Happy Feast Day of one of my Favorite Saints - Thomas Aquinas!

St. Thomas Aquinas is definitely one of my favorite saints, if not my favorite. I don't like being too committal on something like that! Aquinas isn't just another saint (as if there is such a thing). He is a pre-eminent saint. He is a doctor of the Church but in my opinion, easily one of the top. His Summa Theologiae is definitely the most used extra-biblical source within Catholicism when it comes to issues of morality, theology, and various other Catholic topics.

I went to Mass today and the priest mentioned something about Aquinas which I think we sometimes forget. We know he had a towering intellect (I'll get into that more later), but he was also an extremely holy and devout mystic. Yes, a mystic. We rarely think of him in those terms. In fact, all too often we implicitly seem to categorize saints as either mystical or intellectual. Both of these characteristics are wonderful and important, but we shouldn't always make such black and white distinctions.

It's actually quite an amazing thing when one thinks about it. There isn't a dichotomy between faith and reason in any way. In fact, as we can see from the example of Thomas Aquinas, one only strengthens the other. A false dichotomy often put forth by secular society is between "spiritual" and "religious", implying that to be spiritual means to not be preoccupied by all the "rules". I explained in a previous blog why this is a false dichotomy. An example of this is the common expression among traditional Catholics of Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi, which essentially translates to the way we pray is the way we believe.

Perhaps it doesn't fit perfectly but I think that expression does tell us something. To know God is to love God. I think that's the point from which St. Thomas comes. He helps us to better understand God and his will so that we can love him ever more fully.

To me, this comes up when understanding various concepts within the faith. If we do not have a good grasp of these concepts, we can be easily led astray. For example, knowing what true humility or true patience entail will lead us to be holier and better people. If we operate under a false idea of what these terms mean, then we can be led into bad areas without even knowing it.

The same goes for the nature of God Himself. If we have an insufficient, incorrect, or outright heretical viewpoint of God and His Nature, we can easily fall into sin and error. Ultimately we cannot be happy in this state.

St. Thomas Aquinas lived from 1225 to 1274, around 800 years ago, yet his teachings have stood the test of time ever since then. This further bolsters the fact that his ideas are perennial, and not shifting as with the current moral relativism. Truth is truth and it doesn't change. Over all the centuries and through all the various peoples of the Earth, these truths speak to us. St. Thomas has stood the test of time and we can fully trust in what he is saying.

I mention this because I feel that we as fallible human beings can easily fall into error. Often this is not deliberate, it is just a sort of dulling of the sword. We inadvertently fall into sin through many small, poor decisions. Because of faulty philosophy and theology, people can be led astray. This is why we need teachers (or "doctors" in Latin) to guide us. We know that by listening to such men and women, we are listening to God through them and not to our own fallen desires.

On an intellectual level, I find St. Thomas to be an unparalleled resource. He speaks on so many different subjects, and yet there is consistency. This is impressive given the fact that his Magnus Opus, The Summa Theologiae (sometimes written as Summa Theologica) is 3x bigger than the entire Holy Bible! It would be difficult to write even a few pages without having some inconsistencies, but St. Thomas was able to achieve this in such a large tome - obviously with God's help.

I am not suggesting that St. Thomas was infallible in everything he said. He is probably the most complete theologian in the Church's history, but he did make some small errors. Only the Church is guaranteed the charism of infallibility by Our Lord Jesus Christ.

Despite the fact that Thomas had one of the greatest intellects of all time, he was one of the most humble men as well. There are many stories of his humility. I will attempt to recount one of them. As a child in school, he spoke so infrequently that people assumed he was dumb, both literally (unable to speak) and in the modern-day meaning of being stupid. His nickname, in fact, was the "Dumb Ox". The idea that he wasn't the best student was so widely believed, that his teacher St. Albert hired a tutor to help out this poor, dumb, child Thomas. Yet, soon after beginning to teach the young Thomas, the tutor, astounded by the boy's brilliance, did something spectacular: he asked, in his own humility, if St. Thomas would switch roles with him and become his tutor.

Later in life, St. Thomas (who is said to have never committed a mortal sin) was praying when he had a profound mystical experience which caused him to declare that all his magnificent writings were but straw. This is not to be misinterpreted to mean that his writings were false or unimportant. Rather, compared to a direct experience of union with God, his writings were infinitely less significant. This shows his holiness and humility.

I could go on and on in writing about this great saint. In this day and age of confusion and relativity, we need St. Thomas Aquinas all the more!

Ecumenical Prayer Service for victims of Helicopter Crash

On Wednesday night, people gathered at the Basilica of St. John the Baptist, the Catholic Cathedral of St. John's, Newfoundland for an ecumenical prayer service for the victims of Cougar Flight 491, a helicopter which crashed into the North Atlantic Ocean off Newfoundland, Canada as it was making its way to the SeaRose FPSO on March 12, 2009. All on board, save one man, were killed. All bodies have been recovered and most of the helicopter has been recovered as well. In total, 17 people were killed. This is very tragic for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and the world over.

At the ecumenical prayer service, there were thousands of people, including Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Premier Danny Williams, Peter McKay, Justin Trudeau, John Crosby, and many more.

Archbishop Martin Curry was the main presider over the event. He said to make one thing clear and that is that God did not want this to happen. This is a Catholic understanding of the world. God wills that we know him and love him. Evil and bad things that happen to us are not things that God makes happen or wants to happen, but he permits them to happen. Obviously, God being omnipotent could make anything happen or prevent anything from happening, but much of the time, he allows us to make our decisions and allows natural consequences. For example, if I had a young son and I brought him to the bookstore and told him he could pick any book. He might pick Green Eggs and Ham. I would then allow him to purchase it, etc. I did not choose it for him or prevent him from having it. God allowing things to happen without preventing them is called his permissive will, as opposed to his ordained will. God willed the universe into existence, for example. This is the point the Most Reverend Archbishop Martin Currie was making. God didn't desire that those men and women perish, but at the same time, God did not interfere to change the laws of nature so that it would not happen.

During this tragedy, we must pray for the victims of the crash and their families and loved ones. Remember them in your prayers.

Embryonic Stem Cell destruction and Euthanasia: Evil Sisters

A few days ago, United States President Barrack Hussein Obama announced that he would allow public funding to destroy embryos for research. This fruitless research, which has yielded no results, is the last frontier (or perhaps the beginning of the last frontier) for mad scientists bent on breaking all boundaries.

Human life is sacred. This is a truth that has been affirmed by almost all religions, especially those which are more than 100 years old. There are many instances of medical codes which forbid the destruction of human life, including embryos through abortion. Not surprisingly, none of these codes indicate abortion is alright.

An embryo has all the DNA it ever will. To put it crudely, just add water. In other words, with basic nutrition and water, a tiny embryo will grow to be an adult person. All the DNA is present at the moment of conception. We do not say that a small child is not human because it has not fully developed yet. Therefore, there is a beginning, and that beginning is fertilization.

For the sake of convenience, people started having abortions. The convenience came first, the explanations later. Now they have moved into a new frontier. The frontier of harvesting people in order to find cures. During the holocaust, people were used in experiments for the benefit of others. They were put through many tortures in order to ascertain scientific information. But this was morally reprehensible. The same arguments for this could be used to justify embryonic stem cell research. Many say the embryos will be destroyed anyway, so why not use them for something beneficial? Well, these people in the Nazi holocaust were going to be slaughtered anyway, so why not use them to advance scientific knowledge.

Well, that's what Josef Mengele did, who was known as the Angel of Death. He killed many innocent people to conduct his experiments.

Many will not worry that embryos are being sacrificed. They cannot be seen and they dont "look" human. But even if someone is cruel enough to say this, there is another evil sister to this whole mess. When human life is devalued at any stage, it is devalued in all stages. People are now trying to legalize euthanasia, and this is absolutely terrible.

Ask 1000 people this question: There is a man, 32 years old. He says he is in a lot of suffering. He lost his job, his wife left him, his children hate him. He is now homeless and addicted to alcohol. He says he wants to end his life. Would you give him a loaded gun if it was legal? How many would say yes? I would estimate 5 to 10 percent, and that would be a lot.

Now let's say this: A person is terminally ill. Their life is very sad. They can't see an end to their suffering. Their family does not want to take care of them because they are too much of a burden, and they do not feel loved. They would rather not live. They say you have no right to tell them they cannot die as they please. They ask for help in ending their own life. Would you help them or deny them their request? In a recent poll, 80% of Canadians said they would help in a situation similar to this one. That's shocking! These are the same situations. They just have slightly different circumstances.

Nobody is born with a desire to kill themselves. This develops because of things that happen to them throughout their lives. But when we stop valuing life, we start looking at life in a utilitarian way. We start to ask about people's utility, and not their worth as human beings. We start to ask what they can do for us. We become like animals or robots.

We must all try to elevate our being upward, not toward animal behavior. We must truly become more human. Jesus Christ is the only way to get there.

Moral Relativism vs. Moral Absolutism

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, before the papal conclave gathered to elect a new pope, made a speech about the Catholic Church and the world. He said we as citizens must seek to avoid the "dictatorship of relativism". I have been reading a book called A Refutation of Moral Relativism, put together by Peter Kreeft. The following is a short essay of mine of why moral relativism is untenable.

Slavery is wrong, as is murder. Most people accept these. But, how do these people know these things are true? Someone told them, but who told the tellers? Eventually it comes from reason. Each person possesses reason; each has a conscience. How can an action be judged as right or wrong? We must appeal to an authority, and that authority is natural law.

Natural law is as strong and binding as physical laws such as gravity and energy. They do not depend on our interpretation or feelings, they exist independently. Murder is wrong regardless. It doesn’t matter how angry we are, how much higher our status is than the victim’s, it makes no difference how much the person “deserves” it, because it is inherently wrong. Sometimes however, this distinction is hard to make, and we cannot determine ourselves right from wrong.

Most people nowadays accept that slavery is wrong and an affront to each person’s dignity as a human being. It cannot be accepted. But what if you were to speak to someone from 300 years ago who owned slaves. You two could argue about whether or not owning a slave is right or wrong. But the truth cannot have it both ways, truth can only be one. Truth never has and never will change. Your opinion is not the truth, your status does not give you the truth, the truth is the truth, and exists independently. If morals are not based on an absolute truth, what are they based on? The only alternative is a relative truth. This, by definition, is a truth which one person accepts, but someone else may reject. It comes down to opinions. In one person’s opinion, slavery is right, in another’s, it is wrong. So who’s right? According to relative morality, either could be or simple is correct. This makes no sense. You have an opinion, but an opinion cannot be an opinion about an opinion, an opinion is an opinion about the truth. Therefore, you must discover the truth in order to determine if your opinion is right. Your opinion could be wrong.

You cannot simply say something is wrong, especially if you admit you do not know. You just have to sit back and watch things happen and hope they turn out for the best. The only model which you sanction is anarchy. You can accept your own opinions, but you must then also accept everyone else’s, no matter how much they offend you. Otherwise, you are saying that a relative morality applies to you, but that an absolute morality applies to everyone else’s. In other words, you have to accept that a person owns a slave, because in their opinion or their own “personal” morals, that is alright. If you say they should not own a slave, you are overriding their moral perspective, and appealing to a superseding value which surpasses this person’s belief. Therefore you are appealing to something greater than personal relative morality; you are appealing to an objective, transcendent morality. You have two options: you can admit there is an absolute morality, or you can maintain a relative morality, but by doing so you must accept everyone else’s behavior and morals. Law enforcement cannot stop them from doing something, because that would be saying your morals are more worthy than the other person’s morals. You could only do something personally to rectify the situation. Saying something is right or wrong would not be valid either, because you would have to admit that you did not know, and you could not impose your personal morals on anyone else. You could at most say, “I do not personally believe that is right”. Only when you admit that there is a natural law, one which is above personal opinion and beliefs, one which is unchanging, can you claim that an action is morally right or wrong.