Image via Wikipedia
I was sent this video in response to the one I posted yesterday, which is flying at the speed of light all over the Internet. I still stand with my belief that the first young man was very sincere and had much courage in his original video. However I need to correct some of the definitions I used. The following video does a marvelous job of doing this for me, so I will let it speak for itself. I also would like thank David Demboski for sharing a bit more about the Sacraments and the theology behind them (see end of this post for his well-written words), which I was not expressing as clearly as I meant to do.
In short I think both sides have a point and need to continue listening to one another without attacking each other’s motives or resorting to name-calling. That is what bothered me the most about the abundance of “Catholic answers” floating about. I also learned that we as Catholics probably use the word “religion” in a slightly different way than the rest of the world does, and that may have triggered some of the original irritation towards the first fine young man.
If we define “religion” as the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, then I totally agree, he is off-base. If we however use it as most people do today, which includes every Christian (or Christian-like) denomination, Buddhism, Shintoism, Muslims, and Hindus, and yes Catholics, then I agree with him that “religion” in and of itself does not save. That is the distinction I took away from the first video. But I can see why it offended many of my Faith when realizing those distinctly different takes on that word. “Religion” in a general sense does not save, but Jesus through the true Religion does. Do you want the “old-time religion?” Then look into the Catholic Church and you will find it is all there.
Good discussion…and to finish off I will include, in full, David Demboski’s comments to me, and my response from FB, regarding yesterday’s posting. They are worth reading, I believe.
David Demboski says:
Richard, I appreciate the thoughts on this guy. You’re right, there have been a lot of criticism flying around towards him, and I agree with you mostly about what you say above, but I do have some disagreement. I certainly agree that the message behind what he is saying is well intended and correct. He was Christians to not be hypocrites because that only hurts the Body of Christ and those the Church is trying to reach. He is, however, very misinformed/ignorant about many of the issues he discusses. I think if we were to ask what he defines “religion” we would disagree about the definition. You’re right, he probably does mean liturgical denominations like Catholics, Presbyterians, etc, but like many of the articles in response to the video have pointed out, that would not be the definition of religion. Obviously, if he is speaking about the Catholic Church, his criticism about building big churches and not feeding/helping the poor is completely off base. You know as well as I that the Catholic Church helps more poor and oppressed that any other organization in the world, but he either is ignorant of that fact or ignores it. In summary, I think the criticisms launched at this video have been spot-on, but, like yourself, I do not think they affirm the good in the video enough. Is that fair to say? I also want to suggest something about your sacraments-being-efficacious comment above. I think you might be slightly off there, but I could be mistaken. I believe the sacraments are efficacious in the sense that as long as the matter and form are met, they give grace (special grace, obviously). They are more than just symbols; they give the grace they represent. For Baptism faith is required (either of the baptized or the parents), but as long as all of the correct elements are there, it is efficacious: it really does bring about a change in the believer even if they do not live out the Christian life afterwords. I think the Catechism communicates this. Tell me what you think. From CCC 1127 and 1128: “Celebrated worthily in faith, the sacraments confer the grace that they signify. They are efficacious because in them Christ himself is at work: it is he who baptizes, he who acts in his sacraments in order to communicate the grace that each sacrament signifies…This is the meaning of the Church’s affirmation that the sacraments act ex opere operato (literally: “by the very fact of the action’s being performed”), i.e., by virtue of the saving work of Christ, accomplished once for all. It follows that “the sacrament is not wrought by the righteousness of either the celebrant or the recipient, but by the power of God.” From the moment that a sacrament is celebrated in accordance with the intention of the Church, the power of Christ and his Spirit acts in and through it, independently of the personal holiness of the minister. Nevertheless, the fruits of the sacraments also depend on the disposition of the one who receives them.” I think that last sentence is what you were getting at. Still, once the Sacrament is performed, grace is given. For example, when some 8th grader is confirmed (like I was) without truly understanding what was happening or afterwards trying to live out the Christian faith, I still received the gifts of the Holy Spirit (the Sacrament was efficacious), but it was still up to me to use them (the fruit depends on the disposition of the one who receives them). As always I very much appreciate your commentary and contribution, and I respect you opinion. I just wanted to share this with you. Please tell me what you think. Peace.
My response to David is as follows:
One of my brothers in Christ and the Church, David Demboski, (not pictured above, by the way!) pointed out to me that the Sacraments ARE efficacious at all times according to the Catechism, and he is of course correct. However if we are not properly disposed to them, they sort of are “frozen in place” and do not accomplish all they are meant to–NOT because of them, but because of us. The distinction is important because the first statement implies that they do not have power in and of themselves. They do. I stand corrected (actually I am seated but you get the point!). Also the video’s use of the word “religion” bothered him because, again rightly pointing out, that TRUE religion does indeed give us the graces we need and that is the gift of the Church to us. It, ironically, is the very vehicle that even this young man has received Christ as a result of–and that is true of all “Bible believing Christians.” Points VERY well taken, David. In response I would say that it depends how you define “religion” however. Muslims and Buddhism are commonly called “religions” in the more modern and broader definition of the word. So no, “religion” in that sense does not save. I think that was the point our young rap star was pointing out and on that I agree with him still. Conversely, James in the New Testament tells us what “true religion” is and there is a place for it in our lives as well. So I think both sides have something to say to one another. What I strongly object to is the amount of name-calling and sarcasm I have seen towards someone who at least seems to be attempting to live for God, and who had to know his video was going to upset some people–yet he posted it anyway. And I still object to that. I respect his courage and his willingness to take the flack he is no doubt getting along with the accolades. I am not sure, at that age or stage in my life, if I would have had the gumption to face all of that personally. As I said already I think we should pray for him to have a greater understanding of what/who the Church actually is. does, and teaches, and go from there. And finally we need to remember that we are not enemies with opposite objectives here. We are brothers in Christ and as such both need to hear one another out. Thanks David Demboski. And thanks be to God for his ONE HOLY CATHOLIC AND APOSTOLIC CHURCH.
Related articles
- Loving Jesus, Hating “Religion” – Yet Another Take (catholicboyrichard.wordpress.com)
- The spiritual dilemma (confessingchurch.wordpress.com)
- Why I Hate Religion, But Love Jesus – The Smackdown (patheos.com)
AND for a Reformed Protestant Christian view…for the record very similar to the Catholic ones here linked to, see the site below–a great wealth of information from a more Calvinist perspective:
So now we have a wide variety of food for thought here…more comments welcome–but let us respect all views here. We are all on the same team.
I shall speak my mind, and I hope that I am always nice. Thank you. It is truly mind-blowing that this video is doing the internet rounds with such velocity. It is such an atrocious example of theologia prava, but then we do live in a time of runaway relativism – who am I to judge? The point which I would like to make is that both sides of this silly debate are valid. If we are to limit the Incarnation to the Church then we diminish the presence of God in humanity through Christ, and if we remove the Church from the equation we lose that ancient link to authority. My greatest concern, however, is that the Church is not engaging the world in any culture-directing way – it is clearly losing the culture war and so such subjective religious opinion (as seen on the ‘Jesus only’ video) becomes the easy to swallow Jesus enthusiasm of our time.
Welcome and thank you for sharing….nicely:). I agree with you, in that there is a huge amount of truth on both sides and both sides may miss the point as well. Precisely why listening to one another is so very important. You summarized in one paragraph what I have been fishing to say in two posts. Thanks.
One problem which is evinced in this Evangelical trend toward the rejection of ecclesiological authority is the shaky Christology with which it is forced to replace it. We come to know Christ through a number of complimentary avenues; the sacramental life of the Church, our neighbour, the community, the testimony of the Holy Gospel and our interior spiritual life. When one rejects the Church, one must also close a number of these avenues of encounter; thus reducing the experience of Christ to subjective opinion and ultimately to an image of Jesus made in our own likeness. It is too often forgotten that the Gospels were the product of the Church and thus the priority and ownership of the Gospel belongs to the Church. Any construct of Christ formed after a fashion of our own making becomes an idol which will always fail to challenge us to the full demand of discipleship.
I hate to admit it, but I was one of the less charitable bloggers. You and Devin Rose are much kinder to Jefferson Bethke than I was. :^)=)
One of the problems I have, though, is that even to the extent where his criticisms have merit, the criticisms themselves are little more than the stereotyping tropes New Atheists have been trading among themselves for years … especially the “religion causes wars” meme, which as I’ve said desperately needs its head cut off and a stake driven through its heart, as it’s the trope with the fewest facts to back it up. I just don’t think anyone should get that much credit for parroting a tired, empty cliché to a phat beat. }|^O
Correction: I meant Joe Heschmeyer. Devin hasn’t posted on this video.
Not a problem…and as always your comments are welcome!
Dear Anthony S. Layne, on the surface, what you have said is true. Yet as an historian and a theologian I must chime in that religion has indeed been a prime motivating factor of conflict in the past, and sadly, I fear, will again in the future. One need think only of the Crusades and the expansion of Islam by military Jihad. The words of Richard Harries, that the Holocaust was possible only after centuries of Christian anti-Judaism also strikes a note on this same point. On the part of agreeing with you, however, it must be noted that behind these religious movements was selfish and sinful human ambition. We must be ready at all times to defend with reason the hope that it within us (1 Peter 3:15), but we simply cannot defend the indefensible.
Anthony I must agree with the responder on this one. When I hear people on EWTN (just as an example) trying to DEFEND the Crusades I cringe and hope my Protestant or “other” family and friends are not watching. One of the things we must learn to do is admit our errors, and in areas of the mis-application of earthly law they have indeed been many.
As to Church and Papal infallibility, Vatican I teaches that if a DOCTRINE is universal and at least some form or “germ” of it goes back to Apostolic times, and is an actual teaching (not falsely guided actions) regarding “faith and morals,” then it is to indeed be accepted as part of the Deposit of Faith. The same holds with the solemn declarations of Ecumenical Councils in this area, as well as “ex cathedra” or other solemn pronouncements by the Holy Father, provided obviously that they do not contradict the universal Faith which has already been established under the above principles. The Pope could not, just for one instance, solemnly declare tomorrow that there are now 4 members of the Trinity, or that Gnosticism is true after all. The doctrine of the Trinity has been already fully and universally established and is therefore both unchangeable and dogmatic. Another more modern instance would be the teaching of Blessed John Paul II on the issue of women’s ordination. It became a part of the universal Catechism of the Catholic Church precisely because, although not technically spoken “ex cathedra,” he had history and the universality of the Church as his basis, and he thus made the pronouncement as a solemn doctrinal statement. Some may disagree with that particular example but I am using it strictly as such, and no, we are not switching the argument here to women’s ordination!!! I am just sharing my understanding of Vatican I and how it fits in with all of this. So that can be another discussion at another time, please and thanks. In any case back to the topic at hand…
My point is this–the above principles do not hold true with military or political decisions which are based upon the norms of a particular society when they occurred and were never universal teachings of faith and morals. In those areas, huge errors of judgment have been made, including by Popes and Councils too (4th Lateran for starters, which gave explicit instructions for taking lands and livelihood from heretics!). And I think people will be more receptive to the truths of our otherwise beautiful Faith if we humbly admit these things were indeed wrong and move on. I read or heard something in the secular news before I returned to the Church, where apparently someone in the Vatican made the statement that “far fewer people died in the Inquisition” than originally thought!!! Great, I thought. I remember being angered at the Church about that statement then and it still burns me a bit now in fact. Why?
Imagine for a moment if tomorrow we found out on good authority that Hitler “only killed” 1 million Jewish brothers and sisters instead of 6? Would we attempt to give him some sort of a break as a result? Never, and we would be rightly called anti-Semitic if we did so. So we should not give ourselves as the Church universal, established by Christ Himself, and I believe she was indeed established by Him, such “breaks” in the human rights violations, forced conversions that occurred, slaughtering of Protestants even by St Thomas More (he “only” burned 6 fellow Christians alive I believe) during the Reformation, and onward. These were egregious and tragic errors within the Church, often done by well-meaning people, such as More, who were zealous for the truth, and basically a very saintly man in a very corrupt environment, but who were acting in ignorance as to how it applied within a particular situation.
So I think it must be acknowledged that, at least at times, our Church and her leaders have indeed committed atrocities in the name of Christ. Then again so have Lutherans, Baptists, Puritans, and Calvinists, to name a few. However none of them were right or justified in doing so. And we must always allow ourselves to be held accountable as a result, not personally but as the Church of Jesus the Christ who we represent. Whether it was 1 or 1000 is not at issue here. It is the fact that it could and did occur under the watch of Holy Mother Church. And we are then left to “explain” that to a waiting world who looks to us for answers. As our posting friend from Ireland has well stated, it is not worth our time to “defend the indefensible.” It just makes us look like we are covering up or sweeping under the rug what really happened.
My take.
Not that I disagree with either you or Richard, but in a way you’ve both illustrated my point. The degree to which religion, either as motivation or pretext, has functioned in the start of wars is a complex subject; the meme itself is a dangerously misleading simplification. I know what Richard means by cringing when others try to defend the Crusades; the best we can get out of such exercises is the rather pathetic plea that “they were bad enough without need for exaggeration”. And while Roy Schoeman, a convert from Judaism, has tried to exculpate Christianity by looking at the Theosophist background of Nazi ideology, I don’t think we can be excused that easily. Nevertheless, we can embrace our past mistakes without allowing the meme to go by unchallenged.
Pax vobiscum.
Et cum spiritu tuo, yes, we must not allow this assumption to go unchallenged. Yet we must be ever mindful of our past. We are one body, and the actions of Christians in the past are the responsibility of the Church in the present. We are our brother’s keeper so to speak. Here in Ireland we are only now coming to terms with the appalling sexual abuse scandals of the past number of decades, and indeed the Church will be much changed here when the dust settles. We cannot defend the indefensible. We are, however, a people of the resurrection and must ensure that this hope is the power which drives us into the future. Religion is a cause of great harm, and this is why we are all called to be people of deep reflection and conscience. A faith tradition driven by women and men of sincerity is the conduit of redemption. My fear is that with this comes incredible responsibility; we will be judged all the more for our failings.
I like both (all three) videos, “Hate Religion” and the two responses here. I like that there is no name-calling in the two videos here, rather they are attempting to clear up any confusion this young man has with True Religion.
I may not be Roman Catholic, but it has hurt me, as well, when people say this is an attack on the Catholic Church. It is not just because my father’s entire side of the family is Catholic. I have a love of history and Christ, and the Roman Catholic Church is a large part of both (especially seeing as the Church is the Body of Christ). There may be disagreements over proper theology and the Sacraments, but, in my humble opinion, we are still called to unity in our Lord. It breaks my heart to see the fractured nature of the Church at large, and I see the dangers in the fragmentation. Those who “hate religion but love Jesus” still demonstrate much of the “religion” they so despise when they attack others.
I firmly believe, as you have stated, that this young man was not attacking the Catholic Church and other liturgical denominations. Instead, he was attacking a so-called legalistic approach to faith in Christ, one that cannot see past its own prejudices and ignorance. And, as far as religion and things such as Marxism and which has killed more, Marxism can still qualify as a religion. Atheism, to a point, has become another religion, using the modern definition.
Like you and David Demboski and most Catholics, my definition of religion tends to be that of true religion which God the Father finds pure and faultless (James 1:27) (see my first post on my blog, “I Love/Hate Religion”).
You always write such good things, “Simple Man of God” indeed! I think there is more to you than simplicity. Your insights show much wisdom. Thanks for being a true man of God.
Pingback: Take Four…Jesus and Religion | catholicboyrichard
Pingback: Take 5 (I think) “Religion and Jesus”…As Well As Jazz, Chant, Rock, and Rap Just for Starters « catholicboyrichard
Pingback: Roe V Wade And Christian Unity « catholicboyrichard