Manage Account

<div>How can we be certain that there are not an infinite series of causes?  I hear this often said as a fact without any logical explanation.</div><div><p>Dr. Peter Kreeft, an eminently accessible Catholic philosopher, provides insight <a href="http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/first-cause.htm">in his article “The First Cause Argument,</a>” which he has posted on his personal website. (It’s an excerpt from his book <em>Fundamentals of the Faith</em>.) Kreeft presents four arguments of St. Thomas Aquinas on this matter, two of which are particularly helpful re: your question:</p>
<blockquote><p><strong>First</strong>, he argues that the chain of movers must have a first mover because nothing can move itself. (Moving here refers to any kind of change, not just change of place.) If the whole chain of moving things had no first mover, it could not now be moving, as it is. If there were an infinite regress of movers with no first mover, no motion could ever begin, and if it never began, it could not go on and exist now. But it does go on, it does exist now. Therefore it began, and therefore there is a first mover.</p>
<p><strong>Second</strong>, he expands the proof from proving a cause of motion to proving a cause of existence, or efficient cause. He argues that if there were no first efficient cause, or cause of the universe&#8217;s coming into being, then there could be no second causes because second causes (i.e., caused causes) are dependent on (i.e., caused by) a first cause (i.e., an uncaused cause). But there are second causes all around us. Therefore there must be a first cause.</p></blockquote>
<p>For Kreeft’s treatment of counterarguments to the “First Cause” argument, <a href="http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/first-cause.htm">see again his aforementioned article</a>.</p>
<p>One of Kreeft’s counterarguments is especially helpful in illustrating why we can have an infinite regress in numbers but not regarding real beings:</p>
<blockquote><p>Fourth, it is often asked why there can&#8217;t be infinite regress, with no first being. Infinite regress is perfectly acceptable in mathematics: negative numbers go on to infinity just as positive numbers do. So why can&#8217;t time be like the number series, with no highest number either negatively (no first in the past) or positively (no last in the future)? The answer is that real beings are not like numbers: they need causes, for the chain of real beings moves in one direction only, from past to future, and the future is caused by the past. Positive numbers are not caused by negative numbers. There is, in fact, a parallel in the number series for a first cause: the number one. If there were no first positive integer, no unit one, there could be no subsequent addition of units. Two is two ones, three is three ones, and so on. If there were no first, there could be no second or third.</p></blockquote>
</div>

Why First Cause (God) vs. Infinite Series of Causes?

<div>Would a man still be committing the "sin of Onan" if his wife is beyond child-bearing age?</div><div><p>Onanism, i.e., a husband’s spilling his seed outside of his wife’s womb, is never morally permissible (see Gen. 38:1-10). God has inscribed an unbreakable bond between the love-giving and life-giving aspects of the marital act, which endures even if a wife is beyond child-bearing years. Otherwise, the marital act would be prohibited altogether after child-bearing years, illustrating that the life-giving aspect is not restricted to the procreative fruit of children but also extends to the mutual building up of husband and wife.</p>
<p>God designed the marital act for husband and wife to become one and to renew that covenant in conjugal relations throughout their married lives. Indeed, God designed marriage to be a free, total, faithful, and fruitful covenant between a husband and wife; and conjugal love, as the quintessentially <em>marital </em>act, is to reflect that whole and unreserved commitment between the spouses. Onanism is certainly not a total giving of husband to his wife, nor a faithful one, irrespective of whether procreation is possible. And an onanistic husband also deprives his wife of the non-procreative beneficial effects his seed provides her.</p>
<p>For more on onanism, <a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/the-sin-of-onan">please see this article from our magazine</a>.</p>
</div>

Is “Onanism” OK Beyond Child-Bearing Years?

<p>Catholic apologist Dr. Karlo Broussard joins Cy Kellett to respond to a thoughtful caller.</p>
<p><strong>Transcript:</strong></p>
<p><strong>Caller:</strong> Why is it that Protestants are so set against the fact that we do believe that your good works do count? It&#8217;s not just a matter of faith. I mean, you know, the fallen angels, they believe in God, we believe in God. But Jesus was very clear in Matthew when he said, &#8220;Whatsoever you do to the least of my brothers, that you do unto me.&#8221; I mean, he gave us a roadmap for good works. And yet they think we&#8217;re not supposed to do, you know, the good works aren&#8217;t going to get us anywhere. Okay, understand that philosophy.</p>
<p><strong>Karlo:</strong> All right, Elizabeth. It&#8217;s a good question, and here&#8217;s how a Protestant would respond. That question assumes that the Protestant doesn&#8217;t believe good works have a purpose, but that&#8217;s a false assumption. Protestants do affirm the necessity of good works, but the question is, to what end? For many Protestants, especially of the Reformed tradition, good works do not contribute to or affect our peace with God, our standing with God, what they call our salvation or justification.</p>
<p>But what our good works do affect is our sanctification and being made holy and being rightly ordered to God and our behavior. And so they will affirm good works are indeed important and necessary in relation to sanctification. The precise view of it denies the relation that good works have to our salvation.</p>
<p>Secondly, they want to articulate what they believe to be truth concerning good works, namely that good works do not have a causal role with our justification, but rather are mere fruits of our justification. The reason why they want to articulate that truth and defend that truth is because of a prior belief that our justification or salvation is solely on account of the imputed righteousness of Jesus, such that nothing we can do can be as perfect as the righteousness of Jesus.</p>
<p>So Protestants, at least these Protestants who hold this view, perceive the understanding of good works playing a causal role in our justification or salvation as taking away from Jesus. That&#8217;s really the answer to the question of why they hold to this view once the view is properly understood. So that would be my answer to the first part of your question, and hopefully that&#8217;s helpful.</p>
<p>Now, you also brought up Matthew 25, where Jesus says, &#8220;Whatever you have done to the least of my brethren, you&#8217;ve done it to me.&#8221; Our Protestant friends, Elizabeth, are going to counter you and say we agree 100% here, right? We have that passage in our Bibles too, and we believe that our good works are indeed important and necessary.</p>
<p>But here is going to be the difference: where we as Catholics see these good works in Matthew 25 as contributing to our salvation, at least our final salvation and getting into heaven, our Protestant friends who hold to this view of justification of the Reformed view are going to interpret this passage in Matthew 25 and argue that the good works are not the reason why the sheep enter into eternal life or receive eternal life.</p>
<p>The good works there in Matthew 25 are contributing to the experience of the eternal life that is reigning with Christ and receiving rewards in heaven. So hopefully you can see the distinction between the two of good works playing a causal role to attain eternal life versus good works having a role to play in experiencing higher rewards of reigning with Christ in heaven.</p>
<p>And Elizabeth, I&#8217;m glad you asked this question because I actually wrote an article on this very issue of Matthew 25 and the sheep and the goats and how Protestants counter our Catholic exegesis. The title of the article is &#8220;Protestants Rain on the Catholic Parade.&#8221; You can access that at catholic.com; just type that in, &#8220;Protestants Rain on the Catholic Parade.&#8221;</p>
<p>In that article, I go into great detail why this alternative Protestant interpretation of the text does not succeed. What I point out in there is, first of all, the juxtaposition between eternal life and eternal punishment. Notice Jesus talks about the goats going into eternal punishment. Surely Jesus is not just articulating what the goats are going to experience in hell. He&#8217;s articulating that the goats enter hell. They merit eternal punishment on account of their failure to perform works of love.</p>
<p>And if that&#8217;s the case for the goats, and given the juxtaposition with the sheep, then we can conclude that the sheep not only experience the eternal life of reigning with Christ, but the good works are a reason why they actually enter into it, entrance into the kingdom. And so that&#8217;s one line of argumentation.</p>
<p>As I point out in the article, even in Matthew&#8217;s Gospel, in Matthew chapter 19, the phrase &#8220;eternal life&#8221; is already familiar with Matthew&#8217;s audience because in Matthew chapter 19, eternal life is synonymous with entering the kingdom of heaven, not merely experiencing heaven, like this Protestant interpretation of Matthew 25 would have us believe.</p>
<p>But eternal life is associated with actually entering. As the rich young man asks, &#8220;What good deed must I do to have eternal life, to attain eternal life?&#8221; And so in Matthew 25, when Jesus speaks of eternal life being given to the sheep on account of performing works of love, we can reasonably conclude that Jesus envisions the sheep attaining eternal life on account of the works of love, not merely experiencing eternal life by reigning with Christ on account of their works of love.</p>
<p>Now I realize that&#8217;s a lot, Elizabeth, but hopefully what I said here is helpful to at least prompt you to go and read the article for further details. What do you think of that?</p>
<p><strong>Caller:</strong> I will definitely, absolutely look that up.</p>
<p><strong>Karlo:</strong> Awesome. Fantastic. Yeah. And this is a great conversation. Yeah. Because it would seem so clear to us, right, in Matthew 25:31 through 46, that good works play a role for our salvation. But our Protestant friends, they&#8217;re pretty savvy, right? And they have their alternative lines of interpretation, which is important for us to engage in order to make our arguments stronger.</p>
<p><strong>Cy:</strong> One thing I will tell you, Elizabeth. Dr. Broussard. Oh, did you have a follow-up? I&#8217;m sorry, Elizabeth, I feel like I stepped on something you were saying. Go ahead.</p>
<p><strong>Caller:</strong> No, I was just going to say that, you know, a lot of other denominations believe that, you know, once saved, always saved. And Christ died to redeem every living soul that ever will be or was. He did that for everyone. But your salvation is something you&#8217;ve got to work with that grace. People don&#8217;t realize that, you know, he just, you know. Yes, it was once and for all and nothing could ever match his sacrifice. But you&#8217;ve got to do some things to work that salvation out. And people just, it kind of flies over their head. They just look at&#8230;</p>
<p><strong>Karlo:</strong> Yeah, well, you sound like St. Paul in Philippians 2:12. &#8220;Work out your salvation with fear and trembling.&#8221; Now remember, that applies to after our initial stage of justification, like once we&#8217;re already saved, once we&#8217;re already in Christ. That&#8217;s where our works come into play as contributing to our salvation. As Paul would say, &#8220;Work out your salvation with fear and trembling.&#8221; But thanks so much for the call, Elizabeth.</p>
<p><strong>Cy:</strong> Elizabeth, God bless you. If you&#8217;d like, Carlo has two kind of dialogue books where he&#8217;s going back and forth with Protestants on many issues like this. As a matter of fact, I believe this issue is, in fact, in *Meeting the Protestant Challenge*.</p>
<p><strong>Karlo:</strong> It is in *Meeting the Protestant Response*.</p>
<p><strong>Cy:</strong> In the response. Okay, so I&#8217;ll tell you what. You know what? Let&#8217;s go crazy. Let&#8217;s give Elizabeth both of those if she wants.</p>

Do Protestants Believe Good Works Matter at All?

Get more Shameless Popery on Patreon!
https://www.patreon.com/ShamelessPopery

Listen to Shameless Popery on Catholic.com:
https://www.catholic.com/audio/sp

How is the Church supposed to be structured?

Can I work on Sundays?

Why has the Church changed its teaching on having the ashes of a loved one in your home?

Is it Tradition that the successor of Peter is the Bishop of Rome or can this change?

How does the theory of evolution impact Genesis and our understanding of original sin?

Where does Bishop Athanasius reference Mary as the Ark of the Covenant or other church fathers?

Ask Me Anything

Understanding the grid of extremes

Cafeteria Christian conformist and morally lax

Prog Christian Conformist and morally rigorous

Barbaric Nonconformist and morally lax

Fundamentalists nonconformist and morally rigorous

<p>&#8220;Can Cafeteria Christians be saved?&#8221; This question opens a discussion on the complexities of faith and morality, addressing the challenges faced by those who pick and choose their beliefs. Other topics include the moral implications of conformist and nonconformist attitudes, as well as the distinctions between various types of Christians and their approaches to morality.</p>
<p><span style="font-weight: 400;"><a href="https://wvw.catholic.com/radioclub?email"><span style="font-weight: 400;">Join the Catholic Answers Live Club Newsletter</span></a></span></p>
<p><span style="font-weight: 400;">Invite our apologists to speak at your parish! Visit </span><a href="https://www.catholic.com/speakers"><span style="font-weight: 400;">Catholicanswersspeakers.com</span></a></p>

Can “Cafeteria Christians” Be Saved? The Four Types of Bad Christians

<div class="page" title="Page 12">
<div class="section">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
<p><strong>DAY 2</strong></p>
<p><strong>CHALLENGE</strong></p>
</div>
</div>
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
<p>“The Christian idea of an omnipotent God is logically contradictory. Can God make a stone so heavy he can’t lift it? If he can then there is something he can’t do (lift the stone), but if he can’t, then there’s also something he can’t do (make the stone).”</p>
<p><strong>DEFENSE</strong></p>
<p>To accuse others of a logical contradiction, first you must understand their idea correctly. Otherwise you commit the straw man fallacy. This objection misunderstands omnipotence.</p>
<p>The term “omnipotent” means “all-powerful” (Latin, omnis, “all,” and potens, “powerful”). This is often said to mean that God can “do anything,” but this statement is ambiguous, and the ambiguity leads to the objection above.</p>
<p>What does it mean to say God can do anything? If “anything” means anything that you can say, then the idea would involve logical contradictions. You could, for example, say that God could make four-sided triangles, square circles, married bachelors, two-horned unicorns, and other entities whose definitions involve logical contradictions.</p>
<p>This is not what Christian theologians mean by omnipotence. Instead, they mean that God can do anything that is logically possible—that is, anything that does not involve a logical contradiction. This causes the objection to vanish, because if omnipotence excludes logical contradictions, then, by definition, it does not involve them.</p>
<p>It thus resolves the question of whether God can make a stone so heavy he can’t lift it. By virtue of omnipotence, God has infinite, or unlimited, lifting power. There is no upper limit to what God can lift. Thus a stone too heavy for God to lift would have to have more than infinite weight, and the idea of “more than infinite” weight involves a logical contradiction.</p>
<p>Stones too heavy for an omnipotent being to lift fall in the same category as four-sided triangles and married bachelors. They contain logical contradictions and thus represent jibberish rather than logically possible entities.</p>
<p><strong>TIP</strong></p>
<p>For more, see St. Thomas Aquinas, ST I:25:3–4.</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>

A Stone Too Heavy for God to Lift?

<div class="page" title="Page 117">
<div class="section">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
<p><strong><span style="font-family: -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, 'segoe ui', Roboto, Oxygen-Sans, Ubuntu, Cantarell, 'helvetica neue', sans-serif;">DAY 107</span></strong></p>
</div>
<div class="column">
<p><strong>CHALLENGE</strong></p>
<p>“Catholicism is false because it bases its teachings on things other than the Bible—the word of God.”</p>
<p><strong>DEFENSE</strong></p>
<p>Catholicism bases its teachings on the word of God, which is not limited to the Bible.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
<p>The Church acknowledges that “Sacred Scripture is the word of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the divine Spirit” (Vatican II, Dei Verbum 9). However, even a cursory reading of Scripture shows that the word of God is not limited to Scripture.</p>
<p>In the very first chapter of the Bible, we read about the power of God’s creative word, as he says things like, “‘Let there be light’; and there was light” (Gen. 1:3). This understanding is confirmed by the Psalms, which state: “By the word of the Lord the heavens were made” (Ps. 33:6). This exercise of God’s creative word occurred before the existence of man and the writing of Scripture, making it clear that the reality of God’s word goes beyond Scripture.</p>
<p>Even after God began to communicate his word to men, it often was not in the form of Scripture. Thus the Bible records the word of God being given to prophets who wrote no Scripture at all, such as Samuel (1 Sam. 9:27), Shemaiah (1 Kings 12:22), and John the Baptist (Luke 3:2).</p>
<p>Similarly, the oral apostolic preaching of the Christian faith is spoken of as the word of God (Acts 4:31, 6:7, 16:6).</p>
<p>Most fundamentally, Scripture reveals that Jesus is the Word of God (John 1:1–18, Rev. 19:13).</p>
<p>All this makes it clear that the word of God is a complex, multifaceted reality that includes but goes beyond Scripture, which is the portion of God’s word that was consigned to writing under divine inspiration.</p>
<p>Our proper response to the word of God is to accept the whole of it as authoritative, for “man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God” (Matt. 4:4; cf. Deut. 8:3). It would be wrong to close our ears to God’s word when it is found outside of Scripture. Thus Paul tells his readers to “stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter” (2 Thess. 2:15).</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>

The Word of God

<div class="page" title="Page 269">
<div class="section">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
<p><strong><span style="font-family: -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, 'segoe ui', Roboto, Oxygen-Sans, Ubuntu, Cantarell, 'helvetica neue', sans-serif">DAY 259</span></strong></p>
</div>
<div class="column">
<p><strong>CHALLENGE</strong></p>
</div>
</div>
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
<p>“Some people are born homosexual, so it’s in accord with their nature for them to engage in homosexual behavior. God made them that way.”</p>
<p><strong>DEFENSE</strong></p>
<p>The premise of this challenge is shaky, and the conclusions drawn from it are erroneous.</p>
<p>First, the claim that some people are born homosexual is problematic. The origins of same-sex attraction are not well understood.</p>
<p>It may be true that most people with same-sex attraction do not recall a moment where they chose to have this condition, but humans are a highly cognitive species for whom training is important. It would be very surprising if our sexual desires were not in some degree conditioned by our life history and the sexual training we have experienced (e.g., what we choose to fantasize about). This applies both to people with same-sex attraction and those without it.</p>
<p>At the same time, we also have innate tendencies, which may be based on a variety of factors, including the hormones our bodies produce, our individual genetics, and so on.</p>
<p>The Catholic Church does not claim that the cause or causes of same-sex attraction have been established. The Catechism states: “Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained” (CCC 2357).</p>
<p>Second, just because people are born with temptations does not mean that we can simply say “God made them that way” (see Day 235). Third, even if same-sex attraction were purely innate, this would not lead to the conclusion that it is moral to engage in homosexual behavior. Everyone has temptations, and sometimes these are due to</p>
<p>factors we have no control over.
It is commonly thought that some people have a genetic predisposition to alcohol abuse. Other people have suffered traumatic brain injuries that increase the risk of their engaging in violent and criminal behavior. However, these predispositions do not justify giving in to one’s impulses.</p>
<p>A person with a genetic predisposition to alcohol abuse is not justified in becoming an alcoholic, and a person with traumatic brain injury is not justified in committing violent crime. We all have immoral impulses—temptations—and we are called not to give in to them but to resist and overcome them.</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>

The Causes of Homosexuality

<p>In this free-for-all-Friday, Trent shares memorable beauty pageant &#8220;world &#8220;salad&#8221; answers and other viral moments.</p>