Can a believer agree with an atheist?

When one lives in a bubble of a particular faith, or of any mindset for that matter, it can quite easily happen that dialogue with those outside of that arena is limited if not absent. From one point of view, it is necessary and natural to congregate with those with whom one agrees. It is mutually beneficial, since the human being seeks like minded individuals who support one’s deepest convictions. Like attracts like is a natural law. The Church herself is a congregation of those who agree on the revelation of Jesus Christ once delivered to the apostles and handed down by and through the Church ever since. And for a variety of reasons, it is understandable that one may want to avoid conversations with those who are diametrically opposed to one’s deeply held beliefs.

On the other hand, when this is motivated by mere bias, fear or a sense of insecurity, there can be harmful effects, not least of which is a lessening of charity. Those who disagree are seen as enemies, rather than simply someone with a different point of view. I've experienced that animosity, from both sides.  But how would we find out which they are unless there is some opening up to a conversation? In sales, as I’ve learned, the best way to “bring someone around” to your point of view is to engage in conversation, asking open ended questions, and finding out what they truly think and believe before going for “the close”. Premature closing is bad in a number of situations. . .

I recently heard part of the “Tony Blair-Christopher Hitchens” debate on whether religion was a force for good in the world. Hitchens is dying of cancer, I think, and deserving of a level of compassion. But that doesn’t necessarily want me to ascribe to his atheism. His constant assault on Mother Teresa was shameful, to say the least and motivated by his hatred of all things religious. Of course, what he doesn’t know and may never appreciate is that it may have contributed to her holiness, as all Christians believe that persecution in any form can actually be God’s way of allowing a soul to be purified (to the degree that she needed it.). As I listened to what he had to say, I actually found myself agreeing with him on a number of points he made. The religion he described, held by not a few people, is rather disgusting, especially from a Catholic point of view. If I were to believe as he described religion, I would be the first to find it offensive. Fulton Sheen used to say there were millions of people who hated what they think is the Catholic Church. Very few really understand AND hate the Church.

Without going over every point he made, his description of, I’m assuming, Catholicism’s view of man as “created sick, and then ordered to be well” is a frightful criticism that should be leveled, if that were what the Church taught. God, according to his description, is “a kind of divine North Korea. Greedy, exigent, greedy for uncritical phrase [sic] from dawn until dusk and swift to punish the original since [sic] with which it so tenderly gifted us in the first place.” Who would willingly join that kind of a club? Of course, his erroneous parody is of course ridiculous, and garnered quite a bit of laughter from the sympathetic audience, who voted overwhelmingly for him at the close of the debate. Of course, I’m not sure that Tony Blair is the best spokesman for the Catholic Church. While I did not hear the last parts of the debate, Mr. Blair’s efforts were more like a Rodney King “let’s all get along” argument, fitting for parliament, but not exactly text book Catholic apologetics.

So I would agree with Mr. Hitchens if that were the truth taught by the Church. Yucky stuff, believed by quite a few Christian sects. No thanks.

Sadly, the doctrine about original sin, to get to this point, is not about a corrupt human being made so by God. Catholicism always begins with creation as the foundation, a creation that is good, very good in the case of the human person. Original sin is not stain in the sense of mud on a clean sheet. It is at its core a lack of grace that God granted originally but lost by deliberate choice by Adam and Eve for themselves and their children. Original sin describes the human situation when free will is used badly. Why do we find it easy to sin, even when very young? I remember my first sin. I was five years old, or a bit younger, and clearly remembering lying to my mother about not feeling well, since I didn’t want to sit at the dinner table any more. I went downstairs, and said to myself, “I just lied to my mother.” It was strange even at the time. Why does a child act selfishly over his toys when a younger sibling or another child arrives on the scene? Is not the human being created for generosity and sharing? What gives? There is a weakness to human nature that is not found among animals, generally. That is an effect of the original loss of uplifting and sanctifying grace. It may be no actual sin at all, especially in the very young, but does not lead to a spirit of generosity. Death, of course, is another effect of that loss. Why is there death? Because we have lost touch with the Creator of Life. Is there another explanation? Is it merely natural? If so, why do human beings philosophize about death? Animals do not do that. Something more is involved.

As Saint Paul says, “the free gift is not like the offense” (Rm. 5:15). When we take in the entire picture of history, and eternity, we see that God created the world for a purpose, not for his own greedy, exigent need for ongoing praise, but for us. We damage the world, individually and collectively. The tragedies and monstrosities of human history, made possible by some religious and some non-religious people and groups, are not according the plan. Even if God enabled and allowed for wars in his name, He is always moving humanity towards a goal of peace, found in Jesus Christ who suffered at the hands of the religious and the secular. Most religious wars were fought more for political gain than religious advancement. Some have been just, in the face of unjust aggression; many have been wrapped in religion as a cloak, rather than a just motive. No sane believer would want his faith used as such a cloak. And one should note that the most massive destruction of human life took place not too long ago in Russia, Germany and China, not in the name of religion, but for the advancement of a secular agenda. Does that make secular concerns as a whole to be evil? Hardly. So, not to engage in a peeing contest over numbers, the point is that the Catholic faith provides an answer to the “why” of living, and the “what’s next” question as well.

There is more that could be addressed in Mr. Hitchens attack on religion in general, and perhaps I will at a later time, but why give him more air time? Only to use his widely influential remarks as an opportunity to proclaim what Christ and Christianity and Christmas especially are all about: bringing to tired and worn out souls a reason for being, and living and being-there for others, of being a force for good in an otherwise damaged world.