How he is NOT a Roman Catholic

This past Sunday as I was enjoying breakfast at the rectory table my pastor came up to me and asked if I had come across Roger Ebert’slatest journal article in the Chicago Sun Times.  I had not read it and so my pastor pulled it up online for me to read in his office.  This is proof of how terrible catechesis has been in the Church and why we are now focusing on the New Evangelization. 
 

Roger makes a great point at the beginning of this article when he states that the Papacy, along with the Catholic Church, is the oldest human institution on the planet.  Of course any good Catholic would know that the Church is not simple a human institution, but a divine institution, which is run on earth by humans.  I remember eight years ago when Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI was elected, Francis Cardinal George was interviewed about the attached picture.  The interviewer was curious as to what Cardinal George was looking at.  He was looking out at ancient Rome, at the ruins left of the ancient eternal city, the Colosseum (where hundreds of early Christians were persecuted), at the remnants of the Emperors monuments, and the Circus Maximus.  He was thinking of all the Monarchs and Emperors that have come and gone throughout our world’s history and how they are all gone, yet the Catholic Church, and the successor of St. Peter himself still remain.  

The moment when I started to second guess Ebert’s intelligence was when he stated the Church “continues to regard it [homosexuality] as a sin.”  That is not true.  Homosexuality is not a sin.  It is a sexual identity just like Heterosexuality is.  The sin lies in acting on one’s homosexual temptations.  Just as a heterosexual person sins when they engage in sex outside of marriage so too does a homosexual person.  Of course those of homosexual nature cannot get married because they are unable to fulfill the vows of Holy Matrimony but this is a discussion for another topic.  I just wanted to point out Mr. Ebert’s ignorance on basic Catholic moral teaching.

While I am glad to read he is against abortion it made me sad to read he is still pro-choice.  I used to be of the same mind.  Even though I encouraged non-abortion options I still believed that the woman should have options.  But I was foolish to believe that and Mr. Ebert is just as foolish as I was.  Clearly he believes there is a child in the womb from conception.  So if you believe there is a child then why would you allow a woman the legal right to kill that child?  I don’t have the legal right to kill any person because they inconvenience me so why should a mother have that legal right?  See, this logic does not make sense. It is wrong to take the life of another who is not trying to take your own life.  But this point he makes on abortion is not what troubles me the most but his belief that the Church is proportionalist in our moral theology.  The Church does not simply seek a greater good compared to a lesser evil.  The Church seeks to do the good and avoid evil.  We do not compare the consequences (consequentialism), seek the greatest happiness an action may or may not bring (hedonism), nor do we judge an act by the situation we find our self in (situation ethics) but we as Catholics follow the Natural Law which is inscribed on our hearts and we have discovered through revelation and tradition.  Again, this is a larger topic for another time.

THE BIGGEST AND MOST UNBELIEVABLE STATEMENT ROGER MAKES IS THIS: “I cannot believe in God.”  WHAT?!  Then why does everything prior to this statement matter if there is no God?  Why does it matter that you prefer women not kill their children?  Why do you care that the Church you claim to be a member of doesn’t allow homosexuals to get married?  Why is the Pope so important to you?  All of these items come from Divine Revelation (God speaking to man).  If there is no God then you can’t have divine revelation and that makes all the above points’ human positive law which can be argued and changed as many times the culture wishes.  Mr. Ebert did nothing but waist his own time writing this article and his readers time.  I was so upset that I had wasted five minutes reading and getting upset over his article until I realized that people probably read this article agreeing with him and that made me more scared. 

Now I want to make a clear distinction between doubt and nonbelief.  Roger Ebert says “I cannot believe in God.”  He does not say that he doubts Gods existence nor does he allude to any misunderstandings on the existence of God.  He comes right out and denies his belief in God.  A supreme being, an unmoved mover, the first cause, alpha and omega, creator, Father, and so on.  If he were to doubt Gods existence and still considered himself Catholic believing in the teachings of the Church then that would make sense.  Many of our great Saints doubted the existence of God including Blessed Teresa of Calcutta and Therese of Lisieux.  Both of these great Saints doubted the existence of God but they didn’t let that stop or hinder their faith.  They were women of great Faith, Hope, and Love.  Their doubt was a means to increase these Saintly virtues.  Roger passed doubt a long time ago.  The evil one grabbed him in his ignorance of the truth and led him to the state of nonbelief.  Sooner or later, and I pray never, Roger will realize that without God nothing matters.  We are simply here by accident and will someday leave by accident.  This is when Satan wins.  I pray that Mr. Ebert never makes it to that point but finds the truth that God DOES EXIST!  I pray he reads some Thomas Aquinas!  Robert speaks on his love of reason and science, well then Thomas should be his intercessor and teacher!  

 

I do believe that the foundation of secularism is the nonbelief in God.  We as a Church, not just the Bishops, but all of us within the Mystical Body of Christ need to catechize and evangelize first on the existence of God, second on the Blessed Trinity, third on our Creed, and then let the Holy Spirit flow.  We can’t expect people to fall in love with Christ and the Trinity without first believing in God.  Thomas’ argument from contingency explains it all.  Nothing in this world has to exist.  There is no necessity for any one of us or anything in the universe.  Yet we all exist.  Why?  To give praise and glory to our creator.

I am sorry Mr. Ebert, but you are not Catholic.  You are a misguided and confused atheist.  And until you are able to figure out who you are please stop confusing more Catholics and leading them to sin.  I pray that St. Thomas Aquinas intercedes for you, that Our Lady wrap her mantle around you, and that you have the courage to allow the Holy Spirit to guide your reason.  In the same way I pray for those who, like Mr. Ebert, have lost their foundational faith in God.