Koan #8: Was Full Faith Ever There

It is often said by certain previously-faithful Unbelievers that their de-conversion was based on research, argumentation and evidence; that they were committed to the Faith until they, quite simply, could no longer maintain it in the face of what they knew. Now, leaving aside the point that Unbelievers are as subject to the same subjective and emotional biases that they so often accuse Believers of, it is cogent to wonder just how faithful these claimed Believers were to the Faith that they left? Though seemingly insinuating insult, what is actually meant by this latter question is that as the Catholic faith has never claimed that true, firm and preserving belief can be had solely by an exercise of the intellect or through intellectual argumentation, did these individuals actually practice the methods advised by the Faith to develop lasting faith? Indeed, although initial faith can be created solely in the intellect, the Faithful are taught that lasting faith must be cultivated through obedience, good works, prayer, use of the sacraments, charity, an ability to control one’s emotional deviances and so on and so forth. These are things that cannot be done or practiced if one is overwhelmed with pure sensory or philosophical argumentation at the expense such other critical elements. Thus it is a wonder if such things were truly and fully done by the aforementioned Unbelievers’ when they de-converted—and only they and God can know the truth of this—but if they were not, then how can they claim to have had the Faith in the first place? How can they claim to have de-converted when they never truly converted in the first place? For how can one call himself a “convert” or “faithful” when he does not faithfully convert his life in all its elements to the Faith and its prescribed ways? And lest the Unbeliever accuse the Believer of holding an anti-evidentiary stance when he raises the objection articulated here, it must be made clear that this is not the case, for evidence of the sensory and philosophical variety are admittedly necessary for faith, but they are by no means sufficient for it or its maintenance. Indeed, one may think of it in this manner: A man may consciously and intellectually love his wife, but he must also show his love in his actions, respond to her requests, demonstrate his affection in his words to her, sacrifice for her, accept the responsibility and guilt for the errors and faults committed against her, express this love visibly to others, make her a prime priority in his life, practice what he believes about her, spend time and energy on her, love her even when disagreement and disagreeability exists and so on and so forth if his love is to be true, stay strong and actually be love, rather than just a shadowy sentiment of it. A man who does not do such things, but still professes to love his wife in intellect, will soon have a wife who wishes for separation—as God very well might wish of one who “knows” of him, but does not show it or do what He asks—and a mind that wonders if he ever did truly love her to begin with. The Believer, then, can be no different if he is to have a true and lasting love with and for God.