Pope Francis: This is why there cannot be any authentic dialogue with Islam

In his Encyclical Letter Ecclesiam Suam, Pope Paul VI told us that, "The Church must enter into dialogue with the world in which it lives. It has something to say, a message to give, a communication to make." (No. 65).

The Holy Father goes on to say that, "Dialogue, therefore, is a recognized method of the apostolate. It is a way of making spiritual contact. It should however have the following characteristics:

1) Clarity before all else; the dialogue demands that what is said should be intelligible. We can think of it as a kind of thought transfusion. It is an invitation to the exercise and development of the highest spiritual and mental powers a man possesses. This fact alone would suffice to make such dialogue rank among the greatest manifestations of human activity and culture. In order to satisfy this first requirement, all of us who feel the spur of the apostolate should examine closely the kind of speech we use. Is it easy to understand? Can it be grasped by ordinary people? Is it current idiom?

2) Our dialogue must be accompanied by that meekness which Christ bade us learn from Himself: "Learn of me, for I am meek and humble of heart." It would indeed be a disgrace if our dialogue were marked by arrogance, the use of bared words or offensive bitterness. What gives it its authority is the fact that it affirms the truth, shares with others the gifts of charity, is itself an example of virtue, avoids peremptory language, makes no demands. It is peaceful, has no use for extreme methods, is patient under contradiction and inclines towards generosity. 

3) Confidence is also necessary; confidence not only in the power of one's own words, but also in the good will of both parties to the dialogue. Hence dialogue promotes intimacy and friendship on both sides. It unites them in a mutual adherence to the Good, and thus excludes all self-seeking.

4) Finally, the prudence of a teacher who is most careful to make allowances for the psychological and moral circumstances of his hearer, particularly if he is a child, unprepared, suspicious or hostile. The person who speaks is always at pains to learn the sensitivities of his audience, and if reason demands it, he adapts himself and the manner of his presentation to the susceptibilities and the degree of intelligence of his hearers....In a dialogue conducted with this kind of foresight, truth is wedded to charity and understanding to love." (Nos. 81, 82).

As faithful Catholics, we must recognize and embrace these characteristics of authentic dialogue, even when our partners in dialogue refuse to accept these principles. For we will often encounter those who have succumbed to relativism or who do not possess a love of objective truth. For such people, the purpose of dialogue is not to attain truth but rather to achieve personal victory and to triumph at any cost. As Dr. Montague Brown explains in his wonderful book "The One-Minute Philosopher" (Sophia Institute Books): "An argument (emotional, not rational) is a disorderly confrontation based on an unwillingness to learn from one another. Desire for victory takes precedence over love of truth, with the result that agreement becomes impossible....in an argument, I simply want my position to be the right one and you to agree with me. I am, indeed, looking for agreement, but on my terms, not in terms of objective truth." (p. 33). An authentic dialogue (which such people are not really interested in) is, "..an orderly confrontation based on a mutual willingness to learn from one another. It involves the presentation of evidence by each party and then a good-faith attempt of the participants in the discussion to come to agreement...In a discussion [or dialogue], I do not primarily want to disagree: I want to know the truth.." (The One-Minute Philosopher, p. 32).

It was Pope John Paul II, in his Encyclical Letter Ut Unum Sint, No. 36, who said, "There must be charity toward one's partner in dialogue, and humility with regard to the truth which comes to light and which might require a review of assertions and attitudes."

In order for dialogue to be authentic, all parties involved must be charitable toward others in the dialogue and possess humility with regard to the demands of truth.

As Franklin Graham just said on Facebook, "..followers of Islam are raping, butchering, and beheading Christians, Jews, and anyone who doesn't submit to their Sharia Islamic law." Clearly one cannot dialogue with such people.  Anyone who believes differently is simply not in touch with reality.

Those who attempt to argue, as Pope Francis has, that there is nothing inherently violent about Islam, are being dishonest.  As this website correctly notes, "The strangest and most untrue thing that can be said about Islam is that it is a Religion of Peace.  If every standard by which the West is judged and condemned (slavery, imperialism, intolerance, misogyny, sexual repression, warfare...) were applied equally to Islam, the verdict would be devastating.  Islam never gives up what it conquers, be it religion, culture, language or life.  Neither does it make apologies or any real effort at moral progress.  It is the least open to dialogue and the most self-absorbed.  It is convinced of its own perfection, yet brutally shuns self-examination and represses criticism.

This is what makes the Quran's verses of violence so dangerous.  They are given the weight of divine command.  While Muslim terrorists take them as literally as anything else in their holy book, and understand that Islam is incomplete without Jihad, moderates offer little to contradict them - outside of opinion.  Indeed, what do they have?  Speaking of peace and love may win over the ignorant, but when every twelfth verse of Islam's holiest book either speaks to Allah's hatred for non-Muslims or calls for their death, forced conversion, or subjugation, it's little wonder that sympathy for terrorism runs as deeply as it does in the broader community - even if most Muslims personally prefer not to interpret their religion in this way."

Has Cardinal Christoph Schönborn lost his faith and the ability to reason?

LifeSiteNews is reporting that the Cardinal Archbishop of Vienna, Christoph Schönborn , received a letter from the Vatican demanding action, after ten months of "discussion" between the Cardinal and the dissent group calling itself the "Austrian Priests' Initiative."  The dissent group issued a manifesto last year demanding that the Church change her teachings on the ordination of women and married clergy and the reception of Communion by non-Catholics and divorced and remarried persons, and calling on their fellow clergy to disobey the Vatican.

LifeSiteNews is reporting that, "the Cardinal himself has also publicly called for the Church to acquiesce to the group's agenda" and has asserted that "the Church does need some reform."

Back in 2010, Cardinal Schönborn criticised the Church for what he characterised as its refusal to accept homosexual relations. Schönborn told the far-left UK Tablet magazine that the Church should also consider allowing divorced and remarried Catholics to receive Communion since "many people don’t even marry at all any longer" and insisted that, "We should give more consideration to the quality of homosexual relationships. A stable relationship is certainly better than if someone chooses to be promiscuous." (See here).

The doctrines which have been revealed by the Lord Jesus, either directly or through His Church, are often truths beyond the power of reason to discover or comprehend.  In such cases, supernatural aid is required to accept these truths.  This supernatural aid is called the gift of faith.  Faith is a supernatural gift of God for the acquisition of truth in the supernatural order, just as reason is a natural gift of God for the acquisition of truth in the natural order.

Now, the natural law is perceptible and knowable by all men who have reached the age of reason.  Pope John Paul II, in his Encyclical Letter Veritatis Splendor, No. 36, explains that, "Some people..disregarding the dependence of human reason on divine wisdom and the need, given the present state of fallen nature, for divine revelation as an effective means for knowing moral truths, even those of the natural order, have actually posited a complete sovereignty of reason in the domain of moral norms regarding the right ordering of life in this world.  Such norms would constitute the boundaries for a merely 'human' morality; they would be the expression of a law which has its source exclusively in human reason.  In no way could God be considered the Author of this law, except in the sense that human reason exercises its autonomy in setting down laws by virtue of a primordial and total mandate given to man by God.  These trends of thought have led to a denial, in opposition to Sacred Scripture (cf. Mt 15: 3-6) and the Church's constant teaching, of the fact that the natural moral law has God as its Author, and that man, by the use of reason, participates in the eternal law, which it is not for him to establish."
Cardinal Schönborn wants us to give "more consideration" to what he refers to as " the quality of homosexual relationships."  But the Holy Spirit, through St. Paul, explains why idolatrous peoples, such as the Romans, fall into unnatural vice.  We are told that:

"The wrath of God is indeed being revealed from heaven against every impiety and wickedness of those who suppress the truth by their wickedness.  For what can be known about God is evident to them.  Ever since the creation of the world, His invisible attributes of eternal power and divinity have been able to be understood and perceived in what He has made.  As a result, they have no excuse; for although they knew God they did not accord Him glory as God or give Him thanks." (Romans 1: 18-21).

The Holy Spirit tells us through the Apostle that the failure to recognize God leads to corruption of the will and a blinded intellect which, ultimately, leads to idolatry.  And God's punishment for this vanity is to abandon such people to the vice against nature:

"Instead, they became vain in their reasoning, and their senseless minds were darkened.  While claiming to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for the likeness of an image of mortal man or of birds or of four-legged animals or of snakes.  Therefore, God handed them over to impurity through the lusts of their hearts for the mutual degradation of their bodies." (Romans 1: 21-24).

The Apostle, writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, is most clear and unambiguous.  He describes this mutual degradation while stressing its unnatural character:

"Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another.  Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity." (Romans 1: 26-27).

As a result of these unnatural relations, such people face horible consequences:

"They are filled with every form of wickedness, evil, greed, and malice; full of envy, murder, rivalry, treachery, and spite.  They are gossips and scandal-mongers and they hate God.  They are insolent, haughty, boastful, ingenious in their wickedness, and rebellious toward their parents.  They are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless." (Romans 1: 25; 28-31).

Finally, those who succumb to this unnatural vice not only become attached to it but attempt to justify it while applauding others who have fallen into the vice: "they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them." (Romans 1: 32).
Rather than challenging sinners to conform themselves to Christ and His Church and to work, with the help of God's grace, toward reforming themselves, Cardinal Schönborn wants the Church to "reform" [and here we are not speaking of legitimate reform - a growth in holiness and truth] by changing her teaching to accommodate those who dissent from the teaching of the Lord Jesus.

Has Cardinal Schönborn lost his faith and the ability to reason?  If not, why does he then request the Church to abandon her teaching and acquiesce to the demands of a group which has embraced dissent?  Why does he speak of unnatural relations as having "quality"? 

Truly, as I have been warning for years, and as Pope Benedict XVI recently said, darkness is descending upon the world.  And many can no longer distinguish between good and evil.

Clark University is, in effect, attempting to criminalize reason

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in its document entitled Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons, emphasized that: "Homosexual unions are totally lacking in the biological and anthropological elements of marriage and family which would be the basis, on the level of reason, for granting them legal recognition.  Such unions are not able to contribute in a proper way to the procreation and survival of the human race." (No. 7).

Homosexual unions violate the common good on both the individual and social plane. On the individual plane, as Dr. Germain Grisez explains, "...although it is true that partners in sodomy also could conceivably share in a committed relationship with sincere mutual affection and express their feelings in ways that would be appropriate in any friendship, the coupling of two bodies of the same sex cannot form one complete organism and so cannot contribute to a bodily communion of persons. Hence, the experience of intimacy of the partners in sodomy cannot be the experience of any real unity between them. Rather, each one’s experience of intimacy is private and incommunicable, and is no more a common good than is the mere experience of sexual arousal and orgasm. Therefore, the choice to engage in sodomy for the sake of that experience of intimacy in no way contributes to the partners’ real common good as committed friends."


On the social plane, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith explains that, "The inevitable consequences of legal recognition of homosexual unions would be the redefinition of marriage, which would become, in its legal status, an institution devoid of essential reference to factors linked to homosexuality; for example, procreation and raising children. If, from the legal standpoint, marriage between a man and a woman were to be considered just one possible form of marriage, the concept of marriage would undergo a radical transformation, with grave detriment to the common good. By putting homosexual unions on a legal plane analogous to that of marriage and the family, the State acts arbitrarily and in contradiction with its duties." (Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons, No. 8).

At Vatican II, the Council Fathers spoke on fostering the nobility of marriage and the family and said, "The well-being of the individual person and of human and Christian society is intimately linked with the healthy condition of that community produced by marriage and family. Hence Christians and all men who hold this community in high esteem sincerely rejoice in the various ways by which men today find help in fostering this community of love and perfecting its life, and by which parents are assisted in their lofty calling. Those who rejoice in such aids look for additional benefits from them and labor to bring them about.

Yet the excellence of this institution is not everywhere reflected with equal brilliance, since polygamy, the plague of divorce, so-called free love and other disfigurements have an obscuring effect. In addition, married love is too often profaned by excessive self-love, the worship of pleasure and illicit practices against human generation. Moreover, serious disturbances are caused in families by modern economic conditions, by influences at once social and psychological, and by the demands of civil society..." (Gaudium et Spes, No. 47).
In No. 48 of this same document, the Fathers of Vatican II teach that, "The intimate partnership of married life and love has been established by the Creator and qualified by His laws, and is rooted in the conjugal covenant of irrevocable personal consent. Hence by that human act whereby spouses mutually bestow and accept each other a relationship arises which by divine will and in the eyes of society too is a lasting one. For the good of the spouses and their off-springs as well as of society, the existence of the sacred bond no longer depends on human decisions alone. For, God Himself is the author of matrimony, endowed as it is with various benefits and purposes. All of these have a very decisive bearing on the continuation of the human race, on the personal development and eternal destiny of the individual members of a family, and on the dignity, stability, peace and prosperity of the family itself and of human society as a whole. By their very nature, the institution of matrimony itself and conjugal love are ordained for the procreation and education of children, and find in them their ultimate crown. Thus a man and a woman, who by their compact of conjugal love "are no longer two, but one flesh" (Matt. 19:ff), render mutual help and service to each other through an intimate union of their persons and of their actions. Through this union they experience the meaning of their oneness and attain to it with growing perfection day by day. As a mutual gift of two persons, this intimate union and the good of the children impose total fidelity on the spouses and argue for an unbreakable oneness between them.

Christ the Lord abundantly blessed this many-faceted love, welling up as it does from the fountain of divine love and structured as it is on the model of His union with His Church. For as God of old made Himself present to His people through a covenant of love and fidelity, so now the Savior of men and the Spouse of the Church comes into the lives of married Christians through the sacrament of matrimony. He abides with them thereafter so that just as He loved the Church and handed Himself over on her behalf, the spouses may love each other with perpetual fidelity through mutual self-bestowal.

Authentic married love is caught up into divine love and is governed and enriched by Christ's redeeming power and the saving activity of the Church, so that this love may lead the spouses to God with powerful effect and may aid and strengthen them in sublime office of being a father or a mother. For this reason Christian spouses have a special sacrament by which they are fortified and receive a kind of consecration in the duties and dignity of their state. By virtue of this sacrament, as spouses fulfil their conjugal and family obligation, they are penetrated with the spirit of Christ, which suffuses their whole lives with faith, hope and charity. Thus they increasingly advance the perfection of their own personalities, as well as their mutual sanctification, and hence contribute jointly to the glory of God."

And No. 50 says that, "Marriage and conjugal love are by their nature ordained toward the begetting and educating of children. Children are really the supreme gift of marriage and contribute very substantially to the welfare of their parents. The God Himself Who said, "it is not good for man to be alone" (Gen. 2:18) and "Who made man from the beginning male and female" (Matt. 19:4), wishing to share with man a certain special participation in His own creative work, blessed male and female, saying: "Increase and multiply" (Gen. 1:28). Hence, while not making the other purposes of matrimony of less account, the true practice of conjugal love, and the whole meaning of the family life which results from it, have this aim: that the couple be ready with stout hearts to cooperate with the love of the Creator and the Savior. Who through them will enlarge and enrich His own family day by day."

The Catholic Church respects reason and the Natural Law.  And because she does, she understands, as Cicero articulated so well, that, "..right is based, not upon men’s opinions, but upon Nature. This fact will immediately be plain if you once get a clear conception of man’s fellowship and union with his fellow-men. For no single thing is so like another, so exactly its counterpart, as all of us are to one another…And so, however we may define man, a single definition will apply to all." [ Cicero, Laws I x 28-30]

But Clark University does not respect the Natural Law, which is known through the use of reason alone.  Having succumbed to radical homosexual ideology, that institution is attempting to impose a false morality on the rest of society while attempting to criminalize those who respect the Natural Law.  And this pseudo-morality rests on the philosophical premise that objective moral norms do not exist and that the individual's choice, and that alone, should determine human behavior.

Clark University officials would do well to ponder this warning from Pope John Paul II in his Encyclical Letter Evangelium Vitae:

"Democracy cannot be idolized to the point of making it a substitute for morality or a panacea for immorality. Fundamentally, democracy is a 'system' and as such is a means and not an end. Its 'moral' value is not automatic, but depends on conformity to the moral law to which it, like every other form of human behavior, must be subject: in other words, its morality depends on the morality of the ends which it pursues and of the means which it employs. If today we see an almost universal consensus with regard to the value of democracy, this is to be considered a positive 'sign of the times,' as the Church's Magisterium has frequently noted. But the value of democracy stands or falls with the values which it embodies and promotes. Of course, values such as the dignity of every human person, respect for inviolable and inalienable human rights, and the adoption of the 'common good' as the end and criterion regulating political life are certainly fundamental and not to be ignored.


The basis of these values cannot be provisional and changeable 'majority' opinions, but only the acknowledgement of an objective moral law which, as the 'natural law' written in the human heart, is the obligatory point of reference for civil law itself. If, as a result of a tragic obscuring of the collective conscience, an attitude of skepticism were to succeed in bringing into question even the fundamental principles of the moral law, the democratic system itself would be shaken in its foundations and would be reduced to a mere mechanism for regulating different and opposing interests on a purely empirical basis." (Evangelium Vitae, No. 70).

Peekaboo civility and a definition of what is "rational" from the White House

It was just over a week ago that President Obama and the White House were calling for a return to civility and calm rhetoric in American public discourse.  Now the White House is calling the mental health of those who don't believe Barack Obama was born in Hawaii into question, suggesting that such people are irrational.  White House press secretary Robert Gibbs, during Monday's White House briefing, said, "I think rational people have - have long ago, many when they first saw and heard the president, come to the conclusion of his citizenship."  See here.

But as Dr. Kreeft has reminded us, "Usually, people seem to choose what to believe not by looking at the evidence but by looking at ideological labels, especially 'liberal' or 'conservative,' or by asking which group of people they want to be associated with, or by vague feelings and associations evoked by an idea within their consciousness, rather than by looking at the idea itself and the reality it points to outside their consciousness."  Isn't this exactly what Mr. Gibbs is suggesting happened?  He suggests that many people, "when they first saw and heard the president," came to "the conclusion of his citizenship."

Well gosh darn, that's a really rational approach.  I saw and heard Barack Obama speak and came to the conclusion that he was a U.S. citizen.  And this even though his birth certificate cannot be produced.

Not only does civility come and go at the White House, so does rational thought.

The intellectual insecurity of the atheist and where it eventually leads...

The atheist is crippled by an intellectual insecurity. He must strive continually to convince others - and even himself - that God does not exist. But he is always haunted by the fear that he has not really banished the presence or power of the Divine Other. This canker of insecurity, which gnaws at his heart unceasingly, manifests itself in the incessant need to propagandize against belief in God.

For example Richard Dawkins, an atheist who authored "The God Delusion," devotes much if not most of his time attempting to convince others that belief in God is even dangerous (see here). This charge is most ironic since, as Fr. Vincent Miceli, S.J., reminds us, "When man becomes his own absolute center, then God becomes his hell, because God sets limits to man's greatness. But once having attained autoerotic sovereignty, a monstrous metamorphosis takes place in atheist man. He begins to feed on his fellow men, for they now are his hell, threatening to rob him of his freedom. When God is rejected because he is seen as man's hell, then man, whom God loves, suffers the same fate and for the same reason. There is a frightening resemblance between the atheist humanist as a cell of society and a malignantly cancerous cell in the human body. Both cells have thrown off any service of subordination to the health of the communities in which they thrive. They act and grow according to their own uncontrolled ravenous appetites feeding parasitically on the whole organism. As runaway cells they invade and destroy every healthy cell in the body until they extinguish life and speed to completion the total disintegration of the unity of the body. Atheistic humanism is a psychic cancer. It shares two major characteristics with physical cancer. Both these human cancers arise from the arbitrary rebellion of a subordinate cell against the established social harmony of the whole. Secondly, both these cancerous rebellions are metastatic and messianic in their aggression to the death against organism and community." (The Gods of Atheism, pp. 463-464).

Gilbert Keith Chesterton reminded us that when man denies God he does not believe in nothing. Rather he will believe in anything. Moreover, he will not do nothing but as a fanatic he will do anything:

"There are men who will ruin themselves and ruin their civilization if they may ruin also this old fantastic tale. This is the last and most astounding fact about this faith; that its enemies will use any weapon against it, the sword that cuts their own fingers, and the firebrands that burn their own homes...He [the atheist fanatic who is crippled by his own insecurity] sacrifices the very existence of humanity to the non-existence of God. He offers his victims not to the altar, but merely to assert the idleness of the altar and the emptiness of the throne. He is ready to ruin even that primary ethic by which all things live, for his strange and eternal vengeance upon some one who never lived at all." (Orthodoxy, pp. 238-239).

Atheistic fanatics have a long history of unmatched violence. Today, fanatical rhetoric from atheist fanatics has resulted in actual violence against the Church as well as calls for such violence. See here.

God is not the delusion. The myth of the atheistic humanist who truly values reason is the real delusion.

A spiritual battle in Massachusetts since 1916

According to the Associated Press, the Fitchburg City Council has abandoned its formal attempt to keep a Planned Parenthood office out of the city. This is merely the latest development in a spiritual battle taking place in Massachusetts which began in 1916. That was the year that a Fabian Socialist named Van Kleek Allison was arrested and convicted for distributing Emma Goldman's birth control pamphlet. Allison was prosecuted by an officer of the Knights of Columbus, Mr. Joseph G. Pelletier, who cited a papal encyclical which condemned birth control during the trial. Van Kleek Allison was found guilty of violating both divine law and state law and given a three-year sentence by Judge Michael J. Murray.

The Fabian Society was founded by Socialist Sidney Webb, his wife Beatrice and the playwright George Bernard Shaw to promote a scientifically planned society and eugenics by way of sterilization. As noted here, "The great American Patriot John T. Flynn stated in his book entitled The Road Ahead that there was a “creeping revolution” taking place in the United States and made a clear connection between Fascism and Fabian Socialism when he said: “. . . the line between Fascism and Fabian Socialism is very thin. Fabian Socialism is the dream. Fascism is Fabian Socialism plus the inevitable dictator.”

The Fabian Socialist have intentionally presented their ideology within a very socially acceptable package; humanitarian in appearance and approach, its actual purpose is complete, absolute power over society as administered through an iron fist covered in a kid-skin glove."

What does all of this have to do with recent events in Fitchburg, Massachusetts? Much. After Van Kleek Allison was found guilty in a court of law, his supporters founded the Allison Defense League which later became the Massachusetts Mothers Health Council, then the Birth Control League of Massachusetts and eventually Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts.

It was professor Stanley Monteith who noted that, '..if you go to Holmbury St. Mary, which is the Beatrice Webb house, it's about 30 miles south of London...where the socialists meet on a regular basis to plan the 'New World'...they had there..a stained glass window where you can see their coat of arms...between the two men on the right is a wolf dressed in sheep's clothing, because everything is deception you see. FS for Fabian Socialism, the use of deception to fool the world! On the right you see George Bernard Shaw ..a little to the left you see Sidney Webb. Each of them holding a hammer. Shaw is holding the world on an anvil. The caption above reads, 'Remould it nearer the heart's desire.' They are remaking the world...Below you see, 'Pray Devoutly, Hammer Stoutly!'...you see all these men kneeling before a list of books, among of which are Plato's writings and the Greek philosophers, because these men worship reason rather than God."

The battle will continue. For this is a spiritual battle. A battle between those who worship the Living God and who respect His Commandments and those who seek to "remould" the world into their own image and likeness. This battle will only be won if it is treated as a spiritual battle. This means Churches gathering together to pray for the spiritual deliverance of Fitchburg, hours of Eucharistic Adoration and reparation, fasting, and the use of powerful sacramentals such as Holy Water and Blessed Salt.

This battle will not be won by mere action alone. Some demons are driven out only through prayer and fasting. See my previous post here.

The Church proposes an authentic dialogue...

In his Encyclical Letter Ecclesiam Suam, Pope Paul VI told us that, "The Church must enter into dialogue with the world in which it lives. It has something to say, a message to give, a communication to make." (No. 65).

The Holy Father goes on to say that, "Dialogue, therefore, is a recognized method of the apostolate. It is a way of making spiritual contact. It should however have the following characteristics:

1) Clarity before all else; the dialogue demands that what is said should be intelligible. We can think of it as a kind of thought transfusion. It is an invitation to the exercise and development of the highest spiritual and mental powers a man possesses. This fact alone would suffice to make such dialogue rank among the greatest manifestations of human activity and culture. In order to satisfy this first requirement, all of us who feel the spur of the apostolate should examine closely the kind of speech we use. Is it easy to understand? Can it be grasped by ordinary people? Is it current idiom?

2) Our dialogue must be accompanied by that meekness which Christ bade us learn from Himself: "Learn of me, for I am meek and humble of heart." It would indeed be a disgrace if our dialogue were marked by arrogance, the use of bared words or offensive bitterness. What gives it its authority is the fact that it affirms the truth, shares with others the gifts of charity, is itself an example of virtue, avoids peremptory language, makes no demands. It is peaceful, has no use for extreme methods, is patient under contradiction and inclines towards generosity.

3) Confidence is also necessary; confidence not only in the power of one's own words, but also in the good will of both parties to the dialogue. Hence dialogue promotes intimacy and friendship on both sides. It unites them in a mutual adherence to the Good, and thus excludes all self-seeking.

4) Finally, the prudence of a teacher who is most careful to make allowances for the psychological and moral circumstances of his hearer, particularly if he is a child, unprepared, suspicious or hostile. The person who speaks is always at pains to learn the sensitivities of his audience, and if reason demands it, he adapts himself and the manner of his presentation to the susceptibilities and the degree of intelligence of his hearers....In a dialogue conducted with this kind of foresight, truth is wedded to charity and understanding to love." (Nos. 81, 82).

As faithful Catholics, we must recognize and embrace these characteristics of authentic dialogue, even when our partners in dialogue refuse to accept these principles. For we will often encounter those who have succumbed to relativism or who do not possess a love of objective truth. For such people, the purpose of dialogue is not to attain truth but rather to achieve personal victory and to triumph at any cost. As Dr. Montague Brown explains in his wonderful book "The One-Minute Philosopher" (Sophia Institute Books): "An argument (emotional, not rational) is a disorderly confrontation based on an unwillingness to learn from one another. Desire for victory takes precedence over love of truth, with the result that agreement becomes impossible....in an argument, I simply want my position to be the right one and you to agree with me. I am, indeed, looking for agreement, but on my terms, not in terms of objective truth." (p. 33). An authentic dialogue (which such people are not really interested in) is, "..an orderly confrontation based on a mutual willingness to learn from one another. It involves the presentation of evidence by each party and then a good-faith attempt of the participants in the discussion to come to agreement...In a discussion [or dialogue], I do not primarily want to disagree: I want to know the truth.." (The One-Minute Philosopher, p. 32).

It was Pope John Paul II, in his Encyclical Letter Ut Unum Sint, No. 36, who said, "There must be charity toward one's partner in dialogue, and humility with regard to the truth which comes to light and which might require a review of assertions and attitudes." Bearing this in mind, I encourage readers of this Blog to visit the comments section of this Blog post. Ask yourself, "Is there anyone commenting on this discussion thread who comes across as less than honest and charitable?" The answer should be obvious.

A sense of balance: Faith and Reason; Natural and Supernatural

In his 1998 Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio (Faith and Reason), Pope John Paul II said that, "Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth; and God has placed in the human heart a desire to know the truth - in a word, to know himself - so that, by knowing and loving God, men and women may also come to the fullness of truth about themselves" (cf. Ex 33: 18; Ps 27: 8-9; 63: 2-3; Jn 14:8; 1 Jn 3:2).

And, in No. 9 of this wonderful Encyclical Letter, John Paul cites the First Vatican Council: "The First Vatican Council teaches...that the truth attained by philosophy and the truth of Revelation are neither identical nor mutually exclusive: 'There exists a twofold order of knowledge, distinct not only as regards their source, but also as regards their object. With regard to the source, because we know in one by natural reason, in the other by divine faith. With regard to the object, because besides those things which natural reason can attain, there are proposed for our belief mysteries hidden in God which, unless they are divinely revealed, cannot be known'. Based upon God's testimony and enjoying the supernatural assistance of grace, faith is of an order other than philosophical knowledge which depends upon sense perception and experience and which advances by the light of the intellect alone. Philosophy and the sciences function within the order of natural reason; while faith, enlightened and guided by the Spirit, recognizes in the message of salvation the “fullness of grace and truth” (cf. Jn 1:14) which God has willed to reveal in history and definitively through his Son, Jesus Christ (cf. 1 Jn 5:9; Jn 5:31-32).

Why is this point so important? Dr. Dietrich von Hildebrand explains: "To see the purely human aspect of things is a necessary foundation for seeing the supernatural aspect. One who does not see the human aspect is insensitive and superficial, and his attitude is incompatible with the true faith. The deeper one sees the natural tragedy of death [for example], then the more one is able to grasp the tremendous significance of our redemption through Christ, and the more one possesses that true faith which St. Paul expresses by asking, 'O death, where is your sting?' But as soon as one jumps over the human aspect without passing through it, one does not ascend to the supernatural aspect, but rather replaces the natural with the supernatural aspect, which can only be attained by faith - one treats the supernatural aspect as if it were the natural, one takes it for granted, and omits that sursum corda, that ascent into the supernatural world which is possible only in faith. If the human aspect is not duly seen, then the aspect of faith is naturalized, and dragged down to the level of the obvious. If the human aspect is suppressed or omitted, then the aspect of faith becomes ungenuine, unreal." (The Devastated Vineyard, pp. 224-225).

We need to maintain this sense of balance between faith and reason, natural and supernatural, at all times. Without it, our life as Christians becomes distorted. For example, some have made an idol out of learning and have embraced a false intellectualism which ignores faith in an attempt to avoid the will of God and His Commandments. This is what Soren Kierkegaard meant when he said, "It is to get rid of doing God's will that we have invented learning...we shield ourselves by hiding behind tomes." (Kierkegaard, quoted in Lowrie, Kierkegaard, New York, Harper, 1962, Vol. II, p. 539).

In an article which addresses illness and healing, and which may be found here, Michael Brown writes, "'Strange as it may seem to many Christians today, the main factor in conversion [in olden times] was exorcism -- the driving out of demons,' MacNutt [referring to Fr. Francis MacNutt] notes emphatically in a book called Healing. 'Belief in the supernatural was accepted in those days and Christianity was presented as being in direct conflict with pagan gods, something like a spiritual 'shoot-out.' That's in contrast to the modern way of attributing ailments (whether bodily or mental) to purely physical and psychological effects. Perhaps the safest approach is to first cast out potential spirits. Exposure to evil can cause maladies.
'What has happened to the major thrust of early Christianity: to heal and exorcise?' asked the former professor, who now runs a ministry in Jacksonville, Florida. Perhaps the decline of fervor dates to a decline in belief in prayer for healing. What happened in all those centuries to diminish the Church's belief in Christ's healing ministry is complicated; but certainly one of the main factors was that Platonic, Stoic, and Manichean thought infected Christian spirituality.
'Another attitude, one of superiority toward healing, holds that miracles were needed to establish the Church, but now that people believe, there is no further need for signs or proof,' he says. 'This attitude is the outcome of an overemphasis on doctrine: healing of the sick takes place, not primarily because God is compassionate and desires to heal broken humanity, but because He wants to make a point.' In other words: Christianity has been over-intellectualized. It is a fact that both healing and exorcism have been shoved aside in modern Catholicism -- which strikes at the heart of our faith."

As Avery Cardinal Dulles explained in his book "The Assurance of Things Hoped For: A Theology of Christian Faith," "Thomas Aquinas at one point defines faith as 'the habit of mind whereby eternal life begins in us, causing the mind to assent to things that do not appear' (S.Th., 2-2, 4.1). Later he explains that, 'since in assenting to matters of faith a person is raised above his own nature, it is necessary the ascent arise from a supernatural principle moving the person inwardly; and this principle is God.' (S.Th., 2-2, 6.1). Once faith is understood as a foretaste of the beatific vision it follows evidently that it cannot be other than supernatural. Only God can impart, when he chooses, a share in his own divine life, which lies beyond the capacities and merits of any creature." (pp. 225-226).

We ignore this balance of faith and reason, natural and supernatural, at our own peril. As John Paul said, "..reason and faith cannot be separated without diminishing the capacity of men and women to know themselves, the world and God in an appropriate way" (Fides et Ratio, No. 17).