True Hypocrisy

photo courtesy of Selina Mayer

“A man once said to me: I don’t go to church because I don’t want to be with a bunch of hypocrites.

I replied: Well, one more won’t hurt!”

- Mother Angelica

Hypocrisy is often used as propaganda against Christianity. To my mind, this is due to misunderstanding what the word hypocrisy truly means.

What is hypocrisy? St. Thomas Aquinas defined hypocrisy as not failing to be good but rather pretending to be good.

In other words, hypocrisy is not failing to live up to an ideal but rather the pretense of being ideal. Therefore, a philandering husband who feigns fidelity to his wife in order to gain the admiration of others is a hypocrite. In this regard, we note that:

Philandering discredits the philanderer, not fidelity.

Hypocrisy is not failing to practice what one preaches but rather failing to believe what one preaches. Therefore, a father who forbids his children to lie but doesn’t really put stock in honesty himself and is unremorseful about his own lying is a hypocrite. In this regard, we note that:

Lying discredits the liar, not honesty. 

Jesus Christ commanded His followers to “be perfect, just as your heavenly Father is perfect” (Matthew 5:48). Sanctity, without the grace of God, is not just hard, but impossible. For this reason, we should always pray for the wisdom, strength and courage to live our lives according to God’s will. And each time we fall, we can pick ourselves up by repenting, confessing and resolving to sin no more. What we cannot and should not do is give up our aim for holiness because we fear being called hypocrites.

It’s also been said that “hypocrisy is the price that vice pays to virtue”. If this is the case, then Christians should be willing to pay that price. In this regard, we note that:

Hypocrisy discredits the hypocrite, not Christianity.

An Essay on Morality: The Natural Law (Part 4)

photo courtesy of Chot Touch

Of the natural or moral law, St. Paul wrote: “the demands of the law are written in their hearts” (Romans 2:15). Indeed, that man should “do good and avoid evil” is self-evident to anyone endowed with reason. Natural law gave birth to what is known as natural or human rights. It’s a key element in the creation of the United Nations; its truth makes possible for people from different countries, cultures, ideologies, and religions to come together for a common good.

Man-made laws are valid only if they conform, and not conflict, with the natural law.

And, as with man-made laws, we can also choose not to obey the natural law – to our own detriment. To illustrate, consider the following example:

Alcohol consumption in moderation is acceptable and may even be beneficial health-wise; that being said, drunkenness is wrong and against the natural law, since, besides being harmful to one’s health, it also impairs one’s reasoning which is required for moral discernment. Initially, the penalty for the night’s intoxication is “only” the next day’s hangover. However, the penalties only get worse should one continue a lifestyle of alcohol abuse; it is common knowledge that alcoholics sooner or later suffer serious health problems and personal/social relationships issues.

Once again, this illustration makes perfect sense within the Christian religious framework, for to disobey the natural law is to sin and “the wages of sin is death” (Romans 6:23). In light of this, we can conclude that the natural law is “written in our hearts” for our own good. As C.S. Lewis wrote:

“In reality, moral rules are directions for running the human machine. Every moral rule is there to prevent a breakdown, or a strain, or a friction, in the running of that machine.”

Therefore, when we’re in disharmony with the natural law, we’re harming ourselves; and when we choose sin, we choose death.

1. Introduction
2. Christian Morality
3. The Conscience 
4. The Natural Law

An Essay on Morality: The Conscience (Part 3)

photo courtesy of JaveFoto

What is conscience?

Conscience is the tool which enables man to discern morality – the distinction between what is good/right from what is evil/wrong.

C.S. Lewis illustrates the meaning of conscience with the following example:

Imagine you suddenly hear a stranger’s voice crying for help.

At that moment, you will probably feel two opposing impulses:

• First impulse is to run towards the stranger and help (herd instinct).
• Second impulse is to run away from the stranger for your own safety (survival instinct).

But then a third voice comes into play, urging you to follow your first impulse and ignore the second; this third voice is what we call the conscience.

Conscience can then be defined as the calling within, to always do what is good/right despite personal inclinations or feelings.

What are the properties of conscience?

The conscience is fallible

Earlier, we defined conscience as a “tool which enables man to discern morality”; and, like any other tool, improper use can lead to serious damage. Indeed, the conscience is not always right and can be mistaken. The conscience, man’s internal moral compass, is said to be broken when it does not point to the “true north” – that which is true and good. This can result from the deliberate and habitual breaking of the moral laws. Within the Christian religious framework, our conscience can be in a state of blindness by constant living in sin.

It is one’s responsibility to ensure the development of a well-formed conscience. For this reason, Christians are called to practice daily self-reflection and examination of conscience; this is necessary as we are often distracted by life’s trivialities. Christians use the Word of God as a guide to determining whether a conscience is well-formed: if in conformity then it is; if in conflict then it is not.

The conscience is authoritative

Peter Kreeft observed that granting consciences may differ, there remains an undeniable moral absolute: “never disobey your own conscience”. Of course one can deliberately choose to disobey one’s own conscience. But to do so is not without consequence. Indeed for some, one time disobedience can lead to a lifetime of guilt. The reason for this is, while the conscience is fallible, it is authoritative. Where does its authority come from? For the same reasons as with morality, the conscience’s authority cannot come from evolution, nature, or culture (man); its only plausible source is God.

1. Introduction
2. Christian Morality
3. The Conscience  
4. The Natural Law
   

An Essay on Morality: Christian Morality (Part 2)

photo courtesy of mick y

Is morality only for Christians?

No. It is possible for an atheist to live a moral life, as it is for a Christian (or other theists) to live an immoral one. After all, everyone inherently share the desire for goodness and truth and the disdain for evil and lies. There are however, by default, differences in how morality is viewed by Christian believers and non-believers:

Source of morality

Christians:

• God – Christians believe that moral laws presume a Moral Law Giver.

Atheists:

• Evolution – a poor candidate as the source of morality. Morality simply has no place within the mechanics of natural selection. Altruism, for instance, cannot work within a system of “survival of the fittest”.
• Nature – is amoral and thus, cannot be the source of morality. Again, using a lion’s behavior as an example, it cannot be judged immoral for attacking and devouring its prey; it’s simply acting on its survival instinct.
• Culture (Man) – is dismissed as the source of morality by Peter Kreeft through the use of the following analogy (based on Immanuel Kant’s moral theory): A locksmith who locks himself in a room is not really locked-in for he can unlock himself. Kreeft further asks: “how can the one bound and the one who binds be the same?” In other words, it is impossible for man to impose morality on himself.

Judgement of morality

Christians:

Christian morality is summarized in the Ten Commandments. Thus, a person who commits a violation of any of the commandments, such as murder of innocent lives, is guilty of committing sin/immoral act.

Atheists:

Atheists often turn to nature and evolution to explain the existence of morality. However, neither explanation can account for how and why we judge certain acts as right or wrong; this is due to the following reasons:

• Nature’s indifference – As previously explained, nature is amoral; it knows not of good or evil. If morality comes from nature, then nothing can be judged as moral or immoral. But how can this be? For instance, how can someone view the Holocaust as anything but evil? As Scott Hahn wrote: “People will usually recognize evil, even if they are reluctant to recognize good”.
• Survival of the Fittest – Moral standards, according to the mechanics of evolution, works as follows: anything that aids self-survival is “good” and anything that aids self-extinction is “evil”. This is the morality of Nazism – an ideology responsible for the perpetration of the worst crimes against humanity. They alleged that the Jews and other “inferior” groups threaten the purity of the Aryan race and is therefore “evil”; they then justified the murder of millions of innocents as “good” because it aided to the survival of the “master race”.

Reason of morality

Christians:

The Christian answer is based on 2 premises:

• 1^st Premise – Morality is based on God’s nature
• 2^nd Premise – Man is made in God’s image and likeness.

In light of the aforementioned premises, man's moral obligation makes perfect sense:

Man is called to love because God is Love; Man is called to the truth because God is Truth.

Atheists:

In the novel “The Brothers Karamazov”, Fyodor Dostoevsky wrote that in a world without God “everything is permitted”.

Why love and not hate?

Why the truth and not the lie?

Why be good and not be evil?

If God is not, then indeed, why not?

Despite the differences, everyone - Christian believers and non-believers alike, are called to live a moral life. There is an inner voice - the conscience, within all of us, urging us to do good and avoid evil. This is further proof of God’s love for us all; as Dinesh D’Souza wrote: “while the atheist may have rejected God, God has not rejected him”.

1. Introduction
2. Christian Morality
3. The Conscience 
4. The Natural Law

An Essay on Morality: Introduction (Part 1)

photo courtesy of Daniel Sanculi

What is morality?

Morality comes from the Latin word moralitas, meaning "proper behavior". It can be defined as the distinction between what is good/right from what is evil/wrong.

What are the properties of morality?

Morality is distinctly human

While some display behavior that might seem like moral sentiments, animals primarily act on instinct. For example, a lion will mate with as many partners and as often as possible because it simply has no choice on the matter and only acts on its instinct to propagate. Humans, on the other hand, know that at the very least, there has to be limits on sexual behavior. This is the reason why we put sexual offenders in prison.

Morality is universal

Consider the following facts:

• Every known culture has a system of morality; every known culture has their own version of the Golden Rule/Law (“One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself.”).
• Everyone prefers virtue, though more often practice vice; e.g., even a cheat don’t want to be cheated on.
• Everyone endowed with reason knows that one ought to be good and not be evil; anyone who believes otherwise belongs either in a mental hospital or in jail.

Morality is absolute

The following are examples of moral relativist/subjectivist self-refuting ideas:

• The relativist/subjectivist says “there is no absolute”; yet this itself is an absolute statement.
• The relativist/subjectivist says “there is no truth”; yet this itself is a statement claiming to be true.
• The relativist/subjectivist says “you should not impose your morality on me”; yet this itself is a statement of moral imposition.

The fact is we all have absolute moral standards that we use to judge the behavior of others. And while there are differences in the particulars, there is agreement on the fundamentals. For instance, while we may argue on the morality/immorality of capital punishment, we all agree on the value of protecting innocent life.

1. Introduction 
2. Christian Morality 
3. The Conscience 
4. The Natural Law

Quote of the Dei (# 5)

photo courtesy of doublecappuccino

"Oh, I don't reject Christ.

I love Christ.

It's just that so many of you Christians are so unlike Christ.

If Christians would really live according to the teachings of Christ, as found in the Bible, all of India would be Christian today."

- Mahatma Gandhi

In the Image of Man? Part 3

“In a world without God, everything is permitted" - Fyodor Dostoyevsky 

Parts 1 and 2 briefly discussed atheist philosopher Ludwig Feuerbach’s contention that God and religion are merely human inventions. His ideas would greatly influence those of Karl Marx (“religion is the opium of the people”) and Friedrich Nietzsche (“God is dead”), forerunners of two ideologies both atheistic and brutal, Communism and Nazism. In his book Reason to Believe, Dr. Scott Hahn reasoned that “it was Feuerbach who made Stalin and Hitler possible, because he assured them that they acted in the absence of God”. Tyrants like Stalin, Hitler, Mao and Pol Pot believed that God, the source of all morals, does not exist, and so there was nothing left to hold them back from perpetrating the worst of acts except the limits of their own power. They asked: Genocide is wrong? Says who? 

Those who deny the existence of God ultimately renounce that of morality. They believe that whatever they do in this life will have no repercussions in the next - because to them, the afterlife does not exist! If this was true, then it means anyone can do anything in life, even the most heinous crimes, without fear of God’s judgment after death. Can you imagine the consequence if people with penchant for violence buy into such delusions? We shouldn’t have a hard time, for not too long ago, the world has witnessed it happen. As Dr. Hahn suggests, we only need to read “the history of the wars and genocide of the atheist regimes of the 20th century: Nazi Germany, Communist China and Cambodia, and the Soviet Union” to remember the result of such a horrific thought turn into reality.

In the Image of Man? Part 2

As noted in Part I, philosopher Ludwig Feuerbach believed that God and religion are human inventions, created to serve as a form of wish fulfillment. For instance, according to him, Christianity‘s belief in eternal life was invented to deal with man’s fear of death.

From a Christian’s perspective, Feuerbach’s logic is simply in error. Christians fear something worse than the death of the body, and that is the damnation of the soul. And while it’s true that Christians hope for eternal life in heaven, the same faith demands their belief in the everlasting fires of hell.

Does it make sense for man, in order to take away fear of something, invent something else more fearful? As author Dinesh D’Souza observed: “Wish fulfillment can explain heaven, but it cannot explain hell.”

In the Image of Man? Part 1

Student: “If God didn’t exist, we’d invent Him anyway. And we did. What do you say to that?”
Dr. Scott Hahn: “I say, if God did exist, we’d invent atheism anyway. And we did.”

Dr. Hahn narrates this exchange with his student in his book, Reasons to Believe. He tells us that the student’s argument was originally made by philosopher Ludwig Feuerbach. For Feuerbach, God and religion were invented to fulfill man’s desires and needs (read more about this on parts 2 and 3).

Dr. Hahn proceeded to remind his student that Christians believe in, and worship a God who is not only Omnipotent, Omniscient, and Omnipresent, but is also All-Holy and commands man to be perfectly holy as well; a God who knows our most innermost thoughts and desires, and can see clearly everything that we do even in the darkest of places (“There’s no place to run and hide from Him, no place where we might secretly indulge a favorite vice”). Dr. Hahn’s point is that if man had really tried to invent a god, we’d probably invent one who is more “congenial to our whims”. Perhaps one who’d give Moses a single commandment instead of ten? Or how about one who would not include “thou shalt not commit adultery” on the list? In other words, if man had really tried to invent a god, we’d surely never invent one such as the Christian God.