Hitchens and D'Souza debate Christianity v. atheism

Atheist Christopher Hitchens and Dinesh D'Souza debated at King's College in New York City the topic, "Is Christianity the Problem?" Hitchens obviously said yes while D'Souza said no. I thought it interesting that Catholic theologian Michael Novak thought D'Souza got the best of it.

You can decide for yourself by viewing or listening to the debate here.

To whom shall he pray?

Not long ago political pundits insisted on writing off religious voters. Today, or at least in the Iowa primary, its all about the religious vote; the outcome of which may affect the national dialogue.

It's no longer whether faith should be a factor - but which faith.

Polls show Iowan's favor Romney and Huckabee, both men who take their faith seriously and take their faith with them whether in church on Sunday or on the stump during the week.

And there is the rub.

It seems that Iowa conservatives want a President who will get on his knees and pray to the maker of the universe before releasing a nuclear warhead. (Hideous that there are those who would cry foul at such a humble act.) Now some are asking themselves "to whom shall he pray?"

Tomorrow, Mr. Romney may answer that question, but with two candidates who take their faith seriously it is certain that Iowan's will be on their knees before the final votes are cast as well.

What is truth? What is compassion and love?

The "What is truth?" line was made famous by Pontius Pilate in his confrontation with Jesus the day before His crucifixion. That continues to be the issue confronting all of us and particularly in present day America.

That comes to mind when I saw the protest by homosexuals against Catholic Co-Adjudicator Archbishop Nienstedt who is being castigated for simply restating the Catholic view of homosexual behavior.

So many in our post-modern society believe we decide what is true when in fact we have no such luxury. It's laughable really. Like saying we can legislate a change in the law of gravity.

The same thing applies to the issue of compassion and love. Nick Coleman doesn't see a lot of compassion in the Archbishop's comments. In fact the exact opposite is true. Compassion involves desiring the best for other people and if people are doing something which will harm them now and for eternity, it's the compassionate, loving thing to warn the people that what they are doing is putting their lives at risk. That's exactly what the Archbishop Nienstedt is doing as he states in his response to Coleman's column.

Here's the Archbishop's response to Coleman's charges:

In a Nov. 28 column, Nick Coleman accuses me of not being compassionate toward friends and relatives of persons with same-sex attractions. I vigorously deny the charge. For 13 years I prepared priesthood candidates for celebrating the Sacrament of Penance by counseling them to welcome persons with warmth, compassion and understanding. Anyone who has celebrated that same sacrament with me knows I follow my own advice.

What Coleman wants is for the church I represent to be accepting and compassionate toward homosexual acts and lifestyles. And that can never be.

Coleman further claims the Catechism of the Catholic Church does not say that homosexual acts are a "grave evil." What it does say is the following: "Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity (Genesis 19: 1-29, Romans 1: 24-27, 1 Corinthians 6: 10, 1 Timothy 1:10), tradition has always declared that 'homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.' ... Under no circumstances can they be approved."

As a priest and bishop, I have the responsibility before God and in the name of Jesus Christ to call all men and women to conversion, the first step of which is recognizing sinful activity for what it is. Sometimes that is not a comfortable thing to do, but it is always the compassionate thing to do.

JOHN C. NIENSTEDT, ST. PAUL;

COADJUTOR ARCHBISHOP,

ARCHDIOCESE OF ST. PAUL AND MINNEAPOLIS

Way to go, Coadjutor Archbishop Nienstedt.

Old media Star Tribune befuddeled by technology based letters to editor

According to Jeff Davis at Minnesota Majority, over 60 letters have been written to the Star Tribune in protest of Nick Colman's attack on Archbishop Nienstedts letter outlining the Catholic Church's position on homosexuality.

Do you think any were printed? "NOT ONE of the over 60 letters critical of Coleman's column submitted through our online letter writing tool were published by the Star Tribune," says Davis.

Seems the editorial department suffers from technophobia, an unnatural fear of letters from conservative readers that use an online letter writing tool.

Think about what that means. The ever shrinking Strib can use any means to bombard the public with its post modern ideology, but, when the public responds using technology, they refuse to print the results.

What is it that de-legitimizes a fast-response, technology based public response? Were the letters any less genuine because they filled in a form?

Nonsense.

An elitist oligarchy is a sure sign of a declining newspaper.

Is religion declining or growing in American?

I recently came across an interesting talk by Princeton sociology professor Robert Wunthnow "Myths About American Religion" given at a conference sponsored by the Heritage Foundation, among others.

He discussed what he views as five myths about religion in America.

One, America is in the midst of a religious and spiritual awakening.
Two, There is no secularization [happening in the church].
Third, Politics is driving people from the church.
Fourth, Membership in evangelical denominations is growing.
Fifth, The culture war is over or never happened.

I think he's right in suggesting that general religious sentiment is not necessarily growing in America and his myths are generally on target though I think he broad brushes a couple of things too much. I do think the seeds of a spiritual awakening are present though not on a macro level in society. And his fourth myth, that membership in evangelical denominations is growing is a bit misleading because in that section he says,

None of this is to suggest that conservative Protestantism is declining or is not a vibrant factor in American religious life. It does, however, chal­lenge observers to be more nuanced in their inter­pretations. Evangelicalism is not experiencing the huge growth suggested by figures from stories about megachurches.

What are the reasons for the decline in church attendance and religious practice? The only one he gives is people are delaying getting married and because church attendance is more likely among married folks with children the numbers of people attending church is down.

I think major influence is the ubiquitous nature and influence of materialism. That in our incredible material prosperity many people have bought into the illusion that we really don't need God. That we can "do it quite well on our own thank you". We've lost sight of the fact that our blessings, both material and spiritual, ultimately come from the hand of God.

And of course, there's a philosophical aspect to this materialism or secularism which permeates our educational institutions and the broader media. It's the belief that what's really real is only what we can physically touch and experience. A spiritual realm is merely speculative at best. Religion when discussed is like any other pastime, e.g. sports, music, movies, or personal fitness. It's something people treat as a consumer product rather than addressing the fundamental questions about man's existence, e.g. what is man, why do I exist, what does God expect of me, and where do I go when I die.

Ultimately, a society can't long survive if materialism/secularism is the reigning view. It denies reality. Europe which is on the cutting edge of this materialist/secular road is a culture in decline for many reasons and most obviously evidenced by the fact that it is a culture not reproducing itself. They are a dying society.