In today’s modern society, many teenagers are disengaged when it comes to their faith. Young Americans tend to be less educated about the Catholic faith and more tentative in their affiliation. They are much more selective in their traditions and beliefs. Many claim being Catholic is still a part of their identity, but are unable to articulate what that means. Christian Smith proposes this current spiritual perception among contemporary American teenagers is a religion known as Moral Therapeutic Deism. Because Moral Therapeutic Deism is allowing for the lack of understanding of Scripture tradition and faith convictions, it is ultimately promoting the loss of Catholic identity among young Americans.
Moral Therapeutic Deism holds the primary belief that one should take moralistic approach to life. It teaches that God wants people to be good and fair to each other, and the central goal is to be happy and feel good about oneself. Essentially, if one lives a moral life, he or she will go to heaven when they die. For many American adolescents, religion is centered around being a good person, instead of the doctrines or traditions taught by the Church. Moral Therapeutic Deism is also about “providing therapeutic benefits to its adherents” (Smith and Denton, 163). It is not about sin and repentance or suffering as means of redemption. Instead, many young people have noted that praying and service simply make them feel good about themselves.
Moral Therapeutic Deism holds a rather unique understanding of God. Many young Americans believe that a God exists who created and orders the world. This God is the one who defines the moral code and watches over human life. However, God does not have to be particularly involved in one’s life except when He is needed to solve a problem. It is still found that many young people appear to be very strong in their faith and serious about their belief in God, but they do not actively practice their religion and only believe in certain Church doctrines. In this sense, Moral Therapeutic Deism helps organize individual religions and beliefs (164).
Some could argue that Moral Therapeutic Deism has several strengths. For example, it is a religion that is more inclusive of all congregations by harmonizing individual beliefs. Furthermore, its moralistic approach promotes people to live a good life in which they are kind and respectful members of society who work to improve themselves in order to fulfill their personal potential. However, from a Catholic faith perspective, Moral Therapeutic Deism presents far more weaknesses. Young Americans who have embraced this deism are not practicing Catholics. They are selective in their belief of core doctrines and faith traditions that are the foundation of the Catholic Church. For example, sin is not adequately contemplated, nor is the idea that God offers salvation from sin. The importance of Scripture is not truly realized. Some claim that Moral Therapeutic Deism is “colonizing” Christianity itself, as this new “civil religion” draws people away from their religious congregations. Although many young people still claim to be Catholic, it appears there is a loss of true Catholic identity and conviction.
This loss in Catholic identity among young Americans poses a challenge to Catholic apologetics. Smith suggests, “Christianity is either degenerating into a pathetic version of itself… or actively being colonized and displaced by a quite different religious faith” (171). A large portion of adolescents today consider themselves Catholic, but have no connection to historic Christian traditions. The Church must understand that Moral Therapeutic Deism is a potential threat to the Catholic faith and prepare the Catholic community accordingly. It must work to educate this younger generation about the core convictions of Catholicism and the key role that Scripture plays in the faith tradition. Failure to do so could ultimately result in paganism of future generations.
Essay 3: Science and Wonder
From the beginning of time, humans have possessed a natural curiosity to know more about the world and beyond. This craving for knowledge has inspired scientists to devote their lives to research in an attempt to understand existence. Nevertheless, scientists continue to be mystified by the beauty and meaning behind the physical reality and quantitative data. Bersanelli and Gargantini suggest, “Scientific research sheds light on the nature of reality as “mystery”: it exists, it established a relationship with it but ultimately escapes the complete understanding of reason” (6). This wonder behind beauty and meaning cannot be understood through reason, and therefore it is the root of faith and a valid way of coming to know God.
Scientists are determined to understand physical reality and develop evidence through the use of experiments and measurable data. However, these scientific results do not even begin to fully explain the world, its existence, or the universe. One does not have to be a scientist to realize that there is something deeper to everything. Albert Einstein states, “To sense that behind anything that can be experienced there is something that our mind cannot grasp, whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly and as a feeble reflection, this is religiousness” (7). One cannot help but wonder who or what is behind it all, and it is this eternal mystery that drives the natural human curiosity. Understanding the world requires an integration of both reason and faith. Humans possess an existential restlessness and an endless desire for meaning. It cannot be explained through science, but can instead be attributed to a religious sense. Faith gives us the ability to give meaning to the beauty, inner beings, and world order that cannot be explained with science. Ultimately, through the wonder of the world, God reveals himself.
It is inevitable that some will find some weaknesses in this mode of knowing God. Although many humans will acknowledge that there is more to data and physical reality, this wonder does not provide solid evidence for the existence of God. The world will forever be a mystery. Therefore, faith is the only means of knowing God. Those who do not have a strong faith or do not believe in God at all are unlikely to be convinced of His existence by this wonder. Instead, they are likely to embrace scientific theories like the Big Bang and fail to realize the meaning behind beauty. Francesco Redi points out that some scientists “accept unfeelingly the idea of a world reduced by to a mechanism of pure chance” (18). Some will fail to realize that deeper meaning that science and argue that advances in scientific research is working towards disproving the existence of God.
However, this method of knowing through science and wonder has more strengths. The beauty of the world and the natural curiosity of humans are related, and both must be attributed to something. God reveals himself through this beauty, and the realization of beauty is what drives humans’ inner desire to know more. Mathematician Federigo Enriques notes the amazement of contemplating one’s own discovery and says, “The enthusiasm that accompanies the discoveries… must be understood in the etymological sense of the word, as the mystical ecstasy of someone who is sharing in divine revelation” (Bersanelli and Gargantini 16). In another case, Galileo describes a scientist whose curiosity leads him to discovering the sound of a cricket, and in attempting to find the source, he eventually concludes, “many more existed which were unknown and unimaginable” (23). God gives humans the cognitive capabilities to not only observe and understand, but also appreciate the world’s beauty and the internal desire to know more about Him and all He has created.
Essentially, the wonder and beauty of the world, its existence, and beyond can be attributed to God. Francesco Redi suggests “The element of wonder in [science] proceeds from the recognition of a divine order in the world” (18). The natural human curiosity to find meaning leads to the knowledge of God.
Essay 5: The Issue of Artificial Contraception
The Catholic Church forbids the use of artificial contraception, even in marriage. In Humanae Vitae, Pope Paul IV defends the Church’s policy, explaining that it is immoral to prevent procreation. Opponents argue that contraception is a responsible act of sexual maturity. I would argue that because the primary purpose of marriage is procreation, artificial contraception is wrong.
Pope Paul IV argues that the ends of marriage are union and procreation. Although he realizes that not every act of sexual intercourse will result in conception, the Church teaches that “each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life” (Humanae Vitae 4). Therefore, using contraception to prevent procreation is considered immoral. Life should form by God’s will and should not be avoided. Furthermore, Pope Paul IV notes the consequences of artificial contraceptives. He argues that if the goal of sex is not a child, then this “opens the way for marital infidelity and a general lowering of moral standards” (5). The availability of contraception may result in a man failing to treat a woman reverently and consider her emotions. Instead, he reduces her to a sexual instrument used to satisfy his desires. By banning artificial contraception, the Church is protecting the dignity of both husband and wife.
On the contrary, advocates of artificial contraception claim it can be used for marital and social benefit. Margaret Sanger depicted sex as a “communion in mutual ecstasy” (Grabowski 7). Married couples should together strive to achieve mutual orgasm. This would involve great sexual skill and require much practice. Therefore, contraception is necessary in order for the couple to develop their “love nature,” which is an important part of marriage. Furthermore, advocates supporting the cause claim that contraception is a responsible act of sexual maturity and prevention. Many argue that it would be immoral to bring a child into the world if he or she cannot be properly supported. It is an act of responsible parenthood to prevent pregnancy if one does not have the ability to provide health, education, or growth for the child.
Personally, I support the Church’s teaching against artificial contraception. Procreation is a primary purpose of marriage, and therefore pregnancy should not be avoided. Sex is a gift from God that should be used for the right reasons. The new focus on the quality of sex, that Sanger uses to support her case for contraception, has led to increased divorce rates due to unrealistic expectations. Furthermore, contraception encourages promiscuity and infidelity because it allows for the use of sex merely for pleasure. In response to those who support contraception because it is an act of responsible parenthood, I would argue that two people should not have sex until they are prepared for children. And most people are not ready for children until they are married. Therefore, sex should be reserved for marriage so it can be used for what God intended: new life. It would be immoral to engage in sex if one is not able to support the child. For these reasons, artificial contraception is morally wrong