The Intermountain Catholic. (Salt Lake City [Utah] ;) 1899-1920, 1899-12-23

Second Error: Naturalism-"God
does not exert any directing influence
over men or over the world"
Refutation-This proposition is alb
surd because it denies the providence
of God who watches over US, provides
for and governs his creatures. more
especially those on whim he has be-
slowed the light of reason. God might.
had he so chosen, have refrained from
the exercise of His creative power, but.
to abandon that which He has once
created, would be repugnant alike to
His goodness and to His wisdom, just
as it would argue a want of common
sense in the sculptor to take no pains
for the preservation of a statue. which
he had fashioned from the rude mar
BILE and clothed in all the beauties OF
art God does not. therefore, and can
not neglect His creatures and least OF
all man who is the noblest work of His
Omnipotent hand; on the contrary, He
governs them by His providential ac-
ton, and thus secures the end which He
had in view in their creation.
The internal volition of God is iden-
and therefore, the act by which He still
preserves the world is not distinct from
that by which He willed its creation.
Were He for one moment to withdraw
His protection, it would be repIunged
into the abyss of it's original nothing
ness. His providential action operates
directly upon every one of it's parts
-
in one harmonious whole; and though
the influence of His guiding hand never
ceases to make itself felt He permits
each particular body to act as a sec
ondary cause in accordance with the
law and properties of it's nature, that
is matter according to the rules Of
necessity, animals according to their
instinct, and man according to the die
tates of reason and free will.
But if God governs and directs every
thing by His Providence, why is it that
moral evil or sin exists in the world?
The explanation of the prevalence Of
moral evil lies in the fact that God
desired the existence of creatures en-
dowed with the attributes of reason
and free will, to be governed by the
principles of law and not by blind ne
cessity. He desired that these crea-
lures should, by conforming to His law,
merit the reward attached to it's OBJ
servance, and He threatened those who
violated it with the EXTREMIST penalty
of His wrath.
1t is insisted that, as moral evil is
of God, He should have prevented it,
and that He could have done so, while
still respecting the inviolability of
mans free will.
All things are possible to God, and
He certainly might have prevented sin.
had He so desired, but such was not
His divine will, nor was there any OBJ
legation on His part to render mans
fall impossible and why? Because the
sole end, which He proposed to him
self in the creation, was the NANTES
tation of His own glory. And He Sc
cures this end both by the reward
which he beStows upon those who OBJ
serve His law and by the punishment
inflicted on those who rebel against
His supreme authority. By the graces
which He freely showers upon all men,
He gives them strength to triumph
over temptation; and if they refuse to
obey His call and thus bring upon
themselves the penalty of their dis
obedience, He is not responsible for
their sin, nor can He be taxed with
cruelty or unkindness, simply because
He does not. by an act of His omni-
potence, prevent it's commission.
CTo be Continued)