Nashville Bishop Faces Backlash

(Note: Through the comment feature, a reader informed me that Beliefnet is the name of an actual organization. I apologize for the confusion and have edited the following post to avoid misrepresenting such a group.)

As a faithful Catholic, this sort of news always strikes a chord with me:

Nashville Bishop Faces Backlash

Diana Rigg

(Nashville) Roman Catholic bishop George Lazenby is facing a public outcry over his support of controversial rhythm and blues guitarist Peter "Blackjack" Hunt. Hunt, who is currently slated to headline at an annual fundraiser for impoverished youth, has sparked much outrage with several racially charged public statements and alleged ties to the Tennessee chapter of the Ku Klux Klan.

"Mr. Hunt has made no secret of his dislike of ... excuse me, his hatred of African Americans and Hispanic Americans, his intolerance of other beliefs and lifestyles," said Nashville Mayer Harry Saltzman. "His presence at, not to mention his headlining at this event, is reprehensible, and Bishop Lazenby should be ashamed of his support of this poisonous ideology."

Group organizers have promised that Hunt will not play any of his more controversial work at this event. Unsatisfied, however, many public leaders are encouraging a boycott of the event. Bishop Lazenby, who has overseen the organization of the Catholic-based event, is unwavering in his support of Hunt.

"This is not about ideology, but about helping children. Mr. Hunt will draw significant support for this cause," Lazenby said in a release, "and it is unfortunate that many in this community cannot put their differences aside in order to help the less fortunate."

With whom do you side?

Hopefully not the bishop. At least in this story.

First off, let me say that there is no Bishop Lazenby and there is no rhythm and blues guitarist named Blackjack Hunt. In fact, I made up the whole story to illustrate a point and to get your gut reactions to another situation that is happening here in Missouri.

Archbishop Raymond Burke, of the archdiocese of St. Louis, is actually the one under fire, but not because he is bringing in a controversial speaker whose public activities are contrary to the goals of the fund raiser. Rather, he is the one opposing such an action.

In this case, unlike in my make-believe story, the bishop is the good guy, but you wouldn't know it with the biased news coverage in recent weeks.

Sheryl Crow, an outspoken advocate of abortion and embryonic stem-cell research, has been selected to headline a fund raiser for the Cardinal Glennon Children's Foundation. Archbishop Burke has privately appealed to event organizers for some time to reconsider this decision, and after being met with silence, he finally felt obligated to speak out publicly against the decision to invite Crow.

And, according to most major news outlets, the public is outraged. I have a hunch, though, that if the story I had made up was true, that same public would be rallying against the fictional Bishop Lazenby. After all, what person who really cared about helping the less-fortunate would really tolerate bringing in a hate-filled bigot to further that cause?

Does the fictional Lazenby's rationalization that it is not about ideology, but about helping children really fly, considering how destructive Hunt's rhetoric is? Yet this is almost word-for-word the excuse that the St. Louis organizers used in expressing their support of Crow.

Cardinal Glennon is a Catholic organization, which means that part of "helping children" is keeping them from being killed in the womb. Just as Hunt, in the made-up story, might not play his racially-charged lyrics at the event, Crow will most likely not advocate abortion while there. However, in either case, the mere presence of such a headliner is sending the message that the end justifies the means. No matter how much money might be raised by bringing in Crow, the fact simply remains that she actively campaigns against the efforts of pro-life groups (such as in her recent appearance in ads supporting embryonic stem cell destruction and cloning).

As for me, I am extremely proud of Burke for having the integrity to stand up for life in this instance. He is a bright enough man to know how the general secular, celebrity-worshiping public would react, but defending the unborn was more important to him than catering to the whims of society.

And let's not forget the fact that the Cardinal Glennon event is an insult to the public because the assumption is that the only way that they will give to this wonderful organization is if they are properly entertained.

ps. Some of you might be big enough James Bond aficionados to have caught that the name of the Bishop of Nashville is really that of the one-time star of the James Bond series, appearing between Connery and Moore in the series (the names of everyone else in the story come from the cast and crew, as well).

Questioning the Beggar

As my family got ready for the day last week, we had the morning news on. One story in particular sent me into a rant that nobody in my family particularly cared to hear. Actually, I don't even remember what the story was about (so I'll make that part up), but the part that got me was how the young reporter closed his commentary:

The city council decided that, though the project will provide a great source of recreation for the community, even though it will cost approximately 3.5 million ... which begs the question, "How exactly will that revenue be raised?"

As I said, the story is made up. No city councils that I know of are planning a 3.5 million dollar recreation project. No, it wasn't the content of the story, but the phrase in bold that pinched my nerve.

I guess it is because I'm an English major that things like this bother me. My wife, the accountant, gets worked up over an unaccounted for penny in our checkbook. I cringe at the misuse of a phrase like "begs the question".

Bear with me here - this will all tie into apologetics.

This reporter used the phrase "begs the question" to mean, "it raises the question", which is the way it seems that most people tend to use it anymore, much to the dismay of us language purists.

In actuality, "begs the question" is a logical fallacy, and this post is the first in a series in which I want to examine some of the fallacies that often come up when we attempt to share our faith with others. No matter how well we know the defense for the teachings of our faith, all of us have hit dead ends when the person with whom we are dialoguing throws us a question that just flies in the face of reason. If we aren't able to identify such an exit from the road to truth, our conversation will go down quickly.

To beg the question means to ask a question or make a statement that implies a conclusion, which the two parties have not yet resolved. For instance:

"Are you married to that dead-beat loser?"

"Why are you feeding your kids that poison each morning?"

In the first question, the assumption is that this person's spouse really is a dead-beat loser. Because the question is a yes/no proposition, the only possible responses are "yes, I am still married to that dead-beat loser" and "no, I divorced that dead-beat loser". Similarly, with the second example, the person asking the question is embedding the assumption that some breakfast cereal is harmful, whereas another mom may disagree.

Catholics are hit with questions that "beg the question" all the time, and many who are not able to identify the flawed logic often fall into its trap.

"Where is the word Purgatory written in the Bible?"

"Have you been saved?"

In each question an unresolved question has been "begged", that a church's teaching must be explicitly stated in Scripture (it doesn't have to be) and that salvation is a one-time, past-tense event (it isn't). When asked such questions, one must pause, step back and turn the tables on the person asking these questions. Rather than giving a lose-lose answer to the question on salvation, a better response might be to engage the dialogue with a question such as, "Can you explain exactly what you mean by 'being saved'?"

A lot of people beg the question completely by accident. They have been raised under the assumption that the Bible is the only authority for Christians (it isn't), for example, and just assume other Christians agree.

Others, however, know that their arguments lack integrity, but they use these methods anyway as quick ways of pulling people from what they see as false religions. This seems odd, though, as one would think that if a person believed strongly enough in his religion, he would be relying on truth rather than tricks.

And, as the reporter from the other morning would say, this begs the question: what exactly are they trying to hide?

Does God Hate Shrimp? The 15 Worst Arguments for Homosexuality

If there was ever a hot-button issue in politics and religion today, it is concerning the level of acceptance that a society or church should give to people who engage in homosexual behavior. This post, the first in a series of "Worst Argument" posts, examines some of the most common arguments that are put forth to support a common acceptance for the gay lifestyle. (I want to mention, for the purposes of this article, referring to homosexuality will generally imply homosexual activity, not the actual attraction, itself.) I know some of you have friends or family members who are homosexual, which makes this a sensitive issue, but objective truth must be defended, especially against our emotional struggles, and I hope this post helps to clarify that objective truth for some of you who have struggled with ...

The 15 Worst Arguments for Homosexuality

1. Homosexuals are born that way - First off, let me say that there is a truckload of research, some good and some bad, on both sides of this issue. For those who are interested in trying to sort through it all, there are plenty of good resources for that. As for me, it simply doesn't matter. Let's say that, hypothetically, people are genetically predisposed to same-sex attraction, does this make it okay? Does this justify homosexual acts as normal behavior? There is compelling evidence that people inherit alcoholism, so do we excuse the father who drinks away his paycheck? Many court cases have been built on the premise that a defendant was inherently psychotic, so do we excuse, as "perfectly normal", his habit of chopping people up and putting them in a freezer?
2. It occurs in nature - State your objection to homosexual behavior, and someone will inevitably mention a study that was done somewhere that found that 10% of sheep are attracted to members of the opposite sex. Personally, I'm not sure that these people have truly thought out what our society would be like if we used the animal kingdom as our measure of morality. Eating one's young is very common among our underwater friends, but God help the person who is found sprinkling salt on his three-month-old daughter.
   
3. God doesn't make mistakes - No, he does not, but Adam and Eve did, and for that reason, original sin corrupted his otherwise beautiful creation. Many are born with physical deformities (a missing leg or blindness) and mental deformities (Down Syndrome) because we, as a race, have chosen to reject God through our sin. God is order, so a rejection of him is disorder, which sometimes shows up as disorder in our being. Now understand what I am saying - nobody is handicapped because of his personal sin. Rather, we live in a world into which disorder has crept (through our invitation), and if this disorder can appear physically and mentally, why should we suppose it wouldn't be sexual, as well?
   
4. Jesus never condemns homosexual behavior - First off, how do we know that? Doesn't John tell us at the end of his gospel that Jesus did many other things which are not recorded in Scripture. And even if Jesus didn't specifically mention homosexuality, he did institute marriage as a sacrament between a man and woman, and whenever he refers to marriage, he refers to a union of man and wife. And even then, let's say Jesus had been silent, Scripture condemns homosexual behavior (and extramarital sex, which include homosexual acts) all over the place (such as Rom. 1, 1 Cor. 6, and 1 Tim. 1). And Scripture is inspired by God. And Jesus is God.
   
5. The Church should stay out of the bedroom - God invented the sexual act to allow us to participate in his miraculous act of creation. Since he invented it, he gets to make the rules. And the church is the instrument through which he makes those rules known (1 Tim. 3:15). So the church sets the rules, whether outside the bedroom or in.
   
6. The "shrimp" argument - Okay ... if I really have to answer this one, here goes: Leviticus condemns both shellfish and homosexuality as "abominations", which has given fuel to those who want to portray Christians as hypocritical bigots (see picture above). The problem? While shrimp was forbidden as a non-kosher food for the Jews, homosexual behavior is condemned throughout the Bible, including the New Testament, where the Jewish law is no longer binding. In addition, it has been consistently condemned by the Holy Spirit-guided teaching authority of the Church. If the entire Christian argument against homosexual behavior were predicated on Leviticus, there might be a point to be made. Rather, our view comes from the realization that homosexual acts are a mockery of the sacrament of marriage as established by God.
   
7. There are straight marriages in worse shape - So? This argument is like saying that tax evasion shouldn't be illegal because rapist are rarely tax evaders, yet they are guilty of a much more heinous crime. There are plenty of marriages in awful shape because they are embracing all the other threats to a healthy relationship, such as selfishness, drunkenness, adultery, and abandonment.
   
8. Shouldn't they have the same rights? - They do. First off, let's be clear that marriage is not a "right". Legally, it is a privilege. Sacramentally, it is a calling from God. Anyway, all homosexuals have the same rights that all heterosexuals do, which is to marry someone of the opposite sex, who is of legal age and condition, and who is not already married to someone else.
   
9. People should have the right to marry or be intimate with whomever they love - Really? What if a man loves a five-year-old-child? His neighbor's wife? His rotweiler? Five women? His sister? Are we denying his rights? Is it unfair that married people can express their sexuality and he cannot? Starting to become something of a slippery slope, isn't it?
   
10. People who oppose gay "rights" are homophobes - "Phobia" means fear. Sorry, wrong suffix. This is an example of desperate name-calling for people who have run out of good arguments. This is a tactic of those who haven't thought out their position well enough to form a solid argument. Shall we call them logicaphobes?
    
11. Economic and medical benefits - Fine. Is there some reason that a durable power of attorney, a good will, or a hospital waiver won't take care of this?
    
12. My son (or daughter/friend/brother/uncle ...) is gay - Then he needs your support more than ever. It's hard for us to look at objective truth when it hits so close to home. I imagine that even a person who is in favor of the death penalty would have second thoughts if it was his child in the electric chair. However, we need to recognize that, if someone close to us struggles with same-sex attraction, this is his cross to bear. We each have ours. However, 1 Cor. 10:13 tells us that God will give each person sufficient graces to overcome any temptation. Of course we shouldn't reject a person because of his struggles, but the last thing our loved one needs is for us to make it easier for him to reject God by our accepting a sinful lifestyle.
13. We shouldn't judge others - True. But we can judge behaviors as being moral or not. Would anyone hesitate for a second to "judge" the actions of our best friend, who enjoys conning 80-year-old women out of their retirement checks? What about the woman who leaves her children locked in the car in 90-degree weather while she runs into the store? Are we being judgemental if we frown upon this? When Jesus told us not to judge others, he was implying that we shouldn't guess that person's eternal fate (only God knows what his personal culpability is), but Jesus absolutely expects us to help one another avoid sin, and to do this, we must first identify what sin is.
14. How could loving someone be sin? - Many make the mistake of assuming that sin is that action which directly hurts another. Rather, the definition of sin is an offense against God or a violation of his law, whether it directly hurts another person or not. And any sin, no matter how private, tears at the body of Christ, which includes all of humanity. See the answer to question nine for another way of answering this objection.
    
15. People who oppose homosexual relationships hate gay people - No, we love them so much that we want to help them live their lives in accord with God's will so that we can spend eternity with them in Heaven. (Nor does God hate gay people. He loves all of his children, but wants them to live in accord with his laws.) The real injustice within a Christian community are those who say, "live as you will, your eternal salvation is of less importance to me than whether or not you feel accepted in your personal choices."
    

Will the blind and deaf go to Hell?

A reader writes,

"What do you say (regarding salvation and entry into heaven) to those who ask ... "What about the blind, deaf and dumb person who cannot accept Christ?"

When you get to the nuts and bolts of it, this question is essentially the same that is often posed when claim that knowledge and acceptance of Christ is necessary for salvation. Someone will inevitably ask, "What about people who live in hard-to-reach tribes who, through no fault of their own, have never been preached to about Christ and his Church? Do they go to Hell?"

While some Christian churches may answer yes, to this, it has never been the position of the Catholic Church. While the Church teaches that acceptance of Christ (including all of his teachings) and participation in the sacraments are essential for salvation, she recognizes that God is not bound by this law and can extend the hand of mercy to those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of Christ.

This concept is called invisible ignorance, and the Catechism references it in paragraphs 847 and 1260. Now, it is important to note here that the concept is that ignorance which is "invincible", meaning that even with sufficient effort, a person does not have the resources or mental capability (or physical capability) to arrive at the same conclusions that we have within the fullness of the faith as Catholics. There must be an inherent desire to know God and to follow the moral teachings which he has written on each of our hearts (CCC 1860). When God, through his grace and mercy, allows such a person into Heaven, despite his never having been baptized, the Church refers to that individual as having been "baptized by desire".

Note - this teaching does not excuse those who refuse to hear one word about Jesus or the Church. It is not our place to judge them, which means we cannot assume they are on the way to Hell, but it also means we cannot "judge" that they are on the way to Heaven. We can hope that God will work a miracle in their hearts before death, but we must accept our responsibility to continue evangelizing to those around us.

So ... as for the individual who is deaf, blind, and dumb (which means "mute" in the context of the reader's question), we can rest confidently that God, through his mercy, sees past this person's handicaps and hope that, should that person have a sincere desire to know God, he too can rejoice with us for eternity in Heaven.

Indulging Ourselves

A reader writes,

"I would really like you to address this whole issue of Plenary Indulgences. I would like to believe in them but I really struggle with them. The fact that I make so many first friday masses I will reduce my time in purgatory or if I do a divine mercy chaplet from Good Friday to Easter Sunday will relieve me of all my sins during that time just doesn't sit right. Like I said, I want to believe this but I am really struggling with it. Please clarify this whole issue if you would."

First off, it is important to understand the nature of sin, including the two consequences of sin. The first of these consequences, of course, is that we have offended God, and we must obtain forgiveness from him. In the case of mortal sins, this can only happen in the sacrament of reconciliation, which Jesus Christ established. Those who believe otherwise are kidding themselves. If we do not reconcile with God, there is an eternal consequence, which is eternity in Hell.

Secondly, however, we have caused temporal damage to our relationships with one another and with God (and with ourselves). Our goal in life, the definition of spiritual maturity, is to completely break any hold that worldly attachments have on us and to turn one-hundred percent to God. However, every time we sin, even in a minor way, we give a part or ourselves to something "of the flesh". God has forgiven us, but we have given part of ourselves over to something that is a distraction to him, whether it be impure thoughts, greed, or laziness, etc.

I sometimes use the analogy of a wedding. Imagine a young couple at the altar. Though the wife promises to love the husband, she goes through the entire ceremony thinking about her past boyfriends. In our wedding feast with God, he does not want us distracted by thoughts of our past "loves", those sins we turned to time and time again.

This is why, when we sin, not only do we need forgiveness, we need to "drive and train" our body to reject those sins in the future, and this comes in the form of penance or, if we die before accomplishing this, Purgatory. When we sin once, it so damages us spiritually that it is easier to sin again, so we must consciously chose righteous acts (such as the penance of three Hail Mary and two Our Father prayers the priest might assign us) to recalibrate our conscience. Think of it this way, if we fell into a bad habit of eating too much unhealthy food, we would need a lifestyle change of diet and exercise to correct this, and like penance, it might be uncomfortable sometimes.

Indulgences come as a result of us choosing righteous acts, such as prayer and Scripture study. Because such acts are a sign of turning toward God, he recognizes our attempts to detach from the temporal desires, so he relieves us of the temporal consequences of our actions.

A lot of people think that indulgences are an "abuse" of the church from the time of Luther, but this is incorrect. What happened during this period was that, rightfully so, indulgences were granted for alms-giving. After all, if someone gives to the poor, using money that he could spend on selfish desires and for which he worked hard to obtain, isn't this a good and righteous act? However, one can see how abuses could creep in, which is what happened in this time period.

Another misconception, as mentioned in the question, is that indulgences knock off so many "years" of Purgatory. First off, we do not know enough about Purgatory to even say if actual years are involved. So, when the Church speaks of relieving X number of years from Purgatory, this is saying that one can relieve, through an indulgence, the temporal punishment in Purgatory that would be equal to that many years of penance during earthly life.

One last thing worth mentioning on indulgences is that, as a member of the body of Christ, our sin affects all the parts of that body, which is why we are offending more than just God when we sin (there is no such thing as "private" sin) and another reason we confess to a priest, who stands also as a representative, not just of God, but of the entire human race. Likewise, when we chose righteous acts, God can reward us from the "treasury of satisfactions", which have been realized by the great saints in our Church's history, and he effects this through the power to bind and loosen given to the Church.

There is much to be said about indulgences, which are an infallible teaching of the Church, which means that Catholics are bound to believe in them. For the sake of keeping this post reasonable, I would like to refer readers to some great articles on the subject which have appeared in This Rock, a magazine put out by Catholic Answers.

Primer on indulgences
Myths About Indulgences
How to Gain an Indulgence

In-Vitro Fertilization - Is It Really Wrong?

The tank pictured here contains frozen embryos left over from in-vitro fertilization.

This is probably one of the most difficult Church teachings to discuss with others for two reasons. For one, almost everyone knows a relative or close friend who has had trouble conceiving and has pursued, successfully or not, in-vitro fertilization. Secondly, unlike with contraception, which is a rejection of life, couples who use in-vitro fertilization are doing the opposite – attempting to welcome a new life into the world and into the love of their family.

Catholic couples that use in-vitro fertilization often do so without even realizing that the Church speaks against it (Catechism No. 2377). Rather, these sincere men and women are following what they perceive to be the Christian principles of being fruitful and demonstrating the love of Christ.

For that reason, this explanation isn’t meant to be judgmental toward any who have tried or who have succeeded with this method of fertilization. Children conceived in this way are still children of God, and these couples should be admired for their desire to bring life into the world (at a time when so many view children as a burden). At the same time, through a close examination of in-vitro fertilization, one can see that it is an immoral means to that end. A father, for example, may desire to put food on his family’s table. There is a moral means of doing this (working an extra job and cutting back on expenses) and an immoral means (robbing a bank). We must not fall into the trap of having the end justify the means as we attempt to discern morality.

On the other hand, we have to honest about the fact that there are some who are aware of a church teaching, but chose not to follow it anyway. “It’s just a man-made rule,” they may argue. We know, of course, that Scripture is very clear in stating that the leaders of the church have been entrusted to shepherd the flock (John 12), that these leaders had the power to bind and loosen (Matthew 6), and that the Holy Spirit would guide them to all truth in executing this power (John 6). When the church speaks on a given issue, we are called to trust in the guidance of God – that he would not have established a Church that would lead us astray in issues of morality.

Before examining in-vitro fertilization, it should be pointed out that there are many morally acceptable means of assisting couples that are having difficult conceiving. NaPro Technology (Natural Procreative Technology) has been very effecting in helping struggling couples to identify physical obstacles to conception – obstacles that can then be treated medically. By extension, then, medical steps, such as fertilization drugs and egg-stimulation are fine as long as they do not propose a danger to the mother and child that is disproportionate to the benefit of the treatment. Given the surprising fact that less than .5% of infertile couples benefit from in-vitro fertilization (after much expense and stress), the following factors with this method testify to the intrinsic immorality of this method:

1. It bypasses the marital act – The church opposes contraception, of course, because the primary ends of intercourse are procreation and unity. Contraception destroys both of these (which is why the birth rate is so low and the divorce rate is so high among couples who contracept). We cannot remove either the possibility of life or the complete self-giving from the marital act without consequently removing its inherent sanctity. Likewise, once we understand that children are a physical sign of their parents’ love, it becomes clear that we must not have conception without the sexual act – the act of unity. Secular society has done a good job of convincing us that we are owed children, which we see in the number of same-sex couples and single individuals who undergo artificial insemination. Sometimes couples are unable to conceive, even with the assistance of modern medicine. This is a truly sad fact of life. However, the act of baby-making is sacramentally tied to marital act. Just as the Father and the Son love each other so completely that a third eternal person, the Holy Spirit, spirates forth, a husband and wife are called to love each other so completely that a third human person is conceived. We mustn’t use this as a reason to upset God’s plan for marriage and procreation.

2. It violates the exclusivity of the marital covenant – Marriage is a covenant between two individuals, a husband and wife. As explained in the last paragraph, children are a sacramental expression of that mutual and complete love. When a third party, such as a fertility doctor, enters into the act of conception (and actually completes the act of conception apart from the couple in a laboratory setting), the exclusivity of the marital covenant is violated. It is one thing, a perfectly acceptable thing, for a doctor to assist through medicine or surgery – the couple must still complete the marital act independently of his assistance. In-vitro fertilization makes the husband and wife secondary and passive participators.

3. It uses an immoral means – Masturbation, of self-love, is inherently evil. By simulating the sexual act, it makes a mockery of act of intercourse. Masturbation is necessary for a doctor to collect sperm for in-vitro fertilization. Of course, the goal here is not selfish self-pleasure on the part of the husband, but we have to remember that an immoral means is not justified by the end in mind.

4. It manufactures life – As explained above, children are meant to be a sacramental sign of his parent’s love. For conception to take place in a sterile laboratory setting at the hands of a man or woman in a white coat is perversely oppose to the idea that conception should take place between a husband and wife in the intimacy of their bedroom. When we allow children to be “manufactured” in this way, this adds fuel to the desensitizing of our society toward life. We must not allow any slack in the fight to hold onto the sanctity of life. If children can be manufactured simply because they are desired (as opposed to being a sign of the unbreakable bond between husband and wife), can they not be disposed of when they are not desired, such as we see in abortion?

5. It creates frozen embryos – Anytime something is “manufactured”, there are discarded or defective products. In the process of in-vitro fertilization, not just one – but numerous embryos are created. Actual human children are created, but not implanted in the mother. Some of them are destroyed. Some of them are frozen and kept in that state as long as someone will provide financial support. For every child who is conceived through in-vitro fertilization, there are a number who have been discarded or stored away. If for no other reason, in-vitro fertilization should be opposed because of the casual way in which newly conceived human life is abandoned in the laboratory.

6. It results in a higher number of birth defects - Father Tadeusz Pacholczyk, director of education at the National Catholic Bioethics Center in Philadelphia, writes, “Studies have shown a six-fold elevated risk for in-vitro fertilization for children contracting an eye disease called retinal blastoma versus normally conceived babies. In-vitro fertilization is very unnatural. You’re extracting ova from the woman, culturing them and inspecting the developing embryo in a laboratory setting. They are in a completely unnatural environment for a very long time before they are put back into the womb.”

Too Many Rules?

I heard the comment recently that the Catholic Church has invented too many rules. This person was implying that she wanted a simple "love Jesus" Christianity.

Has the Church "invented" too many rules?

Or have we just "invented" too many sins?

As all Christians agree, our primary "rules" are to love God and to love our neighbors. If we did this perfectly, we wouldn't need any other rules, but our nature as creatures of the flesh mean that we keep straying and each rule of the Catholic Church is simply a way of addressing a new sin (or distraction from Christ) that we've invented.

Consider a marriage (which is appropriate considering who our bridegroom is). The one rule in a marriage is love your spouse. However, should the husband start failing in that duty, it might, over time, appear that the wife is too legalistic.

He starts sleeping in and missing work - she comes up with a rule that, if he loves her, he'll start getting up on time so the paycheck keeps coming home.

He stops giving her attention, so she comes up with the "rule" that he should say "I love you" once in a while.

He starts letting his dirty clothes lay all over - so she comes up with a "rule" that he needs to put his clothes in the hamper.

After a while, that husband might complain that his "legalistic" wife has too many rules, but in reality, he has invited too many imperfections into his love for her.

Likewise, the rules of the church are there to address the thousands of ways we keep coming up with to show less love for Christ. We don't respect the Eucharist, so the church asks for an hour fast. We start sleeping in on Sundays, so the rule is that mass is an obligation.

If we just loved Christ so perfectly that our every act was an expression of our love for him, all rules would go away. If we desire for the Church to stop inventing rules, perhaps we just need to stop inventing sin.

Necessity, after all, is the mother of invention.

It's All Greek to Me

I'm just about three weeks away from finishing my first year of Biblical Greek. When I say "first year", I mean the equivalent of that as I am not actually enrolled in any particular class. Rather, I've purchased the first year textbook and workbook authored by William Mounce and have been working my way through it in the evenings for the last few months.

A couple years ago I tried to learn Spanish in much the same way, and I got good enough with the language to read the first book in the Harry Potter series (with a good lexicon at my side). However, I soon realized that I had no skill whatsoever in actually conversing in that language. I just don't have the ear for a spoken language, nor the exposure to a culture which would allow me to develop it.

I realized that the ideal language for me would be one that is primarily a written language. That combined with my apologetics work, made the choice fairly simple, either Hebrew or Koine (means "common") Greek. I am writing this particular post as an advertisement for anyone else who is interested in picking up another language to consider Greek, as well. Here's why:

1. Greek is, as I mentioned, a written language. A situation will never come up in which you will need to ask for directions in Koine Greek or have a conversation about politics. And if you are not skilled in picking up the oral aspects of language (or do not have the opportunity to immerse yourself), Greek can be studied without that anxiety.

2. Koine Greek is a "dead" language in the sense that new words are not being added anymore. You will never have to learn the Koine word for microwave or motorcycle.

3. Koine Greek is a "limited" language, at least if you are learning it primarily for Biblical studies. There is a finite amount of vocabulary and grammar that one has to master to accomplish the goal of reading Scripture and the writings of the early church. For example, the Greek word "κια" means "and". Now that I've told you that, you have officially learned one out of ten of all the words occurrences in the New Testament.

4. Biblical Greek is a very "regular" language. A good understanding of the rules that govern the tenses and forms of different verbs and nouns make the "morphology" of the words (in most cases) relatively predictable. This keeps memorization to a minimum (though there is still a substantial amount of it).

5. Lastly, if the reason for study of Greek is to interact with the Bible, one can dive into that pursuit fairly soon in the learning process, seeing the rewards of such study much earlier than with other languages.

The resource I recommend for study of Greek is the series by William Mounce, which is the most popular among seminaries at this time. Mounce has the ability to sort through all the complication and give simple, straight-forward explanations that other textbooks (at least the ones I've used) neglect. Probably the most effective way to study independently would be with a small group of friends who have the same goal. Not having a professor handy to help with confusing concepts can be difficult, so studying with a group helps with that to a small degree.

I mention all this because, in order to reinforce what I've learned, I would like to lead a small groups study, perhaps over the summer, of individuals who are interested in learning Koine Greek. I am by no means to be a "teacher" of the language, but I think my grasp of the basics is strong enough that I would be able to guide others through the wonderful textbook that I used.

As Catholics, we are fortunate because our approach to Christianity (the correct approach, by the way) does not obligate us to start from scratch in trying to determine doctrine from the sometimes ambiguous text of Scripture. We have the infallible guide of the Church to give us the luxury of a childlike faith, where we can put our trust in the parental care of Holy Mother Church. With that said, however, it is worth pointing out that very little of Scripture has actually be interpreted infallibly. There is much in this great treasure that is left up to our personal study and devotion (as long as we do not come to interpretations that contradict Tradition or the Doctrine of the Faith). Much of it can be read for personal edification and for guidance in daily life, as well as for a deeper understanding of the teachings that have been passed on to us through the Catholic Church.

And as with any literature, the truest relationship comes when we read it in the original words, catching the cultural and linguistic nuances that sometimes add a beauty or depth that translations always fall short in conveying. Though I am only a partial way into my exploration of Koine Greek, what I have found has already made the effort worthwhile.