Sunday Mornings

Discussions

• The Best tees I've ever found best style best fabric and affordable too best quality
• Is the Catholic anti-abortion argument as obvious as Catholics think?

  I understand why the Church speaks about abortion in absolute terms. Once you believe that human life begins at conception in a morally decisive way, the conclusion feels obvious. But what strikes me, reading both Scripture and the reality of human biology, is how quickly that certainty runs into complications the rhetoric does not know how to hold.

• "Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?"

  There is a particular kind of Christian speech that has always made me uneasy. It is not the language of moral conviction itself. Christianity is not shy about naming sin. It is the tone that slips in when conviction quietly turns into self-assurance, as though the speaker has stepped outside the condition they are describing.

• Should we stop gatekeeping who counts as a real Christian?

  Something occurred to me today. For centuries, especially in the English-speaking world, Catholics were often portrayed as superstitious, anti-intellectual, hostile to freedom, and blindly obedient to authority. Some of that came from real conflicts. Some of it came from centuries of Protestant polemics and what historians call the Black Legend. Either way, the image became deeply embedded in Western culture.

• Does Christianity actually fear knowledge?

  One of the most persistent stereotypes about Christianity is that it fears knowledge. The story is familiar. Religion relies on faith. Science relies on evidence. One asks questions, the other suppresses them. The heroes are the people who challenged religious authority, while the Church stands as the institution that tried to hold them back. There are moments in history that support parts of that story. The Church has made mistakes. It has sometimes resisted new ideas. The Galileo affair…

• Should we judge Christianity against what came before it, not against what it built?

  One of the stranger habits of modern discussion is that Christianity is often judged exclusively against twenty-first-century moral standards while its alternatives are judged against the Christianity that helped shape those standards in the first place. This does not mean Christianity is innocent of wrongdoing. Religious wars happened. Churches accumulated power. Christians persecuted one another. Any honest reading of history has to acknowledge that. The question is whether Christianity made…

• Does atheism make you more rational, or just leave a void you fill badly?

  One of the common atheist temptations is to confuse unbelief with clarity, to assume that religion is the irrational part, so removing religion must leave behind a cleaner and more rational human being. But human beings do not work that way, human beings operate through beliefs, emotions... We do not stop wanting ritual, purity, moral tribe, sense of sacredness or transcendent meaning just because we stop using religious language for those desires.

• Does the state corrupt the Church more than the Church ever corrupts the state?

  Constantine's church became an instrument of imperial politics within a generation. Franco's bishops became collaborators in child theft. Patriarch Kirill blesses wars. The question is not whether you will gain political influence. The question is what will be left of what you started with once the people who wanted the influence are done with it.

• Is Christ's message eternal, but never meant to be read literally?

  Christians rightly say that the truth revealed in Christ is not temporary, but rather eternal. That is true, but it does not mean literalism and it does not mean that we are to drop interpretation. The mistake comes when some believers quietly turn that into a different claim: because the truth is eternal, every biblical utterance should be treated as though it arrived outside history and therefore needs no interpretation any longer, but rather has to be taken literally in the same way...

• Did Catholic monotheism make the universe safe to study?

  It is easy to tell the story of science as a clean break from religion. Enlightenment replaces superstition, observation replaces faith, reason replaces authority. It sounds tidy, and it flatters modern assumptions. But it misses something more interesting and, honestly, more uncomfortable for that narrative: the idea that the universe is intelligible in the first place is not self-evident. It is a metaphysical claim. And Catholic monotheism is one of the major historical reasons that claim…