Echoes from the Past - Priesthood of the People

Of all the challenges thrown almost exclusively at Catholics, think for a moment about which is the oldest in the Book.

If you need a hint, notice that I asked which was the oldest, not in the history of Christianity, but of the Book, itself. Is it: "Why do you Catholics pray to the saints?"Or: "Why do you Catholics confess to a priest?"How about: "Why do you Catholics believe Jesus was an only child?"

Actually, from what I am able to tell, the oldest anti-Catholic argument in the book is this one: "Why do you Catholics call them priests? Don't you know that 1 Peter 2:5, 9 tells us we are all part of a royal priesthood?"

Most non-Catholic Christians are very bothered that we call a select group of men "priests" when Scripture appears to apply the term to all believers. To many, it seems to be just another example of where Catholics "add to Scripture".

What do we say to this as Catholics? Only that we agree! As Catholics, we use the same verses (1 Peter 2:5, 9) to discuss the common priesthood. We are all priests in that we offer prayers and personal sacrifices (time, money, luxuries) to the Lord. Does this mean, however, that there is not a sacramental priesthood as well?

What I would like to do is jump back to the Old Testament for a moment because the reason that this particular attack on Catholicism is the oldest in the Book is because ... the first time we see it is in Exodus! Here's a side-by-side comparison to illustrate:1 Peter 2:9 reads, "But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a peculiar people ..."Exodus 19:6 reads, "And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and a holy nation ..."

So, the idea of a common priesthood is not some New Testament institution; it existed throughout salvation history. But look:1 Tim. 5:17; Jas. 5:14-15 shows priests (presbyters, elders) tending to the flock through preaching and by administering the sacraments.Exodus 19:21,22 reads: "And the Lord said unto Moses, Go down, charge the people ... and let the priests also ... sanctify themselves." This verse shows that there was, among the common priesthood, a special "priestly" group (in fact, later in Exodus, we see the establishment of the Levitical priesthood). Just as the New Testament "common priesthood" still allows for a sacramental priesthood, the Old Testament "kingdom of priests" allowed for a special sacrificial priesthood.

Yet, today many non-Catholics complain about a set of men set apart as "priests" in the Catholic Church, as if they are somehow exalted above the rest of us. This charge usually extends to include the bishops and the pope. However, if any of them would carefully read Numbers 16:3, they would see a prophetic foreshadowing of their charge as the Israelites grumbled against Moses and Aaron: "You have gone too far! For all the congregation are holy, every one of them, and the Lord is among them; why then do you exalt yourselves above the assembly of the Lord?"

Why is this the "oldest attack in civilization"? Because it wasn't originally directed at Catholics; all through salvation history God has called for his church to have a select priesthood among the faithful. This isn't some new "Catholic invention". Rather, its roots extend all the way through the history of Israel. Unfortunately, so does the grumbling.

AIDS in Africa - Reprise

After my last post on AIDS in Africa, I got into a conversation (over a margarita) with a friend about my suggestion that the condom distribution is both and ineffective and a perverse use of money that could otherwise fill empty bellies (or, as one commentor suggested, support economic incentives, such as micro credit loans, to help lift the nation out of poverty). This friend belongs to a local chuch that is very much into missionary work and social programs. In my opinion, this chuch is also very liberal socially and often falls into the trap of shooting coyotes.


Despite research-based objections to condom distribution, her response was that, as long as we can help just one person, condom distribution was worthwhile. She argued that, even though the Catholic Church has a moral problem with contraception, its leaders and missionaries shouldn't try to discourage the efforts of the condom crusaders.


I think this conversation illustrates the problem with many churches (including some Catholic communities) that focus on social programs to the exclusion of the true mission of the church. It is true that part of Christ's commission for us is to help the less fortunate, and this is marked by his suggestion that "whatever you do unto the least of these, you do unto me." But we must also remember that it was Christ who rebuked Judas for suggesting that the oil used to annoint Jesus's head should have instead been sold in order to feed the poor.


The end does not justify the means. However well-intentioned our efforts are, we must never allow them to detract from our giving glory to God. And the greatest way that we can give glory to God is to become instruments for the spiritual salvation of others.


Let's pretend, then, that condom distribution is highly successful in Africa. Let's pretend the money for contraception couldn't more effectively be put toward food or economic programs.


The great commission of Christ is for us to be fishers of men - to be his tool in bringing all nations into communion with him.


And if we strive for social justice at the expense of that, we have failed in our mission as Christians. There is nothing inherently wrong with taking measures to extend a person's life or to relieve his pain and suffering, but if in doing so we must encourage him to do something which we know to be sinful, we have forgotten the greater significance of our church.

Similarly, there is nothing wrong with a church hosting a program, such as the Dave Ramsey Financial Peace University, to help couples out of debt. Getting people out of debt is a good thing. However, when the process runs contrary to salvific values, that's it. Game over. When the priest invests so much time in the debt program that he can't prepare a good homily or can't make sufficient time for the confession booth, social justice has gotten in the way of the Christian mandate. If indebted couples were encouraged to do something immoral, such as to run a pornography website (even if this might lift them out of debt quicker), social justice has run contrary to the Christian mandate.

In Africa, this is exactly what many "Christian" groups are proposing to do - support an immoral defence against AIDS. Even more, they are encouraging a remedy that will, itself, lead to further immorality as African people get the wrong impression that condoms will allow them impunity as they engage in adultery and wanton extramarital sex.

God does not cause AIDS, but he brings, from all misfortune, good to those who love him. Perhaps the good that he is brining from the epidemic in Africa is the mission of so many to teach the virtues of chastity and respect. Too many assume the worst of the world's poor, treating them like savages who cannot control their basic urges.

As Christians, however, we respect the basic dignity of every human being, and we know that, having been made in the image of God, all men and women are capable of rising up beyond their basic urges.

Compassion is not helping someone to lead a long, healthy life if that life is lived in opposition to God's law. And preventing a temporal disease at the expense of an eternal reward isn't a trade-off the Catholic Church is willing to make.

A Chilling Realization

Most people misread Robert Frost.

To most, he is a simple rustic poet for whom the muses might provide no more substance than the beauty of a blossoming apple tree.

But Frost is deep. And his simplicity is deceptive, and there is no greater proof of this than the line from "The Road Not Taken": "I took the one less traveled by / And that has made all the difference." Judging by its appearance on inspirational posters and in television commercials, this line sums up, for many, the idea that a life lived to the fullest is that life which ventures down the untrodden path, the suggestion being that a person might find more fullfillment as an artist, for instance, than as a business man.

But see ... that isn't what Frost's poem is about. Here it is in full in case it's been a while since sophomore English:

The Road Not Taken
by Robert Frost

Two roads diverged in a yellow wood,
And sorry I could not travel both
And be one traveler, long I stood
And looked down one as far as I could
To where it bent in the undergrowth;

Then took the other, as just as fair,
And having perhaps the better claim,
Because it was grassy and wanted wear;
Though as for that the passing there
Had worn them really about the same,

And both that morning equally lay
In leaves no step had trodden black.
Oh, I kept the first for another day!
Yet knowing how way leads on to way,
I doubted if I should ever come back.

I shall be telling this with a sigh
Somewhere ages and ages hence:
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I --
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.

Did you catch it?

If not, then start with the title. If this guy is so happy with how his life turned out, why isn’t the poem titled, “The Road Taken”? Why is he focused on the path he left behind? Can you imagine writing a love poem to your spouse titled something like, “The Woman Not Married”?

And come on, if there really had been a road less traveled, how come “both that morning equally lay?” Isn’t it because “the passing there had worn them really about the same?”

Lastly, of course, there’s the sigh. Wow, things really must have turned out well for our friend. After all, don’t we all enjoy a good sigh when life turns out full of roses and sunshine? I always wonder about that third-to-last line, too, the one right before the quote people are always so fond of. What was he going to say before he caught himself: Two roads diverged in the woods and I really screwed up, perhaps.

But no, he catches himself. He fills in that awkward silence with self-delusion.

This guy, the speaker of Frost’s poem, didn’t take the road less traveled. He made the wrong choice. He regrets it. But “way leads on to way”, and rather than just come clean with himself, he does what so many of us do, which is to rationalize his mistake. This is why evangelization is so hard.

How many of the people we talk to have gone down the wrong path, and have built their paychecks, reputations, or lifestyles around that choice. How many of our own friends and family have written their own poems, some of them titled, “The Grace Not Accepted”, “The Commandments Not Followed”, or “The God Not Worshiped”?

Unlike in the Frost poem, however, there truly is a road less traveled in our spiritual lives. Jesus tells us in Matthew 7:14 that the gate is small and the road is narrow that leads to life. Many will chose a different path though. After way leads on to way, many will realize their mistake, but as the old man in the poem has discovered, sometimes it is easier to comfort ourselves with platitudes than to make the difficult trip back to that fork in the road.

More Notes from a Language Purist

Stepping away from apologetics for a moment, I have to mention that I love the book Elements of Style by E.B. White. Only an English major would say that, I guess, but it really is a book that everyone should read.

Not only will White sharpen your writing, but his sharp style is so refreshing. Here's an example from his chapter on troublesome words:

"Prestigious. Often an adjective of last resort. It's in the dictionary, but that doesn't mean you have to use it."

Notes from a Language Purist

"I could care less." Incorrect and silly. If you could care less, than that means you do care to some degree, which is never what people mean when they say it.

"I couldn't care less." Correct. You care so little that you couldn't possibly care less than you already do.

e.g. - I couldn't care less what you feel is morally right, the Holy Spirit-guided, Christ-established authority of the Church says you are wrong.

Why I'm Leaving the Church

The other day I removed my statues of Mary and St. Francis from out in the yard.

It bothered me to do that a little, but my Fundamentalist friend across the street explained to me very plainly that we aren’t supposed to make graven images.

“It’s right there in The Bible,” he said.

“Really?”

“Yeah. Statues of Mary, the saints. That’s all idolatry.”

“Oh gosh, well I sure don’t want to be an idolater.” As I turned to leave, though, I noticed the statues of Mickey and Minnie Mouse in his wife’s flower garden. “Joe,” I said, pointing at the two mice. “I don’t mean to be critical, but aren’t you afraid God will strike you dead for idolatry?”

“Oh gosh, no,” he said with a smile. “God’s okay with those fellas.”

“God’s okay with cartoon rodents, but not the Virgin Mother or saints?”

“Oh, you poor Catholics. You just don’t know The Bible that well, do you?”

“No, Joe, we sure don’t.” I remembered what he had explained to me last week about how, after the King James Bible dropped out of Heaven into Jesus’s hands, the Catholic Church did everything it could to hide it, from locking it up to burning people at the stake for reading it.

“You see,” he explained, taking a seat on his porch swing, “in 1 Samuel, chapter 6, when the Philistines stole the Ark of the Lord, God gave them a plague of mice and a bad case of the hemorrhoids.”

“Ouch.”

“You’re not kidding, ‘ouch’. Anyway, long story short, those Philistines had to give the Ark back, but they also had to make little golden mice and hemorrhoids so all their problems would go away.”

“Oh,” I said as everything clicked into place. “So we can have statues of mice and hemorrhoids –”

“And snakes,” he cut in.

“Of course, snakes,” I said. “Just not the men and women who selflessly gave their lives to Christ?”

“And definitely not Mary.”

I left with a good feeling in my heart now that Joe had set everything straight. So, I’ll let St. Francis and the immaculately conceived, ever-virgin Mother of God collect dust in my garage. After all, I found two strange shaped rocks in the woods behind my house. Spray-painted gold, they’ll make for a couple of well-formed hemorrhoids.

And they’ll look just perfect by the rose bushes out front.

Minimum Wage - Minimum Growth

A co-worker who reads my blog commented on the posts I've done on minimum wage by mentioning that, after the last raise in minimum wage, there was not a job loss, but rather a job increase.

His point, of course, is that this is proof against the claim that people such as myself make, which is that for a business to increase the minimum wage, that additional money must be accounted for in one of three places, either in 1) a decrease in profits for shareholders, 2) an increase in prices, or 3) in a cut-back of employees (hint: it won't be #1).

This doesn't occur to people right at first, but the money to pay higher "minimum" wages has to come from somewhere. Even if someone were naive enough to believe that a well-intentioned CEO would sell his summer home(s), his plane, and his big boat to increase the wages of his employees, the simple truth is that this wouldn't cover the expense.

After all, it isn't just the minimum wage employees who would see an increase. Their increase would send a ripple up through pretty much the entire range of salaries. Another friend of mine disagreed with this theory, pointing to the fact that such an across-the-board increase did not happen at a local restaurant. The raise in minimum wage (affecting mostly the cook staff) did not raise wages for the remaining employees.

And it probably wouldn't. But at a union company it would, especially as union contracts are negotiated using the current minimum wage as a plumb line. New contracts, then, typically see an increase in wages for all union employees, whose representatives stipulate that seniority must be reflected by a increase in pay. Calculate the implications of this for a company with a few thousand employees (and include the increase in taxes and benefits), and the end result is that prices must either be raised significantly, or the bottom-rung positions must be eliminated in order to keep more skilled labor. And after the union-based companies raise the bar, you can bet the fair-market competition would bring those wage increases throughout the community, even my friend's restaurant.

This relates to Catholic social teachings because an increase in prices and a reduction of unskilled positions hurts exactly the people that a raise in minimum wage was intended to benefit, the struggling poor. This is especially true because many companies pride themselves on trying to provide entry-level position (the first type of job to be cut) to allow unskilled workers to find an entrance into the workplace, learn a trade, and build a resume. There are simply better options out there for assisting the less-fortunate, especially since so much of a minimum wage increase ends up in the gasoline tanks of teenagers.

Which brings us back to the idea of job loss. The earlier point that we saw a job increase after the last minimum wage is a red herring. To use an analogy to illustrate, if a child drinks a lot of coffee, it supposedly stunts his growth. A parent to that child, however, could try to refute that argument by pointing out the fact that all the time that child had been addicted to his three cups of coffee in the morning, from about age eight to seventeen, he had grown from just over three feet to five-foot-five.

"See," that parent might say, "he grew two-feet, five-inches, so coffee must not stunt growth, as you say."

But isn't the question here how much that child would have grown had he not been stunting his own growth? Perhaps five-seven? Perhaps six-feet?

Of course there was job growth after the last minimum wage. This happened for a few reasons, such as population growth and the fact that the artificial minimum wage was often times lower than the market-set minimum, making it more or less impotent (though this probably won't be the case with some of the increases that have passed recently, which are set to increase according to inflation).

The issue of minimum wage is, of course, a lot more complex than this one point, but when people point to job growth during the years after an increase in minimum wage as "proof" that it doesn't reduce jobs, the real issue is with how many jobs might have been created had we allowed the free market to grow without artificial restrictions.

Food, Not Condoms

It seems like every time I chat with someone about the Church's teaching on contraception, the
conversation always ends up on the subject of the AIDS epidemic in Africa, where the "clueless" Church and the "dangerous right-wing" conservatives are supposedly killing off the entire continent by refusing to support the mass distribution of condoms among the people there.

Well, okay, so let's look at that logic.

First off, condoms aren't working in Africa. As cited in this article, studies have indicated that there has been no meaningful difference in the number of HIV cases, and no examples of an HIV epidemic being turned back, in areas of widespread condom distribution.

On the other hand, in some poverty-stricken areas, a different approach has been tried. Programs emphasizing chastity have lowered the HIV rate from 21% to 6% in Uganda and from 30% to 10% in Kampala.

I mention that these areas are "poverty-stricken" specifically for this reason: many who push the proliferation of condoms among the poor do so under the assumption that they are not capable of the type of responsible behavior necessary for chaste behavior. How do I know this? Because they've told me. "It may work for you and your wife," I was told recently, "but we can't expect these people to have the discipline for something like that."

So much for the compassion of the "compassionate" social liberals out there.

But aren't we at least doing some good by getting condoms to the African people?

Well, consider that the general cost of a condom shipped to Africa is fifty cents. On the other hand, a meal can be provided to an African adult for twenty-five cents. For every condom we send to Africa, we could feed two hungry people. In an area such as Uganda, where the cost-effective chastity program is reducing the HIV numbers, we can focus our money on a more immediate concern: putting food into empty stomachs.

But common consensus is that we have to keep shipping condoms, boxes of them, to Africa. In fact, there are some cases in which we are shipping more condoms than just about anything else.

The website Food Not Condoms recounts the story of a woman who visited a health clinic in Africa. She opened the refrigerator where the antibiotics and medicine should have been stored and found nothing but three shelves stacked with boxes of condoms.

"Please," her guide told her, "when you get back to America, tell your country that we need band aids, and no more condoms!"

So yeah, the Catholic Church and social conservatives are a pretty heartless bunch, believing, as we do, that beans and rice make a slightly tastier meal for an African child than a piece of rubber.

Dear Ms. Lee ... Part II

(After receiving no response from Ms. Lee at KOMU on her fertility story, I sent letters or made phone calls to three other individuals who would have been connected with that broadcast for various reasons. None of them responded, so I then carbon-copied them the following letter, sent to the general manager of the station.)

To whom it may concern:

In February, one of your reporters did a story on couples who are having trouble conceiving. The young lady who did the report, Bonyen Lee, focused on In-Vitro Fertilization and briefly mentioned "fertility drugs" as an alternative at the end of her piece. She did not mention, however, that another alternative exists, which is Natural Family Planning. NFP, and in particular the Creighton Model, is statistically much more effective than In-Vitro fertilization. In addition, it has many other wonderful benefits, including early diagnosis of health problems in a woman. Lastly, it has none of the controversy associated with it that In-Vitro does. I e-mailed Miss Lee regarding my hope that the "Your Health" segment could run a story on NFP. I offered to put her in touch with medical professionals who specialize in this approach. Especially given KOMU's concern to let the viewers be heard (as shown by the new "Your View" segment), I expected some reply, even if KOMU wasn't interested in pursuing this story. However, I never heard back. I then contacted three others at your station and again heard no response.

I understand that your staff is busy, but I would think that if one of your reporters ran a story that was, even unintentionally, one-sided, you would be eager to correct this. So, again, I extend my offer to put KOMU in touch with those who can help to do a story on the benefits of Natural Family Planning, both as a means of limiting children and as a means of helping couples conceive. In addition, I can put you in touch with many couples, such as my wife and myself, who have experienced great benefits from this program.

Thank you for your time.

Spencer Allen

While I didn't hear back from the station manager, this e-mail caught the attention of two of the individuals I contacted, including the news director, Stacey Woelfels, who wrote:

Mr. Allen,

I apologize for the lack of response earlier. I’ve searched my e-mail files and can’t find any earlier e-mail from you. It may be that the University filters kept all of us from getting it.

In any case, I looked back at Bonyen Lee’s story to review your criticisms. I’ll disagree that her story was one-sided, since it focused on specific medical treatments being done by the clinics she mentioned. Having said that, I am still interested in NFP as a possible story. It’s fairly easy to find on-line resources as background for the story. So my question to you would be whether there is an active NFP community in mid-Missouri where we could find couples and counselors. I’m guessing you’re involved with this approach personally, so you probably have those names readily available and can send them my way. I’ll review and see if we can develop a story.

Again, sorry for the apparent snubbing on your concerns here. They were unintentional.

Sincerely,

Stacey Woelfel
News Director

It is interesting that our definitions of "one-sided" differ so much. Mr. Woelfels is implying that the fertility story was not one-sided because it looked at the treatments done by the clinics she mentioned, and since those particular clinics don't offer Natural Family Planning as a treatment, she could not include it in the report. I would argue, however, that her selection (even if it had been done unintentionally) of only those clinics was a one-sided presentation of the options available as a whole. After all, by what criterion would one exclude clinics that offer a natural means of achieving pregnancy? However, in the interest of picking my battles, I responded back to Mr. Woelfels that I was interested in assisting with a story, and current progress (supposedly) is that this story is somewhere on the queue for the news team.

Warning Label for New Birth Control Pill

The media has been abuzz about the new birth control pill that the FDA recently approved, which supposedly eliminates a woman's period during the entire time she is taking the medication. Of course, those pushing the new pill claim that its side-effects are minimal (yeah, just as they've claimed about all the cancer, osteoporosis, heart disease, depression, fetal abnormality, ovarian cyst causing contraceptives we've had in the past).

However, I thought of a few side-effects that usually don't make it into the disclaimers:

Warning, divine revelation and the Christ-given teaching authority of the Church have determined that contraception is indisputably linked to the following:

• a chronic weakening of morality within our culture (e.g. pornography and abuse)
  
• frequent exercise of dominion over the human body (e.g. embryonic stem cells and euthanasia)
• general increase in number of abortions performed annually
  
• excessive perception of women as mere objects of pleasure
• absence of temperance within marriage (e.g. adultery)
• abnormally high levels of divorce (up to twenty times higher in some studies)
• artificial notions of superiority to God and his plan for marriage and the human body
• perpetual burning sensation from rejection of grace and of God's law

It should be noted that church doctors have discovered a remedy that provides an instantaneous reversal of many of the above symptoms. If you have recently used contraception in your relationship, please see your nearest spiritual pharmacist for a prescription of absolution and penance (note: prescribed dosage of penance must be taken completely, even if symptoms appear to have diminished).

A Man of Letters

Below this post are copies of two e-mails I've sent recently to others who have, in some way, either misrepresented the Catholic faith or who have not presented a balanced view of some aspect of morality.

One of my friends on the e-newsletter list has a signature in his e-mails that reads something like this: I was waiting for somebody to do something. Then I realized that somebody was me. That signature articulates what I've tried to take to heart over the last two years, which is that I would do whatever I could to defend the teachings of Christ against misconceptions and antagonism, whether I find it in a conversation with a friend or a website that I might stumble across.

Some might question the effectiveness of sending e-mails, as I have done. Is it worth the time? Should I be picking my battles more carefully. As I'll show in a future post, at least one of the correspondences I begin below has positive fruits, but to explain my motivation, I want to jump back a couple of years.

A relative of mine was dying, and I had a chance to meet the hospice minister. We got to talking and discovered that we had a common interest in Christian apologetics (though we each defined "Christian" differently). Later, when I took some time to visit his website, I found a "Bible Study for Dedicated Catholics". I knew what this was before even looking. The "study" consisted of a series of questions, most of them loaded, that used misconceptions and presumptions to steer Catholics away from the trappings of Rome.

I e-mailed the author of this material, the hospice minister I had met before, and explained my concern. He was more than happy to meet, explaining that he felt "there might just be a reason the Holy Spirit brought us together."

There was. But it wasn't the reason he thought.

Long story short, we met for several times, and the minister (who goes by the pseudonym of Timothy Cross), was surprised to hear the Catholic faith articulated the way I did. I didn't use fancy or slippery wording. I didn't sugar-coat our teachings. I simply presented the faith as the Church taught it and provided Biblical support that he hadn't previously considered.

What came of these conversations?

Two things.

For one, Timothy e-mailed some time ago and admitted that he know realized that the Bible nowhere taught Scripture as the sole means of authority for Christians. He is still a long way from agreeing with the Catholic Church, he admitted, but conceded this crucial point on authority.

Second, a visit to his site (you can do that here) reveals something remarkable. There is no longer a link for a "Bible Study for Dedicated Catholics". Admitting that he still has much study to do, Mr. Cross removed the material to which I had previously objected.

I thought that took a lot of integrity on his part, which is why I am proud to have him as a friend.

I don't take credit for the work that was done in this instance. At our best, we are but tools for God's work. As Mr. Cross implied, there was a reason the Holy Spirit brought us together, and if you ever feel compelled to speak up against a misrepresentation of the Catholic faith, I hope that you realize there is a reason for that, too.

Dear Ms. Lee ...

(Note: I sent this e-mail to a reporter at KOMU and received no reply. I sent her a follow-up and still haven't heard from her. My next step was to contact the news director, who did respond to my concerns. I'll post my e-mail to him and his response sometime in the near future.)

Dear Ms. Lee,

I watched with great interest your report on fertility treatments and want to thank you for giving attention to the struggle that many couples face in attempting to welcome children into their relationships. I was disappointed, however, that your report made no mention of a third option, and one that has proven much more successful than IVF.

The Creighton Model of Natural Family Planning, is based on a scientific understanding of the woman's reproductive system, including the discharge that her body creates during different periods of the reproductive cycle. Many women who previously had difficulty conceiving are finding great success by turning to this model. As I mentioned, the success fate for the Creighton model is much greater than with IVF, but the cost for learning this method is pennies compared to the thousands requred for IVF.

In addition, there are none of the health risks found in other fertility treatments as no drugs are introduced into the body. Actually, because of the intimate knowledge of her own body that a woman learns through NFP (especially the Creighton Model), disorders in the body can be identified and treated very early, providing the side-effect of greater potential health for the mother.

Lastly, there are some serious moral debates about IVF because of the number of embryos that must be created in order to achieve that one successful pregnancy, yet this problem does not exist with the Creighton Model (and other similar methods).

I hope that, as a follow-up to your report, you might consider a supplimental report on NFP. Not only do its benefits prove superior to some other forms of fertility treatments (without much of the risk), but it also provides a safe and more effective alternative to contraception for couples who want to limit the size of their families. Please let me know if I can provide you with more information or put you in touch with local medical specialists in the area of NFP.

Again, thank you for your nice report, and I hope I can count on you to get the word out about a much-ignored alternative to help couples who so desperately want to welcome life into their relationships.

-Spencer Allen

Dear Mr. Hennecke ...

Dear Mr. Hennecke,

You were identified by "The Interactive Bible" (www.bible.ca) as the nearest correspondent to my location, which is in Jefferson City, Missouri.

I intended to contact the hosts of the site directly, but the only contact information that was given was for area "instructors" and "correspondents". I wanted to express my disappointment with the content of your site. Much of what it contained relied on circular reasoning and unfounded assumptions which, if explored, seem to point to some concerns with a "Bible-only" philosophy.

In the spirit of Christian charity, I wish to have the opportunity to dialog with someone affiliated with www.bible.ca to address some of these misrepresentations. I run a Catholic apologetics ministry in the Jefferson City area and hope to be able to chronicle some of our correspondence on my blog, apologeticsfromscratch.blogspot.com. This letter will appear as a post for today, just above essays on infant baptism and the intercession of the saints.

Thank you for your time and attention to this letter.

In Christ,
Spencer Allen

Is Infant Baptism Valid?

No area divides Christianity more sharply than that of baptism. The disagreements from whether or not baptism is necessary to the age of valid baptism. Even the very mode of baptism (immersion, sprinkling, pouring) is debated.

This, in itself, should be ample proof of the necessity of an authoritative teaching authority as the division is not simply between Catholics and Protestants. Even Christians who claim to go by the plain sense of Scripture are at sharp odds regarding baptism. As Catholics, we are fortunate to have, not only the inspired Scripture to guide us in understanding this doctrine, but the Holy Spirit guided Tradition of the Church, as well as protection from error in the magisterium.

Nevertheless, for purposes of this essay on infant baptism, we will rely solely upon Scripture. We will pull from no church fathers, church councils, or papal writings. Because of this, the argument can be seen in terms that our “Bible-only” brothers and sisters can understand. In addition, this approach will illustrate how truly “Catholic” Scripture is to begin with. Under a close examination of Scripture alone, there can be no doubt that infant baptism is part of God’s plan for salvation.

The argument against infant baptism rests upon two basic foundations: A) the absence of any direct mention of infant baptism in Scripture and B) the idea that baptism must be preceded by repentance (Acts 2:38), belief (Mark 16:16), and confession of faith (Romans 10:9), which are surely actions which are beyond the ability of a newborn.

Regarding point A, one can only agree that there are no direct references to infant baptism in Scripture. There are indirect references, to be discussed later, and there are certainly no places where Scripture directly forbids the baptism of infants and children. It shouldn’t be any surprise to us, though, that in the early Church the overwhelming majority of the Christians baptized would be adults, or that Scripture should only directly mention the baptism of adults.

After all, if Catholics and Protestants were to team up to convert all Muslims, for example, to Christianity, would we show up at the daycares? Of course not. Assuming that we all came to an agreement that infant baptism was necessary, we would still aim our efforts at the heads of the households, those who steered the faith of the entire family, the fathers and mothers. Our efforts would look strikingly similar to the efforts we see in the New Testament.

Still, how could one justify infant baptism if Scripture makes clear that baptism must be preceded by repentance, belief, and confession of faith? The simple answer is that forgiveness of sins is not the only effect of baptism. In fact, this sacramental act accomplishes three things:

1. Baptism removes one from a condition of sin through burial with Christ (Romans 6:4) and infusion of sanctifying grace (1 Cor. 6:11) and an indwelling of the Holy Spirit (John 1:33, 3:5, Matthew 3:11)
2. Baptism cleans one of committed sin Acts 2:37-38
3. Mark of initiation into Christian faith

The baptisms that we witness in the New Testament are, by and large, adult baptism. This means, of course, that the baptized have come from non-Christian backgrounds. For these individuals, repentance was necessary because of the sinful lives they lead apart from the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Belief was essential to establish a break from the false Gods of their pagan (in many cases) background or from a superficial devotedness to worldly things. And, of course, confession of belief was a testimony to the completeness and whole-heartedness of the conversion.

For adults.

Children below the age of reason, however, would have no need of repentance or of a rejection of a former faith. However, even with children, baptism is necessary for introducing them into a life filled with grace and initiating them into the Christian faith. After all, by claiming that one must be of the age of reason to be baptized, aren’t we putting salvation in our hands, instead of in the sovereign hands of God? In Jeremiah 31:33, we see that, under the New Covenant, God would write his law “in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts.” This foreshadowing perfectly captures the idea of infant baptism, where children are baptized so that, through the Holy Spirit, God can write his law on their hearts. Does God need us at the age of reason for this?

To truly understand Christian baptism, one must put himself into the mind of a first century Jew. After all, the New Testament was largely written to a Jewish audience (and also to a first-century Gentile audience, which would have understood the culture and customs of the Jews). In doing so, one verse in particular would stand out glaringly in a study of baptism. In Col 2:11-12, Paul writes, “In him you were also circumcised with a circumcision not administered by hand, by stripping off the carnal body, with the circumcision of Christ. You were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead.”

Paul, therefore, draws a sharp parallel between baptism and circumcision (the baptism of the heart). At first glance, this makes absolutely no sense. After all, circumcision is a surgical removal of part of the body (a very sensitive part) as an initiation into the faith. Wouldn’t an introduction into Christianity be better described as a “renewal” of the heart or a “washing” of the heart, as it is in other places? How does the idea of circumcision, an Old Testament ritual of mutilation, help us understand baptism? How could it capture of the idea of sanctification through baptism?

To a Jew, it would have made perfect sense.

Under the Old Covenant, circumcision was marked by four attributes: A) it was performed on males only, B) it was a mark of initiation into the covenant, C) it was performed on infants in anticipation of the faith, and C) it was performed on adult converts, following repentance and belief in the Israelite God.

Notice point C. Though adult conversions to Judaism were rare, they did occur but had to be preceded by a rejection of the sinful and false lifestyle from which the convert had come, just as in Christianity today. This did not, however, preclude the possibility that infants would be baptized. Just as infants in the Old Covenant were circumcised in “anticipation” of the faith, so infants under the New Covenant are baptized in anticipation of their parent’s faith. In addition, infants were circumcised as a mark of initiation into the covenant, for the same reason Christian infants are baptized today. Remember, Christ did not come to abolish the Old Law, but to fulfill it (Matt. 5:17). Given the connection that Paul draws between circumcision and baptism, we should not assume differences that are not directly spelled out in Scripture.

Thus, the second point of those who believe that baptism is reserved for adults only falls flat.
We must always read the New Testament with a thorough understanding of the Old Testament and the Covenant it recorded. The New Testament was not meant to be a “from scratch” exposition of Christianity. Rather, as Christ came to fulfill the Old Law, the gospels, the epistles, and Revelation are meant to build upon and clarify what we learn in the Old Testament, but not to replace it. With this in mind, we should examine the more important verses in the New Testament regarding baptism. In order to avoid bias, however, we will not read them as 21st century Christians; rather, we’ll read them like 1st century Jews.

To begin, we need to visit Paul and Silas as they pray and sing hymns among the jailors in Acts 16. After a great earthquake, which opened the doors to the prison, the jailor woke and was prepared to kill himself, thinking the prisoners had escaped. Upon hearing Paul’s voice, however, he fell before them and asked, “Men, what must I do to be saved?” The answer is remarkable. “Believe in the Lord Jesus,” Paul and Silas tell him, “And you will be saved, you and your household.” Now, as it turns out, everyone in the jailor’s family was old enough to appreciate the message preached by the two disciples.

Yet Paul and Silas did not know this. They had not had conversation with the jailor before the earthquake. They did not ask him how old his family was. They didn’t even tell him that his family had to believe before being saved. The faith of the jailor, the head of the household, would have been sufficient to bring the entire family into the faith. It is a nice coincidence that everyone in his family was of the age of reason, but Paul and Silas were apparently not working on this assumption when they made the promise of salvation to the jailor’s entire family.

We see entire households being baptized numerous times in Scripture: 1 Cor. 1:16 (Stephanas), Acts 14:15-16 (Lydia), Acts 18:8 (Crispus), and Acts 10:47-48 (Cornelius). In Biblical times, a “household” included ones spouse and children, as well as any servants and their children.
For those who believe that baptism should be reserved to those who are of the age of reason, one of the most commonly cited proof-texts is Acts 8:12, which reads, “But when they [Samarians] believed Philip as he preached good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.” On face value, this seems to support adult baptism. However, just as in the case of similar verses (Acts 2:41), where many adults were baptized, we have to remember that the primary objective of the apostles was to convert the heads of the households, who would then return and have their families baptized at the newly established local churches.

Secondly, it is hard to miss that Acts 8:12 reads that “both men and women” were baptized, not “only men and women.” Why is this important? Remembering that baptism is a circumcision of the heart, we can understand that a first century Jew would have assumed that baptism was only open to males, as circumcision had been. However, Luke, in writing Acts, wanted to emphasize that baptism, the circumcision of the New Covenant, was open to both sexes, men and women. This is why the inclusive “both” is used as opposed to the exclusive “only”. Jesus came, not to abolish the Old Law, but to fulfill it. Thus, we are to follow the Old Testament types (in this case, circumcision) as they are modeled for us unless the New Testament develops the doctrine beyond that. While the New Testament is silent on forbidding children from this fulfillment of circumcision (of which they took part), it speaks to the inclusion of women.

If we are to speak where Scripture speaks and be silent where Scripture is silent, as our Bible-only friends like to say, then we must respect that Scripture has not spoken in prohibition of infant and children baptism. On the contrary, one of the most beautiful gifts of baptism is the infusion of God’s grace, which knows no age limit and isn’t restricted by some arbitrary “age of reason”.

“Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit,” Peter proclaims in Acts 2:38-39. “For the promise is made to you and to your children and to all those far off, whomever the Lord our God will call.” The promise is made to our children, and not just in the sense that they will one day, themselves, be adults. For Christ asked that the children be brought to him (Matt 19:42), and people responded by bringing even infants (Luke 18:15-16) forward for him to touch because “the kingdom of God belongs to such as these.”

Christ touches us today, through the Holy Spirit in the cleansing waters of baptism. We are initiated into the Christian faith and receive the sanctifying grace that allows us to choose Christ over sin. For those who believe that baptism requires the ability to reason, one must reconcile with the fact that John the Baptist was filled with the Holy Spirit while he still remained in his mother’s womb (Luke 1:15), long before he reached the age of reason. Given this, should it seem so strange, if God can extend his graces to an unborn child, that he would do the same for our infant children through the sacrament of baptism?

Why Do Catholics Pray to Saints?

As my wife and I take walks with our children through the neighborhood, it is easy enough to identify some of our fellow-Catholics. The statues of Mary and (sometimes) St. Francis of Assisi are indication enough. I'd like to talk about our understanding of the saints, and in particular, the practice of asking for their intercession through prayer.

"Why do you Catholics pray to saints and Mary? Why can't you just pray to Christ, himself?"

These questions, ones which nearly all of us have been asked, have several foundational problems, not the least of which is the idea that prayer must be an either/or proposition. Either we pray to the saints or we pray to Christ. So, before exploring deeper, it is important to remember that our tradition is steeped in devotion to Christ, the Father, and the Holy Spirit. One of the problems when talking to non-Catholics, however, is with the definition of what prayer is. Typically, there are four types of prayer: thanksgiving, repentance, worship, and request. For sure, the first three belong exclusively to God. But what of the fourth?

Those who criticize Catholics for praying to saints have no problem whatsoever, with asking a co-worker, a family member, or a neighbor to "keep me in your prayers." After all, Scripture is very clear that the "prayer of a righteous man availeth much". God is pleased when we turn to one another and join together in our prayers. We are members of the same body of Christ (Rom. 12:5; 1 Cor. 12:25-27) and of one another (Eph. 4:25), and the Church refers to this mystery as the "communion of saints".

Yet notice the contradiction. If I asked my Baptist friend to pray for me, he would never think of responding, "Why are you asking me to pray for you when you could spend that time praying straight to God." However, when we pray to saints, this is all we are doing. We are saying, in essence, "St. Joseph, I have a problem. Would you keep me in your prayers." Switch St. Joseph's name with that of any living relative, and the request sounds pretty normal, doesn't it? Let's apply some math. If I ask for Mary to pray for me - even though this takes a few moments that I could have prayed straight to God, himself, suddenly I have two people praying for my situation. And if I take a moment to ask St. Francis to pray for me - even though this takes a few moments that I could have prayed straight to God - suddenly I now have three people praying for me. Suddenly, for every prayer I've offered to God, I know that Mary and St. Francis have offered their own on my behalf, just as if I had walked around the office and asked my co-workers to pray for me.

It isn't that I am praying to the saints INSTEAD of Christ. Rather, we are all praying to Christ together, and for each person I ask to join me (whether living or dead), I have multiplied the prayers to Christ for that intention, not reduced them. And think about it - the prayer of a righteous man availeth much ... and who is more "righteous" than those who have already entered Heaven?

Scripture is full of examples of people interceding for others, and of God acting on one person's behalf because of the requests of another. Christ helps the wedding party (despite his inclination to remain private in his ministry) because of Mary's request (Jn. 2:3-5). In the Old Testament, the Queen Mother of the Davidic Kingdom serves as a counselor to the king (Prov. 31:8-9; 2 Chr. 22:2-4). Children have guardian angels who protect them (Mt. 18:10). Onians and Jeremiah intercede for the Jews before the resurrection (2 Mac. 15:11-16). Paul tells us to pray and make supplications for the saints (Eph. 6:18). The angel Raphael said, "I can now tell you that when you, Tobit, and Sarah prayed, it was I who presented and read the record of your prayer before the Glory of the Lord; and I did the same thing when you used to bury the dead" (Tobit 12:12).

But wait a second - its fine and good to say that praying to the saints is like asking our friends to pray for us, but aren't they dead? How could they hear us?

"As for the dead being raised," Christ says in Mk: 12:26-27, "have you not read in the Book of Moses, in the passage about the bush, how God told him, 'I am the God of Abraham, [the] God of Isaac, and [the] God of Jacob'? He is not the God of the dead, but of the LIVING."

After we die, while our physical bodies must await the end of time, our spirits are very much alive in Christ. We are still part of the body of Christ. Some will object that only God is omniscient, so only he can hear all these prayers, but Scripture tells us that the saints share in God's divine knowledge (1 Cor. 13:9-12) and his divine authority and power (2 Tim. 2:12, Rev. 22:5; Rev. 2:26-28), and in the fullness of God (Eph. 3:19; 1 John 3:2). Saints can hear our prayers because God invites them into his beautific vision, and through his power, they are become that "great cloud of witnesses" that oversee all that we do (Heb. 12). We can see this most clearly in Rev. 5:13-14, when John writes, "And I heard every creature in Heaven and on earth and in the sea, and all therein, saying, 'To him who sits upon the throne and to the Lamb be blessing and honor and glory and might for ever and ever!'" Obviously the "elders", or saints, in Heaven also heard all of this praise from earth, because they fell down and answered, "Amen!" John, in his vision of Heaven, and the elders that resided there were made aware of the praise from all of existence through their closeness to God's omniscience.

In fact, despite objections to the contrary, there are actual examples in Scripture of the saints hearing and answering our prayers.

In Jer. 31:15-16, Rachel intercedes for her children after her death (Jeremiah was written hundreds of years after Rachel died, yet her "voice was heard"). Rev. 5:8 tells us that "the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb. Each of the elders held a harp and gold bowls filled with incense, which are the prayers of the holy ones."

Now think about this verse from Revelation 5. The elders are offering up the "prayers of the holy ones". Some of Revelation is symbolic. I'm sure that the saints will not carry actual bowls of incense. However, the truth that shines here is that they are offering the prayers of others to God.

As Catholics, we must never be ashamed of the fact that, even after they have passed on, we embrace our fellow Christians. And we must never shy away from asking our brothers and sisters, these "righteous" men and women, to offer their own prayers to be joined with ours. On earth or in Heaven, they are part of the mystical body of Christ, and their intercession is part of God's plan for the unity of his communion of Saints.

Universal Health Care - Shooting Coyotes

I coined the phrase "shooting coyotes" in a recent blog on minimum wage (click here). You can go to that post to learn the analogy, but the short version is that some of the social trends we buy into out of a sense of social justice end up doing more harm than good in the long run.

As we build up our strength for what promises to be a tiresome presidential run (and already is in many respects), we will be hearing quite about about the need for universal health care. While the idea sounds nice on paper (as might a blueprint for socialism), it is quite disasterous in real life (as was socialism).

Almost anytime we override the free market and let government step into to direct things, we can expect the result to be dismal. Remember, some of the scariest words one can hear in a time of trouble are these: "We're from the government, and we're here to help."

Many, including religious leaders, support such plans out of a sense of social justice, but just as shooting coyotes makes the problem worse, a socialized form of health care would only harm those who are already struggling to make ends meet.

There are some primary reasons for this, which can be seen concretely in areas, such as Canada and Britain, where the experiment has been tried.

Government run health care will result in:

1. Dangerously long waits (such as waiting months for an operation to remove a threatening cancer)
2. Rationed and inferior drugs (they may seem cheap online, but many in Canada have to shop South to get the quality stuff)
3. Substandard care (if we remove the carrot from the stick by price controls, quality doctors leave the practice and new technologies and practices are discouraged)

I can't recommend more highly that, as we prepare for the election rhetoric, those wishing to be informed voters get hold of a good book on basic economics (and buy a copy for a friend). My recommendation is Basic Economics: A Citizen's Guide to the Economy by William Sowell.

Purgatory - Yes, It's Real!

One of the first objections with which Catholics are hit when we bring up Purgatory is this line:

"Well, I looked all through my Bible, from front to back, and I didn't see 'Purgatory' anywhere in there."

Ironically, this same objection comes from Christians who usually believe in words and phrases such as the 'Trinity', the 'divinity of Christ', 'altar calls', 'Easter' and 'Christmas', and 'personal Lord and Savior', all of which also appear nowhere in Scripture, from front to back.

Should this bother us? Of course not, because we understand that Scripture doesn't have to explicitly name a doctrine for it to be true. Some concepts are presented implicitly, which means that Scripture presents clues to which there can be no other conclusion. "Purgatory", after all, is just a word, but the concept is real enough and undeniably present in Scripture, as well as in the belief system of the early Christians. And not only is compatible with Christian doctrine, it is necessary for Christian doctrine, as we will see through this essay.

To begin, consider a wedding analogy. A new bride and her groom are standing before the priest, and as he is asking the bride for her vows, she seems distracted and distant. After the wedding, the groom asks her what the deal was. "Hank," she tells him, "You asked me to be your wife and I accepted. I will love you until death do us part ... but I just can't get my old boyfriend Hank off my mind."

Ouch.

Christ is our bridegroom, and when we become Christians, we accept his proposal of marriage. However, all of us are sinners and know that no matter how much we give ourselves to Christ, we still selfishly cling to earthly things, loving them more than him on occasion. Perhaps we love sleeping in more than we love Mass on some Sunday. Perhaps we love TV more than prayer. Yet, for a marriage to be truly perfect, we must be "purged" of these distractions to the love we have for our spouse.

Purgatory is not some second chance, as many mistakenly believe Catholics understand it to be. When we die, we are on our way to Heaven or to Hell. However, some of us will die still attached to those things of the flesh. While Christ made the perfect sacrifice for our sins, and while we have forgiveness for even the worst transgression, our sins damage our souls and body. If we sin once, say by indulging in pornographic material, it becomes easier to sin in that way again, even after God has forgiven us. If you doubt this (and I don't think anyone honestly could), talk with someone who has battled with an addiction, and he will tell you how giving in to the temptation once made it easier to do it a second time, and then a third, and then ...

Purgatory is the place where God, because he loves us so tremendously, allows us to break from our earthly desires and sinful attachments before entering into his glory. There are many who believe Purgatory to be a place of punishment and torture, which are misunderstandings of the strong Biblical imagery. Will there be suffering in Purgatory? Of course, just as there is suffering any time we break ourselves of something unhealthy. My body aches when I start an exercise routine, but it is a good pain because I know I am toning those muscles and reducing that fat. A drug addict sweats and shakes in a rehabilitation center, but this is a good suffering because it is a sign of the body purging itself of the poison and healing. Any suffering we feel in Purgatory will be the consequence of stripping from ourselves all that is unhealthy to our marriage to Christ.

We see the imagery in Scripture which points to suffering in these verses: Heb 12:5-6 "My son, do not disdain the discipline of the Lord or lose heart when reproved by him; for whom the Lord loves, he disciplines; he scourges every son he acknowledges." Peter 4:1 "[W]hoever suffers in the flesh has broken with sin" Prov. 20:30 "Blows and wounds cleanse away evil, and beatings purge the inmost being."

Some object that Christ made the perfect sacrifice for our sins, so why should there be anything left to do? Purgatory, they insist, is an insult to his work upon the cross. Yet, the mistake here is in assuming that Purgatory is supplemental to Christ's work - something in addition. Rather, Purgatory is a manifestation of Christ's work - it owes its very existence to his redemptive act.

It should be pointed out here that Purgatory does not necessarily have to be a place. While it is a necessary dogma for Catholics (we must believe in it), the Church has never specifically defined its nature. It could be a state of being or an instantaneous process, something through which we pass on the way to Heaven. Remember, time will not mean the same thing in the hereafter as it does in this existence. Another important point is that not all of us will need to experience Purgatory. Surely some of us are working out our suffering here on Earth, such as might have been the case for the good thief who confessed belief in Christ before his crucifixion. Some of us might have completely stripped ourselves of earthly attachments and will have no need for this purging, such as is surely the case for many of our recognized saints.

One point that many non-Catholics make is that we are "clothed in Christ", and that there is no need for further cleansing after death. While it is true that we are clothed in Christ, Rev. 21:27 tells us that nothing unclean will enter Heaven. Christ doesn't simply intend to throw a tarp over our dirty bodies; he intends to make us holy and without blemish (Eph. 5).

And, as he is our bridegroom, I truly believe that, for those of us who go to Purgatory, it will be something we desire. Just as a bride wants to be pure and beautiful on her wedding day, we would want nothing less than to present ourselves in such a way to Christ. Just as the groom would be offended if she were still clinging to memories of “Hank”, Christ would be offended if our souls still clung to those things of the flesh that we should have left behind – our old “lovers”, so to speak. The word for this process of purification is sanctification, a belief that all Christians share. Even though we are forgiven for our sins, we are made Holy through the course of our lives, and if it is not complete at death, the process is finished in Purgatory.

But don't take my word for it. C.S. Lewis, the darling of Evangelical Christianity, also believed in Purgatory. In his book, Letters to Malcolm, he writes, "Our souls demand Purgatory, don't they? Would in not break the heart if God said to us, 'It is true, my son, that your breath smells and your rags drip with mud and slime, but we are charitable here and no one will upbraid you with these things, nor draw away from you. Enter into the joy'? Should we not reply, 'With submission, sir, and if there is no objection, I'd rather be cleaned first.' 'It may hurt, you know' - 'Even so, sir.'

While all this is fine, we are ultimately left with the question of what, exactly does Scripture have to say about Purgatory? One of the classic texts can be found in 2 Maccabees 12:43-46, which states, “It is a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they might be loosed from their sins” “Thus he made atonement for the dead that they might be freed from this sin.” Non-Catholics will often object that they do not consider 2 Maccabees to be inspired (though it is), they will surely admit that it is a historical document, which we can trust just as we would trust a non-inspired historical document to give us information about Lincoln’s presidency. Examining this ancient text, we see that it was a practice among Jews to pray for the dead. If the only possibilities after death were Heaven and Hell, this would make no sense. We have no need of prayer in Heaven and cannot be helped by them in Hell, so the prayers must be efficacious in some other place, which only leaves the possibility of Purgatory. For argument’s sake, should our prayers be beneficial for the dead (as instruments of God’s grace) the true tragedy of rejecting Purgatory, as many non-Catholics have done, is that they have missed the opportunity to offer prayers for so many friends and relatives who have already passed.

That said, the stronger verses can be found in any Bible you may pick up. Take Luke 12:42-48 for example. Here, in the parable of the three types of servants, when master returns on that "unexpected day" and "unknown hour", servant who obeys is rewarded; servant who disobeys is punished; servant who disobeys out of ignorance is punished, but only lightly. We see three fates here, one that is clearly symbolic of damnation, one of Heaven, and a third (light punishment) signifies a third place, which cannot be Hell because that is surely not a light punishment, nor Heaven where no punishment occurs.

A more powerful verse is 1 Cor 3:15 which is where Paul discusses how we must build on the foundation of Christ. Those who don't will go to Hell, of course. Of those who do, some will build with valuable materials and precious metals, while others will chose more common materials. Paul writes that each man's work will be tested with fire, and "If it [each man's work] is burned up, he will suffer loss; he himself will be saved, but only as one escaping through the flames". Now, consider this - we are not saved in Hell, yet we suffer no loss in Heaven, so where is this place (or what is this "process") in which we suffer loss but are saved? Some non-Catholics argue that this verse simply refers to a glorification through which we pass in judgment. As Catholics, we agree. In fact, based in part on the Biblical evidence, we've recognized this all along. So much so that we've assigned it a name: Purgatory.

Despite the fact that a careful look at Scripture makes the concept of Purgatory necessary, some anti-Catholics still like to claim that it is a later "invention" of the church. This simply isn't true. In fact, even if we identify a certain council at which Purgatory was defined, we have to remember that church councils usually define doctrines only when they are being challenged. This doesn't mean that the doctrines are new, but rather that some group tried to challenge that teaching and the church, as a good parent, had to clearly reaffirm the truth of such a teaching. The truth is, Purgatory has been with the church throughout the centuries, from its earliest days. When we look at the writings of the early Christians, when the religion was at its purest, we see that the practice of praying for the dead was an important part of the early Christian church, which indicates that Purgatory has always been a part of Christian tradition. Prayers for the dead, after all, wouldn't benefit anyone in Heaven or Hell.

The word isn't in Scripture, but the concept is. What it finally comes down to is a willingness to admit it.

Jack and the Beanstalk

I haven't blogged for a bit, mainly because nothing worth blogging has come to me. I know I have a few different things I need to continue blogging on, such as the logical fallacies, the "10 worst arguments" series, or general apologetic essays, but I just haven't been inspired to do so as of late, and when I try to write such things on a dry tank, it comes out barely worth reading.

One thing I thought might be worth a few words, however, was reading "Jack and the Beanstalk" for the first time in several years the other night. My daughter found the story in one of her children's story collections, and we included it in the queue for bedtime reading.

A lot of times when we read stories like this, we talk for a bit about the moral afterward. After all, a great many fairy tales and bedtime stories were written to pass on some wisdom nugget or to help children develop a moral compass.

But with "Jack and the Beanstalk", I came up empty.

Let's recap the story: A down-on-her-luck mother sends her son Jack, out of desperation, to sell the family cow. The son makes a foolish decision (trading it for a handful of "magic" beans") and the mother tosses them out the window in anger. The beans grow into a towering stalk, which the boy climbs, finding himself in the palace of a giant. Jack makes several trips to the giant's palace, stealing his gold, his gold-egg-laying hen, and his enchanted harp. When the giant discovers what is happening, he tries to follow the little thief down the beanstalk, but Jack chops it down and kills the giant. He and his mother then live happily ever after, their financial problems gone now that he had looted the giant's wealth.

So ... what is the moral, exactly?

• That we should make risky, knee-jerk financial decisions with complete strangers? (such as trading a valuable cow for "magic" beans)
• That we will be rewarded for making such bad decisions? (the beans really turn out to be magic)
• That it is okay to steal from others if they have more than us?
• That it is okay to steal from others if they are large and awkward?
• That when a large and awkward person comes back for the stuff we took from him, it is okay to kill him?

Really, I'm not trying to be a prude, but I'm just stuck trying to figure out what redeeming qualities one can find in Jack.

Something tells me, though, that with the type of rhetoric one hears in contemporary election years, this might be something of a popular story among a great number of the voting masses.

Abbysmal Advice II

In my opinion, having Abigail Van Buren of "Dear Abby" give moral advice is a little like asking Bill Gates to coach a professional football team. He's a bright guy in a certain area, but that area ain't sports.

Likewise, I think that Abby gives some pretty good advice on social issues sometimes, but when she dips into morality, it comes off about as well as one might expect if the founder of Microsoft had planned a tight fourth-and-nine running play.

I've written about such "moral" advice from her before (here).

This week, Abby printed a letter by a woman who writes, "I am a 28-year-old woman and have been dating a 26-year-old man I'll call 'Chris' for four months. We have become good friends. On our last date, the topic of sex came up, and Chris told me that he was a virgin and that it was very important for him to find a girl who had 'never been with anyone' either."

You can read the entire article here, but the long-story-short is that this reader has been with someone before. Her boyfriend seemed bothered when she told him this and needed to think about things. She also feels he is a bit of a hypocrite as he wants to marry a virgin but "sings 'Amazing Grace' in church."

In her Abbysmal Advice, Abby shows her usual disdain for tradition Christian values and for anyone who would hold them. As much as she writes about tolerance, she regularly demonstrates that she has none for those who have a different sexual ethic than she. Now let's be clear, I think it is awesome that, though the reader made some mistakes in her past, she has changed her lifestyle in order to live by the teachings of Christ. So my post here isn't to downplay that, but rather to look at how Abby treats anyone who doesn't belong in her brave new world. Her response is worth reading in full (see link above), but I want to look one-by-one at her insulting remarks.

Abby writes that the boyfriend "may be self-conscious about his lack of experience."

Sure, that could be. It could also be that the boyfriend is concerned about the damage that is done by premarital sex to a person's ability to hold a life-long relationship. It could be that he believes that our sexual encounters form a permanent bond with that person (no matter how much we have moved on), and he wants a wife who is entering into the relationship without such emotional damage.

But no, the possibility that he is "self-conscious" is the only conclusion that Abby seems to have reached.

Abby refers to his "old-fashioned values."

It is fairly common to find that Abby considers anyone who believes differently than she does on moral issues to be "old-fashioned". I guess I would agree. The boyfriend's beliefs do, after all, date back to the teachings of Christ (and arguably before that). Some of us, however, believe that our values should be based on something more rock-solid than the trend of the time. In Abby's opinion, I suspect, moral codes should be determined by democracy. The trouble with such democratic decisions, however, can be figured out if you imagine a vote between three snakes and a field mouse as to what should be served for supper.

Abby considers the boyfriend's desire for a virgin bride to be "the old double standard" and she qualifies this by referring to "some men who have sown acres of wild oats [and] feel this way."

Yes, for those men, such a view would be a double-standard. But the reader clearly establishes that her boyfriend has not "sown acres of wild oats". So ... I'm curious how Abby feels he is applying a double-standard. See my article on logical fallacies to learn about the straw man approach, which is what is going on here.

According to Abby, "most men today have more sophisticated thinking about sex."

American Heritage definition of sophisticated: Having acquired worldly knowledge or refinement.

Abby's definition of sophisticated: Disagreeing with Abby's moral compass. She seems to forget that the "worldly knowledge" must be accompanied by refinement, and the proliferation of STD's, abortions, and failed relationships that have come from premarital sex hardly seems like refinement to me. Incidentally, if one desires to know the source of this "worldly knowledge", it can be found here.

She also feels that the boyfriend has every right to a "sweet, old-fashioned girl", but adds a snide, "provided he can find one."

I found one. I know others of you did, as well. In Abby's sophisticated world, however, we might as well give up the search. Sure, the statistics show that most women and men have had premarital sex, but I get the feeling that those who haven't don't even figure into dear Abby's count.

The reader may feel that the boyfriend is a hypocrite for singing "Amazing Grace" but not extending that same grace to her despite her regret. This seems to be the common consensus in our society today that our regret for our past actions means that we should not have long-lasting consequences for them.

A man may regret sexually assaulting a woman, but the permanent consequence is that he will never be hired to work around children.

A woman may regret getting a tattoo of an Iguana across her face, but she'll have to live with the fact that she'll never be hired as a bank teller.

The reader may regret that she made mistakes in the past, but neither she nor Abby should fault the boyfriend for desiring someone who has preserved her purity, as he has. There is a trend within our society to ignore the possibility of long-standing consequences for one's actions. Our children are watching, though. And they are absorbing. And some of them are learning to follow dear Abby's idea of sophistication.

For those of us who have a different moral compass, such as the boyfriend and (after her repentance) the woman who wrote in, it is imperative that we take accountability for our actions and always carry ourselves in the model of Christ, no matter how old-fashioned Abby may consider us.

Personally Opposed

I've written before on Catholic "pro-choice" politicians (here and here), and given the last post on Senator McCaskill, I thought it was time to address the common defense given by such individuals, which is that they are "personally opposed, but cannot force that view on others."

This answer usually comes in tandem with a statement by such politicians that they believe in the teachings of their Church, but that these teachings cannot be used in determining legislation, otherwise we would be a theocracy.

Okay, so let's follow the logic and see where it takes us.

The Church teaches that life begins at conception. If a Catholic politician believes the teachings of his Church, he acknowledges that life begins at conception.

Therefore, he believes that abortion is the ending of this life.

This is murder.

So, in essence, what the politician is saying is this, "I am personally opposed to murder, but I will not impose my beliefs on others."

But other people might not agree with us that life begins at conception, you might argue.

So.

Let's say that someone, of another faith or culture, believed that black people were less-than-human. Would any politician today get elected if he claimed that he was "personally opposed to slavery, but couldn't impose his views on others."

What about the man who believes (because of his religious convictions), that women are to completely subject to their husbands, even when they commit violent acts in marriage. Would a politician really get away with claiming that she was "personally opposed to spousal abuse, but couldn't impose that belief on others?"

If we believe that life exists, we must protect that life. Quite frankly, I have more tolerance for pro-choice politicians who are not Catholic than those who are. Because the ones who claim to follow the teachings of their church are either lying in that claim, or they are okay with allowing life to be destroyed simply to accommodate another view.

While on the subject, another argument I hear often for abortion and embryonic stem cell research is that "scientists disagree about whether it is truly life at that stage". To these people, who may not be Catholic, the arguments of the Church will hold little weight. I was in such a conversation recently.

It went like this:

Me: You acknowledge that some scientists, many in fact, believe that life begins at or shortly after conception.

Pro-Choice Friend: Sure, but there are scientists to disagree, so we don't really know.

Me: Okay, fair enough. Now, suppose you were getting ready to tear down a building. You had one expert telling you there were live people inside there who hadn't evacuated. You had another expert who disagreed. Would you just tear it down anyway.

PCF: No, I would make sure, first.

Me: Well, then, why are we tearing down the building with regards to early life when we have experts who think there are occupants in the building?

You would think this would have been checkmate. It was. This is why my pro-choice friend abandoned logic completely and closed with, "Well, then let's just tear down the building anyway."

This is why the abortion fight is so difficult for those of us who are pro-life. Logic isn't even allowed in the door.

Another Great Call in St. Louis

I meant to blog this one earlier, but have been tied up.

McCaskill uninvited as commencement speaker
By BETSY TAYLOR
Associated Press Writer

ST. LOUIS (AP) - Sen. Claire McCaskill was uninvited from speaking at her daughter's Catholic high school commencement because her positions on abortion and embryonic stem cell research are at odds with those of the church.

Read the full article here.

Reports on this are ambiguous as to whether or not Archbishop Burke was directly involved, but someone up there was on the ball.

My favorite quote from the story is that the senator, "a Catholic, understands that her positions supporting abortion rights and stem cell research are different than those held by the church, but she's made peace with them."

What does that mean? She made peace with them? Is that supposed to give us some comfort? What if her position on mass murder or mutilation of pets was different from that of the church? Would having "made peace with them" make everything all right?

If I woke up tomorrow morning and discovered I was Senator McCaskill, I think I would be bothered by the fact that I couldn't speak at my daughter's graduation. Then I would remember how many millions of children have died because of the abortion legislation I openly support and ... I don't know, but suddenly my problem wouldn't that big of a deal anymore.

More Logical Fallacies

Following up my post on "begging the question", here are some more common logical fallacies that often pop up when discussing the faith with others:

Straw man – When someone sets up a “straw man” argument, he takes the opponents weakest argument (or creates it), and attacks it as though the entire foundation rests on that argument. An example of this would be if someone makes a case against confession to a priest by arguing that, if God knows everything and, therefore, knows my sins, it makes no sense to have to articulate them in confession. The reasons Catholics confess to a priest are much more substantial than (and have nothing to do with) informing God of our sins. This is a false, weak argument refuted to discredit a much more complex idea by ignoring the greater points.

Shotgun approach – In a shotgun approach, one throws as many arguments at his opponent as possible, knowing that it will be difficult, if not impossible for his opponent to answer them all (especially if there is a time restraint), implying that any unanswered challenges prove a weakness in the other’s position. For instance, upon discovering that you are Catholic, an ambitious anti-Catholic may launch into a tirade like this: "If you think the Catholic Church is in accordance with Scripture, where does the Bible tell about Mary being sinless, Mary not having other children, praying to saints, Purgatory, mortal sins, calling priests father, indulgences …" Each of the topics listed requires a serious and in depth study of Scripture. The challenge is designed to exhaust and overwhelm the opponent. Over a year ago, I was in an e-mail conversation with a preacher about infallibility. His protests were falling flat, and it was obvious that the Catholic truth was prevailing, so in a move of desperation, he sent an eight-page list of "proofs" against infallibility that he had pulled off various anti-Catholic sites, convinced this would overwhelm my attempts to respond. My first step (as should be yours in such a case), was to call his foul and inform him that, if his argument has merit, he shouldn't have to resort to tricks to make his point. Then, I shocked him by sending an eleven-page response, addressing each and every one of his points. In retrospect, I probably shouldn't have given his e-mail that dignity (it was a very weak piece of work) because it could have invited further shotgun attacks. In this case, however, he wrote back and said he needed more time for study on the subject and that he would get back with me. This was the last I heard of him.

False dichotomy – In a false dichotomy, one gives only two possibilities, and neither is usually very appealing, in order to force agreement with the more desirable. This approach, ignores, however, other legitimate possibilities: “You are either in support of this tax issue or you are against improving our highways.” The question precludes the possibility that their might be a means of improving the highways without a tax increase. In matters of faith, this fallacy often looks something like this: "Look, it comes down a simple question of whether you want to go by the Bible or to follow the traditions of men." There is another option, of course, which is to follow the Traditions of Christ that have been delivered once-for-all through Scripture and Tradition and have been preserved through 2,000 years by the Catholic Church, through the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Can Catholics Be Masons?

The following is the condensed text of a reply I gave to a recent convert to the Catholic faith who wanted to know if Catholics could belong to Freemason groups, especially because they do so much charity work for the community:

Canon Law number 1374, which is clarified by a Nov. 26, 1983, document signed by the man who is now pope, specifies that Catholicism is incompatible with membership in a masonic organization.

There are a few reasons for this. The first is that Masons have historically plotted against the Catholic Church and have aimed at its demise. While it may appear that today's American Mason groups do not have this goal, membership in a Masonic lodge requires a pledge of worldwide solidarity, and a Catholic cannot hold membership in an organization which aligns itself with enemies of the church that Christ founded.

Another reason is that Masonic oaths require a member to protect all the secrets of the Mason groups. Unfortunately, many of these secrets are not revealed until long after the oath has taken place, so by the time someone realizes they are contrary to his belief system, he has already bound himself by oath to protect and adhere by them.

Finally, the roots of masonry are pagan in origin, and most of its rites are built upon these roots. In fact, while as Catholics we believe in the divinity of Christ and the Trinity, Masonry requires belief in a generic "grand architect".

The Freemason meetings that are open to the general public are rather benign. Like with most fraternal organizations, much of what the masons believe is revealed only at higher levels of membership, only after one has taken oaths to protect that secrecy. In addition, higher levels of membership also requires participation in meetings which will be a bit more revealing than what they offer for the general public. Remember, as with any organization, the meetings that are offered to non-members are intended to be a hook into the organization, anything a person witnesses there will appear "completely harmless" so that prospective members are not turned off by the organization.

It is admirable that some want to get involved in charity work. Fortunately, a person does not need to be involved with the masons to do so. There are many civic organizations, like the Lions Club or the Elks Club, which do great charity work. In addition, the Knights of Columbus is a Catholic organization which does tremendous charity work.

The religious beliefs and practices that one must subscribe to in order to be a mason are reserved for committed, pledged members. Wanting to do charity work is simply not a good reason to compromise the integrity of one's faith by an organization which is contrary in beliefs and practices.

The community work that the Masons do is admirable, but this does not excuse adherence to their beliefs. Consider this analogy, the KKK also is known for community work - readers probably remember the controversy over their adopt-a-highway efforts. However, nobody would ever suggest that their service to the community is a good reason to join that "fraternal organization", considering how offensive their beliefs are.

Considering this, it is easy to realize the Church's problem. Even if many American lodges are fairly benign, if Freemason groups have at various points demonstrated anti-Catholic agendas, can we really expect the Church to explore each and every one, especially when faced with the problems of vows of secrecy? Is it not the more responsible position for the Church to ban membership outright, especially since, as you will acknowledge, one does not realize the deepest parts of commitment to a mason group until you have reached the upper levels of membership. Isn't this what a good parent would do?

For evidence of an anti-Catholic agenda from relatively recent times, the witness of the events in Portugal and Mexico when Freemasonry attacked the life of the Church in those countries should be sufficient for any Catholic to at least acknowledge that Freemasonry historically hasn't had a particularly benevolent attitude - to say the least - towards Catholicism.

http://www.fatima.org/essentials/facts/histcontext.asp
http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=39388

Also worthwhile reading are the three encyclicals of Pope Pius XI responding to the Freemason attack on the Church in Mexico during his pontificate and continuing up to our present day:

http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/...fm?recnum=4935
http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/...fm?recnum=4943
http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/...fm?recnum=4949

The anti-Catholic roots of Freemasonry were in evidence in the violent attempts to overthrow the Church in Mexico, which led to many martyrdoms and expulsions from the country.