Pope Benedict XVI with Fidel Castro

When the Pope arrived in Cuba in part he said:

We can no longer continue in the same cultural and moral direction which has caused the painful situation that many suffer. On the other hand, real progress calls for an ethics which focuses on the human person and takes account of the most profound human needs, especially man’s spiritual and religious dimension. In the hearts and minds of many, the way is thus opening to an ever greater certainty that the rebirth of society demands upright men and women of firm moral convictions, with noble and strong values who will not be manipulated by dubious interests and who are respectful of the unchanging and transcendent nature of the human person.

Though meanwhile:

So, Cuban state security has sent pro-democracy activists a text message: “As soon as the Pope leaves, we are going to disappear you all.” (“Tan pronto como se vaya el #PapaCuba los vamos a desaparecer a todos ustedes.”) [Source]

I remember reading ahead of time about the ‘Reason Rally’ that was held on March 24th in Washington, D.C.  It was not something that much interested me in that the free assembly of atheists is something I would support.  The freedom of religion really includes the freedom of non-religion.  Though even when I was an atheist the rally is not something that would have much interested me as far as wanting to attend other then well-wishing the assemblage as a sign of right-thinking.

I was thinking tangentially on a related subject on how atheism has it’s own form of clericalism. The high priests of atheism are often scientists such as Richard Dawkins, P.Z. Myers, Stephen Hawkins, along with the late Carl Sagan and  Stephen Gould.  Though while not all the so-called new atheists are scientists, scientists are given an elevated level of respect.  Speaking for myself at one time I would not have desired a Philosopher-King, but a Scientist-King so that we could all live under a rule of reason.  That the philosophy of scientism permeates these high priests of atheists is no surprise since when the only tool you have in your toolbox is science you hit everything with it.  They ignore the limits of science and try to make every question a “how” which at the same time is suppose to explain the “why.”   That explaining chemical and electrical actions in our brains is suppose to explains everything about the brain.

As Blessed John Paul II wrote in “Fides Et Ratio”:

88. Another threat to be reckoned with is scientism. This is the philosophical notion which refuses to admit the validity of forms of knowledge other than those of the positive sciences; and it relegates religious, theological, ethical and aesthetic knowledge to the realm of mere fantasy.

This is why a “Reason Rally” starts off crippled and returning to Fides Et Ratio again.

Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth; and God has placed in the human heart a desire to know the truth—in a word, to know himself—so that, by knowing and loving God, men and women may also come to the fullness of truth about themselves (cf. Ex 33:18; Ps 27:8-9; 63:2-3; Jn 14:8; 1 Jn 3:2).

There has been some coverage on what Richard Dawkins said at the rally:

WASHINGTON D.C., March 27 (CNA) .- At the March 24 ‘Reason Rally’ in Washington, D.C., an estimated 20,000 atheists and agnostics heard author and activist Richard Dawkins encourage mockery of Catholic beliefs and those of other religions.

‘Don’t fall for the convention that we’re all ‘too polite’ to talk about religion,’ Dawkins said, before urging rally attendees to ridicule Catholics’ faith in the Eucharist.

‘Religion makes specific claims about the universe which need to be substantiated, and need to be challenged ‘ and if necessary, need to be ridiculed with contempt,’ he told the cheering crowd on the National Mall.

‘For example, if they say they’re Catholic: Do you really believe, that when a priest blesses a wafer, it turns into the body of Christ? Are you seriously telling me you believe that? Are you seriously saying that wine turns into blood?’

If the answer is yes, Dawkins suggested atheists should show contempt for believers instead of ignoring the issue or feigning respect.

‘Mock them,’ he told the crowd. ‘Ridicule them! In public!’

Once again Dawkins gives the Church a back-handed compliment. Like most atheists the foil is almost always Christianity and often specifically Catholicism. Also interesting the focus on the Eucharist and how it is something that should be mocked. Well Jesus was mocked and scourged before so there is nothing new under the sun here. Though I can’t really blame atheists in how the doctrine of the Eucharist is so outrageous. Really it is outrageous in that is is shocking, bold, and startling. We should all be so startled out of any bland reception of the Eucharist. The mocking of the Eucharist has certainly been a focus as the case of the desecration of the Eucharist by P.Z. Myers shows. He certainly followed Dawkins template of “ridicule and contempt.”

So Dawkins has an atheist paraphrase for the quote falsely attributed to St. Francis.

“Preach Darwinism at all times and if necessary use ridicule and contempt.”

[Source]

“Marriage equality” has become a buzz-phrase in the advocacy of same-sex marriage in the latest use of relativism to equate what can’t be equated. Equality as a word has been repeatedly used in various advocacies as if it was an argument that can’t be refuted. I mean who can be against equality? Equality is seen as a basic form of justice as any kind of unfairness we naturally respond to. The problem is you just can’t put anything on either side of the equals sign and make the resulting equation true.

Really though the problem with same-sex marriage is with equality itself – it is too equal in fact. The fundamental reality of marriage is not based on equality but that that men and women have complementary natures. It is no coincidence that the growing acceptance of same-sex marriage followed the feminist advocacy of what comes down to making men and women equal via contraception and abortion. Once you render one of the ends of sex null than same-sex sexual activity seems to be as equal as contraceptive opposite-sex activity.

The equality of men and women is based on their personhood. “God created man in his image; in the divine image he created him, male and female he created them” (Gen. 1:27). God command to “be fertile and multiply” (Gen 1.28) can only be met because of the complementarity of men and women. Same-sex marriage or same-sex relationships can never be fecund because men and men or women and women are too equal both physically and psychologically.

228. Connected with de facto unions is the particular problem concerning demands for the legal recognition of unions between homosexual persons, which is increasingly the topic of public debate. Only an anthropology corresponding to the full truth of the human person can give an appropriate response to this problem with its different aspects on both the societal and ecclesial levels[503]. The light of such anthropology reveals “how incongruous is the demand to accord ‘marital’ status to unions between persons of the same sex. It is opposed, first of all, by the objective impossibility of making the partnership fruitful through the transmission of life according to the plan inscribed by God in the very structure of the human being. Another obstacle is the absence of the conditions for that interpersonal complementarity between male and female willed by the Creator at both the physical-biological and the eminently psychological levels. It is only in the union of two sexually different persons that the individual can achieve perfection in a synthesis of unity and mutual psychophysical completion”[504].

Homosexual persons are to be fully respected in their human dignity [505] and encouraged to follow God’s plan with particular attention in the exercise of chastity[506]. This duty calling for respect does not justify the legitimization of behaviour that is not consistent with moral law, even less does it justify the recognition of a right to marriage between persons of the same sex and its being considered equivalent to the family[507].

“If, from the legal standpoint, marriage between a man and a woman were to be considered just one possible form of marriage, the concept of marriage would undergo a radical transformation, with grave detriment to the common good. By putting homosexual unions on a legal plane analogous to that of marriage and the family, the State acts arbitrarily and in contradiction with its duties”[508]. (Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church)

Barbara Nicolosi was forward this request for a screenwriter that she labeled offensive:

The person (or persons) we are looking for needs to able to take what we have and mold it into 100 pages of a screenplay similar to to feel of Liar Liar and Groundhog Day, with major elements of Fireproof and Courageous mixed in. (If you don’t know what Fireproof or Courageous are, please do not apply for this job). This is a paid position, but please keep in mind this is an independent project with a very limited budget. We are also not associated with the WGA so we require an independent writer.

Yikes!

Our team is spread out throughout the country, but you will mostly be working with with our producer in [somewhere far from the hub of moviemaking]. This can be done over Skype or Google.

Requirements for this job:
1. Have written at least 3 full length screenplays, and are proficient at all screenwriting formatting and industry standards of screenwriting
2. You are a writer who uses and believes in “The Hero’s Journey”
3. You know, and have seen Fireproof and Courageous
4. You are an expert at using Final Draft
5. You have collaborated on screenplays with other people before
6. You are willing to work for less than you would normally get paid
7. You know how to write comedies and family films
8. You are a Christian

Now Fireproof and Courageous really can be provided as examples. Examples that well-meaning is not enough. That having dominant Christian themes is not enough. While Sherwood Pictures’ movies have progressively gotten better — they still have a long way to go. People often allude to Chesterton’s “If it’s worth doing, it’w worth doing badly” which Christian filmmakers have apparently taken to heart. But the context of Chesterton’s quote was a defense of hobbies and does not apply here. Now I don’t want to pile on Sherwood pictures, but their director is David Evans — an optometrist whose previous show business experience was producing his church’s annual Easter Passion play. Now surely there is such a thing as the talented amateur, but even they have to bust their chops a bit to grow in their art.

Now the job requirements could be fixed a bit if they used instead of “You know, and have seen Fireproof and Courageous” and requested “You know, and have seen Fireproof and Courageous and understand their flaws and how they could be improved.”

You also get what you pay for and if you can’t hire a writer at the normal salary you are going to have a problem. Sure many Christians do decide to take a lower salary than what the market can bear when working with Christian organizations unless apparently you work for the Archdiocese of Boston (though all things being equal I don’t have a problem with paying people what their skills are worth). But it’s the whole mindset of getting a bunch of amateurs together for a film “worthwhile” project that is problematic. You end up with celluloid or whatever digital medium that is the artistic equivalent of a plastic dashboard Jesus.

Barbara has a nice set of snarky responses to this request.