Catholic Cataclysm

Jesus Hates Deep Fried Snickers

2012-01-19T15:44:00.000-08:00

Photo from candyaddict.com

Apparently there's been a popular video on YouTube, saying Jesus hates religion. It's not hard to see this guy is reading what he wants into the Bible. It's really a common problem. People latch onto a small collection of verses, and harden themselves against the rest of the scriptures instead of openly listening to the entirety of what Jesus says, and what the Holy Spirit revealed to the apostles. I've done it myself. The link above also contains a rebuttal by a priest.

I did address the religion vs. relationship issue, and addressed how the marriage-like relationship we are meant to have with Christ is expressed in our religious beliefs and practices.

Let me just examine this topic briefly from another angle, and hopefully show just how off base any claim "Jesus hates Religion" must be. Now there is an extent to which "religion" is quite hard to define, and part of the problem here is probably that the man opposed to religion means something a little different when he says the word, and because of this, I might be defending something different from what is attacking. Let's try then to at least get a sense of the word, even if we cannot define it exactly. According to Peter Kreeft, in the Handbook of Christian Apologetics, religion is hard to define, but each religion has three characteristics: "creed, code and cult," or, "beliefs, morality, and liturgy," or "words, works, and worship." Does Jesus place himself against any of these three characteristics, the defining aspects of religion? Simply, no. In fact Jesus preaches all three (And to be clear, we're using the classical definition of "cult" not the modern definition, so don't freak out on me).

Jesus gave us the root of our beliefs, his identity as God become man. If we reject the beliefs of religion we must obviously reject the scriptures in which those beliefs are grounded. Imagine if Jesus did reject beliefs. How can we begin to have a relationship with Christ without being able to even form an element of an idea of him within our mind, since that would constitute a belief, and Jesus banned belief?

Jesus consistently taught morality. He did not attack the Pharisees for "religion" but for immorality and related hypocrisy. He consistently forgave sins of the outcasts, but he also consistently exhorted, "sin no more." And he clearly taught obedience to the Commandments. It is clear then that Jesus gave us both beliefs and a code.

Then is worship the one problem? Off the bat this sounds unlikely. Can our method of worship be so outlandishly cumbersome that it is somehow standing in opposition to relationship with Christ? But that hardly matters as to the point, since we should find that Jesus has an opposition to all forms of worship, or else it will turn out he is opposed to none of the three aspects of religion. But, we quickly see that Jesus in fact teaches methods of worship! He sets the example of baptism, and the Bible teaches us to baptize "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." Jesus institutes Communion, saying, "Take and eat; this is my body." Jesus teaches how to pray with the Lord's Prayer.

We see Jesus building upon and establishing a set of beliefs, upholding and elaborating upon the code of the Ten Commandments, and giving the Church its sacraments as the fulfillment of Old Testament worship.

One final thing. Who gave Moses the Ten Commandments? Who gave us Leviticus, with its collection of code and cult? Who told Solomon to build a glorious temple full of marble and gold and beautiful imagery? Come on, who inspired the Scriptures in general, which are chock full of beliefs, morality, and liturgy? God, the Holy Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit! I can't imagine Jesus hating something he himself inspired.

Get serious. Tell me Jesus wants a relationship. Tell me Jesus hates hypocrisy. Tell me Jesus hates sin. Tell me Jesus isn't happy if we give him an hour a week, but shut him out of the rest of our lives. I'll agree to all that. Heck, tell me Jesus hates deep fried snickers. But don't tell me Jesus hates religion.

Primary School

2012-01-12T15:19:00.000-08:00

Obama the Builder

Well, with the Republican primaries upon us, everyone's asking, "Can you tell me how to get, how to get to Pennsylvania Avenue?" So, it seems about time I gave a few suggestions about possible campaign slogans.

After my children reached preschool TV watching age, I realized that President Obama stole his campaign slogan, "Yes We Can!" from Bob the Builder. It seemed to work well for him, so I'm thinking the Republican candidates could use a similar strategy.

Let's try placing catch phrases from children's TV shows with other candidates. Here are a few possibilities. Feel free to add your own in the comments.

"Hey, where's Rick Perry?"

"Go Gingrich, Go!"

"Your backyard friend, Jon Huntsman."

"Ni hao, Mitt Romney."

"Absorbent and yellow, and porous is he, Rick Santorum."

I also expect the winner of the Republican primaries to use, "Obama, no swiping! Obama, no swiping!" in his attack ads.

Oh, and I do recognize the irony of my posting in the past about the negative effects of television, while now letting my kids watch (too much) TV. As I always say, knowing vegetables are good for you, and eating enough vegetables are two different matters entirely.

More on Divorce

2011-12-02T16:45:00.001-08:00

I don't feel my previous post did this justice, so I'd like to go back and look further into the topic of the "exception clause" in Matthew 5. First, lets read Matthew's second record of Jesus speaking on this matter found in chapter 19:3-10.

Some Pharisees approached him, and tested him, saying, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause whatever?”

He said in reply, “Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female’and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, no human being must separate.”

They said to him, “Then why did Moses command that the man give the woman a bill of divorce and dismiss [her]?”

He said to them, “Because of the hardness of your hearts Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) and marries another commits adultery.”

[His] disciples said to him, “If that is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.”

This is taken from the NAB version, which is informed in it's translation by Catholic Tradition, so the problem of the "exception clause" has already been resolved. You'd find the same to be true of the parallel verse in chapter 5. Instead of the words, "except on the ground of unchastity," found in the RSV, or the similar wording of other translations, we find the words, "(unless the marriage is unlawful)." This "unlawful marriage" is a reference to the Levitical laws regarding sex, so this translation leads clearly to the understanding of the Catholic Church, which is that valid sacramental marriages are entirely permanent, and only a marriage which was "unlawful" to begin with can be ended.

Of course the problem still exists that Protestants do not use the NAB, and we really have to back to the original Greek manuscripts of Matthew's Gospel. What we find is inconclusive.

The Greek word which is variously translated as "unlawful marriage" or "unchastity," is porneia. This word is used many times in the Greek New Testament and Septuagint, and it has a variety of context sensitive meanings. Let's spend a moment on the rest of the words in the exception clauses of Matthew 5 & 19 before we return to that key word. The Greek literally translates as "except on the ground of porneias" or "excluding the matter of porneias" in Matthew 5 and "except for porneia" in Matthew 19. The Greek does not state that this is "her porneia," as translations such as the NLT or GNT convey. Still, the porneia in question could be "her porneia," it just isn't stated outright in the Greek.

Back to porneia, its most straight-forward meaning is "prostitution," but based on context, it can also refer to just about any kind of sexual immorality, such as adultery, homosexuality, fornication, incest, or unlawful relations. Thus, translations which give the word as "unchastity" or "sexual immorality" are trying to be broad just as the original word can be broad.

We can however, be fairly certain that the intended meaning is not "adultery," because the same verse uses the word which specifically means "adultery" twice, but does not use that word within the exception clause. But what kind of "sexual immorality" or "unchastity" can exist within marriage other than adultery? Given what Jesus said about lust in Matthew 5:28, it is hard to imagine a sexual sin which would not be considered adultery. Yet, here, Jesus is intentionally using a word that is not meant to mean adultery. And the only meaning of the word, "porneia," which actually differs from "adultery" within the context would be "unlawful relations." If a person were married in a way opposed to the law, they may or may not be culpable of adultery, but regardless, their marriage is void.

We find porneia used in a very similar situation in Acts 15:20, where James says:

"but tell them [the Gentiles] by letter to avoid pollution from idols, porneias, the meat of strangled animals, and blood."

We find porneias translated in this verse in a similar manner, as either "sexual immorality," "unchastity," or "unlawful marriage." The context of the verse is clearly related to Jewish Levitical law, not universal morality. It would make no sense to tell the Gentile converts to avoid adultery in this context; they were already well aware they needed to obey the moral law, including the Ten Commandments. The question was what parts, if any, of the Levitical law were they expected to follow. The only reasonable understanding of porneia would then be "unlawful marriage."

Thus, in Matthew's gospel, Jesus was not leaving a loophole, rather he was making clear that his statement did not apply to "the matter of unlawful relations."

Yes, at times this can be a hard teaching, but that's why our Lord's disciples said, “If that is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.”

While I find this argument sound, volumes have been said on the matter, and there exists a great deal of disagreement. I'll add some links to more information below:

The Church Fathers on the permanence of matrimony.

Did Jesus say adultery is grounds for divorce?
byJimmy Akin

What does the Catholic Church teach on divorce and remarriage?
by Patrick Madrid

The Bible on Divorce

2011-11-27T18:36:00.001-08:00

I've always been a little confused bythe words of Christ regarding divorce. They didn't seem to fit withthe common Protestant idea that divorce is acceptable in extremecircumstances, and then remarriage is always okay. But they alsoappeared to contradict the Catholic view that divorced people cannotremarry unless they show that their original marriage was actuallyinvalid. The answer really comes down to the interpretation of a fewwords. Let's look at the two interpretations, and see if we can findan answer that fits everything Jesus said.

The Words

First,Jesus broadens our idea of what constitutes adultery to include lust.

“Youhave heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ ButI tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has alreadycommitted adultery with her in his heart.”(Matt 5:27-28 NIV)

Andthen he follows up by showing the adulterous nature of remarriageafter divorce.

“Ithas been said, ‘Anyone who divorces his wife must give her acertificate of divorce.’ But I tell you that anyone whodivorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victimof adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commitsadultery.”(Matt 5:31-32 NIV)

Whiledifficult to follow, the teaching that it is sinful to look at awoman lustfully is fairly easy to understand. The more difficult anddivisive words are found in Matthew 32. Our understanding of whatJesus meant by “except for sexual immorality” can lead us in avariety of directions.

TheProtestant Understanding

Protestantsare very divided over this issue. How serious is divorce? When is itacceptable? When is remarriage an option? So, I will have to dealwith generalities based on my experience, and it cannot be assumedthat this applies to all Protestant groups.

WhatI have found to be common, is a line of reasoning something likethis:

Accordingto my reading, Jesus says we can divorce and remarry, if our spousehas committed adultery. If this is true, then if our spouse violatesour wedding vows in other serious ways, such as abusive behavior,this would also be valid grounds for divorce and remarriage.

Certaintranslations of the Bible seem to assume this is what was meant, andin an attempt at clarity, alter the words of Christ to fit thisunderstanding.

“...if a man divorces his wife for any cause other than herunfaithfulness...”(Matt 5:32 GNT)

“ButI say that a man who divorces his wife, unless she has beenunfaithful...”(Matt5:32 NLT)

Butthis leaves us with several questions. Where do we draw the line onwhat constitutes a violation of wedding vows which is grounds fordivorce? Didn't Jesus just say that lust was adultery, and if so,isn't this grounds for almost any woman to divorce her husband andremarry? And if this is the case, then what purpose is served bywarning us against divorce in the first place? And, why doesn't theparallel verse in Luke 16:18 give us exceptions to the inviolablenature of marriage?

TheCatholic Understanding

Ialways favored the Catholic understanding because it seems clear tome that Jesus regards divorce as a very serious matter, and he warnsseverely against remarriage. Even as a Protestant I had anunderstanding of the inviolable sacramental nature of marriage. ButCatholics are not allowed to remarry after a divorce, unless they canshow that their marriage was invalid (I'm not getting into the issueof what many Catholics do, or whether the Church grants too manyannulments. I'm looking at the actual teaching of the Church). Thisseems to go against the exception provided by Christ. Didn't Jesussay that we could remarry if our wives committed adultery?

Let'slook for a clue in another Protestant Bible translation. TheContemporary English Version records the verse like this:

“ButI tell you not to divorce your wife unless she has committed someterrible sexual sin. If you divorce her, you will cause her tobe unfaithful, just as any man who marries her is guilty of takinganother man's wife.”(Matt 5:32 CEV)

Thisisn't very different from the other versions, but this versionincludes a footnote saying, “someterrible sexual sin:This probably refers to the laws about the wrong kinds of marriagesthat are forbidden in Leviticus 18.6-18 or to some serious sexualsin.”

Discoveringthis greatly alleviated my confusion on this matter. If the firstmeaning is correct, that this “refers to the laws about the wrongkind of marriages that are forbidden,” then this verse is entirelyconsistent with the Catholic teaching. A man's wedding vows arerendered null if it turns out that their marriage was a “forbidden”kind of marriage, not valid from the start. In this case, the sexualsin was not an extramarital affair as suggested by many translations,rather it was the false marriage which was “unchaste” by its ownfailing, having been improperly established.

Ifthe marriage was not valid to begin with, then it would not beadultery to remarry after such a divorce. This is the Catholicteaching on the matter, and it is the one teaching that does justiceto all the relevant scriptures. The Catholic teaching is consistent,and follows the teaching of our Lord, properly professing the gravityof divorce and remarriage.

“Divorceis a grave offense against the natural law. It claims to break thecontract, to which the spouses freely consented, to live with eachother till death. Divorce does injury to the covenant of salvation,of which sacramental marriage is the sign. Contracting a new union,even if it is recognized by civil law, adds to the gravity of therupture: the remarried spouse is then in a situation of public andpermanent adultery” (CCC 2384).

The Assumption of Non-Denominational Neutrality

2011-11-21T21:32:00.001-08:00

Does non-denominational equal neutral?

As with many of the common Protestantbeliefs that now seem obviously silly to me, this is something I oncebelieved myself. I grew up with a kind of non-denominationalEvangelicalism. I considered myself, “Just a Christian,” a“Generic Christian,” or we might say, a believer in “MereChristianity.” In a similar way of speaking, I commonly hear peoplesay things like, “I don't believe in denominations,” or “our group is a mix of Catholic and Evangelical, so let us study a'regular' Christian book together,” or worse, “My wife was raisedBaptist, I was raised Lutheran, so we go to a non-denominationalchurch to avoid the divisions.”

In this way of thinking,non-denominational churches form a kind of middle ground, they avoidthe divisions that have long caused conflict between denominations,they cut out the unnecessary additions that might impede the abilityof Christians to unite on a simple Bible Faith.

There seems to be a willingness amongmany people to quickly buy into such ideas, and accept them withoutquestion. I think a great deal of this is just due to the terms beingused. These groups avoid the language of division, and make claims ofa simple faith, and people take them at their word. This mindset alsodraws upon sketchy ideas of Catholicism's “additions,” and vagueknowledge of the battles fought between different denominationsfollowing the Reformation.

But this view that avoiding traditionaldenominations makes your church a kind of purified middle ground isgenerally just fallen into, and not really thought out. When it isexamined, it is clearly false.

There is a similar situation inAmerican politics, where we have two major parties, and many “thirdparties,” one of these is the American Independent Party. Using theterm, “Independent,” they could easily be seen as a non-divisivemiddle ground, but upon inspection, their policies are clearlyConservative, and they have much in common with certain parts of theRepublican Party, but very little in common with any parts of theDemocratic Party.

Let's take a specific group as anexample: Calvary Chapel is one of the largest associations ofnon-denominational churches. Their numbers likely exceed those ofmany denominations, and their structure is no more loose than what isfound in some denominational associations, so it is already clearthat there is an issue of word-preference in play here. Now CalvaryChapel can certainly claim to be less denomination-based than theCatholic Church, or mainstream Protestant branches, but they aren'tstructurally any less of a denomination than some Evangelical groupswhich do consider themselves “denominations.”

Of course I would argue that a“denomination” can be as small as a single church, or even asingle person. Really, a denomination can be most clearly defined bywho is recognized as its highest visible authority. As such, attemptsto avoid being a denomination are really just avoiding the word“denomination,” not the reality expressed by that word.

But moving beyond the “denomination”name games, are non-denominational churches non-divisive? Are they apure, agreeable middle ground, devoid of unnecessary divisivebeliefs?

Calvary Chapel states, "We are not a denominational church, nor are we opposed to denominations as such, only their over-emphasis of the doctrinal differences that have led to the division of the Body of Christ." And they often try to strike amiddle ground. For example, like Pentecostals, they believe in themodern gift of speaking in tongues, but like most non-Pentecostalgroups, they generally do not believe speaking in tongues is meant to figure prominently in church services.This places them fairly near to Catholics onthis issue. But it is clearly not all-accepting. It is in fact arejection of the Pentecostal idea that speaking in tongues shouldbe a prominent part of worship services, and it is also a rejection of the ideaheld by some other Protestants that the Holy Spirit no longer givesthe gift of tongues to believers.

Many differences with the CatholicChurch are even more pronounced. Calvary Chapel does not believe inthe efficacy of Sacraments. They believe that baptism is only anoutward sign of an inward reality in an informed believer, and thatit conveys no grace. Thus they reject infant baptism.Likewise, they hold that communion is symbolic, and reject anynotion of the Real Presence of Christ and the re-presentation of ourLord's sacrifice on Calvary. First, this shows that only Catholicchapels can claim full connection with Calvary, but more to thepoint, we see not a position of acceptance and common ground, but aposition that requires rejection as much as any “divisivedenominational church.”

Their most notable differences frommost Protestant groups are perhaps their dispensational andpretribulational beliefs, but I think it's clear enough that they doindeed have divisive beliefs, and you cannot accept Calvary Chapelbeliefs without rejecting various beliefs of most other Christiangroups.

What exact beliefs you'll find in anyof the varied non-denominational churches will certainly varysomewhat from those in the example of Calvary Chapel, but they cannotescape the reality of division or the necessary rejection of opposingbeliefs.

It is completely unreasonable to expectCatholics to cede the default, the neutral, or the middle ground tonon-denominational Christians based on their claims of simplicity andnon-divisiveness. It is in fact far more reasonable for Christians tobe Catholic by default, for Protestantism is a rebellion against aCatholic Christian past, and Protestants do not even know what theyare rejecting or why, and it is only in Catholicism that Christianityhas ever been united.

When it comes to inter-denominational dialogue, I am not arguing that we should fall back into inappropriately divisive patterns of prejudice and name-calling, but it is certainly not fair to claim "denominations" are being divisive while obviously holding mutually exclusive positions yourself.

Halloween Warning

2011-10-25T19:13:00.000-07:00

I just received an email to warn me about the dangers of Halloween. I appreciate the effort to counter acceptance of the occult, and to warn of other unhealthy trends, but I also tend to disagree with the alarmed tone of the message, and the implication that any celebration of Halloween is in opposition to our Christian values. Here are my thoughts regarding the issues raised.

Halloween originated as a Pagan festival.
While we do know that Halloween developed out of All Hallows Eve, the night before All Saints Day, the exact details of All Saints Day's early development have been partially lost to history. We do know that the Catholic Church has often “Baptized” pagan celebrations to make them Christian Holy Days, and we know that Autumn Harvest Celebrations of different kinds have been celebrated in most every culture since the dawn of agriculture, so it is reasonable to assume that All Saints Day was placed on October 31^st to take the place of those kinds of celebrations. It wasn't until recently that All Saints Day was displaced, and we developed the modern American celebration of Halloween.

Halloween is still celebrated by pagans.
Here, the connotation is that pagans have always been celebrating this “dark holiday,” and that by joining them in the celebration we are participating in their pagan religious activities.

Really, many modern pagan movements make references to ancient religions, but they can draw no real lines of continuity. This is not their holiday, it is a Christian holiday that became a secular American holiday, and the pagans are latching on to that secular holiday.

People sacrifice cats on Halloween.
While this is disturbing, it has nothing to do with my family, or any celebration of Halloween I have ever been a part of. I don't feel getting drunk and pinching people has much to do with St. Patrick either.

Teenage girls dress in sexy Halloween costumes.
Another disturbing trend, but once again, this is just one thing for parents to watch out for and avoid in their own families. Really this is a question of general modesty, not just a problem on one day.

Are there benefits to Halloween?
Yes, aside from being fun for children, I believe it gives us a good chance to familiarize ourselves with our neighbors. Also, this is the one day of the year when everyone in a neighborhood engages in sharing with each other. If only this were more of an example for the rest of the year.

Can't we just have our own unrelated Harvest Festival?
Here we go. This is the solution a lot of churches come up with. The first thing you should notice is that they are mimicking what the Catholic Church did. They are trying to de-paganize a celebration they see as pagan. The problem is that Halloween is not rooted in paganism, but in the All Saints Day remembrance of the Christians who have gone to heaven before us. By stripping this away, and making it a generic “harvest festival” they've actually taken the final step in de-Christianizing the holiday.

The real problem isn't that we dress up and share candy on Halloween. The real problem is that we forget All Saints Day. Isn't this the same thing Christians are fighting hard not to do with Christmas and Easter? Yet it was the early radical Protestant rejection of all Holy Days that led to the climate in America where Halloween would be celebrated while All Saints Day was forgotten.

Questions about Mary

2011-10-09T16:57:00.000-07:00

Because of a recent discussion between my wife and her friend regarding Mary, I'm going to go through a (hopefully) quick discussion of Catholic Marian beliefs. I'm not going to do a lot of digging right now on this, so there is definitely more that can be said on these issues.

When I decided to join the Catholic Church a few years back, one of the last hurdles I faced was Mary. This seems to be common in those who come from a Protestant background. Let me get into the basics real quick, and I'll end with the thing that gave me the most trouble.

Why do Catholics call Mary the "Mother of God?"

This doctrine was highlighted in the controversy with Nestorius in 431 AD who taught a disunion between Christ's human and divine natures, and said that Mary was only the mother of his human nature. The Church then reaffirmed that Christ's human and divine natures were united. A part of making this point was making clear that Mary was the mother of the Person, Jesus Christ, and as he was one person with both divine and human natures, Mary could rightly be called "Mother of God." Certainly the title honors Mary, but more importantly, it reaffirms that from his conception, Jesus was fully God and fully man. Notable supporters of this doctrine's importance include Martin Luther and John Calvin.

The Perpetual Virginity... what about Jesus' "brothers?"

The term "brothers" in this context can literally mean "brothers," but it can also mean"kinsmen" or "cousins." Either way, Mary needn't have had children. It was common belief in the early church that Joseph was an elderly widower, and had children from his previous marriage. It is thought, for one thing, that Joseph would treat the woman who bore God in her womb with a special reverence, as Jews would be accustomed to treating things touched in a special way by God, like the Ark of the Covenant, the Holy of Holies, and the ground in front of the burning bush. Such an idea might seem odd to modern Christians, but first century Jews knew that when the wrong person touched the Ark of the Covenant, they dropped dead. Supporters of this belief once again include Martin Luther and John Calvin.

The Immaculate Conception of Mary... wasn't Jesus the only person without sin?

The Bible doesn't actually say that Jesus was the only person without sin (though we could get into verses that seem to suggest this). There is a fundamental difference between Mary's sinlessness and the sinlessness of our Lord. Jesus was sinless by his own power, as God. Mary was only preserved from sin by the external Grace of God. This Grace was bestowed upon her because God was preparing a fitting mother for his son, a fitting womb to bear God.

To better understand some of these things and what the Bible says to suggest them we'd have to go into discussions of Mary as the new Ark of the Covenant, and Mary as the New Eve. This is certainly key, but it's also a bit complex, so I'll leave this to another occasion, or to those better equipped than I.

St. Patrick Evangelization Society

2011-09-15T11:33:00.000-07:00

I'd like to introduce the newly founded nonprofit I'm involved with, St. Patrick Evangelization Society.

Our goal is to bring people into a relationship with Christ. Enabling others to share in the Hope and Love brought by Faith. This means bringing more people into the Church, and keeping people in the Church.

To find out more, check out the Website here:

www.StPatrickES.org

And the blog here:

stpatrickes.blogspot.com

We do need your help to make this successful, so please make us a part of your tithe.

Opinions on John Corapi

2011-06-19T22:24:00.000-07:00

Apparently the biggest current story in Catholic blogs, Fr. John Corapi is walking away from the priesthood after three months of being suspended because of accusations of drug use and having an inappropriate relationship with an adult woman.

I'm neither a fan, nor an opponent of John Corapi. I don't have much light to shed on any of this, but I do have complaints about everyone all around! Bloggers, John Corapi, whoever. I'll include links to the related posts.

Father Corapi. I really can't see how giving up after just three months is the best move. Shouldn't he at least give it a while longer, so more people will believe him when he says the case will never go anywhere? Couldn't he find some friendly bishops to back him in reforming the investigation process?

My thoughts mostly lean toward this: The situation may be completely unfair, and I may be able to imagine myself reacting the same way, but I still think he should have held on.

Jimmy Akin. I'm usually a Jimmy Akin fan, but I think he's pulling things out of context a bit in his blog post on this. The whole "Black SheepDog" name is weird, but is it "really disturbing?" Hardly. And when Corapi says not to bother the Bishops, he seems to mean, "Sending the bishop angry letters won't help anyone." Akin seems to imply Corapi is saying, "Talking to the bishops is always futile because they don't listen."

Well, that's actually enough individualized criticism for me. On to generalities.

To all the harsh commenters: He's a human. We all have limits and failings. At least try to give him the benefit-of-the-doubt.

To all his super fans: Let's not be so quick to demonize the bishops for everything they do that isn't exactly what you think they should do. Exercise due caution in following Corapi from here on out. What special revelation have you been given that lets you just know that his accuser is a liar?

Now, for some actually informative posts on how these cases are handled:

Father John Corapi and the State of Due Process for Accused Priests by Ryan McDonald at Catholic Lane, confirms some of what John Corapi said in his farewell speech.

Find out What can an ex-priest do? by Deacon Greg Kandra.

And Deacon William T. Ditewig, Ph.D. gives some defense for the way the Bishops handled this case in Fr. Corapi: "Soft you; a word or two before you go".

Update 6/21:
Find one of the best blog entries I've read on this at The Curt Jester.

And some details from Fr. Corapi's religious superior make this sound a lot more like Fr. Corapi's fault, in that he contributed to the problem of the case being impossible to investigate with a lawsuit of his own, at The National Catholic Register.

Update 6/23:

Jimmy Akin has a second post on National Catholic Register, which rectifies the problems with the first, and is much more in tune with my thinking (and much better expressed than anything I said on the matter).

The Septuagint

2011-06-10T15:08:00.000-07:00

I just ran across an interesting post on the Logos Bible Software Blog about why the Septuagint translation of the Old Testament is valuable.

"Many pastors, seminary students, and lay people devoted to Bible study might wonder about the value of the Septuagint for Bible study. The Septuagint, of course, is the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament. The Septuagint was the Old Testament of the early Greek-speaking church, and it is by far the version of the Old Testament most frequently quoted by Jesus and the apostles in the New Testament. Rather than try to persuade you of the value of the Septuagint by means of these kinds of arguments, I thought it might be helpful to provide a practical example where the Septuagint explains what seems to be a New Testament theological blunder. I’m betting most of us are interested in that sort of thing!"

-Dr. Michael Heiser, Academic Editor at Logos

Read the rest at: http://blog.logos.com/2007/12/why_use_the_septuagint/

Choosing a Faith

2010-08-18T16:19:00.000-07:00

While not exhaustive, this is sort of the framework I have built in my own mind over the many years I spent looking at different religions, and a brief surface-level overview of why I believe what I believe:

As Americans we are individualistic freedom loving people. We want to make our own choices and decide what to believe for ourselves. But there comes a time when we must align ourselves with someone who we trust, someone with greater wisdom and faith than we have ourselves, who can give us some guidance. God understood that men needed guidance in the Old Testament times, when he sent the prophets. Jesus understood this when he gave his authority to the Apostles. God does empower men to speak for him, and when they are authentic, we had better listen.

Of course you must still make up your own mind, and decide things for yourself. This is true on a few levels. First, you obviously decide for yourself which person you listen to. You decide which faith is the most authentic, and most valuable to follow. Second, only you can decide how to apply general rules and principles in your own life. And third, you must decide for yourself on matters in which the church takes no clear position. Finally, there is an extent to which you will always be able to reevaluate your choice in who to follow.

One irony in the particularly severe modern aversion to letting someone else tell us what to believe is that instead of letting a proper authority inform our decisions, we let every wind inform us. Often this comes in the form of a child rejecting their wise parent in favor of another foolish child. Or it comes in a rejection of "organized religion" in favor of far more dubious beliefs. Most often it gives inordinate power to the information we all consume through daily life, the popular beliefs of our culture, the news, and entertainment. It is better that we choose carefully who gets to tell us what to believe than let our beliefs be blindly formed by the madness around us.

That said, making such a choice can itself seem to rely on little more than chance. There are a thousand religions we might encounter, and whichever ones we meet first (or at key stages in our life) are more likely to draw us in. We thus might do well to categorize religions, seeing their value on a whole, and then looking more closely at those with the greatest value. To me, even if they were true, the Eastern religions have little to offer. Hinduism and Buddhism both offer reincarnation, so we'd have another chance if we miss this one. Besides this, they tend to deny the reality of the world, while I have trouble believing in such a solid and consistent illusion.

Atheism is utterly unbelievable, requiring far more faith than I have. Agnosticism is a far more reasonable position than outright Atheism (most honest atheists will admit to really being agnostics), and I personally spent some time near its fence. But Agnosticism really offers its believer nothing. Further, I feel there is too much reason to believe in the supernatural to actually get up on that fence (If you are struggling with belief in general, I have some books which really helped me out with my doubts. I love Lewis's Mere Christianity, and found Kreeft's Handbook of Christian Apologetics very helpful).

The old natural religions like Shinto, the native American religions, druidism, and to an extent the religions of ancient Greece and Rome, must have a certain merit, appearing so similar in such diverse lands. But in my studies, it seems to me that what these religions are is a human attempt to reach the unreachable, to know the unknowable. They stem from the knowledge of God and sense of the supernatural which is in every human heart, but they have no revelation to make sense of it, so they use their imaginations to fill in the gaps. These religions really are just waiting for revelation to answer their questions (making neo-paganism ridiculous). The amazing thing to me is that monotheism actually can be discovered by human reason. Reading Plato, we see that before the Apostles brought monotheism to Greece, the philosophers had discovered that the many Gods of pagan Greece were not real. The reality they discovered through reason, was that there is one God, infinite in virtue, and the source of all good.

Thus, we are left with the monotheistic religions (of course there is much more to be said, and I have certainly oversimplified things, but these are my basic thoughts on the matter).

Judaism, while based in truth, is still waiting for their messiah. I find it very interesting to note that their sacrifices stopped shortly after the coming of Christ, as if in an unconscious recognition of Christ's final sacrifice. We see in Judaism an unfulfilled religion, a religion whose revelation and sacrifice ended with the revelation and sacrifice of Christ, but which is unable to recognize it. They are a faith that points to the true faith of Christianity.

Islam, I think, has fairly obvious origins. It was a fairly early deviation from Christianity, seeking to return it in some ways to a more Jewish style of monotheism. It is simpler than Christianity, without confusing ideas like "trinity" and "incarnation." It was founded by a man who was in some ways admirable, but was ultimately little more than a warlord. He was not a model of morality as was Jesus, suffering for his faith. His faith served him, gaining him wealth and power. He changed doctrines to apply specifically to himself (allowing himself to have more wives than he allowed the average Muslim). It still managed at one time to be a fairly good religion, though its current direction is dangerous. I mostly disregard it because of its founder.

Then there is the broad field of Christianity. We have here the one thing that really seems worth following to me. A loving God. A God who became man and died for us. Jesus Christ, who is the very model of righteousness, whose words were verified by countless miracles. Whenever I doubt, the greatest draw back to faith is this, I think of Jesus. I think of everything he said and did, and I know that it cannot be matched. Unlike Mohammed, he was a man who gained nothing and lost everything. He is the one worth believing.

Within the group of those who call themselves Christian, we have about 3 major historical groups (and many more theological groups within these). We have the ancient churches, the Protestant churches, and the modern prophetic sects.

There are only two major branches which can truly be called ancient: The Eastern Orthodox Church (which is actually a kind of collection of churches with strong similarities and historical ties), and the Catholic Church (the term "Catholic Church," meaning the "universal church," dates back at least to 100 AD). These two churches can claim historical pedigrees dating back to the Apostles themselves. Sadly these two branches were split in 1054 AD, but still they remain remarkably similar. To an extent these two churches, by their similarity, testify to each other's veracity, and clearly show how little their beliefs have really changed in the last thousand years. We can clearly see their centers, even to this day as being in the Mediterranean region (Greece, Turkey, Italy) which was evangelized by the Apostles themselves.

The Protestant churches broke from the Catholic Church in the 1600s. This was a scandalous time in the Catholic Church, where Popes, Bishops, and Priests were being lazy and sinful, odd theologies were being spread without much resistance, and people were getting fed up. This rightly led men to seek reformation in the Church. Some of these men (who we hear little about) remained faithful to Catholic teaching while opposing the abuses. Others took the abuses as a sign that the Church was fundamentally flawed, and needed a complete structural and theological overhaul. These ideas, combined with the always rebellious nature of man, and the nationalistic impulse of those who do not want morals dictated by "an Italian Prince," led to great wars and the rending of the Church which we call the Protestant Reformation. Showing extreme variety in belief and practice, Protestants were united by just a few major things: opposition to the Papacy, Sola Scriptura (belief that the Bible stands on its own, without need for interpretation by the Church), and usually Sola Fide ("Salvation by grace, through faith alone," a formulation that stood in contrast to the traditional Catholic formula of "Salvation by grace, through faith and works"). We see these churches as first originating in Northern Europe, away from the historic centers of Christendom.

The major prophetic sects appeared in the 1800s, originating out of the individualist Protestantism of America. Many people were disappointed by the current churches, and they were taught polemic accounts of the Catholic Church, and were led to believe that before the Reformation the church had completely apostatized. From this starting point many wondered if God might send a new prophet to restore the original Church. Out of this climate many arose, claiming to be the chosen prophet who would restore the Church. Here we see the roots of the Mormons, the Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Science, Seventh Day Adventism, and some smaller sects. Of these, only the Adventists retain enough of the Christian tradition to rightly be called Christians.

You see that I have not divided these groups so much by Theology as by historical origins, and basic historical views. Also, they are divided by their views on what constitutes revelation. What information has God given us. Let me sum up their positions:

Prophetic Sects

History: Jesus established a Church which died out. God sent a prophet in the 1800s to restore that Church.

Revelation: The Protestant Bible and the special revelations of their Prophet (Ellen G. White, Joseph Smith, Mary Baker Eddy).

Protestantism

History: Jesus established a Church (but a loose, possibly non-hierarchical Church). This Church persisted, but eventually became encrusted with man made traditions and illegitimate hierarchies which needed to be wiped away.

Revelation: The Bible Alone (albeit without the 7 deuterocanonical books found in the Bibles used by the ancient churches), as interpreted by the individual reader (theoretically guided by the Holy Spirit). Private prophesies cannot add to the existing deposit of the faith.

Ancient Churches

History: Jesus established a Church which was meant to have a clear hierarchy, and which persists until this day.

Revelation: The Bible with interpretation guided by legitimate authority (theoretically guided by the Holy Spirit), and to some extent "Oral Apostolic Traditions." Private prophesies cannot add to the existing deposit of the faith.

An interesting thing to note is the way these churches seem to seek holiness and authentic belief. The ancient churches do it by a slow, difficult, and continuous process of internal renewal, much like a man does within himself. The Protestant churches do it by splintering and rejoining. Thus Protestant churches are constantly torn apart and reformed by warring factions. This creates energetic and united groups of believers, but it also creates endless division.

Oddly enough, in many of the prophetic churches, they see the endless divisions of Protestantism as a fatal flaw, thus they try to reestablish a stronger hierarchical structure, pointing to some innate recognition of the necessary structure of the ancient churches. Of course, being based on false prophecies, and born of purely human imagination, they cannot establish a hierarchy with legitimate authority.

Against the Adventists

2010-08-17T15:26:00.000-07:00

The following is a (slightly edited) copy of a letter I sent to a friend who just started attending a Seventh Day Adventist church:

Howdy,

I hear you're looking for a new church, and that you're currently attending a Seventh Day Adventist church.

I want to at least put out the invitation to join me in the Catholic Church, the Church I believe history shows to be the original Christian Church, the one most likely founded by Jesus Christ himself. Trust me, I know such claims sound arrogant and frankly obnoxious. They sounded that way to me when I heard people say them in the past. But I gradually came to believe the claims were true, and I can provide historical and Biblical citations to back them up.

Invitation concluded, I don't expect you to actually take me up on the offer... for a few reasons:

1. I was married to a Catholic girl for about 5 years before I even considered that her centuries old church might have something valid to say in its defense.

2. Catholic parishes don't tend to have the sense of community common to Protestant churches. This is for a variety of reasons, primarily though it is because they are large and because they don't have adult Sunday School.

3. Americans are thoroughly educated in a mixed secular/Protestant culture, and taught secular/Protestant versions of history, in which the Catholic Church has an exaggerated role as "bad guy."

4. Following from #3, the media, while generally having a liberal slant, also has a strong history of having an anti-Catholic anti-hierarchical slant (consider the absurd number of stories on 20-year-passed accounts of priests involved in sexual abuse compared to the number of stories about school teachers involved in similar situations, despite the fact that public schools are far more dangerous for children than Catholic churches).

These things make it hard for most people to really even give a thought to the Catholic Church. But just pause for a moment and wonder if there might be something to the Church which produced the monks who hand-copied the Bible for over a thousand years before the printing press. If there might be something to the Church that evangelized Europe, much of Asia, and the Americas. There is hardly a Christian country in the world which was not first evangelized by the Catholic Church. Just something to think about.

That said, I still expect you to end up in a Protestant church, if only for the ever-important support of the community.

So, I just ask that you look for a more orthodox branch of Protestantism. I am sure your Adventist church is full of loving and wonderful people. But you should try to find a group of wonderful people who are backed by a better history, better worldview, and better theology. Seventh Day Adventism (SDA) is characterized by a sort of paranoid conspiracy theory, and it was founded during the Prophesy craze of the 1800s that also brought us the Mormons and Christian Science.

They believe that the Catholic Church is the "Whore of Babylon," and that the Pope is the Antichrist. These ideas are not uncommon in Protestantism, but SDA takes it a step further. Some believe that every secret society from the Masons to the KKK is really controlled by the Catholic Church (which is funny since both those organizations are virulently anti-Catholic). Their official teaching even goes further in believing that all the other Protestant denominations are really just pawns of the Catholic Church, bearing the "Mark of the Beast." What is this great evil that Catholics and Protestants are all conspiring together on? Eating babies? No, gathering for worship on Sunday! The horror. We dare to fulfill God's commandment to "honor the Sabbath" on the day of the resurrection instead of on the Jewish sabbath (Please note that these are not just accusations, most of my info on SDA is based on direct quotes from the religion's founder Ellen G. White and from SDA books I own).

I would like to add that Christ gave his apostles the power to "bind and loose," and using this authority the Church began Sunday worship before the New Testament was finished (see Acts 20:7, 1 Corinthians 16:2, Colossians 2:16-17, and Revelation 1:10). You can read more about the Sabbath vs. Sunday controversy here:

http://www.catholic.com/library/Sabbath_or_Sunday.asp

Read a Catholic overview of Seventh Day Adventism here:

http://www.catholic.com/library/Seventh_Day_Adventism.asp

In the end, you have to consider the two very different views of salvation history which the Catholic Church and the Adventists present.

Catholic View: Jesus established His Church as a "pillar of Truth"(1 Tim. 3:15), and though it has faced many difficulties from within (bad laity, bad Bishops, bad Popes) and persecutions from without (Nero, Stalin, etc.), it has persisted in preserving the truth and sharing the Gospel throughout the ages.

Adventist View: Christ's original Church was overcome by Satan and more-or-less disappeared, leaving behind a false Church (which for some reason persisted in spreading the Gospel, and reproducing the Bible). After 1,800 years of darkness, God sent Prophet E. G. White to lead his people back into the light.

Honestly, I cannot see the Adventist view as corresponding at all with a God who wants his people to know him, nor can I see Jesus as being so abysmal at establishing a Church.

I hope to hear from you. Please ask me any questions about Catholicism that you might have. I will be more than happy to answer you. I can give you citations for any claims I have made. And I would delight in telling you about the Early Church Fathers, successors of the Apostles, who as early as 100 AD were teaching clearly Catholic doctrines.

I have always viewed you as a part of my extended family, and it would be great if you would join my Church family, but I'd be happy to hear from you either way.

God Bless,

Nathan Cushman

The Death Penalty

2010-08-12T14:45:00.000-07:00

I'm going discuss my personal views on the death penalty, but first lets see what the Catechism says. I believe my views are in line with the Catechism, but I'm open to correction.

2266
The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people's rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and the duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense. Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. When it is willingly accepted by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation. Punishment then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people's safety, has a medicinal purpose: as far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party.

2267
Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity with the dignity of the human person.

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm—without definitively taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself—the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically non-existent."

In a country like America there is hardly a need for the death penalty. Crime rates in America have not actually gone up with the decreased use of the death penalty (from any statistics I've heard). But I have very particular views on when it should be used:

1st: The death penalty may be necessary for more murder cases in third world countries, where prisons may be less of a viable option.

2nd: In a country like America, with secure prisons, the death penalty still must be kept as an option for severe (and murderous) crimes against our justice system itself, or for people who are dangerous even while in prison. By this I mean the murder of witnesses, jurors, judges, or police officers involved in your case should result in the death penalty. Also, leaders of criminal or terrorist organizations may be too dangerous to hold, because their followers may commit crimes in order to seek their leader's release.

3rd: Reserving the death penalty for the murders most harmful to our justice system may help serve as a deterrent for those who are facing a life sentence and might otherwise feel they have nothing left to lose.

4th: the death penalty should be reserved for cases where a person is convicted not just because there is no reasonable doubt, but only when guilt is abundantly clear. I have heard too many disturbing cases of (mostly Southern) prosecutors who cared more about convictions than about guilt, and callously sent men they believed to be innocent to prison.

For these reasons(and possibly others), I believe the death penalty needs to be kept on the table, but that it needs to be used rarely.

It's also important to note that this is considered a "life issue," so I want to quickly add that the Church sees legitimate uses of the death penalty as possible, but does not approve of any case of abortion. The killing of a criminal and an innocent child are very different matters. This has been the teaching of the Church since the beginning.

Harry Potter and Vampires

2010-07-19T12:25:00.000-07:00

As someone who enjoyed the Harry Potter series, and more-or-less enjoyed the Twilight series, but can see reason for concern about them, I wrote the following addressing a comment which stated that both series could be dangerous because both vampires and witchcraft are evil.

I just want to point out that since vampires don't exist, they are not inherently good or evil, but only as good or evil as their particular fiction presents them as being.

Thus, in Twilight, I don't think vampires are evil, so much as they are addicts. Becoming vampires in the series gives them an addiction to human blood (without ever having had to have tasted it). Where they go with their addiction is up to them. However, in the original "Dracula," (my favorite vampire book) and in most older myths, vampires were evil.

I have some problems with the 4th twilight book, especially that it seems to depict vampires as being in every way superior to humans, and especially that it depicts infertile sex between vampires as being better than the fertile sex of humans. I would say that the book does contain certain dangerous ideas that might cause an unhealthy fascination with the idea of being a vampire. Though I will also note several positive messages: valuing chastity, a strong pro-life/anti-abortion message, and a favoring of peaceful resolution to conflicts over violence.

Witchcraft is a bit different, since a form of it exists in reality. I would argue that the "witchcraft" in Harry Potter is different than real magic. The fact that it does not call on spirits for power is a key difference. Magic is treated more as a gift that needs to be directed, more like a superhero's super power than like real world magic. I view it the same way as I view magic from fairy godmothers, as just a part of fantasy. Thus it is not inherently evil.

That said, I see Fr. Euteneuer's concern. Basically it seems that these things can be gateway drugs of a sort. Catholics certainly view it as acceptable to drink alcohol in moderation, but do we find recreational use of heroin to be acceptable? And if we do, do we find heroin addiction acceptable? Is a person who refuses to even drink alcohol likely to try something like heroin? It seems that alcohol use probably in most cases predates use of other drugs.

Of course the acceptability of alcohol doesn't mean that we should leave children alone with an open bar to drink as much as they please, or even that children should be allowed to drink at all. Likewise, there are dangers in leaving children to explore fantasy worlds like that of Harry Potter on their own. We must determine what age our kids must be before we allow them to read such books, and we must not let them read the books in a vacuum without personally discussing the differences between them and real-world magic.

I think that we also have to recognize that children will encounter the Harry Potter style magic in school, and if we want to help shape their thinking on the issue without causing them to start calling all their classmates satanic, we might want to familiarize them with the differences between fantasy magic and real-world witchcraft.

Double Standards

2010-07-16T07:48:00.000-07:00

Here's another example of the lengths the media (in this case the New York Times) will go to attack Pope Benedict and the Catholic Church, even when they don't really have a case. In the case discussed in this Inside Catholic article we see the New York Times trying to place special blame for lax enforcement of church rules regarding the abuse of children on Cardinal Ratzinger, when their own facts show that he was at the forefront of a push to clean up the church.

And then, in a piece looking at another NY Times article, we see the double standard made quite clear. While the Times, like the rest of the media, goes out of its way to attack the Catholic Church, it also, ignores most other cases of child abuse, or worse condones them. In this op-ed we see the Times convey the idea that it is "heartwarming" for the U.S. troops in Afghanistan to learn such tolerance that they will ignore the actions of Afghan allies on "love Thursdays" when older men have sex with (sometimes violently raping) younger boys.

"Blessed are those who persecute the Church, for they will be awarded editorial positions" -The Media Bible SRV (Secular Relativist Version)

Media Garbage

2010-06-01T23:14:00.000-07:00

This is just... I don't know... bizarre, I guess. This Reuters story has to be one of the worst written news stories I've ever read.

It starts with the title: "Most Catholics loyal despite abuse scandal"

It continues with such senseless statements as "according to a new poll[...] Only 12 percent, or one out of eight Roman Catholics, is reevaluating ties to the church following reports of child sex abuse [...] The number was similar among members of all faiths in the United States."

I don't even know what that means 12% of non-Catholics are thinking of leaving the Catholic Church too? 12% of non-Catholics are leaving their own Churches because of the scandal Catholics are facing? I don't get it.

The story continues to talk about the scandal a bit, and then out of nowhere hits us with, "The poll of 855 adults, including 178 Roman Catholics, also showed that more Americans than before, 45 percent compared to 41 percent in 2009, believed that killings carried out by the CIA are 'sometimes justified.'"

Huh?

And the story ends with, "More women, 11 percent, than men, 10 percent, wanted to step into the shoes of the 'Godfather' Don Corleone."

So it turns out the story isn't really about the scandal, it's really about a stupid poll. The title should read, "Stupid poll gives worthless results," or "Approximately 10% of Catholics want to stop being Catholic and become the 'Godfather.'"

Bad Entertainment

2010-04-22T18:02:00.000-07:00

In an interview of Barbara Nicolosi, a Catholic screenwriter and professor, she says:

But in the end, which is more harmful: true words cast in an ugly frame, or untrue words cast in a beautiful frame? I think Hollywood will get people into heaven faster. Even if they have the message wrong, people in the end will turn off some of that. What will really impact them will be the harmony, the wholeness, the completeness of a work.

So for example, a show like Friends, which might make light of pornography, is ultimately not as dangerous because it's very well-produced, well-acted, well-written. It's funny. It works as a whole. Whereas you can have a minister in front of a Bible on CBN with a bad toupee, lit garishly, and saying lovely things, but the message is that Christianity is uncreative, banal, boring, undynamic, and irrelevant.

I’m just going to say it. Barbara Nicolosi drives me nuts. She always goes overboard in her defense of art, and often completely ignores the dangers of a work if it has some small redeeming value AND artistic merit.

I understand and agree with her major point: In order to evangelize, we need better art (movies, music, TV, etc.). As someone trained in graphic design, I complain about bad art too. But she always weights style over substance. There is a point to be made that there is a degree of substance to style itself, as beauty is a reflection of God. But there is something horribly wrong with thinking that appearances equal underlying truth.

Our greatest example might be the Crucifix. What is uglier than the murder of an innocent man, or worse, the brutal torture of God himself? The secular world often mocks this ugliness: the blood, the nails, our strange love for an instrument of death. I’ve heard atheists mockingly state, “I pray in front of an electric chair.” But to a Christian, the cross is beautiful. It is hope, it is love, it is our faith.

She sounds to me sort of like she’s saying, “Better a pretty whore, than a homely nun. Our nuns need to be way more attractive or else they’re doing more harm than good.” Yeah, I think that idea came out of the Sermon on the Mount, right?

Let’s also look at some Catholic magazines, like Family Foundations, First Things, or early issues of This Rock. Now that’s some unattractive graphic design, and in the case of Family Foundations, some repetitive and poorly written articles. We should boycott these travesties of art, and buy Playboy, which is renowned for its good writing and photography. We will certainly find more beauty there, and thus more of God, right?

Well, I’m done mocking. I understand that this isn’t the exact point of her statements. I know that Christian TV and movies are pretty bad, and don’t watch much of them (though I like some Christian music). I suppose her words are directed more at we believers, saying that we can do more by improving our art than we can do by attacking Hollywood’s art. But this is not how she comes across. She comes across as someone who would say, “Joseph Ratzinger’s writings do more damage than those of Ayn Rand, because Rand’s writings are widely recognized as being well produced, well written, and captivating.”

Oh, I should also note that if you read the whole article, most of it is far more reasonable than this quote.

Another One

2010-04-11T16:49:00.001-07:00

Adding to my list of people who believe the media is treating the Catholic Church unfairly in the abuse issue, is Ed Koch, former mayor of New York City. A Jew who believes the Catholic Church is wrong on just about everything liberals tend to think it is wrong about (abortion, contraception, homosexuality, etc.), Koch still states, "I believe the continuing attacks by the media on the Roman Catholic Church and Pope Benedict XVI have become manifestations of anti-Catholicism. The procession of articles on the same events are, in my opinion, no longer intended to inform, but simply to castigate." See the full blog here.

Posts on the Scandal

2010-04-09T12:07:00.001-07:00

Although it is not my preferred area of discussion, the sexual abuse scandal keeps coming up, so I'll address it here by referring you to better writers! It's better you read some of these posts than anything I have to say, so I'll keep it short:

I'll start you where I started today, with Jennifer Fulwiler's Conversion Diary blog. As always, she's a wonderful writer, who provides lots of links to back up her points. For a bit of background, Jennifer was raised an atheist. She first began looking into Protestant Christianity, and eventually decided that the truth was found in its fullest in the Catholic Church. I highly recommend her blog.

In a trail from there I came across an article providing statistics comparing abuse by priests to family members, ministers, psychologists, and teachers. The statistics show that even at their worst, the priests were the safest group (completely demolishing the "caused by celibacy" argument).

Then there's a bit of comedy relief, as the Associated Press, desperate for news, reports on the man who shot John Paul II saying he wants Pope Benedict to "resign over the Catholic Church's handling of clerical sex abuse cases." Now there's someone the Catholic Church can look to for guidance. To his credit he does say he doesn't want the Pope arrested.

And finally, an interesting piece by an atheist humanist, who certainly doesn't favor Catholic teachings, but sounds just as opposed to the media bias and public hysteria against the Catholic Church as I am. This is useful, both as another perspective, and as a confirmation that we aren't imagining the media bias. His primary concerns in the article are the dangers of the anti-free speech stance of "new atheists," and the "culture of victimhood." [note that I have not read, and cannot recommend any other articles on this humanist website]

Anti-Catholic Madness: Now It's Digital!

2010-03-09T19:09:00.001-08:00

Not that this is news to any of you, but absurd anti-Catholic attacks are as common online as... comment threads... since they all eventually lead to Catholic-bashing right?

I usually try to avoid comments, just out of the knowledge that these absurdities will suck up the rest of my day, but today I fell off the wagon (which isn't as bad as some of the other wagons I fall off of) and read the comments to this news story: "Pope's brother: I ignored physical abuse reports" In case you don't want to read it, it basically says that while the Pope's brother was a priest in Germany he heard complaints about physical abuse from a neighboring school, but he didn't do anything. He explains that corporal punishment was normal at the time, and he didn't realize how much more intense the situation was at this school. Understandable, given the time period, I think.

Anyway, the comments immediately began with bashing the Church. I won't reproduce them, nor will I recommend reading such misinformed bigotry, but I'll post my responses here, just cause I like to do that for some reason. You'll see that I had to deal with what seems like every typical attack on the Church, so maybe something will be of use:

I became a Catholic right in the midst of this scandal breaking. And guess what, I love my Church. It is the most Christian Church I have found (Seriously, the best Christians, and the most Biblical teachings can be found in the Catholic Church, just most people, even Catholics, don't know it). That is not to say that it is filled with perfect Christian people. It is not. I don't claim to live up to those ideals myself. When we set our standards high enough we will all fail to live up to them, but we continue to try.

To City, great post. It is certainly unfair to judge people who were doing "what was right" by the standards of their time by standards we have today.

Sueky, I don't want pedophiles to burn in Hell. I want their sins to be forgiven, just as I want my sins to be forgiven. That said, I don't want them out in the world hurting children.

Christy, there weren't even a million people in the south of France to begin with in the Middle Ages, so I doubt the Catholic Church was able to kill that many. Besides, people were generally killed by the civil leaders for activities which were thought to endanger social stability (not that I believe this cause was always justified), not just for "believing different things." Read a history book not written as anti-Catholic propaganda, and you might find out that the Catholic Church isn't just a blood thirsty, power hungry brute (though some of its members certainly are).

Michelle, Catholics go to God for forgiveness to. The scriptures tell us that Christ commissioned his apostles to forgive sins. One of the major differences between Catholicism and (most) Protestantism is that Catholics believe we connect to God directly AND through the material world, while Protestants tend to more-or-less believe that we connect to him only directly. Thus, Catholics believe that God desires we ask his forgiveness directly AND through confession to the priest. We don't go to the priest instead of God.

LTL. This is a misconception, that celibacy has anything to do with pedophilia. Yes, it is true that some priests don't keep their vows, but the majority DO keep their vows. And pedophilia is just as (or more) common in the general population as it is in the priesthood. The media doesn't report much on it, but there is a higher rate of sexual abuse by teachers in public schools, and administrators commonly cover it up (wait I though secrecy was just an evil Catholic thing!?!), and nobody requires school teachers to be celibate.

And here's my second comment:

Did I just stumble into a KKK meeting? What's with all the anti-Catholic anti-clerical propaganda? I thought thought that went out of fashion when JFK became President without enslaving America to the Pope.

You guys seriously don't get that this is typical media frenzy? The situation in Catholic churches is NO different from the situation in other religious organizations, or in secular institutions like public schools, daycare centers, etc.

The problem is that the media frenzy has a narrow focus, which conveniently fits with common stereotypes. This frenzy is just like how until recently there were far more cases of unintended acceleration in American cars, but just because of the current media frenzy, suddenly everyone thinks Toyotas are deathtraps.

When people point out that this is not just a Catholic problem we are NOT, I repeat, NOT saying that this in anyway gives a free pass to the priests or bishops involved in the matter. No. You cruelly misrepresent us every step of the way. We are appalled that our priests would do this. But our priests have been falsely accused of such things so often for so long that we had a hard time believing them when it turned out some of the accusations were true. There are no excuses for sin, except that we are all human, and we all know our own temptations, and should have some understanding of the darkness which can befall man.

What we ARE trying to say is that we are being unfairly singled out, and that it is unreasonable to say that the fault lies in our religion if the problem is just as common outside of the religion, and also just as common in other leadership structures. Media stories on this issue have been something like 10:1 Catholic vs. other organizations, when the problem is no more widespread in the Catholic Church. That is bias, plain and simple. California lifted the statute of limitations on lawsuits involving the Catholic Church, but not for other groups. Bias. Other states have heavily investigated every Catholic group, but not other groups. Bias. Media Frenzy induced bias.

Judson, pedophiles are no more common among priests than among men "allowed" to marry, so this would not fix the problem, it's just an old piece of Protestant fundamentalist bigotry which has been absorbed by even the most secular of people. This is what I mean. You can't blame the Catholic Church, saying the problem is due to celibacy, when the problem is just as common among those who are not celibate. That make no sense. Obviously, the only claim you can make is that vows of celibacy do not PREVENT pedophilia.

You cannot blame the church for intense "secrecy" if the same level of secrecy is present in similar situations in every type of organization imaginable: US government, school administration, synagogue, or hippie commune.

As for the joke about drowning/burning witches, that was quite uncommon in Catholic countries, oddly enough because the Inquisition did not allow such silliness (of course they did not avoid that level of cruelty, but applied it in less absurd ways, much like our modern use of waterboarding. Of course I do not approve of any such torture, but you see that times have not entirely changed).

To Jeff, who says, "Authority and responsibility cannot be separated, and the authority these men exercised derived from the Catholic Church." Do you suggest that every time an authority disappoints us we should overthrow the whole structure? Sounds like a lot of unreasonable bloodshed to me.

To Dave, who said, "Yes. They should try all priests to find out which ones are pedophiles." How Totalitarian of you. You'd be happy to know that in many atheist countries thousands of priests were murdered just for being priests (USSR, China, early 1900s Mexico, etc.). There is a reason we have rights in this country like being innocent until proven guilty, and limits on police searches. I guess you want the secret police bursting into your house to check the numbers tattooed on your arm?

Hopefully I'll eventually make the effort to go into more detail on some of the issues brought up here. I'm sure a few of these could go toward an installment of Craziest Complaints.

Oh, and for anyone out there who has ever said anything like, "I love individual Catholics, but I hate the Pope, and hope he goes to Hell." I think of the Pope sort of like you might think of a beloved grandfather, so try switching it around before you speak. "Your favorite grandfather is just a dirty old dress-wearing man who uses his power and money to brainwash people and abuse children." Oh yeah, well yo' mama so fat...

Sacrifice of the Mass (further discussion)

2010-01-25T18:30:00.000-08:00

In an earlier post (which you should read before reading this) I mentioned a comment on John Piper's website about the Mass being repugnant. I cited the Didache and Ignatius as supporting the Catholic side. In response I received the following comment, which I feel is worth a longer response than I like to give in the comments section.

Stuart wrote:

Greetings to you all. I just stumbled across this post as I was searching for something else. I am pretty familiar with Piper's theology and perspectives (his and mine are very similar) and so I thought I might chime in here in hopes of bringing some clarity to the discussion.

First, while the quote from the Didache refers to a 'sacrifice' I see no reason to understand that as referring to the reenactment of the sacrifice of the body of Christ in the Eucharist. The sacrifice given on the Lord's day is a sacrifice of praise, not a bodily sacrifice.

Second, it is certain that one can vehemently insist on the Real Presence while avoiding the error of transubstantiation and a reenacted sacrifice. It is certain because countless protestants have done so, including Luther, Calvin, and yours truly. I don't know what Piper has to say about the Real Presence, nor am I familiar with Irenaeus's position (Luther would certainly agree with what you have excerpted here).

Ultimately, though, what the Didache and Irenaeus say must be measured against the Scriptures, which clearly teach (Hebrews 9-10) that Jesus' sacrifice was once for all. I venture to say that this is what Piper finds so repugnant about the Roman Catholic Mass. I fail to see how such a theology could possibly square with the theology of the writer of Hebrews. To teach that Jesus must be sacrificed afresh each Lord's Day is an affront to the sufficiency of His crosswork.

Soli Deo Gloria

--Stuart

First, you should take notice of the fact that Piper finds kneeling and kissing the table repugnant as well. This shows that he believes the idea of the real presence itself is part of the problem.

If Christ is really present in the Eucharist, then it is absurd to be offended by kneeling to Him. This suggests that he finds the Theology of the early reformers you mention to be repugnant as well. Really the theologies of Luther and Calvin are at least as compatible with Catholic theology as they are with most modern Protestant theology.

Now, Regarding the Didache, consider the following: "But every Lord's day... break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure."First, I'll note that "Eucharist" translates into "thanksgiving," and in many ancient documents, this is what is meant when "thanksgiving" is used in certain contexts. It could easily mean this in this context, since the writer is talking about gathering together on Sunday, breaking bread, and offering a sacrifice. But since I assume you would interpret thanksgiving at face value, and no other Christian documents that use thanksgiving in this sense predate the Didache, I will not expect this to be considered solid proof.

Let's look at some related scriptures for a moment: In Matthew 5 our Lord says, "Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to your brother; then come and offer your gift."

And in 1 Corinthians 11 Paul tells us, "Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself. That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep."

Notice that these two Bible passages have many parallels with the passage in the Didache. I'll create a kind of list:

Didache:

1. Make confession of sins.

2. Make pure sacrifice.

3. Eat bread.

Matthew 5:
1. Seek Reconciliation before offering.

2. Bring sacrificial gift to altar.

1 Corintians 11:

1. Examine yourself.

2. Only partake of the cup if you can do so in a worthy manner.

3. Eat bread and drink wine.

The Didache is the only one that clearly contains all three of the elements I am tying together, but you can see a clearer picture by comparing these other passages. The Didache would have us make confession/reconciliation before making our sacrifice. And this sacrifice seems to be related to bread or "thanksgiving." If we interpret "thanksgiving" in the modern sense, I suppose we would be making a sacrifice of praise or prayer, not of physical gifts. If we interpret it to mean the Eucharist as Catholics understand it, then it ties more directly in with the breaking of bread.

In Matthew 5 we once again see reconciliation, but in this case it is related to the old covenant sacrifices at the temple. But most, if not all, of Christ's words recorded in scripture had some eternal purpose, not a purpose that was restricted to only one place and time. Thus, I would reason that Christ intended reconciliation to also precede some sort of new covenant sacrifice. What new covenant sacrifice is there other than Christ? The only other sacrifice we can offer is the sacrifice of ourselves, but we can sacrifice ourselves all we want without earning anything from God. The only sacrifice that earns salvation is Christ's sacrifice, so the only worthwhile thing we can offer to God is in fact God himself. This of course sounds silly to the non-Christian, but it isn't, for everything we have is from God. I am reminded of when my 2-year-old daughter shares her food with me. I am pleased with her for sharing, even though I provided her with that food in the first place.

Then, in 1 Corinthians 11, we see the repeated theme (admittedly from a different angle) of needing to be worthy (likely in part through confession/reconciliation) before participation in a religious ceremony. This time the word, "sacrifice" is not used, though this time we are told to "recognize the body of the Lord" in the bread and wine. Just before this (also in 1 Cor. 11) Paul writes, "'This [bread] is my body[...] This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.' For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes." Now, I remember hearing of a (notably atypical) Protestant fellow who was upset by this verse because it make is sound like Christ is still dead, and is not risen. It seems quite obvious he is missing the point of this verse. We do not proclaim that Christ is still dead during communion, rather we proclaim that he did at one point die. We proclaim this because his death was the sacrifice which gives us life. Without the crucifixion there is no resurrection.

So, putting this all together: communion is the body and blood of Christ which was given up for us, we proclaim his death when we partake of communion, his death was a sacrifice (his body and blood was given up) to God, we must partake of communion in a worthy manner, we must seek reconciliation before making a sacrifice or breaking bread together on the Lord's day.

With all this in view, if one believes in the real presence, I don't see how they can avoid seeing the Eucharist as a sacrifice. What is the bread and wine? The body and blood of Jesus which was given up for us. So the real presence is the presence of Christ's sacrifice (not to say that it is his sacrifice somehow disembodied from his actual being).

I can see how it would upset Protestants to think that we re-sacrifice Jesus every day, because that idea also upsets Catholics, and we don't believe it. We do not re-sacrifice him. Rather, we recall and make present his sacrifice today. It is not a new sacrifice. It is the one sacrifice of the cross. We must remember that in heaven Christ is not bound as he bound himself on Earth, he is not limited by space or time or the laws of physics. This is how we can make reconciliation before making our sacrifice to God as Christ instructed. On the cross Christ made his sacrifice available to all men throughout the ages, and that sacrifice makes itself present in the Eucharist. We offer this as a sacrifice to God because we know that only the sacrifice which he himself made can save us.

RSV Bible Concordance Review

2009-10-15T15:39:00.000-07:00

Title: Catholic Bible Concordance: Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition

Author: Compiled by C.W. Lyons with Thomas Deliduka

Publisher: Emmaus Road

Copyright Date: 2008

After initially writing a positive review of this book, I discovered that there was a significant section missing. On page 286 it jumps from "Chief" to "Commandments." That means the book is missing some fairly important words, including "Church" and "Children." A few examples of these word appear in the Appendix on page 2142, but these are just the instances unique to the Second Edition of the RSV-CE.

Since posting this review, I have been contacted by Emmaus Road, and informed that they are fixing the problem. For more information read the Addendum after the "Original Review" below.

Original Review:

This book is a perfect example of a concordance, so if you want a Catholic Bible concordance, buy this book. It is laid out well, and is an attractive reference book.

The only question is, do you want a Catholic concordance? This is, I suppose, two questions: Do you want you concordance to be Catholic? And do you want a concordance?

First, if you are Catholic, and you want a concordance, you should buy an RSV-CE Bible, and then buy this book, because a Protestant concordance will most likely be missing the deuterocanonical books.

Now, do you want a concordance? I will explain exactly what this book contains, and then you can decide for yourself if a concordance would be of use to you.

Put simply, this is an exhaustive index for the Bible. It lists every noun, adjective, verb and adverb in the Bible. For each word it gives you every chapter and verse where the word is used, and it gives you the immediate context.

I'll give you a sample entry:

WINNOWS (2)
Prov 20:8 the throne of judgement W all evil with his
20:26 A wise king W the wicked, and drives the

Pros: The book is beautifully laid out, comprehensive, and is an all-around high quality production. It makes the Bible quite a bit easier to search and to reference. If you want a Catholic Bible Concordance, this is pretty much your only current option, but it's good enough that you don't need another. If you can use a dictionary, you can use this book.

Cons: This book requires that you have some knowledge of the scriptures before you'll even know where to look (though playing around with this book and your Bible might be a good way to familiarize yourself with the scriptures). It can be difficult to think of all the words that might address the topic you're looking up. If you aren't familiar with the RSV-CE translation, you might run into some issues with knowing what exact words will be used in the verse you're looking for. This book is also a bit redundant for anyone who knows a website that lets you search through Bibles. I do want to point out, however, that these aren't flaws with the book itself, just issues which might make concordances in general less useful for some people.

Conclusion: I recommend this book for all who are interested. It only does one thing, but that's all it's supposed to do, and it does it well.

New Addendum: I have just been informed that the problem I discovered is in the process of being remedied. For those who bought a book with the error, Emmaus Road will be providing an insert with the missing section. It sounds like the unsold books will be having the error fixed by some other method. So, it's up to you, if you don't mind having an insert, don't worry about which copy you buy, but if you want a book that comes in one piece, you might want to check the book you're buying before the purchase. You can find out more at www.cufblog.org.

On Life

2009-09-02T16:16:00.000-07:00

A quick quote, from a letter Cardinal Ratzinger sent American Bishops in 2004:

"Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia. "

Well, there you have it. We have been clearly told what our priorities should be in building a culture of life. We cannot pretend that all issues have equal weight, though we must of course seek to respect human life in all circumstances.

As Stewards of God's Gifts

2009-08-31T15:39:00.000-07:00

I wrote the following as a comment on another comment on an article about the opposition between Socialism and Christianity. This is something I have pondered off and on, though my knowledge of economics is pretty limited, so I don't tend to take too strong a position on these matters.

This is one area where I think it may be right to behave one way in the political realm and another in the personal realm (though the law should support, rather than discourage the personal behavior).

Generally, I think it is best to vote like a capitalist, work like a capitalist, and live like a communist (by sharing what he has, not by thinking like an anti-Christian Marxist).

What I mean is that a free market is simply the most effective economic system, though it should be restrained by some degree of law, to avoid dangerous work conditions, for example.

But also, as Christians we must recognize that our wealth is given to us by God, not simply for our own good, but for the glory of God. Our wealth should thus be freely given to support the Church and to support the "widow and the orphan."

Of course, since it is to us that God has given the stewardship of these goods, it should be up to us how we use them, and it is not wrong to consider them our private property. We do have rights over what we have been given. But as stewards, we cannot imagine these gifts as being solely for our own pleasure.

God gives us graces so that we might pass them on. Then God will reward us with more abundant graces, though not necessarily of the same kind as those we passed on.

Now, this is one of those times when my advice is hard for me to follow, but with God, anything is possible. I must repeatedly remind myself:

"What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world..."

The "Question of Coercion"

2009-08-16T20:54:00.000-07:00

I recently came across this challenge to the faith in an Amazon book review:

My belief in God, if not out of love or a want to establish a relationship with God, would be based on nothing more than coercion:

I want a pleasing and pain-free after life; I want to be as happy in the after-life as I am with life, but I don't have or have a desire for a relationship with God; therefore, I may be cast to hell (which, according to this book, I've created). If I want to be happy in the after-life, I need to establish a relationship with God. I don't want a relationship with God either because I don't believe one can exist or I don't believe a relationship with God is beneficial for either participant; however, I want to avoid discomfort and joylessness. I'll establish a relationship with God so I do not experience pain or joylessness.

Unless I missed it, Tim doesn't address this, and I think it's quite possibly the most difficult obstacle for any organized religion; I would like the author to address coercion without resorting to "you've misunderstood the point of God's love."

I would say that the first problem with this "question of coercion" is that it ignores what Christians believe heaven and hell are. Heaven is a place where we are happy because we are in a relationship with God; therefore, if we truly want to be in heaven, we want a relationship with God. Basically, what the one who asks this question wants is to have a part of something without having the whole. He wants to live in a man's house without asking that man if he can come in, and without acknowledging the man once he is inside. He wants love without a lover, a smile without a face. He is separating the inseparable.

The alternative, hell, is terrible because we are separated from God. That is why we go to hell. We didn't want God, so he let us be alone. But, since God is the source of all good, we are left with no good, and thus no joy. This is a deranged choice, but we men make deranged choices all the time.

We cannot separate cause and effect. I cannot ask for sunlight, but without the sun. I think we all ask for such absurdities sometimes, and that is more-or-less the definition of sin. We want to live on a diet of candy, but without gaining weight, rotting our teeth, and having stomachaches. We want to walk through fire without being burned, but burning is inherent with fire.

Truly Present? Physically Present?

2009-08-05T16:34:00.000-07:00

I'm sure I'm not alone in finding the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist confusing. Surely that is what drove Martin Luther to discard transubstantiation (the bread becomes the body) and replace it with consubstantiation (the body becomes present "with" the bread). This is also probably much of what led most other Protestants to drop the doctrine of the Real Presence altogether.

Now I find myself learning that I'm slightly more confused about the idea than I thought I was.

Apparently, "Catholic Church teaching does not teach that Christ is present in the Eucharist 'physically'; rather it teaches that Christ is present within the appearance of bread and wine, 'truly, really, and substantially.'"

This got me thinking. I wonder if the Church has not yet decided whether it would be correct to say Christ was "physically" present, or if it has decided that it is incorrect to say he is "physically" present. Further, I suppose I do not know exactly how Catholic philosophy defines "physical."

Still, I'll take the step of pondering what little I do know, in the hope we learn something, and also hoping that we will read more about this before letting ourselves be misled by my thoughts on the matter.

Christ is present under the appearance of bread and wine. We know this "appearance" extends beyond just the visual, and into all other senses and scientific measures. Now, is "apparently," in this case, the same as "physically?"It is possible (from the little I know) that they mean the same thing, but have different connotations. If the Church was to say, for example, "Christ is not physically present," would the problem be that we would misunderstand this to mean he wasn't "really" present? Or would the problem be that it isn't true, because he is, in a sense "physically" present? Or perhaps, is there a third option? Is it both incorrect to say he is not "physically" present, but it is also incorrect to say he is "physically" present?

Now, since I cannot yet answer these questions, I will try an illustration of what it might look like if "physically" and "apparently" are synonymous in this situation.

In the Old Testament, angels often took the form of men, and interacted with humans (which they may still do today). In some cases the angels physically interacted with the world and even ate food. So, like the Eucharist, these angels did not just appear as men visually, but appeared as men to all the senses. Still, what were they? They were not "really" men, though they could be called "men" just as statues of men might be called "men." They were "really, truly, and substantially" angels. But physically, are they men, or are they angels? It seems that "physically" they were men, though "really" they were angels. Of course, this leads us back to the same problem.

But either way we define the physical (as just the apparent, scientifically testable aspect of a thing, or as something more), I think the angel illustration does help me to better understand the Eucharist, and how it can fully appear to be one thing while being "really, truly, and substantially" another.

Edit: Okay, I should have read a few more issues. See the following [from This Rock]:

In Mysterium Fidei, Pope Paul VI says, "To avoid any misunderstanding of this type of presence, which goes beyond the laws of nature and constitutes the greatest miracle of its kind, we have to listen with docility to the voice of the teaching and praying Church. . . . [After the consecration] nothing remains of the bread and the wine except for the species—beneath which Christ is present whole and entire in his physical ‘reality,’ corporeally present, although not in the manner in which bodies are in a place"

Not that this completely answers my question, since if we defined physical as I did above, it would be "in the manner in which bodies are in a place." So it still seems to depend on the definition of physical.

Also, being that the Eucharist "constitutes the greatest miracle of its kind," I suppose the comparison with angels might be helpful, but not entirely equivalent.

According to Fr. J. Michael Venditti: "Yes, he is really, physically present, as really present as you are to those around you, though present in a different way--present sacramentally rather than in the normal physical way."

So he is "physically present," but not in the, "normal physical way." Yep, this is going to stay confusing. I can only figure that this means that he is physically present in a unique way, which has no correspondence outside the Eucharist. Thus, any word, such as "physical," that we use will mean something somewhat different than usual when applied to the Eucharist.

I guess this is similar to using words that describe God. If we call God "beautiful," he transcends the normal sense of the word, and at the same time, our normal understanding -- a visual beauty-- doesn't really apply. God is immaterial, and thus not visible to the eyes, yet he is the source of all beauty and infinitely beautiful.

OSAS 4: Reattaching the Branch

2009-07-30T15:58:00.000-07:00

In discussions over this subject, it has been pointed out to me that some of the verses I have cited “prove too much.” To them, if these verses mean that a Christian can lose his salvation they also suggest that once salvation is lost it cannot be regained. Let's look at one example:

If anyone does not remain in me, he is like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned. [John 15:6]

If we read this a certain way, it sounds like the branches are cast into the fire as soon as they are cut off. Jesus does not say that the branch gets a chance to reattach.

But let's look at the sequence of events: The branch was cut off and thrown away, it withered, it was gathered up, and finally it was thrown into the fire. This does leave at least one step in between the cutting off and the casting into flames. There is a period where it lies on the ground withering.

Now, what if the branch was picked up before it finished drying out, and was nourished and reattached to the vine? Do the scriptures support such a possibility?

If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root, do not boast over those branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you. You will say then, "Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in." Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but be afraid. For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either.

Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off. And if they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. After all, if you were cut out of an olive tree that is wild by nature, and contrary to nature were grafted into a cultivated olive tree, how much more readily will these, the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree! [Romans 11:17-24]

I bring this up because it uses a similar analogy of branches, but in this case it shows that branches can be removed and reattached. The problem is, however, that this verse is being applied to groups of people (Jews and Gentiles), thus it might not necessarily apply to individuals (e.g. if faith disappeared among Gentiles, the Jews would once again be grafted in). However, in my reading he is actually applying it to both. Yes, the Jews lost their place, but this happened “because of unbelief.” This is an individual level lack of faith. The Jews certainly did not reject Christ “as a people,” for the majority of early converts were Jews, including the writer of this verse.

Still, I will move on to an example that does not have the additional complexity of speaking about whole groups of people.

My brothers, if one of you should wander from the truth and someone should bring him back, remember this: Whoever turns a sinner from the error of his way will save him from death and cover over a multitude of sins. [James 5:19-20]

First, notice that James is speaking to his “brothers,” meaning fellow Christians. Second, notice that they “wander from the truth.” What would it mean for a “brother” to “wander from the truth?” It means that he was a saved person, abiding in Christ, but he abandoned the faith. But then it goes on to say that someone could “bring him back” and “save him from death.”

Thus, the scriptures do support the idea that one can be saved, but then lose his salvation, and finally be brought back to salvation. A removed branch can be reattached.

Flesh and Bones

2009-07-19T14:25:00.000-07:00

The Church is the body of Christ.

Occasionally the people of the Church cause her wounds, but her bones are strong, and Christ will always heal her flesh. Let us, for the moment, envision this body as representing two things: Her flesh is her love and compassion, her softness. Her skeleton is the Truth, composed of her infallible teachings, the deposit of the faith, the Scriptures and Tradition.

Now, what happens when a church breaks off from The Catholic Church? It becomes more prone to decay. When it is injured, it is more likely to get an infection, and Christ is less able to heal it, since it is not as fully connected to him.

Thus, Protestant churches, as time passes will often get infections or tumors, and the only response is to excise the damaged tissue. This provides a kind of restoration, but at the same time it leaves scars and sometimes disfigurement.

Let us now look at some of the extreme examples of this disfigurement:

There is a minister named Fred Phelps whose congregation is often seen carrying signs that read, "God hates Gays." This is what happens when an injured body strips the flesh from its bones. We are left with a broken and gruesome skeleton. It keeps fragments of truth (not that God hates gays, but that god disapproves of sin), but it can no longer reach out and touch with healing hands. It only has vicious bony claws.

At the other extreme we find those in the liberal Episcopalian hierarchy. They have abandoned their bones, seeing them as too hard (or intolerant). They have become like a jellyfish stranded on the seashore, a blob of flesh that knows only how to be soft and has lost its real purpose. It takes bones to walk, and bones to reach out your hand to make a difference.

As another illustration, I would like you to imagine a police officer. He is a strong and confident man, trained to enforce the law. He has his uniform, his badge, his gun, and all his other equipment. This is the way a police officer is supposed to be.

Now, a Pastor in one of the conservative Protestant denominations is like this police officer, but without his uniform and his badge, and missing much of his equipment. He is still willing and able to fight crime, but he is seriously hindered.

The liberal Protestant ministers, like the aforementioned Episcopalians, are in a different position. Such a minister may have the uniform and carry much of the equipment, thus appearing from a distance to be a fully equipped officer. But, when you get closer, you see that it is not a police officer in the uniform, it is a great dane.

Modesty and Madness

2009-07-10T16:40:00.001-07:00

Well, I'm still not planning to write much, but I'll point out a couple of interesting articles.

This first one is a great piece on modesty at Mass:

Don't Wear that Mini to Mass

And this second one is about homeschooling parents who are doing a great job of educating their children, but still have the German goverment threatening to take away their kids due to anti-homeschooling laws put in place by the Third Reich in 1938:

German Government... Threatens to Seize Custody of Son from Homeschooling Family

Been a While

2009-07-09T22:11:00.000-07:00

Well, it's been a while since I've posted, and I don't have much to say at the moment either.

But I will explain a bit: I have been working on a project that's been taking up the energy I devote to writing stuff related to Catholicism. In short, I'm trying to develop a ministry or a set of programs which will address certain elements which are often neglected in modern Catholic parishes, primarily community and evangelization.

Lately, one of my favorite Catholic websites has been Fr. Barron's WordOnFire.org, so check that out if your looking for some good reading or videos.

Pseudogamy 101 & 102

2009-05-22T15:12:00.000-07:00

I have to recommend this brilliant set of articles by Anthony Esolen. I'll give a little bit of the first one here, but make sure to go and read them both!

I've written [...] that the real social problem we in America face is the number of people who are not married who behave as if they were. I'd like to revise that claim. Our problem is pseudogamy, false marriage, and it assumes many forms. Same-sex pseudogamy is but the latest and most flagrantly absurd, but it is not the first. We find the most fundamental form, from which other corruptions rise up like diseases, when a man and woman go through the ceremony and utter the traditional words "as long as you both shall live," while harboring the mental reservation, "as long, that is, as I am happy," or "as long as the marriage 'works,'" whatever that is supposed to mean. In other words, in the fundamental form of pseudogamy, we don't have people who are not married behaving as if they were, but people who are married (or who present themselves as having been married) behaving as if they were not.

Read the rest of the article and then the next article by following the links below:

pseudogamy-101

pseudogamy-102

Hopefully there are more in this series.

Pope Pius XII Video

2009-05-12T17:35:00.000-07:00

Here's a short video related to the post below:

Communist Conspiracies & Pope Pius XII

2009-05-12T15:50:00.000-07:00

Many of us have heard the accusation that Pope Pius XII was in league with the Nazis, siding with them in their attempts to exterminate the Jews, or the less severe accusation that the Pope was more concerned with protecting Vatican property than with defending the Jews, leading him to remain mostly neutral.

The book, Pope Fiction: Answers to 30 Myths and Misconceptions About the Papacy, has a chapter on this accusation, which quotes the 1941 New York Times, saying, "the Pope put himself squarely against Hitlerism," and again in 1942 The New York Times reported that, "he assails violent occupation of territory, the exile and persecution of human beings for no reason other than race or political opinion." It also explains that at the end of the war, the Jews praised Pius XII for his help. I'll note that the full quotes, and the rest of the chapter give far more evidence, but this suffices to show that there has been some serious historical revisionism going on.

Then where did this accusation come from? The first time anyone heard this charge it was in a play called The Deputy. This play's supposed author, Rolf Hochhuth, cites an unnamed bishop along with various unconvincing documents (like some which just quote anti-Catholic Nazi officers) as proof of the play's claims.

What I just learned about this matter recently, though, is that the entire charge, and the play that brought it into public knowledge, may have originated as a communist plot.

Former KGB "Romanian point man," Lt. General Ion Mihai Pacepa, who helped perpetrate the plot wrote, "In February 1960, Nikita Khrushchev approved a super-secret plan for destroying the Vatican’s moral authority in Western Europe."

He continues, in a 2007 article, to write, "Eugenio Pacelli, by then Pope Pius XII, was selected as the KGB’s main target, its incarnation of evil, because he had departed this world in 1958. 'Dead men cannot defend themselves' was the KGB’s latest slogan."

Pacepa worked to help "in pilfering hundreds of documents connected in any way with Pope Pius XII out of the Vatican Archives and the Apostolic Library."

Though, "no incriminating material against the pontiff ever turned up," his superior in the KGB, General Ivan Agayants, still went ahead to create a "play attacking Pope Pius XII, entitled The Deputy, an oblique reference to the pope as Christ’s representative on earth. Agayants took credit for the outline of the play, and he told us that it had voluminous appendices of background documents put together by his experts with help from the documents we had purloined from the Vatican."

He goes on to write that, despite the fact that by 1974 "newly released information show[ed] that Hitler, far from being friendly with Pius XII, had in fact been plotting against him. [...]Today, many people who have never heard of The Deputy are sincerely convinced that Pius XII was a cold and evil man who hated the Jews and helped Hitler do away with them."

For an even more detailed account of the whole controversy you can read The Myth of Hitler's Pope, by Rabbi David G. Dalin.

The Catholic Scapegoat

2009-04-24T16:40:00.000-07:00

This isn't a topic I rather enjoy writing about, but it is still an important issue.

The Catholic Church has achieved notoriety as an institution which has covered up child abuse, passed around abusive priests, and cared more about protecting its reputation than protecting its children. Supposedly it was caused by the particularly secretive Catholic hierarchy and the fiendish practice of celibacy.

I had to deal with these accusations while I was considering entry into the Church, and I found that with a proper look at the real facts, and not the media hype, we see that this problem isn't what the media makes it out to be.

As Catholics, we need to care most about what we are doing to protect our children, and what we can do to avoid repeating our sins in the future. On the other hand, if we are over-cautious, we can end up killing our ability to interact with our Catholic family, and to act as Christians at all, due to our suffocating paranoia.

But we must also recognize that we are not alone in our sins. Our Church does not face these troubles because she is Catholic (with perverting doctrines). No. She faces them because she is comprised of humans. We can see the truth of this if we look at the stories, few and far between as they may be, that show the truth about other institutions. This truth, which mostly seems to escape the media, also escapes legislators, who even now, are still creating legislation that unfairly targets Catholic schools, while leaving public schools alone.

Though I've read the same thing in many media outlets, I will presently quote a statement by the Catholic League's Bill Donohue:

“In 2007, the AP did a major report on this subject. It concluded that child sexual abuse in the public schools was ‘a widespread problem,’ saying there was ‘a deeply entrenched resistance toward recognizing and fighting abuse.’ Moreover, offending teachers are moved from one school district to another, so often that they are called ‘mobile molesters.’

“Two years earlier, author and educator John Seryak concluded that ‘The problem in education dwarfs the Catholic Church problem.’ And a year earlier, Dr. Charol Shakeshaft, the nation’s leading authority on the issue, estimated that ‘the physical abuse of students in schools is likely more than 100 times the abuse of priests.’ So common is the transfer of offending teachers that it is called ‘passing the trash.’

We can clearly see in these, and other accounts, that school administrators acted exactly the same as Catholic administrators (Bishops) by transferring offenders, except that Catholic Bishops did at least try sending many of the abusers to counseling. Note that this was before we realized how ineffective counseling tends to be in these situations. We also see that school teachers are just as likely as our clergy (supposedly corrupted by celibacy) to commit abuse.

I am happy for the probing into the Church. Fine, tear us open, help us to be free from our dark secrets, but don't ignore the problem everywhere else it appears. Tear open public schools, other churches, and any other organizations which have hidden similar crimes.

While this does not, and never could, excuse us from our own failings, it does raise a serious question about the media. Are they really so interested in saving children, or are they really just out to crush the Catholic Church?

When the Catholic Church is the one group which stands most firmly against the culture of death, and the media is the not-so-subtle propaganda arm of the culture of death, I'm not sure we have to wonder.

The Hierarchical Principle

2009-04-21T16:20:00.000-07:00

For me, in coming from a Protestant position, one principle unlocked a great deal of the challenges presented by Catholicism. I'm not sure if it has a name, but I will call it "The Hierarchical Principle."

For me, unlocking this principle was key to understanding many things:

Why do Catholics have a Pope and Bishops?
What's with the Marian dogmas?
Why the Praying to Saints?
Why call priests "Father?"
Why have priests?

You see, Protestants tend to simplify things. This makes Protestant doctrine easy to understand and quick to learn (at least the basics). As far as hierarchies go, they like it simple: "There's God, then beneath that is us, then there's the rest of Creation." [Note: I may be leaving out a few levels on both sides, but I think you'll get the point] Catholics see these major levels as well, but we also see levels within each of those categories. A Protestant insists that Jesus has given him direct contact with God. A Catholic agrees, but he also sees the purpose in having contact with everyone on the levels between ourselves and God. Thus, a Catholic may praise Mary as being his superior, but a Protestant, only seeing God as his superior sees this as idolatry.

To sum up the principle, I would first relate a common Catholic statement, "Protestants see things as either/or, where Catholics see things as both/and." This is used for Faith and Works, Scripture and Tradition, prayers to God and Mary, etc.

But for some of these things a hierarchical model is more appropriate: "Catholics see some things as both/and-to-a-lesser-extent." Catholics honor God, and because of God they honor Mary. Catholics believe in the ultimate authority of God, and in the subservient authority of the Bishops.

To help explain how this plays out further, let's see how the principle works with Church Authority: In the Gospels Jesus said, "As the Father has sent me, I am sending you [Jn 20:21]," to the Apostles. He also gives a special higher authority to Peter [Matt 16]. Then, after this, the Apostles ordain Bishops to succeed them. This creates a structure something like the following:

God the Father>Jesus>Peter>Apostles>Bishops>Presbyters & Deacons>Laity

Then, after the deaths of the Apostles, and after some clarification on the roles of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons we ended up with the modern structure:

God the Father>Jesus>Pope>Bishops>Priests>Deacons>Laity (divided futher: Parents>Children)

In observing this structure we recognize that each is due honor according to his office. Having an authority other than God does not conflict with God's authority because 1) Its authority is God-given, 2) We recognize that God's authority is higher, and thus, 3) Divine commands outweigh the commands of Bishops etc.

We can look at a similar hierarchy of physical fatherhood:

God, the Ultimate Father>our Ancestors>our Biological Father>Us>our Children

Or in all created and uncreated things:

God>Angels>Man>Animals>Plants>Inanimate Objects

God alone is worthy of all glory and praise, and is the source of all holiness and the ultimate recipient of all praise for holiness. But because God exhibits his holiness through the lives of his saints, we still see a hierarchy of holiness extending down to created beings, for which we give honor and praise:

God>Mary>the Saints in Heaven>the saints on Earth

Understanding that this is the way God works, both in nature and in religion, is a great key to understanding Catholicism. Understanding this, we realize it is not only acceptable to honor Mary, or to honor our father and mother, but it is indeed right, and is God's will. God enjoys sharing his things with his creation, he shares his love, his authority, his supernatural gifts, and even his praise. We are just required to make sure that the greatest honor is given to God.

For one, this would mean that if our priest tells us to do something which we well know to be contrary to God's law, we must object. We must also avoid trying to play people lower on the hierarchy against God, like we would if we said something silly like, "Mary, God has not helped me in my efforts as a thief, but you are far kinder, so please help me steal a car." That would be idolatrous, insulting to God's loving nature, and gravely sinful.

To Nullify Scripture

2009-04-15T16:44:00.000-07:00

In the most absurd statement yet, ChristianAnswers.net declares that, "The Roman Catholic faith has shown a willingness to raise the pope above Jesus Christ and the Bible by giving him the right to nullify Scripture through papal decrees."

I can see that they would feel compelled to believe that this is true in order to maintain their own Protestant positions, but it is a false accusation. The Church has no power to nullify scripture. It would be absurd to claim such a power when it is the Church herself who declared the scriptures to be infallible.

They then state, "The conscience of the biblical Protestant (like that of Martin Luther) is bound by the Bible alone." I found this humorous, as Luther is a perfect example of someone who gave himself the power to "nullify scripture." Indeed he nullified several whole books. He also changed the meaning of scripture by inserting words (like the "alone" part of "faith alone") in the text itself and adding commentary in the margins.

"Christian Answers"

2009-04-14T17:59:00.000-07:00

I stumbled across a website called "Christian Answers.net."

I can agree with a lot of what I've read on the site so far (not that I've read much), but there are some oddities, which is why I'd recommend reading Catholic sites instead. Here are some of the problems I ran into on their "Aren't all religions the same?" page:

I found this statement strange: "Actually, true Christianity is not a religion, but a person, Jesus Christ." I'm not sure this makes any sense. According to Peter Kreeft, the three aspects of all religions are "creed, code, and cult" or "theology, morality, and liturgy." Now, Christianity can be summed up as "Our relationship with Christ" [see The Relationship], but these three aspects are a part of that relationship. Also, Judaism, Islam, and other religions can sum themselves up as "Our relationship with God (or the gods)." This means that Christianity, unique as it may be, is a religion. Now is Christianity Jesus Christ? Is my marriage the same thing as my wife? That's a silly question. They are confusing the person of Jesus Christ with the abstract concept that is Christianity.

Really, this is just another group trying to convince those folks who say, "I like faith, but not organized religion," that Christianity isn't what they think it is. But saying that Christianity is not a religion is either ignorant, or worse, deceptive.

Another strange thing they did was this: first, they identified themselves as being "Orthodox Christian" at one point when comparing the Christian versus the Jewish views of Jesus. Then they claimed that "Christianity" believes in "the Bible alone" while Roman Catholicism (notice, this is something different from "Christianity," and they lump it in with Mormonism and Christian Science) believes in "the Bible plus."

While I can concede that Catholicism does rely on "the Bible plus," I obviously cannot agree that this means we are not Christians. In fact, this accusation would also apply to the unmentioned Eastern Orthodox churches. This puts the writer in an odd (but not uncommon) position of arguing that the two oldest, and most traditional, branches of Christianity are not orthodox, despite their strict adherence to the early Christian creeds which define the central tenets of Christian orthodoxy.

Further, I would argue that while we are "Bible plus" Christians, we are still "God's Word alone" Christians. This being the true barometer for the fullness of the faith, we are left noting that these Protestant Christians are indeed relying on "God's Word minus," and they are even relying on "the Bible minus" since they have removed certain books from the traditional canon, and since they interpret away verses that contradict the "pluses" they themselves have added, these being the very concept in question, sola scriptura, and its brother, sola fide, along with their popular cousin, "disagree with everything the Pope says if at all possible."

Bill Clinton on Embryos

2009-04-03T16:08:00.000-07:00

God, deliver us from politicians!

Yes, you heard him. Bill Clinton thinks it's wrong to destroy an embryo "if" there's a chance that it might one day be fertilized...

In case you missed the key word there, answer this question: What kind of embryo isn't fertilized?

I don't even think this needs comment (Feel free to comment).

For more about stem cell research I recommend reading this list of treatments that have resulted from adult stem cells.

Christian Insults

2009-03-20T17:41:00.000-07:00

Today I was pointed to a discussion about Obama's appearance on the Tonight Show.

I won't relate to you the story on that, since you can just click on the link above. What I'm more interested in at the moment is part of the discussion in the comments below the story.

One person called Obama a "stumblebum." Another person chastised her, and said she was being "unChristian." This immediately brought to mind a chapter of the Bible. I commented (with a few more typos) as follows:

I have to laugh at the idea that calling a man who supports evils like abortion a “stumblebum” is a terribly unChristian thing to do.

Let me quote someone who once addressed leaders who were not fulfilling their duties:

“You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men’s bones and everything unclean.” [Matthew 23:27]

“You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell?” [Matt 23:33]

Ah Jesus, worst Christian ever…

(Not that I’m saying we should be be eager to be insulting, but we also might not want to react too harshly when someone is insulting in an appropriate context.)

I was afterwards rebuked and told there is no appropriate context for insults, unless you are Jesus, and thus the judge of men. This is certainly a strong point, but I'm not sure I fully agree with it.

In this blog's comments I list some quotes from Saints calling people things like, "beasts,", "fools," and, "mad women." I think that examples like these are fairly uncommon, but they still show that there may indeed be an appropriate context. It seems to me that such insulting language is reserved for those who are clearly and objectively transgressing the moral law and leading others to do the same.

March 21 edit: I think I've found a missing piece of the puzzle. These insults are mostly intended to instruct the listener, to impress upon them the gravity of the crimes of the insulted party, so that the listeners do not follow their example.

St. Patrick's Day

2009-03-17T17:49:00.000-07:00

I forgot that today was St. Patrick's day until one of my co-workers mentioned it.

This is strange, since St. Patrick is one of my favorite Saints, my co-worker isn't Catholic, I'm at least a quarter Irish, and I even spent some time last night thinking about buying a St. Patrick statue. But I guess there's a difference between loving someone and remembering days associated with that person, as many forgetful men can probably attest.

I realized, this morning (after my co-worker reminded me what day it was), how much I owe to St. Patrick, and how glad I am that God's grace motivated him to do such great things. His immense accomplishment, converting all of Ireland to a zealous Catholic faith, is amazing, and has had a great impact on my life.

My faith comes from two paths. I first learned to be a Christian through my father. He is a good Protestant pastor. As I received my faith from him, he received it from his father. His father was born an Irish Catholic, but he left the Church to marry my grandmother. Still, his faith in Christ was first given to him by the Irish, who owe their faith to St. Patrick.

But it took a second Irish family, my wife's family, to lead me fully into the Church. Without the influence of my wife and her sister I'm not sure that there would have been much chance for me, the pastor's son, to become Catholic. So, to St. Patrick and the faithful of Ireland, I am doubly indebted.

I delight in knowing that Christ's work on Earth did not end when he ascended into heaven, that his story is not just the one in the Bible. Christ's life story continues, and it can be seen in the good that is done by his Saints. How thankful I am that Christ, through St. Patrick, evangelized Ireland.

Pope vs. Condoms in Africa

2009-03-17T17:31:00.000-07:00

As happens every time I can remember, the media has once again sided against the Catholic Church. Now, as the Pope visits Africa, they are attacking his stance on condom use in the fight against AIDS/HIV.

Here's a portion of the story I saw on PBS:

Pope Claims Condoms Worsen AIDS Crisis

The interviewer's slant isn't that strong in this particular segment. The part this page doesn't show is that much more time was spent hearing from some restaurant that distributes condoms in another African country.

The first comment on the story read in part:

"As leader of the Catholic Church, the Pope has a moral duty and obligation to ensure followers are educated and lives are saved from HIV infections and AIDS deaths! Around the world, condoms are seen as a necessary requirement for engaging in sexual activity. Promoting condom use has not and does not promote promiscuity... The Catholic Church is promoting practices of abstinence and fidelity, which are widely known to have a high failure rate and allow more HIV infections!"
-Bradford McIntyre

My response follows:

The Pope has a moral duty to do what he is doing. He is teaching the consistent teaching of the Church. It has taught this for nearly 2000 years.

It is certainly a hard teaching to understand, and a hard one to follow, but that does not make it a false teaching.

People should not be so quick to judge the very institution that has passed on the fundamental idea, taught by Jesus Christ, that every human life has value. Without this idea, which has been implanted in the heart of Western society by its Christian past, we would not care at all about the fate of the Africans.

But, sadly, we have rejected so many other teachings of Jesus, and only the Pope continues to teach them clearly.

The Pope certainly would not deny that condoms can prevent AIDS infections. The problem is that they often fail, and they also contribute to a general promiscuous culture which really only makes the problem worse in the long term.

They are certainly not the only factor, and may not even be the primary factor, which is why abstinence education can not stand on its own. It needs to be a part of a far more comprehensive solution.

The other commenter was right, to an extent, that condoms themselves don't cause promiscuity, but he is wrong in thinking that they do not contribute to promiscuity. They are just one of many contributing factors, and we need to address them all to see real success, but success can not be found by abandoning our morals.

Mormon Visitors

2009-03-11T18:03:00.001-07:00

My friend recently invited some Mormon missionaries (who probably ambushed him) over to give us "lessons." This was something I'd been kind of waiting for since I moved to this Mormon filled region of the world, wanting to get some real life practice in apologetics.

Sadly, it's really hard to discuss matters rationally with them since they always go back to their testimony: "Well, if you read the Book of Mormon, and pray about it sincerely, the Holy Spirit will let you know it is true. I have done this, and I know it to be true."

So, we're stuck in a land of subjectivity. But perhaps there is some hope for seeds of rational faith to be planted. I don't know.

I already have better-than-average knowledge of Mormonism, but I want to know even more, so I'm researching the subject. I'm reading a book called Inside Mormonism, and I found an interesting website: www.utlm.org

If you look long enough on the site (or just go to No More Penalties on this page) you can even find evidence on this site showing the connection between the original secret Mormon temple ceremonies and Masonic rites. I'll note some briefly:

Morgan revealed the oath that Masons took in the "First Degree" of their ritual: "...I will... never reveal any part or parts, art or arts, point or points of the secret arts and mysteries of ancient Freemasony... binding myself under no less penalty than to have my throat cut across, my tongue torn out by the roots..."

Now compare that to:

In Temple Mormonism, published in 1931, p. 18, we find this information concerning the Mormon ritual:
"The left arm is here placed at the square, palm to the front the right hand and arm raised to the neck, holding the palm downwards and thumb under the right ear.

'Adam—" We, and each of us, covenant and promise that we will not reveal any of the secrets of this, the first token of the Aaronic prieshood, with its accompanying name, sign or penalty. Should we do so, we agree that our throats be cut from ear to ear and our tongues torn out by their roots.'...

"Sign—In executing the sign of the penalty, the right hand palm down, is drawn sharply across the throat, then dropped from the square to the side."

Of course, this is has been cut from the current temple ceremonies, so it won't do you much good in an argument. Besides, making accusations like, "Your ceremonies are based on Masonic rituals," isn't a very charitable way to argue in a debate, and will just harden the Mormon against your position.

It may, however, be relevant if a Mormon brings up the pagan influence on certain Christian celebrations. Then you could respond, "Yes, the Church may have adapted existing celebrations to fit the Christian religion when it was converting pagan nations, but the LDS church originally adapted Masonic rites for use in its most sacred ceremonies, so what is your complaint?"

This makes the broaching the subject less of an offensive attack and more of a riposte. But a clever Mormon will counter that the Mason ritual and the Mormon temple ritual both date back to Solomon's temple.

On Using Words

2009-02-24T16:10:00.000-08:00

Today I came across a website that claimed the popular quote, “Preach the gospel at all times. Use words if necessary,” made St. Francis sound like a wimp. I've lost that original site, but the site he links to showing that this is not an actual quotation of St. Francis can be seen here.

Still, I think that calling the quote "wimpy" is based on a misunderstanding. Sadly, I think this misunderstanding is common, and I think that many Catholics use it to justify an attitude of, "I can just go peacefully about my Catholic life, not bothering anyone about religion, and people will be converted by my good example."

The simple fact is that the average "good person" does not glow so radiantly with goodness that they preach their faith just by existing. If they did, we would certainly have many more people converting to the Catholic faith.

So then, how should we view the quote?

First, I think the quote may have come from people in a Catholic country, where leading by example might be more important than preaching.

Second, I think that it could be looked at more clearly if we invert it: Preaching the gospel with your words will have little effect if you are not living the gospel yourself. This is akin to Jesus saying to remove the beam from your own eye before going after the speck in the eye of another.

But I think it is best understood by looking at the lives of some of the saints.

Let's look at (the not-quite-canonized) Mother Teresa. She preached the gospel constantly in her care of the sick. She certainly used many words to preach it as well. But her words gained much more power by her actions.

So, I think the wrong way to apply the quote is, "Don't talk about religion unless forced to."

And the proper way is, "Live the gospel in every moment, and whenever the time is right, preach it."

The Relationship

2009-02-23T14:59:00.000-08:00

The Shack claims that Jesus doesn't want religion, he just wants a personal relationship with us. This view is fairly common among Protestants.

Now, he's right to an extent. If we just try to "follow the rules" of our religion, but we somehow do so in a way that does not recognize Jesus as the purpose of everything we do, then we are just engaging in vain works.

But there is a danger going the other direction as well. Jesus does not just want to be our buddy. As the Bible teaches, the relationship we are intended to have with him is far more like marriage than it is like a casual let's-hang-out-at-the-mall-on-Saturday friendship.

Let us compare marriage to our relationship with Christ:

1) Introduction: Before anything can happen, a bride must be introduced to the groom. We are introduced to Christ when we hear the Gospel.

2) Falling in Love: There is a difference between hearing the Gospel, and accepting it. When we really start to know Christ, we will fall in love. He will make sure we are introduced to his father, because if we are to love Jesus, we must get to know and love his father, The Father. We will spend more time with him in prayer, and we will want to make ourselves more attractive to him.

3) Proposal: After we fall in love, we will realize that we are betrothed to Christ, he proposed to us before we were ever born. We have only to say, "Yes," and we will enter into the engagement.

4) Wedding Plans: During our engagement, we plan the wedding, and continue to learn more about our beloved. In the Church we do this by attending RCIA (Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults) classes, among other things. If we haven't already, we should start meeting more of Christ's family: being introduced to his brothers on earth (our fellow parishioners), his brothers in heaven (the Saints), and his mother (Mary).

4b) Confession: You want your marriage to be a clean start, and you want to be completely honest with your spouse, so before you are married, you share with Jesus your past failings, and ask his forgiveness.

5) Wedding: The wedding is a major point in the relationship. At this point our love is formalized. This corresponds more-or-less to Baptism and Confirmation. At this point we enter into the family of God. Jesus becomes our spouse, his Father becomes our Father, his brothers and sisters become our brothers and sisters, and his mother becomes our mother. This is a momentous change, and may be marked by taking a new name, in recognition of the new life that has begun.

6) Consummation: Only after the wedding do we consummate our relationship (Christ is without sin, after all). In the Church, Christ gives us his body in the Eucharist (communion). Unlike the wedding, this step is normally repeated many times over the course of a marriage.

These are the major steps in the relationship. After this, we will continue to grow closer to our spouse, and only love him more with time. But as sinners, there is still a problem that is likely to come up:

Infidelity: Christ will never be guilty of infidelity, but sadly, it can almost be guaranteed that we will not always be faithful to him. When this happens there are two paths we can take.

1) Divorce: While Christ will never desire divorce from us, no matter how we betray him, we can choose to run off, chasing after our sins.

2) Reconciliation: Even though we have betrayed him, he will always forgive us if we ask. Here's where confession shows up again. To have a lasting marriage, we must learn to say we're sorry.

Now, if we look back through these, we can see how the Catholic religion is not a contradiction to the relationship with Jesus, but is rather what you would expect from a deep relationship that is so much like marriage.

We can also see that removing the "Falling in Love" step makes the rest of the events lose all their meaning, but that still doesn't answer why many Protestant groups seem to think that the relationship shouldn't have any more steps after the acceptance of the proposal (though for them, acceptance of the proposal also counts as making wedding vows).

But what about all the things that leaves out? Under normal circumstances, who would say, "It's only our personal relationship that matters," and get married quietly without any witnesses? Who would say, "I don't need anyone interfering with my personal relationship," and refuse to speak with their spouse's family? Who would say, "It's only how we feel about each other that matters," and abstain from a physical relationship and consummation?

The truth is that relationships are both simple and complicated, and our relationship with Christ is no exception. The relationship is rooted in faith, hope and love, but living that relationship, and experiencing it in its fullness, through all the intricacies of our daily lives can get more complicated. That's why we have the Church, through which we come to a fuller knowledge of our beloved, and experience our relationship with him in all the ways he intended.

The Shack

2009-02-23T13:32:00.000-08:00

I am currently reading William P. Young's The Shack.

While the book doesn't have the world's greatest writing, I am still mostly enjoying it, and can recommend it for the way it shows God as extraordinarily loving, showing the Trinity as a perfectly loving family, and the way it deals with the difficult question about why God allows evil.

But it also has its shortcomings, some of which I will address in greater detail in the future. The writer has God say that he does not like such man made things as "institutions," "authority," "hierarchies," or "religion." I found this very strange, since the writer appears to be using the Bible as one of his primary sources, and the Bible clearly shows the origin of all these being found not in fallen man, but in God himself.

The book would have been quite a bit better if the author had (for example), instead of blasting authority outright, shown how authority was supposed to function. He could have explained that authority was not given so that those with authority could use their power for their own benefit, it was given so that they could lead with the sole intention of serving those in their care.

But I guess that might point out another value of the book: It's a good introduction to the kind of anti-institutional theology taught by certain Protestant groups.

Our Incompetent Press

2009-02-23T13:11:00.000-08:00

Here's another example of the media's horrible ability to interpret anything that anyone in the Catholic Church says: View Rips Catholicism Again

First, some background from the Catholic League:

"A news story in today’s New York Post claims there is “a new study approved by the Vatican” on sin that concludes that “Men and women sin in different ways.” Men are more given to lust; women to pride."

And now part of The View's absurd response to this "study":

Whoopi Goldberg: "Realize the Vatican is the last word in all things that are god. For some folks. But explain how you suddenly can write new sins. You can't do that."

Yeah... apparently being famous requires utterly incoherent thinking. To see the full extent of the craziness, be sure to read the whole story, and it's follow up.

Philosophy Lectures

2009-02-18T10:04:00.000-08:00

I just found out that you can download lectures on Christian Apologetics by Peter Kreeft at his website. I highly recommend visiting:

http://www.peterkreeft.com/audio.htm

If you don't know, "Peter Kreeft, Ph.D., is a professor of philosophy at Boston College and at the King's College (Empire State Building), in New York City. He is a regular contributor to several Christian publications, is in wide demand as a speaker at conferences, and is the author of over 45 books."

Quoting a Rabbi

2009-02-09T16:04:00.000-08:00

Today, I'll just give you an interesting quote by Israel Zolli, once the Chief Rabbi of Rome. He converted to the Catholic faith in 1945, after the end of World War II. When asked by a reporter, "But why didn't you join one of the Protestant denominations, which are also Christian?" he replied:

"Because protesting is not attesting. I do not intend to embarrass anyone by asking: 'Why wait 1,500 years to protest?' The Catholic Church was recognized by the whole Christian world as the true Church of God for 15 consecutive centuries. No man can halt at the end of those 1,500 years and say that the Catholic Church is not the Church of Christ without embarrassing himself seriously. I can accept only that Church which was preached to all creatures by my own forefathers, the Twelve who, like me, issued from the Synagogue."

Read more about his conversion here.

Once Saved, Always Saved # 3

2009-02-06T17:17:00.000-08:00

This time it'll be short. I stumbled across another parable that doesn't square with the common Protestant notion of "Once Saved, Always Saved" (for other two see Part 1 and Part 2).

Let's look at Matthew 13:18-23:

"Listen then to what the parable of the sower means: When anyone hears the message about the kingdom and does not understand it, the evil one comes and snatches away what was sown in his heart. This is the seed sown along the path.

"The one who received the seed that fell on rocky places is the man who hears the word and at once receives it with joy. But since he has no root, he lasts only a short time. When trouble or persecution comes because of the word, he quickly falls away.

"The one who received the seed that fell among the thorns is the man who hears the word, but the worries of this life and the deceitfulness of wealth choke it, making it unfruitful.

"But the one who received the seed that fell on good soil is the man who hears the word and understands it. He produces a crop, yielding a hundred, sixty or thirty times what was sown."

This gives us four kinds of people. The first hears the truth, but never accepts it. The next two hear the truth, but they fall away. The last one is saved.

The two who fall away are familiar images. The first "receives with joy. But... lasts only a short time." He is like the new believer who gets excited and goes forward at an altar call, but falls away after the excitement fades. He may even go forward on more altar calls in the future, always hoping for a dramatic change. But perhaps some of us don't have one life changing moment. Perhaps he's missing the fact that salvation takes more than a one-time mental assent. He has tried, and failed to give this assent in a satisfactory manner. What must he do? Perhaps he needs to realize that the faith must be lived out if it is to continue to grow in us.

The second who falls away has better roots, perhaps, but "the worries of this life" interfere with his faith, slowly killing it. We can probably all identify with this man to an extent. We have experienced "weeds" grabbing at us. Once again, the solution may be perseverance. We have to do what we can, and use what the Church provides, to help kill the weeds that strangle our faith. Perhaps confession can be used to help separate us from our sins. Perhaps balancing our life so that ample time is given to God and his Church will help nourish us. If we can get through this phase, where we seem so weak, and the weeds seem overpowering, perhaps our faith will grow stronger. And this stronger faith will be like that of the fourth example. It is possible that there will still be weeds, but our stem will be thicker, and our roots will be deeper, and our branches will poke out beyond the weeds, so the weeds will no longer strangle us.

But the man in the third example fails to persevere. He does not nurture his faith, and his faith is killed by the weeds.

These examples are natural and identifiable. They speak to our human experience. Why should we try to force them into an uncomfortable "Once Saved, Always Saved" mold?

Protestants rightly observe that we need a "personal relationship with Jesus" to be saved. But what relationship persists when one party rejects and ignores the other? Jesus may wait eagerly for us to return so the relationship might resume, but how can we have a relationship as long as we reject him?

Investigating Planned Parenthood

2009-02-05T15:22:00.000-08:00

Live Action Films has an amazing collection of films showing illegal activities by Planned Parenthood. See them here:

liveactionfilms.org

They show Planned Parenthood workers pretending not to hear when a 13 year old girl claims her 31 year old boyfriend got her pregnant. They also show these workers coaching girls on what to say to avoid getting her boyfriend in trouble, and giving instructions about how to avoid parental notification laws by crossing state lines.

Other videos on the site show workers accepting donations from a man who says he wants to donate money specifically to abort a black baby because "There’s definitely way too many Black people in Ohio..."

At least this is in keeping with Margret Sanger's Nazi-like eugenic plans which were part of what motivated her to found Planned Parenthood in the first place.

Pro Life Rap

2009-02-03T16:01:00.000-08:00

My wife found these two great videos posted on the Faith & Family Blog.

While it's not a genre of music I normally listen to, and one of the songs seems to imply that the singer is still continuing in some related immoral behavior, these videos are still a good pro-life witness. Both relate to real life-and-death decisions related to the singers.

Once Saved, Always Saved Again

2009-01-30T14:47:00.000-08:00

I already addressed this topic in greater depth earlier, but there were a few important verses I didn't mention the first time, so I'll focus on those now.

The idea of a completed and unchangeable justification is one of the ideas that most separate Catholics from certain groups of Protestants. This is the difference that compels Fundamentalists to say we are not Christians, that we believe in a "works salvation," and that only Catholics who don't really believe what the Church says are saved.

But let's look at the Bible once more to see what it really says on the matter:

If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning. It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than to have known it and then to turn their backs on the sacred command that was passed on to them. Of them the proverbs are true: "A dog returns to its vomit," and, "A sow that is washed goes back to her wallowing in the mud." [2 Peter 2:20-22]

Now, like most things, this could be explained away, but the most obvious meaning is that Christians, the saved, who were following the way of Jesus Christ, can turn away from the faith, entering into a state that is worse than before they ever knew Christ.

Now let's look closely at one of our Lord's own teachings:

"I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener. He cuts off every branch in me that bears no fruit, while every branch that does bear fruit he prunes so that it will be even more fruitful. You are already clean because of the word I have spoken to you. Remain in me, and I will remain in you. No branch can bear fruit by itself; it must remain in the vine. Neither can you bear fruit unless you remain in me."

"I am the vine; you are the branches. If a man remains in me and I in him, he will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. If anyone does not remain in me, he is like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned. If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be given you. This is to my Father's glory, that you bear much fruit, showing yourselves to be my disciples." [John 15:1-8]

First, who is a branch? Is the unbeliever joined to the body of the lord? No, we know from the scriptures that it is Christians (the saved) who are part of the body, of which Christ is the head. So this verse is addressing those who are already saved, by being "branches" of the "true vine."

Now, what does he tell us, as his branches? Does he say, "You, being branches, will remain in me, and will bear fruit?" No. He clearly requests that we do "remain" in him, and that we let his words have life within us, thus bearing fruit. He clearly does not say that we are guaranteed to remain in him. He says that branches which do not bear fruit will be cut off, and such branches will wither, and will ultimately be thrown into the fire.

This is unmistakeably the Catholic doctrine on Justification:

By God's grace we are offered salvation. By Faith we accept this gift, and become branches on the vine. Being connected to Christ in this way, his divine life flows through us, enabling us to do good works or "bear fruit." If we "remain" in him, allowing his grace to flow through us, we remain saved. If, however, we turn away, deciding to stop the flow of life from the vine, we will not bear fruit. Then we will be cut off.

This verse doesn't show it, but the Catholic Church also believes that such a cut-off branch can be re-attached to the vine by repentance, and a return to faith.

Mormons and Catholics

2009-01-29T16:36:00.000-08:00

Mesa, Arizona was founded by Mormons, has a Mormon temple, and has an LDS ward on just about every block. So, living nearby, I am constantly reminded that American Catholics are doing a terrible job of Evangelizing.

This seems bizarre to me, given that we can clearly trace our history back to Jesus Christ, and the Mormons can only spout impossible conspiracy theories to try in vain to contradict our claims.

We interpret the Bible sensibly. They twist every other word to make it agree with Joseph Smith's writings, and even then they have to say that we altered the Bible to take out the Mormon beliefs.

So, why are they motivated to spread this stuff, while we are motivated to keep a tight lid on the truth? Do we think that God will run out of love if we share it? Or are we just scared and pathetic? I think I'd fall into the second category myself...

Of course one of the reasons Mormons evangelize so much is because they are expected to do it. So maybe we need to raise expectations. Maybe we need to take the Lord seriously in his call. He has called every Christian to evangelize.

And while there may be times when the best way to evangelize is to "set an example with your own life," I think many of us use this as an excuse to avoid the harder work of sharing our beliefs, inviting people into the Church, and defending our faith. Of course we must keep showing kindness and being a living example while doing this.

I'm doing a bit of research on this topic right now, so I'll probably mention this more as I grow in knowledge on the subject.

For now, check out the Legion of Mary (a Catholic group that does door-to-door, and other missionary work):

http://www.legionofmary.org/lom.html

Abraham and Isaac

2009-01-19T14:10:00.000-08:00

It is often suggested that "the God of the Old Testament is cruel, quick-tempered, jealous, and warmongering." I'll address more of this later, but for now lets look at one of the cases of supposed cruelty found in Genesis 22:

Then God said, "Take your son, your only son, Isaac, whom you love, and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains I will tell you about."[...]

Abraham took the wood for the burnt offering and placed it on his son Isaac, and he himself carried the fire and the knife. As the two of them went on together, Isaac spoke up and said to his father Abraham, "Father?"

"Yes, my son?" Abraham replied.

"The fire and wood are here," Isaac said, "but where is the lamb for the burnt offering?"

Abraham answered, "God himself will provide the lamb for the burnt offering, my son." And the two of them went on together.

When they reached the place God had told him about, Abraham built an altar there and arranged the wood on it. He bound his son Isaac and laid him on the altar, on top of the wood. Then he reached out his hand and took the knife to slay his son. But the angel of the LORD called out to him from heaven, "Abraham! Abraham!"

"Here I am," he replied.

"Do not lay a hand on the boy," he said. "Do not do anything to him. Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son."

Abraham looked up and there in a thicket he saw a ram caught by its horns. He went over and took the ram and sacrificed it as a burnt offering instead of his son.

Now, this can easily come off as a fairly mean thing for God to do. Ask a man to sacrifice his son, what kind of cruel God would do that?

I have felt that way when reading this story before, but then that's looking at matters in a simplistic and worldly manner. We have to consider more to really understand. It took me just a little time and thoughtful reflection.

First, we must consider our approach. Are we looking to ascribe rotten things to God? If we are, we could imagine sinister motives for even his more plainly kind actions. Are we considering other things that are revealed to us in scripture? If we do this, then the whole matter falls into another light.

Thus we turn to the New Testament and see that God is love [1 John 4:8], and we return to Genesis to try to see if there is a way to understand the story as loving. Let's take it apart, and address the different problems.

1. Isn't it cruel for God to ask someone to kill someone?

The first problem is that this assumes that death is the worst possible thing. For someone who denies the soul, death is the end. But if there is an immortal soul, then it is eternal life which ultimately matters, and this life only matters inasmuch as it affects eternity. Therefore if God takes a life, and he does so already knowing the eternal destination of the soul, then he will be sure that the soul goes to the place he knew it had chosen.

Part of the reason humans must be so careful about killing people, even exercising some restraint in war, use of capital punishment, and in situations of self defense, is because humans are not omniscient, and are not competent to judge when a person is ready to leave this world for their eternal destination.

So, if God were to ask someone to kill someone (not something he does often), he would do so knowing the positive impact it would have on eternity and the moral validity of such an action in this instance, something a human is never competent to judge.

Not that this actually applies to this situation anyway, since God did not let Abraham kill Isaac, and he had never intended to let him.

2. But it's still cruel to make a man think he has to kill his son. It's just creepy.

Now, it was certainly a painful experience for Abraham. I'm sure he walked up the mountain thinking, "will God really make me do this? Why would God miraculously give me a son, and then take him away?"

Meanwhile he is telling Isaac that, "God will provide the lamb," hoping that he's right, trying his best to trust in God, even though God has asked him to do this terrible thing.

Let us remember Abraham was the father of the faith. He knew of God, but God had not yet given the law to Moses, and the Jewish faith was in its infancy. Abraham would certainly have hoped that God wouldn't take his son, but Abraham did not have the entirety of revelation we have today. God worked over many years through many hard lessons to teach his people. He did not just pass everything to them at once.

But would such an experience build the faith, or would it cause injury to Abraham or his son? I think the results speak for themselves. Isaac was not angry with God. He passed the faith down to the next generation.

So, if it caused no harm, and it broke no moral law, what is cruel about it?

3. Why make them go through all that, what possible purpose could such a test have served?

If the test served no purpose, and accomplished nothing, then it would indeed have been cruel to force Abraham through those worrisome days, wondering if he would really have to sacrifice his beloved son. But, if the test served a purpose, then the struggle Abraham went through to pass it could have actually been necessary.

The story seems to imply that God did this just to test Abraham's faith, but if God knows all things he could have known Abraham's faith without the trauma. This means that the purpose of the test was not for God's benefit, but somehow it was for Abraham, and perhaps for us.

Abraham learned that if he has faith, and he does God's will, even when it seems like the hardest thing in the world, God will provide, and things will turn out well in the end. And God rewarded him by making him not just the father of Isaac, but the father of the Jews, and by extension the Christians. And these people would remember his faith forever, and remember the lesson that God will always provide.

But this story's connection to God's providence goes further. The story is a foreshadowing of the sacrifice that will redeem all nations.

Isaac, like Jesus, was long awaited and born miraculously. Then, this innocent firstborn son was taken up the mountain which prefigures Golgotha, and carrying the wood which prefigures the cross.

But the two stories end very differently. Isaac, who is only human, and has at least the stain of original sin, is spared by God who substitutes a sheep for Abraham's son. Jesus, who is human, but also God, and entirely without sin, is not spared. For God will suffer himself what he spares us, and his son is the lamb who dies in our place.

American Beliefs

2009-01-14T16:23:00.001-08:00

Well, this isn't new news, but someone wrote a new article on it, and someone else sent it to me, so I'll address it here (click here to see the full article).

Recently a poll of church-goers was done, and the results were widely reported as showing "Unorthodox Beliefs" among Christians.

This article comments that "American individualism has made its imprint on Christianity." This, I believe, is sadly true. We can see Protestant ideas forming the initial individualism of America, and then we can see that American Protestantism was itself affected by the stronger individualism that American culture reflected back at it. Today, it seems to me, even most Catholics have absorbed this American individualism, and with it ideas more befitting liberal Protestants.

The article mentions a few of the results of the survey:

Christians expressed a variety of unorthodox beliefs in the poll. Nearly half of those interviewed do not believe in the existence of Satan, one-third believe Jesus sinned while on earth, and two-fifths say they don't have a responsibility to share their faith with others.

Now, this is certainly unorthodox, and is actually pretty pathetic. We obviously have to try harder to teach the faith to people. Parents need to realize their children won't learn their religion (or morality) on their own (even if they go to catechism classes). Priests and ministers need to speak loud and clear about the truth, and give people reasons to believe this truth. People other than Mormons need to go knocking on doors.

But the supposedly biggest news of the article was this:

The most striking divergence from orthodoxy, however, was first revealed in the 2007 US Religious Landscape Survey by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life. That comprehensive survey of 35,000 Americans found a majority of Christians saying that people of other religions can find salvation and eternal life.
The results stirred controversy among some Christian leaders for whom Jesus as the only path to salvation is a paramount teaching. Some questioned whether those surveyed about "other religions" might have been thinking of Christian denominations or traditions – such as Protestants referring to Roman Catholicism – rather than non-Christian faiths.

Pew undertook a follow-up survey, which it released in late December. That poll found 65 percent of American Christians (including 47 percent of Evangelicals) do indeed think that many different religions can lead to eternal life. Among these Christians, 80 percent cited one non-Christian faith as a route to salvation; 61 percent named two or more.

Now, I don't know the exact wording of this survey, nor can I imagine how those surveyed understood the meaning of the survey, but this just does not strike me as proof of unorthodox belief.

As Catholics, we believe there is one path to eternal life. That path is Jesus Christ. We also believe he established many steps along that path, such as baptism, faith, love, etc. But we also believe that a person who does not explicitly know the path can still follow Christ to the extent that their knowledge allows, and thus attain eternal life.

In this way it could be correct to say that other religions can lead to eternal life, since those religions do help their adherents to grow in many ways closer to Christ without even realizing it. This is especially true of Judaism, so when the article says, "Sixty-nine percent of all non-Jews say Judaism can lead to eternal life..." I'm not all that bothered.

Of course my complaint may be for naught, since the article does say, "29 percent say theirs is the one true faith." If this means what they make it sound like it means, then only 29 percent of respondents actually believe their religion is objectively true, and not just "true for them." But I guess I'd have to know the exact wording of that as well.

Personally, I think the biggest news may be this:

The survey also asked about views on how one obtains eternal life. Among all adults with a religious affiliation, 30 percent say correct beliefs are what counts, 29 percent say salvation depends on one's actions during life, while 10 percent say both are essential.

I actually find it bizarre that only 10% of people believe that both beliefs and actions are essential, but I also find it odd that 30% of respondents are unaccounted, and once again we'd have to see the exact wording of the question and the available answers to really know everything.

I'm not sure why the News Media thinks it can filter results like this in any sensible way when they don't generally have any clue what religious people are talking about.

Sacrifice of the Mass

2009-01-13T13:42:00.000-08:00

I recently stumbled across this Q & A by Reformed Baptist minister, John Piper:

Should former Catholics still participate in the mass?

No, I don't think they should participate in the mass (that is, have communion). The reason is that its conceptuality is one of the most serious mistakes of the Catholic Church.

I revisited a Catholic mass recently, for a funeral, and it had been a long time since my last visit. When I watched it again I was so appalled that I wanted to walk out. I really wanted to scream, it was so awful. The language that was used about sacrifice, the kissing of the table, the kneeling down—it was all just so offensive to me that I could hardly stand it.

I think that participating in the Catholic mass comes close to compromising the faith, because it is believed to be a reenactment of the sacrifice of Christ and a saving ordinance.

So no, I wouldn't recommend that someone participate.

What was funny about this was that I had just been reading Early Christian Writings: The Apostolic Fathers, and remembered the "language of sacrifice" being used in the Didache (c. 60-100 AD), and vehement insistence on the Real Presence in Ignatius' Epistle to the Smyrnaeans (c. 106-113 AD). Let's look at a short portion of the Didache:

But every Lord's day do ye gather yourselves together, and break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure. But let no one that is at variance with his fellow come together with you, until they be reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be profaned. For this is that which was spoken by the Lord: In every place and time offer to me a pure sacrifice; for I am a great King, says the Lord, and my name is wonderful among the nations.

And then, for a more explicit look at the early Mass, let's see Irenaeus' Against Heresies, which wasn't in the book I mentioned (since Irenaeus wrote this closer to 200 AD, dying in 202 AD), but it is applicable:

Then, again, how can they say that the flesh, which is nourished with the body of the Lord and with His blood, goes to corruption, and does not partake of life? Let them, therefore, either alter their opinion, or cease from offering the things just mentioned. But our opinion is in accordance with the Eucharist, and the Eucharist in turn establishes our opinion. For we offer to Him His own, announcing consistently the fellowship and union of the flesh and Spirit. For as the bread, which is produced from the earth, when it receives the invocation of God, is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly; so also our bodies, when they receive the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, having the hope of the resurrection to eternity.

It seems that John Piper could have easily said something like, "The Mass, conceptually, is one of the most serious mistakes of the early Christian Church. The language that was used about sacrifice, and the ritual practices—it was all just so offensive to me that I could hardly stand it. I think that participating in early Christian worship comes close to compromising the faith."

Name that Bishop

2009-01-08T16:09:00.000-08:00

I'm working on another stab at a letter to try to provoke interest in what the Catholic Church has to say. Let me know what you think.

Dear Friend,

I have been trying to think of whether there was one simple thing that hit me, and made me realize that there might be something to the claims of the Catholic Church. I was not persuaded by arguments unless I saw evidence to back them up. I know that reading the Catholic point of view on interpreting various parts of the scriptures was key, but there is no one verse that makes all the difference, so this cannot be narrowed down enough for one letter. Then, recently, I reread one of the things that struck me. It is a letter by a well respected bishop.

Perhaps I have misinterpreted the facts; those regarding this bishop, and others. I am, after all, human, and am capable of self-deception. And after all, all Americans "know" instinctively that the Catholic Church MUST be wrong, don't they? We "know" that submission to authority is just wrong, we "know" the Catholic Church was incomparably cruel and oppressive in the middle ages, we "know" that the superstitious Catholic Church tried to suppress real Christians, we "know" the Catholic Church hates the Bible, we "know" that Roman inventions crept into the Church after a few hundred years, and that there was no Pope until Constantine created the Roman Catholic Church.

But do we really know these things, or is this just what we have been led to believe? Examine with me this (somewhat long) set of quotes from the bishop's letter:

"For what does any one profit me, if he commends me, but blasphemes my Lord, not confessing that He was [truly] possessed of a body? But he who does not acknowledge this, has in fact altogether denied Him, being enveloped in death."

"Let no man deceive himself. Both the things which are in heaven, and the glorious angels, and rulers, both visible and invisible, if they believe not in the blood of Christ, shall, in consequence, incur condemnation. "He that is able to receive it, let him receive it." [Matthew 19:12] Let not [high] place puff any one up: for that which is worth all is faith and love, to which nothing is to be preferred. But consider those who are of a different opinion with respect to the grace of Christ which has come unto us, how opposed they are to the will of God. They have no regard for love; no care for the widow, or the orphan, or the oppressed; of the bond, or of the free; of the hungry, or of the thirsty."

"They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect, that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that you should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion [of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved. But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils."

"See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the catholic church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid."

The first two paragraphs could well have been any traditional Christian. But what about the next two paragraphs?

Is this bishop not a Catholic bishop? He asserts that the Eucharist (or Communion) is the flesh of Christ (in another translation, "the self-same body..."), the very flesh that the Father "raised up." He insists that the believer follows his bishop. He calls the true church "the catholic church." These are peculiarly Catholic things. Other churches have bishops, but they would not ascribe this kind of power to them, and other churches do not teach that Communion is the flesh of Jesus Christ.

Who was this bishop? When did he live? Was he from 1500 AD? 1000 AD?

What shocked me was that this quote was from the Epistle to Smyrnaeans, written by Ignatius, fourth bishop of Antioch, around 113 AD. He was martyred during the reign of the Roman Emperor Trajan, who reigned from 98-117 AD. That means he wrote this within 25 years of the death of the Apostle John. He was neither obscure, nor a heretic. He was well respected in the early Church. As you see from the quote, he was someone who fought early heresies, here attacking Docetism, the belief that Jesus was not truly human (thus denying the reality of his death and resurrection).

Further reading of such early Christians supports the idea that there were only two kinds of Christians: Those who were united to their bishops and carried peculiarly Catholic beliefs, and those dissidents (heretics) who denied some fundamental aspect of Christian doctrine (and thus weren't truly Christian at all).

Now it seems to me that there are a few ways to view this information. One is the conspiracy theory view: The reason we only have the writings of Catholics and heretics during the early Church is because the Catholic Church destroyed the records of the Protestant-like True Christians (Mormons, Muslims, and other groups rely even more heavily on this theory, saying that even the Bible was altered). But if this were the case, then why are so many gnostic writings and other documents which conflict with Catholic teaching still in existence? Why were only the Protestant documents destroyed? Why would God not preserve some record of this True Church?

A second Protestant view goes something like this: The Catholic Church was the only Christian Church for some time, but over time they grew further and further away from the truth, so eventually God had to inspire the reformers to set the truth of the scriptures free again. Of course this view doesn't hold up as well if the modern Catholic Church holds doctrines compatible with the early Christian views, and Protestants deny the beliefs of these early Christians.

Another way to view the information is simpler: The Catholic Church is the same Church as that of the early Christians. It has certainly grown, as Christ said it would, "The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed[...]. Though it is the smallest of all your seeds, yet when it grows, it is the largest of garden plants and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and perch in its branches."[Matt 13:31-32] This Church is still united, and orthodoxy can still be found reliably by listening to her bishops.

Of course this would not have been enough to convince me the Catholic Church was right. I have not sought here to answer every question about the Church. But on the off chance that early church history is not covered up by conspiracy, but is exactly how it seems, should we not give the Catholic Church some consideration? Should we not be moved by the possibility that our Lord Jesus Christ established a visible Church which the Holy Spirit uses to guide us, even if that church is composed of humans who have often committed horrible sins? Or should we be like those who disdained Christ for eating with the tax collectors?

With this example in mind, doesn't it seem likely that what we "know" about the Catholic Church is wrong? Couldn't these things be like the things that secular modernists "know" about Christianity? They just "know" Christians hate everyone else and want everyone to go to hell, they "know" there's no such thing as miracles, they "know" we hate science, and that somehow science disproves religion, and they "know" that morality is relative.

Perhaps it is different to think we know about something, and to actually know it.

Catholic Justification

2009-01-06T16:08:00.000-08:00

I just finished reading Karl Keating's The Usual Suspects: Answering Anti-Catholic Fundamentalists. I liked the way he summarized the Catholic view of Justification, so I'll share it with you:

"The Council [of Trent] says we obtain [justification] by grace through faith, not good works, [but] our sanctification (the word commonly used by Protestants) is increased by our good works after we are justified and... that initial justification is preserved by our good works (because by doing good works we stay away from evil works, sins, through which we can forfeit justification)."

This may be a simplification, but sometimes it's good to know the simple version, partially so we can quickly explain our beliefs to others, and also so we ourselves don't get too confused when we look into the issue in greater depth. He also explains that:

"Even Fundamentalists talk about a process of sanctification that comes after justification, yet the passage from Trent has been misconstrued to mean something that the Catholic Church does not teach, but Fundamentalists think she teaches."

What these Fundamentalists think she teaches is expressed by former priest, Bart Brewer:

"The Catholic Gospel, the Roman Catholic Gospel, is absolutely a Gospel of works."

Of course, we all know that Mr. Brewer is mistaken. How he missed this fact in his years of seminary is one of those great unanswered questions, but just make sure to remember this quick explanation of this fundamental Catholic teaching, and you'll never end up so confused as he.

They Actually Believe That!?!

2008-12-25T18:55:00.001-08:00

Being a few hundred miles away from my family, my wife, daughter and I went to a friend's parents' house for Christmas dinner. The people were really friendly and the food was great. After dinner, while I was playing Wii Sports Bowling, my friend's father was talking to one of his relatives about Mary. It wasn't my turn to bowl, so I listened in. I heard him say something about Mary being without sin, and "ascending into heaven." This being a conservative Protestant family, I figured he was talking about Catholics, but I was unsure. My suspicions were more-or-less confirmed when he said, "they actually believe that."

Now, I know that we Catholics don't actually believe that Mary "ascended," so I passed on my Wii remote, and tried to work my way over to the conversation. But by the time I made it over there they were talking about a sick family member. Not something I wanted to interrupt for a possible argument. So, I haven't yet been able to correct the misunderstandings (though I plan to find a way).

The thing that really got me, though, was the, "They actually believe that." I do understand this unhealthy attitude of superiority. I've made the same mistake myself, to a small extent with Protestants, and to a more major extent with Mormons.

But, as far as the Assumption, the Immaculate Conception, and a few other Marian doctrines are concerned, I'm not quite sure why they are so incredulous that we might believe such things. They are not without precedence: Elijah being assumed, Adam and Eve not having original sin, etc. The Bible never says, "Mary sinned," or, "Mary died, was buried, and rotted in the ground." And early Church history doesn't show evidence that these things weren't true. Even Luther, Calvin, and (sometimes) Zwingli believed most of the Marian doctrines. Apparently the Bible doesn't clearly deny them.

Because these Protestants believe the Bible is the only real source for history of the early Church, I can see how these beliefs might appear to be manmade, since they are certainly not explicit in the scriptures. But there is nothing so strange or unbiblical about any of them (properly understood) that warrants a, "They actually believe that."

But then, thinking that Mary ascended under her own power (as Christ did), rather than being assumed by God (as Elijah was assumed in 2 Kings 2:11), would make it fairly absurd. This would go along with the belief some Protestants have, that Catholics worship Mary as a Goddess. Considering this horrible misunderstanding, I suppose I'd have to have the same reaction.

"Do they actually believe that?!?"

Thankfully, the answer is, "No, we don't."

I'll probably give a quick defense of the Catholic Marian doctrines at some point in the future, but for now, here's some good links on the subject:

Mother of God

Assumption and Immaculate Conception

"He was born of the Virgin Mary..."

2008-12-21T21:34:00.000-08:00

By the power of the Holy Spirit, (BOW)
He was born of the Virgin Mary
And became man

Every missal I've seen includes an italicized "BOW" at this part of the Creed, yet few people do it. I see nearly everyone genuflect before entering a pew (which isn't in the missal), but hardly anyone make a bow during the Creed. I can only assume that few people have used a missal. I'll further assume that even fewer know why to bow.

For years, I've bowed at that point because the missal told me to do so, but I didn't know why. I realized during mass today why we bow, so I thought I'd share.

The readings about ''Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant'' were a good primer for this train of thought, as well as the priest reading an excerpt from Cardinal Ratzinger's "Blessings of Christmas". Here's the quote that finished my train of thought:

What can we offer you, O Christ, for having been born for us on earth as a Man? Each creature, the work of your hands, offers you a sign of gratitude: the angels, their hymn; the heavens, the star; the Magi, their gifts; the shepherds, their admiration; the earth, the cave; the desert, the manger; and all mankind, we offer you a virgin mother. --Blessings of Christmas

King David's "Who am I that the Ark of the Lord should come to me?", the angel's "Hail Mary" greeting, along with the signs of gratitude from the quote (hymn, star, gifts, etc) all painted a picture in my head of the joy on Earth as everything bowed at Jesus's birth.

And at that point I remembered the words from the Creed: "By the power of the Holy Spirit, He was born of the Virgin Mary and became man..." This may sound obvious, but I hadn't connected the two until today: that line of the Creed is describing Christmas. And that is why we bow. We weren't around at the first Christmas, so we missed our chance to join the angels and the heavens and the shepherds as they bowed before the newborn King. But we do have a chance to join everyone from our generation in bowing every Sunday as we recite the Creed.

There. Now don't you feel better about bowing now that you know why we bow? And FYI, at Christmas, instead of bowing, we genuflect.

General Instruction of the Roman Missal, see number 275

Becoming Catholic Part 3

2008-12-16T13:50:00.000-08:00

[continued from Part 2]

6. In the end, the major objection to Catholicism, during the Reformation and now, seems to be, "If the Catholic Church were the 'one true Church,' why have Catholics, even Catholic Bishops and Popes, done so many terrible things?" Of course this objection is an understandable emotional reaction. How could such terrible things as the Spanish Inquisition, the sacking of Constantinople, the burning of heretics, the vengeance of Queen Mary, and today's child abuse scandal happen in Christ's Church?

If I might answer this with a question, "If Christianity were the 'one true religion' why have Christians done so many terrible things?" What about things Protestants have done: slavery, witch trials, John Calvin's police state, King Henry XIII (let's not even start on him), crooked televangelists?

We could even ask, "Why do we remain Americans, after the terrible things America has done?"

When it's your group being addressed, the answer should become obvious: Our group should be understood more by its teachings and its ideals than by the failure of its members, or even its leaders, to live up to those teachings and ideals. Sometimes people sin blatantly. Sometimes people weigh their options, trying to do what's best, and they make the wrong choice. Sometimes it's a lack of information rather than a lack of good will.

What do we do when our religious leaders fail? Do we decide for ourselves to replace them with a completely different authority structure? Throughout the Old Testament the Jews were always falling into disobedience, but God did not choose a new people. The Jews carried forth the lineage to Christ. The Jews carried forth their priesthood. The Jews carried forth the scriptures. They always remained God's people despite their many failures. Even in the lives of specific Jewish leaders: Abraham, David, Solomon, and others all sinned, but most of them retained their authority, and even for those who lost their authority, their office remained, and was passed on to another.

And what is Christ's answer? The Bible tells us, "Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 'The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach (Matt 23:1-3).'"

He then goes on to harshly criticize the hypocrisy of the Pharisees, but despite the sinfulness of the leaders, he still affirms their authority (while also saying it is subject to God's supreme authority).

Later, the Apostles themselves were clearly given authority by Christ, some authority before his death, and more after his resurrection. They had many failings, but their authority remained. The betrayal by Judas did not strip the others of their authority. Peter's denial of Christ was forgiven, and he went on to receive special revelations from the Holy Spirit.

It seems clear from the Biblical evidence, that sinfulness and hypocrisy do not automatically strip a leader of their authority, or prove that the leader was not chosen by God. The Bible shows clearly that even God's chosen people can fail.

I suppose that should give you some idea of the major underlying reasons why I would begin to believe the claims of the Catholic Church. Sadly, it doesn't even begin to touch on the beauty, wisdom, and unity of Catholic teachings, the beauty of the Sacraments, and the wonder and awe of being connected more deeply with so many people who have gone before us and so many people around the world today. I feel that my writing is not really capable of doing justice to these things.

I really do love this Church, but I think there is a lot of work to be done in it (there always will be). Not work to change the teachings, but work to spread the Church's teachings (especially to the many Catholics who have been poorly taught), and to help the faithful to live according to those teachings. My only regret in joining the Church is that I have left some of my family behind. This seems to happen in most conversion stories. My greatest desire is to have my family (and everyone else, for that matter) join me in this Church. I believe anyone who makes themselves open to the possibility will love the Catholic Church once they begin to truly understand her teachings.

Love,
Nathan Cushman

Becoming Catholic Part 2

2008-12-16T13:44:00.000-08:00

[continued from Part 1]

2. Protestants believe that the Bible clearly teaches Protestant doctrines, and that it clearly disproves Catholic doctrines. They believe that only by filtering the scriptures through the distorting lens of Tradition, does one come up with Catholic doctrine. I believe that this is not the case. I do not think the Bible ever teaches a clear contradiction of Catholic belief. Further, I believe the Bible is often far more in line with Catholic teaching than with Protestant belief. This, I believe, shows the truth of Catholic claims that the Church and Sacred Tradition are actually safe-guards to Biblical truth.

3. The writings of the early Church Fathers (many within the first 100-200 years of the Church), such as Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Ignatius, Irenaeus, Clement, and others, seem to portray a Church that, while not fully developed, agrees much more with Catholicism (and Eastern Orthodoxy) than with Protestantism.

4. As far as specific doctrines, the Bible does not teach the most basic premise of Protestantism, without which there could be no Reformation: Sola Scriptura (Bible alone). The Bible clearly teaches that the scriptures are useful for instruction in the faith. The Catholic Church agrees. But the Bible never teaches that the entire faith is in writing, nor does it say that oral tradition has no value, nor does it even teach which books are in the Bible. The Bible does in fact teach us to "stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter (2 Thess. 2:15)." If God wished Christians to believe a doctrine, relying only on the Bible for information, and it was as fundamental as Sola Scriptura, he would have made sure that doctrine was clearly taught within the Bible. The Catholic Church, on the other hand, doesn't even have to rely on scripture alone to make its case, because it isn't teaching Sola Scriptura, yet the Bible still lends more support to the Catholic view (which is that the faith is passed on through Scripture and Sacred Tradition, both being expounded and guarded by the Church).

There is much more to say about this issue: Why did Martin Luther add notes (and change phrases) in the copy of the Bible he published if it speaks clearly for itself? Why did all the reformers disagree on so much, if the Bible is so clear (Luther hated Zwinglians more than he hated Catholics)? Why is it that Bible-minded Protestant denominations today have more major differences in doctrine with other Protestants than they do with the Catholic Church (e.g. if you really want to find a church that teaches "salvation by works," don't look at the Catholic Church, look among the Protestant churches)?

And there are many more doctrinal issues, and I will be happy to discuss them if you e-mail me, but I think that recognizing the possibility of such a key flaw in Protestant thought is what helped me to open my mind to the idea that the Catholic Church could be teaching the truth.

5. Instead of the un-Biblical doctrine of sola scriptura, making Protestant churches organizationally Bible-centered, the Catholic Church is an organizationally Church-centered-Church (though both would ultimately be Christ-centered, since Christ is the center of the scriptures, and Christ established and sustains the Church). The Catholic Church does not view itself as a product of the Bible (though it does view itself as subject to the Bible), because it views itself as producer of the Bible (of course not just on its own, but inspired by God). If the original Church of the Apostles was the infant Catholic Church, and the Apostles wrote the Bible, and then the Church later collected and arranged the Bible, then the Bible was written, compiled, and published by the Church (as guided by God). This is how someone who has the Catholic understanding of history can claim, "the Bible is a Catholic book."

This idea, that Christ left us a Church, and not just a new set of scriptures, is not only more logical, but also more Biblical. The New Testament clearly shows the Apostles building a church, which is meant to pass on their teachings (2 Tim. 2:2), to solve disputes (Matt. 18:17), and be the "church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth (1 Tim. 3:15)." As a side note, this church must be a visible church if one is to know clearly where to find it, and was clearly a visible church, with visible authorities, in New Testament times.

The logic of this can be seen in the fact that early Christians had not yet assembled the New Testament, so they would have had to rely on the Church (first the Apostles, then their successors) to teach them. Later, the Church would be needed to assemble the scriptures correctly. After that, when Bibles were rare, and most people were illiterate, they would still have to be taught by the Church, and could not just read the Bible for themselves.

This is why the idea of Sola Scriptura was only truly advanced after the invention of the printing press. It is, in fact (though it's hard for us to recognize today) a kind of modern elitist idea that requires things we take for granted now, but would have been unthinkable in past centuries. And even today it isn't so simple. We must trust Bible translators to properly convey the meanings of the Greek and Hebrew texts (and/or we must learn Greek and Hebrew), we must understand the culture of the time when it was written, we must try to disregard our cultural prejudices, etc. in order to read the Bible properly. Even then, if everyone ended up with the same conclusions when they took all these steps, this still wouldn't be reasonable for the average Christian.

[continued in Part 3]

Becoming Catholic Part 1

2008-12-16T13:34:00.000-08:00

I recently sent out an e-mail to most of my relatives which explains some of the key ideas that led me to believe the claims of the Catholic Church. It's too long, even by this blog's standards, to publish as one entry, so I'll break it into parts.

Part 1:

Dear Family,

As you may have heard, after seven years of attending Catholic Mass, I have entered the Catholic Church.

The Catholic Church is probably one of the most hated, misunderstood, and lied about organizations in the world, and Catholics have a long history of failings which justify some of the anger. Despite the failings of its members, I have truly come to love the Catholic Church and her teachings, so I would like to give a brief explanation for my conversion (though conversion is not the right word, since I was Christian, and am still Christian).

Obviously, my initial interaction with the Catholic Church was linked to the fact that I married a Catholic woman. But, while that may have opened the door, I am not one of those cases of, "I was going to the Catholic Church every week anyway, so I thought, what the heck, I might as well join," nor did I see all the robes and incense, and say, "Ooh, fancy, I'm gonna join this church." Frankly, I was usually more bored at Catholic Mass than I had been at Protestant services (I get bored too easy, just like most folks these days. I suspect it's too much TV), and I didn't really begin to appreciate the robes and incense until I began to appreciate the Church and its connection to Christians of antiquity.

My journey felt long, and sometimes painful. But it was always filled with prayer, and sometimes I ran into strange coincidences, which probably don't mean much to anyone else, but seemed to show me God's hand pulling strings.

Really, there were hundreds of questions that needed answering before I could believe in the claims of the Catholic Church, but I will try to give a brief explanation of the most important factors.

First, as obvious as this sounds, I don't think many people take it seriously: I believe that if there is One True Visible Church, founded by Jesus Christ, One Church given the authority to teach, then I should belong to that Church. It does not matter if I like their music. It doesn't matter if the local pastor is a good speaker. It doesn't matter if the pews are filled with unfriendly people who spend more time drinking than reading the Bible. And, though it pains me, it doesn't matter if it causes a separation in belief with your family (of course for me the move was between separation from my wife to separation from my parents). What matters is the truth. I should follow the truth. And if I don't like the music, the preaching, or the congregation, I must step forward to help make things better within this true Church.

Of course that says nothing to show that the Catholic Church may be this "One True Visible Church," but unless someone is willing to accept that they must follow God to the Truth, even if it isn't fun, then no amount of explaining will matter. I once read a story of an atheist who said, "I will not believe in God unless I see a miracle with my own eyes." He later saw a miracle, but then he said, "I will not believe in God, even if I see a miracle with my own eyes."

I will not discuss, at this time, my reasons for believing in Christianity and in the scriptures in the first place, so the discussion will only be about the decision between Catholicism and Protestantism. (I will note, though, that I tend to have a skeptical nature, so I went through a period of strong uncertainty during college. Luckily, I am not so one-sided in my skepticism as most, so I was even more skeptical of the claims of the irreligious).

In brief, my core thinking on the matter can be summed up in these points:

1. Without even looking at specific theological issues, the Catholic Church has certain advantages on its side: it out-dates all Protestant denominations, it is still the world's largest denomination, it is in agreement with the (also ancient, and for some reason, less hated) Eastern Orthodox Churches on most doctrines (including the belief that the Bishop of Rome has a degree of primacy), and the Catholic Church is responsible for passing down the Bible upon which Protestants rest everything.

Thus, I believe Catholicism is worthy of serious investigation, and I also tend to think it should be given a degree of "benefit-of-the-doubt." It seems that the one who shows up first should get to speak first, so we should try to consider the validity of Catholic interpretations of scripture without letting our Protestant traditions cause us to deny them outright. Yet, as Protestants, most of us never really learn what we are protesting against. Of course it can be painful to confront the possibility that you were wrong in a fully open and honest way. It is not something that will likely be done overnight, because our prejudices interfere even when we do not recognize them (I think I'm still prejudiced against certain Catholic practices and ways-of-talking). We must try to remember that we were raised in a society that has a strong history of Protestantism and a current culture of secularism, both of which are often hostile toward Catholicism, so if Catholicism was in fact true, then to a degree, everything we know is wrong.

[continuted in Part 2]

Condemned for Translating The Bible?

2008-12-09T16:16:00.000-08:00

John Wycliff and William Tyndale are commonly looked upon as Protestant heroes, bravely translating the Bible into English, despite sinister Catholic anti-Bible laws.

The thing is, translating the Bible wasn't against the law. The law just said that Bible translations had to be approved, and there already were approved English translations. Sadly, there wasn't enough demand at the time to make booksellers produce more of the approved versions.

Tyndale translated the Bible without permission in 1525. His translation was condemned, but this was because the Bible had been translated with an agenda. The Tyndale Bible, like the Wycliff Bible before it, had been translated, not to be faithful to the original texts, but to be an argument against Catholicism. The Tyndale Bible, like Luther's (also condemned) German Bible, contained notes denouncing the Catholic Church and her teachings, as well as modifications to the text itself. This is hardly what you would expect if the Bible clearly speaks a Protestant message, refuting Catholicism on its own. Apparently the Bible must be changed if we want it to disagree with the Church.

Not only Catholic loyalists saw fault in the translation. The founder of Anglicanism, King Henry VIII, opposed the Tyndale translation, even after his break with the Catholic Church.

Under civil law of the time, heretics were seen as being leaders of civil unrest, somewhat akin to terrorist leaders today, and they did cause great amounts of destruction and warfare throughout European history (not that the Church didn't share some of the blame). Thus Tyndale was put to death under Habsburg Emperor Charles V in 1536.

The Catholic Church released its official English translation, the Douay-Rheims version, not too much later, in 1582 (New Testament) and 1609 (Old Testament).

Links:

More on Tyndale.

Do Muslims Worship Our God?

2008-12-08T14:23:00.001-08:00

I was recently reading an online argument that went something like this:

Catholic A: Muslims worship the same God as Christians.
Catholic B: No, they don't, they worship a false God.
A: Yes, they do. The Catechism says, "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day.[841]"
B: Yeah, I know, but that's not an infallible pronouncement, it's just "official teaching."
A: Thanks, but I'll trust the Catechism before I trust "Catholic B" from some online forum.

And so on, and so on...

I think there's a little room for a middle ground on this one. Let me explain:

Let's say you and your friend both were hired by this guy named Bob. Then you were sent to different parts of the country to do work for Bob's company. You both were to send letters each day, to the same address, to let him know how you were doing and if there was anything you needed. Bob himself would read the letters, and then you would receive letters in response from Dave, and your friend would receive letters from Fred, both supposedly being dictated to by Bob.

After some time, you compared the letters you were receiving with those your friend received, and it turned out that you were receiving some of the same information, but sometimes the information would be contradictory, as if you were being instructed by two different Bobs. Apparently, either Fred or Dave was not sending true correspondence from Bob.

The point I'm trying to make is that there is only one God, and we both know him to a degree, because we both have history with him at some point. But the teachings of Mohammad contradict the Catholic faith in many areas, so they must not be true in their entirety. What Islam has preserved intact from Christianity and Judaism is, however, true.

As I see it, this means that we do both pray to the same God, because if we address our prayers to "the one God," then he receives them. Also, to the extent that they recognize true attributes of God, they adore the same God. And finally, to the extent that they recognize the teachings and commands of God, they serve the same God.

So, to sum it up: Do they pray to the same God? Yes. Do they adore the same God? Partly. Do they serve the same God? To an extent. Do Muslims believe all we believe about God? No.

I think the Catechism attests to the idea that Muslims may love [adore] the same God as we do, but often serve a false god, when it says:

"In their religious behavior, however, men also display the limits and errors that disfigure the image of God in them: Very often, deceived by the Evil One, men have become vain in their reasonings, and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and served the creature rather than the Creator.[844]"

Another point, somewhere in there, is that God, being an actual being, and not just a philosophical concept, can be addressed or even loved without being understood. Thus, Muslims can love God and pray to God while not actually knowing him as well as Christians.

This is similar to how a child can pray to God without understanding him like an adult, or how an adult can love him without understanding him as well as the apostles understood him.

Children Are Born Believers

2008-12-03T15:05:00.000-08:00

Recent research shows, "Children have an innate belief in God, and do not acquire their faith through religious indoctrination, according to a leading academic."

Dr. Justin Barrett said, “The preponderance of scientific evidence for the past 10 years or so has shown that a lot more seems to be built into the natural development of children's minds than we once thought, including a disposition to see the world as designed and purposeful and that some kind of intelligent being is behind that purpose.”

See the full story here.

The story doesn't give a lot of details, so I don't know how well-conducted the studies were. But it is still quite interesting, and it goes along with some other stories I've heard.

I wonder if people begin to doubt God because of their doubts in other people? I've heard people say that they stopped believing in God when they stopped believing in Santa Claus. But this seems to be more of a problem with trust between a child and his parent than a problem of natural disbelief.

Children seem generally more in tune with the supernatural, likely because they haven't grown so defensive and shut themselves off to input that seems unfamiliar. Doesn't sin make us blind to the truth?

TV Makes People Go Crazy

2008-12-03T13:41:00.000-08:00

A new survey of 173 research efforts, spanning 30 years, shows more evidence than ever that TV (as well as music, movies, and other media) contributes to obesity, drug use, tobacco use, sexual behavior, alcohol use, low academic performance, and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.

That's a long list, and this article doesn't mention the studies that link TV to depression and anxiety.

I've read that there is a connection between TV watching and depression in adults too, but I can't find that info right now. If anyone has a good link, leave a comment.

I imagine that all these things that are harmful to children are also harmful to adults, but since adults are not learning so many things for the first time, and are more set in their ways, the effects would not be as sudden or pronounced.

Craziest Complaints About Catholicism Vol.1

2008-12-02T16:28:00.000-08:00

Sometimes it's funny, sometimes it's exhausting, but either way it happens too much: Someone makes a complaint about Catholicism that is so easily refuted that you wonder how they could have come up with such a complaint in the first place (and you wonder even more why so many people seem to have the same complaint).

Still, since people have the questions, let's give some answers:

Q: Why do Catholics leave Jesus on the cross? Don't you know that Christ is risen?

A: Yes, I think I heard something about that resurrection thing... Maybe several times each Sunday in church (and that's without including the parts of Mass that change every week).

This is mostly a stylistic difference, and if anything, the Catholic crucifix is more expressive. It tells more of a story, and it is more specific as to which cross we're talking about (since Jesus was not the only person ever crucified, and the Christian cross isn't the only cross used as a symbol).

Further, the Apostle Paul wrote, "Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles." [1 Cor 1:22-23]

Why didn't he say, "We preach Christ resurrected;" doesn't he know Christ is Risen? Obviously, just like St. Paul, the Church preaches Christ crucified, and Christ resurrected.

We could also ask, "Why is your cross empty? Don't you believe Jesus died for your sins?"

Q: Why do Catholics call their priests "Father?" Jesus said, "And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven." [Matt 23:9]

A: He also said, "Nor are you to be called 'teacher,' for you have one Teacher, the Christ" [Matt 23:10], yet Protestants still have Sunday school teachers (and we are told throughout the New Testament that "teacher" is a calling for some Christians).

Also, if this weren't hyperbole used to express how God is the ultimate father, teacher, etc., then we would be unable to use those words in reference to earthly things, and they would end up losing all meaning. We understand what it means for God to be "father," because we use the word to refer to our male parent.

Then there's the argument that this means God is our only "spiritual father," but this is pretty silly since St. Paul makes it clear that he was a spiritual father to the Corinthians: "Even though you have ten thousand guardians in Christ, you do not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel." [1 Cor 4:15] This is along with the countless times the apostles refer to their flock as "child" or "son," and the times they refer to Abraham and Isaac as "fathers."

Catholics Come Home

2008-12-02T13:36:00.000-08:00

This is a really cool website that was mentioned in Columbia (the Knights of Columbus magazine):

CatholicsComeHome.org

Its main purpose is obviously to bring home Catholics who have drifted away from the Church, but it seems to evangelize in other directions as well. In the Columbia article it said that the site brought 3,000 people back to the church in its first 2 weeks.

The commercials are especially good, so make sure to watch those.

Once Saved, Always Saved

2008-11-22T15:52:00.000-08:00

As I prepare to enter the Catholic Church tomorrow, I am once again being questioned about the Biblical basis for Catholic teachings. My father, a wonderful Christian, and a beloved pastor to the groups he teaches, is more-or-less an Evangelical. Needless to say, we disagree on some issues. Since this has come up again, I'll probably be shifting my focus a bit from politics to apologetics.

My father says the Bible teaches that, "Once we are saved, we cannot lose our salvation." I think the Bible says the opposite (to an extent).

The Bible does clearly state in some places that Salvation is something that has already been accomplished:

Ephesians 2:8-9: "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God—not because of works, lest any man should boast."

Romans 5:1: "Therefore, since we have been justified through faith..."

These verses, and I'm sure many more, point to the idea that salvation is an event in the past. So if we're already saved, we don't need to worry about losing salvation, especially when the scriptures also say:

Romans 8:38-39: "neither death nor life[...], neither the present nor the future[...], nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God..."

So we "have been justified" and nothing can "separate us... from God," so it seems obvious that once we are saved, we remain saved. But what if things are more complex? First, the list in Romans 8 is a list of external factors, so that seems to leave it open as to whether we can separate ourselves from God. In fact, the idea that you can indeed separate yourself from God is clearly present in the scriptures:

Galatians 5:4: You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace.

Romans 11:22: "Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off."

Now, what if there were other verses that suggested that we had to do something to remain in God's family?

1 Corinthians 9:27: "I pummel my body and subdue it, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified."

Hebrews 10:36: "You need to persevere so that when you have done the will of God, you will receive what he has promised."

James 1:12: "Blessed is the man who perseveres under trial, because when he has stood the test, he will receive the crown of life that God has promised to those who love him."

Revelation 2:5: "Remember the height from which you have fallen! Repent and do the things you did at first. If you do not repent, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place."

Philippians 2:11-13: "Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed—not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence—continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling."

So, it seems there is strong scriptural support for the idea that we can lose our salvation. Let's also look at this verse from the story of the Prodigal Son:

Luke 15:24: "For this son of mine was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found."

In this story the father represents God. His son leaves his family, and is "dead" to his father. Then he returns to his father, and is once again "alive." Though the primary purpose of this parable is to show the love and forgiveness God offers, it also implies that one can be in God's family, but then leave it, and once again return.

We can see similar issues presented in our own lives. Most Christians believe that children who die before the age of reason are likely to be given the grace to go to heaven, since they have committed no personal sin. But then these same children, once they reach the age of reason, and commit sin by their own fault, have "alienated" themselves from God, unless they seek the forgiveness offered by Jesus Christ.

Further, we can find verses that point to the salvation of believers as being a future event:

Matthew 10:22: "And you will be hated of all men for my name’s sake. But he who endures to the end will be saved."

Romans 13:11: "For salvation is nearer to us now than when we first believed."

Romans 2:13-16: "For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified … on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Jesus Christ."

So there is an apparent contradiction. We "have been justified," but we are waiting for the time when we "will be justified." Of course, as Christians who believe the Bible is the inspired word of God, we recognize that these must just appear contradictory. It seems that we have been saved in a certain sense, yet we continue to work out our salvation, and we also await our coming salvation. This is all consistent with Catholic theology, but is not consistent with a view that salvation is only a past event for believers.

Let's also take a brief look at what some early Church Fathers said on the matter:

Justin Martyr, Against Heresies 5:26 [A.D. 156] "Eternal fire was prepared for him who voluntarily departed from God and for all who, without repentance, persevere in apostasy."

Didache 16 [A.D. 70] "Watch for your life’s sake. Let not your lamps be quenched, nor your loins unloosed; but be ready, for you know not the hour in which our Lord comes. But you shall assemble together often, seeking the things that are befitting to your souls: For the whole time of your faith will not profit you if you be not made complete in the last time."

Biblical evidence for "Once Saved, Always Saved" is not very strong, and the evidence against it seems quite a bit stronger. This is probably why even many Protestant groups disagree on the matter. And this certainly does not provide a strong case against the early Church Fathers, and the Catholic Church, which has always taught that salvation could be lost.

Some great articles on this topic:
Once Saved, Always Saved
It's Not Over 'til It's Over

And related topics:
"Assurance" isn't Assuring (by a Protestant seminarian)
The Church Fathers on Mortal Sin

Gay Mob Pursues Christians

2008-11-21T21:38:00.000-08:00

Did anyone hear about the gay mob that chased the Christians out of a San Fransisco neighborhood? How about this question...did you hear about it from a blog, or from a news outlet (5).

The MSM didn't report it. In fact, do an Internet search right now for it, and most of what you'll find are blog posts about it, not news articles. I did a search on Yahoo! news and came up with one hit (1); Google news found 95 (2). For reference, the 11-10 Steelers-Chargers game shows up 948 times on Yahoo! (3) and 2002 on Google (4).

I won't go into the media bias, however; I'd be beating a dead horse if I pointed it out. Instead, I'll dwell on this article some more. Or, rather, on the columns, since there are so few articles.

Most have quickly pointed out the numerous demonstrations by the ''No on 8'' campaign at churches. They point out an irony: the Christians and mormons haven't chased away from the steps of their churches any demonstrators exercising their right to assemble; yet, a group of Christians, also exercising their right to assemble, is chased out of the neighborhood...followed by howls of, ''And don't ever come back!'' The irony, of course, is the answer to the question, ''Which group is more tolerant of others?''

Some pointed out that, had it been the other way around with Christians chasing out gays, it would've been front page news. Bleakly, they opined, ''Hate crimes only occur when homosexuals are attacked, not Christians.'' (6)

Blogs from the other side condemned the mob's action as counter-productive to their goals. The individuals making up the mob were simply that...individuals, and not representative of the whole.

I'd like to point out the hypocrisy of the whole situation. The gay lobby constantly is trying to convince me not to vote to limit marriage because it won't affect me. "Live and let live" they say; "you live your life and I'll live mine." The reactions to the Christians in the video, however, make me doubt the gay lobby believes at all what they're preaching. They're such steadfast adherents to "live and let live" that they'll chase out everyone who disagrees with them, all the while hootin' and hollerin'.

''Hate'' was a common theme during the campaign. In fact, the ''No on 8'' campaign's slogan was ''8 is Hate.'' Well, I definitely see hate in the video.

(1) Yahoo! search 1
(2) Google search 1
(3) Yahoo! search 2
(4) Google search 2
(5) Blog with video
(6) Bleak Blog
Random XXX Church link

Is it Possible to Teach Abstinence?

2008-11-21T14:00:00.000-08:00

Secular and liberal groups of various sorts like to claim that high school and college students are "going to do it anyway," so we shouldn't "waste" time and money on abstinence education, when what the kids "really need" is contraceptives. They back this reasoning up with studies showing the lack of success seen in areas with abstinence education.

My reaction has always been to just groan in annoyance at such ignorance. Of course we won't see great results from the mere fact that we put money into abstinence education. It would take years of research to find effective forms of abstinence education. Psychologists have been studying depression and anxiety since psychology (and psychiatry) began. They are better at influencing unhealthy minds today, but they still don't have a simple cure. Why should we expect it to be so much easier to influence minds in other difficult but helpful directions? It should be obvious that a teacher rolling his eyes as he says, "The state requires that I tell you not to have sex until you're married," is as likely to hurt as it is to help. So it should also be obvious that the quality of the programs is as important as the existence of the programs.

And even more obvious, is that neither abstinence education nor contraception education happen in a vacuum. How can we expect adolescents to listen to their teacher who says "no" when all their friends, their favorite celebrities, their magazines, and sometimes even their parents are shouting "YES!" If we want success, we need a comprehensive form of "wait until you're married" education that would entail sweeping changes of education, media, and who knows what else.

There is clear evidence that watching sex on TV can double teen pregnancy rates. There is also evidence that college professors promoting use of contraception makes college students 10% more likely to engage in premarital sex during their last year in school. How many other factors might be contributing to this problem?

We live in a society that is overflowing with sex. We can't just protect our kids (and ourselves) from one angle; they will just absorb what comes at them from every other angle. For now it takes a multi-pronged approach from individual parents to protect their own children. For the future we need to work toward a multi-pronged approach to protect everyone's children.

Was Luther Right?

2008-11-20T14:14:00.000-08:00

Yesterday, during Pope Benedict XVI's general audience, he said that Martin Luther was correct in saying that we are saved "'by faith alone'[...] if faith is not opposed to charity, to love." See the full story here.

I'm not quite sure how I first came to understand this idea, but at one point I realized that Catholics and Protestants are partly talking past each other when they talk about "faith and works" versus "faith alone." In reality, they are using the word "faith" in a different manner. The Catholic is using the word "faith" to mean mostly "belief in Christ." Meanwhile, the Protestant is using "faith" in a more all-consuming sense which includes works.

Faith is actually used both ways in scripture. In Ephesians we are told, "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God." But in 1 Corinthians we are told, "And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love." This second quote suggests that love (which bears the fruit of works) is more important to our salvation than faith. But faith is so often described as the thing that saves us, that it seems there can be two meanings for the word, based on context. It also seems that the reality is more complicated than any simple statement such as "faith alone," and that such a statement should not be used to attack those who have simplified the complexities in a different way.

For more information on the contrast between the common Protestant and Catholic understandings of the word "faith," I recommend Peter Kreeft & Ronald K. Tacelli's Handbook of Christian Apologetics: Hundreds of Answers to Crucial Questions.

The Anti-Christ?

2008-11-19T18:40:00.000-08:00

I wrote this post to respond to the frequent comment I've been hearing: that it is "crazy" to think that Obama might be the anti-Christ.

I could say that I feel almost certain that Obama is not the anti-Christ, if only because I'm sure there have been many leaders who have been suspected of this role. But I could not say that he is definitely not the anti-Christ. Even his supporters should be wary of such a stance, and of ridiculing those who believe it is a possibility.

The gut reaction that, "He can't be the anti-Christ!" is based on feelings more than reason. It's the same reaction we might have if the police tell us that our son was caught stealing a car: "He couldn't have stolen a car, he's a good boy." It's fine to have trust, and to try to believe the best of someone, but we need to be open to the fact that we may have misjudged someone.

Of course most people do not think he is the anti-Christ (myself included), but who will really recognize the true anti-Christ? If the true anti-Christ were widely recognized as such, he could not be very successful. Indeed, just as Satan relies on deception, so will the anti-Christ. He will be a great deceiver, and most will not recognize what he is. He would probably seem like a nice guy, but eventually take darker and darker turns.

Even this turn toward darkness would probably be disguised as "the right thing" in one way or another. He would probably use scapegoats, just as Hitler used the Jews or Nero used the Christians, to distract people from his dark purposes.

But if man always has choices, perhaps the anti-Christ must choose his role, or else his role will be given to another. So then the question wouldn't be, "Is Obama the anti-Christ?" Instead it will be, "Could Obama choose the role of the anti-Christ, and will he?"

I believe that the answer to this is no. I believe the man has enough love (even if it is misguided), that he would not be capable of making such an unloving decision.

Still, it is a remote possibility, not one I'm expecting, that he has deceived me into believing he is a loving man. Unless there are those among us who can truly see the future, or see into hearts, I do not think we can make an absolute final judgment in either direction. And along those lines, it also seems absurd to claim he is the anti-Christ, or that he probably is the anti-Christ.

Really though, I think this is a moot point. If the man promotes evil policies we must oppose them, and if he promotes good policies we should support them. Whether or not he is the anti-Christ, our duties remain the same.

Gays "Bash Back"

2008-11-11T14:27:00.000-08:00

In a little publicized story, a group of gay/anarchist activists stormed Mount Hope Church in Lansing Michigan during a service on Sunday Nov. 9.

Of course, they accused the evangelical church of “transphobia and homophobia.” Yet, somehow the "bigoted" churchgoers did not react violently. This was certainly a disappointment to the activist who were hoping to videotape violent reactions to justify themselves.

The Rev. John Elieff said (in another article) that the church is not "anti-homosexual," and though it does teach that homosexual behavior is sinful, "Mt. Hope Church struggles to follow Christ’s example of loving the sinner and not the sin."

The activists might be surprised to learn that almost all Christian churches teach something similar. Most churches that teach homosexuality is a sin understand that same-sex attraction is a difficult burden, and desire that we try to view homosexual actions as a counterpart to the kind of inappropriate sexual behaviors that heterosexuals engage in, such as promiscuity, lust, pornography, and affairs.

I really believe that true "gay-bashing" has less of a correlation to church participation than it does to beer-drinking and football watching. In other words, most churches teach people to love everyone, including unrepentant sinners, and even our enemies. It is the popular machismo found in bars and locker rooms that teaches such un-Christian ideas as "women exist for men's entertainment" or "it's manly to pick on gays."

So next time angry activists want to attack someone, they might want to pick a more appropriate target.

As a side note, it seems to violate a church's right to free speech if you disrupt their main weekly meeting like that. How can a group have free speech if the primary meetings where they share their views are disrupted? So the activists should try for more constitutional timing too.

Respecting Enemies?

2008-11-07T13:40:00.000-08:00

Lately I've been reading articles, such as this article at InsideCatholic, which say we should show respect for President-elect Obama, even though we might be fighting him on some serious issues (pretty much the same kind of respect conservatives wish liberals had given President Bush). Without fail, someone responds with a comment like, "We can't show respect to that no-good baby-killer!"

I've heard similar back-and-forth about Bishops who are perceived by some as failing the Church.

I agree with the writers who say we should show some respect, but I personally have a hard time staying respectful when I want to try to be strong in my stand against whatever evil my opponent is promoting. So I understand, to an extent, both sides of the argument. What I think I need is an exercise in how this respectful opposition would play out in specific circumstances.

1. Let's say we ran into Mr. Obama, and he asked us, "What do you think we can do to make America better." What should we say?
A) "You should just keep telling everyone to have hope."
B) "We need to recognize that women are truly helped by offering them loving support when they face an unplanned pregnancy, rather than lying to them about the nature of their unborn child, and convincing them to kill it. Which means that the government should support crisis pregnancy centers instead of supporting Planned Parenthood."
C) "We could kick you out of office, you baby-killing slime ball."

Oh... I think I'm already able to detect a trend. The long, well thought out answers are the best ones.

2. We prepare to send a letter to our Bishop, because we believe he is being too resistant to the Pope's call for more traditional Latin Masses. What should we write?
A) "Dear Bishop, I respect you too much to complain. Keep up the good work!"
B) "Dear Bishop, I truly love the old Mass. I feel so much more connected to God during that form of the Mass than I do in the modern form. I like the respectfulness, the music, and even the Latin. When I heard that Pope Benedict was trying to make this Mass more widely available, I was overjoyed. I hope you will work to make it available soon in my area. I can't think of any better way to connect with the Saints who have gone before us."
C) "You old heretic! Why do you hate the Pope? People who think the Latin Mass isn't any good don't think the Church is any good, so why don't you just leave? You'd do a much better job as manager for a rock band."

Anyway, I hope you get my point. I think I'm starting to get it, but we'll see.

Department of Propaganda

2008-11-06T09:42:00.000-08:00

As the election drew near, and now, after its close, there has been a proliferation of political news. Often getting my news from the Yahoo! homepage, there's something I've noticed. Some of the stories are traditional Associated Press news, with its mild left-leaning bias (calling pro-lifers "abortion opponents" etc.), but many of the stories are flat-out commentary. Now, Yahoo! may have never claimed that its featured stories were news stories, but I feel much better when opinion pieces are clearly relegated to opinion pages, and not mixed in with the traditional news. I also might be less disturbed if I had read a single column from the conservative perspective during this period.

Take, for example, these quotes from a featured story by John Cloud on Yahoo:

"And then there was California. Gay strategists working for marriage equality in this election cycle had focused most of their attention on that state. Losing there dims hopes that shimmered brightly just a few weeks ago - hopes that in an Obama America, straight people would be willing to let gay people have the basic right to equality in their personal relationships. It appears not."

"In Florida, where the law requires constitutional amendments to win by 60%, a marriage amendment passed with disturbing ease, 62.1% to 37.9%."

Apparently it is "disturbing" that people would vote to deny homosexuals a "basic right to equality." The problem here is that equality presumes that things are equal. But there is little equivalence between recognizing same-sex marriage, and recognizing traditional marriage. One is based on fairy tale romanticism, the other is based on both tradition and on practical concerns.

In fact, I don't even believe that I have a "basic right" to have my marriage recognized. And that's really the key. The government doesn't recognize my marriage because it's my right, the government recognizes my marriage because pretty much every American thinks my marriage is valid (more or less). So then, that's the major problem with recognizing same-sex marriage. Most people don't really view the unions as valid, so if the government recognizes them, then the government imposes this view on the people, which is akin to establishment of religion.

See the difference there? The government imposes nothing (or very little) when it recognizes traditional marriage, because most Americans already recognize such marriages, but the government imposes a great deal when it legally recognizes marriages that are not recognized by most Americans.

If the government stopped recognizing marriage as an institution altogether I might be upset, and I might want to change it, but I don't think I could argue that it was my "basic right."

But you won't find that argument in the mainstream media. Yahoo! isn't going to slide that kind of opinion piece in with the regular news, so they shouldn't be throwing in the liberal propaganda they do run. Of course we can't expect much from these companies. Google and Apple did contribute money to fight Prop 8.

The Dangers of Obama

2008-11-05T14:28:00.000-08:00

I've been a bit easy on Obama. Maybe I've just decided to be hopeful, since I only started writing about him here after he won the election. I suppose that now we need to move forward, hoping things will turn around, and remembering that it's what we do as individuals and as a church that will advance the culture of life more than any laws or any political candidate. See Fr. Frank Pavone discuss this here.

But we still have to be wary of our new President. Canadian author, Michael O'Brien wrote in his Nov 1st newsletter:

What are we to make of a man who has appeared out of semi-obscurity and become, nearly overnight, so very much an idol of the popular imagination? That he intends to become the most effective advocate of murder of the unborn ever seen in America should give us pause. Murder and lies are as old as the lands east of Eden, of course, but when they are charmingly packaged, proposed as reasonable and just policies (with a smile, a resonant voice, and an appealing flash of the eyes), one begins to wonder just what is afoot in the modern age. It brings to mind a passage from the first Act of Shakespeare's Hamlet:

"That one may smile, and smile, and be a villain..."

Click here for the full text of O'Brien's newsletter.

For a more hopeful look at the upcoming Presidency of Obama, and a reminder about the power of our democracy, try this story by Tom Hoopes at the National Catholic Register.

We Win Some, We Lose Some... Heads

2008-11-05T08:47:00.000-08:00

So, looks like we've done poorly on life issues this election. The highly pro-abortion candidate, Obama, won the presidency, along with his party winning several seats in the Senate and the House. Prop 4 in California failed to pass, meaning kids can still get abortions without parental permission (even if they can't bring aspirin to school without a note). And Initiative 1000 passed in Washington state, legalizing euthanasia.

Happily, we did manage to pass Prop 8 in California, and similar measures in other states (like 102 in AZ), preventing activist judges from redefining marriage. This should preserve our freedom to disagree on the issue of homosexuality for a little longer. As I've said before, the biggest danger of legally recognized same-sex marriage is that the government will then begin to enforce the positions of gay-rights activists, interfering with freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

For me, Obama's win wasn't a surprise. I was, however, pleasantly surprised that Prop 8 passed. As for Prop 4, I was a bit shocked that people still think parents shouldn't be informed when their child is going to be given serious and destructive surgery.

Lastly, let me just say I'm glad I don't live in Washington. I really don't know why the risk of legalized euthanasia is worth it to people. If I was able to completely trust everyone, and especially every doctor, then it might not be so scary, even though it would still be wrong. But as it is, doctors can be incompetent and sometimes even malicious. Why should we give them the kind of power over life and death that legalized euthanasia gives them? Also, do we really want the government making decisions about which innocent people it's okay to kill?

Our First Black President

2008-11-05T08:00:00.000-08:00

I don't know if I'm just oblivious, but I'm surprised at how much attention is being given to the fact that Obama is our first African American president. I was really focused on the positions of the candidates and didn't really give the matter much thought. I suppose we haven't all moved as far past race as I'd have hoped.

Being that race does still seem to be an issue, I hope that Obama manages to be a good role model for his fellow African Americans. Whatever we think of his political positions, Obama does have a strong American story; the story of a lower class minority working hard to reach the highest office in the country. I hope that this helps those who feel oppressed or have an overactive victim complex to move out of the past. Perhaps if this allows some people to abandon their suspicion of whites the races might become less divided.

Sadly, the racism on the white side might only be strengthened (at least in the short term). I hope that this group can at least show some respect to the president of our country (even if liberals were unable to do so for Bush).

Despite the fact that I do not want a president with such a liberal agenda, my great fear is that Obama might be assassinated by white supremacists. Not only would this be an evil action which would devastate Obama's family, but it would be an offense against democracy. Further it would ruin the progress that might be made toward uniting the races in our country, likely sparking destructive riots. And perhaps most dangerous for conservatives, this would give liberals a powerful martyr, and could possibly usher in a new era of restrictions on freedom. "Hate crime" laws will gain more momentum, threatening freedom of speech. Guns will be taken away. Everywhere, freedom will be traded for security.

So let's pray for the safety of our president-elect. And let's hope that the next time Americans face a decision like this, voters, both black and white, will vote based on the candidate's positions instead of the candidate's race.

A Strange Dress

2008-11-04T22:20:00.000-08:00

As much as I don't plan on making fashion something I address with any regularity, I can't help but point out how strange Michelle Obama's dress was tonight.

First, the red is in a kind of hourglass shape. On a black background this looks like a black widow's markings to me. But then they probably don't have many black widow spiders up there in Chicago.

Second, the red resembles a stylized spray of blood originating from her belly. Does this somehow reflect the unborn lives that will be lost during the Obama administration?

Of course I don't really think this dress says anything about Mrs. Obama. I doubt she meant her dress to express anything, and I wouldn't hold her fashion sense against her... Especially since she's married to the (soon-to-be) most powerful man in the world.

Same-Sex Sympathy

2008-11-02T22:44:00.000-08:00

Before talking any more about my opposition to same-sex marriage, I must let it be known that I have a great deal of sympathy for those with same-sex attraction, especially those who are "in love" with someone. I'm sure their feelings of "love" are just as real as the feelings that heterosexual couples feel when they first meet someone new and exciting. Of course, even for heterosexuals these feelings can be misleading, causing them to enter harmful relationships.

I myself used to believe we should just let them marry. I believed it would make them happy, and cut down on homosexual promiscuity.

But, after studying the matter further, I changed my mind. While it is possible that some individuals might be happier if they had legally recognized marriages, the general trend for society, for people with same-sex attraction, and especially for children, will be toward unhappiness.

Further, it is apparent that redefining marriage so that it has nothing to do with tradition or children will just lead to other people asking for their own ideas of marriage to be recognized (as it, in fact, already is).

Most important, same-sex marriage will not guarantee free speech and religious freedom as its supporters claim. It will, in fact, undermine the free speech and religious freedom of everyone who doesn't "get with the program." Gay rights activists are already emboldened, asking for the Bible to be considered hate speech, trying to force independent citizens to accept their relationships, and teaching kindergartners that homosexual behavior is normal.

Homosexuals already have the right to live in committed relationships. What they don't have is the right to force everyone else to accept those relationships as healthy and equal to traditional marriages.

Intolerance and Same-Sex Marriage

2008-11-02T21:08:00.000-08:00

According to Jenifer DeLemont, in the October 26 East Valley Tribune:

Discrimination should be judged[...] by rewriting the statement with a different group's name. [A statement by supporters of Proposition 102] says; “Marriage is between one man and one woman. To allow marriages to be confused by allowing a man and a man to wed will destroy the meaning of marriage.”
But let’s try that same statement with a slight change: “Marriage is between one Christian and one Christian. To allow marriages to be confused by allowing a Christian to wed a Jew will destroy the meaning of marriage.” If that’s not bad enough for you, then try it with race. “Marriage is between one white person and one white person. To allow marriage to be confused by allowing a white person to marry a black person will destroy the meaning of marriage.”
So you see, discrimination all depends on the group we are talking about.

I found this argument quite humorous. If only she wasn't serious. The problem is that she arbitrarily decides what would be a "slight change." Apparently she thinks that a person's sex is roughly as important as their skin color. I may have missed whatever biology class she took, but I'm pretty sure a black man's body functions pretty much the same as a white man's body, even being able to produce children with a white woman. While I don't recall the lesson where two men could make a child.

In fact, using her formula, I'm sure we can find all kinds of intolerance. We'll just take a statement she would agree with, "Not allowing a man to marry a man is intolerant." then see if we can make it sound bad by using a different group's name: "Not allowing a 9-year old to marry a 49-year old is intolerant." Ooh let's do that again: "Not allowing a live man to marry a dead man is intolerant." Hmm... weird how different groups of people evoke different feelings. If that's not bad enough for you, let's take it a step further, "Not allowing a man to marry a herd of wildebeests is intolerant."

What's a Catholic Cataclysm?

2008-11-02T20:11:00.000-08:00

Let me take a moment to explain our name: "Catholic Cataclysm." First, it is a play on words, sounding like "Catholic Catechism." Of course saying as much ruins some of the fun, but it's a useful tidbit for those who didn't get it.

One could interpret the name to mean that we think the Catholic Church is a source of destruction, that we want a massive upheaval within the Church, or that we want to destroy the world somehow. None of those interpretations would be correct. We are, in fact, using the term rather loosely.

What we do then mean by our name is that we think the world needs a sort of "Catholic Cataclysm," a destruction, not of people or objects, but of harmful ideas. Not that we want thought police monitoring ideas or anything. We just want culture to change in a healthy direction, toward faith, life, and true love. This move toward the beautiful teachings of the Catholic Church would make a better world for everyone, but would give infinitely more to those individuals who truly entered a relationship with Christ and the Church.

All Saints Day

2008-11-01T00:08:00.000-07:00

Happy All Saints Day!

On All Saints Day I like to remember the Saint whose name I took at confirmation: St. Elizabeth Ann Seton. A widow who converted to Catholicism, she raised her five children, started a parish school and an orphanage, and founded a religious order.

On the topic of Saints, here's a nifty website:
http://www.americancatholic.org/Features/Saints/bydate.asp

This website has a Saint or Blessed listed for each day of the month. When you click on the link, it gives you a brief glimpse into their life.