Chris Cuomo - Power of Personal Faith and Secularism

The following is Mr. LeBlanc's first response to Chris Cuomo's personal view of faith which he spoke about on his program "ABC News - Focus on Faith".





Click HERE if you first wish to view Mr. Cuomo's commentary on "Faith". When you arrive at ABC News Focus on Faith, scroll down to: "WATCH: The Power of Personal Faith - Chris Cuomo explains the power of faith in his own life."

Hello Chris.

I'd like to offer some observations regarding your interview with Fr. Beck and the role that faith has played in your life.

In response to your question: "What is faith, how do we get more of it?" One must first have a proper understanding of "Faith". Technically, "Faith" is a "theological virtue", but in simpler terms, it is a response to the gift of what God offers and presents to us by means of "Revelation". This means faith is entirely dependent upon "Revealed Truth", and the object of faith is in what has been "Revealed", not our own fabrications. If one does not accept this premise we are not speaking about faith in the classical religious sense. As to "How do we get more faith?". Well, how open are you to what is reasonable, and are you willing to recognize the gift of faith opens the heart and mind to a deeper union with God?

You spoke of having personal belief in "something that can't necessarily be proven". At this point we have to distinguish between what can be proven and what cannot be proven about God, and this means we have to distinguish between two things:

1) The "fact of God" who is knowable in reason.
2) An assent to "Revealed Truth" which reason tells us is worthy of our assent and a credible thing to do.

To do this, we have to understand what is in play when we demand "proof" of something.

When we speak of "proof" we can only speak of something that is self-evident. Without self-evidence there is no such thing as empirical evidence. In fact, without self-evidence there is no scientific method. Even the data used in the scientific method must be "self-evident" without need of empirical evidence, or there is no such thing as the scientific method. Ultimately, self-evidence rules the day and is superior to any method. So, to "know" is fundamental to, and the object of, any demands of proof. Quite simply, when something is known, it is an absurdity to demand proof.

It's important to make this distinction. Why? Because it's important to acknowledge that God can be known as a "self-evident fact" by means of reason alone which speaks of God as the "Creator". Keep in mind this is entirely different than knowing God by means of "Revealed Truth". And we must recognize the knowable "facts" about God as "Creator" as compared to "Revealed Truth", both come from the same God, meaning, God created man with reason which can know God as a fact with certainty, and God as the author of Revealed Truth. This is why both Augustine and Aquinas tell us "we must have a reason to have faith". In this manner we understand that Revelation validates the assent which reason gives to it.

You may ask, "What do I mean about knowing God as a fact in reason?"

Suppose that you were standing on a green at a golf course. Coming from behind you, a ball lands on the green and drops into the hole, but you didn't see who, or what, hit the ball.

Now, we know that a ball cannot launch itself for a hole-in-one. Something, or someone, had to hit that ball. The question would now go to you, "do you believe someone or something hit that ball?", or would it be a "Fact" that someone or something HAD to hit that ball?

We know as a fact that someone (agent) or something (agent) HAD to hit that ball, even though we didn't see the agent that hit the ball. Someone may "believe it was a person", and someone may "believe it was a golf machine that shot the ball out under air pressure", but it makes no difference. The fact remains, an agent had to hit or move that ball. In this example we see the difference between "Belief" and "Fact". Now, anyone who would deny the existence of the unseen agent as a fact would meet the definition of a completely irrational person. In fact, such a person would be rejecting the law of physics which states that "a body at rest remains at rest unless acted upon by another or an outside force".

Now, let's take this "fact" and notch it up as we consider the laws which govern the universe and we see that "cause and effect relationships" do in fact exist, as we've seen in the example of the golf ball. And at this point, let's consider "motion itself", and consider the golf ball once again. A golf ball has the same form, color, and weight, etc., with all the attributes of the ball whether it is at rest or is in motion. All that is measurable and observable about the golf ball remains the same at rest or in motion. Now, let's go backwards from the ball landing on the green to the "unseen agent that is other than the ball" that hit the ball, and then go backwards from there into a regression of cause and effect relationships. There cannot be cause and effect relationships existing unless there was a "first cause" that is uncaused from all eternity, a "prime mover" from all eternity that set into motion and maintains the laws of the universe and all motion within the universe.

Consider now, the unseen agent of motion, like the unseen agent that hit the ball. Motion is a self-evident invisible reality that is not measurable on the periodic table of elements. In the case of the golf ball it is not the form of the golf ball, nor is it any of the attributes of the ball. It is "other than the ball". In fact, motion is a power manifested through the form of the ball by the agent that moved the golf ball to begin with.

At this point, it is not important to consider the intent, will, nature, attributes, and intellect of the agent that moves all things, but it is important to note that you could not regard this agent of motion as something to "believe in" just because the agent of motion cannot be seen, measured, or weighed on a scale. You would still know the agent of motion as a "fact". This agent (God) who moves all things must be a "fact" every bit as much as the "fact" that there had to be an agent that hit that golf ball. The agent is known as "a fact" in both cases.

So then, to what end does empirical evidence serve? To "know something as a self-evident fact". It's that simple! The demand, therefore, for empirical evidence as a proof for the existence of God via the scientific method has no standing because God can be known as a self-evident fact. The one who makes such a demand simply does not understand the impediment in their demand. And at this point, the person who knows of God "as a fact" can turn to the one who demands empirical evidence for the existence of God and say: "I want your "empirical evidence" for the "self-evidence" of your data for anything you do via the scientific method. Otherwise, the Scientific method does not exist anymore than the Tooth Fairy exists. And the "Tooth Fairy" cannot make demands of reality. And now you have a "negative" that cannot be proven by empirical evidence which means you must admit the superiority of self-evidence over methods". Where does this leave the one who demanded empirical evidence for God?

The one who demanded empirical evidence for the existence of God will only be able to say "there is no need for me to provide empirical evidence for my self-evident data because self evident reality is already self-evident". To which the one who admits and acknowledges the fact of God can say, "Then who are you to demand empirical evidence for the self-evident fact of God? There is no need for me to provide empirical evidence for the self-evident fact of God. Empirical evidence does not demonstrate self-evidence. It's the other way around. Therefore, the self-evident fact of God is established and there is no need to acquiesce or respond to your irrational demand."

If you want to consider empirical evidence, one cannot exclude the invisible reality of the agent of motion manifested through form in the universe in the scientific method. When you combine the law of physics and what it says regarding a body at rest, the existence of cause and effect relationships can only be a reality when you admit the fact about the invisible agent manifesting itself through the physical form. And no one in their right mind is going to say that cause and effect relationships do not exist. Therefore, no one in their right mind will deny the fact of God.

In this example we can see the often noted atheistic comment which says "the believer must prove a negative to prove the existence of God which he cannot do" would have no standing as evidence in a court of law. That would be like saying the fact of motion is a negative that cannot be proven and therefore not known, and that would be to say it is impossible to know that someone or something had to move that golf ball as a fact. Ramp it up to all things in the universe now, and you see the atheist fails to distinguish between the "Fact of God" and "Belief in Revelation".

So, to the atheist who "declares there is no God" the onus is now upon him to prove his "positive" declaration that there is no God. His own declaration gives birth to his own "negative" that he must now prove which he cannot do, and he knows it! And it frustrates him! And he cannot "know" that there is no God. That would be the equivalent of saying "he knows the ball moved on its own". When the atheist is forced to admit he is merely an "agnostic" who can't make up his mind as to whether or not God exists, he cannot then turn to the person who "knows of God as a fact" and demand they prove the atheists' "negative" that God does not exist. Let the atheist prove his own "negative". The most we can say in tribute to the atheist when his time allotted on this planet is up would be this: On his tombstone the epitaph would read, "Here 'Lies' an atheist, all dressed up but nowhere to go!" In reality, he would have already met the "fact of God".

Let us not forget that people fail to acknowledge that a man can shut down reason and ignore facts that demonstrate the fact of God's existence for any number of reasons. In fact, atheism is often related to bad relationships between parent and child.

To be "logical", the atheist and the agnostic cannot have it both ways. If they declare God does not exist the onus is upon them to prove it, and they cannot dismiss their obligation to prove their own negative. In fact, the atheist and the agnostic have embraced the "opiate of the irrational".

Now, regarding "belief" and "fact". A "fact" is not a mere projection of the ego or a fantasy that morphs into something like belief in the tooth fairy. A tooth fairy cannot account for the fact of creation and self-evident cause and effect relationships and what they mean. So, Chris, when you say "belief without faith is mere superstition" it would be more proper to say "faith in what is not reasonable is superstition." The reasonable person assents "to the fact of God, and the God of Revelation", but not "tooth fairy's". Assenting to Revelation is therefore not assenting to ones' own fantasies because Revealed Truth will never contradict reason. Even in knowing of God as a fact, reason tells us there must be things of God we cannot ascertain via reason alone. So, it is therefore reasonable to accept what the creator (fact) reveals of Himself as the God of Revelation.

So, when you ask, or assert, that man can live a virtuous life without "Revealed Truth or Religion", that is an argument that says virtue is not measured by anything outside of man and his conscience, and it is to completely ignore the "fact of God". It is an appeal to what is found only within man, namely, the Natural Law, that allows him to live a virtuous life. But all laws imply a law giver, so we are back to the God of fact, the very one who established knowable laws in the universe, and the God of Revealed Truth.

Now, let's look at something else that you spoke of. Can we view "faith" as a means to knock down narcissism or to serve as a motivation for virtue if God did not exist as a fact? What would anything matter if there is no accountability beyond the grave? You may not like the results, but it wouldn't matter. Like it or not, without God, yours is just one more "opinion". And you could not appeal to your subjective view of "faith" to make it the objective standard that is true for all to serve as a utility for the sake of ordered society and civility anymore than one could appeal to faceless greed as a standard in life regardless of the suffering it imposed on others. One could say the man who dies with the most toys wins. Wins what? After all, to the atheist, there is no accountability at death. No, without the fact of God, nothing matters.

And we cannot say that as individuals we are not that important in the big scheme of things without mocking the personal redemption offered to every individual. If we are important enough for God to redeem us, and we are, that should be enough for us to figure out we need to humble ourselves. This means "faith is not utility". Any atheistic government could adopt such a view of faith for purposes of utility, but it would not be respecting man from within or without, and it would not be respecting man in relation to his creator and redeemer. We would then have to move to this question, "What is authentic Revelation" as opposed to false revelation and false understandings of revelation? An example of a false understanding of reality, and therefore a false understanding of revelations which proceed from it, would be a "Pantheistic" notion of reality that fails to see the fact of a transcendent creator. All the attendant flaws bound to a concept such as pantheism, and it's inability to produce a valid means of redemptive suffering in concepts such as Karma, would be inherent to pantheism under the smoke screen that says "all is one" But this too is a subject for another day.

You said "faith makes it easier to deal with troubles and suffering", and you are right on spot with that, but, you have touched on something known as "redemptive suffering", something the Apostle Paul speaks about which is for another day.

Fr. Beck put a question to you about the Eucharist and Catholic belief. You said whether or not Jesus literally meant what He said at the Last supper would depend upon what the person wants to take from the words of Jesus. That is backwards. In order to assess your position as a valid statement one would have to assess the words of Jesus and his intent. I've written a book on this subject if you care to consider that question, but that too is not the subject of my comments today.

I would also point out it is not accurate for you to say "the more religious you become is because the more flawed you are". Religion does not make us flawed, it serves as a means for introspection where the light goes on and we see the dirt in the room that we did not see until the light went on in the room. No one is without sin, so belief in Revealed Truth gives birth to repentance which is a very natural thing, rather than something that makes us flawed.

And now, to address the premise of your position which is that you believe a person can live as an ethical humanist without faith by means of the Natural Law alone, divorced from any notion of the afterlife and accountability. If God is not given his due, if He is not acknowledged as a fact, He will call those who do not acknowledge this fact to account for it in eternity. The Apostle Paul pointed this out when he said no one is innocent regarding the fact of the Creator in light of what has been created.

These days, words are being redefined like a misappropriation of funds. There is in fact something that accounts for the dramatic loss of morality in recent decades which is more insidious than "Secularism". And it has to be identified so that Catholic educators can mount a counter-offensive in education. It is the following:

Morality stands on its own and is independent of "Revealed Truth", and I believe you would concur on this point. Therefore, it is a false argument to equate "Natural Law Morality" with "Religion" and then argue that "Moral Principles" that reflect and that are confirmed by "Revealed Truth" violate the separation of Church and State.

To look closer at this we need to look first at "Secularism".

Father Alfonso Aguilar teaches philosophy in Rome at the Regina Apostolorum College. He addresses the problem of "secularism" stating that secularism is "intrinsically wrong", and that secularists' intend to achieve an absolute independence in temporal affairs from all that has to do with God and from His moral law. In fact, they intend to "take over" God's role. He notes that Secularists' claim autonomous authority to act however they wish in "earthly matters" to the exclusion of religion, not so much as to oppose religion, but to annihilate religion.

He also points out that secularism has deeply penetrated all areas of society - namely politics, culture, social life, religious practice and even the Catholic Church in our day. In the political arena, for example, we face anti-Christian and anti-religious legislation that forbids religious symbols and group prayer in public, and a bid to crush the objection of conscience in Catholic hospitals.

He explains that a State with secularist trends is indifferent or even hostile to confessional schools and charities that objectively help society flourish. Secularism has been, and is being implemented by anti-life and anti-family policies as well as by policies that promote alternative types of family, such as same-sex "marriages".

The cultural milieu is constantly bombarded by a secularist agenda. Take for instance, the false opposition to faith and science promoted by scientists like Richard Dawkins, Victor Steinger and Carl Sagan, or by organizations like AA (Atheist Alliance International). And you have anti-religious bioethics fostered by thinkers like Peter Singer and by the inhuman practices of in-vitro fertilization and experimentation with embryos. Psychology is often taught in college and practiced clinically with no reference to God and religion. Academic philosophy neglects or rationalizes away man's natural search for God, as in the case of Daniel Dennett, author of the 2006 book "Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon".

And an easy way to promote a negative view of religion, notes Fr. Aguilar, and of Christianity in particular, is the manipulation of history. To prove this, note such books as Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris, or watch movies like Ridley Scott's "Kingdom of Heaven" and Ron Howard's "The Da Vinci Code" and "Angels and Demons". Or Philip Pullman's "Dark Materials Trilogy", whose first installment was brought to the big screen in the "Golden Compass" movie, and was explicitly written to "Kill God". And for a long time now, religion has been ignored or attacked in pop music, literature, and the entertainment industry.

Fr. Aguilar also notes that social life and customs have been increasingly secularized, too. Sunday and the liturgical feasts like Christmas and Easter have lost much of their sacred meaning. Life, sex, and death have been profaned by practices such as abortion, embryo selection, "free sex", homosexuality, assisted suicide, the abandonment of the sick and the elderly, and secular funerals. He notes the most appalling expression of secularism might be found in the silent distancing of entire populations from religious practice and even from any reference to the faith of the Church. The Church today is confronted more by indifference and practical unbelief than by atheism.

He notes that the Second Vatican Council considered this spiritual drama as one of the most serious problems of our times (see Guadiam et Spes. No. 19). It is, in fact, less visible than militant atheism but more perilous, because it is subtly spread by the dominant culture in the subconscious of believers. Secularism is also manifest "in the heart of the Church", as Pope Benedict noted. "It profoundly distorts the Christian faith from within, and consequently, the lifestyle and daily behavior of believers". And to see how secularism has infected many in the Church, consider the Pope's comment, and then consider that the Magisterium is opposed by many theologians and believers, and the loss of the supernatural sense in the liturgy, sacraments, the priesthood, charity and the ascetic life.

Fr. Aguilar goes on to say "Although secularism is ubiquitous, it doesn't dominate over all society. Many forces oppose it. Yet, we need to understand its nature and realize how it suffuses various areas around the world. Knowing the enemy is the first step to overcome it.

Fr. Aguilar is correct up to this point but he falls short of understanding the "problem behind secularism". He is not correct when he asserts that secularists' are content to explain away man's need for religion. And it is this failure in Catholic education that allows secularism to spread like a prairie fire.

Secularist's are not content to explain away man's need for religion. In fact, they don't want to do away with man's natural search for God AT ALL. They need this search "intact", but they intend to change what man is searching for so they can "redefine" religion. If the secularist is to succeed in secularizing all things, he must propose a "substitute for religion" so that man's innate search for God becomes twisted. This means the "substitute for religion" must have the "appearance of religiosity" or the secularist would fail in his objective to produce a "new creed for religion".

The secularist must "redefine" religion to be "spiritual without definition" rather than religious "according to doctrine and creed", and the substitute he will use to create a "false understanding of religion" is a "false understanding of the Natural Law".

The Natural Law has the "appearance of religiosity" but it is "not Revealed Truth". The task of the secularist is to make people think the Natural Law and Revealed Truth are one and the same, but they are not the same. And he does this to produce "Moral and Religious Relativism" in society.

Having convinced people the Natural Law and Revealed Truth are one and the same the end game of the secularist is to remove Morality based on the Natural Law from society and the world of politics by claiming Natural Law Morality springs from religion. And by doing so the secularist is able to make the Natural Law and Religion appear to be in a state of flux, malleable to the secularists' view of morality and spirituality which becomes none other than moral and religious relativism. This is a corruption of both the Natural Law and Religion in one fell swoop. It's the old adage of "killing two birds with one stone".

The secularist must then set about to impose "his creed" on society which is the claim that "religion and doctrine" have no place, no voice in secular society. And here we see the secularist is in concert with the Atheist. The Secularist must therefore shed any association to a "denomination" in his personal life that he may be perceived as being "truly open and spiritual". He must set himself free from the "shackles of religion and doctrine".

There has been an abject failure to see and to understand that secularism would not be possible if a "substitute for religion" had not been carefully crafted, proposed, and implemented while secularism was being installed. A "substitute view of Revealed Truth" and "secularism" become a two pronged evil stemming from the head of Satan himself.

Man is a religious creature by nature, and he will not turn from God until he has first devised a way to assuage his guilty conscience for his sin. This is why many now tell us they are "spiritual" rather than "religious", and they do this so they may love their sin. They want to subjectively define sin to avoid the necessity of repentance.

So then, we can now see how and why the secularist will proclaim "morality comes only from religion", and hence, the need for the "separation of Church and State". This lie of the secularist needs to be exposed to the light of day because they have gotten away with this fallacy far too long and are bringing ruination to society.

On the Eve of his election to the Papacy at the Pre-Papal Conclave Mass, Pope Benedict XVI stated:

"We are moving towards a dictatorship of Relativism which does not recognize anything as definitive and has as its highest value one's own ego and one's own desires."

Additionally, the Holy Father recently stated:

"The World has slipped into Godlessness".

This would not have been possible if "Relativism" (the denial of absolutes in reason, morality, and doctrine) had not become entrenched in the hearts and minds of so many people. And "The Day of Relativism" would not have been possible if a false understanding of the "Natural Law" had not been instilled in the hearts and minds of those who have been seduced by Relativism.

So, let's look at the Natural Law to understand how Secularists have managed to do this.

Quite simply, when we are born, we are not an empty slate that has nothing written on our hearts and minds about what is morally right and wrong. God stamped the innate Natural Law in us when He created us, and this Law is our basic understanding of right and wrong in Moral Law. And it is not dependent upon Revealed Truth to be known within us. As the Catholic Catechism makes clear, we do not need to be taught the Natural Law, and it can never be totally extinguished by bad formation regardless of the environment in which we were raised.

Many appeal to the "Rights of Conscience" but fail to recognize that the "Dignity of Conscience" rests in cooperating with the "Obligations of Conscience". In fact, the "Natural Law" forms the parameters and dignity of our "Natural Conscience". No individual can do whatever they wish and then argue their "Rights of Conscience" have been violated when they are punished for breaking moral norms. An appeal to justify bad behavior in such a way would lead to all manner of vile living without impunity, and society would break down into anarchy if such Tom-Foolery had its way. And this being the case, our conscience is our friend in life, but it will also be our accuser at judgment for the times we violate it and disrespect its dignity and the obligations we have to it.

A failure to understand the distinction between the Natural Law and Revealed Truth is the basis of a fundamental flaw in current political thought and secular society. But, in fact, morality cannot be shut out from the political world on the claim that morality is a violation of the separation between Church and State because man is a moral being.

The failure to make the distinction between the Natural Law and Revealed Truth is what leads the unthinking many to claim that "God and religion have nothing to do with public and political life, and morality must therefore be left out of politics." But we are to be reminded of what Saint Thomas More stated as depicted in the classic movie "A Man for All Seasons":

"I think that when statesmen forsake their private consciences for the sake of their public duties, they lead their country by a short route to chaos."

Notice that St. Thomas More spoke of "Conscience" and not "Revelation".

We see the same expressed in "The Doctrinal Note" from the Vatican on November 24, 2002 regarding "The Participation of Catholics in Political Life":

"Among the saints, the Church venerates many men and women who served God through their generous commitment to politics and government. Among these, Saint Thomas More, who was proclaimed Patron of Statesmen and Politicians, gave witness by his martyrdom to the inalienable dignity of the human conscience. Though subjected to various forms of psychological pressure, Saint Thomas More refused to compromise, never forsaking the constant fidelity to legitimate authority and institutions which distinguished him; he taught by his life and his death that man cannot be separated from God, nor politics from morality."

Again, keep in mind that individuals often appeal to the "Rights of Conscience" but fail to recognize that the "Dignity of Conscience" rests in co-operating with the "Obligations of Conscience". The Catholic Church respects the separation of church and state but the Church also declares that moral and ethical values, and doctrine, remain transcendent.

Pope Benedict XVI said:

"Politicians must have the defense of the right of life in their own heart and mind to offer it to the community. Without this defense, instead of contributing to the construction of society, the politician destroys it."

He also said:

"The Church recognizes that while democracy is the best expression of the direct participation of citizens in political choices, it succeeds only to the extent that it is based on a correct understanding of the human person. Catholic involvement in political life cannot compromise on this principle."

The next question is how do Secularists use their false understanding of the Natural Law to move societies in their direction for wholesale rebellion against the Catholic Church?

As we have seen, the Natural Law is something that all people have in common because it is stamped in the nature of every single person regardless of what religion a person embraces or was raised in. Even an atheist can live according to the "Natural Law".

By conditioning society with relativism, secularists' have produced an army of people who tell us they are "spiritual" rather than "religious". There is a massive movement of people distancing themselves from any association to a "denomination" because they don't want to be defined by what is absolute. They are now willing agents and pawns who do battle, and their battle cry is "We are Spiritual not religious, and morality comes from Religion, therefore any notion of morality as absolute must be stopped because it would be a violation of Church and State relations".

And it is critical to understand that no one is going to argue that we can move forward as a "global society" without something that appears to be religious by which we are united. Here is where the Natural Law becomes a tool of utility for the secularist. Because the Natural Law "appears to be religious" in that it reflects what has been confirmed by God in Revelation (as found in the 10 commandments), it is the perfect candidate as a "substitute for religion" because it is "free of doctrine".

What passes for "Spirituality" and "Religion" in our day is an impostor and becomes the platform for a global deception. It is the claim that what we have in common (a false understanding of the Natural Law) forms and forges an alliance among all people that represents the new face of Revelation. It is a false claim which says the new face of God is a "Super Religion", rather a "Super Spirituality", that allows us to love each other regardless of "antiquated notions" of religion and Revealed Truth that is rooted in "doctrine". They tell us it is a new mosaic of belief where we are not divided by doctrine. And they remind the world that "religion is the cause of endless wars" failing to acknowledge that in the last century alone over 170 million people died because of atheistic leaders. In all of Christian history, Pol Pot killed more of his own people in Cambodia than all the harm Christians did to other Christians, and non-Christians, in its 2,000 years of history.

Sadly, this false understanding of the Natural Law posing as Revealed Truth demands that the Catholic Church must be silent not only in matters of Faith, but also in matters of Morality.

And "spirituality" that is defined by a false understanding of the Natural Law posing as Revealed Truth leads to a slippery slope in matters of Religion. If one is Catholic and rejects even a single definitive teaching of the Catholic Church they have rejected them all, and they are Catholic in name only. And the quest to make all men "Citizens of the World" using a false understanding of Revealed Truth and the Natural Law is an agenda modeled on liberal, socialist, and Marxist views.

Pope Pius XI stated:

"One cannot be both a true Catholic AND a true Socialist."

Man simply cannot separate himself from morality based upon a false understanding of the Natural Law. He cannot remove the Natural Law which is innate in his very being anymore than he can separate himself from his own existence.

And when this fact is applied to politics, the Natural Law, unto itself, speaks of morality so that morality is intrinsic to politics, and no one can claim this is not true. Keep in mind, there is not a single law on the books anywhere in any country that is not a view of morality, or that is not related to what is understood to be right and wrong. And this points back to objective morality and the need to recognize it as such. Just as there are various planets that orbit the sun at different distances, the planets in a solar system still orbit the same sun. In the end, every single law on the books is a view of morality that is "forced upon us" whether we like it or not.

It is therefore a disingenuous argument to claim that objective Natural Morality is a violation of the separation of Church and State. Secularists' know that society would break down into anarchy and chaos without a substitute for revealed truth. And now we see the reason for the insidious substitute.

A false understanding of the Natural Law hailed as the "New Religion of Spirituality" now serves as a utility for practical atheism in society where God and the Church have been removed from the affairs of man. We have become a society of moral and religious relativists. And in the end, man's search for God has been twisted and now man searches for meaning in the occult and all manner of wickedness and evil.

We, as Catholics, have to reclaim the distinction between the Natural Moral Law and Revealed Truth if we hope to recover from this plunge into the demise of Church and State, and moral and religious relativism.

Copyright © CatholicSeries.com All Rights Reserved.
Use of content on this site requires the written consent of CatholicSeries.com

If you would like comments made by other Persons in the Media regarding matters of faith to be reviewed, please feel free to make suggestions.

PLEASE NOTE: You do not have to subscribe to "Posts (Atom)" to comment.

If the "Post A Comment" box is not already open, simply click on the word "COMMENTS" that follows the name of the last person that Posted a comment.

To prevent "SPAM" comments will be approved before posting.