The Bible on Divorce

I've always been a little confused by the words of Christ regarding divorce. They didn't seem to fit with the common Protestant idea that divorce is acceptable in extreme circumstances, and then remarriage is always okay. But they also appeared to contradict the Catholic view that divorced people cannot remarry unless they show that their original marriage was actually invalid. The answer really comes down to the interpretation of a few words. Let's look at the two interpretations, and see if we can find an answer that fits everything Jesus said.

The Words

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

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

And then he follows up by showing the adulterous nature of remarriage after divorce.

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

While difficult to follow, the teaching that it is sinful to look at a woman lustfully is fairly easy to understand. The more difficult and divisive words are found in Matthew 32. Our understanding of what Jesus meant by “except for sexual immorality” can lead us in a variety of directions.

The Protestant Understanding

Protestants are very divided over this issue. How serious is divorce? When is it acceptable? When is remarriage an option? So, I will have to deal with generalities based on my experience, and it cannot be assumed that this applies to all Protestant groups.

What I have found to be common, is a line of reasoning something like this:

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

Certain translations of the Bible seem to assume this is what was meant, and in an attempt at clarity, alter the words of Christ to fit this understanding.

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

“But I say that a man who divorces his wife, unless she has been unfaithful...” (Matt 5:32 NLT)

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

The Catholic Understanding

I always favored the Catholic understanding because it seems clear to me that Jesus regards divorce as a very serious matter, and he warns severely against remarriage. Even as a Protestant I had an understanding of the inviolable sacramental nature of marriage. But Catholics are not allowed to remarry after a divorce, unless they can show that their marriage was invalid (I'm not getting into the issue of what many Catholics do, or whether the Church grants too many annulments. I'm looking at the actual teaching of the Church). This seems to go against the exception provided by Christ. Didn't Jesus say that we could remarry if our wives committed adultery?

Let's look for a clue in another Protestant Bible translation. The Contemporary English Version records the verse like this:

“But I tell you not to divorce your wife unless she has committed some terrible sexual sin. If you divorce her, you will cause her to be unfaithful, just as any man who marries her is guilty of taking another man's wife.” (Matt 5:32 CEV)

This isn't very different from the other versions, but this version includes a footnote saying, “some terrible sexual sin: This probably refers to the laws about the wrong kinds of marriages that are forbidden in Leviticus 18.6-18 or to some serious sexual sin.”

Discovering this greatly alleviated my confusion on this matter. If the first meaning is correct, that this “refers to the laws about the wrong kind of marriages that are forbidden,” then this verse is entirely consistent with the Catholic teaching. A man's wedding vows are rendered null if it turns out that their marriage was a “forbidden” kind of marriage, not valid from the start. In this case, the sexual sin was not an extramarital affair as suggested by many translations, rather it was the false marriage which was “unchaste” by its own failing, having been improperly established.

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

“Divorce is a grave offense against the natural law. It claims to break the contract, to which the spouses freely consented, to live with each other 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 the rupture: the remarried spouse is then in a situation of public and permanent adultery” (CCC 2384).

The Assumption of Non-Denominational Neutrality

Does non-denominational equal neutral?

As with many of the common Protestant beliefs that now seem obviously silly to me, this is something I once believed myself. I grew up with a kind of non-denominational Evangelicalism. I considered myself, “Just a Christian,” a “Generic Christian,” or we might say, a believer in “Mere Christianity.” In a similar way of speaking, I commonly hear people say 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 raised Baptist, I was raised Lutheran, so we go to a non-denominational church to avoid the divisions.”

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

There seems to be a willingness among many people to quickly buy into such ideas, and accept them without question. I think a great deal of this is just due to the terms being used. These groups avoid the language of division, and make claims of a simple faith, and people take them at their word. This mindset also draws upon sketchy ideas of Catholicism's “additions,” and vague knowledge of the battles fought between different denominations following the Reformation.

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

There is a similar situation in American politics, where we have two major parties, and many “third parties,” one of these is the American Independent Party. Using the term, “Independent,” they could easily be seen as a non-divisive middle ground, but upon inspection, their policies are clearly Conservative, and they have much in common with certain parts of the Republican Party, but very little in common with any parts of the Democratic Party.

Let's take a specific group as an example: Calvary Chapel is one of the largest associations of non-denominational churches. Their numbers likely exceed those of many denominations, and their structure is no more loose than what is found in some denominational associations, so it is already clear that there is an issue of word-preference in play here. Now Calvary Chapel can certainly claim to be less denomination-based than the Catholic Church, or mainstream Protestant branches, but they aren't structurally any less of a denomination than some Evangelical groups which do consider themselves “denominations.”

Of course I would argue that a “denomination” can be as small as a single church, or even a single person. Really, a denomination can be most clearly defined by who is recognized as its highest visible authority. As such, attempts to 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 a pure, agreeable middle ground, devoid of unnecessary divisive beliefs?

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 a middle ground. For example, like Pentecostals, they believe in the modern gift of speaking in tongues, but like most non-Pentecostal groups, they generally do not believe speaking in tongues is meant to figure prominently in church services. This places them fairly near to Catholics on this issue. But it is clearly not all-accepting. It is in fact a rejection of the Pentecostal idea that speaking in tongues should be a prominent part of worship services, and it is also a rejection of the idea held by some other Protestants that the Holy Spirit no longer gives the gift of tongues to believers.

Many differences with the Catholic Church are even more pronounced. Calvary Chapel does not believe in the efficacy of Sacraments. They believe that baptism is only an outward sign of an inward reality in an informed believer, and that it conveys no grace. Thus they reject infant baptism. Likewise, they hold that communion is symbolic, and reject any notion of the Real Presence of Christ and the re-presentation of our Lord's sacrifice on Calvary. First, this shows that only Catholic chapels can claim full connection with Calvary, but more to the point, we see not a position of acceptance and common ground, but a position that requires rejection as much as any “divisive denominational church.”

Their most notable differences from most Protestant groups are perhaps their dispensational and pretribulational beliefs, but I think it's clear enough that they do indeed have divisive beliefs, and you cannot accept Calvary Chapel beliefs without rejecting various beliefs of most other Christian groups.

What exact beliefs you'll find in any of the varied non-denominational churches will certainly vary somewhat from those in the example of Calvary Chapel, but they cannot escape the reality of division or the necessary rejection of opposing beliefs.

It is completely unreasonable to expect Catholics to cede the default, the neutral, or the middle ground to non-denominational Christians based on their claims of simplicity and non-divisiveness. It is in fact far more reasonable for Christians to be Catholic by default, for Protestantism is a rebellion against a Catholic Christian past, and Protestants do not even know what they are rejecting or why, and it is only in Catholicism that Christianity has 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

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

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.

The Septuagint

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

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

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

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

Update 10/15/2013: I should note that at this time I had just read the Twilight books, and I like a lot of things when I first read them more than I do later. I still like Harry Potter, but looking back I realize the Twilight books were actually fairly boring quite a bit of the time... and I don't particularly like the boost they gave to the fascination with the undead. But, I suppose most of what I said is still valid.

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

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)