Snarky theology 3: Evolution, Creationists, and other Irritants.

The third in our Snarky Theology series for Lent.  Round one was on how Catholics are Cannibals.  Round two was some simple (Perhaps even simple minded.) thoughts on Lent itself.  I had considered making this about sex, but after last week, I think I'll hold off on the incendiary topics for another week.



This week, let's take a look at evolution ... No, I don't think it's an incendiary topic.



Evolution: the premise that humans came from other species.  Monkeys seem to be at the top of the list of suspects.



Apparently, it's quite important to some people.



Seriously, deeply, psychotically important.



You have the really weird creationist museum. Which should either be there as comic relief, or set on fire. Pick one.



But I've noticed there's two sides to the so-called debate, where they take the idea of evolution and decide to apply it to religion.



Really, people? What is your problem?

 Creationists: The Bible is literal, but we have dinosaurs, which weren't in the bible.  Which indicates a time period before the Bible, but the Bible is the end all and be all of all of history? NOOOOOOOO.  How can we reconcile dinosaurs with the book?  I know, dinosaurs in the Garden of Eden!  Let's have Adam and Eve and a VELOCIRAPTOR! BWAHAHAHA!!



Evolunatics: God is dead! The Bible was meant as a literal chronology of all of human history, but we have dinosaurs!  It's all wrong!  All of it!  MUWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!



Then I roll my eyes, sigh, and shake my head.  At the end of the day, I look at both sides, and decide that this particular asylum isn't being run by the psychologically stable.



Does it matter where we came from? Scientific research might benefit from such knowledge, sure. But, from what I've noticed, there's enough conflicting evidence to show that it's a nice theory, not a dead-certain fact. 

However, evolution has become a religion. It's sort of like man-made global warming—which is hard to prove considering that our evidence is the geological equivalent of a eyeblink in the history of the universe.  And, living on the East coast this winter, I would really, really like my global warming already.



How does evolution effect me, a Catholic?



Not at all.  Not a bit.  Not even for thirty seconds.



Looking at genesis, God made the world in six days, rested on day seven. While I think it is a very nice generation of a story based on the theology of the day (over two thousand years ago), I don't think that God needs a nap.



If there is a God, qualities He should have include omnipotence—naps should not be required.



Do I think it's more likely that someone wrote the story with the concept that “well, we're supposed to rest on the Sabbath, the seventh day, therefore, so did God”? Yes.



Then there's the Garden of Eden and Adam and Eve. I, and the Vatican, last I checked, look at the story more as a parable: the first sin that man ever committed was pride, the first time that someone said “I am more important than my neighbor / God / insert someone here.” There's a reason that, in most mythology, Greek, Roman, et al, pride kills about as often as all the other causes put together.



I can look at the story of Genesis and easily reconcile it to the Big Bang.



“The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.” Expand “Earth” to “everything” and that sounds like a good enough description of nothingness as I could generate.



“And God said 'Let there be light.' ” Sounds like an explosion to me.



And before this degenerates into a line by line reconstruction of Genesis via science, I'm going to end it with saying, simply: if God fits the model generated by Thomas Aquinas, He is eternal, and thus outside of time; who's to say what a day is to Him? Six days, sixty billion years, same difference.



The difference between Catholics and some evangelical / fundamentalist Christian groups is that Catholicism rejected literalism as a heresy over fifteen hundred years ago.



As for evolution: if the premise is right, then fine, great, it is merely the mechanism God used to create people. As Cardinal Baronius (1598) said, “The bible tells us how to go to Heaven, not how the heavens go.”  (Googling this, I had about four different citations to the quote, so don't shoot me.)



But, right now, what does it matter? Seriously, as Sherlock Holmes once said, "What the deuce is it to me?.... [Y]ou say that we go round the sun. If we went round the moon it would not make a pennyworth of difference to me or to my work."



And, until my works of science fiction become publishable, the solar system doesn't matter to me, either. Evolution will probably never become important to me and my work … if only because James Rollins already wrote that book (Altar of Eden).



Science likes to talk about how it's been a poor, persecuted field of endeavor, starting with Galileo ...



Well, Galileo was prosecuted for two things. One, he taught a theory as though it was a fact.  Saying that the Earth goes around the sun was unsubstantiated at that time for several reasons.  1) We could not observe stellar parallax (if the Earth moves, we should be able to see the stars change position relative to each other; stellar parallax was unobservable until the mid-eighteenth century).  2) If the Earth is moving at a thousand miles an hour, why doesn't feel like it's moving; and why haven't we flown off it yet? Science is still shaky on these points.



What else was Galileo prosecuted for?  Well, it could have had SOMETHING to do with the fact that he publicly made fun of the Pope, who had been his friend, and, well, you know what happens when good friendships go sour, they end badly.  He had never once been threatened with being burned at the stake.  He was sentenced to house arrest.  According to letters with his daughter, a nun, he actually agreed with his jail sentence as a just punishment ....



And yes, I am a nerd of many colors.



Evolution has it's own "martyr" in John Scopes.  For those unfamiliar with the The State of Tennessee v. Scopes, it was made into the play "Inherit the Wind"-- a teacher was put on trial in the southern United States for teaching evolution in school.  William Jennings Bryan, three time presidential candidate for the Democrats, argued for the prosecution, while Clarence Darrow ran the defense.



Here's the problem: atheist scientist Daniel Dennett is on the side of the prosecution in that case, because the evolution of Mr. Scopes called for sterilization of rednecks, and other "undesirables."  The book Scopes used is called Civic Biology.  I particularly like the section called "The Remedy."



Creationists: You want to take every single word of the Bible literally? Fine, then why aren't you all Jews for Jesus?  Evolution isn't a threat to you if you put five seconds of thought behind it.  And you people are putting way too much money into defending something that's really rather stupid.  Most of you are in Kansas (what is the matter with Kansas, anyway?  First Creationism, now Fred Phelps. Is it something in the water?).



Evolunatics: if you're right, any sensible person of faith should dismiss evolution as simply “God's mechanics.” And even if you are right, stop using the Scopes trial as a stigma to beat a dogma.  Anyone who reads Scopes' textbooks will not be on your side.  If you wish to back Scopes to the hilt, eugenics and all, Cold Spring Harbor and Auchwitz are both thataway (points East).



On the one hand, with "Intelligent Design," I think it's an uncessary argument, due to the paragraph above.

As for evolution ... Evolution is a nice theory. From what I've seen, it assembles most of the puzzle pieces that evidence has handed over. Is it a fact according to the rigorous standards of science that I was brought up with? Not last time I checked. Then again, with the standards of science I grew up with, you practically needed video evidence of something happening to prove that it happened and how it happened, and sometimes not even that is enough evidence.



We have audio recordings of echoes from the big bang, and even that isn't enough for some people. Why? "Oh dear, if there's a definitive start to the universe, someone might use that to prove there's a deity" .... I'm actually serious on that part. Stephen Hawking dedicated a whole theory on the start of the universe that involves time loops, making the universe a self-sustaining phenomenon ... and I just lost you, didn't I? I'll put away the Star Trek terminology now.   The short version is that some scientists would rather come up with badly written science fiction then even have a good scientific theory that might, may possibly, give ammunion to all of those "annoying God-people."



While Aquinas had an argument for God called the argument from causation, I wouldn't expect any good scientist to say the equation is "Big Bang = God." I would expect a good scientist to come up with scientific reasons following evidence they have.  Self-sustaining time loops do no count as good science. I don't even think they are good science fiction.



But, as far as evolution goes, it isn't even a significant portion of the puzzles pieces that are my life, and I seriously, seriously wonder about people on both sides of the issue. The creationists are really rather weird. On the other, you have the evolution crowd who want to declare that God is dead because of evolution.



I think they're both invalid arguments.



So, to the creationists and the evolunatics, I say: Calm down, the both of you.  Not only are you both embarassing yourselves, you've both spent enough time and energy fighting over this that you could have cured cancer by now.



(And, oh, yeah, Kansas, if you spawn another delusional, foaming at the mouth band of lunatics, I'm going to start a petition to have all of the floride in your water system replaced with thorazine.  Capisce?)



[Update: It has been pointed out to me my Mr. Gerrity (below) that some topics have been shafted in this article.  One, I thought that creationism had been linked to within the document, for those people who are not already familiar with the BS involved.  Two: this is called snarky theology.  I'm trying to entertain as well as give a slight education.  If you desire more on this topic, and in a more serious manner, then please say so below.  I will not write a new, serious, piece of apologetics that will probably make my own eyes glaze over if only one person is going to read it.  And, three, Richard Dawkins will get his own, special blog, much much later.]

Mr. Phelps, David Koresh Called. He wants to chat.

A while ago, I did an article on Mr. Fred Phelps and his merry band of miscreants at the Westboro Baptist Chuch.  You know who they are.  They have protests at military funerals, or anywhere they can get their dirty faces in front of a video camera, because their cult leader and deity, Phelps,



The Supreme Court, in their infinite wisdom, have declared that Mr. Phelps and his WBC crowd have the right to protest anywhere.  Although, looking at excerpts, it reads like the eight members of the court held their nose, cast their vote, and deeply wanted to beat Phelps down with a baseball bat.  Though that could just be me.



Are we surprised, though?  Early last year, a federal court of appeals threw out a jury verdict in favor of Albert Snyder, who had sued WBC protesters at his son Matthew's funeral.  The charge was intentional infliction of emotional distress. These inbred cultists stood outside Matthew's funeral with placards saying things like, "God Loves Dead Soldiers," "God Hates You," "You're Going to Hell," "Semper Fi Fags," "Thank God for Dead Soldiers," "Thank God for IEDs" and "God Hates Fags."



When Snyder appealed his case to the Supreme Court, and the court had to decide whether the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) can ever exist in a country with a First Amendment.



Now, I'm going to do something I try not to do.  I'm going to quote a political commentator. 

Unlike many legal concepts, the tort of IIED is not an obscure legal doctrine written in pig Latin. It means what it says: speech or conduct specifically intended to inflict emotional distress. The usual description of the tort of IIED is that a reasonable man viewing the conduct would react by saying, "That's outrageous!"



The Second Restatement of Torts (1965) defines IIED as conduct "so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community."



As a respected New York judge, Judith Kaye, described it, "The tort is as limitless as the human capacity for cruelty." Inasmuch as IIED claims are made based on all manner of insults, rudeness, name-calling and petty affronts, the claim is often alleged, but rarely satisfied.



But if a group of lunatics standing outside the funeral of a fallen American serviceman with hateful signs about the deceased does not constitute intentional infliction of emotional distress, then there is no such tort recognizable in America anymore.  

The protesters weren't publishing their views in a magazine, announcing them on a "Morning Zoo" radio program, proclaiming them on some fringe outlet .... or even standing on a random street corner. Their protest was held outside a funeral for the specific purpose of causing pain to the deceased's loved ones.

This was written by Ann Coulter.   Yes, that one.



The annoying thing is that the original appeal court tossed the just because ........ the protest signs contained words, and that words are "speech."  Uh huh.



And now, the Surpreme Court has come down on the side of Phelps, in an overwhelming 8-1 decision.  The only holdout was Sam Alito.



Does this mean that the US Government owes David Koresh an apology?  After all, he was a cult leader, with most of his members consisting of his own ofamily.  He spouted off a lot of psychotic gibberish, and he also happened to own a lot of guns ... in Texas, where everyone owns a lot of guns. 



Now, twenty years later after Koresh and Co are in the ground, does that mean I can show up anywhere with a sign that says "Kill [insert person here]" and get away with it?  A politician?  Someone I don't like?  Those signs would have words, after all, don't they.  What about shouting one word, "Fire" in a crowded theater?  The Nazis of America were not allowed to march through a Jewish Illoinois town in the 1960s, but this guy can show up at personal, private events, and hurl hate speech?  Really?



In the past few months, there were all sorts of charges brought up against bullying.  Teenagers were being threatened with jail because of "words," and words that were a lot less hurtful than a hundred people showing up at someone's funeral with loud, angry, hate-fill signs. Malicious postings about someone on Facebook is a crime, teenagers bullying classmates is a crime, but what Phelps and co. does isn't?  What?



I'm not a lawyer.  Thank God. I will never be one.   If the court wants to look at words, look at these: intentional infliction of emotional distress.  Phelps intentionally showed up at a particular man's funeral, inflicting emotionally distressing "words" on him.



Intentional + inflicting + emotionally distressing = IIED.



What the court was smoking, I'll never know.



Though, in the long run, I wonder.  In the case of the recent bullying examples, people died.  People comitteed suicide.  If people hang themselves after a Mr. Phelps 'protest," would that make what WBC does a crime? 



If so, I wonder how many people will have to die before the Supreme Court gets a clue.

Mr Phelps, You Are Disavowed…

[This blog is rated PG, for mild intemperate language.]

I do not feel the need to disavow every single stupid thing a Christian group has ever done. For one thing, I'm Catholic, so most Christian sects, denominations, etc, have already disavowed me. So when other folks in other Christian groups do something stupid, I generally don't care.

Like, for example, when a creationist museum that has what appears to be a Garden of Eden setting … with a Velociraptor off to the side.

Thankfully, I can usually say, “Yeah, that's stupid,” and move on. Because it is stupid: even ignoring that human beings and dinosaurs were separated by about a few BILLION years of development, you'd think that the museum designer would have picked a dinosaur that was more friendly in appearance, and what wasn't the primary adversary of one of the top grossing films of all time.

So, with idiocies like that, I don't care. It's not my church, not my problem.

And then there's Fred Phelps.... who may or may not have appeared in one of our stories.

Mr. Phelps, who bears no relationship to Jim Phelps of the Mission: Impossible TV series, is not unknown to constant readers of this blog, or fellow writer/blogger Rebekah of Masks. He is a failed Kansas Democratic Party nominee. He is a failed lawyer (disbarred in 1977).  He is 81 years old, and has been banned from enterting the United Kingdom, and sent a letter to Saddam Hussein, praising him for his religious tolerance.  And he is an all around failed human being.

Most recently, Phelps runs a marginal little Baptist church in the back end of Westboro, Kansas. They run websites called “God Hates the World,” and even “God hates Sweden.”

Obviously, this guy has too much time on his hands if he could work himself into a lather about Sweden.

Phelps and company host a lot of protests. His most recent protest was at … the funeral of Elizabeth Edwards.

Constant readers know that I am no fan of politics, politicians, or even people connected with them. I have no particular affection or disdain for the late Mrs. John Edwards. When her husband had illicit offspring, she attacked anyone and everyone who discussed it, even though it was later revealed she knew all about it, even as she called everyone else a liar. While this does not put her into my nominee for sainthood, the woman's dead, get over it.

However, reasons for Mr. Phelps protesting her funeral are … odd. Part of his stated reasons for the protest include: “Elizabeth Edwards & her faithless husband, John, lightly esteemed what they had. They coveted things that were not theirs – and presumptuously thought they could control God.”

Um, what? I can tell more lawyer jokes that start with “John Edwards” than I know what to do with, but, seriously?  What drugs are you on, sir?

While I would usually just paint Mr. Phelps with the stupid brush, and say “this is not the Christian you're looking for, move along,” I have had an atheist friend of mine use Phelps as an example of why all religion is for weak-minded fools bewitched by old religious mind tricks (Yes, I put more than one Star Wars reference into an overwritten sentence. I'm a nerd).  So, Mr. Phelps has earned some special attention.   And it's not the first time on this blog (see Item 9)

Why does he deserve it? Because Mr. Phelps is not a Christian. He actually belongs to no organized religion that I have ever heard of. After all, he wants to spread “God's hate.” While God is somewhat cranky in the Torah, it's mostly a matter of “Screw With My People, I Will End You.” Hate is never stressed as a key component of any modern faith I know of; the others were wiped out centuries ago.

However, Mr. Phelps does remind me of something else. Looking over his history, he does nothing but organize protests. Protests at military funerals, random high schools, celebrity deaths, the San Francisco office of Twitter … the list goes on. And on. His band of bozos spend their time proclaiming that God hates gays. And that God Hates Jews. And God Hates Catholics. And God Hates the military. And God Hates…

Well, “God hates” everyone who isn't Mr. Phelps and his little band of twits.

“God” even “hates” comic book readers. Phelps and his band of fruit loops protested San Diego's Comic Con because “comic books encourage idolatry.” 


Riiiiiight.

I suspect that if there's a headline media story, Phelps will chase it, and park his people in front of it, lodging a protest, because God suddenly “hates” everyone involved. But only after it becomes front page news.  

Obviously, if you take any attention away from Mr. Phelps, God hates you.

When you consider that a Christian is defined as someone who follows the principles of Jesus Christ, Mr. Phelps is not a Christian. At no point did Christ mention anything about “God hates [this large body of people].” In fact, He generally preferred using examples of social outcasts who acted as better models of proper behavior than the high priests. There's a good reason why the Catholic Church has never declared that any individual person has gone to Hell—the Vatican condemns certain behaviors, not certain people.  It has never tried to take on the moral authority assumed by Dante.

So, let's see. Mr. Phelps has a small, insular body of people who clearly demonstrate an attitude that it is “us” versus “them.” In this case, “them” is “the world.” Also, Phelps is using the Gospel according to …. Phelps. Not to mention that Phelps is very interested in having the cameras on him at all times. It seems that the most dangerous place in America to be is between Freddy Phelps a microphone.

A narcissist with delusions of godhood … there's a term for that, isn't there?  Let me think about that a moment. Wait, it's coming to me … it's coming to me … Yes, I have it.

I think the term I want is “cult leader.”

Yes, “cult leader” and “attention-seeking media whore” sum him up rather neatly, I think.

And while there should be prayers (from actual people of faith) that Mr. Phelps become something other than what he is – maybe an atheist like Daniel Dennett -- I doubt it will happen. In fact, I await the day that Mr. Phelps and company break out a shipment of Kool-Aid, and give the rest of us some well-deserved peace and quiet.

On the other hand, Mr. Phelps is good for something. He has been put on the hit list of the Anti-Defamation League, gay rights groups, and Ann Coulter  …  I bet you'd never see those three all on the same side, did you?

“You're going to Hell.... Not.” I'm Catholic, not Puritan. Thank you.

[This is an article on what the Catholic Church believes, to the best of my knowledge. If you disagree with the tenants of the faith spelled out, if you dislike what they say, dislike what the Church says, disagree with the qualifications of what is or is not a sin, or if you do not believe that there is a God period … okay, that's cool. I'm not trying to convince you of any of the above, just trying to give you Catholic positions in layman's terms. Thank you. The disclaimer ends.]

I enjoy having other people tell me what I believe. It's amusing.

Recently, I was told that “hardcore Catholics think everybody's going to Hell.”

Hi, um, no.

Granted, my “hardcore” status involves going to Church on Sundays and Holy days, and knowing more about Catholic philosophy than the average bear. Aside from that... meh, not really.

But, for the record, unlike Dante Alighieri in The Inferno, the Catholic Church has never pointed to any person and said “He's in Hell.” The strongest the Church has done to anybody has been excommunication— which is a societal pressure, mainly used to get someone's attention, and requires that the penitent have done something REALLY messed up. The Church of Rome believes that it represents God, NOT that is IS God. No one knows what is in another's heart, head, or conscience.

And there's the usual anti-sex, anti-gay mythology.

1) No one is going to hell for BEING gay. A sin is an ACTION, not a state of being. You have to DO something. Nathan Lane has stated that he his gay, Catholic, and celibate.... but on the other hand, he could barbeque puppies for fun. On the other end of the spectrum, if anybody (gay, straight, male, female) is having sex with large amounts of people per month, I have several, non-religious things to say to them – and my mother's a microbiologist, I can footnote everything. One of the major concerns I have I share with most of the priests I meet, gay author Harvey Fierstein, and lesbian/former NOW President (LA) Tammy Bruce: promiscuous activity, which really isn't a gay/straight male/female problem, it's pretty much everyone. And many of my arguments come from one place-- the microbiology lab.

2) Sex. Ask at the Vatican, getting a (non-medical) abortion is a sin. So is using a condom, and so is (PREMARITAL) sex. Are any and all of those people automatically going to hell? Take Angelina Jolie: when she was fourteen, with a boyfriend, her own mother told her to take the master bedroom and “have fun, it's better than the back of a car.” I am hard-pressed to imagine anyone condemning her behavior at fourteen, and given what (very little) I've heard, I think it would be more reasonable to think “Wow, I'm surprised she's not REALLY screwed up.”

Do I believe that sodomy, premarital sex, condom usage, abortion, et al are sins? Yes, and I think that most of them are bad ideas independently of religion, mostly based on psychological, sociological reasons, and personal observation. But that's another story. Am I going to Judge those people who partake / have partaken of those acts and say they're going to Hell? No, no, no, and Hell no.

I think a lot of this can be covered under “conscience”-- con (with) (science) knowledge... There is something called “invincible ignorance,” something doesn't register on the conscience, for whatever reason. I naturally assume that (for example) teenagers are too stupid to know right from left, to hell with knowing right from wrong. which means that, yes, one can be too stupid to know one is doing something wrong. Now, who knows what evil lurks (or doesn't) in the hearts of men (and women) ....

God does.

No one else.

Have a nice day.

To make my point, I will use a personal example. I'm Celibate. An ex of mine slipped me a drug for the purposes of having me sleep with her. Am I going to say she's going to Hell? I can't say that one way or another, mainly because I know how utterly and totally screwed up she is. Looking at it from the distance of time, she's a LOT more than “standard” crazy, and I should have seen it coming. I can't say she's evil, because I know that she is lonely, believes that if someone (non related) isn't sleeping with her, they don't love her, and she's really screwed up in the head. I don't know what she was thinking at the time, since I wasn't going to have an extended conversation about it.

A lot of the misconception about the Catholic Church comes from the line “Outside the Church there is no salvation.” It's a phrase that people like to throw around a lot. However, if you talk to any cannon lawyer, you know there's a caveat to practically anything. “The Church” is defined as the “mystical body of Christ”.... take out the fancy language, the Church is God. God covers a LOT of territory. If you look up the phrase “Baptism of Desire,” even Wikipedia comes close: it comes about with an “act of perfect love and contrition which automatically cleanses the soul of all sin.” There is also the “baptism of blood;” Protestants have been accepted as Catholic saints and martyrs because they were “died for Christ.”

So, yes, the Catholic Church put in a loophole. A few loopholes. “Outside the church there is no salvation”... but. I know a few atheists, some who are probably better people than I am. Oddly, I think one was a better Catholic than I am.

Oh, and as several Popes have mentioned over the years, Jews are “inside the Church” because God does not renege on His deals ... we are not Fred Phelps and his incestuous, attention-seeking media-whore cult.

However, I have heard stories. “Catholics” who are holier than that, and think Protestants should be burned at the stakes for heresy, but that they, themselves, have never read the bible, “That's what the priest is for.”

Statements like that want to make me find these people and drop Aquinas's Summa Theologica on them.... all fifteen feet of shelf space worth.

The short version, if I may paraphrase Chesterton, is that the Catholic church doesn't work because people are perfect, it works because people AREN'T perfect. That goes back to St. Augustine, of the VERY early Church, concluding that it doesn't matter if the priest is a sinner (since, hey, we're human, we're sinners), because the power of the religious ministries he performs comes from God.

Being Holier than Thou isn't the sign of a “hardcore Catholic.” It's the sign of a stupid one.

For those unfamiliar with the Bible, look up the story of the Pharisee and the tax collector. The Pharisee (high ranking religious figure) stands in the temple talking about how perfect he is, thanking God that he wasn't some dirt bag like the tax collector. On the other end of the temple, the tax collector beats his breast, apologizing for being a sinner. In that example, the IRS fellow is the model held up as the better person. Also, Jesus had an instruction that, when someone prayed, they should seek out privacy (actually, He suggested praying in a closet) rather than go out into the street to make a public spectacle of themselves.

The Holier than Thou people remind me of the lesser half of each of those examples.

You have, on the other hand, the traditional Puritan, whose model of religion was that, not only were they saved, they had to SHOW other people that they were saved. This later turned into a logic that said “Well, if we are saved, then obviously God is going to grace us, so we should be prosperous as well.” A train of thought which makes me wince.

So, the next time that someone says that they're Catholic, and that “you're going to hell,” you can tell them that they make a better Pharisee/ a great seventeenth-century Puritan, or that they should consider praying in the nearest closet.

But “hardcore Catholics” not only believe in God, and Heaven, and Hell, and sin, and going to Church, and Jesus Christ, and the Pope, but they also believe in mercy, compassion, gentleness, and understanding. They can understand that good people can do bad things, and that we can condemn a sin without necessarily condemning a sinner. And that God is the only person involved in Heaven and Hell, no matter what Fred Phelps thinks.

Catholics believe that there is Justice, and Justice takes all things into consideration. To understand all is NOT to forgive all, but it plays a part.

And I have fifteen shelf feet of the Summa, in hardcover, with a dual translation, to back it up.