Saint Perpetua is said to have written one of the earliest pieces of writing by a Christian woman. The account of her martyrdom, which Perpetua herself wrote, is mostly written in Latin. Here is a link to The Passion of Saints Perpetua and Felicity

Saints Perpetua and Felicity, pray for us!

Fathers, Historians, and Writers of the Church

Confessions of Saint Augustine

A History of the Catholic Church

History of the Roman Breviary

Apology of Socrates

Bede’s Ecclesiastical History of England

Enjoy!

I wish I could have said more things about Tolstoy’s version of “Christianity”, but I am limited to a one page paper.

Here is my reaction paper for you to read and comment/critique:

 Jorge L. Flores
Dr. N. Grossman
Philosophy 441
29 January 2009
AMDG

Tolstoyanism vs. Christianity

Inequality between people, not just between lay and clergy, but between rich and poor, and masters and slaves, was established by the Church Christian religion. . . .The most important thing is that Christianity proclaims the equality of all men, no longer merely as a basic teaching of universal brotherhood, but because all men are recognized as being sons of God.

(Leo Tolstoy, What is Religion and of What Does Its Essence Consist?, Chapter 6)

 The above quote succinctly captures Tolstoy’s idea of both true Christianity and false or corrupted Christianity. The contradistinction, in Tolstoy’s mind, is clear cut: true Christianity teaches the equality of all men while “Church Christianity” establishes inequality between them. Concomitant with his concept of Christianity as a religion that teaches the equality of all men, Tolstoy held that the Golden Rule is essential to any true religion; thus, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Confucianism, etc., can all be said to be true religions insofar as they all teach the equality of all men and a version of the Golden Rule. What perverts the original and holy message of all religions? “Their external forms,” Tolstoy would surely answer. In the case of Christianity these external forms are “fleshed out” in doctrines such as the Holy Trinity, the Incarnation of the Son of God, the infallibility of the Church, and the sacraments of the Church –of which the sacrament of the Eucharist would probably rank at the top in Tolstoy’s list of useless and absurd dogmas. In Tolstoy’s own words, “Indeed no other faith has ever preached things so incompatible with reason and contemporary knowledge as those taught by Church Christianity.”

As a Catholic Christian, I must readily admit that Tolstoy’s version of Christianity has some good elements of spiritual teaching and truth. In fact, if I were to utterly reject Tolstoy’s every pronouncement in regards to morality and religion, I would ultimately be rejecting some of the fundamental teachings of the Church. At the same time, however, I must, at once, clearly define my position in respect to the “Christianity” that Tolstoy offers. My position: Tolstoy’s version of Christianity is heretical, not because it teaches that all men are equal and that we should love each other, but because of its rejection of the fact that God reveals himself to man. The way I see it, all of Tolstoy’s errors have their origin in this fundamental rejection because instead of letting the Almighty help us to understand the whole of reality, we fall into what Saint John the Evangelist describes as “the lust of the eyes” (1 John 2:16). But, what exactly does this “lust of the eyes” mean? Saint Josemaría Escrivá de Balaguer (1902 – 1975) offers us an explanation in his book CHRIST IS PASSING BY:

 St John tells us that the other enemy is the lust of the eyes, a deep-seated avariciousness that leads us to appreciate only what we can touch. . . .Reason proclaims itself sufficient to understand everything, without the aid of God. This is a subtle temptation, which hides behind the power of our intellect, given by our Father God to man so that he might know and love him freely. Seduced by this temptation, the human mind appoints itself the centre of the universe, being thrilled with the prospect that “you shall be like gods.” So filled with love for itself, it turns its back on the love of God.

Here is my second reaction paper for you to read and critique!

“We . . . know that research on embryonic stem cells requires the destruction of human embryos at the 150-cell stage. . . . We know that embryonic stem cells promise to be a renewable source of tissues and organs that might alleviate . . . suffering in the not too distant future.”
(Sam Harris, The End of Faith, p. 166)

Continuing in the usual condescending attitude towards “faith based religion,” Sam Harris goes on to complain in the fifth chapter of his book about how the “capricious, petulant, and cruel” God of Abraham has so much influence in the determination of government policies in the United States: “The degree to which religious ideas still determine government policies,” Harris points out, “presents a grave danger to everyone.” The opposition to research on human embryonic stem cells, Harris believes, is a case in point.

In order to demonstrate just how wrong “religious dogmatists” are in their “pernicious opposition” to the progress of scientific medical knowledge, Harris goes on to cite a number of diseases and disabilities that could be alleviated or cured if only research on human embryonic stem cells was given free reign. Millions of people, Harris claims, would be alleviated from Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, Duchenne muscular dystrophy, and diabetes. But, is this true? What does the evidence say? Are good ethics and good science in opposition as Harris would like us to believe?

Four full years have passed since Harris’ book was published in August of 2004; to date, the much touted human embryonic stem cell research has not produced a single therapeutic cure –not one. In fact, Ryan T. Anderson, a junior fellow at First Things: The Journal of Religion, Culture, and Public Life and assistant director of the Program on Bioethics and Human Dignity at the Witherspoon Institute of Princeton, wrote that “there are no human embryonic stem-cell therapies even in clinical trial, let alone ready for therapy, and there have been no major treatment models in animals, either.”

Very much against Harris’ anti-faith cause, however, is that there has been a stem cell research breakthrough reported in November of 2007 by Dr. Shinya Yamanaka and Dr. James Thomson, that basically states that pluripotent stem cells can be obtained from human skin cells without the need to destroy human embryos; this technique and other reported techniques that do not require the destruction of human embryos, therefore, are perfectly compatible with Christian ethics.

In light of other ethically sound scientific techniques that have been reported in other research papers, it seems to me that Mr. Harris’ accusation that “faith based religion” stops scientific progress is unfounded and irrational.

Recommended reading: What We Know About Embryonic Stem Cells

Here is my first reaction paper for you to read and critique!

Sam Harris, in his New York Times Bestseller The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason, argues that all faith-based religions “are leading us, inexorably, to kill one another.” In fact, Peter Singer, author of The President of Good and Evil: The Ethics of George W. Bush –and who is notorious for his infanticidal beliefs—praised Harris’ book saying: 

At last we have a book that focuses on the common thread that links Islamic terrorism with the irrationality of all religious faith. The End of Faith will challenge not only Muslims but Hindus, Jews, and Christians as well.

Well, while I do not doubt that Mr. Harris will launch direct attacks on Catholicism in the later chapters of his book, I still have not been challenged by his general attacks on religion, nor have I seen how Islamic terrorism and the Catholic Faith share a common thread that necessarily makes them irrational and violent in nature. It seems, however, that the “common thread” of which Mr. Singer speaks is nothing other than the so-called extreme religious faith. To be sure, both Muslims and Catholic Christians hold that faith is an integral part of their lives, but does faith necessarily make both of them violent and irrational as Harris seems to suggest? I think not! In fact, I think that one counterexample will suffice to demonstrate that religious faith –and even extreme religious faith—does not necessarily engender violence.

Let us take Mother Teresa of Calcutta as the counterexample. It seems to me that she fulfilled the sole requirement set forth by Mr. Harris to be considered a “religious extremist.” She had faith, extreme faith; according to the Vatican she was “small of stature, rocklike in faith.” She firmly believed in things that Mr. Harris would describe as “dangerous,” “foolish,” “unnecessary,” and “fantastical”; namely, she believed in such things as the one God, Jesus’ coming down from heaven and taking human flesh, and in Jesus’ eschatological parousia to judge the living and the dead. The germane question, then, is: did these beliefs make Mother Teresa a violent person? Or, was her rocklike faith an irrational threat to human survival? If we are impartial and honest with ourselves the answer is “certainly not.” Now, it is clear that Mother Teresa is one of the best examples who testify against Harris’ charge on religious faith, but she is by no means the only example. One need only do a simple Google search and read about the lives of 20th century men and women of faith like Maximilian Mary Kolbe (1894-1941), Dorothy Day (1897-1980), and Pier Giorgio Frassati (1901-1925), to find out just how much Harris errs in his general characterization of deeply religious people.

To finish up, it seems to me that Mr. Harris would have done a much better job if he dedicated the first three chapters of his book to at least some constructive criticism of “faith-based religion” rather than attacking it; unfortunately this seems very unlikely because he is firm in his irrational belief that “faith-based religion must . . . slide into obsolescence.”

In this trip, I am taking a Latin grammar (Wheelock), Greek grammars (Greek: An Intensive Course, Greek Before Christmas), The Collected Works of John of the Cross, The Historical Christ and Jesus of Faith, The New Testament Background, and others. The grammars are the ones I used in undergraduate and graduate school, and the last three are books I have owned for awhile, and have been meaning to read. Does anybody have any thoughts on these books?

Also, below is a photo of one of my bookshelves at my parents’ home (moving all of these will be a gradual process). Does anybody want to play “identify that book?” If so, have a stab at it. There are quite a few Christian books on this shelf! Note that a good chunk of my Catholic books are currently at my house, and not on this shelf. Also, if I can access a text online, chances are I haven’t moved the books with those texts from my parents house to my house yet.

I love free stuff, who doesn’t! Imagine how excited I was to find that Digital Catholic Library is offering free ebooks of Orthodoxy by G.K. Chesterton! With Earth Day this past week, what better way to celebrate than with a free, paperless, Catholic book.

Expect a 600KB download. Sorry everyone across the pond and to the south, it’s only free for US and Canadian citizens.

Tea and Sympathy

http://teaandsympathy-amy.blogspot.com

If you don’t know Evelyn Waugh (aside from not getting the reference in Lost In Translation), it may be high time to make a new literary acquaintance. You certainly won’t regret it.

By Eric J. Lyman

Oct 20, 2007
ROME — Film producers Conroy Kanter and Ecky Malick on Friday announced the creation of I Am Third Prods., with plans to make the company’s first film based on the best-selling apocalyptic novel “Father Elijah” by Canadian author Michael O’Brien.

Read the rest…

I know several people will be excited to hear this. Now I have to read this series. LOL

Hat tip: Colleen Hammond

Check out some of the characters on Wikipedia:

The Authority is the first angel created in this world. He convinces the other angels he is the Creator. He rules Cloud Mountain or the Kingdom of Heaven.

Xaphania is the angel who figures out The Authority lied. She leads the rebellion against him. She wishes to create the Republic of Heaven.

Marisa Coulter (Nicole Kidman) is a widow who works for Oxford and the Catholic Church.

Magisterium or the Church does experiments on children to separate them from their daemons (souls). The reasoning is it will prevent children from knowing sin. Coulter is in charge of these experiments.

Daemons in this series are the physical manifestation of the soul, think witch’s familiar.

Dr. Mary Malone is a physicist from “our world” and an ex-nun.

Pullman is an atheist and has even helped create a series called Why Atheism? with writer Michael Rosen. What does this have to do with his books? Everything. Just like Tolkien, Lewis, and George MacDonald put Christian themes in their books, so has he put atheistic themes in his. He weaves his story using Hebrew, Pagan, and Christian symbolism.

From an interview with the Sydney Morning Herald in 2003:

Pullman, though, expected more. “I’ve been surprised by how little criticism I’ve got. Harry Potter’s been taking all the flak. I’m a great fan of J.K. Rowling, but the people – mainly from America’s Bible Belt – who complain that Harry Potter promotes Satanism or witchcraft obviously haven’t got enough in their lives. Meanwhile, I’ve been flying under the radar, saying things that are far more subversive than anything poor old Harry has said. My books are about killing God. Source: The shed where God died

From Pullman’s Q and A section on his website:

Q: What stance do the books take?

“It depicts a struggle: the old forces of control and ritual and authority, the forces which have been embodied throughout human history in such phenomena as the Inquisition, the witch-trials, the burning of heretics, and which are still strong today in the regions of the world where religious zealots of any faith have power, are on one side; and the forces that fight against them have as their guiding principle an idea which is summed up in the words The Republic of Heaven. It’s the Kingdom against the Republic.

And everything follows from that. So, for instance, the book depicts the Temptation and Fall not as the source of all woe and misery, as in traditional Christian teaching, but as the beginning of true human freedom something to be celebrated, not lamented. And the Tempter is not an evil being like Satan, prompted by malice and envy, but a figure who might stand for Wisdom.
….
And if certain Christian critics are confused by this, and imagine I’m denying the difference between good and evil, then all I can say is that I shall pray for them.”
Source: Pullman’s Q&A section.

In a recent interview with Al Roker, Pullman dances around the question about the book being anti-Catholic. Obviously, he’s heard that people don’t want to support a movie in which killing God is the objective. He now says the religion in this other world has gone bad. How bad? According to Catholic Culture:

Throughout the trilogy, priests are portrayed as evil and violent; one of them is an assassin. In contrast, an ex-nun who has lost her faith is positively portrayed. She describes Christianity as “a very powerful and convincing mistake.” The “Magisterium” kidnaps children in order to take out their souls. In the final volume, characters representing Adam and Eve kill God, who is referred to as YAHWEH.

As a Catholic blog we seek to inform our readers about a variety of topics. I wanted to do more than shake my finger saying, “bad man,” so I wanted to provide some background on the books and film. Hopefully, you now know enough to make your own decision about this series, and not boycott it simply because some prominent orthodox Catholics oppose it.

Want More?

Snopes.com on The Golden Compass

Philip Pullman “Religious Impulse” Listen to his examples.

Philip Pullman Realizes ‘Killing God’ Not the Ideal Sales Pitch

Atheism for Christmas?

“The Golden Compass: Agenda Unmasked” Catholic League

(Episcopal) Archbishop wants atheist Pullman on syllabus

photo from: About.com

We went there today and I was able to pick up a hardback copy of Frank Sheed’s The Church and I for 50 cents. I’m only on page 27, but I feel like I’ve gotten my money’s worth. I’ve already ran across a passage that’s blog-worthy and goes along with some thoughts and converstaions I’ve had as of late.

Sheed talks about Wilfrid Ward’s assertion that the post-Reformation Catholic Church had adapted itself to state of siege in which the disputes of the Protestants dictated the emphasis on “the great defensive doctrines-the Visible Church and its marks, Supremacy, Infallibility.” These issues “had first call on the Church’s energy” while “[t]he real life of the Church based on Trinity, Incarnation, Redemption, the life to come, could not receive the degree of attention which would have been normal…[t]here was no development of the doctrines of Heaven and Hell because they were not attacked, but endless writing on purgatory, which was.“

I wonder if, in the realm of Catholic/non-Catholic dialogue and apologetics if this is not often still the case. I’m not saying that the truths about the Visible Church should not be defended, but I have found in my own transformation from anti-Catholic to Candidate that it is precisely the depth and beauty of the Church’s teaching and expression of “[t]he real life of the Church based on Trinity, Incarnation, Redemption, the life to come” that made those truths about the Visible Church much easier to consider and digest. It was becoming convinced that many of the things I valued in my tradition were expressed so much deeper and truer in the Catholic faith that made me willing to look at those aspects of Catholicism that I was naturally antagonistic about. This is something to keep in mind when in conversation over lunch, in the chat rooms and at the debate podium.

Just some thoughts as much for my edification as anyone’s. Maybe more.