Let us have a robust Catholic apologetic, based upon reason, carefully defining what we mean by faith. What is faith? By Thomas Storck WE Within the last year or so our culture has witnessed something that in recent decades is rather unusual: this is the appearance of explicit atheism, an atheism that claims to justify itself by philosophical and historical arguments. Such authors as Richard Dawk- ins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens and Daniel Dennett have openly championed atheism, attacking religion and belief in God with a variety of arguments designed to sub- vert the unwary. Although it might seem that the majority of the population will ignore or be unaware of such efforts on behalf of athe- ism, ideas have a way of trickling down to popular levels and influencing people who would never read their original exposition. In view of this it seems to me more impor- tant than usual for Catholics to be secure in their faith and to be conversant with why we believe what we profess in the profes- 24 sion of faith. Priests may want to stress these things in their preaching more than usval, and should not assume, it seems to me, that their congregations are immune to the atheistic propaganda circulating through society. ‘In combating atheism Catholics ought to have a big advantage over Protestants, in that the Church has always made use of reason in discussing and justifying our faith. But Ithink if we are not careful we Catholics are apt to fall into familiar American Protestant habits of thinking—familiar because they are all around us—and thus lose the secure ground that we occupy with regard to atheism. American attitudes toward faith and religion Inorder to show what I mean by the famil- iar American Protestant attitudes toward reli- gious belief, let me adduce some quotes from HOMILETIC & PASTORAL REVIEW1 | 4 i i i variety of sources, quotes that I think are rep- resentative of the unreflective views of most of our fellow countrymen, First from an article on Evangel College, an Assemblies of God institution in Spring- field, Missouri, taken from the June 1, 1994 issue of The Chronicle of Higher Education, A student at the college is quoted as saying, “T've asked myself a dozen times: How do I ‘know this is the right religion? How do we know we're right? I think it’s just faith” And inthe same issue of The Chronicle, from alet- tertothe editor: “Irealize that one of the basic urges of Christianity is to proselytize, to con- vert the heathens, but in dealing with matters ofreligious faith—by definition not amenable to logic—one must respect and accept the dif- ferences of others.” ‘Then from a blurb advertising a book, The Physics of Immortality by Frank J. Tipler; note that although Tipler claims to have overcome the presumed chasm between faith and rea- son, he (or his publisher) seems to think that this is arather unusual achievement, and obvi- ously assumes that the reader will also take for granted a fundamental dissonance between reason and belief: “Frank J. Tipler, a leading physicist, presents a purely scientific argu- ment for the existence of God and the physi- ‘eal resurrection of the dead—without appeal torevelation or a ‘leap of faith’ to further the argument.” Here one can see the idea of religious faith as it exists in the American Protestant mind, and in the minds of too many Catholics as well: religious faith is at bottom irrational. It is the result of something called a “leap of faith,” which is understood to be an act of the will taken either without any evidence or with insufficient evidence, And whether they embrace religion and neglect reason or wheth- erthey abhor religion and seek to cultivate the use of reason, too many Americans see faith basically inthis way. Ifthis is how most Americans see religion, NOVEMBER 2008 itis little wonder that many have nothing but scom for it. Of course there are other factors present too, including the unwillingness of many to bridle their passions and submit them- selves to the authority of Almighty God, But it seems to me that this essentially Protestant notion of faith constitutes a major obstacle to the apostolate of the Church, since many do not understand the fundamentally different approach toward faith that Catholics take. How the Church approaches religious faith The Catholic apologetic makes careful distinctions and divides the process of our approach to God into several distinct stages. This is not to say that all or even most of us have necessarily come tothe faith in this man- ner. But the Church sets forth this approach in her documents and formulas as a ready and reasonable means of conducting our joumey to God, Of course if God brings a particular soul by another route, that is his singular privilege. How does the Catholic apologetic work then? In the first place we must come to the knowledge of God's existence. The Church asserts, and indeed at the First Vatican Coun- cil defined as dogma, that the human mind through the exercise of reason can come to recognize that there exists one God, creator of all things. This is nothing more than what St. Paul had already taught in Sacred Scripture when he wrote, “For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown ito them. Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made” (Rom. 1:19-20). ‘Thus Catholics do not expect anyone to begin his journey toward faith by making a leap in the dark. The existence of God can be demon- strated using simply our human reason. But if someone does come to see that God exists by the use ofhis reason, what is next? How doeshe get from there tothe fullness of Catholic faith? 25The existence of God can be demonstrated using simply our human reason. Butif someone does come to see that God exists by the use of his reason, what is next? Thisis where we must be very careful about our definition and use of terms, careful not only because of the importance of the subject athand, but because our method of approach- ing itis unusual in a Protestant culture. ‘The different ways of human knowing -We can begin by considering the different methods that we use to obtain knowledge. There are in fact three ways by which we humans can come to know something. The firstis by the exercise of our direct perception; Tknow that trees or dogs exist because I can see and touch them. The second is by reasoning from what already know. For example, Ican know that God exists because God!’s “invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made.” But neither of these is the way I come to most of my knowledge. In fact, most of my knowledge is not strictly speaking knowledge at all, but belief—faith, ifyou will. Iread about something in an encyclopedia ora history book; mostof the time I cannot practi- cally verify what is written there. [believe the author and the editors. In fact, Ttake iton faith, Imeet someone and inquire where is he from, where he went to school. Again, Icannot—or ‘cannot without considerable trouble—verify whathe tells me, So simply take what he says, on faith, Human faith ‘We do not usually advert to the fact that most of what we regard as our storehouse of 26 facts is based on belief. Of course, in most or ‘many of these instances, this belief is perfectly reasonable, in that we have sufficientevidence of the trustworthiness of those who are assert- ing the facts. The process by which we make such a judgment is complicated, and involves at least implicitly our evaluation of authors, editors, publishers and even of explorers who might be the only ones to have visited iso- lated places. What then of faith in what God has revealed’? The Catechism of the Catholie (Chuurch (154) says, Even in human relations itis not contrary to our dignity to believe what other persons tel us about themselves and thei intentions... If this is 50, still less is it contrary to our dignity to “yield by faith the full submission of..intellect and will t0 God who reveals.” In other words the Church is simply ask- ing us to take God at his word, as we take ‘many a fallible human being at his word for the vast majority of what fills our minds. But, one might object, in the case of human faith, we try to ascertain whether the person is trust- worthy or not, and we try to give our assent only when we have some guarantee of this. How do we know that itis God who is actually speaking through what the Church claims as divine revelation and how do we know wecan ‘rust God? Faith in God’s revelation ‘Here we must look back at what Ijust said. ‘The Church does not require anyone to simply take her word that God exists; his existence can be proven by reason. And having done this, having come to see that there is a God, the Church invites us to look at the evidence for thinking that God has indeed spoken, has ‘mace arevelation to mankind, The Catechism (156) gives some of the reasons why itis rea- sonable to believe this, the primary ones being the fulfillment of prophecy and miracles. In addition many Catholic apologists have shown that the New Testament documents HOMILETIC & PASTORAL REVIEWare historically trustworthy and faithfully relate the deeds of Jesus Christ, especially his physical resurrection and the establish- ‘ment of his Church to transmit the revelation of God to mankind. So even though not every soul comes to faith in exactly this manner— for God guides particular individuals in many and various ways—this isa kind of public and ‘general method set out by the Church herself for coming to Catholic faith, While obviously God is working behind the scenes throughout the process, at no time is a blind act of faith required. For the first step is simply the rec- ognition of God’s existence, via our use of reason, and the second is the recognition that God has spoken, based on the evidence that the Church brings forward— above all mira- cles and prophecies. ‘The First Vatican Council taught that we are to believe “not on account of the intrinsic truth of things perceived by the natural light of reason, buton account of the authority of God himselfrevealing, who can neither be deceived nor deceive.” How does this fit with what] just said? Does it not require us to adhere to the truths of faith blindly? No. In fact, itis akin to the kind of merely human faith I discussed above. When we read in an encyclopedia that the Amazon Rivers of such and such alength or thata certain mountain is of such and such Ecclesiastical Latin Grammar 14 Week Course on 28 DVD-Rs LEARN ENTIRE LATIN LANGUAGE Great gift for clergy, religious & laity! INcLUDES TexTBOOK & CARRYING CASE Like baving your owns private tor ins bowse! Suse, OFFER. $200 US — FREE SHIPPING inthe USA; foreign orders add $40 US. S.0.S.M., Inc. POB 123, Mansfield, MA 02048, USA 8.0.5, Ine, i IRS-Recognized 501(0)(3) Non-Profit NOVEMBER 2008 height, we accept those facts on the authority of the persons stating them, “noton account of the intrinsic truth of things perceived by the natural light of reason.” Our reason cannot tell us how long the Amazon is. If it could, ‘we might sit in our armchairs and deduce all the geographical facts in the world from some ‘general principles. Rather, when it comes to unique or contingent facts, we either need to have direct perception of them or take some- ‘one else's word for them. And when it comes to facts about God and supernatural things, who except God can tell us about them? Buti sometimes we are deceived by the testimony of men, with God this is not possible, since he “can neither be deceived nor deceive.” That is why we can and should have absolute and implicit faith in everything God has said, not because we give an irrational and blind assent, but because we know our source is totally trustworthy. And how do we know this? It derives from our knowledge about the nature and “character” of God. When we come to know God’s existence by the use of reason, wwe can also perceive some of his attributes, including his omniscience and his goodness and thus the impossibility thathe could either mislead us or be misled himself. So contrary ‘to what our pseudo-philosophic atheists might say, for Catholics faith definitely does not involve “believing things without evidence or contrary to available evidence.” Can Catholies give a reason for their hope? But do most Catholics appreciate and understand this? The late theologian Father William Most wrote the following, which is very relevant to our discussion: In fact, most cradle Catholics adhere to the Church with no rational cause. Commonly dur- ing the high school period they come into a time of changeover from the child pattern of believ- ing things just because the adults said so, to the adult pattern, or wanting reasons, The trouble is that most persons do indeed drop the childlike 21pattern—but they never even look for adult rea sons. Those reasons will be apologetics. Most Catholics probably do not even suspect that we can construct a rational proof, without depend- ing on faith atthe start, that the Church has been given a commission to teach by someone sent by God, Jesus Christ. So if this is the case, then it seems to me part of the blame, as well as most of the solu- tion, lies with priests. If most Catholics in the United States “adhere to the Church with no rational cause [and] probably donot even sus- pect that we can construct a rational proof,” and if, moreover, we are surrounded with the mostly irrational Protestant idea of faith, then it seems to me that it would be highly benefi- cial for priests and deacons, whose preaching is the only Catholic intellectual commentary the vast majority of the faithful encounter, to systematically go over the foundations of the faith: why we believe in God, why we believe that Jesus Christ announced God’s saving truths, why the Church is his authoritative 28 voice in teaching mankind. If this does not happen, if the basics are not explained over and over again to Catholics, then I fear that the trend will continue toward fewer people practicing the faith, fewer of those who do practice really believing, and many of those ‘who do believe having no “reason for the hope that is in (them)” (cf. 1 Peter 3:15). Even if ‘most of today’s Catholics had studied apolo- getics in their youth (unfortunately not the case), itis well to keep in mind Dr. Samuel Johnson's maxim that mankind needs more tobe reminded than instructed. Without regu- lar reminders of both the contents of and the reasons for the faith, Catholics will find their adherence to God and to his Church growing colder or wearing away entirely: Faith asa virtue But if our faith can be justified rationally, what of the virtue of faith? Is it not the case that, as is sometimes suggested, there is merit in believing without evidence, or without sufficient evidence? I do not think so, and I believe that a key point in any discussion of this subject was made by Dom Mark Pontifex, ‘amonk at Downside Abbey in England, When discussing why we sometimes have difficulty in maintaining a firm adherence to what we have more than sufficient reason to believe, he wrote, “our will is not firm enough to follow reason consistently.” Thatis, the virtue of faith consists in not allowing our ever-fickle wills and emotions to range hither and thither—ex- amining new hypotheses, casting doubt on the truths of the faith, refusing to rest peacefully in the certain knowledge of God’s revelation— instead of simply rejecting doubts as tempta- tions to the faith. Add to the instability of our fallen wills the continual attempts of the bad angels to lead us away from the faith, plus a cultural environment that both misunderstands and largely scoms religion, and tis no wonder that we need external reinforcement if we are tokeep up a fervent practice of our faith. HOMILETIC & PASTORAL REVIEWThe Catholic Church has nothing to be ashamed of in preaching the truths she has received from God. Of course, there is much to beashamed of in the conduct of many Catholics over the centuries, but the fact that the Church has always been filled with bad Catholics has no bearing as to whether her doctrines are true or not, If atheists wish to advance their cause with argument, then let us be ready to meet them with a “reason for [our] hope.” But let us have more to offer than appeals to the kinds of irrational faith that clutter the American intel- Jectual landscape. Letus have arobust Catholic apologetic, based upon reason, carefully defin- ing what we mean by faith, and (with God's help), leading mento atruly saving knowledge of Jesus Christas living members of his Mysti- cal Body, the Catholic Church. . End Notes " An expanded version of an article origi- nally published online at TCRNews with the title “Is Faith Irrational?” 2 Indeed, recently I overheard an attempt ina public place by an atheist to “witness” to someone, i.., to present a case for atheism toher! 3 Some good apologetics works include NOVEMBER 2008 G. H. Duggan, Beyond Reasonable Doubt; J A. Mirus, ed., Reasons for Hope; Peter Kreeft and Ronald K. Tacelli, Handbook of Chris- tian Apologetics; the Beginning Apologetics series by Catholic Answers; Craig Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of the Gospels; ‘Maisie Ward, The Authenticity of the Gospels; EF Bruce (aProtestant), The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? + “Americans to Hell?” Available at www. ‘win convibrary/SCRIPTUR/SUBCON.TXT 5 Mark Pontifex, The Existence of God, a Thomist Essay (London: Longmans, Green, 1949)p. 151. ® Of course, in addition to rejecting temptations against the faith, a Catholic who is having real intellectual difficulties must carefully study the apologetic for the Catholic religion, tothe best ofhis ability and needs. But he should study it as one simply confirming ‘hat he has already been taught to be true, not as one trying to find out whether the Church really does teach God’s revelation. That is, a Catholic cannot admit the possibility that the Church might be in error; instead he must simply seek to make up for the deficiencies in his own intellectual and spiritual formation. Mr. Thomas Storck is the author of The Catho- lic Milieu (1987), Foundations of a Catholic Political Order (1998), Christendom and the ‘West (2000) and numerous articles and reviews on Catholic culture and social teaching. He is a member of the editorial board of The Chesterton Review and holds an M.A. from St. John’s Col- lege, Santa Fe, New Mexico. His last article in HPR appeared in October 2007. 29