When is a Catholic not a Catholic?

Q. When is a Catholic not a Catholic?
A. When she is a Kennedy.

Carolyn Kennedy said:
"As a Catholic woman, I take reproductive health seriously. And today it is under attack. This year alone, more than a dozen states have passed more than 40 restrictions on women's access to reproductive health care. That's not the kind of future I want for my daughters or your daughters. Now isn't the time to roll back the rights we were winning when my father was president. Now is the time to move this country forward.

Peter Kreeft has an eye-popping perspective on this non-Catholic, pro-abortion world-view in his book Christianity for Modern Pagans where he discusses Pascal's Pensée 8o6.

Kreeft has grouped this one interestingly enough under "Vanity".

First here is what Pascal said:
"We are not satisfied with the life we have in ourselves and our own being. We want to lead an imaginary life in the eyes of others, and so we try to make an impression! (A) We strive constantly to embellish and preserve our imaginary being, and neglect the real one. (B) And if we are calm, or generous, or loyal, we are anxious to have it known so that we can attach these virtues to our other existence; we prefer to detach them from our real self so as to unite them with the other. We would cheerfully be cowards if that would acquire us a reputation for bravery. (C) How clear a sign of the nullity of our own being!"

Here is what Kreeft said regarding (C) above:
"...Test yourself. Use Plato's thought-experiment at the beginning of book 2 of the Republic. Ask yourself which you would rather be: a good soul whom everyone thought evil, hated, misunderstood, persecuted and victimized? Or an evil soul whom everyone thought good, loved and rewarded? Would you rather be really good but apparently evil, like Socrates; or really evil but apparently good, like the perfectly successful tyrant? Would you rather be brave and thought to be a coward, or cowardly but thought to be brave?

Would you rather be a Catholic or a Kennedy?"

Ouch.

Agnosticism is impossible

I am reading a fascinating book by Peter Kreeft on the writings of Blaise Pascal Christianity for Modern Pagans: Pascal's Pensées.

Kreeft's premise is that most Christian Apologetics are written for believers, whereas Pascal wrote for non-believers.

One excerpt I already posted was Why happy atheists are destined for unhappiness eternally.

I have read a couple of Peter Kreeft's books (all excellent), and he lists them all on his site.

Both these men are awesome writers and Christian apologetics.

Then as I was googling Pascal, I found this site of Kreeft's.

His essays are here.

There is an essay on "The argument from Pascal's Wager", "Hell", "The argument from design", "The Argument from Conscience", "The problem of Evil", and others. His essays are a couple of pages long and easy to read.

Because I am currently reading Kreeft on Pascal, I loved Kreefts' essay on the Pascal's famous Wager. Remember that this argument was written for sceptics. Here's a bit from Kreeft on Pascal's wager:
"...The most powerful part of Pascal's argument comes next. It is not his refutation of atheism as a foolish wager (that comes last) but his refutation of agnosticism as impossible. Agnosticism, not-knowing, maintaining a sceptical, uncommitted attitude, seems to be the most reasonable option. The agnostic says, "The right thing is not to wager at all." Pascal replies, "But you must wager. There is no choice. You are already committed [embarked]." We are not outside observers of life, but participants. We are like ships that need to get home, sailing past a port that has signs on it proclaiming that it is our true home and our true happiness. The ships are our own lives and the signs on the port say "God". The agnostic says he will neither put in at that port (believe) nor turn away from it (disbelieve) but stay anchored a reasonable distance away until the weather clears and he can see better whether this is the true port or a fake (for there are a lot of fakes around). Why is this attitude unreasonable, even impossible? Because we are moving. The ship of life is moving along the waters of time, and there comes a point of no return, when our fuel runs out, when it is too late. The Wager works because of the fact of death."

He ends the essay with the following:
"An atheist visited the great rabbi and philosopher Martin Buber and demanded that Buber prove the existence of God to him. Buber refused, and the atheist got up to leave in anger. As he left, Buber called after him, "But can you be sure there is no God?" That atheist wrote, forty years later, "I am still an atheist. But Buber's question has haunted me every day of my life." The Wager has just that haunting power."

I wonder if Joyce Arthur, a self proclaimed atheist, has ever read Kreeft or Pascal?

Why happy atheists are destined for unhappiness eternally

Peter Kreeft on Pascal's Pensées (from his book Christianity for Modern Pagans)

Pascal is in Red and Kreeft is in Blue

Pascal's Pensée [12]

Order. Men despise religion. They hate it and are afraid it may be true. The cure for this is first [I] to show that religion is not contrary to reason, but worthy of reverence and respect.

Next [2] make it attractive, make good men wish it were true, and then [3] show that it is.

Worthy of reverence because it really understands human nature.

Attractive because it promises true good.

The root of most atheism is not argument but attitude, not intellection but feeling, not the love of truth but the fear of truth...The point—that atheism's origin is not intellectual but volitional and moral-follows from Christ's promise that all who seek (God) will find (him). For unless this promise is a lie, and Christ a liar, there can be only two causes for not having found God, that is, for unbelief: (I) not seeking him, or (2) time. For eventually, however long the delay, all seekers find. See no. 160...

Pascal's Pensée [160]

There are only three sorts of people: those who have found God and serve him; those who are busy seeking him and have not found him; those who live without either seeking or finding him. The first are reasonable and happy, the last are foolish and unhappy, those in the middle are unhappy and reasonable.

There is no fourth class, none who find God without ever seeking him.

Group I are believers. They are "reasonable" or wise or sane because they seek and happy because they have found.

Group 2 are unhappy atheists and agnostics. They are "reasonable" because they seek and unhappy because they have not yet found.

Group 3 are the happy atheists. They are "unreasonable", foolish, spiritually insane, because they do not even seek the truth; and they are unhappy (forever!) because they do not find.

Thus, paradoxically, unhappy atheists are destined for happiness eternally, and happy atheists are destined for unhappiness eternally (just as Jesus said in Luke 6:21-26).

The great divide, the eternal divide, is not between theists and atheists, or between happiness and unhappiness, but tween seekers (lovers) and nonseekers (nonlovers) of the Truth (for God is Truth). Thus it is the heart and not the head that determines our eternal destiny.

We all instinctively know this is right.

Can pride be defeated?

"Pride can never defeat pride; only humility can defeat pride."

From Peter Kreeft's book Christianity for Modern Pagans