Israel Centeno

I hold a deep respect for human thought and the intellectual endeavor. However, I believe that for an intellectual rooted in naturalism, it is incredibly challenging to relinquish what they perceive as the right and freedom of thought in order to embrace the dogmas of faith. A poignant example of this struggle can be seen in the life of Simone Weil, a thinker I greatly admire. Weil, in her profound honesty, stood at the threshold of the Church but could not bring herself to enter. Her reluctance was not due to a lack of sincerity or generosity—qualities she possessed in abundance—but because she could not renounce what she valued above all else: her capacity to think independently. This, I believe, is the ultimate renunciation for any intellectual.

This is not to suggest that an intellectual should abandon thinking or refrain from exercising judgment. Yet, by acknowledging God as the supreme being, who admits no form of idolatry, and by recognizing Jesus Christ as the only Son of God and King, one inevitably faces the necessity of renunciation. This renunciation extends to everything, including the intellectual’s cherished autonomy. It is the sacrifice that the Gospels, tradition, and the Church call us to make. For an intellectual, who often holds their ideas and conclusions in high regard—sometimes even to the point of self-deception—this is an immense challenge. Unlike Simone Weil, many intellectuals lack the honesty to remain at the doors of the Church; instead, they enter, but without the willingness to surrender fully, to carry the cross, and to follow Christ. They resist making the profound sacrifice that the Apostle Paul exemplified—dying to oneself so that Christ may live within.

This, I believe, is the crux of the issue with the contemporary wave of Christian intellectuals. While they may be well-versed in theology and philosophy, they often fail to recognize the potential idolatry inherent in their intellectual pursuits. This lack of awareness leads them to find euphemisms, difficulties, or inconveniences in fully expressing the dogmas of faith.

I am reminded of a recent discussion on a YouTube channel, possibly hosted by Jordan Peterson, where a conversation took place involving Peterson, Bishop Robert Barron, and another participant named Russell. During the discussion, Russell proposed that a quicker, more practical path to grace—one that might attract more young people to the Church—could be through experiences with hallucinogenic substances that expand consciousness. Peterson seemed open to the idea, and I anticipated a strong reaction from Bishop Barron. However, his response was weak, a vague denial that allowed the suggestion to pass without significant challenge.

This incident is troubling because it touches on a fundamental misunderstanding of grace. The grace that Christians seek should never be pursued through hallucinogenic substances, not only because of the moral and spiritual implications of drug use, but because grace is not something we can summon at will. It does not depend on our efforts, no matter how devout we may be. Even the most faithful Catholics may live their entire lives without ever experiencing the ecstasy of grace, for it is a gift from God, given only when He deems it appropriate. Who are we to dictate or provoke the mind of God to grant grace, especially through artificial means like hallucinogens?

In conclusion, the intellectual’s journey towards faith is fraught with challenges, particularly the need to surrender the very thing they hold most dear—their independence of thought. Simone Weil’s honesty in standing at the Church’s threshold, unwilling to compromise, serves as a powerful example of this struggle. Meanwhile, the modern Christian intellectual must remain vigilant against the subtle idolatries that can arise from their intellectual pursuits, always mindful that the grace of God is beyond human control and cannot be attained through any means other than His divine will.