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.

Chris Cuomo - Power of Personal Faith and Suffering

The following is Mr. LeBlanc's second 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 look closer at the problem of "suffering" because you framed "Faith" as being a type of utility regardless of what one may consider "Faith" to be; indicating it would have a value as long as it's useful in helping a person cope with difficulties in life.

First, to those who would disregard "Faith in Eternal Life" while mocking the existence of life beyond the grave, let them consider that where we are going in life is preceded by where we have come from. Let these people think back as far as they can in their memory, and then go beyond that point if they can. Let them go to that beginning of all things and then go backwards from there and they will meet the oblivion from which they came. Let their "superior intellect" mull that over as they mock life beyond the grave! And yet, we can say to them, here we are with existence and life! Let them then ask this question: "Is it more difficult to give someone existence and life out of the nothingness from which we came, or for the author of created reality to continue life beyond the grave after we have been given existence and life?" The call into being is irrevocable.

Another thing for us to consider is this, "Why should anyone be smug about a merciful God who would provide the means for our personal suffering to take on the value of "redemptive suffering"? This gives pause to consider the mercy of God because it is a simple fact that suffering in life is either dumb anguish or a stepping stone.

To be clear about "Faith", as I stated in my first commentary, the "object of Faith is in what has been revealed", not in our own fabrications. And this means, if one does not consider what comes after this life, any view of "Faith" is merely a man-made anesthetic that numbs the pain and suffering in this life until we draw our last breath. No one really wants to die, and such a view of faith never addresses the deepest question in our heart which is, "What comes after this life?" Given that your segment was with Fr. Beck, a Catholic priest, if you would indulge me, I would like to respond from a Catholic perspective to some of the points you made.

"Faith" that is not connected to the reality of Eternal Life, namely, Jesus Christ, is the equivalent of "hopeless faith". And it is because "Faith" is so intimately united to suffering that we are forced to consider "personal sin" and the suffering it causes others, as well as "redemptive suffering" that helps others in their journey towards Eternal Life.

Those who do not meet Christ in HIS agony and suffering will never understand the value of their own suffering and what it means for them not only in this life, but in the life to come.

This brings us to consideration of two things from a Catholic perspective:

* Co-Redemption
* Co-Intercession

At this point, we have to consider how Catholics view suffering in order to establish whether or not Jesus claimed that our suffering is made one with His own. We can do this by looking at what St. Paul tells us. We will find that he not only confirms the fact that Jesus suffers when we suffer, he goes further and speaks directly about Co-Redemption and Co-Intercession.

In Acts 9:4-5 we read:

4: 'And he fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute ME?"

5: "And he said, "Who are you, Lord?" And he said, "I am Jesus, whom you ARE persecuting;"

Please note, Jesus did not say:

* Why do you persecute those who believe in Me?
* Why are you persecuting My Church?
* Why are you persecuting My Friends?
* Why are you persecuting My institution?

Jesus said Paul was persecuting Him, in the "1st person".

Again, in Acts 22:7-8 we read:

7: "And I fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to me, `Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?"

8: "And I answered, `Who are you, Lord?' And He said to me, "I AM JESUS OF NAZARETH WHOM YOU ARE PERSECUTING (emphasis added)."

And in Acts 26:14-15 we read:

14: "And when we had all fallen to the ground, I heard a voice saying to me in the Hebrew language, `Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me? It hurts you to kick against the goads."

15: "And I said, `Who are you, Lord?' And the Lord said, "I am Jesus WHOM YOU ARE PERSECUTING" (emphasis added).

This is indisputable scriptural evidence that Jesus tells us that the suffering of the faithful are united to His own suffering. St. Paul clearly understands that our suffering is joined to the suffering of Christ. And this means the suffering of Christ is not over and done with on Calvary. Paul even makes an explicit declaration about this as we shall see later on.

Continuing, we have the final Judgment where Christ said of the Sheep and the Goats, "For as often as you did it to one of these, you did it to ME". And "As often as you failed to do this for one of these, you failed to do it to ME".

Now, as I mentioned, as Christians, we need to know that our personal sin crucifies Christ over and over in our own heart.

In Hebrews 6:1-5, Paul makes it clear that when we fall into sin "after" baptism we are not to be "baptized" again. That would be to mock Baptism and Calvary. Furthermore, the graces that Christ gives to His faithful makes it very difficult for them to "apostatize" in conscience even when they fall into deadly sin. There is a difference between "apostasy and an apostate" and "sinner who does not deny the faith and is willing to repent.".

We see this in Hebrews 6:6. We read that when we do sin and fall away we are "re-justified" when we "repent", even after we mock and crucify Christ again with our sin.

It reads,

6: "And are fallen away: to be renewed again to penance, crucifying again to themselves the Son of God, and making him a mockery."

For anyone to argue that St. Paul is saying we do not sin after we are baptized makes Christ a liar. The "Just Man" sins seven times a day. To claim we cannot sin a deadly or non-deadly sin, or that we cannot lose our justification after being baptized, would be the equivalent of mocking Christ and His Church as we are about to see.

Let us look first at the power to forgive sins in the Sacrament of Confession for those who sin after they are baptized.

In John 20:21-23 we read:

21: "Jesus said to them again, "Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you."

22: "And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit."

23: "If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained."

No one can refute this Scriptural evidence that Christ gave the power to forgive sins to His Apostles, and to whomever they ordained to do the same. In like manner as Christ had done for them, they conferred this Power to forgive sins to others whom they would send out after Christ ascended to the Father. This is in keeping with Christ's command that they do as He had done for them so that when they died the Power to forgive sins would remain in His Church through those who succeeded them.

Anyone who denies this Scriptural evidence that Christ did in fact give the power to forgive sins to men openly mocks Jesus and the Holy Spirit.

Consider for a moment a person who refuses to acknowledge that Jesus gave men the power to forgive sins. Imagine them being present when Jesus conferred this power to the Apostles. Such a person would be trying to stop Jesus from doing this saying:

"Hold on Jesus! Don't you do that. I confess straight to you, not to men! By giving these men the power to forgive sins you are confirming the Sacrament of Confession in the Catholic Church is real and necessary. Don't you do that, I won't have it!"

What kind of a look would such a person receive from Christ? What would Jesus have said to such a person? Does anyone think that Jesus would have apologized to such a person and then admit He stands corrected by them? No, such a person would have received more than the withering scorn of His silence. The fact is, Jesus breathed the Holy Spirit into these men so that they would have the power to forgive the sins of men, sins which crucify Christ again and again because all sin crucifies Christ. In fact, this is Scriptural evidence that it is not Baptism alone that forgives both mortal and venial sin.

And it is worth noting that Jesus "breathed" on His apostles. This is particularly significant because there are only two times in Scripture that we see GOD breathing life into creation. We don't even see this "breathing" in regards to Baptism.

In Genesis 2:7 we read:

7: "then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being."

When Jesus breathed the Holy Spirit into the Apostles, we see God restoring life to His creation that had been dead to grace because of Adam's sin. It is "In and through His Church" that we find the breathe of God in the Sacrament of Confession which resurrects souls from the dead as He gives life once again where there was no life. And He does this through the men that He gave the power to forgive sins. In fact when a person goes to confession and confesses a deadly sin, the resurrection that takes place in that confessional is a greater resurrection than if all the bodies of every person who ever lived were to rise from the grave. At the final judgment, not all will resurrect to glory and grace! Some will rise to damnation. Whereas in the confessional there is a resurrection in grace and Eternal Life.

Jesus created the Sacrament of Confession in John 20:23, and this Sacrament is bound to the Church that He created in Matthew 16:19. And this means the faithful are bound to confess their sins to Christ's Priests.

Does this mean that we have to run to confession for every sin we commit and live in constant fear? No, not at all! We have a reason to rejoice in the Sacrament of Confession. If we have mortal sins on our souls, Christ will remove them through the Sacrament of Confession.

It is worth mentioning that many do not realize that Scripture speaks of sin that is deadly (mortal sin) and sin that is not deadly (venial sin).

In 1st John 5:16-18 we read:

16: "If any one sees his brother committing what is not a mortal sin, he will ask, and God will give him life for those whose sin is not mortal. There is sin which is mortal; I do not say that one is to pray for that."

Notice in this verse John said "I do not say that one is to pray for that" because in this case prayer is not enough. One MUST go to confession.

We see the distinction once again between mortal and venial sin in verse 17:

17: "All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin which is not mortal."

So, what does the Catholic Church mean when it refers to sin that is not deadly as "venial sin"? This kind of sin does not deprive the soul of divine grace which is the life of God in the soul. Venial sin is not serious enough for damnation because it is committed without full intent, or without understanding the seriousness of the sin, or if the sin does not involve grave matter or circumstances. But it's still wise to confess venial sins because they can lead to mortal sin.

The sacrament of confession not only forgives all sin, it fortifies the soul. It is a "bulwark" in His Church.

Furthermore, the apostle John tells us that we are sinners and that we must confess, and in case people need to be reminded, this applies to the baptized.

In 1st John 1:8-9 we read:

8: "If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us."

9: "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness."

And Paul says the ordained have the "Ministry of Reconciliation."

In 2nd Corinthians 5:18 we read:

18: "And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation."

All of this means the reality of Calvary is not limited to several square feet of earth on which stood the cross upon which Christ was crucified to redeem the world. Redemption is universal. And just as redemption is not limited geographically, it is not limited by time or place. It is an event, a reality that is not over and done with because it is a reality that is present to all time and place. To deny this would be to deny the omnipresence of the Divine Person of Jesus who now reigns in glory simply because He lived an earthly life. He is God in time and outside of time, and all time is not only present to Him, his entire earthly life is present to all time because His entire earthly life is wedded to His Divine Person just as much as his reign in glory is present to all time and place. To deny this would be to deny the fact that He is God and Man not only in His earthly life, but in His heavenly reign in which He did not shed His Human nature once He assumed it. His human nature will remain consubstantially united to His Divine Person forever in Glory because He does not go back on a matter that deals with His own Person.

In fact, it is only when we come to exist as individuals that we meet the reality of Calvary that preceded our existence. And let us be clear about something. The fact that our sins crucified Christ is not a platitude, it is a reality. We could not have crucified Christ with our sins before we came to exist. To disagree with this is to say that those who never came to exist crucified Christ with their sins. It is not enough to say Jesus paid for your sins in advance. For your sins to crucify Christ they must meet the reality of Calvary, and that fact is a reality only because the reality of Calvary is present to all time and place and meets the sins we commit only when we come to exist.

Now that we have seen the role that sin has in the suffering of Christ, we are ready to look at the flip side of suffering, meaning, how is our suffering understood to be "Co-Redemptive, and Co-Intercession"? We need to see what it means to "suffer with Christ in our own hearts for the sake of others" as compared to "making Christ suffer in our own hearts when we sin."

First of all, the Apostle Paul explains that "co-redemption, and co-intercession" are realities that are rooted in the Power of God Himself. He even speaks of the "transcendent" power of God that makes this a reality.

In 2nd Corinthians 4:7-12 we read:

7: "But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, to show that the transcendent power belongs to God and not to us."

8: "We are afflicted in every way, but not crushed; perplexed, but not driven to despair;"

9: "persecuted, but not forsaken; struck down, but not destroyed;"

10: "always carrying in the body the death of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus may also be manifested in our bodies."

11: "For while we live we are always being given up to death for Jesus' sake, so that the life of Jesus may be manifested in our mortal flesh."

12: "So death is at work in us, but life in you."

St. Paul speaks of this "treasure" and then goes on to speak of "earthen vessels" which are the faithful. But what is this treasure? It is the "union of suffering" where the suffering found in the faithful becomes "one with the suffering of Christ". That is the entire message in what Paul is saying here. And he confirms this by telling us it is the transcendent Power of God which unites the suffering of the faithful to Christ which makes this a reality. If the suffering of Christ is the only thing that can redeem man and give us life within, and it is, the only way Paul can say and confirm that "Death is at work in us, but life in you" is if our suffering is made one with Christ by His Transcendent power where it is offered as "one with Christ" to the Father. This is why Paul can say the faithful are "always carrying in the body the death of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus may also be manifested in our bodies".

This matter is dealt in more detail in the "Catholicism on Trial Series" in Book #2, the Catholic Mass, but, we've just seen Scriptural evidence where St. Paul makes it perfectly clear that in Christian suffering there is the reality of "Co-Redemption". This is only way he can say while, "Death is at work in us, but life in you".

St. Paul goes on to say in Romans 8:35-39,

35: "Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?"

36: "As it is written, "For thy sake we are being killed all the day long; we are regarded as sheep to be slaughtered."

Paul is identifying our sufferings joined to Christ who was led to the slaughter.

37: "No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us."

38: "For I am sure that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers,"

39: "nor height, nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord."

We are "one IN the Lord IN the One Bread." We are "One in the suffering of Christ", and this is why Catholics understand the value of "co-redemption and co-intercession". And this understanding is paramount to Catholics when we offer our sufferings to Christ that He may unite them to His own in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. It is here that we meet the substantial reality of Calvary that is veiled upon the altar that we may become "one with Him" where the present world at any given time meets the reality of redemption.

And St. Peter tells us the same.

In 2nd Peter 1:4 we read:

4: "by which he has granted to us his precious and very great promises, that through these you may escape from the corruption that is in the world because of passion, and become partakers of the divine nature."

Now we have to look at what St. Paul said about being co-redeemers.

In Colossians 1:24 we read:

24: "Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ's afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church."

Certainly, Paul is not saying the afflictions of Christ are insufficient, but it cannot be denied that he said his suffering makes up what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ for the sake of His body. Now, we know that Jesus is the ONLY mediator between God and man, and nothing can ever do away with that fact. But, "Co-Mediation" is equal to saying "Co-suffering" that is joined to Christ is co-redemptive because, as we have seen, it is joined to Christ and made one with his own by His transcendent power.

And when we consider that Paul said he makes up what is lacking in the suffering of Christ, he is saying that he is offering his "quota" of suffering in his own life that Christ takes and joins it to His own suffering. And Christ does the same for each of us. He takes the sum total of all the suffering that each of us offers to Him (our own quota of suffering like Paul, regardless of who we are or when we live) and He makes it one with his own. And then, He offers it all to the Father as "one offering with His own suffering". So, in reality, every time we offer anything to Christ, and it does not matter what the material of the cross is that we offer, we are pinioned to the cross with Him and in Him, and He in us, and herein we see "co-redemption of the world".

Regarding "Intercession", in 1st Timothy 2:1, we read,

1: "I desire therefore, first of all, that supplications, prayers, INTERCESSIONS (emphasis added), and thanksgivings be made for all men."

Notice, Paul uses the word "intercessions". Does this mean Paul is saying that Jesus is not the only intercessor between God and man? Of course not! We go to Jesus in behalf of each other in prayer. This does not diminish Jesus. In fact, He commanded that we pray for each other, even for our enemies and this glorifies Him.

The last thing to consider for purposes of this commentary is this. Is it possible to see "Creature Comfort" in a different light? Consider what it means that the sinless Creator appreciates the consolation and company of the creature, in fact, sometimes that of a sinful creature! Is there any Scriptural evidence for this?

Yes, there is.

In Matthew 4:11 we read,

11: "Then the devil left him; and behold angels came and ministered to him.

And in Mark 1:13:

13: "And he was in the desert forty days and forty nights, and was tempted by Satan; and he was with beasts, and the angels ministered to him."

He even brought the Apostles with Him asking that they stay with Him for an hour because He knew He was about to undergo suffering that would cause Him to sweat blood.

And in the Catholic tradition we honor a gesture made by Veronica who was moved with compassion and wiped the face of Jesus when she, the sinful creature, saw the innocent one suffering. Whether or not one accepts this tradition is irrelevant because the underlying fact remains.

Since the entire life of Christ is present to all time and place because His earthly life cannot be separated from union with His divine person, we can be present to Him in Gethsemane still. And no matter what it is we suffer, we can go to Him, sinful creatures that we are, and say to Him, "Lord. I know I have caused you to suffer this, and I am sorry. But what I suffer right now I offer to you that you unite it to your own suffering, like Paul did. And if my carrying of this cross that I am suffering can in any way lightens the load you carry because of my sins, I take up my cross as you said we must do, and I will carry it with you like Simon who helped you carry your cross that resulted because of my sins."

What one discovers is that you and the Lord carry the same cross, Him in your suffering, and your suffering in His cross. And in fact, your suffering becomes the equivalent of Veronica's veil where He leaves an imprint of His face on your own suffering every bit as much as He would have regarding Veronica's veil. The imprint of His face appears in His faithful in the form of long suffering, patience, fortitude, charity, and all the rest of the virtues.

In the end there is a unitive love between Christ and the soul that lets Christ unite it to Him where Christ unites our suffering to His own suffering, and there is a look of love between the two where the sinful creature is sanctified by the gaze of the one who redeems.

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.