today's Discussions at the 'Vatican Science Academy' "
    (October 2, 2011)
  • "Zambia, America, and Two Millennia of Weaseling"
    (September 26, 2011)
  • "Caritas in Veritate: Charity, Illumined by the Light of Reason and Faith"
    (January 31, 2010)

More:

• "Address at the University of Regensburg"
  (Meeting with the representatives of science in the Aula Magna of the University of Regensburg)
  Pope Benedict XVI (September 12, 2006)
• "Fides et Ratio," Chapter VII - Current Requirements and Tasks
  Pope John Paul II (English translation) (September 14, 1998)
• "Centesimus Annus"
  Pope John Paul II (English translation) (May 1, 1991)
• "Populorum Progressio"
  Encyclical of Pope Paul VI on the Development of Peoples (March 26, 1967)

My Take on the News: Life; Ambition; Authority; and Saint Thomas Becket

First, the good news: Catholic bishops in America are doing their job.

Now, the bad news: The government says 'kill innocent people.'

But the bishops - all of them - are doing their job. They say 'no, that's a bad idea.'

As a result, we'll probably have a whole lot fewer hospitals, soup kitchens, and homeless shelters in America.

That's because Catholics and Catholic organizations have been quietly providing these services for generations. And now, because we won't kill innocent people, we'll be forced to shut down.

Until someone else is running America's national government.

There's an election coming up, by the way: scheduled for this November.

In this week's news:

1. Tough Times
2. Little Sisters Won't Kill
• 'Liberated' - From Life
• Murder isn't Love
3. Religious Liberty, "Straight-Jacketing Mandates," and Cardinal Dolan
   • A Higher Authority
   • Rogue Rulers
   • Ambition, Ethics, and Religious Freedom
   • Choosing Sides
4. HHS Mandate: What's the Big Deal?
   • Universal Church, Narrow Exemptions

Letters, bulletin inserts, and a call to action:

• "What the Catholic Church in America Actually Says: Link List of Resources"
  (March 8, 2012)

---

1. Tough Times

"Cardinal Dolan Writes to Bishops, Outlines Religious Liberty Fight"
ZENIT (MarcH 6, 2012)
"Warns That 'We Have to Prepare for Tough Times'

"The situation in the United States regarding religious liberty suggests that 'we have to prepare for tough times,' according to the president of the U.S. bishops' conference....

I'll get back to Cardinal¹ Dolan's letter, religious liberty, and what the current administration seems to have in mind, in a bit.

First, here's the sort of "tough times" we need to expect. At least in the short run.

---

2. Little Sisters Won't Kill

"HHS mandate threatens Little Sisters of the Poor's elder care"
Kevin J. Jones, CNA (Catholic News Agency) (March 8, 2012)

"The Little Sisters of the Poor say the HHS contraception and sterilization mandate threatens their continued ministry to the impoverished elderly. They are 'strongly objecting' to the federal rule and say it should be repealed as soon as possible.

" 'Because the Little Sisters of the Poor cannot in conscience directly provide or collaborate in the provision of services that conflict with Church teaching, we find ourselves in the irreconcilable situation of being forced to either stop serving and employing people of all faiths in our ministry - so that we will fall under the narrow exemption - or to stop providing health care coverage to our employees,' the order said on March 1.

" 'Either path threatens to end our service to the elderly in America. The Little Sisters are fervently praying that this issue will be resolved before we are forced to take concrete action in response to this unjust mandate.'

"Their order serves 13,000 needy elderly of all faiths in 31 countries around the world. In the U.S., it has 30 homes for the elderly, accommodating 2,500 low-income seniors...."

Americans have gotten used to the idea that women are sex machines that can be fixed to keep babies from happening.

'Liberated' - From Life

Sterilization and artificial contraception is 'liberating:' according to America's dominant culture. That sort of interference with human nature is also against Catholic teachings - because we're told to believe that women are human beings. There's a bit more to it than that. I recommend reading "Humanae Vitae" for details.

Unhappily, it's not just 'preventive health care' that the Feds want:

"...The Department of Health and Human Services mandate requires employers to provide coverage for 'preventive health.' It defines this coverage to include sterilization and contraception, including some abortion-causing drugs. The Obama administration's proposed compromise would mandate that insurance companies, not employers, provide this coverage.

"The mandate's religious exemption applies only to employers who primarily serve and employ their coreligionists and have the inculcation of religious values as their primary purpose...."
(CNA)

That 'compromise,' where insurance companies pay to off babies - and then bill practicing Catholics - apparently assumes that Catholics are stupid.

Killing an innocent person is wrong. So is paying an assassin to kill an innocent person, or having a third party pay the assassin. The only difference is that more people get involved in the murder.

If the Little Sisters of the Poor shared the current administration's values, they'd have no problem with offing people who were too young to either flee or defend themselves. Or 'mercifully' killing folks who were too old or sick to be useful, for that matter.

Murder isn't Love

Since Catholic values are so counter-cultural, I'd better explain. Again. If this looks familiar, skip to the next heading. Or get a cup of coffee, or whatever.

• Jesus told us that the Commandments boiled down to
  'Love God, love your neighbor.'
  (Matthew 22:36-40; Mark 12:28-31)
• Everybody is our neighbor
  (Matthew 5:43-44; Mark 12:28-31; Luke 10:25-30; Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1825)
• Human life is sacred
  (Catechism, 2258)

Briefly, Catholics who take our faith seriously think that killing our neighbor isn't a very loving thing to do.

---

3. Religious Liberty, "Straight-Jacketing Mandates," and Cardinal Dolan

"Cardinal Dolan Writes to Bishops, Outlines Religious Liberty Fight"
ZENIT (MarcH 6, 2012)
"Warns That "We Have to Prepare for Tough Times"

"...Last Friday, Cardinal Timothy Dolan of New York wrote a letter to all the American bishops updating them on what is happening with the Church's opposition regarding recent changes in health care regulations.

"The president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops explained that in spite of an invitation by President Barack Obama to 'work out the wrinkles,' the White House has now announced that the new regulations of the department of Health and Human Services (HHS) have been published in the Federal Registry....

I posted about Cardinal Dolan's letter on Wednesday:

• "Choose: Religious Freedom; or Straight-Jacketing Mandates' "
  (March 7, 2012)

I've archived Cardinal Dolan's letter. I recommend reading it:

• Letter by Cardinal Timothy M. Dolan
  (March 2, 2012)
  (PDF)
  from http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/religious-liberty/upload/Dolan-to-all-bishops-HHS.pdf

A Higher Authority

The idea that the 'better sort' are "beyond good and evil" has been fashionable for over a hundred years. Nietzsche's "Beyond Good and Evil" and all that.

I think pretending that we can rewrite natural law is as silly as pretending that Congress can repeal the law of gravity, and I've been over that before.

Rogue Rulers

Rogue rulers wanting to have ethics rewritten to suit their ambitions are nothing new. About eight and a half centuries back, Henry II of England wanted jurisdiction over clerics in his territory. International law of the day wouldn't allow it: but Henry II figured that his buddy Thomas of London would help him defy the Pope.

Thomas had been made Archbishop of Canterbury by then, gotten a better look at the 'big picture,' and wouldn't play along. There was a little misunderstanding after that that killed Thomas of London, did little to improve Henry II's public image, and contributed to our knowing Thomas as Saint Thomas Becket. It's a long story.

Ambition, Ethics, and Religious Freedom

Details of today's run-in between secular ambition and ethics are different, but we've got the same basic issue:

"...He [Cardinal Dolan] also said that at a recent meeting at the White House between bishops' conference staff and White House staff, 'our staff members asked directly whether the broader concerns of religious freedom--that is, revisiting the straight-jacketing mandates, or broadening the maligned exemption--are all off the table. They were informed that they are.'

"Cardinal Dolan explained that the Church is prepared to continue to discuss these matters: 'But as we do so, we cannot rely on off the record promises of fixes without deadlines and without assurances of proposals that will concretely address the concerns in a manner that does not conflict with our principles and teaching.'

"Cardinal Dolan warned the bishops that 'given this climate, we have to prepare for tough times.'..."
(ZENIT)

I'm inclined to agree: tough times are ahead.

Choosing Sides

I don't envy Cardinal Dolan, Little Sisters of the Poor, and anyone else who won't agree that the President of the United States has more moral authority than the Pope. But deciding whether or not to play along with the President is, although difficult, not a very complicated choice.

On the one hand, we've got a man who may be President of a major world power for a second four-year term, plus whatever extra he can wangle.

On the other, we've got someone who works for an outfit that's been around for two millennia, and was founded by a man who said:

" 'Amen, amen, I say to you, before Abraham came to be, I AM.' "
(John 8:58)

Any lunatic could say "I am God." What got the eleven surviving apostles' attention was that Jesus didn't stay dead.

In the long run, I think it's better to obey the Son of God, than some politician from Hawaii.

---

4. HHS Mandate: What's the Big Deal?

"Getting to Know the HHS Mandate"
Ann Schneible, ZENIT (March 5, 2012)
"Expert From Becket Fund Explains What Is at Stake

"The Health and Human Services (HHS) Mandate has fueled debates over the Obama Administration's unwillingness to grant the necessary exemptions to religious institutions, forcing these institutions to pay for medical procedures that go against their religious beliefs.

"Hannah Smith, Senior Legal Council of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, spoke with ZENIT to explain the HHS Mandate, its constitutional implications, and what kind of action can be taken against it.

"ZENIT: Could you explain for our readers what the HHS Mandate is, and what the implications of this mandate are for Catholic institutions?

"Smith: Back in August, the Department of Health and Human Services issued the mandate which requires all group health plans in the United States to pay for contraception, sterilization, and certain drugs that can cause an abortion. That mandate contains a very narrow exemption...."

The Catholic Church is, literally, universal. Long before American law made discrimination based on ethnicity or religion illegal, the Catholic Church was getting folks used to the idea that 'it's a big neighborhood:'

• " 'We are Parthians, Medes, and Elamites...' "
  (August 5, 2011)

One reason we get a reputation for being 'narrow minded' is that we're told to care about everybody: even the weak or helpless.

Universal Church, Narrow Exemptions

"...The exemption from the mandate has four prongs: the religious employer must (1) have the primary purpose of inculcating religious values, (2) primarily employ people of its own faith, (3) primarily serve people of its own faith, and (4) fall within a certain tax-code provision (that it's tax exempt, and it doesn't have to file tax returns in the United States). So, it is a very narrow exemption that basically means very few religious entities will be exempted from the mandate...."
(ZENIT)

Again, the Feds will allow an employer to not pay to get employees sterilized, or kill their babies only if the employer:

• 1 Has the primary purpose of inculcating religious values
• 2 Primarily employs people of its own faith
• 3 Primarily serves people of its own faith
• 4 And Falls within a certain tax-code provision
  • So that it's tax exempt, and it doesn't have to file tax returns in the United States

Catholics have a mandate to help everybody. We're also taught that human life is sacred. That puts us in conflict with the current administration.

"...Most faith-based institutions, like schools, universities, colleges, soup kitchens, homeless shelters, or other social service organizations would not be exempt from the mandate. That's why the mandate has set off such a public outcry, because there are so many religious organizations that, because of their religious mission, could not cover these kinds of drugs and services, but under the mandate there is no opportunity for them to opt out...."
(Ann Schneible, ZENIT)

Folks having to make a choice is nothing new:

" 'Now, therefore, fear the LORD and serve him completely and sincerely. Cast out the gods your fathers served beyond the River and in Egypt, and serve the LORD.

"³ If it does not please you to serve the LORD, decide today whom you will serve, the gods your fathers served beyond the River or the gods of the Amorites in whose country you are dwelling. As for me and my household, we will serve the LORD.' "
(Joshua 24:14-15)

Sometimes following Joshua's example is awkward. But it's the right thing to do.

---

More posts about forcing Catholics to violate our conscience:
The Department of Health and Human Services vs. Conscience

---

Related posts:

• Natural law
  • "My Take on the News: The San Jose Articles, Natural Law, International Law, and Getting a Grip"
    (December 2, 2011)
  • "The Village, the Fence and the Sign"
    (December 5, 2010)
    • A fable
  • "Natural Moral Law, Catholicism, Karma, and the Tea Party"
    (October 16, 2010)
  • "Social Media Guidelines from American Bishops"
    (July 21, 2010)
  • "Demonic Deception? Or What You Get When We Play God?"
    (May 5, 2010)
• Religious Freedom
  • "My Take on the News: Death; Religious Freedom; Resistance; Burned Books; and Saints"
    (February 24, 2012)
    Particularly
    • Religious Freedom and Living in a Big world
  • "My Take on the News: Religion, Politics, and Freedom "
    (October 28, 2011)
  • "The Establishment Clause; Religious Freedom; and Getting a Grip"
    (October 5, 2011)
  • "First Amendment Suspended for 9/11 Memorial Service: Wrong, but Understandable"
    (September 10, 2011)
  • "Religious Freedom, Niemöller, and Muslims in America"
    (April 7, 2011)
    Particularly
    • Why the Rights of Muslims Matter to This Catholic
  Politics and government
  • "Charity in Truth: Freedom, Responsibility, and God"
    (January 30, 2012)
  • "Separation of Church and State, Assumptions, and Fear"
    (September 2, 2011)
  • "Morality, Wisdom, and Getting a Grip"
    (June 3, 2011)
  • " 'Disagreement' is not 'Treason,' 'Protest' is not 'Terrorism' "
    (April 19, 2011)
  • "The Catholic Church, Rules, and American Law"
    (August 22, 2010)
  Life issues
  • "If Babies are a Disease: This is a Cure"
    (March 8, 2012)
  • "Six Seven People Killed in Minnesota's Monday Crashes"
    (February 22, 2012)
  • "Steve Jobs, Jospeh Maraachli, and 'Reproductive Health:' My Take"
    (October 7, 2011)
  • "The Fight for Life, God, and Choosing Sides"
    (March 27, 2010)
  • "Life: It's a Single Issue, and an Important One"
    (November 2, 2008)

---

¹ That's His Eminence Cardinal Timothy M. Dolan, Archbishop of New York. He's also president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. (USCCB)

I've had his blog, The Gospel in the Digital Age, on the blogroll for some time now.

Religion isn't For Blind Sheep?

I skipped the recent 'Tony Blair' debate.

I figured I had better things to do with my time. Like read the Bible, study the Catechism: or, for that matter, watch paint dry.

Why would I voluntarily miss finding out what an atheist thinks? It's related to my interests and experiences.

I find the intellectual side of my faith quite engaging. I've also done time in American academia.

What 'Everybody Knows' May Not be So

While in the halls of ivy I learned that, according to self-described 'very intelligent' people, religion is for people who - at best - don't know any better. And that, as a corollary, people who take their faith seriously are, well, somewhat deficient.

I take my faith seriously, so by 'very intelligent' standards, I'm one of those folks who aren't very enlightened.

Works for me.

I'm not very insulted, since since that assumption puts me on a par with folks like St. Catherine of Siena, Copernicus, and St. Thomas Aquinas.

Annoyed, maybe.

Debate, Blair, and Wasting Time: Another Blogger's Take

Here's part of what brought all that to mind:

"...Blair probably should not have even bothered and instead should have gone to mass that night or spent an evening helping out at a shelter or visiting someone who was lonely and sick in a hospital. That would have said a lot more about his faith than wasting a lot of words on a pompous ass whose main intellectual arsenal is sneering and using sarcasm.

"This perennial debate between atheists and the religious has no end in sight. It seems to sell tickets and for a certain type of intellectual it is like watching boxing without the blood.

"But the debate is useless for one simple reason: most atheists do not have a clue what religion is about. They see religious people as blind sheep following a series of incomprehensible rules and dogmas and then scoff at their lack of enlightenment. They find the flaw in the painting and say it is all now ruined. Atheists are utopians [sic] who believe a perfect society can be built if only religion was not in the way.

"As far as I can see, those Godless societies have not done too well, unless you consider North Korea a success...."
(Charles Lewis, Commentary, TheCatholicSpirit.com)

Well, what does Mr. Lewis know? He's obviously one of those religious people, and 'everybody knows' what they're like.

Sarcasm, Monsters, and Nietzsche's Famous One-Liners

Re-reading that last sentence, I see that I was, arguably, sarcastic.
That's something I need to be careful about. And I've got a nifty quote to back up that assumption:

"Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And when you look long into an abyss, the abyss also looks into you."
(Friedrich Nietzche (1878)¹)

Nietzche?! I do not accept his philosophy. On the other hand, he was good at writing memorable one-liners.

And Nietzschian 'wisdom' has been carefully preserved: in part, I suspect, because he's 'very intelligent:'

"Two great European narcotics, alcohol and Christianity"
(Friedrich Nietzche (1888)¹)

Like I said: good with one-liners; but not someone whose philosophy I accept.

Atheists, Religion, and Illusion

Mr. Lewis explains his assertion that atheists "do not have a clue what religion is about." This is a generalization, but my experience suggests that it's fairly close to the mark in many cases:

"...Atheists are under the ridiculous illusion that religious people think that all they have to do is call out to God and help will be on the way. If it were so, Jesus never would have gone up on the cross. The crucifixion is not a contradiction and the anti-religious cannot get their heads around that. Faith is not the avoidance of trouble, it is facing it head on and then finding holiness...."
(Charles Lewis, Commentary, TheCatholicSpirit.com)

I'd qualify that to read "Catholic faith is not the avoidance of trouble...." I've mentioned the prosperity gospel before. Not that being Catholic is all fasts and suffering and feeling like something the cat dragged in. And that's another topic.

After a while someone who does have a clue as to what Christianity is about starts to notice patterns in what the 'very intelligent' set assumes. I've quoted this before:

"...No. He really wrote that. And then he makes all the usual category mistakes ('God, under carefully controlled laboratory conditions, does whatever he wants and that makes me mad. I can't see God doing magic tricks for me, so that means he's not there. The universe has knowable laws, so there is no Legislator. It offends my pride that God has hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to babes.') and similar stupid pet tricks...."
(Catholic and Enjoying It!)

I've used that quote before, in "Science, Faith, and Auto Mechanics," when another high-profile blurt of nonsense was passing through the media. (August 19, 2010)

Gandhi, Christians, and Christ

I've written this before, but I think it bears repeating: not all Christians are dolts. I've also repeated this quote:

"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."
(attr. Gandhi)

I've had my emphatically un-Christlike moments. I try, however, to avoid building my faith around them. Yet another topic.

I think it's possible that the folks who consider themselves to be the best and brightest in the land may have assumed that the likes of Tony Alamo, Pat Robertson and Fred Phelps are typical Christian leaders. That would, I think, help explain what Mr. Lewis describes as an atheist's view of religious people: and of religion in general.

Sheep, Yes: Blind, No

As a practicing Catholic, I'm expected to follow Jesus. But not blindly. The Catechism of the Catholic Church doesn't take long to get to the importance of reading - studying - Sacred Scripture. (Catechism, 131-133) Ignorance is not a virtue, not for Catholics anyway. The Catechism puts "education" in a list of needs, along with food and clothing. (Catechism, 1908)

It was the intellectual rigor of Vatican II documents that helped convince me that I needed to become a Catholic - and that's yet again another topic.

Related posts:

• "Compromise, No: Communicate, Yes"
  (June 16, 2010)
• "Assumptions About Religion, and American Rules of Etiquette"
  (April 14, 2010)
• "Tony Alamo, 'Those Evangelists,' and Labels"
  (November 13, 2009)
• "Tolerance: Yes, it's a Good Idea"
  (August 3, 2009)
• " 'If There Were no God - - -'"
  (April 11, 2009)

More:

• "Dear atheists: most of us don't care what you think"
  Charles Lewis, Commentary, TheCatholicSpirit.com (December 9, 2010)

---

¹ The Friedrich Nietzche quotes are from page 552 of Familiar Quotations, John Bartlett, 16th edition, Justin Kaplan, general editor. "Whoever fights" is from Human, All Too Human (1878); "Two great" from The Twilight of the Idols (1888). Again: I don't have much use for Nietzche's philosophy, but he had a knack for writing memorable one-liners. Or aphorisms, to be a bit more highbrow.

---

A tip of the hat to catholicspirit, on Twitter, for the heads-up on TheCatholicSpirit.com's Commentary.