Mackerel Snapper

A New Baptist Holy Day

2009-07-30T21:01:00.001-07:00

The last two posts have been a man named Ken, who doesn't hate Catholics, but hates the Catholic Church. Expanding this discussion to look at the greater community of Concord, I would have to say that I was a bit disappointed, on the first night, to see how many of the participants mentioned that they had come to the class simply to learn more about the Catholic faith that their friends and family practiced.

I later addressed them and asked why, instead of picking up a book about Catholicism by a Catholic, they would choose to attend a class by a man who admittedly hates the Catholic Church.

Would one go to Hatfields to learn about the McCoys?
To the Capulets to learn about the Montagues?

Shrug.

Beyond those who attended the classes, though, someone in the comment box of this blog asked, hypothetically, whether Dr. Monte Shinkle, the head pastor of Concord, is aware of the content of these classes.

First off, you will notice that the Southern Baptists at Concord do not call their pastors "Father", as Catholics do, because Protestants have never ever done this (except back when they used to do it all the time). There is Scripture, after all, where Christ strictly condemns calling anyone "father", as well as "master" and "Rabbi" or "teacher". That the Catholic Church allows this is one of the reason that faithful Catholics are on the fast road to Hell, along with Paul (Acts 21:40, 22:1; 1 Cor 4:14-15), Stephen (Acts 7:2), and the apostle John (1 Jn 2:13, 14).

It is fairly important that one remember that Monte Shinkle has a doctorate (just like John MacArthur!!), as this signifies his authority to tell people what the Bible really means. "Doctor", after all, is Latin for "teacher", and because he "teaches" from the pulpit, it's okay to call him that even though Matthew 23 forbids it. Jesus meant something else then, but he was serious about that "father" business.

Monte Shinkle and the elders of Concord are the ones who authorized Ken to be a ... well, a teacher of the anti-Catholic classes. His series was part of the special in-depth classes Concord offers, called the "Masters Classes", where apparently people learn enough about a particular subject to be called "masters" of it. Wait a second, doesn't Matthew 23 ... oh, nevermind.

One could argue that Dr. Shinkle isn't aware of the content of Ken's classes and of his striking inability to defend Baptist theology. To answer this objection, it is necessary for me to go into the history of Ken's attempts to ignore the Bible verses that disprove the once-saved-always-saved theology.

When I first contacted Ken, I simply presented the five verses that I mentioned in the last post. I should note here that there are not only five such verses about loss of salvation (Scripture Catholic documents a nice, long list of them), but I found the most obvious ones. The reason I didn't throw more at Ken is because that would be a strategy called a "shotgun argument", which is a dirty trick that debaters use to pile soooo much on one's opponent that he cannot possibly respond to all, thus appearing to have failed to respond. The shotgun argument is used by those who have reached desperation with an otherwise bankrupt position.

Ken wrote back and thanked me for my time and mentioned that Dr. Shinkle would be helping him in the response. If you think about this request, it poses a lot of problems for a Bible-alone mentality, but that's another post. Eventually, I received back an extremely long response from Ken, with Dr. Shinkle and Pamela Bultmann (the director of the education program) carbon-copied. The e-mail used something called the "shotgun argument", if you've ever heard of that.

This e-mail covered a number of subjects, but not one of the dangerous five verses.

Dr. Shinkle and Ms. Bultmann were cc'd on most of the exchange, and Dr. Shinkle received a letter from area Catholic pastors about the class. Ms. Bultmann, also has been contacted. Given their decision not to renounce or correct the content of the classes or the e-mail that Dr. Shinkle supposedly helped write, it is safe to say that both are equally culpable for the deception used in the class, the anti-Catholic rhetoric by which the tone was set, and (worse of all) the inability of Southern Baptist theology to answer five simple verses.

In the end, I can only think of four reasons that these verses have been irrefutable by, not just Concord, but any Baptist preacher with whom I have interacted

1) The Catholic Church added those verses while riding upon the beast and drinking the blood of martyrs;

2) Ken and Dr. Shinkle simply have never encountered these verses before and are simply confused by them. This should be especially scary for a man, like Ken, who switched faiths before examining all of the evidence at hand;

3) They are aware that these verses contradict their theology and chose to overlook them. This has its own terrible implications;

4) Or all of Baptist theology is built, not upon a careful examination of Scripture, but upon an presumption, and the verses are then greased and shoved until they fit into that mindset.

This last one seems to be the most likely (after all, any Catholic can assure you that it is way too bumpy of a ride upon that beast to be writing Scripture, especially with a glass of martyr blood in the other hand). Baptists may object to Catholic holy days, such as the Feast of the Assumption, but at Concord, the Feast of the Presumption is apparently celebrated whenever all evidence is at the mercy of a mindset.

Catholicism is evil. Salvation is assured. The Bible alone is our authority.

Chant these platitudes long enough, and they almost sound believable.

In the meantime, five simple verses are waiting for Ken and for Dr. Shinkle.

Reading Assignment for the Holy Spirit

2009-07-30T20:27:00.000-07:00

In the last post (below), I introduced Ken, a former Catholic who has made it his mission to spread the message of love and anti-Catholicism at Concord Baptist, in Jefferson City.

It should be noted here that my conversations with Ken have generally been respectful and filled with academic integrity. This is, of course, excepting the e-mail Ken sent to inform me that my eyes were not opened to the truth. Apparently the truth had nothing to do with putting his proof-texts into context and also citing several verses that contradicted his theology.

After Ken later apologized for his reaction, we continued our e-mail conversation for a couple months. Unfortunately, despite my repeated requests that he reconcile his beliefs with five simple verses that appeared to disprove them, Ken complained that I was "focusing on a couple difficult passages that are hard for anyone to understand."

So much for Scripture being self-interpretive.

If, then, the Holy Spirit-inspired words of Scripture are not important in forming one's theology, to what source does a dedicated Southern Baptist turn? Ken helped to clear this up when I asked him for Biblical evidence for one of his assertions. A man who goes by the "Bible alone", after all, should be able to find support for his beliefs somewhere within Scripture.

Ken's answer: "This has been from my reading and understanding of the Bible over the years. I have also heard many preachers talk about this topic in the past. And I have read a good book on this topic by Dr. John MacArthur called “Saved Without a Doubt”. This is an excellent resource for this."

What verses, though, Ken? Seriously, can you just tell me a verse or two I can look up to read about it for myself?

No answer, but we do have the specific testimony of "many preachers" and a book by John MacArthur, who has a PhD, by the way. And this is obviously more than can be said about the Holy Spirit, who through the pen of the inspired authors, gave us such verses as 1 Cor. 9:23; 1 Cor. 10:12; Romans 11:13-22; Hebrews 10:26-31; and 2 Peter 2:20-21, which clearly show that believers can lose salvation.

Perhaps the Holy Spirit and guys like Peter and Paul should have read John MacArthur's book. He has a doctorate, in case I haven't mentioned that.

Or maybe we should just ignore those verses. They are troublesome buggers, you know.

Ken, in his last correspondance with me, prided himself as a man of logic. Logic, however, is the art of evaluating all of the information at hand, not simply those which agree with our preconceived ideas. For those who have taken courses in logic, let me try to explain this Southern Baptist thought process, as demonstrated by Ken, in the form of a classic syllogism:

Premise 1: Sound theology cannot contradict Scripture.
Premise 2: Southern Baptist theology contradicts Scripture.
Conclusion: Therefore, Catholics are going to Hell!

Ultimately, Ken ended our discussions and excused his inability to defend his beliefs on his "lack of time", stating his assumption that my own life must not be as busy as his.

Quite the contrary is true, but defense of God's word is our first priority. I understand Ken's reluctance to work too hard at this out of fear that he may accidently earn his salvation. But if we have put any worldly thing before the salvation of souls, we have chosen for ourselves a false idol.

But I would never accuse Ken of such idolatry because, as I think we all know, lack of time isn't really the issue at all for a man who will not persist in sharing the good news.

Obama Baptists

2009-07-30T19:32:00.000-07:00

While there are a number of reasons to disagree with the current president (I'm personally up to 328), it recently became obvious to me why there is such a deep-seated dislike of him by Southern Baptists, at least if one's opinion of Southern Baptists can be generalized from the example of one man, Ken, who has taught two classes in a series designed to attack Catholic teachings.

It wouldn't be fair to stereotype all Southern Baptists based on the example of one man. But I think the conclusion could realistically be applied to the leadership of Concord Baptist, the Jefferson City church where Ken, a former Catholic, conducted his class.

In a friendly conversation, Ken expressed to me his great concerns over the Obama administration. And after interacting with him through extensive e-mails and a few meetings, I am now reminded of the idea that we despise most those bad qualities in others that we secretly recognize in ourselves.

After a brief introduction of himself, Ken helped us to understand the purpose of his class by explaining that "I don't hate Catholics, but I hate the Catholic Church." And Ken wasn't kidding. The following several weeks of instruction would have made proud our current president, who has been criticized for defining himself, not by the strength of his policies, but by his attacks on another administration.

And just like with a typical political speech, the material that Ken presented would have had trouble standing the scrutiny of an astute fact-checking team. The clearest example of this was when Ken had us read out loud the Catholic Church's official promulgation of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. The document stated no fewer than four times that Mary's sinless nature was by "virtue of the merits of Christ." Yet, as soon as Ken finished having us read the document, he asked, "If Mary is sinless by her own merits, what did Christ die on the cross for?"

Huh?

To be fair, Ken apologized immediately when called on this misleading statement.

Well, he sort of apologized, in a round-about way.

Actually, he immediately changed the subject, but that is kind of an apology, right?

The problem with the classes at Concord isn't that Catholic doctrine was examined and challenged. A simple look through this blog shows that I have no problem with "testing all things", as Paul exhorts. It is, rather, the presentation of a make-believe Catholicism, a caricature of what the Church really teaches in order to tear it down. One has to ask how much insecurity goes into deciding to take such an approach.

This isn't much different from the political game that Democrats and Republicans play each election year. Republicans will take social security away from the elderly, and Democrats will take away your guns. What is often missing from these discussions is an honest reconciliation with the facts and logic at hand.

The other, and more significant, problem is Concord's unwillingness to engage in an open-invitation debate with a Catholic such as myself on this or any other topic. A public condemnation of another group should be defensible by a public examination. After all, if God is truth and truth is on the side of such Catholic-bashing, what should there be to fear from some Catholic who never spent a day of his life in a theology course?

As will be shown in the next post, Ken prides himself as a man of logic and a devotee to Scripture. Unfortunately, five simple verses of Scripture will be shown to have proved him wrong.

The Baptists have their origin in the hard work of those "community organizers", the reformers, who rose to power and decided that the Bible that God gave us means something completely different from what it had meant for over one-and-a-half thousand years.

This almost sounds like calling the Constitution a "living document", doesn't it?

The point here is that the Baptists are just a few hundred years old, similar to the notable lack of experience in administration that our current president has. His naivete is beginning to show as his press secretary fumbles through attempts to justify new policy and outrageous statements.

Maybe, then, Ken is more like a loyal press secretary and is simply doing the best he can to defend so little substance.

Jon and Kate's First Mistake

2009-06-23T06:48:00.000-07:00

I've never watched any more than a few moments here and there of Jon and Kate Plus 8, but how can anyone miss the saga of their crumbling family life lately. Apparently, the parents of eight kids have recently filed for the dissolution of their marriage, though TLC plans on continuing to run the series. There have been no announcements to change the title of the show to Jon and Kate Sharing Custody of 8, but there will certainly be something awkward about the part of the title that joins Jon and Kate and something cruel about the part that brings the plus 8 into the cameras during the televised aftermath of the divorce.

While much of the attention has focused on the alleged infidelity of both parents, one aspect that never gets discussed is the means by which the eight kids were conceived in the first place. According to Wikipedia, the couple experience infertility, explained by Kate's diagnosis of polycycstic ovary syndrome. After this, the couple underwent in-vitro fertilization twice, resulting in a set of twins and a set of sextuplets.

As explained by an earlier post (click here), in-vitro fertilization is not only unnatural, but contrary to God's plan. While the word "evil" is something of a sinister term, which modern society tends to associate only with movie villains and people who don't recycle, anything that is contrary to God's plan is sinful, and therefore evil. We all commit evil acts, sometimes out of ignorance, and the suggestion that some evil might be done for a greater good doesn't excuse the fact.

No doubt Jon and Kate were ignorant of the harm that can come from bringing intrinsically sinful acts into the marriage, as society champions in-vitro fertilization as the answer for all couples who are struggling to have children (while simultaneously championing contraception for couples who are struggling not to).

In direct contrast to contraception, which is sinful because it removes the potential of procreation from sex, in-vitro fertilization is sinful because it removes sex from the act of procreation (among other reasons). Either act makes a mockery of the miracle in which God has asked us to participate.

No doubt this is a sensitive subject, as is evidenced by one attempted comment in my earlier post on in-vitro from a husband whose wife had conceived through that method. Part of the reason for this sensitivity is the attitude among couples today that they have a right to children by virtue of their sexual organs. It is quite possible that God had other plans for Jon and Kate, such as adopting a teenage girl, which they had the opportunity to do earlier in their marriage, before deciding to go another route. Or maybe they were meant to apply their parental instincts to work with youth at their church or community organizations.

Whatever plan God had for them, the decision to conceive through in-vitro fertilization was surely at least one contributing factor to what TLC is now chronicling for the world. This is just one subtle reminder that TLC stands, not for "tender loving care", but "The Learning Channel". Unfortunately, until society realizes the evil nature of in-vitro fertilization, this is a lesson that has been taught while most of the class is on spring break.

Update: After the posting of this blog, TLC announced that Jon and Kate Plus 8 would go on indefinite hiatus. Rather than rewrite the blog, I wanted to leave this note for those who read after this announcement.

Strike One for "Trey" on Homosexuality

2007-06-08T14:17:00.000-07:00

A comment from "Trey" on my post regarding homosexuality writes that "The number 1 reason why God doesn't need you to worry about other people's sexuality: 1. Because he is God, and can judge us individually."

Typical of today's rationalistic mentality, Trey seems to believe that because God is the one who ultimately judges our hearts, we should back off in trying to guide one another from paths of spiritual destruction.

The truth is, however, that we are each responsible for speaking for truth and reminding others to avoid sin. It is not our place to judge another person's heart. It is not even our place to judge our own hearts, as Paul makes clear in his epistles. However, it would be silly to infer from that that we shouldn't step in when we see another engaging in behavior that is destructive to himself.

I'm sure that if Trey knew a friend of his was viewing child pornography, he wouldn't be so cavalier as to say, as he did in his comment, that God does not need us to "add to the pile of condemnation flying about on any given topic."

If he found out his own son or daughter was cheating on a spouse, would he really take the attitude that it isn't his problem because God is the only one who (again, as his comment suggests) should "guide our lives".

If Trey had read my post carefully, which he obviously did not, he would see that I absolutely did not encourage a condemnation of people with homosexual tendencies. I also did not encourage a condemnation of people who chose to act on such tendencies. What I did condemn, however, was attitudes such as Trey's, which tell us to ignore the teachings of Scripture and Tradition on homosexuality. I did write that the most unchristian thing we could do when a friend or relative is battling homosexuality is to withhold the truth of Christ from that person.

People who are tempted by sin do not need Trey's indifference. He may be perfectly content with allowing them to fall into sinful behavior. Maybe it is just easier for him to allow others to face judgement without his support and Christian guidance. Perhaps he even thinks he knows better than the Church, which was entrusted by Christ to uphold a moral standard.

He wouldn't be the first to make that assumption either. That credit goes to Adam and Eve, who chose for themselves the right to decide right and wrong.

Trey ends his comment with a snide suggestion that perhaps, instead of worrying about those who are slipping into sin, I should, "Go do some work for an elderly person instead." The hypocrisy here is that, in attempting to chastise me for condemning others, Trey, himself, condemns me (and anyone else who would uphold a moral standard), assuming that our adherence to truth means that we are callous individuals who do not contribute to social welfare. How, exactly, does Trey know my own personal contributions, either monetarily or physically, to charitable works? I have observed it to be a mark of his own brand of moral superiority that such an indignant attitude would be displayed to anyone who chooses Christian morality over a trendy political correctness. Is he not able to take to heart his own suggestion that God does not need him to "add to the pile of condemnation flying about on any given topic?"

Finally, his comment is evidence that the age of indifference in the Christian church (assuming Trey is Christian) is marked by a characteristic promotion of the social gospel to the exclusion of our first duty, which is to be God's tool in bringing others to salvation. The Christian mandate isn't a sum-zero proposition. We can be concerned for the less-fortunate (and Trey seems to assume that anyone who is elderly is less fortunate), and speak the truth of Christ and his Church.

Trey may not be willing to take on this responsibility. As he suggested in his comment, though, God will hold each of us individually accountable. I am not in a place to judge Trey's heart, but I am curious how he will explain to Christ his unwillingness to defend the teachings that Christ, himself, passed on.

What Goes Up ... Just Keeps Going Up

2007-06-05T05:15:00.000-07:00

Here's our national debt clock:

The Gross National Debt

It's like watching a fire burn, isn't it? For some strange reason you just can't take your eyes off it.

Figuratively Speaking

2007-06-03T20:39:00.000-07:00

One of the things that non-Catholics are most surprised about when they really begin studying our faith is how literally Catholics take much of Scripture. Perhaps the clearest example of this is in the Last Supper passages, where Christ says of the bread, “This is my body”, and of the wine, “This is my blood.”

Often, however, when Catholics bring these verses to the attention to someone who does not believe in the true presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the conversation goes something like this:

Catholic: “Christ says, ‘This is my body’. Why can’t we take him at his word?
Non-Catholic: “Because Christ also calls himself a vine (John 15:1) and a door (John 10:7), among other things. Are we to believe he is actually a plant or a thing on hinges?

It’s interesting to see how an otherwise literalist student of the Bible suddenly turns figurative when it comes to reconciling his rejection of a distinctly Catholic doctrine.
The point such a person would be making, of course, is that Christ often spoke in metaphors to help his followers understand the full scope of his being. Why, the non-Catholic might ask, would we believe that the Last Supper discourse is any different?

To be fair to this perspective, here are several more “things” that God (in the person of Christ or otherwise) compares himself to through inspired Scripture:

The Branch (Zech. 3:8)
The Bright and Morning Star (Rev. 22:16)
The Chief Corner Stone (Eph. 2:20; 1Peter 2:7)
An Eagle (Deut. 32:11)
A Fountain (Zech. 13:1)
The Lamb (John 1:29; Rev. 5:6)
The Rock (1 Cor. 10:4)

This line of reasoning has never really made sense to me. Perhaps that has something to do with the fact that, for the last eleven years, I spent a great deal of time teaching eighth graders grammar and figurative language.

There’s something of a verbal sleight-of-hand trick happening when non-Catholics try to equate the institution of the Eucharist to Christ’s many metaphorical statements about himself.

A metaphor works this way. The subject of the sentence is joined by a linking verb to a seemingly different predicate nominative, which reflectively describes something unique about the subject. A literal truth about the predicate nominative describes a figurative truth about the subject. For instance, in the sentence, “My dad is an ox”, the subject (dad) is probably big and hairy, given his resemblance to the predicate nominative (ox). It is important to note that, given the structure of a metaphor, “ox” is describing “dad”, not the other way around. The ox literally weighs near a thousand pounds and is literally covered from head to foot with hair; my dad is only figuratively an ox in that his size and hair exceed that of the average person. To understand it more clearly, one can take the metaphor and turn it into a simile by adding “like” or “as”: My dad is like an ox.

The simile approach emphasizes that it is impossible to flip the comparison around without outright changing the meaning. “My dad is like an ox” becomes outright weird when we flip it to say, “An ox is like my dad.”

Let’s take the metaphors of Scripture and state them in simple declarative sentences (using the generic “God” to simplify the process):

God is a vine.
God is a door.
God is the branch.
God is the bright and morning star.
God is the chief corner stone.
God is an eagle.
God is a fountain.
God is the lamb.
God is the rock.

Now, notice the problem when we look at the institution of the Eucharist:

This [bread] is my body.

Or, to make the comparison easier, I’ll substitute the word “God” for the words “my body”:

This [bread] is God.

Or, to be specific:

This [bread] is Jesus.

It would make no sense to flip the comparison (unless one’s grammar resembles that of Yoda):

A vine is God.
A door is God.
A rock is God.
A lamb is God.

These last four don’t make sense because, in the figurative examples above, God is always the subject. The predicate nominatives describe qualities of God. God is a source of life, like a vine. He is our entrance into Heaven, like a door. He is the foundation of our faith, like a “rock” or “cornerstone”. He was sacrificed for us, like a lamb.

This is how metaphors work, which is why it is outright silly to claim that in the last supper narrative, when “God” or “my body” becomes the predicate nominative. To do so would mean that we are using the divine figuratively to describe a literal truth about the bread. How is this possible? Is the bread in anyway omniscient? Omnipotent? Omnipresent? To illustrate, let’s turn our “metaphors” into similes:

God is like a rock. Makes sense.
God is like a lamb. Makes sense.
God is like a vine. Makes sense.
God is like a door. Makes sense.
This bread is like God. Huh?

Even the original text would fail this test (This [bread] is like my body). The reason? By putting God as the predicate nominative, the metaphor serves to exalt bread to something divine by comparison. This makes no sense and has no place in the unity of Scripture unless

Unless it wasn’t meant to be figurative …

Which would mean it was literal …

Which would mean that the bread isn’t bread anymore.

Let' Be Frank II

2007-06-02T05:14:00.000-07:00

A while back, a reader named "Frank" made the accusation that the church's unwavering opposition to pro-abortion Catholic candidates (e.g. John Kerry and Ted Kennedy) was simply a ploy to support the Republicans in national elections.

People like Frank, who are die-hard stuck in support of the party of their choice, have a hard time seeing that it might be the other way around - that many Catholics choose their party because if its respect for life, rather than choosing their view on life because of their party.

Another thing that Frank might have a hard time explaining is, if the pro-life stance is little more than a straw man for supporting the Republican party, why do so many pro-life Catholics want to have nothing to do with the Republican Rudy Guliani (click here), who shows some of the greatest promise for keeping a Republican in the White House.

A political party is by and large defined by the most prominent member of that party, especially if that person happens to be in the office of president, which is why we hear reference to Reagan conservatives so often. If a pro-abortion (his donations to planned parenthood rule out the "pro-choice" label) and gay-rights candidate like Rudy happens to get into the white house, it is going to be awfully hard for Republicans to consider themselves the pro-life party anymore. That line will have been officially and irrevocably crossed.

A lot of conservatives, such as Sean Hannity, have sold out on this issue and seem comfortable with suggesting that we have to start looking beyond abortion and gay rights and consider the big picture, most of which is filled (in their minds) with national security. Unfortunately, this seems to be the game plan for much of the Republican agenda in recent years, to "look beyond" one issue after another until it has become a party that nobody recognizes anymore.

The same thing happens often in our churches. In a desperate attempt to attract members, churches (Catholic and Protestant) begin secularizing their services and trying to make them "hip" to bring in a crowd (especially a younger one). The doctrine and practices become so watered down that these churches lose the identities that defined them in the first place. In addition, their short-term gains turn into long term loses because it is simply impossible for churches to compete with the entertainment and social atmosphere of the secular world. Once they have trained their members to feel that worship is about external stimulation, those same members eventually drift to where that external stimulation is stronger and less contrived.

I genuinely believe that people generally want their worship to be an experience that is distinct from their worldly lives. Music in church shouldn't sound like what we can find on the radio on the way home. Worship shouldn't be so saturated with fellowship that it resembles a class reunion. The homily shouldn't be replaced with a motivational speaker. We want to be transported, during the Mass, to a place that no human-devised gimmick can take us. The fact that this isn't happening in many of today's churches can be seen by the trend for people to seek "communion" through holding hands and sharing doughnuts, overlooking the fact that the most miraculous communion takes place during the reception of the Eucharist, and nothing can come close to competing with that.

Not to downplay the Mass by returning to the metaphor, but as long as the Republican party continues to water-down its positions, trying to compete with the political correctness and feel-good politics, it will slowly see its conservative base drift away to other "churches", so to speak. Being Republican will no longer carry without it any sense of identity, other than one of impotence. If the Republican party says it is okay to be pro-choice, one might as well side with the party that has been doing it longer. If the Republicans continue to allow the government to swell out of control, one might as well switch to a party that does this as a matter of philosophy. If the Republicans continue to edge toward a welfare state, one might as well edge to the other side of the fence.

Luckily for Republicans, there are candidates out there who are remaining true to the conservative values (and have been for more than just the last couple years). If we are truly pro-life, we cannot let this issue be reduced to a peripheral issue on the political radar. And we cannot let a pro-life party be redefined by a man who

Echoes from the Past - Priesthood of the People

2007-05-28T18:18:00.000-07:00

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

2007-05-28T05:20:00.000-07:00

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

2007-05-26T18:39:00.000-07:00

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

2007-05-26T10:21:00.000-07:00

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

2007-05-26T10:16:00.000-07:00

"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

2007-05-25T08:43:00.001-07:00

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

2007-05-25T07:24:00.000-07:00

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

2007-05-24T11:18:00.000-07:00

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

2007-05-23T12:13:00.000-07:00

(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

2007-05-23T05:51:00.000-07:00

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

2007-05-22T05:43:00.000-07:00

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 ...

2007-05-22T05:40:00.000-07:00

(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 ...

2007-05-21T12:46:00.000-07:00

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?

2007-05-21T12:13:00.000-07:00

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:

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)
Baptism cleans one of committed sin Acts 2:37-38
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?

2007-05-21T12:09:00.000-07:00

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

2007-05-18T08:03:00.000-07:00

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:

Dangerously long waits (such as waiting months for an operation to remove a threatening cancer)
Rationed and inferior drugs (they may seem cheap online, but many in Canada have to shop South to get the quality stuff)
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!

2007-05-16T07:16:00.000-07:00

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.