Mackerel Snapper

Are You Saved?

2011-07-31T19:40:00.000-07:00

Do you have assurance of your salvation?

In this continued examination of an anti-Catholic Bible study by a local author (click here for past essays ), we will examine the question of whether Christians can have eternal assurance of salvation.

Bart Larson's study makes a big deal of this point. In the introduction to his study, he includes several verses, pulled out of context, to support the idea of eternal assurance (I'll examine these below). However, despite the fact that Bart claims, both in his study and in e-mails, to present the "strongest" verses Catholics use to counter his claims, he includes none of these in the introduction alongside his verses. His defense of this in personal e-mail to me was that it was his introduction, which he could write as he chose.

Note below that I'll examine both sides of the argument.

Another huge problem Bart has with claiming assurance of eternal salvation is that he rejects the idea that any man can act infallibly (see last essay). So, in addition to the previous questions that I have posed to Bart, which he has not yet answered, here is another: How can he infallibly know that he has assurance of salvation? How can he be infallibly sure that he isn't the victim of self-deception? Many converts to Catholicism have come from groups which taught assurance of salvation, but where life-long members fell from the faith after years in which they (and those around them) were convinced of their own salvation.

In Bart's study, he expresses his deep regret and concern that poor, misled Catholics are riddled with guilt and fear, the result of their Catholic faith.

Bart admits that he is not an expert on Catholicism, yet he feels qualified to critique it in talks and in this booklet. He builds most of his understanding off of anecdotal encounters with poorly catechized Catholics. Jesus tells us that the way is narrow that leads to Heaven. One should expect that all faiths contain great numbers of people who do not take the study of their own faith and their relationship with Christ seriously, including Protestantism. Can you imagine the disrespect Bart would feel toward his faith if a similar study were created using encounters with the least well-formed of Evangelicalism?

Bart blames most of the guilt and fear and superstition that Catholics face on "half-truths" (p. 4). However, what Bart doesn't bother to mention is that Catholics have what is called "moral assurance of salvation". Moral assurance means that, because of Christ's atoning death on the cross (and only because of this), our sins are forgiven. However, we must be moved by the grace of God to ask forgiveness for these sins. Even Protestants agree that we must continue asking for forgiveness, as the Lord's prayer, which we have in common, teaches us to continue to petition the Father to "forgive us our sins". If a Catholic truly and properly repents of the sin, he can be assured he has eternal life. However, he cannot fall into a false confidence of believing that he will not reject God at some later time.

Bart rejects the idea that one can fall from salvation at any point after accepting Christ and being "born again". However, as Bart maintains that his study is about letting the Bible speak for itself, this isn't about what he believes, but what Scripture presents.
A true believer is one who is "standing secure", but Paul warns that he must guard against falling (1 Cor. 10:12).

A true believer is one who "stands fast through faith", but Paul warns that this individual can be cut off like the Jews (Romans 11:13-22).

A true believer is one who "receives the knowledge of truth" and "has been sanctified by the blood of the covenant", yet who the author of Hebrews explains can "sin deliberately" and "face an afury of fire" (10:26-31).
A true believer is one who "escapes the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ", but who Peter says can "become entangled in them again and face a worse fate than he who never knew the way or righteousness" (2 Peter 2:20-21).

Just to make sure that I'm not pulling a few select verses out of context, please read these verses and their context for yourself. And, to see that these are not isolated comments in Scripture, here is a link with pages of additional verses supporting loss of salvation: http://www.scripturecatholic.com/salvation.html#salvation-V.

So what of the verses that Bart presents? Let's take a look:

1 John 5:11-13 - Bart provides this verse as proof of eternal assurance. Actually, this verse only gives relative assurance. John just finished listing a number of signs that someone has a genuine faith. These include acts of love of neighbor and of God, as well as holding to orthodox teaching. He is telling us that someone who displays these things has eternal life, as opposed to someone who doesn't. John isn't writing at all about whether or not belief, itself, guaranteed salvation beyond all possibility of loss. To use this as proof of assurance is to do a terrible disservice to the message. However, Catholics would agree that someone who believes in Christ and follows his word has eternal life. However, Scripture is clear that this individual still retains the free will that allows him to later on toss that eternal life away. Bart can only pull his meaning out of this verse by reading it separated from the context of the verses cited above. In addition, he forgets that John often writes in a language of exaggeration. We see this in context just three verses later when John tells us that a true believer never sins. No Catholic or Protestant would make the claim that he never sins. However, Bart's study picks and chooses which verses to take literally and which to take figuratively.

Psalm 103:11,12; Romans 4:7,8; 5:8; and I John 1:9. - These verses are used to show that all of our sins, past, present, and future are forgiven. The first, from the Old Testament, cannot refer to the life of a believer in Christ, who has not even been born, not to mention died for our sins, but the drafting of the psalms. The first set of verses from Romans simply tells us that, according to David, one whose sins are forgiven is blessed. Who would argue from that. The verse in chapter five reminds us that Christ died for our sins. No argument here. The verse from 1 John is key. Our sins are not automatically forgiven, or else Hell would be empty. Rather, our sins are forgiven "if we confess" them. Whether one believes in confession to a priest or straight to God, the act of receiving forgiveness is dependent upon our being moved to ask for it throughout our life. As Catholics, we understand that we do not turn into spiritual robots after being born again. Even the most devout of us can decide that we no longer regret our sins.
Romans 8:1 tells us that there is "no condemnation" for those who are in Jesus Christ. Bart assumes this is an eternal promise. However, he forgets that the Biblical writers often write in a language of completion, assuming the individual will finish his life in the current state. After all, if the state of being "not condemned" is irrevocable, then the same would have to be said of the state of condemnation given to he who is not a believer in John 3:18. Bart's logic tells us that anyone, Catholic or Protestant, who ever doubted God is condemned forever.

I John 4:16-18 is, according to Bart's booklet, proof that if we are currently in Christ, we can have confidence. But read the verses carefully. They tell us that being in Christ perfects our love so that we may be bold on judgment day - future tense. In other words, if we have that boldness now, we are premature in it. At any point that we chose to leave our relationship with Christ, that perfection of our love ends, and we do not have that boldness when judgment day actually comes.

Jude 1:24,25 tells us that God has the power to keep us from falling. Catholics agree wholeheartedly with this. There are those of us who are members of the elect, and we are guaranteed to see heaven through the infallible power of God. Bart, however, makes the mistake of believing that we can infallibly know if we are members of the elect. The Bible is very clear that there is such a thing as false assurance. Only God knows for sure whose name is written in the Book of Life. Even Paul was unwilling to declare himself as saved (1 Cor. 4:4). Paul wouldn't have made a very good Evangelical, according to Bart's booklet.

Bart will claim that he is presenting the Bible for you to make up your own mind. Why, then, doesn't he present any of the verses on losing salvation in his introduction? Why doesn't he explain the context of the verses he does provide? The answer - because, despite his claims that he is simply a servant to the Word of God, Bart is feeding you his interpretation. He wants you to believe Catholic teachings are contrary to Scripture, even if he has to hide some of Scripture from you to make that case.

For the next issue, here are two more questions for Bart. He will either not be able to answer them, or his answer will be inconsistent with the doctrines promoted by his Bible study:

What are some examples of things which are now dead, but which were not once alive?

According to Christian belief, does the body animate and empower the spirit, or does the spirit animate and empower the body?

An Infallible Church?

2011-07-24T06:51:00.000-07:00

What is your pillar and foundation for truth as a Christian?

This is a great question to ask the next time someone suggests that Christians should go by the Bible alone, and the answer, most likely, will be that the "Bible" is our pillar and foundation. However, the Bible itself says that the "Church" is the pillar and foundation for truth - 1 Tim. 3:15.

In this series, which focuses on a "Catholic" Bible study by author Bart Larson (scroll down for the last few essays), we have examined the premise of whether or not Christians are meant to go by the Bible alone. So far, these conclusions have been reached:

Scripture never explicitly says or even implies we are to go by the Bible alone.

Going by the Bible alone is a construct of the reformers, who came over one-and-a-half thousand years after Christ.
Early Christians didn't go by the Bible alone.

Scripture, in fact, tells us to go by the Bible AND the oral traditions of Christ and the apostles.

Even though Bart's study does not make the case for going by the Bible alone, it moves very quickly into the area of infallibility, trying to demonstrate, through various verses of Scripture, that there is no infallible Church. In this essay, we will first look at the verses he provides and then look at many he does not, which show that Christ indeed instituted an infallible Church.

First, a definition. Infallibility does not mean sinless. Many think that Catholics believe that the popes and bishops are incapable of sin, but this has never been the teaching, and history shows it isn't the case. Bart knows this - I've explained it to him several times, but he still uses his study to disprove infallibility based on the sinful nature of Peter, which is a dishonest tactic. Second, infallibility does not mean that the Pope is right in everything he writes or says. For instance, what the Pope writes in his personal journal or says in a Sunday homily is not protected by infallibility. Nor would he be infallible if he predicted the winner of the World Series or tried to identify the location of Jimmy Hoffa. Finally, infallibility does not mean that the Pope receives new revelation or that he is on God's special e-mail list. Many accuse Catholics of "adding" to revelation. However, when the Pope makes an infallible declaration, he is slave to the original deposit in Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

Infallibility, simply put, is the teaching that God will not let any mere man destroy his Church with heresy. It is a limitation upon the leaders of the Church, not a special power. When the Pope (or the bishops in unity with one another and the pope) officially proclaims a doctrine related to faith or morality, and when he intends for this teaching to be binding upon all the Christian faithful, he is protected from error. As you can see, infallibility has a pretty limited reach. It is about the teaching, not about the man. We'll examine the Scriptural, historical, and logical proofs for infallibility in a bit. Before then, let's look at the verses Bart's study uses to disprove it. This section begins with the heading: Did Jesus and the apostles teach that there would be an infallible church, along with infallible Christians?

• Matthew 7:15-20 - This verse warns that there will be false prophets. The Catholic Church agrees. However, the truth that there do exist false prophets doesn't specify who those prophets are. And it certainly doesn't demonstrate that there cannot be an infallible Church which is protected, by God, from the rot of false prophesy.

• Acts 20:29-31 - Similar to the last verse, this verse warns that there will be grievous wolves sneaking among the flock, but fails to disprove an actual infallible Church.

• Romans 16:18 - This verse warns us to avoid those who cause division, but never specifies who they are. Bart would have more difficulty with this verse than Catholics, as he would have to explain the division caused by so many interpretations from a Bible only approach.

• Galatians 2:11-21 - With these verses, Bart includes the note: "Note the moral issues and who was involved." While infallibility has nothing to do with "moral issues", which Bart knows, he still tries to disprove it. He wants Catholics to tie infallibility to moral issues, but we have never claimed that any man is without sin except Christ. In this verse, Peter refuses to eat with Gentiles. He does not, however, teach this is okay. Does this destroy Peter's ability to act infallibly? Bart should hope not, or else the two epistles authored by Peter are fallible, which means Scripture contains error. So this leads to another question for Bart: How can Peter not be infallible in official teachings, yet still write infallibly?

• I Timothy 4:1-3 - More verses which warn against false prophets - see notes above.

• II Peter 2:1 - Another verse which warns against false prophets - see notes above.

• Revelation, chapters 2 and 3 - Bart includes this note: "Were all of the 7 churches infallible?" This passage has nothing to do with infallibility for a couple reasons. 1) The Catholic Church does not teach that individual churches are infallible. My local pastor can, by all means, be in error. Even local bishops can be in error. 2) These verses are talking about the local churches falling into sin and needing to repent. It is referring to moral conduct, not "official teachings".

• (For additional verses read: II Corinthians 11:3; Ephesians 4:14; Titus 1:10,11; I John 4:1 and II John 1:7-9.) Bart throws these last few verses in, but they simply refer, again, to those who are false prophets and those who teach false doctrine. Catholics can agree, pointing out that these deceivers are those who stray from the official teachings of the infallible Church.

So, at this point, Bart has failed to disprove infallibility. To be fair, though, he has the herculean task of proving a negative. After all, he would be hard-pressed to find a verse that says, "There is no infallible Church." The burden of proof is upon us, as Catholics, to find the proof that such a Church exists. We'll examine this through Scripture, history, and logic.

Scripture

Even though Bart claims that his study is fair and presents the strongest verses he is aware of to support Catholic teachings, he actually includes no such verses for infallibility. This isn't because he isn't aware of them, as he has referred to Matthew 16:16-19 in private e-mails, so this raises the question of why he doesn't share this passage and others with his readers.

Before reading the passage in Matthew 16, one should note that the original readers of this passage would have been very familiar with the Old Testament and would have recognized that Christ was creating an amazing parallel with Isaiah 22:22, which tell us that the Davidic king would appoint a prime minister, who had the authority to act on behalf of the king. To signify this appointment, the king would lay the "key of the house of David ... upon his shoulder; so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open."

In Matthew 16:18, Christ (who is the fulfillment of the Davidic king) gives Peter the keys to the kingdom and tells him that what he binds on earth is bound in Heaven and what he loosens on earth is loosed in Heaven.

This parallel couldn't be accidental (God doesn't do anything accidentally), and it shows us some important things:

• If Christ is the new "Davidic king", Peter is in the role of the "prime minister" who can act with his authority.
• Just as the key of the house of David was a transferable gift, the role of Peter can be transferred to others.

What makes this passage even more striking is that Jesus goes a step further and gives Peter a new name. Whenever God gives someone a new name, it is of great significance (e.g. Saul - Paul; Abram - Abraham). At that point, Peter's actual name was Simon, and Jesus renamed him Kepha, which is Aramaic for Rock. He then says that "upon this rock" he would build his Church. In other words, "Simon, you are rock and upon this rock I will build my Church." Of course, God is the rock of our salvation (Psalm 94:22), but Christ desired that, when he ascended into Heaven, we would have a visible leader through whom the Holy Spirit would act to keep the Church in check.

Christ spoke Aramaic, and there is evidence that Matthew might have originally been written in Aramaic or Hebrew (Hierapoles wrote, around 100-140 AD, that Matthew wrote in the Hebrew language), yet some still try to appeal to the Greek text to claim that Christ was referring to Peter as a small stone "Petros", and to the foundation of the Church as a rock "Petra". However, this doesn't reflect the original Aramaic, and it shows an ignorance of Greek grammar, which relied on word endings to show gender. Petra (rock) is a feminine noun, and since Simon was male, Kepha had to be translated as "Petros", which is simply the masculine form of the noun. Petros and Petra once upon a time referred to different types of rock, but this in a different type of Greek (Attick Greek). By the time of the New Testament, which was written in Koine Greek, they were synonyms. The two types of Greek are as different as Shakespeare's English is to ours.

Simply put, though Christ is the cornerstone of our Church, he established Peter as the foundation for the earthly institution. While Bart's study fails to present any verses to support this, there are more than can be covered in this essay. Catholic Answers does a good job of summarizing the primacy of Peter in the tract, "Peter and the Papacy":

There is ample evidence in the New Testament that Peter was first in authority among the apostles. Whenever they were named, Peter headed the list (Matt. 10:1-4, Mark 3:16-19, Luke 6:14-16, Acts 1:13); sometimes the apostles were referred to as "Peter and those who were with him" (Luke 9:32). Peter was the one who generally spoke for the apostles (Matt. 18:21, Mark 8:29, Luke 12:41, John 6:68-69), and he figured in many of the most dramatic scenes (Matt. 14:28-32, Matt. 17:24-27, Mark 10:23-28). On Pentecost it was Peter who first preached to the crowds (Acts 2:14-40), and he worked the first healing in the Church age (Acts 3:6-7). It is Peter's faith that will strengthen his brethren (Luke 22:32) and Peter is given Christ's flock to shepherd (John 21:17). An angel was sent to announce the resurrection to Peter (Mark 16:7), and the risen Christ first appeared to Peter (Luke 24:34). He headed the meeting that elected Matthias to replace Judas (Acts 1:13-26), and he received the first converts (Acts 2:41). He inflicted the first punishment (Acts 5:1-11), and excommunicated the first heretic (Acts 8:18-23). He led the first council in Jerusalem (Acts 15), and announced the first dogmatic decision (Acts 15:7-11). It was to Peter that the revelation came that Gentiles were to be baptized and accepted as Christians (Acts 10:46-48).

In addition to this, the early Church is full of writings recognizing the primacy of Peter and their successors. Catholic interpretation of Scripture is consistent with those in the first centuries. The interpretation that Bart's study leads one to believe (by leaving out key verses), is not. Here are a couple examples of such writings:

Clement of Alexandria wrote: "[T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly gasped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? 'Behold, we have left all and have followed you' [Matt. 19:27; Mark 10:28]" (Who Is the Rich Man That Is Saved? 21:3-5 [A.D. 200]).

Cyprian of Carthage wrote: "The Lord says to Peter: 'I say to you,' he says, 'that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.' . . . On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).
However, even if Peter is the leader of the apostles, and therefore, the Church, does this mean that the Church is infallible? We should both hope this is so and conclude this is so based on the following point:

• Scripture tells us that it is the Church, not the Bible alone, which is our "pillar and foundation of truth" (1 Tim. 3:15). How can a Church be the pillar and foundation of truth if capable of error?

• While Christ is our "shepherd" (Ez 34:15, Jn 10:16, 1 Pet 2:25), he transfers this title to Peter, as well, by telling him to feed his sheep in John 21:15-17. This doesn't replace Christ as the good shepherd, but emphasizes Peter's earthly role while Christ is in Heaven.

• In Luke 22:31-32, Jesus prays that, while the faith of others will fail, Peters would not, so that he could strengthen them. This further illustrates Jesus' desire that, after his ascension, we would have a visible and present leader to be our anchor to truth.

• In Luke 10:16, Christ gives the amazing declaration that whoever listens to the leaders of his Church listens to him, and whoever rejects them rejects him. How could this be if the leaders of the Church teach error? This would mean Christ teaches error. Likewise, how could this be if, as is the case in Protestantism today, several "true" Churches teach contradictory doctrine? Does this mean that Christ contradicts himself?

• During the first couple hundred years in the Church, that nature of Christ's divinity and the nature of the Trinity were debated until officially defined by the Catholic Church. These teachings were vague enough in Scripture that our limited minds struggled with them. Thus, if the Church is not infallible in defining them, doesn't this mean we might be wrong in our interpretation of Christ's divinity and the nature of the Trinity?

• During the first couple hundred years, the table of contents for the Bible were debated. Christians were in disagreement as to which books were inspired and which were not. The Catholic Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, officially defined the list of inspired books. If the Church could not act infallibly in this, then can we be sure that we have the correct list of books in the Bible? Many Protestant scholars realize this and have started referring to the Bible as a "fallible collection of infallible books." The implications of this statement are striking, as it is an admission that error could exist in our collection of 27 New Testament books (not to mention the Old Testament). If we lack that security, how can we be confident of anything the New Testament tells us if we have no firm confidence in the collection of books that exists there?

This last point recalls our question in the last essay, which Bart has not yet answered, which is how we know the book of Hebrews is inspired if we have no infallible Church? Actually, we could ask that of most books in the New Testament. Many point to 2 Tim. 3:16, which tells us that all Scripture is inspired, but there are two problems here:

1) Even if all Scripture is inspired (which it is), we can only know which books are Scripture in the first place after a source of authority tells us. If we remove the infallible Church, we have removed that source of authority. It is easy to say a book is inspired after we know it is Scripture (thanks to the Catholic Church), but put yourself in the mindset of a first century Christian, who is debating whether Hebrews should be included in the New Testament to begin with and it isn't so easy.

2) There is a problem when we rely on the text inside of a source to verify the inspiration of that same source. Scripture claims inspiration for itself. So do the Koran, the Book of Mormon, and the writings of many cult leaders. I could even include this line in my essay: everything Spencer types is inspired by God. It would be circular logic to conclude my essay is inspired because I typed it, and because that line is in my essay, it must be true, and if it is true, my essay is inspired ... This logic is similar to a man trying to lift himself into the air.

Now that the subject of authority has been explored, the next essay will look at the teachings on salvation in Bart's essay, and specifically the question: Do you have eternal assurance of salvation?

The $1000 Answer?

2011-07-17T04:54:00.000-07:00

Bart hasn't provided an answer for the $1000 question, and says he isn't interested in the theatrics of it.

That's fine. He can turn down the $1000, but question still remains - where does the Bible teach us to go by the Bible alone?

If you haven't read the last two essays, Bart Larson is a local author who has published (online and in print) a Bible study for Catholics which is set up to steer individuals from the faith (scroll down for the first two essays). To be fair, Bart is doing this because he genuinely wants to see others go to Heaven and disagrees with Catholicism. He is "anti-Catholic" in the sense that he rejects anything distinctly Catholic, but not because he hates Catholic individuals, themselves. He would just rather they be Protestant. I, personally, don't have a problem with this. We should be in the business of guiding people who we believe to be in grave error.

Think about it - if you knew someone was driving very fast toward a fallen bridge, and you knew the safer path, wouldn't it be your responsibility to warn them? If a beggar encountered another beggar, wouldn't he have a moral duty to tell him where he found some food?

Many today treat faith as if different belief systems are like political parties. What is true for you isn't necessarily true for me. We avoid discussions of faith because doctrine has become, in many minds, nothing more than one's opinion - one church's best guess against that of another. There is such a thing as objective truth, however. Either God exists or he doesn't. Either Jesus is God or he isn't. Either Purgatory is real or it isn't. Either we are supposed to go by the Bible alone or we aren't.
In the above statements, one or the other must be true, which means the other must be false. The next question is whether one can actually prove that his belief is truth and not the other guys.

This series, however, focuses on Bart's very flawed and dishonest attempt to do this - a Bible study that claims to be neutral in its presentation of Scripture, but is anything but. This essay is the last one showing that the very foundation of Bart's beliefs is flawed. Beginning next week, we'll look at specific doctrines he either believes or rejects and show the errors in his reasoning and defense.

I once had an individual tell me that he "speaks where the Bible speaks and is silent where the Bible is silent."

Since that rule, itself, is never taught in the Bible, by going by the Bible alone (sola-Scriptura), he is, actually, speaking where the Bible is silent, as is Bart's study by teaching you to learn Christianity by isolated Bible verses that Bart has personally selected.

At the end of this study, I have yet another $1000 question for Bart. Whether or not he wants to claim the money, the questions I am asking are central to defending his particular type of Christianity, one which rejects the Sacred Tradition of Christ and the authority of the Church that Christ established. Bart claims that he his study stands as its own defense. Fair enough. Let's see if Bart's Bible study contains even one verse that tells us we are to go by the Bible alone, or even one verse that tells us to reject the Sacred Traditions passed on by Christ and the apostles.

• Acts 17:11 - This passage is the story of the "noble-minded" Bereans. This is a favorite of Bible-only proponents because they assume the Bereans were praised in the book of Acts for using the Bible as the final authority. Actually, it is exactly the opposite. It is interesting that Bart's study suggests one start reading at verse 11 because, just before this, we see that the Thessalonians went by the Bible alone and rejected Paul's word when he reasoned with them from Scriptures. Acts tells us that the Bereans were noble-minded because they "received" Paul's word with readiness of mind. This was Paul's oral word. Yes, they checked their Old Testaments because Paul surely referred to prophesies and genealogies, but surely Bart isn't suggesting that they were noble-minded for having the Old Testament be the final authority over Paul, who authored about one-third of the New Testament? Either way, Catholics agree with the idea that traditions should be in agreement with Scripture (all Catholic traditions are), but also that Scripture must be in agreement with Sacred Tradition. Just as fake traditions (such as those of the Judiazers) are inconsistent with the New Testament teachings, many false "Scriptures" were rejected in the first centuries when checked by noble-minded Christians against the oral traditions they received from Christ and the apostles.

• II Timothy 3:14-17 - This is the classic prooftext for supporting a "Bible alone" approach. Problem one: As seen when looking at it closely, this verse only tells us that Scripture is "useful" for "doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. Useful, not sufficient. Gas is useful to get me to St. Louis, but it isn't sufficient. Problem two: Paul indicates in line 15, Paul is primarily referring Timothy to the Scriptures he had known as a child - the Old Testament. Even though the passage would eventually apply to the New Testament, too, since it was the Old Testament that Paul was referring to primarily, does Bart believe that the Old Testament is sufficient for a relationship with Christ? Problem three: Eph. 4:11-12 tells us that Christ "gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ." Bart often writes about the law of non-contradiction. If, according to this passage from Ephesians, teachers are provided to perfect the saints, how could God have intended for us to go by the Bible alone?

• Deuteronomy 6:4-9; Isaiah 50:4; 55:6-11; Psalm 1:1-3; Psalm 19:7-11; Psalm 119:9-16, 105; John 17:8-17; Hebrews 4:11-14; I John 2:5; II Timothy 2:15; 3:14-17; I Peter 1:25-2:3 - Bart's study tries to present several verses that emphasize the sufficiency of Scripture alone. Most of these verses (Hebrews 4:12 Deuteronomy 6:4-9; Isaiah 50:4; 55:6-11; Psalm 1:1-3; Psalm 19:7-11; Psalm 119:9-16, 105; John 17:8-17; I John 2:5; II Timothy 2:15; 3:14-17; I Peter 1:25-2:3; II Peter 1:3; II Pet. 3:17,18 ) are talking about God's "word" or God's "law". I've learned from this study and from e-mail correspondence that, whenever Bart sees these words, he assumes they are referring to Scripture. However, as we've already seen, God's word and law are preached orally, not just written down (see 1 Thes. 2:13 as one of many examples). Read these verses for yourself - do any of them indicate they are talking just about Scripture? If not, one has to ask why Bart's study included them as if they did? I can't assume the author's motivation, but there only seem to be two possibilities - he either is so biased toward his interpretation that he doesn't understand the difference or he understands the difference, but hopes his readers do not.

• I Cor. 4:6 - this verses warns "not to think of men above that which is written". However, Bart's study doesn't mention that "what is written" doesn't refer to Scripture, as it isn't even brought up in the context, which is salvation. One probable interpretation is that we are not to attempt to judge one another and suppose we can go above what God might have written in the Book of Life. Since I do not have access to the Book of Life, it is not my place to cast judgment on your salvation.

• Jude 1:3; II Peter 1:19-21; Revelation 22:18,19; Acts 20:27-31; Galatians 1:6-9; II Peter 2:1 - Bart's study presents these verses as arguments that someone shouldn't "change, delete, or alter Scripture." Amen! First, read these verses and see how many actually refer specifically to Scripture, as opposed to God's complete revelation, which was given orally and written. Almost none do; however, pretending that each one does refer to Scripture, Catholics have never deleted, added to, or altered Scripture. This is an example of where Bart misunderstands Catholicism. The Oral Traditions are in harmony with Scripture and present the same teachings, as we'll see in later essays. The pope doesn't receive "new revelation", as Bart once accused in an e-mail. We are subject to the same teachings that were given once, for all, to the saints (Jude 1:3). However, as long as Bart is on the subject of deleting and changing Scripture, it would be a good time for him to talk about Martin Luther, who he upholds as a hero of Biblical Christianity. Not only did Luther want to remove the book of James, calling it an "epistle of straw" (because he didn't like how it contradicted his faith-alone belief), Luther also added the word "alone" to his German translation of a passage about faith. Finally, Bart uses a version of the Bible which has seven books removed from what Christians had used for hundreds of years before the Reformation. The Catholic Old Testament is based on the Old Testament that Christ and the apostles used. Never let it be said that a Catholic has tampered with the contents of what was delivered to the saints!

Bart's study goes on to claim that Scripture demonstrates there will never be an infallible Church. We'll take a look at his support for this, along with many verses that he left out of his study. In the meantime, consider this $1000 question - If there is no infallible Church, how can we know, for sure, that the book of Hebrews is inspired? Try to work the answer out for yourself. It is more than about the book of Hebrews and actually has implications for most of the Bible and for the Bible alone approach that Bart's study encourages.

The $1000 Question

2011-07-02T12:48:00.001-07:00

Apologetics From Scratch is offering Bart Larson a quick and easy $1000, payable to him or the charity or religious group of his choice. Actually, this offer is made to anyone interested in tackling it.

Bart claims to be a sola-Scriptura Christian, which means he goes by the Bible alone. The challenge, therefore, is to identify even one place in all of Scripture where the Bible tells us to go by the Bible alone.

Bart Larson is a local anti-Catholic author who plans on distributing his "Catholic Bible Study" in print and electronically in the area. This study attacks the Catholic faith using many logical fallacies and selective quotations, ignoring much of what Scripture has to say about these teachings. These newsletters are an attempt, not just to show the errors in Bart's study, but to help equip you to do the same if you encounter attacks on your faith. The first essay in this series is published at my personal blog (click here). Over the next several weekly newsletters, I will be showing that Bart's understanding of Christianity is not solidly Biblical. This time, though, I will demonstrate that the very foundation for his beliefs is contrary to the same Scripture he claims to follow.

Bart believes that God's revelation is contained in the Bible alone for us today. Catholics believe it is contained in the Bible and the oral teachings of Christ and the apostles, which have been preserved through the generations by the Holy Spirit.

Why do we believe this? Because the Bible tells us this is the case. In addition to telling us that the Bible is inspired by God (2 Tim. 3:16), which we all agree, Scripture tells us these things:

• Christ never wrote anything down that we have today. If he intended a "Bible only" Church, wouldn't this have been a priority?
• Christ never commanded his apostles to write everything down.
• We don't have writings from most of the apostles.
• According to the apostles Peter, the writings of Paul are difficult to understand, especially for the unlearned, who might distort it to their own destruction (2 Peter 3:15-16). Bart's study is encouraging otherwise "unlearned" individuals to read these very letters without proper guidance.
• Consistent with Peter's warnings about Paul's letters, Scripture shows us that other parts of the Bible are difficult to understand without some external explanation (Acts 8:30-35).
• Even the authors of Scripture acknowledge that there were many things that they chose not to write down, but which were very important for the followers of Christ (2 John 12; 2 John 13).
• Paul tells us that this is because we are to go by the teachings that are written, but also the ones passed on by word of mouth (2 Thes. 2:15).
• There are false traditions, just as there are false Scriptures. The false traditions that Scripture refers to are based on the teachings of the heretic group the Judiazers (Matt. 15:1-3).
• However, just like Scripture, Christian oral traditions are also the "Word of God" (1 Thes. 2:13).
• Just like Scripture, these Christian oral traditions are entrusted by the Spirit (2 Tim. 1:14).
• Just like Scripture, these are meant to be passed on and taught to others through the generations (2 Tim. 2:2).
• Scripture even tells us to "shun" those who reject these traditions (2 Thes. 3:6). Bart's study is teaching you to reject these traditions.
It isn't that Scripture is less than perfect. Rather, we are, but God instituted a Church that prevents our own sinful and prideful minds from distorting his word.

In addition, Scripture was never written to be a systematic catechism of what Christians are to believe. If it were, the central mystery of Christianity - the Trinity - would be more clearly spelled out, but it took Christians a few hundred years to fully define the Trinity. The New Testament made up of the gospels, which record the life and teachings of Christ; The Acts of the Apostles, which record the work of the apostles after Christ ascended; several epistles, which are by and large written to communities that already received instruction in the faith; and Revelation, which gives John's vision of Heaven. From these writings, everything that Christians believe is contained clearly (such as when 1 Peter 3:21 tells us that baptism saves us) or implied (such as the Trinity and Purgatory).

Sacred traditions do not add to Scripture, but connect the dots more perfectly and accurately than a Scripture alone approach.
In an upcoming newsletter, we will see how these oral traditions can be accessed. However, given the limit of space in each issue, I want to focus on Bart's belief that a sincere Christian needs nothing but Scripture, and from there, his own intellect and the Holy Spirit will guide him to truth.

Problem one: Whose interpretation do we go by?

If Bart were to get into an argument with a Church of Christ preacher, they would disagree on many things, such as the nature of baptism and whether man can fall from salvation.

Both would claim to go by Scripture alone as their final authority.

Both would provide ample verses from Scripture to disprove the other.

Both would claim the other is taking the verses out of context.

Both would claim the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Both would claim a knowledge of Biblical times that tells him what the verses really mean.

Both would leave, still disagreeing.

This same thing would happen if he got into an argument with a Pentecostal, a Lutheran, and even such fringe groups as the Jehovah's Witnesses.

Christ prayed for unity in John 17. Paul reiterated this in (1 Cor. 1:10). Going by the Bible alone brings disunity and is offensive to Christ.

Problem two: Any verse about Scripture that Bart can point to is usually referring to the Old Testament.

This doesn't mean that the New Testament isn't valuable, too. It means that, even if Bart found a verse that showed that Scripture alone is sufficient (which he can't), it would only prove that the Old Testament was already sufficient and that there was no need of anything further.

Problem three: First century Christians couldn't go by the Bible alone because most of the New Testament wasn't written down until late in that century.

For the record, Bart would agree that Christians couldn't go by the Bible alone at this point. He would say all the verses I quoted about oral teachings were meant to apply to these Christians, but that they didn't apply anymore after the New Testament was finished. Question: Where did Bart get this information? Where does the Bible or any other source say that oral traditions are only important until the completion of the New Testament?

Problem four: Even after all of the New Testament was written, the various books were often written to specific communities, which means that Christians still didn't have a complete New Testament.

After a while, these books were passed around from community to community, but even then we have a problem because of Problem five.

Problem five: Even after the books of the New Testament were passed around, nobody could agree until the 4th century as to which books were Scripture and which were not.

Until that time, early Christian writings show that some thought books like 2nd and 3rd John, Hebrews, and Revelation were not Scripture and others thought that other early Christian writings such as some works called The Didache, The Shepherd, and the letters of Clement were.

Problem six: It was through the Church that the Holy Spirit finally defined which books were Scripture.

Scripture didn't come with a table of contents. Rather, the authoritative Church of that time declared (with the Holy Spirit's guidance) which books were inspired and which weren't. Among a few reasons, these decisions were made based on which books tradition saw as inspired and which books agreed with the oral teachings.
In the early centuries, we didn't have Bible-based churches, but the birth of a Church-based New Testament.

Problem seven: Even after the New Testament was compiled, Bibles were copied by hand and were too expensive for individuals to own.

Adjusting for modern currency and values, a Bible at that time would have cost a couple hundred thousand dollars. Where would individuals like you, me or Bart have gotten our own copy. In addition, because books weren't widespread, most people were illiterate anyway. It wasn't until the invention of the printing press that individuals started to get their own Bibles and to learn to read in large numbers. This means that, until Johannes Gutenberg, Christianity as Bart imagines it was only for the rich and well-educated. It means that, if Christianity exists as Bart imagines it, Jesus Christ failed in his goal to start a religion that would be accessible to all generations. God, himself, failed in this, but the guy who invented the printing press succeeded.

Catholics can agree with Bart on several points:
• The Bible is inspired by God.
• The Bible is without error in theological and moral matters.
• The Bible is an authority for all Christians.
• Everything a Christian believes must be in harmony with the Bible, as long as the Bible is read properly.
• Catholics could do a much better job of reading their Bibles.
• So could Protestants.
However, his belief that we should go by the Bible alone is a tradition of man, started over 1500 years after Christ by the reformers. Catholics, however, go by what Christians have done since the days of the apostles.
In the next issue, and I'll show you the verses Bart uses in his study to try to show the Bible should be our only authority. You'll see how truly empty these verses are. Rather, the Bible is full of verses telling us that revelation is recorded in both written and oral form. Logic and history further discredit his foundation.

Perhaps, though, there is a conclusive verse that Bart didn't include. If so, $1000 awaits him or anyone else who can produce it.

Test All Things

2011-06-21T19:39:00.000-07:00

Bart Larson is a Christian apologist and the author of a booklet called Perfected in Love: A Bible Study for Catholics.

I met Bart several years ago as he served in his role as a hospice minister. My grandpa was dying, and while he slept in another room, Bart and I got acquainted in the living room. He gave me some stories and other writings he often hands out to his hospice patients. These writings, themselves, were rather benign with regard to doctrine - mostly aimed at comforting the very sick with the promise of God's love.

However, when I later visited the website listed at the bottom of his writings, what I found was one of the most offensive anti-Catholic works I had seen before. Since then, the study has gone through major revisions over the years, as Bart and I have discussed it and I've pointed out many errors. In that time it has been pulled from the website. However, he has informed me that he is posting it again, despite the fact that it is still fundamentally flawed and highly offensive.

Once it is posted again, I invite you to read it yourself at Bart's website: www.4seekers.com.

Note that I have no problem with you reading Bart's study or visiting his site. I have that much confidence in the solid truth of Catholicism, which you will see defended in these e-newsletters. I've even invited Bart to write a letter of response to my critiques, and I will publish his letter at the end of my series, allowing Bart time to revise according to the content of my essays.

Bart, however, is apparently not interested in letting visitors to his website hear the arguments that I am presenting. He extends no courtesy of inviting his readers to visit the AFS website through a link in his study and isn't willing to let me write a response to be added to his study. He has also refused several offers to debate some of the core doctrines he brings up.

While Bart insists that I should be focusing on what unites us, rather than what divides us, his study does not follow this guideline. It is systematically set up to attack most of the teachings of the Catholic faith, and I will simply be refuting that.

I will sometimes refer to Bart or his work as anti-Catholic. This is an accurate term. He does not hate Catholic individuals, but he openly attacks the teachings, practices, and leaders of the faith. He is, therefore, anti (against) anything distinctly Catholic.

This would be fair enough - if Bart had solid arguments against these teachings. Instead his study relies on a number of sleight-of-hand tricks to make you think that he has refuted much of Catholicism. We will examine the biggest of these in the next issue. Until then, here are some things to watch for:

• Bart claims his study is letting the Bible speak for itself, but he only gives you the verses he wants you to see and leaves out many that present a problem for him. When I pressed him to explain why he did this regarding verses on eternal security at the beginning, he explained that this was because it was his booklet and he could write his introduction how he wanted. Not much of a defense. In other places, I am convinced that Bart doesn't even know the verses or reasoning that Catholics use, and it is irresponsible for him to dismiss these teachings without researching this.

• Bart claims that his study is just a pure list of Bible verses and that he is reserving editorial comment. However, editorial comment is sprinkled throughout, and at one point he even refers the reader to a Hollywood movie (not a documentary) to make his points. Apparently, deep down, Bart doesn't believe that the Bible is as self-interpretive as he claims in the introduction.

• Bart will often "beg the question" - making a statement based on an unproven assumption. An example would be if he asked, "Does the Bible teach that we should worship anyone except God?" This is begging the question because the assumption is that the Catholic Church teaches that others can be worshipped, which it doesn't. Worship is for God alone.

• Bart will pull verses out of context. While his introduction tells you to study the "context" by reading the verses immediately above and below a certain verse, Bart doesn't mention that context is much larger than a set of five or six verses. Often he pulls verses and interprets them in a way that is contrary to the entire rest of the book in which they appear, as well as other books. He shows you just enough to put doubt in your head.

• Shotgun approach - Bart will throw so many verses and arguments into his writings that he hopes someone can never respond to all of them. He purposely overwhelms his readers.

• Straw man - Bart will attack the weakest argument for a belief, claiming victory. He does this especially in his section on the authority of the Pope.

• Bart admits he is not an expert on Catholicim, and our conversations over the years have shown many, many errors in his understanding of what Catholics believe. These errors are still grossly present, but Bart feels qualified to publish this study anyway and to give talks about Catholicism to Protestant groups.

Finally, as will be seen in next week's issue, Bart reads the Bible in a way contrary to how Christ and the Bible itself says Scripture should be read. He reads it in a way that, according to Scripture, leads to error and rejection of the full truth of Christ. Bart has declined to debate this issue and says his study stands for itself on how the Bible should be read. Therefore, in the next issue, we will see what his study says about reading Scripture, and then we'll see what Scripture has to say about itself by including all the verses and context that Bart left out.

Graven Images

2010-10-19T10:26:00.000-07:00

Here is my experiment with the movie making website "Xtranormal".

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Abbysmal Advice II

2007-05-04T08:08:00.000-07:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Abby refers to his "old-fashioned values."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Personally Opposed

2007-05-04T08:00:00.000-07:00

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

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

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

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

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

This is murder.

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

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

So.

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

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

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

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

It went like this:

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

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

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

PCF: No, I would make sure, first.

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

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

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

More Logical Fallacies

2007-05-01T07:33:00.000-07:00

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

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

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

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

Can Catholics Be Masons?

2007-05-01T07:00:00.000-07:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nashville Bishop Faces Backlash

2007-04-30T05:44:00.000-07:00

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

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

Nashville Bishop Faces Backlash

Diana Rigg

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

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

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

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

With whom do you side?

Hopefully not the bishop. At least in this story.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Questioning the Beggar

2007-04-14T13:26:00.000-07:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Have you been saved?"

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

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

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

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

Does God Hate Shrimp? The 15 Worst Arguments for Homosexuality

2007-04-11T05:41:00.000-07:00

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

The 15 Worst Arguments for Homosexuality

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

Will the blind and deaf go to Hell?

2007-04-09T10:58:00.000-07:00

A reader writes,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Indulging Ourselves

2007-04-09T07:05:00.000-07:00

A reader writes,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Primer on indulgences
Myths About Indulgences
How to Gain an Indulgence

In-Vitro Fertilization - Is It Really Wrong?

2007-04-02T12:22:00.000-07:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Too Many Rules?

2007-04-02T12:04:00.000-07:00

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

Has the Church "invented" too many rules?

Or have we just "invented" too many sins?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Necessity, after all, is the mother of invention.

More Catholic than the Pope

2007-03-31T18:43:00.000-07:00

First off, I have to apologize for stealing the title for this post from a book on schismatics by Patrick Madrid. However, it seemed like the appropriate title for this question, which came as a follow-up to my "In Hell on a Meat Rap" post (scroll down):

A reader writes, "A friend always tells me that it isn't much of a sacrifice when you go to fish fries and eat till you are full. What is your response?"

The rules for fasting and abstinence during Lent certainly are more relaxed than the Church might have required in the past. In the ancient times, some groups could be found who would abstain from all food until evening, and then only a small meal without meat or alcohol. One only needs to look at the number of days of obligation that have been "joined" with the nearest Sunday to get a sense that things have been relaxed a bit for us contemporary Christians, and perhaps this is an explanation for why the rules of Lent have softened.

Or ...

Perhaps another reason has to do with the rationale for lifting the abstanance requirement for Fridays during ordinary times (see "In Hell on a Meat Rap" below). Many mistakingly think that when the rules on ordinary Fridays was lifted, the Church has stopped viewing them as penitential days. Actually, the bishops (particularly in the US) decided that the act of penance might be more meaningful if each individual decided for himself what sacrifice to make. Rather than giving up meat on a Friday (outside of Lent), it might be more appropriate for me to give up my morning tea or to spend my lunch hour in private prayer rather than socializing.

During Lent, we are asked to abstain from meat and fast on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday, but only abstain from meat during the other Fridays of that season. However, Catholics are also asked to make personal and personalized acts of penance. Some of us give up sweets or television. Others give up their free time for acts of charity or join Bible studies.

The important aspect is that these acts are voluntary. In lifting the rules for abstanance on Fridays outside of Lent, the U.S. bishops wrote in the document "On Penance and Abstinence" (Nov. 18, 1966), "Our deliberate, personal abstinence from meat, more especially because no longer required by law, will be an outward sign of inward spiritual values that we cherish."

Shouldn't the same hold true for us during Lent? Suppose a woman just cannot live without her morning coffee. Would that not be a great sacrifice for her to go without it during Lent? And considering she did this voluntarily, out a genuine love for Christ and a sincere desire to unite herself with his sufferings, doesn't that make the sacrifice even more meaningful?

So she enjoys a fish fry on a Friday evening. Does this negate her personal sacrifice and the prayerful attention she has given to Christ during Lent? What about the man who skips lunch as his personal sacrifice? Is it wrong for him to eat until he's full at supper that evening?

Are there some Catholics who are a bit more lax than others? Perhaps some who give up nothing of any significance at all? Sure, but to recognize that fact just doesn't seem to justify the blanket assumption that everyone who goes to a fish fry isn't making "much of a sacrifice". Do we, after all, have a personal account of each individual's voluntary sufferings and charitable acts?

I guess it's easy enough to sit at home on a Friday night and have a bit of contempt for anyone who doens't appear to be living up to our own moral standards, but in the end, I think we'll just find ourselves in a dangerous extreme. Just as there are those who don't take Lent very seriously, there are those on the other end who tend to be "more Catholic than the Pope" and more Catholic than everyone around them in the pews. For instance, it is great if I decide to say a rosary each night of the week and spent an hour in perpetual adoration every Wednesday, but is my Catholic neighbor any less of disciple of Christ because he doesn't live up to that standard? Am I slacking behind the woman who has two hours in the chapel and prays the liturgy of the hours (and her evening rosary)?

Or, in the end, is it best not to become the Lent police and to worry, instead, about my own personal sacrifice, assume the best of those around me. Perhaps I want to have a grilled cheese and a glass of water for supper on a Friday night because it seems like the right sacrifice for me. But if the guy next door, the one who volunteers at the homeless shelter during Lent, wants to eat at the St. Andrew fish fry on a Friday evening, and in doing so fellowship with dozens of his fellow Catholics who had the same idea, then God bless him.

In Hell on a Meat Rap

2007-03-28T07:06:00.000-07:00

Once upon a time, Catholics had the derogatory nickname "mackerel snappers" because it was church discipline that we would abstain from meat every Friday of the year (not just during Lent, as we are accustomed to doing now). It was, in fact, considered grave sin (and mortal sin if full consent and knowledge are involved) to violate this church law. In the sixties, that discipline was relaxed in the United States (surprise, surprise). As for how Catholics should view Fridays outside of Lent, you can find an interesting discussion here.

However, the fact that it is no longer a grave sin to eat meat on Fridays outside of Lent has been a frequent means of attack against our claims to truth as Catholics who point to it as a "changed" teaching. Comedian George Carlin, a fallen-away Catholic, asked during a rant against the Church, what happens to "some guy doing eternity in hell on a meat rap?"

The short answer is this: There isn't one person (nor has there ever been a person) who is in Hell on a "meat rap".

The other short answer is this: George Carlin doesn't have a clue.

Perhaps if Carlin had spent as much time studying the teachings of the Church, he would still be receiving the body of Christ instead of spitting at it so often. He's looking for a punchline, and possibly at the expense of his soul. However, there are those (including our Protestant friends) who are genuinely misinformed about the teachings of the Church. I've had a number of conversations, often with preachers of other faiths, who point at the Church's rule change regarding meat on Fridays and see it as proof against infallibility.

First off, we need to understand the difference between a dogma and a discipline. Teachings of the Church that are based on the public revelation, given once-for-all during the apostolic period cannot be abolished or changed (though they may be developed over time, such as has happened with the Christian definition of the Trinity). A male-only priesthood, the perpetual virginity of Mary, and the divinity of Christ, for instance, are dogma. We do not have the option to disbelieve these teachings, and the Church will never change its mind on them.

On the other hand, the Church was established by Christ to shepherd over His flock and to act in a parental role (hence calling priests "Father"), and any parent knows that sometimes children need temporary rules to address certain cultural situations. These are called disciplines. Unlike dogma, disciplines can change. They can disappear and be revised at the Church's will, depending on her perception of the need for that discipline. Disciplines include the celibate priesthood, abstaining from meat on Fridays, and the rule that Catholics cannot join Masonic lodges.

But like with dogmas, we do not have the option to disregard disciplines. I can't count how many times I've heard people dismiss some rule of the Church with the cavalier, "Oh, that's just a man-made rule." First off, even "Bible-only" Protestants shouldn't have a problem with disciplines. There are examples of them in Scripture, after all. One in particular is when Paul stresses in the eleventh chapter of the first epistle to the Corinthians that women must wear head coverings. Yet, today almost no Christian Church, Protestant or Catholic, requires this. Even the non-instrumental Church of Christ, perhaps the most militant "Scripture alone" church on the block, will often dismiss this as a cultural rule, applying to that specific community during that specific time.

Yes, we agree. It's called a discipline. And in the model that Paul sets, the Catholic Church has been setting them, with God's approval, for 2,000 years.

But see, the rules of the Church can no more be dismissed than could Paul's exhortation to Corinth. After all, in Luke 10:16, Jesus tells the leaders of the Church that whoever rejects them rejects God. In Matthew 16 and then again in Matthew 18, he tells them that whatever they bind or loosen on earth is bound or loosened in Heaven. In John 21 Jesus tells Peter three times to feed his sheep after his ascension.

In these and other places in Scripture, Christ is deputizing the leaders of his Church, especially the leader of the apostles, Peter, and his successors (and we know what happens when we disobey a deputy).

And when we disobey a "man-made" rule, if that rule was made by the authority of Christ, which was vested in the leaders of the Church, we are essentially telling Christ that our judgment is better than his. That he made a mistake by putting these men in charge of us. That the Church he establish was a flawed institution.

We are, in fact, committing the same sin as Adam and Eve, who ignored God's warning not to eat from the tree and decided (under the temptation of Satan) that they knew better than he did. There is nothing inherently evil about a piece of fruit, after all, but there is something inherently evil about asserting that we are superior in intellect to God.

Likewise, there is nothing inherently evil about meat or consuming it on Fridays, but there is something gravely sinful in telling the Holy Spirit-guided Church and the Pope which heads it that we know better. Just like a good parent might decide a child has to take a vacation from TV for a while, Holy Mother Church has the parental authority to set up disciplines that might steer us from our earthly attachments and help us focus more on Christ. And would any of you let your children disobey your rules because they are "man made"?

Adam and Eve were not banished from the Garden on a "fruit rap".

Nor is anyone in Hell on a "meat rap".

But there might be (who am I to know) plenty of people in Hell on an I-will-make-up-my-own-rules-and-to-Hell-with-the-Church-and-its- God-vested-authority rap.

And, to answer George Carlin's question, they would still be there today.

While we're on the subject, by the way, I don't think it would be such a bad idea, despite a change of discipline in the Church, if the word got out that ordinary Fridays are still days of penance within the Church (many are under the impression that it just went away). Again, for a detailed discussion of that, see the link in the first paragraph. In my opinion, it wouldn't be such a bad thing if we voluntarily moved back to a stricter observance of the significance of Friday.

If nothing else, it would more clearly define our Catholic identity at a time when the cafeteria folks are trying so hard to water it down.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I think it'd be kind of cool to be called a mackerel snapper again.

Why Do We Ask "Favors" of Mary?

2006-12-30T18:31:00.000-08:00

This question, “Why do you ask favors of God through mary” came in the comment box for my brief “Merry Christmas” post last week. There are a few things I’ll say regarding it.

First, Mary should be capitalized, just as we would with the proper name of anything. I know I sound like a smart-aleck pointing this out, but I’ll make an important point with it in a bit.

The second thing worth mentioning is that the phrase “ask favors” seems to suggest the kind of misinterpretation of what we, as Catholics, actually believe. We don’t ask favors of God. I’ve never asked him to pick up my mail while I was out of town, and I’ve never asked him to lend me his weed-trimmer.

We ask for God’s graces, and both Protestants and Catholics alike do this. Most Protestants will refer to these graces as his “blessings”. They have a very specific definition of the word “grace”, but in this instance, we’re talking about the same thing. It’s just semantics.

We don’t ask for favors through Mary. We ask for her to pray for us and to pray with us. We ask her (and the other saints) to join our prayer circle.

Really, I’ve never understood why Protestants have such a difficult time with this. All Protestant groups are just fine with asking their pastors, family members, friends, hairdressers, co-workers, neighbors, and random strangers to pray for them.

So why not Mary? Why not all the saints, for that matter? Is there some reason we can ask our second-cousin, twice removed, a plumber from Arkansas to pray for us, but we can’t ask the mother of God? Would Christ be less likely to listen to the prayers of his mom than, say, our Uncle Dave?

After all, Paul tells us that the prayers of a righteous man availeth much. And who is more righteous than those who have already been sanctified so perfectly as to enter Heaven?

And if we need more reasons to ask for Mary’s prayers, here they are:

-The Bible tells us to
-Christians have done it for 2,000 years (including most of the reformers)
-The church built by Christ and guided by the Holy Spirit tells us to
-The miracles that have come from Mary’s intercession testify to the power of such prayers
-The body of Christ is built up when we join our prayers to one another (including with those members of the body who are in Heaven.

I apologize for my curt tone in the beginning of this post, and I'm sure that the person who asked the question did not intentionally omit capitalization in Mary's name. However, that was my tongue-in-cheek way of suggesting, however, that what so many non-Catholic Christians have done is to "lower case" Mary's role in their own lives, exluding her from the same dignity of "prayer partner" that we would ask of any friend or relative. So, considering all this, I think it’s about time that Catholics stopped having to explain why we do ask for Mary’s prayers and intercession, and about time for non-Catholics to explain why they don’t.

Why Non-Catholics Can't Recieve Communion

2006-12-24T20:56:00.000-08:00

With the holidays upon us, many of us might be bringing our non-Catholic friends to church with us. Of course, the church teaches that they should not receive the Eucharist (just as we should not receive in a non-Catholic church). As this topic might come up within your family, I thought I'd post an old essay I wrote on the subject:

While Catholics and Protestants have different views of the celebration of the Lord’s supper, Catholics are taught, according to the official Catechism of the Catholic Church to respect that Protestant churches, while not claiming the true presence of Christ in the Eucharist, are genuinely seeking a deeper spiritual “communion” with Christ through the remembrance of his last supper and subsequent sacrifice.

However, there are three basic reasons why Protestants should not partake in the celebration of communion at a Catholic Church. Unfortunately, since the reformation, there are deep and divisive differences between the theology of Catholics and their Protestant brothers and sisters. For this reason, in matters of spirituality, we are not truly “one” in thought, as Christ asked us to be in John 17:21. It is perfectly acceptable for a congregation of Catholics (who had made themselves spiritually worthy) to join together in communion because they are spiritually in communion. Likewise, it is perfectly acceptable for a congregation of Baptists to join to join together in communion because their common spiritual philosophies unite them. However, as long as division, unfortunately exists between denominations, it contradicts Scripture for a Protestants to receive communion among Catholics OR for a Catholic to receive communion among Protestants. 1 Cor. 10:17 explains, “Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.” Unfortunately, for non-Catholics to receive “Holy Communion” proclaims a unity to exist that, regrettably, does not.

A second reason we ask non-Catholics not to receive the Eucharist is that our interpretation of Scripture demands us to do so for their safety. “For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died” (1 Cor. 11:29-30). Since most Protestants, by their own admission, do not feel that the true body of Christ exists in the Eucharist, as Catholics we feel the only Christian thing for us to do is to ask that, for their own safety, they not “drink judgment upon” themselves.

Lastly, Scripture tells us many times that we are showing our respect for God in the way we respect or treat others. As Catholics believe that the Eucharist is the true body and blood of our savior and that to receive it one must truly discern this miracle and be of have received reconciliation for grave sins, etc., if a Protestant were to partake in “Holy Communion” within the context of a Catholic Mass (which calls for the invocation of the Spirit to accomplish the miracle of transubstantiation), we would not only see this as a profaning of Christ, himself, but also as a sign of disrespect towards Catholics and their beliefs. Although we may disagree seriously on many issues, we all agree that we must truly respect the sincere beliefs of one another because to do show disrespect to children of Christ is to show disrespect to Christ, himself.

The Dishonest Manager

2006-12-22T19:42:00.000-08:00

It probably seems like I am writing a lot lately, but quite a bit of what I've posted was written for other projects and just edited for this format. Actually, I hate to admit it, but much of my downtime (while the kids are asleep and Christy is occupied) has been absorbed by an addiction to Sudoku. A friend got me this themed book which presents a challenge once one solves all the puzzles throughout, so ...

Anyway, I've taken on the task of answering e-mails that people send in through our parish website. I thought that occasionally I would post those here, as well. Remember how it was in school, even though one person asked the question, five more had it on their minds, so hopefully this is helpful to some of you.

This question came a couple months ago from a woman in Ohio:

"Hope you will be willing to answer a question from a curious group not of your parish .... We look at the Mass readings on a weekly basis, usually sticking to the Sunday readings. However, in discussion of yesterdays' Gospel we all realized that we had significant questions concerning the meaning of the parable of the Dishonest Manager. What is the Catholic interpretation of this passage? If you could include verse 9 in your answer we would really appreciate it, it is just as hard to understand that verse, for the same reasons."

My answer:

Regarding the parable from Luke, I will start out by saying there is no official Catholic interpretation. The verses that the Catholic church have defined infallibly are very few, and the church allows for personal interpretation on the rest, as long as we follow three rules: 1) our interpretation must take into account the unity of Scripture (rather than just pulling a verse out of context), 2) our interpretation must not contradict Sacred Tradition (as Tradition and Scripture are complementary records of the revelation delivered during the apostolic period), and 3) our interpretation cannot contradict doctrines of faith (things which we are required to believe as members of the Catholic-Christian community), as these have come from the guidance of the Holy Spirit (John 16).

That said, you are struggling with one of the toughest parables in Scripture, and I applaud your attempts to understand it. So many people, both Catholic and Protestant, tend to skip over it rather than to grapple with its meaning. To summarize, the manager, or steward, was being wasteful with the rich man's money. When this came to his attention, the rich man dismissed him from his position. Realizing that he had nowhere to turn and was not about to resort to "digging" (a job usually reserved for slaves) or begging, he goes to several debtors and reduces their debt to the rich man (even though he has no authority to do this any longer) so that they will accept them into their houses when he is cast out. Ironically, the rich man "commended" him for this action, rather than seek revenge. Even more ironically, Christ seems to approve of this action, which brings us to the troubling ninth verse, where Christ tells his disciples to "make friends for yourselves by means of unrighteous mammon, so that when it fails they may receive you into the eternal habitations."

Some commentaries tell us that the amount that each debt was reduced was the manager's "commission" in collecting this interest, and that by eliminating this, he was attempting restitution for the wrong he had done in being sloppy with the rich man's fortune. He had, after all, not been dishonest at first - just irresponsible, and perhaps he was trying to show that he wanted to be accountable for his wrong doings, an act that the rich man might approve of. Unfortunately, he chose a dishonest means of doing so.

However, the context points to something more. Let's say, for argument's sake, that he was not simply reducing his commission (to which he was no longer entitled, incidentally), and that he was actually reducing the debt that these others owed the rich man. What was the manager's motivation? Realizing he was being kicked out of the rich man's service, he was making shrewd arrangements to have a home among these debtors.

Christ obviously does not approve of his dishonesty, but the parable was an attempt to show us that, as Christians, many of us are put to shame in our ambition to reach Heaven. We should be just as concerned about having an eternal "home" after we leave this world as the manager is in his own situation. The point of the story isn't his moral behavior, but the energy that "sons of this world" put into their matters, that "sons of light" could do to emulate.

Why would Christ pick such an example? Why not a more moral protagonist? Well, if we go with the idea that he was simply reducing his own interest, his actions were not as severe as they appear. On the other hand, some commentaries indicate that this story - where a slave or servant outsmarts his master - was a popular type in the Jewish communities, and that Christ was just pulling upon a popular genre in order to make a greater point. He was, after all, emphasizing the manager's ambition, but not his methods, and the community would have recognized that better than we do in the modern reading. They wouldn't have taken his story as an endorsement of dishonestly, but as an illustration of zeal.

Another problem is why the manager would approve of this action? The obvious consequence of the manager's dishonesty would be that the debtors would assume that his actions had come from the rich man, himself, and were he to discipline the manager, the debtors would suddenly realize that the rich man deserved no credit and disapproved. He needed, at least publicly, to show approval. More likely, however, the rich man recognized in the manager some of the shrewdness and enthusiasm that had helped him become rich in the first place, and his approval goes to indicate that this was the intent of Christ's story - the enthusiasm that we should display as Christians toward reaching eternity with God.

As for the troublesome verse nine, the phrase "dishonest mammon" can be more accurately translated as "mammon of inequity" and is a phrase used to indicate those things which can make us focus on worldly things or even money acquired dishonestly. We should use this "mammon", or money, to make friends who can receive us into "eternal habitations". These friends must be those in Heaven because none of our earthly friends can provide eternal habitats. So, the point of this verse must mean that we should take money and use it to make restitution for our wrongful acquisition of it or (if it was not "wrongly" acquired) to help us to perform holy and pleasing actions, such as alms giving and creating work opportunities, in order to turn our material possessions into signs of our spiritual devotion, making the type of friends that can house us through all of time.

Let's be "Frank"

2006-12-20T19:33:00.000-08:00

As long as a comment is not insulting or outright heretical, I'm happy to publish anyone's thoughts, no matter how much they disagree with me. Thus, while a commenter named "Frank" and I apparently do not see eye to eye, he is respectful in his tone, and I hope that the blog sees more of this type of discussion. Before continuing, I have to apologize for the play on his screen name for the title of this blog - sometimes I really have to stretch for a witty title (and I usually fail). I also want to make note that I won't generally make an entirely new post to respond to a comment (or series of them), but I think this is enough of a worthwhile conversation that I hope others of you join in. For that reason, I wanted a fresher look at it as the old treatment will soon slip in the archives as I add new posts.

Regarding my post on "Blacklisting", Frank has made some fairly substantial claims, and I would like to see him substantiate them. I will try to hit the bigger points that he brought up.

1) In his last comment he writes that withholding communion is "nothing more than a way for these church officials to inspire their conservative base." Our bishops would disagree, of course, and suggest that this action (had it been taken) was a matter of pastoral discipline. So ... as much as Frank claims to "respect" and have "admiration" for our bishops, the implication here seems to be that they are being dishonest in their motives. He alludes to this earlier by suggesting that the only time the church talks about homosexuality is during election time. This is an interesting comment as the recent guidelines on ministering to people with homosexual tendencies came out after mid-term election and about two years before any other major election. So, this is proof to the contrary. I would hope that Frank can point to evidence to substantiate his claim about our bishop's motives.

2) It is also interesting that of the post and the three comments so far, Frank is the first to even mention the words "Democrat" and "Republican". I'm hoping he can substantiate his implication that this discussion of the Eucharist is a political effort to help one party exclusively. In the last two major elections, I personally voted for at least two different pro-life Democrats and voted against at least one or two Republicans because of their rejection of certain pro-life issues. Can Frank point to any place in my post or in any documents from the Church or professional Catholic organizations to support his suggestion that this is ultimately a strategical move, rather than a concern for the sanctity of life? The Catholic Church cannot help that one party might attempt (however successfully) to align itself with the pro-life troops, but it is quite a stretch to suggest, then, that the Church, itself, has political affiliation or preferences.

3) He implies that my post is slanted toward abortion when "pro-life" issues such as the death penalty and just war are "equally as important". Unfortunately, according to our catechism (#2309, #2265, #2272), there is quite a bit of gray area in issues of war and death penalty, but abortion is an absolute evil. Likewise, we see Scriptural evidence to support the idea that a society may support itself through just war (such as here) and death penalty, but not once do we see the inspired text supporting the killing of the innocent unborn. Abortion is, as the Catholic Answers folks put it, a "non-negotiable" (here). He has also made the sweeping suggestion that there is no such thing as a completely "pro-life" politician, and I would be interested to know where he has come by this comprehensive overview of the political field.

4) Frank writes that the politicians are not as culpable as the doctors, mothers, and fathers who participate directly in abortions because they are only arguing the legality of it. Perhaps he is unaware that many of these same politicians also support taxpayer supported funding of abortion providers. Sure, the doctor may do the dirty work, but much of that money comes from the government's coffers, approved by the votes of these politicians.

5) Frank insists that it "should not be up to a priest, bishop, or ANYONE ELSE for that matter to decide an individual's worthiness to receive Jesus." Really? Because Scripture and the Magisterium tells us differently. In fact, a priest's job in the confessional is to withhold absolution from an individual if it is apparent that this individual has not truly repented. This is supported by the text of John 20 ("whose sins you retain"), and I would think that seeing a politician on national television supporting abortion is fairly strong evidence for a priest or bishop in determining his level of repentance. In addition, 1 Cor. 11 tells us that if we receive the Eucharist unworthily, we are sinning against the body of blood of Christ, and that this is the reason that many of the Corinthians have gotten sick and died.

6) This brings us to the last point, which is that Frank writes that the Eucharist "is the very Body and Blood of Jesus meant to nourish us, strengthen us, and send us forth to be the very presence of Jesus in the world. By withholding the Eucharist from these politicians, these bishops and priests are denying them one of the strongest ways to create change in them." Frank seems to forget that the Eucharist only effects that positive change IF we approach in a state of grace. However, if we approach in a state of mortal sin (which the Church has declared any conscious support of abortion to be), we are adding additional mortal sin to that by receiving the Eucharist. Thus, it has the very opposite effect in that it removes us even further from our relationship with God. See #1415 in the catechism for this. Frank claims, rightfully so, that we are a church of hope and reconciliation. Does knowingly allowing an individual to push himself deeper into mortal sin add to our hope and reconciliation, or would this be a cruel disregard for the eternal salvation of our human souls?

Withholding the Eucharist is a disciplinary measure in order to bring sinners back to the church. Indifference would allow them to continue on in their sins (and compounding them). As another commenter pointed out through the story of Ananias and Sapphira, and as I have pointed out with my references to Matt. 18 and John 20:23, the Holy Spirit guided Scriptures strongly support a rebuke of those sinners who are stubbornly refusing to repent. "What would Jesus think of this?" Frank asks. Well, considering that Christ is one and the same God that also inspired these passages, as well as those like Galatians 1:8, I think he would agree that love and compassion has nothing to do with allowing members of the flock to slip deeper into mortal sin by unworthy reception of his Holy body and blood. And it has nothing to do with allowing the scandal and indifference that would be caused by having our leaders turn blind eyes to such blatant, public disregard for the teachings of his church.

Blacklists

2006-12-19T05:40:00.000-08:00

Last Friday, a woman from I.C. parish wrote in to the Catholic Missourian, expressing her relief that the U.S. bishops chose not to approve a "blacklist" of Catholic politicians who are pro-abortion, though the conference continues to express that such a position makes one unsuited for reception of the body and blood of Christ.

First off, to be clear on what the bishops did write, one would do well to read the document Happy Are Those Who Are Called To His Supper: On Preparing To Receive Christ Worthily in the Eucharist, which can be found here. In particular, the (short) section "Causing Public Scandal" addresses the issue of individuals who publicly reject Catholic teachings. I'm not sure that this document adds anything to what the bishops wrote in 2004, in the Interim Reflections Task Force on Catholic Bishops and Catholic Politicians. A relevant passage from that text reads, "However, in our view the battles for human life and dignity and for the weak and vulnerable should be fought not at the Communion rail, but in the public square, in hearts and minds, in our pulpits and public advocacy, in our consciences and communities. To read the full text, visit: http://www.usccb.org/bishops/intreflections.shtml

Anyway, putting aside the obvious comment that one should examine himself (as Paul directs in 1 Cor. 11:27) before receiving communion, I'd like to focus on that horrible and repugnant idea of a blacklist.

First, it should be said that I'm not to aware of how much dialog and consideration went into such an idea, so I won't comment one way or the other on what the bishops decided. I have a great respect for our U.S. bishops, especially the bishop of our diocese, and understand that their decisions are made with consideration for myriad factors, including pastoral, ecumenical, and doctrinal considerations. What I'd like to do is look at the hypothetical concept of such a blacklist and ask this question:

Would it really be such a bad idea?

The author of this letter to the editor colored most of her commentary with references to McCarthyism. In addition, she made the implication that people in high-profile positions who speak out vehemently against something are usually, themselves, hiding something. To support this, she made reference to former congressman Mark Foley, who spoke out against gay marriages but had been secretly making advances toward young males.

In the world of rational thought, what we usually call arguments such as this woman makes is an ad hominem attack, or "name calling". It's the same thing she accuses McCarthyism of doing (but only because she misunderstands McCarthyism). Even more ironic is her accusation that high people are hiding something when they come out so vocally against certain behaviors. She, herself, is coming out publicly against blacklisting, so does this mean that she is hiding something similar in her own personal behavior? By her own logic, it would.

See, Joseph McCarthy never actually "blacklisted" any actors during his pursuit of communist sympathizers. He went specifically after members of the State Department (the House Un-American Activities Committee went after the actors). Can we blame Joe? After all, we live in a Republic (with strong Democratic leanings), and do we want people who subscribe to the most diametrically opposed system of government secretly subverting our pursuit of our national principals?

We could argue that for hours, but see ... the thing is, a blacklist such as what the letter's author rejects is nothing like what McCarthy did at all. There is nothing "secret" about Catholic politicians who publicly promote the baby-killing agenda.

It is a slippery slope argument to suggest that attempting to identify such politicians would lead to a scrutiny of every Catholic's individual worthiness to receive communion. The situation we have with such politicians is that they are placing themselves in front of cameras and microphones to advocate the legality of embryo-slaughter.

Some try to rationalize this with lines like, "I am personally opposed, but I cannot impose my faith on others?" This is a cop-out because, if this politician truly believes that an embryo is life, then he is essentially saying, "I am personally opposed to murder, but I cannot impose my faith on others." How would it sound if legislation was proposed to legalized spousal abuse in order to accommodate immigrants from cultures where this is embraced? "I am personally against beating one's wife, but I cannot impose this view on others." We cannot impose our religious views on others, but politicians have a responsibility to protect life, whether or not someone else chooses to recognize it as life. So either A) these politicians don't really believe that embryos are life or B) they don't prioritize "life" in their political decisions. Either way, they are actively leading others, by example, into gravely offensive moral decay.

They are causing public scandal, and so their offense is not longer a matter "between them and God", as it might be if you or I privately sin, but one between them and the church. We see this clearly in Matthew 18, where if one sins against us, we are to go to him privately, and if he still rejects us, we are to take two or three witnesses, and if he still rejects us, we take it to the church, and if he rejects us still, he is to be as a leper or a tax collector (cut off from the church society). Have we not already gone to these politicians privately in our letters and e-mails as their constituents? Have we not already gone with two or three witnesses in our protests and petitions?

Nobody said such a "list" would even have to be public record. It could, after all, be only for the information of local bishops who are faced with pro-death politicians in their diocese. However, local priests and bishops need to know that they have the support of the church leadership when the person in the communion line had just days before publicly advocated the legality of cutting a baby into pieces and crushing its skull for, say, a late term abortion.

In Interim Reflections, the bishops write that "the battles for human life and dignity and for the weak and vulnerable should be fought not at the Communion rail." Whether or not they are correct in this, the unfortunate fact is that the battle is already being fought there, and the body of Christ suffers a small defeat every time a pro-death politician, surround by cameras,
walks up to receive the Eucharist in smug defiance of the inspired words of Scripture and the Holy Spirit guided church that Christ built.

Abbysmal Advice

2006-12-15T19:04:00.000-08:00

In matters of morality, "Dear Abby" gives some really awful advice once in a while.

I find myself groaning, sometimes, when I read her column and see the twisted road down which she sends some of those who, for whatever reason, write in.

Earlier this week, in the same column, our dear Abby renewed her undaunted support of the gay lifestyle. I don't want to write about homosexuality per se in this post, but I think that anyone who reads Dear Abby with any regularity knows that this is a personal pet topic of hers, and she will stray off topic to remind readers exactly how natural and normal same-sex relationships are.

But the question and answer that really caught my attention was from a mother whose daughter had been invited to an all-girl party, at which all of the girls, including the hosting mother (single), played a game of strip-poker. The mom who wrote in was shocked, especially because her daughter had so much fun they planned on doing it again soon.

Dearest Abby, while conceding that the host mom shouldn't have joined the game, saw no problem whatsoever with the game, especially since all the participants were girls.

But wait a second ... I thought homosexual relationships were perfectly normal and natural.

In which case, couldn't it be argued that one or several of the young ladies in that card game happened to be gay? In other words, why is that card game any more appropriate than if this woman's' daughter (a young teenager) had been invited to a boy-girl strip party?

Dear Abby's advice on morality is so often this off-base because she doesn't seem to use any foundation for her moral advice than political correctness. Aside from the scenario I described above, there are other reasons her advice in this column was wrong.

Considering how fun the all-girl strip poker game was, especially when condoned by adults, doesn't it seem even more likely that the girls might try this same game at a boy-girl party (when the adult supervision isn't present). Doesn't the host-mom's approval seem to provide a gateway into even less appropriate party behavior?

Why Scripture-alone is really bad baseball

2006-12-15T16:42:00.000-08:00

The metaphor I turn to most often when talking about Scripture and Tradition is that of little league baseball. Imagine if I decided to coach a little league team and, deciding that my "coaching traditions" would only corrupt the pure game of baseball, I gave each of these little sluggers a copy of the official book of baseball rules and said, "Have at it, boys. Memorize it. Highlight it. Our first game's in three weeks."

That first game would be a disaster. The book of rules contains all the rules and protocol to play the game of baseball, but there's something missing when we remove the good coach, who brings with him a tradition of good coaches right on down through the history of the game. The book of rules tells us that we must swing the bat and hit the ball, but it doesn't show us how to choke up, to keep our eye on the ball, or to follow through.

Likewise, many Christian groups try to go by the book of rules alone, defining their Christianity by the Bible alone (sola-fide in Latin). This is a mistake. A big one.

As Catholics, we believe that the Bible, like that book of baseball rules, is "materially sufficient", in that it contains, either explicitly or implicitly, all that has been revealed about salvation. Scripture is not, though, "formally sufficient", in that we can interpret Scripture by the plain sense of its words.

And guess what ... Scripture agrees. Nowhere does Scripture ever tell us to go by Scripture alone. Think about this. If we are to "speak where Scripture speaks and be silent where Scripture is silent", as so many claim, where does Scripture "speak" about going by the Bible alone? Jesus never wrote any of his teachings down (at least in a form that is available to us today), nor did he ever command his apostles to put everything in print for his Bible-alone Christianity. The inspired writers also never tells us that Scripture should be our final authority. In fact John even goes so far in his epistles as to tell us that he would rather pass his message "face-to-face", rather than using "paper and ink" (2 John 12).

Not only does Scripture not tell us to go by Scripture alone, but there are many places where we are told to go by the oral teachings of Christianity, as well, such as 2 Tim. 2:2 and 2 Thes. 2:15.

Why? Well, to use another baseball analogy, I once played with a woman who had an artificial eye. Because she had vision in only one eye, she had lost her depth-perception, which is given through our two-perspective vision. Playing outfield was nearly impossible for her because she would very often misjudge pop-flies.

Likewise, combining Scripture and Tradition gives us depth perception, and to see the danger of limiting ourselves to only one eye (Scripture alone), consider how horribly Christianity has splintered since the reformation. Some sources put the number of distinct Christian groups at tens of thousands. And many of these groups, which disagree with one another over key doctrine, claim to go by the "simply truth" of Scripture alone.

Christ prayed for unity within his church (John 17), and Paul makes clear that this is meant to be a doctrinal unity (1 Cor. 1:10; Phil. 2:2). Would Christ be happy to find up to three different Christian churches facing each other on a street corner, each preaching a different version of his gospel? Would his prayer be answered by the hundreds of churches listed in any given yellow pages section of the phone book?

Maybe someday all Christians will recognize the unity possible through Scripture and Sacred Tradition, both preserved through the "good coach" of the Catholic Church (who is protected from error by the Holy Spirit).

Unfortunately, many today still follow the man-made doctrine of "Scripture-alone", which robs a Christian of his spiritual depth-perception. And leaves him out in right field, missing the ball almost every time.

Cousins

2006-12-15T13:17:00.000-08:00

When Catholics are defending the perpetual virginity of Mary, we often have to explain to others that, in Jewish culture, cousins were often considered a person's "brothers" or "sisters". While there exists a Greek word for "cousin", there exists no equivalent Hebrew or Aramaic word, which is why Jesus's cousins were identified, in some passages, as his brothers and sisters. While much of the New Testament was written in Greek (with some possible exceptions, such as Matthew), the inspired authors were writing in accordance to their Jewish customs. One legal reason for this is that, should a person die an only child, his male cousins would be considered his brothers for purposes of distributing an inheritance.

We live in such a vastly different culture today, though, and for whatever reason, it has become necessary for us to have, not just a word for our cousin, but linguistic devices for determining exactly what type of cousin he is. We might, for instance, have a "first cousin", a "second cousin", or even a "first cousin, once-removed".

In a lunchroom conversation yesterday, however, I realized that most people no-longer know the meaning of the terms "once-removed" or "twice-removed", words which previous generations used more frequently. So ... I thought I would use this blog as an opportunity to clarify.

Cousins must be of the same generation. For instance, if I have the same grandparents as somebody else, we are first-cousins. If I have the same great-grandparents, we are second-cousins. If we have the same great-great-grandparents, we are third cousins. Many, incorrectly assume that my mother's first-cousin would be my second cousin. However, the only way someone could be my second-cousin is if we are of the same generation.

By generation, of course, I mean that we are in the same location in line of descendants ... our branches fall at the same level on a family tree. This has nothing to do with age.

So, what is my relationship with my mom's first-cousin? She and I are not of the same generation; I am, actually, one generation "removed" from that relationship. This makes us "first-cousins (based on her relationship with my mother), once-removed." My daughter would be her first-cousin, twice removed. Likewise, if my second-cousin (the child of my mom's first cousin) had a kid, that child would be my "second-cousin, one removed."

Confused yet? Maybe it doesn't matter, but I think it's kind of a neat distinction.

Feast of the Immaculate Conception

2006-12-15T12:51:00.000-08:00

I took the opportunity last Friday to wish all my non-Catholic co-workers a "blessed Feast of the Immaculate Conception". I was truly surprised with the variety of responses I received, from an amused chuckle to, "I don't even want to know what that is. It sounds like some sort of bizarre sexual thing."

To this, from one of my non-denominational co-workers, I answered, "No, it's just our celebration of Mary's having been born without original sin."

"Oh, I don't believe in that original sin nonsense," he answered. "That's just a big guilt trip."

"Hmm. I'm not sure you understand what original sin is," I answered. "What do you think Catholics mean by that?"

"Why don't you tell me what it means and I'll tell you what I think about it," he answered. I explained to him that, because our original parents fell from grace, we are subject to suffering and death and will undoubtedly lead lives dotted with sin, and that salvation means being brought back into a right relationship with God. "Well, I can buy that," he answered.
See, sometimes it just takes a clear explanation.

Another co-worker, a member of an instrumental Church of Christ, asked me, "Now this is the thing about Mary, right?"

"Yes," I answered. "It means that Mary was conceived without original sin."

"Mary was too born with original sin," she objected.

"So you believe in original sin?"

"Well, no, I don't believe in that, either," she said.

"So ... if you don't believe original sin exists, how could Mary have been born with it?"

"I'll have to think about that," she said.

Of course, my presentation of the faith in this last dialog is completely silly, it was a fun Catch-22.