Saint Under Construction

Graven Images: Looks Can Be Deceiving!

2008-04-10T07:38:00.000-07:00

There seems to be a lot of confusion about graven images and their place in Christian (specifically, but not limited to Catholic) worship. So here's an FAQ entitled, 'Everything You Wanted To Know About Graven Images, But Were Afraid To Ask'.

1. What is a graven image?

The broadest definition would be any image (person, idea, animal, fictitious character, etc.) that is made as a material representation. Examples would be santos, statues, or those little plastic dashboard St. Christophers. Even a painting can be considered a graven image of sorts.

2. I'm reading Exodus 20 and you Catholics are in trouble! 'Thou shalt not have strange gods before me. Thou shalt not make to thyself a graven thing, nor the likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or in the earth beneath, nor of those things that are in the waters under the earth. Thou shalt not adore them, nor serve them (Exodus 20:3-5).'

The first and the last sentence are the most telling ones. Strange gods are a no-no. Why? Because humans are prone to make an image of these strange gods. For what purpose? To adore them and serve them. So taken in context, Exodus 20 is warning us against exactly what happened in the Golden Calf episode. You recall, the Hebrews had a strange god before the one, true God because they believed Moses had ditched them. They then made an image of that god--'a molten calf'. But the fun didn't stop there. They then proclaimed the calf as their god, built altars for it, and sacrificed to it--they worshipped the graven image itself. Do Catholics do this with their statues and images? We'll see.

3. You're splitting hairs. Clearly within that directive from God, He said not to make ANY graven images. I agree that you shouldn't worship them, but you also shouldn't make them in the first place.

So we can then conclude, if you are right, one of two things. Either we are not supposed to make ANY graven images at all and God, being hypocritical, commanded us to make them anyway or we need more data to conclude anything about graven images.

4. What do you mean that God commanded us to make graven images anyway?

Just 5 chapters later, in Exodus 25, God is giving His people directions for building/assembling the Ark of The Covenant. In Verse 18, God directly tells them to make not one, but two graven images--two cherubim of gold. This would seem to directly contradict the 'likeness of anything that is in heaven' rule and makes God look inconsistent at best and deceptive at worst.

In Chapter 26, He does it again! More cherubim!

In Numbers 21, God expressly commands Moses to 'make a fiery serpent'. I'm no artisan, but I'm guessing that required some carving, firing, and engraving considering it was bronze. When the afflicted looked upon it, they were healed. God is actually USING a graven image as an instrument of his power after supposedly telling His people that those images are forbidden. In 2 Kings 18:4, King Hezekiah has it destroyed precisely because the Israelites began worhipping it as a god called Nehushtan.

In 1 Kings 6, Solomon is building the dwelling place of the Lord. He fashioned cherubim out of olivewood and placed them in the temple. The measurements of these angels are very specific. You'd think that graven images would be forbidden in God's house, yet there they were 10 cubits high with wings 5 cubits long in the temple and in the entrance.

In Chapter 7, Solomon is building his crib. In verse 25, he carved images of 12 oxen and in 36, he carved images of cherubim, lions, and palm trees.

1 Chronicles chronicles the plans for the Temple. The altar itself had a graven image of a chariot of the cherubim. Whose plan was this? Verse 19 says that it was 'the writing from the Hand of the Lord'.

Needless to say, graven images, when used with proper reverence and appreciation for God, are not only permitted, but even commanded by God.

5. Point taken. But nowhere do we see any image of GOD being made. Deuteronomy 4 says, 'Since you saw no form on the day that the Lord spoke to you at Horeb out of the midst of the fire, beware lest you act corruptly by making a graven image for yourselves, in the form of any figure, the likeness of male or female, the likeness of any beast that is on the earth, the likeness of any winged bird that flies in the air, the likeness of anything that creeps on the ground, the likeness of any fish that is in the water under the earth."

Early on, Israel did not make images of God because he had not presented himself to them in any visual way. But later, He did reveal himself. In Daniel 7, He is portrayed as wearing bright white, having soft, white hair, sitting on a throne of fire.

God also revealed himself as a cloud, a dove (Holy Spirit), and tongues of fire. Wearing a 'Holy Spirit Pin' would indeed be a representation of God as he revealed himself, no?

But the most obvious image of God was in Jesus Christ. Paul calls Jesus the 'ikon' (image) of the invisible God. He is the tangible image of God, plain and simple. In the New Covenant, God revealed himself and, for that reason, we can make images and representations of him. Do we worship that little piece of porcelain that depicts Him? Of course not.

6. But what about statues of the saints? Those people are nothing more than created beings. Surely this is idolatry when you have one, let alone bow before, say, Mary.

One issue at a time! We're coming perilously close to making this a discussion about the intercession of saints. Remember, in the verses above, representations of cherubim are all over the holy places of the Hebrews. Angels, like human saints, are created beings--made by the Lord our God. They are holy messengers who serve God. So are saints. They exist to worship God. So do saints. They know God on a level often far above our own. So do saints. They are holy role models for us all. So are saints. See, we don't worship a clay statue of Mary any more than the Hebrews worshipped an olivewood statue of cherubim. We use them as visual reminders of the majesty of God--nothing more, nothing less. Before the time of Bibles or access to Bibles, visual portrayals of things like the Incarnation, the Wedding at Cana, the Baptism of Jesus, and the Crucifixion were common in order to tell a story and to remind believers of what they represented. No Christian would look at a catacomb drawing of Mary and worship that image, and neither do we. We use the visible to get in touch with the invisible, and that is all.

7. Has the Catholic Church ever spoke out against those who use these images inappropriately?

The Catechism of the Catholic Church says this about idolatry: "Idolatry is a perversion of man’s innate religious sense. An idolater is someone who ‘transfers his indestructible notion of God to anything other than God’" (CCC 2114).

The Council of Trent in 1566 says that: "worshipping idols and images as God, or believing that they possess any divinity or virtue entitling them to our worship, by praying to, or reposing confidence in them" (374). is gravely sinful and forbidden.

But the Church has also said about images: "Christ our God assured his holy disciples saying, ‘I am with you every day until the consummation of this age.’ . . . To this gracious offer some people paid no attention; being hoodwinked by the treacherous foe they abandoned the true line of reasoning . . . and they failed to distinguish the holy from the profane, asserting that the icons of our Lord and of his saints were no different from the wooden images of satanic idols."

Put simply, know what you are attacking before you attack it. Images have always been part of our Judeo-Christian heritage. They are part of the 'fullness of Truth' given to us by God, not some ready-made idol in which we foresake the Creator for our own creation.

Estrogen Induced Apologetics...

2007-08-09T07:04:00.000-07:00

Over the last week, I have been in dialogue with Executive Pastor Chuck Jamison of 'The Rock' Church in San Diego, California. The dialogue began as a mistake, really. In Googling some information regarding the historical elements of the Church, an article came up which was essentially notes from a talk given by former pastor at 'The Rock' named Kyle Osland. The Title was: True Religion: Catholicism?

The article was embarrassingly inaccurate on several counts regarding the Catholic faith, even going so far as to claim that Catholics believe Paul to be our first Pope! He muffs the concept of infallibility, claiming that this charism means the Pope a) cannot sin and b) cannot make a mistake in matters outside of faith and morals. In short, there were too many errors in that small article than can/should be mentioned here. I wrote a polite but firm letter to Pastor Jamison who politely (and quickly!) informed me that Pastor Osland had moved on to another ecclesial community, apologized for the Paul/Papacy issue and was very gracious. He then honestly put forth some questions about Catholicism, including 'Do non-Catholics go to Heaven in light of the Pope's document clarifying the Nature of the Catholic Church in recent weeks?' and 'Where do I find the doctrine of Purgatory in Scripture?'.

Honest questions, to be sure, and at some point I hope to post the entire exchange. But that's for another day. One thing I noticed is that, in my responses, I proceeded to set up an almost adversarial relationship between us and recall feeling that adversarial demeanor in me as I wrote. Not in a disrespectful or tasteless way, but confrontational to be sure. In showing my responses to my wife, her first reaction was 'wow, 6 pages of berating him followed by one charitable remark in your last paragraph.' OUCH.

As is true in athletics, business, and other disciplines, men just don't get it sometimes. We grunt, we grind, and we win--that is all. We care little for long walks by the beach, bouquets of flowers, or pillow fights. We prefer to get dirty, stay impersonal, and win. A fundamental difference in men and women has become SO apparent to me--men wanna rule, women wanna understand. For men, knowledge is power. For women, knowledge is understanding. My wife's response to Pastor Chuck would've been softer, more encouraging, and desirous of cultivating a bond between them via sincere questions and answers. My response was thorough, to the point, and hopeful that Pastor Chuck would take a few swings so I could prove something to him. In short, my response came from the James White School of Charm. The result? Pastor Jamison didn’t seem all that interested in me and my responses after 2 or 3 exchanges. I’m sure I hadn’t changed his mind and/or heart because I didn’t know what was IN his mind and heart.

This is why we need more women in the field of Apologetics in the Catholic Church. Look at the preeminent apologists in our Church today--Cardinal Dulles, Peter Kreeft, Scott Hahn, Tim Staples, Pat Madrid, Karl Keating, Jimmy Akin, Dave Armstrong....See any pattern forming? They're all GUYS! Where are all the women at? I've seen many a strong Catholic woman shred uneducated (and super-educated, for that matter!) non-Catholics in person, on blogs, and on message boards, so why are they not among the ranks of big time Catholic apologists? Regardless of the reason, we need them. We need you, ladies! You hold the key to apologetics because you hold the ability to cultivate relationships with your interlocutors. You possess compassion to go along with your knowledge and ability to make an argument. You don't scare people off, you invite them into your faith, and quell their fears while making Truth abundantly clear. In short, women are the Church’s secret weapon of evangelism. Sure, our priests are key, our husbands/fathers are important as spiritual priests in the domestic church, but our women can be the link between Mother Church and those who would burn the Catholic Church at the stake in the outside world.

Edit: OK, I think I may have an idea to the 'why no women apologists' question. In perusing a Catholic message board in my attempt to find some information on an atheist-related question, I found this thread, entitled, 'Women Should Not Engage In Apologetics With Men?'

The topic was broached by a woman who apparently had been debating a gentleman (non-Catholic) on the existence and nature of Hell. The woman rightly presented the historical context of the Catholic teaching on Hell from the Early Church Fathers and received this:

your posts here attempting to instruct me and other men goes against the
way the church has traditionally viewed the role of women. Of course there
are many exceptions, as there are with how hell is viewed. But typically, women have not been permitted to instruct men on matters of
doctrine. A survey of traditional interpretations of 1 Corinthians
14:34-35 -- Catholic and Protestant -- may surprise you. So, seeking to
unswervingly follow the traditional majority through time may help you maintain your view on hell, but in the process, it would make you unable to share your views with us. I don't want that to happen!)

Huh? Now I don't want to get off on a rant here but rule number ONE of engaging in apologetics is PLAY FAIR. The pomposity, ignorance of history (biblical and church history), and outright audacity of someone to claim that an argument is incorrect because a woman is making it blows me away. But it does give me insight into the burden that women can encounter in the field of
apologetics or other disciplines. I guess it's not all that different from other
professional fields. The prooftext that this bozo is referring to is 1Corinthians 14:34:

"women should keep silent in the churches, for they are not allowed to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says. But if they want to learn anything, they should ask their husbands at home. For it is improper for a woman to speak in the church."
The bolded part actually means something, it's not there as some esoteric verbiage. Catholic teaching on this verse is reflected in the General
Instruction of the Roman Missal as well as in Canon Law--only a priest may instruct in doctrine in Church. Hint: it's called a 'homily'. Further, Canon 212 states about ALL Catholics:
"According to the knowledge, competence, and prestige which they possess, they have the right and even at times the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church and
to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful, without prejudice to the integrity of faith and morals, with reverence to their pastors, and attentive to common advantage and the dignity of persons. "
In other words, we all, via our dignity as followers of Christ through our Baptism, have a duty to speak up when not in Church! Sounds to me like this guy just didn't want to answer or just couldn't answer. Finally, you don't have to be a Historical Theologian to look at the Church and see that women have taught men from the beginning. The Catholic Church has 3 Doctors of The Church who just happen to be women! All 3 are canonized saints! Probably the most popular theological or spiritual work during the 20th century was the Diary of Saint Therese. Mary appeared at Fatima, Guadalupe, and other places, and instructed us all (men and women). RCIA and Catechism classes are filled with women teachers!
Men, check your egos at the door. If you get schooled by a woman, t's no different than being schooled by a man. If it stings more, God's probably scraping away that chauvinistic inner-idiot.

Thoughts On Abortion In America, Part 2

2007-07-26T08:43:00.000-07:00

5. It is better to endure evil/pain than to inflict it. This is the basis of my thoughts regarding the 'hard cases'. Chesterton once wrote that 'moral complexities are only difficult for those who have no principles.' I tend to agree. Rationalization, convenience, and selfishness cloud what really ought to be a fairly simple moral dilemma of abortion. Hard cases will be brought up to try to prove that the entire abortion on demand position is valid. This is emotional but it is not really true.

The first hard case to look at is the one that says, 'No woman should be forced to take care of a handicapped (physically or mentally) child.' Another related argument says, 'It's actually better if that child never lives rather than live a life of pain, suffering and non-achievement.'

Here's the problem with these kinds of arguments. Neither of these arguments prove that abortion should be 'on demand' as it currently has been in America. If anything, it proves that ONLY those cases should be eligible for access to abortion, nothing more, and CERTAINLY not for 'any reason deemed fit'.

What if the fetus is fully human? We keep coming back to this question! See, if the fetus is fully human, then these cases in which a handicapped unborn child could be deliberately killed is really no different from taking an already born handicapped child (or adult, really) and deliberately killing it. We already know that this would be utterly criminal. Adults with handicaps are still persons protected from murder. If a fetus were to be fully human, then it would be just a smaller (and differentlylocated) version of that adult. So is all human life afforded equal protection and worth or not? If it is, and the fetus is detrmined to be fully human, then abortion is a criminal violation of that right to life.

6. Isn't it a bit presumptuous to say that other human beings are better off not existing? I've heard this from more than a few people and can only shake my head at the audacity of that sentiment. Couched in that argument is that a handicapped person cannot or will not live a meaningful or happy life. Many doctors, including C. Everett Koop, who worked with severely handicapped infants and was a pediatric surgeon, have suggested that, 'it has been my constant experience that disability and unhappiness do not necessarily go together.'

Look, bad things happen to innocent people. It's the way of the world. Having a handicapped or afflicted child is usually a pretty heavy burden for parent and child alike. But if the fetus is fully human, then aleviating its pain by destroying it would be akin to the mercy killings of Jack Kevorkian. Again, it is better to endure pain than to inflict it. It's not okay to inflict pain or harm on another person to get rid of your own.

Anyone who's ever visited a pediatric AIDS unit, cancer center, or hospice knows that these children are not without worth or contribution to the world. Society is better for having known them beacuse it gets a chance to live out the virtues it claims to hold dear--compassion, love, charity, and morality. People like Mother Angelica, Mother Teresa, Pope John Paul II, Padre Pio and others will be the first to tell you that they obtained virtue during their lives of suffering. Straight up--suffering is a spiritual exercise. It's like pumping iron with God himself. And lest we forget, there are more than a few documented cases of afflictions being healed, even in the womb. Had those cases been aborted, the injustice would not have been small.

What do you think handicapped people would say about this argument? Many would be offended at the idea that they are miserable or unable to contribute to society. I wonder if ANY handicapped organizations have gone on record as supporting abortion for the reason of the mother having a handicapped child. I doubt it. I do know that not a one has supported physician assisted suicide. The reason is that they don't believe that a human loses their right to life because they have a deformity or mental handicap.

But what about the REALLY extreme cases? The argument here is that some fetuses are SO genetically abnormal that they're not really human. For example, a fetus that is missing a brain, spinal cord, etc. I guess my limited brain would say that this would still be 'human'. It surely isn't an elephant, dog, or anteater. It originated as a human and ceased to develop but really cannot 'change' from human to non-human. Just because it's damaged doesn't mean it's not still essentially human.

Thoughts On Abortion In America

2007-07-25T15:23:00.000-07:00

1. First and foremost, up until this year when the partial birth abortion ban was upheld, abortion on demand was available to every woman in America. This came as a surprise to me but here’s the story. The common assertion from abortion advocates that Roe vs. Wade only allowed abortions up to 24 weeks, and after that time period, only when the life of the mother was in jeopardy. In fact, this is false but if you read the mainstream media, you’d never know this. The current law, in truth, doesn’t restrict anything. A woman can obtain an abortion for any reason that she or her doctor determines to be adequate during the entire term of pregnancy.

Roe v Wade ruled that a state has no right to restrict abortion for the first 6 months of pregnancy. So basically a woman could abort for ANY reason she deems valid during this time—unplanned pregnancy, wrong gender, inconvenience, rape, or incest. In months 7-9, the state has a right, but not an obligation to restrict abortion to cases in which the mother’s health is jeopardized. But here’s the rub. The definition of health was determined to be ‘in light of all factors—physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age.’

I think we’d all agree that pregnancy definitely has an effect on every woman’s emotional situation, family situation, and psychological situation as well as her physical condition. So if a woman can convince her doctor (or the doctor convince his/her patient) that she needs an abortion to protect her ‘emotional health’ or ‘psychological health’, the law allows this up until the time of birth. The restrictions that are supposedly in place are not really restrictions at all. Francis Beckwith put it this way: In the first six months of pregnancy a woman can have an abortion for no reason, but in the last three months she can have it for ANY reason. That, my friends, is abortion on demand and that is the situation in which we find ourselves in America.

2. NOW, Planned Parenthood, and NARAL consistently argue that only 1% of all abortions occur in the 3rd trimester (months 7-9). So what? The fact that the unborn child is left unprotected is still a flaw in the law, regardless of how many are killed at that stage. Considering that 1.5 million abortions are performed per year in America, 1% would be 15,000 children who were done away with, or about 41 per day. Sorry, but that is no insignificant number.

3. Coathangers anyone? Anyone that can remember the 80’s abortion debate in America will remember the signs that pro-abortion backers walked around with—a picture of a coat hanger. The point of the sign was to represent the large numbers of women that were killed or maimed by illegal abortions or by self-administered abortions in which they presumably used a coat hanger for the job when abortion was illegal. So the arguments was that if abortion was made illegal, that women will resort to this practice again. A very strong rhetorical and emotional argument, but is it really a valid point?

The first problem with this argument is that it flatly assumes that the fetus inside the woman’s body is not a human person. If it IS fully human, then this argument basically says that because people die or are harmed (the mom) in the process of killing other people (the fetus), that the state should make it safe for them to do this. Reasonable people would say something like ‘restricting abortion probably does sometimes have horrible side effects but that doesn’t make the restrictions OK since murder is wrong regardless in every case.’ If the fetus is fully human, then the bottom line is that the effects of not having access is less grave than deliberately killing an innocent human. Period.

So is the argument true or false? Will women flock to back alleys and lounge bathrooms in order to obtain an abortion in the case that it is restricted or banned altogether? Before Roe v Wade, pro choice advocates were on record as claiming that over a million women every year obtained illegal abortions with coat hangers in back alleys, resulting in thousands of deaths. Here’s the problem. One of those advocates, the architect of the pro-choice movement and an abortion provider himself, now admits that his movement DELIBERATELY made up those numbers! Nathanson says, ‘I confess that the figures (up to 10,000 deaths from illegal abortions)were totally false. The overriding concern was to get the laws eliminated, anything which had to be done was permissible.’ (Aborting America by Bernard Nathanson, 1979)

Furthermore, the claims of about 1 million illegal abortions being performed during years of restriction/ban are false as well! The average/mean over an 11 year period between 1950 and 1961 was about 98,000. (New Perspectives on Human Abortion, 1981, Thomas Hilgers)

And what about those ‘back alley butchers’? Were they, in fact, the medieval blood merchants that we hear they were? Funny, but the President of Planned Parenthood, in 1960, cited Dr. Kinsey’s findings that in 1958 87% of all illegal abortions were performed by licensed physicians in good standing. She herself suggested that ‘90% of all illegal abortions are presently done by physicians.’ (American Journal of Health, July 1960, Mary Calderone) So if you think about it, the ones that were providing the illegal abortions before Roe (the so-called back alley butchers) probably became the present day abortion providers. I’m guessing they were just as safe and careful before Roe as they are now.

4. The pro-abortion argument which claims that the woman or family will be unduly harmed if they cannot access an abortion is confused. Of course, if the fetus is fully human, then this will guide the assessment of whether abortion, in these or any other cases, is a real solution to the problem or not. There’s a difference between ‘solving a problem’ and ‘eliminating a problem’. An example that I’ve seen is that one can eliminate the problem of poverty by executing all poor people but this is not really a solution to the problem of poverty for obvious reasons—exterminating people isn’t moral. It’d be like solving the problem of a cut on someone’s arm by amputating the arm. That’s just not a real solution. If the fetus is fully human, then an abortion would be akin to eliminating my pulled calf muscle by cutting off my leg. Hardship doesn’t justify homicide.

But what about the hard cases? Say a woman has had a test that reveals a Downs Syndrome baby or handicapped baby? Well, do the hard cases really support the pro abortion position? Let’s grant for a moment that the hard cases were legitimately moral reasons. The law of the land would STILL be flawed because it currently asserts abortion as a fundamental right that can be exercised for ANY reason and at just about ANY time. So abortion would be justified ONLY in those hard cases and not as it applies today. Still, those hard cases do not justify abortion…

Relics: Creepy Coolness

2007-02-13T13:45:00.000-08:00

Tomorrow, the arm bone of St. Jude, one of the original 12 apostles, will be at St. Francis Cathedral Basillica for all to view. I'm geeked. 20 years ago, I'd probably have gone along just to see something as creepy as a 2000 year old arm bone. Tomorrow, I'm going because of this reason but also much more. Being a history buff, I find very few things that are more 'historical' than the remains of a man who walked, talked, ate, and preached with Jesus Christ. St. Jude is the patron of lost causes--a powerful intercessor--and asking him to pray for a few of those causes is what i've got in mind. This brings me to the reason I'm writing--to put the Catholic tradition of venerating relics in its proper perspective and to explain the teaching in the simplest manner I can.

1. Relics are not magic. As such, the Catholic Church puts no stock in the superstition that relics are magical or possess the ability to cure/heal of themselves. All the Church says is that, according to Scripture, they have been, and can be an occasion or instrument through which God performs miracles. In fact, the Council of Trent said that the bodies of the holy martyrs and saints are to be venerated because 'many benefits are bestowed upon men by God through these bodies.'

2. Relics are instruments of miracles in Scripture. In Exodus 13, we see that the Israelites venerated the bones of Joseph. In 4 Kings, we see the bones of Elisha the prophet actually revive a man simply by touching him. In the New Testament, we see many being healed by touching not the Lord Himself, but the hem of his garment. My favorite is in Acts 15 where Peter's shadow cures the sick as did the handkerchiefs of the apostle Paul in Acts 19. But the Church teaches that ALL these things occurred because of and only by God's power. Finally, consider how Christ's dead body was treated after being removed from the cross. Customary practice was to leave the body to be taken down by the Romans. Instead, many people donated a tomb, spices, and other things including anointing His body and even visiting the tomb regularly.

3. The veneration of relics is a historic tradition of the Church. As far back as the 2nd century, we see accounts of this practice. Polycarp, one who sat at the feet of one of the original 12, was burned at the stake. His followers, in the extra biblical book called the Martyrdom of Polycarp (considered by many to be inspired but didn't make the final cut), relay that they 'took up his bones, which were more valuable than precious stones and finer than refined gold'. They placed Polycarp's bones in a suitable place and assembled regularly there to celebrate the anniversary of his martyrdom. One anti-Catholic historian, Adolph Harnack, admits that NO doctor of the Church ever restricted veneration of relics but rather openly practiced it.

4. The veneration of relics is not worship, adoration, or prayer. Catholics do not pray to a piece of bone. We do not ask the head of a deceased martyr to pray for us. Veneration entails honor and nothing more, much like looking on a picture of a dearly beloved family member who has died to remember his/her place in our family. As St. Jerome explains, "We do not worship, we do not adore, we do not bow down before the creature rather than to the Creator, but we venerate the relics of the martyrs in order the better to adore Him whose martyrs they are." In short, veneration of relics is nothing more than honoring God's creation. A good analogy is that of an artist. Were you to walk into a room filled with Picasso's art and Pablo Picasso is sitting at a table in that room, would you approach him and admire his person or would you praise his work? Honoring God's creation honors He who created it.

5. The Church takes great effort in attempting to verify their authenticity. Still, the Church does not declare any relic as authentic. And really, why should it? The veneration, after all, is aimed at the person, not the relic itself. Some relics are beyond doubt, others are probable, and others less so.

6. Veneration is a matter of the heart. Catholics are accused by many of worshipping relics or believing they possess magic that they can unleash to aid themselves. This would require looking into the heart of the Catholic which, last time I checked, could only be done by God. To accuse is to assume the role of God in determining that the little old lady praying in front of the incorrupt body of St. Bernadette is assigning worship to it. In short, this is an unfair accusation. Only the 'venerator' and God know for sure. And as such, those who would judge a person for idolatry ought reconsider.

St. Jude, patron of lost causes, pray for us.

HOW DOES ONE RECEIVE SALVATION, JUSTIFICATION, NEW BIRTH, AND ETERNAL LIFE ACCORDING TO THE BIBLE?

2007-01-03T07:19:00.000-08:00

The two formal principles of the Protestant Reformation are that (1) Scripture ALONE is the sole rule of faith for followers of Christ (Sola Scriptura) and (2) that man is saved by faith ALONE (Sola Fide). What I don’t understand is that the ‘Scriptura’ should prove the ‘Fide’—but it just doesn’t. This is a fundamental reason that I determined that if I was to be Christian, there was no option available to me but Catholicism.

What Does the Book Say?

Man receives salvation, justification, new birth (being born again), and eternal life by:

*Grace (Acts 15:11; Ephesians 2:8)
*Believing in Christ (J. 3;16; Acts 16:31)
*Baptism (John 3:5; Acts 2:38; 22:16; 1 Peter 3:21; Titus 3:5)
*Repentance (Acts 2:38; 2 Peter 3:9)
*By eating his flesh and his blood (John 6:50-66)
*The work of the Spirit (John 3:5; 2 Corinthians 3:6)
*Works (Romans 2:6,7; James 2:21, 24-25)
*By declaring with our mouth (Luke 12:8; Romans 10:9)
*By his blood (Romans 5:9; Hebrews 9:22)
*By his righteousness ( Romans 5:17; 2 Peter 1:1)
*By coming to know Truth (1 Timothy 2:4; Hebrews 10:26)
*By his cross (Ephesians 2:16; Colossians 2:14)
*By childbearing (1 Tim. 2:15)--women only...

How Protestant reformers squeezed all these things into ‘faith alone’ is beyond me. The Catholic Church believes we are saved by grace alone as a free gift of God. As you can see, each of the above listed elements can be, and are, channels of grace for Christians and so easily fit into Catholic teaching on how we are saved. Can we cut any one of these elements out of the list and declare that it ALONE is the means of salvation? Can we be saved without faith? Without God’s grace? Without repentance? Without baptism? Without the Spirit? Of course not. They are ALL involved in salvation (and entry into the Church). To exclude any is to turn away from the fullness of Christ’s teaching and the fullness of His salvation. The Protestant belief reminds me of a surgeon who saves a patient’s limb but ignores the internal injuries and cardiac arrest of the patient and declares the surgery successful.

Furthermore, a decisive factor in my remaining Catholic and turning to Mother Church with all that I had, was that it’s a ‘both/and’ Church and not an ‘either/or’ proposition. I understood Jesus’ mission to bring people to Him AND His Church whereas the lack of Protestant unity and inability to maintain a coherent ‘church’ for any prolonged period of time, promulgates a circumstance of only bringing people to Christ as we perceive him in Scripture. Currently, there are over 30,000 different perceptions of him, as evidenced by the 30,000+ Protestant denominations in existence. But Protestantism is inherently incapable of bringing anyone to Christ’s Church because its very definition of ‘church’ is some invisibly aligned entity in which it is OK to disagree with itself on fundamental Christian issues of salvation.

The Catholic Church, on the other hand, brings us to Christ AND His Church. St. Paul called the Church ‘the body of Christ’ (1 Corinthians 2:12) and calls Jesus the Head (Ephesians 4:15). While the Protestant churches ‘decapitate’ Christ from his body, the Catholic Church cannot and does not. If it is to bring people to Christ, it must be to the WHOLE Christ, which means bringing them to his Church, his body. The Catholic faith brings people to the King AND His Kingdom.

In like manner, the Catholic faith teaches that all the above listed elements are necessary for salvation precisely because they are channels of grace for the Christian. Bear in mind that the above is not an exhaustive list of elements provided by Christ as channels of grace. The Catholic sacraments are all found in Scripture and were instituted by Christ, not by man made tradition. This is why sacraments are so integral to God’s economy of salvation. They are oaths/covenants with Christ in which we give Him our selves and He makes what was humanly impossible (saving ourselves) possible through His divine grace.

Yeah But, Have You Seen The Problems Of The Catholic Church?

Coming into the Catholic faith anew from 20+ years of wandering through secularism and being my own pope, I did indeed see the shortcomings of the Church. How could these lukewarm Catholics, who were every bit as sinful as the un-churched, be who they said they were? Catechesis was (and still is in many places) inadequate and heterodox. Every news show had stories of sinful and criminal priests. Bishops were weak and unwilling to defend Christ’s Church or their own authority. Church goers were lazy, ignorant, and only willing to obey Church laws they wanted to follow. Bible knowledge was embarrassingly inadequate and it showed in the numbers of Catholics that were leaving to become Protestant, Jehovah’s Witness, or Mormon.

Consider this. Had we lived in Old Testament times, they would’ve had the same problems. God defined his people as those who were under his appointed kings, prophets, and priests. They all had to be circumcised, had to follow the Law, and celebrate all the ceremonies. God had given them a Temple, Scriptures, and rules for life and worship. But many of the priests were cheats, many of the kings were diabolical and disobedient, and the even some prophets were self-serving! The people worshiped false gods, lived sinfully, and violated their covenant with God over and over.

The problems of the Old Testament Jewish church didn’t negate the Jews’ position as God’s first born or their covenant with God. They sure didn’t look like our preconception of God’s people—disobedient, stubborn, greedy, and immoral. But interestingly, the prophets, seeing the utter inadequacy and immorality of the Israelites, never said, ‘Leave this immoral people and create a Reformed Israel.’ Instead, they suffered trying to keep the people unified while crying out for repentance.

The Catholic Church is the fulfillment of the Jewish Church. It is the New Jerusalem and partakes of the new and everlasting covenant with God. She is the Bride of Christ, according to Scripture. And as Jesus taught, there is only ONE Bridegroom and ONE Bride. Leaving the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church to become a mistress of Christ is utterly unscriptural, not historical, and contrary to reason. When our families are troubled, the last thing God wants us to do is walk away from it and begin a new family. God is faithful to his Bride and to his family, so why aren’t we?

If we prayed for our priests, bishops, and laity to God as much as we complain, ignore, and defy them, we'd have virtuous and strong leaders. Instead, we take the easy way out by picking and choosing what we will follow and what we will not follow; or we outright abandon them, and God's one, holy, and apostolic church just when she needs us most.

IS 2 TIMOTHY 3:14-17 AN ADEQUATE PROOF TEXT FOR BELIEF IN THE BIBLE ALONE AS OUR SOLE RULE OF FAITH?

2006-12-12T13:29:00.000-08:00

Here are the verses from the RSV:

But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

Here is the argument that Protestants make, as I understand it:

The verses above say that Scriptures provide us the wisdom for salvation, and that Scripture is inspired by God. This is a place where Paul would’ve/could’ve, had he wanted to clarify, told us that something OTHER than Scripture existed on an equal plane to provide us with the wisdom of salvation. He doesn’t go on to mention Tradition, nor does he even say Tradition is inspired of God, let alone say it’s useful to us for salvation. We therefore assume that Scripture is the only thing that is inspired by God that he gives us and the only infallible rule of faith for followers of Christ. Anything else that would be added to the mix must be shown to be inspired of God and that without it, Christians cannot be equipped to undertake all these tasks.

Here is my response:

First, let me frame the argument like this. The above argument affirms that the Scriptures teach that they are the sole infallible rule of faith for Christians. Here’s what’s lacking—evidence to back up the claim AND proof that every other claim is false. For if Scripture is the SOLE rule, and these verses teach this, they should also EXCLUDE any other possible rule of faith.

Second, let’s make clear that this argument Protestants make is an argument from silence. In other words, since no other possible rule of faith is listed in these verses, they don’t exist. Protestants draw the conclusion that since no other possible rule of faith is mentioned here, that no such alternative exists that would qualify as a rule of faith. Here’s the problem with that: 1 Thessalonians 2:13-15 and 2 Thessalonians 2:15 (here are the verses)

And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers. For you, brethren, became imitators of the churches of God in Christ Jesus which are in Judea; for you suffered the same things from your own countrymen as they did from the Jews, who killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove us out, and displease God and oppose all men by hindering us from speaking to the Gentiles that they may be saved -- so as always to fill up the measure of their sins. But God's wrath has come upon them at last!

Here, St. Paul identifies something other than written Scripture as the Word of God—his own oral testimony. St. Paul’s gospel and teachings did not become inspired only once he wrote them down. On the contrary, they were binding when he said them, when he communicated them orally to his followers and no later. If Paul says ‘Baptism is required for salvation.’, those words become binding when he says them, not when he writes them down 2 years, 2 months, or even 2 minutes later. The teaching of the Apostles, in fact, was the rule of faith before Scripture even existed. Think of it this way—Thomas the Apostle created a Christian community in India that exists to this day even though he didn’t write a word of Scripture. How can this be? Because his WORDS, spoken from his own mouth, were the rule of faith on which the Indian Church was built.

But we are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God chose you from the beginning to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth. To this he called you through our gospel, so that you may obtain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.

In the context of these verses, we see the gospel being mentioned. Surely the gospel was necessary for salvation, right? Standing firm in the gospel is how one is saved. What is that gospel made up of? Paul tells us it’s made up of the traditions he passed onto them, by word of mouth (spoken) or by letter (epistle). If we do not stand firm in these traditions, which make up the gospel Paul preached, we cannot be saved. Paul does not segregate, in any order of importance, written versus oral teaching but puts them on par with each other. No ‘expiration date’ for oral Tradition or its binding effect is given in Scripture so the potential argument that oral Tradition was only useful until the Bible was compiled and defined is wishful thinking at best.

But now, let’s look at the proof text from 2 Timothy since this is the single best possible verse to hang sola scriptura on…

First, let’s address the overriding idea that this verse somehow proves ‘Scripture is all you need.’ I appeal to an honest and truthful reading of the text—does it really say ‘Scripture ALONE’? Paul includes ALL Scripture in his statement but does not explicitly limit his statement to Scripture ALONE. In fact, had Paul wanted to convey that Scripture, and ONLY Scripture is sufficient or all that is needed, he could’ve said this, using words that plainly existed in Greek to leave no doubt—words like ‘arketos’ (translated as ‘sufficient’ in 3 separate places in Scripture). Instead, he uses ‘ophelimos’ which translates to ‘profitable’ or ‘useful’. Honesty demands that we acknowledge the difference between ‘sufficient’ and ‘profitable’ or ‘useful’. As one scholar puts it: A hammer is profitable or useful for driving nails, but that does not mean that nails can be driven ONLY by hammers. Nail guns and other objects do the job as well, no?

Second, let’s address the second part of the verse, ‘the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.’ The Greek word used for ‘complete’ is ‘artios’. The Greek word used here for ‘equipped’ is ‘exartizo’. From these words, Protestants have interpreted the word ‘sufficient’, in effect, changing the meaning of the words to fit their preconceived idea that they wish to convey. Here are the problems with this:

1. Even the King James Version, along with all the published Protestant Bible versions, states that ‘sufficient’ is NOT the correct translation of even ONE of the two terms.

2. The result of using this principle of exegesis consistently—that is, throughout Scripture—creates some absurdities. The principle Protestants use to exegete this passage is: ‘If X makes you complete then you don’t need anything other than X.’ If we apply this principle to James 1:4, for example, which states, ‘And let steadfastness have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing.’, we would have to say that we do not need anything other than steadfastness to be complete. Granted, the Greek word used here ‘teleios’ and ‘holokleros’ are different but, alas, they’re STRONGER words than the ones used in Paul’s epistle!

3. The two terms in the verse modify the man of God, not Scripture. It says that Scripture helps make the man of God complete and equipped, not that Scripture itself is complete and equipped. In the New Testament, the ‘man of God’ is a clergyman (not a lay man)—one appointed, prepared, and approved by apostolic authority. The text presupposes a knowledge that the man of God already has before he even approaches Scripture.

4. Let’s assume I am going to build a home. I purchase every single material and tool I’ll require to build that home, thereby making myself fully equipped and complete in everything I’ll need to build that home. I then lay every tool and material on the piece of land I’m going to build on. I may be fully equipped but don’t know how the materials fit together to make a house. Those materials I’ve bought, then, are not ‘sufficient’ to complete the work of building my home. Applied to Scripture, we see that it is MATERIALLY SUFFICIENT but not FORMALLY SUFFICIENT for Christians. Every material is present in Scripture for our salvation but nowhere did God reveal that we alone, apart from a teaching authority, can put those materials into a complete salvation. Just take a look at the 30,000 Protestant divisions and their diametrically opposed appeals to Scripture for their traditions.

Third, in the Protestant vain, let’s compare the verse with others like it in Scripture. In 2 Corinthians 9:8, we see:

And God is able to make all grace abound to you, so that in all things at all times, having all that you need, you will abound in every good work.

‘Every good work’ is the same one used in 2 Timothy but here it’s combined with the phrase ‘all that you need’—i.e., ‘sufficient’. The Greek word here is ‘autarkeia’. It’s defined as a ‘perfect state, where no help or support is needed’. To make a case for Scripture ALONE, we should see this kind of language describing Scripture. Yet we see that the only thing that is ‘all sufficient’ is God’s grace.

In 2 Timothy 2:21, we see:

If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honor, sanctified, and meet for the master’s use and prepared unto every good work.

Here Paul is talking about the things we have to purge ourselves of which are unworthy. He says if we do this, we are prepared to every good work. Does that mean that ALL we have to do is purge ourselves of these things? Of course that’s not what Paul is saying. We’re told by Paul not just to avoid sin but to have a faith working in love.

In Titus 3:1, we see:

Put them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers, to obey magistrates, to be ready for every good work.

Using the exegetical principle set forth by Protestants in 2 Timothy 3:14-17, mere subjection to principalities and powers is all we need in order to perform every good work. Clearly this is not reasonable or supported by the whole of Scripture. The only place we see something mentioned as ‘all sufficient’ to equip us unto every good work is when Paul names God’s grace—nothing more and nothing less.

The word ‘ophelimos’ is used by St. Paul 3 times—1 Tim 4:8, Titus 3:8, and 2 Tim 3:14-17. Each time it is used, we see St. Paul saying that what he mentions is profitable in various respects. What we do NOT see is St. Paul laying down a hard and fast rule that invokes ‘all sufficiency’ or ‘to the exclusion of everything else’.

In reading and re-reading 2 Timothy 3:4-17, I find the real meaning of the passage a few verses back:

Now you have observed my teaching, my conduct, my aim in life, my faith, my patience, my love, my steadfastness, my persecutions, my sufferings, what befell me at Antioch, at Ico'nium, and at Lystra, what persecutions I endured; yet from them all the Lord rescued me. Indeed all who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted, while evil men and impostors will go on from bad to worse, deceivers and deceived. But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it (v 10-14)

Paul is preparing a ‘man of God’ in Timothy. He’s doing this by helping him understand how to not be deceived or deceive. Paul says that Timothy can trust in the gospel because of who he learned it from. Timothy learned the gospel from the mouth of Paul (oral Tradition) and from the written Scripture—namely the Old Testament which he knew from his infancy. Paul, then, is telling Timothy that the Old Testament—ALL of it—is inspired by God, considering that the New Testament did not exist yet.

In summary, sola scriptura or ‘the Bible ALONE’ teaches that Scripture is clear enough to understand 2 Timothy 3:14-17 as a proof of sola scriptura. The preceding arguments, along with the 30,000 differing Protestant interpretations of Scripture, should be sufficient (pun intended) to call this idea into doubt. Approaching this verse without preconceptions should render implausible the tradition that the Bible alone is/should be our sole rule of faith. The only way to fit the square peg of this verse into the round hole of ‘Bible Alone’ is to go beyond the written word and the reasonable intention of the text and its writer.

Good Read About Contraception And Christianity

2006-12-12T13:02:00.000-08:00

This is a reprint of one of my favorite articles regarding contraception, Christianity, and culture. Father Hardon is one of the sharpest tools in the box but he manages to break this down into relatively simple terms. Many thanks to Catholic Culture Website.

Contraception:Fatal to the Faith and to Eternal Life
by John A. Hardon, S.J.

On the thirtieth anniversary of Humanae Vitae, it seems only proper to identify what contraception really is. It is at once fatal to the true faith and to the eternal life which our faith promises.
You might say this piece will be two articles in one. First we shall see how the practice of contraception inevitably leads to the loss of the true faith. Then we shall look at how contraception leads to eternal death.

Contraception Fatal to the Faith

This must seem like a strange title, “Contraception—Fatal to the Faith.” What does the title mean? Does it mean that to believe in contraception is contrary to the faith? Or does it mean that Christian believers may not practice contraception? Or does it mean that those who practice contraception are in danger of losing their faith?

What do we mean by the title and what is the thesis of this presentation? We mean that professed Catholics who practice contraception either give up the practice of contraception or they give up their Catholic faith.

Needless to say, this is a startling statement that many would violently disagree with. They will point out the widespread practice of contraception among many—some would say the majority of professed Catholics in a country like the United States. They will quote from numerous professedly Catholic moral theologians openly defending contraception. They will give you the pronouncements of whole conferences of bishops who claim that contraception is really a matter of conscience.

Those who sincerely believe that contraception is morally permissible may not be told they are doing wrong; they may not be barred from receiving Holy Communion; in fact, they need not even have to confess the practice of contraception when they go to confession.

We return to where we began, to make clear what we are saying. We affirm in this article that the deliberate practice of contraception between husband and wife is objectively a mortal sin. Those who persist in its practice are acting contrary to the explicit teaching of the Roman Catholic Church. They may protest that they are Catholic. They may profess to be Catholics. But their conduct belies their profession.

Someone may object that we are living in a contraceptive society. Moreover, the silence of so many bishops and the overt teaching of so many nominally Catholic moralists defending contraception forbids our saying that contraception and the Catholic faith are incompatible. In the light of all the foregoing, let me address myself to the following topics which collectively prove the underlying thesis of this article.

• The Catholic Church teaches infallible doctrine, both in faith and morals.
• This infallible teaching is done by the Church’s extraordinary and by her ordinary universal authority or magisterium.
• The grave sinfulness of contraception is taught infallibly by the Church’s ordinary universal teaching authority.
• Therefore, those who defend contraception forfeit their claim to being professed Catholics.
• Consequently, those who persist in their defense of contraception, deprive themselves of the divine graces which are reserved to bona fide members of the Roman Catholic Church.

The Church Teaches Infallibly On Faith And Morals

There is some value in explaining that the Church’s infallibility covers not only doctrines that are to be believed, like Christ’s divinity or His Real Presence in the Eucharist. No, the Church also, and with emphasis, also teaches infallibly what the followers of Christ are to do.

In His final commission to the Apostles, Jesus told them to teach all nations, “to observe all that I have commanded you.”To mention just one infallible teaching in the moral order: the permanence of the marriage bond. Emphatically, the Church’s irreversible doctrines include truths that we are obliged to believe. But they also include precepts that we are universally bound to obey.

This deserves to be emphasized. Why? Because there are nominally Catholic writers who are claiming that the Church’s gift of infallibility extends only to her teaching of the faith. It does not, so the claim goes, include grave moral obligations like the prohibition of adultery, sodomy or contraception. That is not true.

Two Forms of Infallible Teaching

What are the two ways in which the Church teaches infallibly? She does so whenever the Pope solemnly defines a dogma of the faith, as when in 1950 Pope Pius XII declared that Our Lady was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.

But the Church also teaches infallibly whenever her bishops, united with the Pope, proclaim that something is to be accepted by all the faithful. Thus abortion was condemned as murder by the Catholic hierarchy, under the Pope, already in the first century of the Christian era—and ever since.

It is therefore infallibly true that abortion is a crime of willful homicide. So, too, the grave sinfulness of homosexuality is infallible Catholic teaching.

Infallibly True That Contraception Is a Mortal Sin

We return to where we began. Is it infallible Catholic doctrine that contraception is a mortal sin? Yes!

How do we know? We know this from the twenty centuries of the Catholic Church’s teaching. Already in the first century, those who professed the Catholic Faith did not practice either contraception or abortion, which were commonly linked together.

The people of the pagan Roman Empire into which they were born universally practiced:
• Abortion
• Contraception
• Infanticide
• Cohabitation of one man with either several legal wives, or with a plurality of concubines.

In contrast with this moral promiscuity, Christians practiced monogamy, one man with one woman; they did not use drugs to prevent conception; they did not kill the newborn children whom they did not want to live; they did not practice sodomy or prostitution; and for the Christian, adultery and fornication were grave sins that might require several years of penitential expiation.

What do we call the Church’s unbroken tradition in forbidding contraception? We call it her ordinary universal magisterium or teaching authority. This has always been considered a proof of infallibility, or from another perspective, irreversibility.What do these two terms mean? Infallibility means that God protects the Church from error in her 2000 years of teaching that contraception is a grave sin against God. Irreversibility means that this teaching will never be reversed. Contraception will remain a grave sin until the end of time.

To Defend Contraception Forfeits the Catholic Faith

As Christianity expanded, the inevitable happened. Once professed Christians lapsed into their former paganism.We read in the first three centuries about the thousands of Christians who chose to be thrown to the lions, or beheaded, or crucified—rather than conform to the pagan immorality that was so prevalent in the culture in which they lived.

It is possible to misunderstand the Age of Martyrs of the first three centuries of the Christian era. We are liable to associate professing the Christian faith by refusing to drop a grain of incense before a statue of one of the pagan gods. No, the issue was much deeper and more serious. To be a Christian meant to refuse to conform to the pagan morality of those who did not believe in Christ. To be a Christian meant to reject the pagan immorality of the contemporary world—at the heart of which was the practice of contraception.

The Situation in the Modern World

Contraception as a general practice is a recent innovation in the western nominally Christian society.Its rise is partly explained by the medical discovery of drugs which either prevent conception, or which destroy the unborn child in its mother’s womb. But the rise of contraception is mainly the result of a widespread propaganda by women like Margaret Sanger and the powerful forces of population control.

What have been the consequences of this return to prechristian paganism which is now “the law of the land” in once Christian nations like the United States? The consequences are inevitable. The once solitary defender of the sanctity of marital relations is now on trial for the profession of its Catholic faith.In 1968, when Pope Paul VI published Humanae Vitae, the episcopal conferences of one country after another met in solemn session to pass judgment on the teachings of the Vicar of Christ.

Bishops in what we call the “Third World Countries” stood firmly behind the Pope’s teaching. But the bishops of so-called developed countries, like the United States, or Canada, or France, or Germany, or Austria, or Scandinavia issued long documents that, to put it mildly, compromised the teachings of the Vicar of Christ.

What followed was as inevitable as night follows day. Once firmly believing Catholics became confused, or bewildered, or simply uncertain about the grave moral evil of contraception. The spectacle of broken families, broken homes, divorce and annulments, abortion and the mania of homosexuality—all of this has its roots in the acceptance of contraception on a wide scale in what only two generations ago was a professed Catholic population.

Contraception Fatal to the Faith

We come back to where we started—by claiming that contraception is fatal to the Catholic Faith.

By divine ordinance, those who call themselves Catholic must subscribe to the moral teachings of the Catholic Church of which the Bishop of Rome is the visible head.

This Catholic Church now stands alone in the world as the one universal authority which condemns contraception as contrary to the will of God.

Within the Catholic ranks has arisen an army of dissidents who speak and write in defense of contraception. The sex-preoccupied Andrew Greeley of Chicago recently devoted a whole chapter of a book entitled, “That damned encyclical,” referring to Humanae Vitae. This priest remains in good standing in ecclesiastical circles.

When the present Holy Father made his first pilgrimage as Pope to the United States, he pleaded in Chicago with the American bishops to do something over the scandal of so many Catholics on Sundays going to Holy Communion and so few going to confession.

All the evidence indicates that the core issue at stake is contraception. If contraception is not a grave sin, well then what is? And why go to confession if I am still in God’s friendship although practicing contraception.

What is the new conclusion? That the single, principal cause for the breakdown of the Catholic faith in materially overdeveloped countries like ours has been contraception.

St. James tells us that faith without good works is dead. What good is it to give verbal profession of the Catholic faith, and then behave like a pagan in marital morality?

Recommendations

The single most crucial need to stem this hemorrhage from the Catholic Faith is for the Church’s leaders to stand behind the Vicar of Christ in proclaiming the Church’s two millennia of teaching that no marital act can be separated from its God-given purpose to conceive and procreate a child.

I make bold to say that the Catholic Church, the real Roman Catholic Church, will survive only where her bishops are courageous enough to proclaim what the followers of Christ have believed since apostolic times. But the bishops are frail human beings. They need, Lord how they need, the backing and support of the faithful under their care.Contraception Fatal to Eternal Life What can this possibly mean? It means exactly what it says. The practice of contraception is a grave sin. Those who indulge in the practice are in danger of losing their immortal souls.

Difficult or intolerable as the language may seem, it is the truth. My purpose here is to prove that historic Christianity has always held, holds now, and always will hold, that contraception is a serious offense against God. Unless repented, it is punishable by eternal deprivation of the vision of God, which we call eternal death.

Teaching of the Church in Apostolic Times

Historians agree that contraception is a social practice that goes back to centuries before Christ. Medical papyri describing contraceptive methods are as old as 2700 BC in China, and 1850 BC in Egypt.

In the Roman Empire of the first century of the Christian era, contraception was universally approved and practiced by the people.

As might be expected, the followers of Christ were faced from the beginning with a hard choice. If they wanted to remain faithful to Christ’s teaching, they had to avoid contraception.

In the language of the day, contraceptive practice was referred to as “using magic” and “using drugs.” It was in this sense that the first century Teaching of the Twelve Apostles warns Christians in four successive precepts:

• “You shall not use magic.”
• “You shall not use drugs.”
• “You shall not procure abortion.”
• “You shall not destroy an unborn child.”

The sequence of those prohibitions is significant. We know from the record of those times that women would first try some magical rites or use sorcery to avoid conception. If this failed, they would take one or another of then known seventeen medically approved contraceptives. If a woman still became pregnant, she would try to abort. And if even this failed, she and her male partner could always resort to infanticide, which was approved by Roman law.

Christians were warned not to follow the example of their pagan contemporaries, who walked in darkness and the shadow of death. Christians were absolutely forbidden to practice contraception, which leads to abortion, which leads to infanticide.

From Apostolic Times to Humanae Vitae

For the next 1900 years, the litany of the Church’s teaching on artificial birth control was never interrupted. Popes and saints and scholars in different words and from different perspectives taught the same thing: Contraception is a grave sin that no one who claims to be a Christian may perform.

Out of a library of witnesses to this doctrine, St. Augustine wrote a whole treatise on Conjugal Adultery, in which he declared, “Intercourse with one’s legitimate wife is unlawful and wicked whenever the conception of offspring is prevented.”When recently, the present Holy Father repeated St. Augustine’s statement about contraception as marital adultery, he was crucified by the world media.

That is why no one should have been surprised at the reception, or rather, rejection, that Pope Paul VI’s Encyclical Humanae Vitae received in 1968.

Thirty years ago, Paul VI appealed to the conscience of the world when he warned about “the consequences of practicing artificial birth control.” His warning was prophetic. What have been the consequences of contraception in one once-civilized nation after another?

They have been myriad. But I would give especially seven, which may be listed in sequence.
• Fornication;
• Adultery;
• Sterilization;
• Homosexuality;
• AIDS;
• Breakdown of the family; and
• Murder of the unborn.

At the risk of repeating the obvious, let me briefly show how contraception inevitably leads to these seven tragedies that haunt the modern world.

Fornication

How can we expect unmarried people to practice chastity if married people are allowed to practice mutual masturbation, which is another name for contraception?

This touches at the heart of sane morality. Intercourse is the divinely instituted means for married person to cooperate with God in procreating children. It is also the divinely provided means of fostering mutual love between husband and wife.But contraception does just the opposite. It deliberately prevents the conception of a child and it fosters, not mutual love, but mutual selfishness.

Is it any wonder that our country is plagued with fornicators who indulge their sex passions, while avoiding the responsibilities of parenthood?

Adultery

How can a husband respect a wife who insists on using contraceptives? And how can a wife respect a husband who refuses to accept the duties of fatherhood?

The soul of Christian marriage is selfless love between the spouses. Contraceptive relations between married people are a lie. They pretend to love one another. But in reality, they are using one another in what might just well be called prostitution.The history of mankind is clear. Contraception in marriage leads to infidelity in either or in both partners. Naturally! Why limit sex activity to one’s spouse if no commitment to having or raising children is the consequence of intercourse?

Sterilization

We do not ordinarily associate contraception with sterilization. But we should.It is one thing to use contraception as an occasional malpractice. It is something else when people have themselves sterilized to avoid even fathering or mothering a child.

Yet massive sterilization, in a country like the United States, has become commonplace. Now the discovery of a five-year, synthetic hormone contraceptive gives carte blanche to any female teenager or adult, willing to have it surgically implanted under the skin. One of the largest school systems in America is doing just that—at taxpayer’s expense. The sterilizing hormone is implanted under the skin in young girl’s arms. No parental permission is needed.

This opened the door to an epidemic of sexually transmitted diseases, whose ratio is already sky-high in the United States.

Homosexuality

The relationship between contraception and homosexuality is seldom adverted to and, in homosexual circles, openly denied. Yet they are connected by the most basic laws of human society.

Contraception contradicts the most fundamental desire of the human heart: to give oneself in total generosity to another human being. Marital relations are meant by God to satisfy this desire between the married spouses.But if women selfishly withhold this generosity from men, men will—tragically look for such generosity in other men. And women will look for it in other women.

As you read some of the homosexual and lesbian literature, you are moved to tears at seeing how a contraceptive society has begotten a homosexual society. In their desperate search for love, men will turn to other men and women to other women. To say they are being deceived is only to emphasize the pity of a sodomistic culture that is starving for love. Contraception deprives married people of the love that they expect to find in a marriage between two people of opposite and complementary gender.

AIDS Epidemic

With all the published writings and statistics on Acquired Immune Deficiency, seldom a word is given to associate this dreadful scourge with widespread practice of contraception.

In spite of all the protests to the contrary, the AIDS epidemic has its roots in homosexuality. By now, of course, there are victims of AIDS whose condition is the result of other factors than sodomy. But the radical cause remains. And therefore, we should in sheer justice, associate the physical disease with its moral foundations, which is homosexuality abetted by contraception.

Family breakdown

The breakdown of stable family life in formerly Christian countries of the Western world is a matter of record. No one who is even dimly aware of what is going on in countries like our own, has any doubt that the family, as known since the dawn of Christianity, is being legislated out of existence.

I use the word “legislated” to bring out what Pope Paul stated so clearly in Humanae Vitae. In context, he is urging reasons for avoiding contraception. He says:

Consider also the dangerous weapon that would thus be placed in the hands of those public authorities who pay no attention to moral obligations.Who could blame a government for applying to the solution of the problems of a community those means acknowledged licit for married couples in the solution of a family problem?

So it has been. Once contraception became widespread, it was only logical for civil governments to impose a contraceptive way of life on all their citizens.

Thus, everything controlled by the government reflects a contraceptive mentality:

• The majority of employed people, working outside the home, are women.

• The salaries earned by husbands and fathers make it next to impossible for them to provide for the size and kind of family they would honestly desire.

• The feminist ideology deprives men of the dignity and respect they deserve and need in the modern world.

• The number of children of single parent, shall we call them families, has reached gigantic proportions.

• Countless children are no longer reared by their parents, but by paid personnel in so-called day care centers.

• Working mothers and under-paid fathers have become commonplace.

• The very idea of a stable and loving family has become—for millions—a starry ideal.

All of this, and more, can be traced, as surely as smoke proves a fire, to the contraceptive mania that is destroying the foundations of the human family.

Abortion

I have saved abortion as the last of the seven deadly consequences of contraception. This, too, is a law of human behavior. Abortion follows contraception like the law of gravity.

This is obvious. As people come to equate sexual pleasure with the self-gratification, there is no limit to their lustful pride. Contraception has taught them to have their own way. They will stop at nothing to have their way, not even murder of their unborn offspring.

Respect for human life requires selfless love of human beings. As a nation is nurtured on contraceptive self-indulgence, it becomes a nation that kills innocent children—if they are an obstacle to the self-gratification of those who brought them into existence.

It has been correctly said that Humanae Vitae divides the Catholic Church into two periods of history. The Church will survive only among those who believe that contraception is deadly to both Christianity and the promise of a heavenly reward.Normally thirty years is a short time. But in this case it has been long enough to prove who are still truly Catholics. They are those who believe that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ. “If you love me,” Jesus said, “keep my commandments.” The single most tested commandment of the Savior today is that contraception is fatal to the true faith and to eternal life.

Father Hardon is the Executive Editor of The Catholic Faith magazine. © Copyright 1998 Inter Mirifica

What's At Stake This Election?

2006-11-07T09:57:00.000-08:00

I call heaven and earth to witness against you this day, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse; therefore choose life, that you and your descendants may live...(Deut. 30:19)

"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,and before you were born I consecrated you; (Jeremiah 1:5)

"See that you do not despise one of these little ones; for I tell you that in heaven their angels always behold the face of my Father who is in heaven." (Mt 18:10)

Lord, we ask you to stir the hearts and minds of all Americans to see what you have so plainly revealed to us--that life in all forms is precious, indisposable, and worthy of dignity. Rain your grace down from Heaven and have every angel deliver your proclamation to American voters so that all who are in your image are given their rightful, dignified place among our society. We ask this through Our Blessed Mother and every saint who sees your face in Heaven. Amen.

QUESTIONS REGARDING THE TRADITION THAT THE BIBLE ALONE IS THE SOLE RULE OF FAITH.

2006-10-02T07:22:00.000-07:00

Was there ever a time that God gave his people a book, told them to use it as an instruction manual, but gave them no teaching authority to ensure they interpreted the book correctly? Read Nehemiah 8:8, Acts 8:27-31, and 2 Peter 1:20

Nehemiah 8 speaks of how God revealed His Law in the Old Testament. In fact, there was a written Law AND an oral Law. BOTH were binding upon the Hebrews and this is not open to debate. Nehemiah 8 clearly establishes a model--the Law was provided to the Hebrews but, at no time, were they to interpret the Law on their own. The judges and priests (13 Levites in this particular story) were chosen by God to provide the correct interpretation, God's very own interpretation.
Acts 8 tells a story of Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch. But moreover, it provides a model for God's revelation in the New Covenant. Present in this story are a) Holy Scripture (although it was likely the Old Testament since the NT wasn't completed yet) and b) a teaching authority. Philip asks the eunuch if he understands what he is reading and he answers truthfully, just as we all must, 'How can I unless someone guides me?' All elements of how we come to know God are here--for the WORD of God is not only written nor oral but both in conjunction with God's supernatural protection of those he chooses to teach such revelation.
In 2 Peter 1:20, the words are not minced. NO prophecy of scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation. And so I find it curious that individuals assume their own authority to look at the prophecies of the Old Testament, Jesus, and the Apostles, and attempt to interpret them on their own. When Darby took it upon himself to interpret Daniel, Zechariah, Malachi, Jesus, and Paul in order to construct his famous (but oh, so false) teaching on the Rapture, he ignored St. Peter. When Charles Taze Russell and Joseph Smith, respectively, clung to Bible prophecy in order to 'carry on' God's revelation in the Book of Mormon and the Watchtower Society, they ignored St. Peter. When we study Scripture without a net, WE ignore St. Peter. Peter feared that those he was writing to would twist Scripture into an unrecognizable mess when given their own preferences, preconceptions, and distance from the Apostolic teachings. Sure enough, they did--we saw Arians, Nicolaitans, Gnostics, and Reformers. Christianity, like Judaism before it, was NEVER a religion of the book.

Why do you believe in the Bible at all? What makes it more credible than the Book of Mormon, The Koran, or the Hindu Vedas?
I've heard many answer this by using a circular argument that goes something like this:
*I believe the Bible because it claims to be inspired--Well, so do the Koran, Book of Mormon, and, truth be told, I could write a book and claim it's as inspired as any of the others. Does this mean it actually IS? Only 2 books of the Bible even claim to be inspired but why do you believe them?

*I believe in the Bible because it convicted my heart--Funny, I had a Mormon tell me the same thing about the Book of Mormon with tears in his eyes. Many people's hearts were convicted by Roots by Alex Haley or by The Purpose Driven Life. Does this mean these works are on par with the Bible?

*I believe in the Bible because it has no error in it--How do you know it has no error in it? Just because YOU can't find any doesn't mean no error exists. Furthermore, I could write a Math textbook in which every formula is correct, would this not be on par with Scripture since it's free of error?

Think about why you believe in the Bible. It's because somebody else told you that it was inspired but why do you trust them? Why do they trust the one who told them the same thing? I believe that the Bible is inspired for the following reason:

1. Catholics approach the Bible as any other uninspired work. No assumption of inspiration is made.

2. Given the sheer numbers of manuscripts we possess, and the fact we have fragments from the 1st and 2nd centuries that all are virtually 98% identical in wording, content, etc., we can be assured that we are working from a historically credible piece of writing.

3. We look at the Bible as a historical book, still not assuming a thing about inspiration. Looking at the Gospels themselves, the extra biblical writings from the early centuries, and infer ideas about human nature, we conclude that Jesus was either who he claimed to be or a very bad man. Based on the virtual impossibility that Jesus and the Apostles could've pulled off the biggest hoax in history and the blatant lack of ANY historical evidence that any of Christ's life, death and resurrection did not occur, we can grant the Bible credibility as a historical book. Further, we conclude that Jesus was who he said he was and that he did what he said he'd do. If he didn't, then the Apostles died utterly horrible deaths for a hoax in which they got no wealth, fame, or power.

4. Christ said he would found a church--built on the rock of Peter with the authority to bind and loose which was supernaturally protected from the gates of Hell and led into all truth by the Holy Spirit.

5. Both the Bible and other extra-biblical writings describe that Church as the one we see in the Catholic Church of today. Consistent in doctrine, worship, and infallibility. Jesus' resurrection allows us to take his words about his Church seriously and that very Church teaches that the compilation of writings, and ONLY those writings, are inspired and definitively Scripture. In short, we have taken purely historical information to conclude that Jesus founded the Catholic Church. This Church is the designated teaching authority that, based on the truth of Christ's resurrection and divinity, assures us of the Truth regarding matters of faith. That Church says the 73 books we call Scripture are inspired and that's that.

What books constitute the Bible? If the Bible is all you hold to for your authority, where does the Bible give you the list of books that should be in the Bible?
Clearly the list of inspired texts is not found in the Bible. This is the inherent circularity of 'Bible Alone'. The Catholic Church compiled the definitive New Testament that all Christians use today. It always seemed to me that the Church had to possess some innate charism or property that would enable it to get the right books together since we obviously couldn't rely on the Bible alone to do it for us. The fact that the Catholic Church defined 27 books to be inspired for the New Testament told me that Jesus' promise to give His Church something 'extra' to stay on the tracks was exactly true.

The Catholic Church confirmed and ratified the list of books that were to comprise the Bible on 4 different occasions at 4 different Church councils before the Reformation. Why does your Bible not resemble the one that the Christian church possessed for 1100 years?
The more I read of Luther's writings, the more I began to see that the reason his Bible looked incomplete was because eliminating books was the only way to make his new teachings on sola fide coherent. If Luther had his way, the Book of James would be 'consigned to the flames'. This is because St. James' epistle destroys Luther's understanding of salvation completely. So rather than debate the doctrines of praying for the dead, purgatory, justification by faith and works, etc. using the whole of Scripture that existed for 1100 years prior, he declared them non-inspired (by what authority he did this, no one knows for sure) and solved his dilemma most irresponsibly. 5 independent church councils defined the 73 books of Holy Scripure--Hippo, Carthage, Florence, Trent, and Vatican I all affirmed and reaffirmed these books.

If you accept the Gospel of Matthew, as verified and ratified by Catholic Church council, why do you deny Sirach, also verified and ratified as equally scriptural?
Reasonability demands that the same church that figured out which Gospel of Matthew was the correct one to include in Holy Scripture also got it right with regard to Sirach and Maccabees, and Esther, etc. The only ones who denied these books' inspiration were the Jews, who managed to deny these books AND the entire New Testament as God-breathed. Even then, it was not ALL Jews who denied them but only a segment. God installed a new covenant and with it, a new arbiter of this covenant--one that had power to bind and loose.

How is the canon of Scripture that you hold to not a tradition of men since Catholic men were the source of this ‘table of contents’?
Christ refers to traditions of men with contempt. These traditions (wholly different than the tradtions that Paul calls binding on all Christians in 2 Thes. 2:15 and elsewhere) were put in place to bring glory to the men who hypocritically demanded praise from the common man. This is what makes them contrary to God--they point inward and not to God. The New Testament, if it is only a fallible collection of infallible books, becomes a mere tradition of men--for it does not do justice to God's revelation but really becomes Man's revelation. On the other hand, if it was written and assembled infallibly via the Holy Spirit through fallible men, then it becomes a Tradition with a capital 'T'.

Who/what does the Bible call ‘the pillar and foundation of the truth’?

I hope to come to you soon, but I am writing these
instructions to you so that, [15] if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to
behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living
God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth. (1 Tim. 3:15)

St. Paul doesn't call the Holy Scriptures the foundation of truth. He calls THE CHURCH the foundation of the truth. A foundation makes it possible for us to build upon it. Similarly, the Church makes it possible to build on Truth--namely Scripture and the traditions that Paul talks about in his epistles. Without the Church, neither is possible. Quite simply, the Bible alone as our rule of faith is not tenable since the Bible is only as true as the Church that produced it.

Who does Jesus say we must take our disagreements about faith to?
Hint: It ain't the Bible...

If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his
fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your
brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you,
that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three
witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church;
and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on
earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed
in heaven. (Mt. 18)
Now I'm not a bible scholar but I do know this--the first rule of reading Scripture is to read the words and apply them literally. Literally, this passage tells me that someone or something exists for Christians to solve their disagreements. Luther, Calvin, and the others would say 'Holy Writ'. What would you say? Can you honestly read 'tell it to the church', proceed to close your Bible, look someone in the eye, and say 'it clearly says we are to take our disagreements to the Bible since Jesus clearly says to take them to the Church.' ? When it came time to make my choice,I know I couldn't.
The slam dunk was in Acts 15 when the Apostolic giants Paul and Barnabas could not resolve an issue regarding dietary restrictions and how they applied to the Gentiles. Imagine! The Gentile community came to them with a genuine question and they simply could not answer for God. Instead, they took it to the Church, the first Church Council, to resolve it. The Church proclaims the Word of God orally and in Scripture--this is why Jesus demanded that we acquiesce to it in matters of faith and morals.

How can one take any disagreement to a church that is only a loose conglomeration of believers for a definitive answer?
Did they take it to some loose group of believers in Acts 15? Could any Joe-Christian have a vote? Did Paul himself get a vote? Not according to Scripture. The governing body was very much visible and everyone knew who it consisted of. Paul and Barnabas told of their adventures but didn't get a vote or even sneak in a political commercial for their opinion. On the contrary, Peter stood up with the keys to the kingdom given him by Jesus Himself, and told them all how it was gonna be. And they all kept their peace. Sounds a lot like the Pope and Bishops that make up the Church today, no?

What do you think the Christ/Paul means when he uses the word ‘tradition’ in Mt 15 and in the Pauline epistles?
A tip of the hat to Peter Burnett, who fleshes this out well, in my opinion. Jesus condemned specific traditions of men in Matthew 15. These are traditions that 'make the Commandments of God null' and here is usually where the confusion starts in discussing 'tradition' with non-Catholics.
Burnett explains it like this. If I wish to destroy the tradition of the income tax, I must attack the income tax in general. If, however I attack the income tax exemption of the investment tax credit, I actually am attacking a particular, and thus affirming the general! If I argue thusly, I argue against my own stated purpose. This is a long standing rule of legal argument, pity the rest of us who have to chew on it for 3 days before we get it.

Burnett would then say, when Jesus attacks traditions of men that make the Commandments of God null, he is also affirming traditions of men in general.

Here's the kicker: If Jesus was condemning all traditions, the Pharisees, and the rest of the Jewish community, would've been all over him for his hypocrisy--and rightly so. Why? Because he erected his own traditions and bound His followers to them (Mt. 28:19-20).

Finally, Paul refers to traditions (paradosis in Greek) that Christians are bound to--traditions passed on by word of mouth and by epistle. If Paul were Protestant, he'd have limited his command to what is written only.

In Mt 23:2-3, what is this tradition of the ‘chair of Moses’ that Jesus speaks of? Why does he order his followers to follow those that teach from this chair but not do what they do? Is this ‘chair of Moses’ in the Old Testament writings or is it a tradition passed on by word of mouth?
This 'Chair' cannot be found in the Old Testament at all. Is it a literal chair? The fact that this Chair cannot be found in the Old Testament points to the place extra-biblical tradition played in God's revelation. Further, this Chair points to the authority that even Jesus bade his followers to obey but nothing in the text even implies that their authority extended ONLY to what was in Scripture. The Torah, remember, was not only 'law' but also was 'instruction'. That 'instruction' was oral and binding to all that heard it. They didn't have to actually be sitting in this chair, mind you, any more than a CEO would have to sit in his desk chair to make authoritative decisions.

Did the Old Testament writers use extra-biblical tradition? Did the New Testament writers use extra-biblical tradition in constructing their letters?
Virtually the entire Old Testament is based on extra-biblical tradition. When God revealed Himself to Moses, he declared, 'I am the God of your fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.' How did Moses even know who these patriarchs were? There was no written source for Moses to consult, rather he knew of them from the oral tradition that passed from generation to generation. He knew about Melchizedek through the stories he heard, not from any written work. Does this make the Old Testament any less inspired? God forbid! Instead, it holds the Old Testament together and makes it coherent for those Hebrews that read from it in their synagogues and temple.
As for the New Testament, we see extra-biblical tradition in many of the inspired writings in which the author takes for granted that the reader is familiar with these traditions, which were passed on orally and were binding on all Jews. For example, Paul speaks of of 'Jannes and Jambres' without explaining who these people were. He considered them integral to the Exodus story and doesn't seem overly worried that they weren't mentioned in the written version of the story. This is because Paul assumes that the reader has been clued in to these men and other traditions that make his current writing understandable. Jude, in his epistle, mentions a battle between the Devil and Michael the archangel for possession of Moses' dead body. This story is not found in the Old Testament yet the writer pulls it out here, assumes that his readers know the story, and derives his theological lesson from it. If the New Testament writers adhered to 'Scripture Alone', they could not have mentioned these traditions that were passed on by word of mouth, not epistle. Paul refers to a 'rock' that followed the Hebrews during their exile in the desert--a rock called Christ. Search the Old Testament--there is no mention of this rock that was mysteriously present at all their encampments, yet Paul mentions it because under inspiration of God.
Acts 7:52-53, Galatians 3:19, and Heb. 2:2-3 all bear witness that the Mosaic covenant was given to Moses not directly by God, but from angels. Not a single Old Testament author refers to this.

Tell me why this syllogism is incorrect:

Proposition A—The entirety of God’s revelation is to be found in the Scriptures.

Proposition B—The list of inspired books, which comprise the Scriptures (the Canon) is a revelation of God.

Conclusion—Therefore, the Canon of Scripture must be found in Scripture.

Pick your poison! If you deny Proposition A, then 'Scripture Alone' becomes impossible since an extra-scriptural method of revelation would have to be possible. If you deny Proposition B, you admit that the books in your Bible may not be the right ones, let alone truly inspired by God. The Canon is a revelation from God through humans or it is not and our Scriptures are no better than the Book of Mormon or the Koran. Logically, if A and B are true, then the Conclusion must be true. The problem is that the Canon of Scripture is not found in Scripture, making one or both of the Propositions necessarily incorrect. Catholics believe that B is true--we have the proper books in our Bible (73 books, not 66) but that God revealed Himself in more ways than just Scripture.

Mission Statement

2006-09-29T08:01:00.000-07:00

I've been trying to sum up, in one statement, why I am Catholic. Why? Heck, I don't really know. I listed over 50 reasons--the Eucharist, Matthew 16:18, 1 Tim. 3:15, the testimonies of saints and martyrs...The hardest part has been making the statement clear but also all-inclusive. Here' goes...

I am convinced that the most coherent and believable view of Christian history, Biblical data, Christian Morality and Spirituality, Supernatural Protection, Social Conscience, Philosophy, and Truth reside in the Catholic Church. Straight up, homey.

Things That Make Me Go 'Hmmmm.'

2006-09-13T11:12:00.000-07:00

1. In talking with a non-Catholic, he made the statement that Christ created ONE Church and it was Catholic. The boat, however, rotted away making it necessary for Luther, Calvin, and others to scrape off the pagan barnacles that had attached themselves and bring the Universal Church back to true Catholicity. In essence, what he told me was that the Protestants were the REAL Catholics! Interesting. So naturally, I asked him, 'So if you, a Protestant, and I, a Catholic, jumped into a time machine and went back to the 1st century Church and worshipped together, you would feel more comfortable in that Church as a Protestant than I would as a Catholic?' He responded with a profound 'Yes'. Hmmm. My next question became, 'So it seems that I don't have to be a great theologian or scholar but only have to read the Early Church Fathers to prove that they're all Calvinists?' Was the New Testament Church Protestant? Were there Evangelicals at the Council of Jerusalem or Nicea? Unless there was an altar call, I doubt it. See this for more: http://saintunderconstruction.blogspot.com/2006/07/first-christian-worship-looks-familiar.html

2. Suppose you came upon the letters 'S.O.S' carved into the sand on a beach of a deserted island. If you found a hut with windows, doors, and a roof on it, you'd probably infer that someone designed it and had been there to scrawl those words in the sand. I guess there's a chance (maybe one in a trillion) that the letters were scrawled by chance or the hut was built by some act of chance but is it likely? Hmmm. Who would use a one in a trillion explanation for those letters being formed by the wind? See, Atheists use arguments like 'If you sat a million monkeys at a million typewriters for a million years, one of them would eventually type out Hamlet by chance.' Yes, but when we find a transcript of Hamlet, we don't wonder if it came from monkeys--we believe that it came from Bill Shakespeare, based on all available evidence. The reason Atheists use these improbable explanations for the universe is because they are his/her last shot to remain Atheist. It's a psychological issue for them, not a logical one.

3. The Pope has stepped up and called all God-fearing people to engage in dialogue while using our reason. He takes a stand and says what every political leader and every religious leader should be saying--that acts of violence in the name of God lack reason. Jihadists, suicide bombers, genocidal dictators, and yes, even rogue Crusaders from days of yore commit grave offenses against God and man when they do what they do. So how does the Muslim world at large react? They stage violent protests, threaten bodily harm and death to the Pope and all 'people of the Cross', shoot a nun in the back, blow up Christian holy places, and kidnap a Catholic priest! HMMM. It really shouldn't be this hard. Pope Benedict holds up a mirror to Islam and instead of looking hard into it, they take the mirror and stomp on it. This is an act that lacks reason and any religion that cannot or will not stand up to the scrutiny of reason is a false one. Jesus Christ is Knowledge, Wisdom, and Truth. What kind of God would subject his creations to ignorance? Now I know this stems from Islam's perception of the human person--that we are fundamentally useless and mere slaves of Allah. We don't deserve to possess knowledge. We are unworthy of anything except Allah's will which is imposed upon us. Thankfully, Catholics see it differently. Humans are created in the image and likeness of He who is Good. As a result, humans are fundamentally good--for God looked upon all he created and declared it very good. Martin Luther called us piles of dung. I beg to differ and so does Pope Benedict. By virtue that we are made partakers of Jesus' divine nature and made children of God through His death and resurrection, we are more than dung heaps. What Father would declare his children to be piles of crap? No, we are children and as such, we participate (albeit imperfectly) in the perfect knowledge, wisdom, and truth that our God possesses. God is wise and we have elements of wisdom. God is merciful and we show mercy to others. That's why we cannot appeal to simple emotion and call that faith. For if our faith cannot withstand reason, it's empty because it's not faith that exists in understanding. The Muslim reaction worldwide has been nothing short of irrational and speaks volumes about Islam as a whole and Islam as it exists in the natural order. Rather than educated dialogues and responses to the Holy Father's challenge, we see a religion utterly incapable of a)defining its tenets clearly and b)unwilling/unable to withstand reasonable criticism. Pray for Islam and for our Holy Father.

4. John Calvin said that the Church is 'those who profess to worship one God and Christ'. He says that the Church is 'invisible, manifest to God only'. HMMM. This gives rise to a couple of problems. When has God ever established a covenant (that's what the Church is--the administrator of God's covenant on Earth) where its administration was invisible? With Adam and Eve, we had the very visible Paradise to respresent God's covenant with them. With Noah, God gave us the very visible flood and rainbow to represent His covenant with us. The covenant with Moses and the Hebrews was represented by the very visible parting of the Red Sea, the 10 Commandments and the Passover. He also gave them priests for visible sacrifices, judges for visible legal proceedings, and kings as God's anointed one. The covenant with David was represented by the Temple, the Kingdom itself (a very visible kingdom, to be sure) and the very visible Ark of The Covenant. Why would God then 'go stealth' when His Son came to establish the New Covenant? In Mt 18, Jesus tells his Apostles how to settle an issue--take the issue to the person and try to resolve it. If he persists, take 2 or 3 with you and confront that person. If he persists in his wrongdoing, TAKE IT TO THE CHURCH. And if he wil not hear 'EVEN THE CHURCH' you are to treat him as a heathen and a publican. How in the world could they take a grievance to a Church they themselves could not see? Couple that with Paul calling the Church 'the pillar and foundation of the truth' (not the Bible, the Church!), and it's easy to see that he could not call some invisible union of believers something that is visible--a pillar. Given that 30,000 Christian churches exist today with differing fundamental beliefs, Paul could only be talking about one church, one doctrine, and one pillar. Furthermore, if 'Church' is merely a collection of unified believers, why would Paul and the other apostles appoint bishops to oversee the believers? In appointing successors, they establish a hierarchy just as Jesus established a hierarchy when he chose 12 men who became 'the foundation' of the Church. Clearly they were set above the rest of the disciples and believers, connoting a hierarchy that was visible. Paul says that unless you are sent with proper authority, then you have no right to preach, teach, or evangelize. Even Paul had to spend time with Peter before he was commissioned to undertake his mission. So why would a hierarchy exist in an invisible church? It'd look like Wonder Woman (visible) flying her jet (invisible).

Wake Up From This Nightmare, America!

2006-08-29T16:07:00.000-07:00

Here is a piece that I wrote in the throes of my anguish as they put Terri Schiavo to death. I still can't believe that government assisted homicide actually took place in our nation. Pray for all those in Terri's position--that Americans may find it in their heart to treat them according to their God given dignity and not by their ability to contribute economically to our society.

We now live in a nation where the state ordered murder of its own innocents is not only legal but encouraged. The bumper sticker 'Dude, Where's My Country?' is very apropos today. The apathy that we Americans have shown at the ballot box, in our town halls, and in our state capitals has come for its reckoning. Our toleration of incremental steps toward this culture of death, and by allusion, the blood that comes with it, is on OUR hands. We all have it and it ain't gonna wash off. We've elected men and women on misguided and amoral/immoral principles and we have not held them accountable. We have trusted them with much more authority than they are capable of handling and, sadly, have not learned from our mistakes. We continue to dredge up candidates who are spineless, deceptive, and fundamentally lacking in what their job, their authority, and their obligation is. We bow to the political machines who submit these candidates rather than taking the machine apart and rebuilding it in God's image. The expression, 'I'll worry about it when it affects me.' is very common in our people.

It's as if we are holding up a single rock--the one that affects us if it falls--while every other rock around us is plummeting to the ground and smashing those who held them up. The bottom line is that we do not INSIST upon looking at things from an eternal perspective, but merely from a temporal one. Does it cause ME pain? Does it take more money out of MY pocket? If not, then I'll get back to my chores and my favorite reality show. A woman who was not dying was cruelly punished for no crime except being inconvenient. What part did WE play in it? The disabled, in our society, now are stigmatized and targeted for extermination upon judicial and legislative whim. How did WE contribute to their demise?

Every authority, from the President on down to Michael Schiavo have, via their action or inaction, turned America into a nation which is no better than Hitler's Germany or Stalin's Russia. Is this a strong statement? You bet. The nation has taken on, by its judicial decisions and legislative actions, a disregard for its citizens which I'm sure no member of the politburo or Nazi parliament could complain about. Sure, we can point to our free society as a clear distinction from these others but it's possible and, in this case, a reality that the same regard for life exists here. As the rock group The Who says, 'We won't get fooled again!'.

This is a call to every Christian. A call to every person who still has a conscience. A call to every person that has a heart that beats in their chest. The effect of our apathy in the public square has wrought horrible consequences in which you, your disabled children, your most vulnerable friends, are in danger. PLEASE stay connected and hold your elected officials to morality in all they do. PLEASE do not shirk your responsibility to demand justice in our society. PLEASE read and understand the Catechism and its explanation of our duties as citizens or as elected officials. We all have some responsibility for Terri's situation and the situations of many others. Let us ask ourselves during this Triduum if we are doing all we must in fulfilling Jesus' wish of feeding the hungry, giving water to the thirsty, and honoring the lives of our people as God's masterpieces. If we are not, then let us find inspiration and determination in our sacraments and in the example of our Lord and follow through with unyielding action. If we are, let us pray for the grace to make even greater sacrifices for our nation.

An interesting thing that Pope John Paul II has said in his writings is that when Jesus comes again and the Kingdom is initiated on Earth, all evil will be wiped away but the good things we did in life will be integrated into the Kingdom. Let this Easter become the dawn of a new time for our people. It is a time in which Christ performed the ultimate sacrifice for His people and a time of calling to us to follow. He calls us to be partakers in His divine nature and to bring about the Kingdom of God. If we fail, then evil, as it has in Florida, will have its day. Luckily, we know how the story ends--with Jesus reigning in justice. Let’s make our nation a collection of god-fearing people who defend morality at EVERY turn. Give no quarter to sin and understand that our life here is not a game. As Father Corapi says, at the end, forever, you and I will be in Heaven or Hell, period. If we cannot even get to the battlefield, how are we going to fight?

Reconciliation--It Does A Body Good

2006-08-29T16:00:00.000-07:00

This is a talk I prepared for the parents of those children in Religious Education who were about to receive the sacraments of Reconciliation and First Holy Communion for the first time. My objective was to let these parents know that this wasn't some hollow ritual that their children were about to undertake, but rather that it was part of the spiritual combat that we call life. I take the responsibility to be right with God seriously.

RECONCILIATION

I was confirmed on Easter Vigil of 2005. Prior to receiving God’s sacrament, it had been almost 25 years since my last confession. When I said, ‘Bless me Father for I have sinned, it’s been 25 years since my last confession’, I could hear the priest fall off his chair. I am God’s proof that no amount of time is too long and no sin is too heinous that He cannot forgive us if we repent as he taught us. I’ve attested to anyone who will listen that the feeling I had when the priest said just 5 simple words—I ABSOLVE YOU OF YOUR SINS—was the greatest feeling I have ever experienced as a Christian.

But first, I want to take you back to when I was 16. It’s around this age when I began to think I had life figured out. I’ve called it ‘being my own Pope’. At this age, I thought Confession was for suckers. I could go directly to God myself and didn’t need some ritual or a priest to tell me God forgave me. I viewed the priest as just another sinful human who had no right to hear what I’ve done to offend God if I didn’t get to hear his. I used to think that my objections were reasonable but, in reality, they were uninformed objections that came from pride, arrogance, and shame. Nevertheless, for the next 19 years, I convinced myself that it was about Me (with a capital ‘M’) and God. I conducted myself as I saw fit (being my own Pope and all) and He was my get out of jail free card. I created this weird world in which I would commit a sin and God would forgive it simultaneously since He knew that deep down, I was sorry. Over these 19 years, as all people do, I sinned early and often. I had my instant absolution that I had, in effect, granted myself and cut God, the middle man, out of the equation completely. It wasn’t until 2003 when a sin I committed left myself and those around me in shambles. God had pulled the rug from under me and taken all that I judged I myself had made.

And so, with my life, and the life of those I loved dearly, virtually destroyed, I instinctively reached out to our Blessed Mother. Anyone who tells me that Mary is not their mother just hasn’t sunk low enough to hear her calling them. I hadn’t prayed a Rosary in 20+ years and didn’t even remember how to. I simply prayed, ‘Mary, I don’t know if I’m even doing this right but I know you want me to understand. I don’t want to bargain with you, I just want you to take me and fix me. I’ve done nothing but destroy my soul without your son and am tired of following my passions and desires. I know that without God, I am utterly incapable of saving myself and so I ask you to talk to your Son for me. In return, I will pray this Rosary with you everyday.’ Within a day, God had sent me multiple signs that I could use to find Him and repair the damage I had done. In praying the Rosary, I could hear Mary telling me to repent, confess, and then let go of my sins. God had also put in me a hunger for all things Catholic. I devoured books about Church doctrine, apologetics, and anything else I could get ahold of. He was leading me to the answer for every question, doubt, and misunderstanding I had about Catholicism. And after 19 years, I didn’t feel fear or arrogance—I felt humility, sorrow, and hope. I saw a speaker on EWTN who, at that very time, said, ‘The only sin God will not forgive is the one we don’t repent of.’ Suddenly, the hope began to grow and I swore I would give the best confession I could give. I sat down and examined my conscience—I came up with a list that covered 2 pages fully, front and back. I entered the Confessional, got on my knees, fought through tears, and did exactly what God tells us all to do—repent, confess, and let go. The priest was gracious, kind, and did all that God had given him authority to do—forgive me in the person of Christ. He congratulated me on a good confession and said those 5 wonderful words. Making things right with God feels wonderful. The weight leaves you and you go to Holy Communion with a new soul—one worthy of receiving Jesus. This year, I have been to confession just about once per month. Even when I have no mortal sins to confess, I know that venial sins add up and they dispose me (and all of us) to bigger sins. Frequent confession keeps my sins right there for me to see and reminds me of the damage sin does to the soul.

I won’t tell you that Confession is fun, or happy, or easy. It’s none of those things. Neither was our Lord’s trip toward Redemption. But after toying with every Protestant Church I could find, twisting Scripture to fit my moral code, and taking this spiritual reality of God, the Devil, and my salvation for granted, I’m here to tell you that at the end, forever, you and I will be in Heaven or Hell…Period.

Pornography--Victimless Crime?

2006-08-29T15:52:00.000-07:00

Below is a little talk I gave at the Religious Education class I help teach for teenagers. The topic is pornography and was inspired when one of my students claimed that nobody was hurt by viewing pornography in any medium.

What did Jesus say about pornography? Who ever looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. It doesn’t say ‘pornography’ but what’s the sole purpose of looking at pornography? It’s to look at someone with lust. It’s not in a loving way, is it? It’s a detached and impersonal way to feel the tingles without actually having to know that person. See, Jesus says it’s not enough to avoid pregnancy or STD’s. It’s not enough to avoid impure sexual contact; we must also resist impure sexual thoughts and looks. Why do you think He says this? EVERYTHING, and I mean everything that Jesus taught humans springs from one thing—can you tell me what that is? The dignity of human life. Jesus always expects more from us because we’re created in God’s image. We have a certain something special in us that separates us from dogs, cats, and pigs—a rational soul and something in our heart that makes us search for God. Remember the commandments we discussed—the first 3 dealing with our relationship with God and the next 7 with our relationship with other people? This was always the test for Jesus with regard to sin—does it negatively affect the dignity of humans? Does pornography affect the dignity of a person? What does it do to guys? Ask yourself if Jesus or your dad saw you looking at pornography. How would you feel? Embarrassed. Shameful. That means your guilt-o-meter is working properly. See, Christ says that looking at a woman like we do in porn is beneath the dignity He himself gave us. Ask yourself how you’d feel if a man looked at a woman you loved—your mom or sister—the way he looks at porn. The second thing it does to us guys is that it teaches us to live in a world in which sexuality offers one thing—pleasure. When I hear people say that porn doesn’t hurt anyone because nobody gets pregnant, or sick, or anything else, I tell them that’s the whole problem. After a certain amount of time, guys begin to look at real women only for what they can give them. We badly twist or eliminate the possibility of love entirely because we now equate women with nothing more than our own pleasure.

In other words, selfishness. Porn is all about catering to ourselves and nobody else and selfishness is the opposite of love. Think about what you do when you look at porn. First, you affect yourself by looking at it—remember what Jesus said. You also create a market for porn, facilitating the greed of the industry who will look for men and women to exploit who will make them money. You contribute to an industry that will push the envelope to the point of kiddie porn. I don’t know if you’re aware of all the stuff available online but think of the worst thing you can think of and it’s available. Anyone know who Ted Bundy was? He was one of the most notorious mass murderers of our generation who was executed in 1989. He strangled and raped over 50 women in Utah, Colorado, and Florida. Mr. Bundy was interviewed before he went to the electric chair and do you know what he said? He began looking at soft-core porn when he was 12 or 13. He kept looking for something more graphic and fell into a hard core porn addiction. Soon, that addiction could only be addressed by acting out these scenes in real life which led to the rapes and killings. The numbers say that the states with the highest readership of porn have the highest rape and murder rates. Half of all rapists in one study used porn directly before they committed rapes. Do you know what the internet sites with the most hits on them are today? Porn sites. Do you know what the issue that is breaking the most marriages today is? Adultery. See, people are becoming slaves. Ted Bundy became a slave. Slavery doesn’t mean we murder 50 people. Slavery means that we align our actions, beliefs, and faith around something destructive and something imaginary. When this ‘something’ guides us and not vice versa, we hand over our dignity, our intelligence, and our relationship with God.

Birthdays And The Bible

2006-08-03T11:34:00.000-07:00

Some of our separated brethren have historically (since their inception 1500-1800 years after the birth of Christ and His Church, at least) submitted that the celebration of birthdays, specifically the Birth of Christ, is unbiblical and contrary to God's will. This piece will examine those arguments and shed light on whether the celebration of ANY birthday, Christ's or anyone else's is sinful and unbiblical.

1. Whenever the Bible talks about someone celebrating a person's birthday, someone dies so it can't be good to celebrate them.

Let's look at these events in Scripture.

Genesis 40:20-22 'The third day after this was the birthday of Pharao: and he made a great feast for his servants, and at the banquet remembered the chief butler, and the chief baker. And he restored the one to his place, to present him the cup: The other he hanged on a gibbet, that the truth of the interpreter might be shewn.'

Mark 6:21-28 'And when a convenient day was come, Herod made a supper for his birthday, for the princes, and tribunes, and chief men of Galilee. And when the daughter of the same Herodias had come in, and had danced, and pleased Herod, and them that were at table with him, the king said to the damsel: Ask of me what thou wilt, and I will give it thee. And he swore to her: Whatsoever thou shalt ask I will give thee, though it be the half of my kingdom. Who when she was gone out, said to her mother, What shall I ask? But her mother said: The head of John the Baptist. And when she was come in immediately with haste to the king, she asked, saying: I will that forthwith thou give me in a dish, the head of John the Baptist. And the king was struck sad. Yet because of his oath, and because of them that were with him at table, he would not displease her: But sending an executioner, he commanded that his head should be brought in a dish. And he beheaded him in the prison, and brought his head in a dish: and gave to the damsel, and the damsel gave it her mother.'

JOB 1:4,18-19 'And [Job's] sons went, and made a feast by houses, every one in his day. And sending, they called their three sisters, to eat and drink with them. [...] [The messenger] was yet speaking, and behold another [messenger] came in, and said: Thy sons and daughters were eating and drinking wine in the house of their eldest brother, A violent wind came on a sudden from the side of the desert, and shook the four corners of the house, and it fell upon thy children, and they are dead: and I alone have escaped to tell thee.'

My first question to you would be where does Scripture actually say that these deaths occurred BECAUSE it was someone's birthday? The honest answer is 'nowhere'. To suppose or assume this connection is to approach Scripture insincerely and with a set of doctrines in mind already. There is just no rationale to assume that Job's kids were smote BECAUSE they were celebrating a birthday. In fact we already know why Job's kids died--because God allowed Satan to put Job to a test of faith--not because of any birthday celebration.

As for Herod's and Pharaoh's birthdays, would anyone expect them to be godly? Considering Herod wanted to murder God's Son and Pharaoh was obstinate against God's messenger, Moses, it's not hard to see that those birthday celebrations were probably not of God. Still, it would be wrong to assume that the deaths in those stories occurred BECAUSE they were birthday celebrations. Instead, the deaths occurred because Herod and Pharaoh were evil.

Secondly, wouldn't you expect an birthday to be a time of reflection on the good things God has done for us in our lives? It's a time to appreciate our family and friends and thank God for it all. Common sense tells us that a marker every year, in and of itself, cannot be evil. If we choose to celebrate it like Herod, then we MAKE it an evil work.

2. The Bible does not record the celebration of Christ's birthday or the anniversary of His birthday.

So what would you call 3 kings coming from the ends of the earth to give Jesus gifts? It's pretty clear that they were celebrating the birth of the Messiah and were under the guidance of the Holy Spirit and angels in doing so. I'd say that imitating persons under the Holy Spirit's guidance and inspiration is not ungodly at all.

I don't disagree that we do not see a celebration of the anniversary of Christ's birth in Scripture, nor do we see the word 'Christmas' therein. But using this standard, I see no prohibition of polygamy, wife swapping, or abortion either--are these OK? There's no prohibition against running over someone with a street sweeper since street sweepers weren't yet invented. There's no biblical basis for a marriage performed by a minister and there's no New Testament command to build a church building, yet we do. How far do you want to take this Bible alone thing?

Furthermore, John the Apostle writes that not everything that Christ did or taught is written down in the Bible! Does this mean that it's any less important to our salvation? I do not make that assumption and neither do the Apostles, who teach by word of mouth often. Look at the celebration of Channukah--Jesus observed it even though it was established by a human (Judas Maccabeus) and not by God. This is an example of a human tradition, established to commemorate yearly a wondrous event in which our own Savior celebrated! How much greater a celebration of the birth of the Son of God? If nobody established this celebration, someone would've had to! And lo and behold, it was the Church established by Christ that did this. The Church given authority to govern all followers of Christ by binding and loosing--the Catholic Church. That no celebration was present in Scripture is irrelevant.

3. The Church created Christmas as a traditition of men.

We've already seen that Christ himself celebrated certain customs and traditions so why do you hold me to a standard even Christ didn't have? Look at Judges 11:39-40:

"From thence came a fashion in Israel, and a custom has been kept: That, from year to year, the daughters of Israel assemble together, and lament the daughter of Jephte the Galaadite, for four days."

The Bible gives no indication that this custom was ever abandoned or forbidden later. Nor is there any command by God to observe it--yet God's people did it anyway. Look at Esther 9:19:

"But those Jews that dwelt in towns not walled and in villages, appointed the fourteenth day of the month Adar for banquets and gladness, so as to rejoice on that day, and send one another portions of their banquets and meats."

Here, there is no sign that God mandated this observation, God's people just did it. Gifts were exchanged and there was lots of celebration, yet God did not forbid it. There are others.

4. But Christmas is pagan in origin, hardly of Christ!

This assumption is based on a faulty idea that commonality=direct descendancy. In other words, this idea that Christmas is pagan comes from seeing elements of Christmas that are similar to pagan customs. Unfortunately, the CONNECTION between the two just isn't there. For example, pagans bow to their knees to pray to their false gods. Are we to understand that getting on our knees to pray to the True God is pagan in origin? Hindus are often plunged into the Ganges River as a purification right, does this mean that baptism by water into Christ's reign is pagan? See, observing the similarities without taking into account the vast differences results in a faulty assumption about Christianity. Moses warned the Israelites in Deuteronomy not to copy the rites of the pagans--specifically things like tossing their offspring into the fire. In fact, Moses himself warned against setting up pillars to worship false gods, yet himself set up pillars to worship the one, true God. If African devil worshipers celebrate their rites on a full moon--the same time as the Jews celebrated their festivals--does this make them Jews? Of course not. Christmas is right because it rightly celebrates and glorifies God. If there were no Christ, there'd be no Christmas as evidenced by there existing NO holiday which celebrated the birth of Christ before he was born. Were it pagan, it would have no link to God in any way--very much like the secular world celebrates it today.

5. December 25 is the day the pagans celebrated the 'Day of The Sun'.

First, I wonder if you could please provide proof for what you imply--that Christmas was chosen to be celebrated BECAUSE it was the pagan god feast day and in order to mix that pagan celebration with Christianity.
Second, some of the possible reasons December 25 was chosen are:

Jesus was actually born on December 25
Jesus was conceived on December 25
to insititute the true God and His religion with intent to replace the pagan rites

Second, when you think about it, Christmas is OUR 'Day of the SON'. Jesus was Son of God and we thank God for his incarnation as we should. and Malachi 4 call Jesus 'the SUN of justice'. The Church attempting to replace the pagan feast day with Christ is merely its way of following Paul's advice: "Be not overcome by evil: but overcome evil by good" (Romans 12:21). What better way to tell the pagans about the one, true SON than by replacing their holiday with one about Him? There also exists evidence that the Christian Church was celebrating December 25 as Christmas by the 3rd century--before this pagan feast day (called Sol Invictus) was being celebrated in the Roman Empire. If this is the case, then the argument presented is preposterous.

6. Early Church Fathers like Tertullian and Origen say that birthdays were not celebrated and they were against celebrating them and Josephus also says Jews did not celebrate them.

Did Tertullian and Origen speak on behalf of the Christian Church? No, they did not. Their personal opinions about birthdays did not have any relevance on what the Church taught about them. In fact, NO Church teaching existed with regard to birthdays.

Tertullian and Origen also believed in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist and in praying for/commemorating the anniversaries of the dead, do you?

One of the main reasons was that most Christians were poor and, therefore, could not afford birthday celebrations. Nobility were the only ones wealthy enough to have celebrations and, in many cultures, were the only ones considered important enough to observe these birthdays. If you compare this to Job's sons celebrating birthdays in Job 1:3, this would make sense considering Job's immense wealth at that time.

A few Early Church Fathers like Origen are on record as saying the first Christians did not celebrate birthdays but not a single one condemns the practice or suggests that it is contrary to Christian doctrine in the least. In fact, Tertullian talks about maintaining an anniversary yearly for the martyrs:

'As often as the anniversary comes round, we make offerings for the dead as birthday honours' (De Corona ch. 3)

Finally, Origen's contemporaries, namely Clement of Alexandria and Hippolytus disagreed and strove to assign a date for remembrance of Christ's birthday so it's clear that no defined date or teaching was in place but rather, cultural norms in different parts of the world.

Contraception And The Catholic Church--FAQ'S

2006-07-28T15:25:00.000-07:00

1. What has been the teaching of the Catholic Church about artificial birth control? How long has she taught this?

Most people do not realize that EVERY Christian Church in the world taught that artificial birth control was morally illicit up until 1930! Could the Church have had it wrong for 1930 years before suddenly getting it right? Hardly. And now, the Catholic Church stands alone in upholding the same moral principle that began in 33 AD--that artificial birth control is intrinsically evil. The most comprehensive Church document about this issue is Humanae Vitae, written in the 1960's as culture's attitude toward sex, love, and babies was radically changing. I would recommend it to EVERY married person--Catholic or not. In short, the views about sex, in the culture at large, were such that: 1) sex was a right; 2) sex was primarily for fun; 3) sex was casual, a pastime, if you will; 4) sex is merely clinical--we are no different than the animals in our appetite for it.
The Catholic Church stepped up and reiterated what the Christian Church had taught from its inception: 1) sex is a gift from God; 2) sex is nothing if it's not holy; 3) when you treat sex like it's anything less than holy, you profane it; 4) sex is unitive and procreative all at once--to separate these two missions of this holy act/gift, is to profane it and He who gave it to us; 5) the unitive act of sex is to say what Jesus said at the Last Supper--'This is my body which will be given up for you.' When you use artificial birth control, you lie with your body because you do not give all of it but merely one part.
See, the central theme of Scripture is the idea of 'covenant'. A covenant, in Scripture, is more than a legal declaration or agreement, it is a full and entire giving of self. A contract says 'I give you this product/service in return for that product/service. A covenant says 'I give myself to you and you give yourself to me.' The Book of Revelation hammered this home for me when we see Heaven portrayed as the 'Marriage Feast of The Lamb'. This imagery should do two things. First, it should tell us something about the nature of marriage as a covenant and not as a contract (as the Jews held it in Old Testament times). Second, it should tell us about the nature of the covenant between Christ and what Paul the Apostle calls 'the spotless bride'--namely the Church.
Christ, through His new covenant, elevates Marriage to something holy, not just contractual. As such, it is supposed to prefigure or imitate the nature of the relationship between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. In other words, a marital covenant is called to imitate the love of the Trinity--eternal, exclusive, and life giving. Remember, there is no marriage in Heaven, for we are all married to Christ. And so even those not called to earthly marriage are called to understand the nature of marriage because he/she is married to Christ through the new covenant. As such, do you really think that refusing certain fundamental aspects of your spouse, such as his/her fertility and life-giving ability mirrors what the Trinity does? Uh, no. If we're called to imitate Christ, do you think Christ holds back anything or refuses his spouse simply because this love may produce life? Uh, no. So why do we do it in our earthly marriages?

Christ's relationship with His bride, the Church, is to be eternal, exclusive, and life giving. For when one converts to His Church, a new spiritual life begins. The nature of the love He has for his bride is perfect--He gave his life so that she may live. This is what is demanded of husbands and wives, according to Ephesians 5. Did Christ hold back anything in his redemptive work? No, it was perfect so that His Church may have spiritual life and give birth to others in its salvific workings in the world. This stuff can get a bit muddy but the point remains--marriage on earth is patterned after the marriage in Heaven of the Trinity--totally giving, totally unending, and totally life-giving. Attempts to prevent life from happening as a result of this love is futile in the Heavenly Marriage, and, for us, contrary to what we're called to as Christians on Earth.

Humanae Vitae, and specifically Pope Paul VI, made the following predictions for a culture that embraced contraception and had easy access to it. You tell me if they've come true or not:

First, he warned that the widespread use of contraception would lead to "conjugal infidelity and the general lowering of morality." With adultery at an all time high in marriages, with 1.5 million abortions occurring yearly in the US alone, with venereal diseases still increasing, with a 50% divorce rate, with growing amounts of children born out of wedlock, with child and spousal abuse climbing yearly, and with families breaking apart by the boat load, it isn't hard to see that this culture has compromised its morals. The main reason, in my opinion, is because we can. We now have the technological ability to backslide morally and get away with it. Now let's be fair--the proliferation of birth control isn't he sole contributing factor in these cultural norms but it'd be pure denial to say that our culture' s attitude toward sex has not been transformed for the worse with the onset of birth control technologies and its accessibility. The cultural revolution caused, in part, by our society's mindset toward birth control and, subsequently, sex in general, has produced exactly what Pope Paul VI said it would.

Second, Pope Paul VI warned that man would lose respect for woman and "no longer [care] for her physical and psychological equilibrium," to the point that he would consider her "as a mere instrument of selfish enjoyment, and no longer as his respected and beloved companion." I'll be the first to admit that I've been guilty of this. Anyone that's seen pornography is an example of what Paul VI is talking about. The culture at large has lost sight of what sex is--a gift in which we literally give our selves away. Knowing that we can have sex without having to consider the procreative aspect of it leads to an inevitable disregard for the act. Contraception might be marketed as liberating for women, but the real "beneficiaries" of birth control pills and devices would be men. Forty years later, contraception has released males -- to a degree never before seen-- from responsibility for their sexual aggression. Speaking from experience, I've been guilty of caring only about sex in my marriage--objectifying my wife as a vehicle purely for my physical satisfaction. It happens. We used birth control in various forms for the first 11 of our 12 married years and, personally, I can say that the gift provided us by God turned into vain repetition, empty physicality, and an imbalanced relationship in which our sex life became an anchor around our collective neck. In today's culture, it's not about giving exclusively (only you), eternally (always you), or entirely (all of you, including your fertility). It's about satiating an appetite, doing it in a way that won't result in the burden of a kid, until we tire of each other, and maybe even with someone other than our spouse. The fact that infidelity is rising, spousal abuse is rising, and divorce is rising, points to Pope Paul VI's words coming true in our day.

Third, Paul VI warned that widespread use of contraception would place a "dangerous weapon . . . in the hands of those public authorities who take no heed of moral exigencies." In other words, cultures like the one in China would arise in which parents are allowed a limited number of children to supposedly protect the interests of the state. Consequently, babies are killed through outright murder and abortion is wanton and commonplace there. Parents who try to hide their children from the government suffer greatly at the hands of a government that has taken eugenics to a new level and uses contraception to hold its people bound. Population control policies are part of every third world assistance package the United States appropriates--even mandating abortion in exchange for food and aid. It's a thinly veiled attempt at cultural re-engineering and population warfare, in a sense. In short, the onset of contraception has enabled the irresponsible use of it--a distinctly human problem.

Fourth, Pope Paul predicted that contraception would mislead human beings into 'thinking they had unlimited dominion over their own bodies, relentlessly turning the human person into the object of his or her own intrusive power.' Ironically, the 'freedom' that contraception has given women has given rise to a twisted feminism in our culture. The feminist culture of today treats fertility, pregnancy and motherhood as a disease, an affliction. This mentality is directly responsible for the 1.5 million abortions yearly in this country because a pregnant woman is told by her peers that she is less a woman for doing that which ONLY a woman can do--give life. She is told that this parasite inside of her is a burden, a barrier to happiness, and, worst of all, that she has the fundamental right to kill it whenever she chooses. In short, the pro-choice movement was borne out of the mentality created and fostered by easy, accessible, and rampant use of contraception. Not to mention the fact that men no longer have to take a share in the responsibility for promiscuity, sexual aggression, and unplanned pregnancy. This supposed 'freedom' for women is really freedom for men, instead.

Finally, Paul VI predicted that the human dynamic--the way we relate to each other in matters of eros and agape--the two types of love--would be irreparably damaged with rampant use of contraception. In-vitro fertilization, cloning, stem cell research on embryos, etc are all products of contraceptive technology. I think it's safe to say we've created monsters which we never even dreamed of for our society. Not because they raise ethical questions (though these cannot be understated), but because the effect they've had on our ability to love as God loves has been dramatic and negative. Our view of the sacrament of marriage has all but disappeared, even in Catholic circles. As Paul VI put it, 'It has scrambled our vocabulary of love, just as pride scrambled the vocabulary of Babel. ' And today, we deal with the consequences daily. Same sex marriage, pornography, dead babies in plastic bags/garbage dumpsters, lack of sexual identity, abortion, and embryo harvesting are symptoms which started with a cultural revolution in the 1960's in which women 'freed' themselves, men were to be judged by how many women they'd slept with, and the lines of morality were intentionally blurred unrecognizably.

2. So we're expected to have 20 children?

If that is God's will, then so be it. But the implication is that the Church expects one to indiscriminately keep pumping out kids with reckless abandon--this is not true. All the Church (and by allusion, Christ) requires of us is that we respect the natural order of things. Sex was given to us with clear reason, integrity, and place. To contracept is to willfully 'tie God's hands', so to speak. Spacing of children and limiting of children for good reason are not contraception, according to Humanae Vitae. Issues that are considered in good conscience (e.g., economic, health, etc.) must be taken into account but it's NEVER moral to artificially and deliberately prevent life from occurring. Things like abstinence and Natural Family Planning are morally licit (when done with proper intent) precisely because they do work with the natural order of fertility and are not 'anti child' in their motive and method.

3. So I'm supposed to rely on the rhythm method and pray hard that I don't have 12 kids?

The 'rhythm method' is a dinosaur. If you want lots of kids, use it. Natural Family Planning is a precise and immensely effective (99% effective when used properly) way to space children, respect the unitive and procreative aspects of sex, and do it in a way that is morally licit. We use a method called the Creighton Method and would never return to artificial contraception. We both have a role in our fertility monitoring and both take a stake in it. For us, we determined that Christ holds us to higher standards than the pagan world and so we are willing to try living by that standard. It isn't always easy but you can see that we don't have 12 kids. The bottom line is that when we made the decision that artificial contraception was wrong and that our selfish and anti-children mentality was negatively effecting our marriage and our moral decisions, our choice became quite easy.

4. What authority does the Church have to get into my sexual business?

Think back. When has God ever left His people without moral guidance? In the Old Testament, He gave us prophets, priests, judges, and kings all delegated moral authorities that were to interpret the Law for His people. Later, it became the Pharisees and, ultimately, Jesus grants His Church authority to preach, teach, and bind/loose all that He commanded them. In short, He left us with a moral authority to teach--if this authority was not infallible, then Christ's teachings would have been useless since His Church would not be able to maintain their integrity over time. But we know that Christ promised that the gates of Hell would not prevail over His Church EVER, and so we abide in His Church as moral guide and teacher. It's not about sexual business but rather salvation. The Church's job is to see each one of us to Heaven or it has failed. And so it takes its responsibility seriously to pronounce certain things contrary to God in concert with Christ's teachings and the teachings passed down by word of mouth and/or epistle by the Apostles. It's no more 'getting into your sexual business' than the Church pronouncing that bestiality is immoral is. Either it's consistent with Christ's teaching or it is not.

5. It sounds like NFP is just Catholic contraception.

Incorrect. There are fundamental moral differences between the two. The obvious one is that contraception involves the deliberate frustration of the marital act while NFP does not. This may seem like a small difference but, really, it's a large and important difference. The Catholic Church has always taught that married couples have the right to plan their families with the assumption that this is done in a just and responsible manner and with the correct motivation. The Catholic Catechism explains it like this:

2368 A particular aspect of this responsibility concerns the regulation of births. For just reasons, spouses may wish to space the births of their children. It is their duty to make certain that their desire is not motivated by selfishness but is in conformity with the generosity appropriate to responsible parenthood. (emphasis in original text)

So it's not 'regulation of birth' that the Church is concerned about but selfishness and the immoral means of fostering that. When a couple deliberately frustrates the procreative potential of the marriage act through contraception, they are acting against God's plan and design for marital love. On the other hand, when a couple who have a "just reason" for avoiding pregnancy choose instead to abstain from the marriage act during the fertile time of the cycle, they are not acting in violation of God's design. Abstaining from the marriage act (which is an integral part of NFP) does nothing to deliberately change the procreative potential of the marriage act because there is no act. Again, it is not a sin to postpone or avoid conception for a just reason, but how a couple postpones or avoids conception can be sinful or it can be virtuous.

A decent example is one provided by Christopher West, a Catholic theologian. Suppose there were a religious person, a nonreligious person, and an antireligious person walking past a church. What might each do? Let's say the religious person goes inside and prays, the nonreligious person walks by and does nothing, and the antireligious person goes inside the church and desecrates it. (I'm framing an analogy, of course, but these are reasonable behaviors to expect.) Which of these three persons did something that is always, under every circumstance, wrong? The last, of course.

In short, here the difference is spelled out:

Contraception=the deliberate willing of the non-existence of this possible child that may be conceived as a result of sexual intercourse AND the regarding of said child as 'an accident' or 'mistake' rather than God's divine providence. NFP=not refusing the possibilities of conception but abstaining as a decision to not conceive a child at any given time.

6. But contraception does not affect a real person, it only prevents a possible person from coming to be.

All human acts affect one thing--the future. Homicide, for example, does not erase the victim's past but only prevents them from having a future. Same for contraception--it only affects what life may come. Deliberate homicide (a redundant phrase) is wrong because of its injustice in the act but also in its desire that the victim cease to be. Contraceptive mentality contains the same related will--a deliberate wish that a given prospective life not be. It's often called a 'contralife will'.

7. Humans should be able to have sex whenever they want!

I'd challenge you to quote me chapter and verse on that one! Jesus, in fact, speaks often of the power of fasting, abstinence, and self mastery. Still, the only thing that 'prevents' you from having sex any time you want is your own contralife will. Physically, nothing prevents any married couple from intercourse (short of health issues, of course), it's usually the fact that they are deathly afraid of conceiving a child that would cramp their style. Humans are not animals--we possess an ability to reason and a will in which we can control our urges when it's morally required to do so. That's why we innately know things like rape, incest, homosexual sex, etc. are fundamentally immoral. Paul subdued his body and abstained from fleshly things in his imitation of Christ. We too are called to imitate Paul as he imitates Christ--marital chastity has a place in the spiritual good of the marriage. Use that time to become faith filled as an entity that has become one through the sacrament/oath/covenant you have entered into.

Holy Communion Not For Sale!

2006-07-20T13:20:00.000-07:00

Apparently, reports are coming out of the Philippines that priests (not all, but one is too many) are demanding fees before dispensing Holy Communion to public school kids. While the story doesn't confirm that this occurred, the Archbishop of Manila's words on the subject seem to convict them. “We priests, whom God have called to the custody of the Most Holy Sacrament of the Altar, must see children, above all, not only the ones in the Catholic schools but all those in public schools, as the first recipients of the immense gift of the Eucharist, which God has placed in our consecrated hands...More importantly, [the fees] may put an additional burden on the poor families of these children, which could lead to the nonreception of this great gift of the self-giving God, and this is quite heartbreaking.”

http://www.manilastandardtoday.com/?page=news06_july20_2006

Stories like this just make me shake my head. There's nothing like giving your enemies bullets to shoot at you with, and anti-Catholics love this kind of story. For them, it disproves the Church's validity. For me, however, it only confirms that there's something unique about the Catholic Church--its divine protection. In spite of 2000 years of humanity mucking up the Church's divine mission, it still survives and thrives because, as Christ said in Scripture, He would be with it until the end of the age and that the gates of Hell will not prevail against it. Put quite simply, if Catholics haven't managed to destroy the Church with their arrogance, stupidity, infidelity, and corruption, nothing will. But I will not leave Peter because of Judas because to leave Peter is to leave the rock upon which Jesus built His Church. And to leave this rock is to enter the unstable sand of the world. The divine element of the Church preserves it and maintains its teachings the same as the day it began in 33 A.D. and for this, I am truly grateful to God. But geez, guys, CUT IT OUT!

You Just Don't Get It, Keep It Copacetic...

2006-07-20T07:01:00.000-07:00

Our world culture is sick. That is a statement that reeks of intolerance, unwillingness to accept others, and downright closed mindedness...you're darn right it is.

Not a week goes by that I don't talk to someone who exhibits the symptoms of moral relativism. Our world has taken universal truths and made them mere hypotheses. We've demoted God and His Law and replaced it with negotiable morality. This piece will examine the culture at large and its definition of tolerance as well as the philosophical and common sense inconsistencies with statements like, 'Well, I'm against abortion but have no right to impose my view on anyone else.' and 'Jesus says not to judge others and so even though I wouldn't have an abortion, I can't judge the action of one who would.'

What Is Truth? Mr. Pilate, White Courtesy Phone...

Ask anyone today if Truth, with a capital 'T' exists and it's likely you'll hear something like this:
'Well, my truth is mine. It's different from your truth but it's what I believe to be true.' In effect, their answer is a non-answer because it just doesn't address whether an all-encompassing Truth can or does exist. Well, let's use some common sense. If I say '2+2=4', that is a Truth, with a capital 'T' no matter how badly you want 2+2 to equal 3 or whether your co-worker believes 2+2=3. What makes the statement '2+2=4' a Truth? It's absoluteness. In other words, 2+2=4 in America, Spain, Zimbabwe, or Uranus. 2+2=4 in the rain, in the sun, on a plane or on the run (pardon the Dr. Seuss-ism but this really is 4 year old stuff). In Norman Geisler's work 'I Don't Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist', he outlines certain Truths about Truth. It's about time that people make their peace with these things about Truth:

1. It exists. There are certain things that are True whether we want it to be or not. When I do not have access to oxygen, I cannot breathe--that is true always and everywhere.

2. Truth is discovered, not invented. For example, gravity existed before Newton observed it. Truth exists whether someone knows about it or not.

3. Truth is transcultural. It transcends us being American, Russian, or Martian.

4. Truth is unchanging. Our BELIEFS about Truth may change (Lord knows enough politicians have flip flopped on issues in their lives), however. But the world was round even when man thought it was flat and it's still round now that man has changed its views about it.

5. Changing beliefs cannot change a Truth. It doesn't matter if you genuinely think the red pen in your hand is blue, that sincere belief won't make the pen's redness turn to blue.

6. Truth is not determined by how it is presented. If an arrogant Catholic shows up at your doorstep and says that God is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, the fact that he's ignorant does not make the Truth he has just proclaimed any less true.

7. Truth is absolute. Even truths that appear to be relative are actually absolute. For example, if I declare that on July 20, 2006, I feel warm, this is Truth. That statement may appear relative but it's really true for everyone, everywhere that I had the sensation of warmness on that day.

The obvious conclusion about Truth, therefore, is that a contrary truth is an impossible thing because Truth is one, whole, and unable to be contradicted. Contrary beliefs about Truth are possible-- we can believe that things are true but we cannot make them true if they aren't already true.

One Religion, Two Religion, Three Religion, Four...

Religion has become a taboo topic in the halls of Congress, on the campaign trails, the State Houses, production meetings of network television, and around the world. It's as if our fear of offending others has triggered a hyper-sensitive gene that has been dormant for generations in which we believe that religion is personal ONLY and should only be broached in the privacy of our own homes. We've convinced ourselves that all religions are the same, encompassing the same level of trueness and so they're interchangeable--spiritual Transformers. As a result, our society now sees Pope Benedict XVI, Benny Hinn, and David Koresh in the same light because their religions are perceived to be on equal footing with regard to truth. Is this assumption correct? Are all religions equal in Truth and, therefore, no more or less important than any other? Well, a society that would put Satanism on par with Christianity just isn't thinking, and here's why.

First, common sense should tell us that many religions have diametrically opposing beliefs. Both cannot be correct. If the Catholic faith teaches that no salvation exists outside the Church, while the Unitarian Faith teaches that there are many equal roads to salvation, both can't be true. The choices are:

A. The Unitarians teach the Truth
B. The Catholics teach the Truth
C. A 3rd option is true.

Saying they're all correct is to be out of touch with reality since they're mutually exclusive statements, like 2+2=4 and 2+2=3.

Second, while all religions may hold to certain moral codes that are similar, they are not the same. Especially if you take 'religions' like Satanism which would argue that murder is good in certain circumstances or South American Indian tribes who perform human sacrifice. The fact is that most religions disagree on fundamental things like the nature of God, sin, salvation, etc. Furthermore, these beliefs are mutually exclusive which means one is True and others are false. All religions are not created equal because they cannot be reconciled with each other. And if Truth exists, then not all can claim it equally.

Tolerance: You're ALL Right!

So we've established that some religions have false claims. It's inevitable since their claims are directly in opposition to others' and only one can be right. And if you dare say something like this in America, particularly on the public stage, you'll be ridiculed. You'll hear people say 'Hey, you're not tolerant, you're a bully!'

Tolerance has gone from 'putting up with something you believe to be false' to 'accepting every belief as true'. The resulting culture has concluded that NO religion is the best policy since they're all equal and to nod or wink at one would be to insult another. This is called 'tolerance' today but the net effect has been to tolerate NONE rather than accept all. There are a few problems that arise--problems we see manifest in our modern day American culture.

First, when the State actively goes out of its way to NOT recognize God, the state becomes God. Look at Communist nations like China and the previous Soviet Union. They eliminated God from their societies and replaced Him with the God-State. Here in America, our 'tolerance model' has effectively attempted to eliminate God out of respect for all who believe in God--a truly schizophrenic idea. The result has been a culture in which 1.5 million abortions are performed legally every year in America. The result has been a culture in which marriage has been ridiculed and divorce has been equated to a cure for cancer. The result has been that human embryos--actual human persons--are actively killed so their tissue can be used to save lives we think are more important. In other words, our 'tolerance' has manifested itself in a culture of death. Pope Pius XI declared that this type of society is 'utterly foreign to Christian truth.'

Second, even the most 'tolerant' people have limits to their toleration, even Jesus! When ideologies and policies stomp all over things like God's commandments, fundamental human rights (life being the most important one), and the dignity of the human person, then tolerance has failed. If we are to use Jesus as our model, then a simple reading of the Gospels shows a God-Man that was steadfast in His teachings, unyielding in his integrity, and was far from tolerant when Truth was betrayed. That's because there are certain Truths about humans coexisting. When a person is moved by his conscience to become a terrorist, society has deemed that to be beyond the line of toleration. If a society decided that the minority should be enslaved, we do not tolerate it. Obviously, tolerance has its limits, just ask anyone who refuses to tolerate the Catholic view on abortion or bioethics.

Third, the obvious result of tolerance has been indifference. In other words, we have decided to live and let live, no matter what. We have not only tolerated untruth but have embraced it by taking tolerance to its extreme end. If someone believes that murder is right, it's our duty to let them believe this rather than try to change their delusion. But as Catholics, can we really look in the mirror and say this is what Jesus meant when he said to 'teach all nations that which I have so commanded'? Paul the apostle would say no. In fact, he wished that 'all those that hear me would become as I am.' (Acts 26) In other words, wanting salvation for others is what Catholics do. If we are to love like Jesus, we must want Heaven for every human and this belief manifests itself in speaking up. If we do not speak up, we toss our religious freedom into the trash.

In short, tolerance as it is entrenched in our culture, is dangerous. It blurs the lines of Truth and prefers appeasement to accountability. As Catholic Christians, tolerance is not a virtue. It is an excuse that we have used to allow unjust laws against the unborn, infirmed, and society.

You Keep Using That Word--I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means

Does Jesus prohibit us from saying 'Hey, what you are doing is wrong.'? This question seems silly but many Christians (including myself) have claimed that Jesus Himself told us not to judge others. So let's look at what we ARE supposed to do.

The proper place to start would be with Jesus Himself. Not one single instance exists in which Jesus says 'I see you are in adultery. I personally wouldn't do that but hey, it's a free empire.' In fact, He tells her to 'go and sin no more', clearly telling her that her lifestyle was unacceptable. He doesn't say 'Repent if you feel like it!' He demands that sins be admitted and that people change their lives. St. John tells us to test everything to see if it's really of God, not just the big stuff. Paul says that we must determine if what others tell us is consistent with the Gospel he preached. Even the Old Testament (Deuteronomy) commands us to take what a person says and discern if he's a false prophet or not. So questioning beliefs is a fundamental Christian principle.

Next, let's just look at the statement 'We're not supposed to judge anyone.' That statement is, itself, a judgment! See, when Jesus says we ought not judge in Matthew 7, He's talking about judging hypocritically (that's the context, folks, look it up) or proclaiming anyone objectively in Hell, for that is God's job. A judgment that we ought to make all religions equal is still a judgment. A judgment that life begins at birth, and not conception, is a judgment. So common sense demands that we rethink the use of that phrase. So the issue becomes not whether we can make judgments, but rather do we make the right judgments in accord with Truth. And just as soon as those who would not judge are willing to accept a Muslim terrorist's religious belief that all infidels should die, or those who believe in pedophilia or child sacrifice, we can take them seriously. In fact, check out John 7:

'Judge not on appearances but judge with right judgment.'

What do we make of this? If we are not to judge, then John has some 'splaining to do. And so does the Apostle Paul, who in speaking of a fornicator among the Corinthians, 'had already judged' him. See, the key to understanding Matthew 7 is that we'll be judged IN THE VERY SAME MANNER we judge others. If we judge irresponsibly, the same standard will be applied to us. If we judge prudently and fairly/fully informed, then we get the same treatment from God. So judge when you must, do it with compassion but also with power and integrity. When someone says we should be able to terminate the life of a child an ANY unborn age, judge that statement and act accordingly or you too will be judged by God according to your inaction.

The scariest thing is the person who smugly declares 'I am tolerant and so is God' and then proceeds to give you a laundry list of the things they do not tolerate. I've had non-Christians tell me that they do not tolerate bigotry and then proceed to tell an anti-Catholic joke. I've had people tell me they believe ALL roads to religion are right and then tell me that the Catholic way of thinking is deplorable. Judging is what humans do. When Christ died and rose for our sins, he made us partaker of his divine nature. One aspect of that divine nature is Judge. We, sharing in his judgeship, are OBLIGATED to make judgments if we are to imitate Him. Don't let anyone tell you that judging is wrong because that's just a cop out. As for God being tolerant, I would ask this. Are you sure that's God being tolerant or just your preconceived (and hopeful) belief about God? One of humanity's worst traits is that we make God into ourselves, rather than vice versa. God is Love and so must love what is good and true. Do you really think God would tolerate insults against his Son? His Son laid out clear, precise, and ABSOLUTE truths--can God tolerate that which is against what His Son laid out? Does God tolerate sin? Look at a crucifix and answer honestly--no.

Legislating Morality

Perhaps the most impotent argument I've seen from the John Kerrys and other weak minded and heartless purveyors of this 'Tolerance Doctrine' is that enacting any law that is in line with conservative Christian moral doctrine is imposing morality on non-Christians. What a load of manure! Kerry and his ilk would have us believe that Christian morals are akin to some backward and oppressive set of rules that originated in the mind of some sadistic, inhuman, mind on a planet filled with unhappy, brain washed, drones. Funny, the killing of innocents seems like it'd be morally repugnant on ANY planet.

Still, the reality--one that should be perfectly honest to such an informed conscience as Mr. Kerry--is that EVERY law enacted by a government is a legislation of morality. Call me crazy but a law outlawing murder seems to be making the moral statement: murder is immoral and dangerous to one's health. Laws against rape seem to make the moral statement: violation of a human person sexually is immoral. Laws against burglary seem to make the moral statement: stealing is immoral. People were saying 'you can't legislate morality' when Martin Luther King was fighting for racial equality. King himself said, 'True, the law cannot make the white man love me, but it sure can discourage him from lynching me!'

Another statement I've seen and find hard to believe is, 'When opinions are divided. The laws of a society should respect and reflect this." There's just one problem--that little thing called Truth should, by all accounts, govern a society's laws. The Founding Fathers made it clear that the laws of a nation must be in accord with God's laws and this is one reason why they established a Republic and not a Democracy. A Democracy says that if 50.1% of a society says that murder is fundamentally good, then its laws reflect this until the other side obtains 50.1%of the vote. A Republic, however, says that the laws of a society reflect the majority rule but must also protect the minority. Truth must dictate a society's laws. If they do not, then the Catholic faith says they are not merely unjust laws, it says they are NOT LAWS AT ALL. Any law that is not just simply is not valid and need not be followed. Abortion laws and euthanasia laws may be backed by a majority of our society (though that remains to be proven in any respects) but these laws cannot meet the fundamental standard of law--that the minority be protected, and so are not laws at all from the Catholic perspective.

The bottom line is that if you call yourself Christian--an imitator of Christ--then 'I can't impose my beliefs on others' or 'I don't want to legislate morality' are empty, insufficient, and far short of Jesus' plan for us. Pick what is right, but do more than that--ACT. We Christians are here to divide, not unite under a flag of false tolerance and lip service. If you want laws that are just, then search for Truth, not for consensus or appeasement because in Truth, we find Justice. God Bless.

And In Other News, Zidane's Car Insulted His Sister...

2006-07-20T06:55:00.000-07:00

Former Abortion Clinic Comes Back As Catholic Chapel!

2006-07-18T10:27:00.000-07:00

From the 'yes, there IS a God' files, comes a story about a former abortion clinic in Williamsville, NY that has been turned into the chapel of a Catholic radio station.

Aptly titled 'The Chapel of the Holy Innocents', the chapel was dedicated by Bishop Edward Kmiec of Buffalo in memory of all babies who have been aborted. Station of The Cross, a four station Catholic radio network, constructed the chapel for private reflections by radio station employees and will also be the site of live broadcasts of the Holy Mass.

'In the tradition of the early church, pagan temples were turned into holy spaces,' Bishop Kmiec said. 'We have done the same thing here today.' Indeed, besides being a place of worship and quiet reflection, the symbolic replacement of an abortion clinic with a house of God can only be described as inspirational to those who work in the trenches and are committed to a culture of life. Amidst the constant news of abortion rates remaining high, certain Catholic/Christian politicians defending abortion as a fundamental right, and a culture that turns a blind eye to it, I thank God for stories like this one.

Here's the article: http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=20536

What Do We Really Believe About Mary's Relationship To The Trinity?

2006-07-18T07:39:00.000-07:00

I've heard many different versions of exactly what Catholics teach about Mary as Mother of God and her subsequent relationship to the Triune God from non-Catholics. Not a single one quotes from a Catechism or Church Council and so misinformation abounds. I've had Jehovah's Witnesses at my door telling me that the Catholic Church elevates Mary to the mother of the Trinity, making her divine and omnipotent and so let's set the record straight...

There are many explanations of Mary's status as Mother of God, but the one that is clearest comes from the 11th Council of Toledo in 675:

In this Son of God we believe there are two natures, one of divinity, the other of humanity, which the one person of Christ so united in himself that the divinity can never be separated from the humanity, nor the humanity from the divinity. Christ, therefore, is perfect God and perfect man in the unity of one person; but it does not follow, because we have asserted there are two natures in the Son, that there are two persons in Him, lest--which God forbid--a quaternity be predicated of the Trinity.
For God the Word has not received the person of man, but the nature, and to the eternal power of the divinity He has united the temporal substance of flesh.
Likewise we believe that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are of one substance, but we do not say that the Virgin Mary gave birth to the unity of the Trinity, but only to the Son, who alone assumed our nature in the unity of His person.
Also, we must believe that the entire Trinity accomplished the Incarnation of the Son of God, because the works of the Trinity are inseparable. However, only the Son took the form of a servant in the singleness of His person, not in the unity of His divine nature; in what is proper to the Son, not in what is common to the Trinity; and this form was adapted to Him for unity of person so that the Son of God and the Son of man is one Christ, that is, Christ in these two natures exists in three substances; of the Word, which must refer to the essence of God alone, of the body, and of the soul, which pertain to true man.
He has, therefore, in Himself the twofold substance of His divinity and our humanity. We understand, however, that by the fact that he proceeded from God the Father without beginning, He was born only, for He was neither made nor predestined; by the fact, however, that He was born of the Virgin Mary, we must believe that he was born, made, and predestined.
Yet both births in Him are marvelous, because He was both begotten by the Father without a mother before all ages, and in the end of ages He was born of a mother without a father; He who, however, according as He is God created Mary, according as He is man was created from Mary; He is both father and son of His mother Mary.
Likewise by that fact that He is God, He is equal to the Father; by the fact that He is man, He is less than the Father. Likewise we must believe that He is both greater and less than Himself; for in the form of God even the Son Himself is greater than Himself on account of the humanity He assumed, than which the divinity is greater; in the form, however, of a servant He is less than Himself, that is, in His humanity which is recognized as less than His divinity.

This simple misunderstanding among both Catholics and non-Catholics about exactly what the Church teaches has added
fuel to the fires of separation needlessly. Catholic oftentimes don't know their faith and so they explain Mary's role in alvation history improperly, saying things that make Protestants ill. Meanwhile, non-Catholics make assumptions (pun intended) about Catholic Marian teachings in bad faith
based upon hearsay of a culture that has perpetuated an anti-Catholic ideology. Bad information breeds bad information and so mainstream Catholics have a responsibility to our
separated brethren to, at the very least, get the teachings right, explain them fully, know where
to refer them if we cannot, and let them make informed
decisions of faith.

FAQ Sheet-Mary, Mother of Jesus

2006-07-17T08:40:00.000-07:00

The following is a collection of questions asked about Mary, the Catholic teachings about Mary, and misconceptions about both. This is not meant to be an exhaustive theological treatise on any particular issue, but merely a simple and 'on the surface' look at issues that have arisen in dialogues with non-Catholics.

1. Where does the title 'Mother of God' come from?
The title 'Mother of God' comes from her son, Jesus of Nazareth, being God incarnate. If Jesus is God, and Mary is his mother, then Mary is the Mother of God. This title was officially defined (though the dogma was in place from the beginning) at the Council of Ephesus in 431 when the only Christian Church on Earth confirmed its long held dogma that Jesus was one person with two natures and, in truth,God. His natures were both full and complete in the one person, Jesus. This reaffirmation addressed the Nestorian heresy that Jesus was two persons (human and divine) and that only his divine nature was God. The natural result of declaring Jesus, a distinct person, God is that the mother of that divine person becomes 'Theotokos', or the God-bearer. In short, if Jesus is God, then His mom is 'Mother of God'.

2. But Mary was only mother of Jesus' human nature, not his divine nature, right?
The Church has always taught that Jesus is not schizo. He is a person, not a milkshake made up of natures. Jesus' divine and human natures are inseparably united, distinct, and fully present in the person of Jesus. He was true god and true man, so to separate these natures would create two Jesuses. The Church teaches that Mary is not the 'origin' of Christ's divinity but is the Mother of the person, Jesus.

3. Making Mary the mother of Jesus' divine nature makes her divine and that's idolatry.
When my son Luke was born, I had no participation in the origin of his soul. My wife and I, however, participated with God to provide him his physical traits and human nature. But I don't summon him by saying, 'Luke, my human son, bring your human nature to the dinner table, it's time to eat.' I'm his dad--father of the person, Luke. So by defining Jesus as one person who is God, Mary becomes, by default, the Mother of God. No divinity is assigned to her. She died before the Council of Ephesus so all who attended knew she was not divine. Understand that the title 'Mother of God' defines certain things about Jesus, not Mary. It's not assigning her any characteristics that she didn't already have by mothering the incarnate God.

4. Where is she called 'Mother of God' in the Bible?
Check out Luke 1:43:
And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?

This is St. Elizabeth speaking under the power of the Holy Spirit so her credibility is impeccable, I'd say. Who was 'Lord' in the Jewish faith? The First Commandment says 'I am the Lord, Your God'. God=Lord, Jesus=God, Mary=Mother of Jesus, Mary=Mother of God.

You can also check out John 2:1:
And the third day, there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee: and the mother of Jesus was there.

Notice that John doesn't call Mary 'the earthly mother of Jesus' human nature'. She is Jesus' mother, plain and simple. So who is Jesus? Oh, he's God incarnate--one person containing two natures. The only way Mary is not Mother of God is if Jesus is not God, simply put.

5. Wow, a whole TWO verses. Face it, Mary's an afterthought in Scripture.
All one has to do is run a search of Scripture to find out exactly how many times she's mentioned. I'll grant that it's relatively few when compared to other people and events but let's use this logic and apply it to the whole of Scripture. Being 'born again' is mentioned only 3 times in Scripture yet Christians place in the forefront of their evangelism. Trinity is not mentioned even once in Scripture and yet it is the fundamental way we know God as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Having a 'personal relationship with Jesus' is not mentioned once, for your information.

6. OK, I get the point. But Mary's just a peripheral character in Scripture so why do you place such emphasis on her?
The Catholic Church doesn't rely on Scripture alone for its fundamental doctrines because all that Jesus and the Apostles taught isn't just in Scripture but in the oral teachings of both( 2 Thes. 2:15) and mentioned directly in Scripture. Still, when Mary appears in Scripture, she's depicted in the most important events of Jesus' ministry. She's a present and active participant at the Annunciation (let it be done according to your word), and at the Incarnation/Virgin Birth. She is present and an actual impetus/catalyst to Jesus' first miracle and the beginning of his public ministry (do what he tells you) and is at the foot of the cross where Jesus gives her to the Apostle John (behold, your mother...behold, your son). She's at prayer with the Apostles after the Ascension(tongues of fire rested upon them) and at Pentecost. One of my favorite points about Mary is that, in some ways, she prefers to be discovered rather than announced--kinda like her Son.

7. But Mary clearly makes a mistake and is rebuked by Jesus at the Wedding at Cana. This has serious effects on her sinlessness and her status to Jesus, right?
I see no mistake by Mary. Mary says 'They have no wine' and the Gospel of John tells us she was right, not mistaken! Further, Mary did not say 'I want you to make some wine, NOW!'. She didn't proclaim Jesus' hour and command him to go perform a miracle. She simply states a fact: they have no wine. So either BOTH Mary and the Gospel are wrong, or Mary does not err in this statement.

8. But Jesus corrects her in public when he says 'What to me and to you, woman? My hour has not yet come.'
The only way to see a 'correction' here is to look for it. When Mary said 'they have no wine', did Jesus say, 'Wrong! There IS wine!'? Instead, he replied, 'What to me and to you, woman?' Why would a son that had the gall to rebuke him mom in public (thereby violating the 4th commandment) do it by asking 'what to me AND TO YOU'? Here, Christ is indicating that Mary's thoughts matter, otherwise, he'd have just said, 'What is this to me?'
Check out Luke 8:28:

"When he [the man possessed by demons] saw Jesus, he cried out and fell down before him, and said with a loud voice, ‘What have you to do with me, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? I beseech you, do not torment me.’"

First, is this a rebuke? No. Would Christ really allow himself to be rebuked by a demon? No. This phrase can be used to express a sort of surprise, not as a rebuke.

Second, in Jewish culture, it would be unheard of for a son to rebuke his mother in public. Hebrews says that Christ followed the commandments perfectly, including the 4th commandment of honoring your mother and father.

9. Her mistake was in assuming that she could tell Jesus when to begin his public ministry and he corrects her.How does Mary respond to Christ's rebuke? Does she take it as a correction? Hardly. Does she apologize and go sit down? No. Do the apostles discuss how mistaken Mary was about the amount of wine on hand and how Jesus told his own mother off? Nope. If Mary committed a mistake and Jesus called her out, their subsequent actions just don't make any sense. Mary tells the servants to 'Do whatever he tells you'. She does not say 'Jesus will make wine for you NOW' but, instead says 'Do whatever he tells you'. The only way this could be a mistake would be if she somewhow said 'Do NOT do whatever he tells you.' For his part, Christ doesn't tell the servants 'Let's cut the cake first.' or 'When's the bride tossing the garter?'. He gives them firm instructions and turns water into wine--not exactly a correction of Mary here.

In short, Mary's statement is factual, not a mistake. Christ's reply is not a correction. Mary's instructions to the servants are proper. Christ takes the statement Mary has made into account and performs the miracle.

More To Come...

Something About Mary

2006-07-14T07:58:00.000-07:00

I was digging through some old articles I had filed away and came across one in Christianity Today written by Timothy George, a Southern Baptist theologian entitled 'The Blessed Evangelical Mary'. The article was an explanation of why evangelical Christians and other non-Catholics should pay more attention to Mary, the Mother of Jesus. You can access the article here: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2003/012/1.34.html

I know, the title ain't exactly an American original but it strikes at the heart of something very dear to me, and to many Catholics. Mary, the Mother of Jesus, has played a unique role in salvation history in spite of many who have attempted to paint her as a mere box that incubated Jesus for 9 months. Some minimize her duty as a mother--she breastfed God, she changed God's pampers, she taught Jesus how to pray, and she played kick ball with God! In short, she was not some impersonal Jetsons-like robot that popped food capsules into Jesus and sat in a corner while He self-actualized. Mary was Jesus' mother--his ONLY mother chosen from all women born and to be born through all of time--and, as a good Jewish male, you can bet the farm that Jesus honored her perfectly. So why do many openly wish to erase her role from Jesus' life and ours? Many extol the greatness of 'reformers' like Luther, Calvin, Knox, and Zwingli, the whole time ignoring their undying devotion to Mary as the first Christian and as Mother of God. These men wrote sermons about Mary's necessarily elevated role in salvation history and did not hold back reverence and even prayers to her! Martin Luther put it best when he wrote:

Whoever possesses a good (firm) faith, says the Hail Mary without danger! Whoever is weak in faith can utter no Hail Mary without danger to his salvation.

Now I'll be the first to admit the excesses of some Catholics in their devotion to Mary. Heck, many Catholics have elevated Mary to a deity and attribute 'powers' to her that even she would scoff at. Great numbers of Central and South American Catholics have wrongly mixed their previous pagan beliefs, in which female goddesses were on par with male gods of the pantheon, and the result has been extreme Marian devotion, dare I say, worship. This is blasphemous and downright dangerous and the Catholic Church's official teaching authority has said as much. Let's be clear. Fundamental Catholic teachings about Mary are these:

1. Mary is not God. There is but ONE God, the Triune God of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Labeling her 'Mother of God', if one understands the teaching, does not make her divine.

2. Mary did not save herself. She required a savior just as we all do.

3. Mary is nothing more than what God made her. The grace that God provided her to birth and mother the Son of God is a free gift given her by God, not earned by her own merits. The intercessory priveleges given Mary do not take away from Her Son's glory because Her Son is the one who bestowed them.

4. Mary does not compete with God, she points to and serves him as the handmaiden of the Lord. She is God's 'masterpiece', a perfect example of fulfilled humanity and, as the angel said, 'Full of grace'. When we look at Mary, we see God glorified because of the grace and goodness found in Her perfected. Still, let us not forget that if Mary says 'no' to God's proposition, the Son of God does not enter this world to redeem us.

And so, out of devotion to our Mother of God, I will explore the true historical teachings of the Catholic Church about Mary. Devotion to her did not start out of superstition, out of apostasy, or out of desperation--it started with Christ. One major criteria I had when I was deciding to follow Christ was that the teachings I follow were His and that they were true from the beginning. If a teaching existed as part of Christ's deposit of faith, it would be seen (in acorn form allowing for honest development or fully actualized) in the first Christians and their writings. Marian devotion, improperly understood, is a major stumbling block for new Catholic converts and is also a lightning rod for those who would assail the Catholic faith.

The First Christian Worship Looks Familiar To Me

2006-07-13T13:54:00.000-07:00

One of the things that brought me home to the Catholic Church was the fact that it was steeped in history. The more I read writings from great 1st generation Christians like Ignatius of Antioch, Clement of Rome, Polycarp, and others, it became readily apparent that the first Christians were not beatniks, they weren't Gnostics, they weren't New Agers--they were Catholics. Doctrine, discipline, structure, and worship were distinct and not open to discussion or dissent. The first Christian worship services were very secret. As a result, the stories that were floating around pagan circles with regard to what went on there provided the first tabloid TV.

After a bout of uneasiness in remembering the Catholic Liturgy I had attended a thousand times as a child, I made my peace with the fact that the liturgy of the first Christians was the same essential liturgy that the Catholic Church prays today. If I was to be Christian, I had one option--to follow the footsteps of the first Christians or deny Christ altogether.

Christianity Today had the boldness to make this point clearly in one of its May 2006 issues. In it, they reprinted the writings of Justin Martyr, one of the Chruch's first apologists, who described in detail the Christian worship service. Below is the text of Justin's writing First Apology, and in bold are the distinctly Catholic elements that were present in Justin's liturgy circa 155 AD and commentary in blue:

How we dedicated ourselves to God when we were made new through Christ I will explain, since it might seem to be unfair if I left this out from my exposition. Those who are persuaded and believe that the things we teach and say are true, and promise that they can live accordingly, are instructed to pray and beseech God with fasting for the remission of their past sins, while we pray and fast along with them. Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are reborn by the same manner of rebirth by which we ourselves were reborn; for they are then washed in the water in the name of God the Father and Master of all, and of our Savoir Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit. For Christ said, "Unless you are born again you will not enter into the Kingdom of heaven."
The Catholic Church, as Justin describes here as well, holds Trinitarian Baptism to be a sacrament. In other words, it baptizes new Christians (we will deal with infant baptism at a later time) in the name of the Father, Son, and H0ly Spirit and teaches that this baptism regenerates that person by the grace of God. Baptism was an ACTUAL rebirth, an ontological change in that person and this teaching remains in Catholicism today.

Now it is clear to all that those who have once come into being cannot enter the wombs of those who bore them. But as I quoted before, it was said through the prophet Isaiah how those who have sinned and repent shall escape from their sins. He said this: "Wash yourselves, be clean, take away wickedness from your souls, learn to do good, give judgment for the orphan and defend the cause of the widow, and come and let us reason together, says the Lord. And though your sins be as scarlet, I will make them as white as wool, and though they be as crimson, I will make them as white as snow." . . .
After thus washing the one who has been convinced and signified his assent, [we] lead him to those who are called brethren, where they are assembled. They then earnestly offer common prayers for themselves and the one who has been illuminated and all others every where, that we may be made worthy, having learned the truth, to be found in deed good citizens and keepers of what is commanded, so that we may be saved with eternal salvation.
On finishing the prayers we greet each other with a kiss. Then bread and a cup of water and mixed wine are brought to the president of the brethren and he, taking them, sends up praise and glory to the Father of the universe through the name of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and offers thanksgiving at some length that we have been deemed worthy to receive these things from him. When he has finished the prayers and the thanksgiving, the whole congregation present assents, saying, "Amen." "Amen" in the Hebrew language means, "So be it." When the president has given thanks and the whole congregation has assented, those whom we call deacons give to each of those present a portion of the consecrated bread and wine and water, and they take it to the absent.
What you see here is what occurs in every Catholic Church in the world on every single day. There's no difference between a liturgy in Spain or in South Africa--the liturgy was universal in Justin's time and it remains so today. What Justin describes here is the Liturgy of the Eucharist.
This food we call Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake except one who believes that the things we teach are true, and has received the washing for forgiveness of sins and for rebirth, and who lives as Christ handed down to us. For we do not receive these things as common bread or common drink; but as Jesus Christ our Savior being incarnate by God's word took flesh and blood for our salvation, so also we have been taught that the food consecrated by the word of prayer which comes from him, from which our flesh and blood are nourished by transformation, is the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus.
Justin makes it clear that the Eucharist isn't a symbol. The Catholic Church teaches that the Eucharist is the actual body and blood of Christ under the appearance of bread and wine. It also teaches that receiving this spiritual food and drink worthily is the ONLY way to receive it. And so it forbids presenting one's self for communion while in serious sin, just as Justin describes in his early liturgy. This is because St. Paul wrote that 'those who eat this bread and drink this cup unworthily eat and drink damnation on themselves.' You don't go to Hell for drinking a symbol unworthily, which tells me the first Christians saw the Eucharis as the real body and blood of Jesus.

For the apostles in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, thus handed down what was commanded them: that Jesus, taking bread and having given thanks, said, "Do this for my memorial, this is my body"; and likewise taking the cup and giving thanks he said, "This is my blood"; and gave it to them alone. …
In the Catholic liturgy, these words are repeated verbatim and are considered the central/focal point of the entire ceremony.

After these [services] we constantly remind each other of these things. Those who have more come to the aid of those who lack, and we are constantly together. Over all that we receive we bless the Maker of all things through his Son Jesus Christ and through the Holy Spirit.
And on the day called Sunday there is a meeting in one place of those who live in cities or the country, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read as long as time permits. When the reader has finished, the president in a discourse urges and invites [us] to the imitation of these noble things.
This is called the Liturgy of the Word in the Catholic Mass. After one Old Testament reading, one New Testament epistle, and one Gospel reading, the president, or priest, speaks to the congregation preaches about their meaning and application to our lives.

Then we all stand up together and offer prayers. And, as said before, when we have finished the prayer, bread is brought, and wine and water, and the president similarly sends up prayers and thanksgivings to the best of his ability, and the congregation assents, saying the Amen; the distribution, and reception of the consecrated [elements] by each one, takes place and they are sent to the absent by the deacons.
In the Catholic liturgy, the congregation offers prayers with the priest for the faithfully departed, our clergy, world leaders, etc. ,

Those who prosper, and who so wish, contribute, each one as much as he chooses to. What is collected is deposited with the president, and he takes care of orphans and widows, and those who are in want on account of sickness or any other cause, and those who are in bonds, and the strangers who are sojourners among [us], and, briefly, he is the protector of all those in need.
The Catholic Church then takes the consecrated gifts to the needy and sick of our city who cannot make it to Mass due to sickness, prison, etc.. Also, we can go to ANY place corner of the world and receive the eucharist. 'Catholic' means 'universal', and from the beginning, the universal church resided in the Catholic Church.

We all hold this common gathering on Sunday, since it is the first day, on which God transforming darkness and matter made the universe, and Jesus Christ our Saviour rose from the dead on the same day. For they crucified him on the day before Saturday, and on the day after Saturday, he appeared to his apostles and disciples and taught them these things which I have passed on to you also for your serious consideration.
Seventh Day Adventists claim that the Catholic Church changed the day of worship after Constantine 'started' the Church. They are right that the Catholic Church, after being given all authority to bind and loose by Christ, moved the day of worship to Sunday but this writing from 155 AD seems to suggest that it was done from the beginning of the Church, not some 300 years after Christ.

God And The Arrogance Of Scientists

2006-07-12T07:25:00.000-07:00

God is sitting in Heaven when a scientist says to
Him, "Lord, we don't need you anymore. Science has finally figured out a way to
create life out of nothing. In other words, we can now do what you did in the
'beginning'."

"Oh, is that so? Tell me..." replies God.

"Well, "
says the scientist, "we can take dirt and form it into the likeness of You and
breathe life into it, thus creating man."

"Well, that's interesting.
Show Me."

So the scientist bends down to the ground and starts to mold
the soil. "Oh no, no, no..." interrupts God, "Get your own dirt."

And you thought science was merely the objective quest for objective truth. Read the following statement from a respected member of the scientific community and re-think, por favor:

"Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our own a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, not matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a divine foot in the door."

Harvard population biologist, Richard Lewontin

Did Dr. Lewontin just state that scientists of today accept obvious and patent absurdity for the sole purpose of not having to entertain the idea of a divine presence and role in creation? Now we're getting somewhere. See, I always thought that science was a field filled with a 'truth at all costs, no matter what we may find' mentality. Surely, embryonic stem cells are the answer to finding cures for cancer, ALS, and Alzheimer's Disease, right? Why, the findings of all 'credible' study say so! Er, what? Study findings were fabricated for the sole purpose of prestige, money, and pride? Oh.

Science perceives itself to be in conflict with religion, and this false assumption is what forces men like Dr. Lewontin to reach conclusions that are disingenuous at best and downright deceptive to self and others at worst. Look, let's make this really simple--God is the God of EVERYTHING, including science. Why not admit what is plain to even the simplest thinkers? The laws of physics, chemistry, and every other natural science exist as the result of a law-giver. Oh, and I'm no Stephen Hawking but, given the fact that these laws stretch the very limits of human intelligence to observe, define, and postulate about, I'm guessing that the law-giver is a hell of a lot smarter than we are. Now we see that the reason science does not naturally and intuitively lead to a conclusion of a 'law giver' because things like pride, ego, and a pre-determined agenda get in the way.

The Catholic Catechism has the most plausible and systematic position with regard to science:

"Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth." "Consequently, methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are."

See, no matter how hard scientists want to eliminate God from the equation, the inevitable truth that emerges is that God is one leading them to their discoveries. Recently, Stephen Hawking claims that Pope John Paul II told him that science should not inquire into the moment the universe was created, because it was the work of God. For such a smart guy, Hawking seems kinda dull. Context of JP II's remarks, translation of said remarks (English is not his first language, ya know) aside, I'd characterize Hawking's flippant remarks (he followed up his remarks with a clever remark about being hammered by the Inquisition like Galileo) as a misinterpretation of the Catholic position. John Paul the Great has always made the point that science has limits. And as such, these limits cannot be artificially edited to put something as grandiose as the beginnings of the world into it. God cannot fit into a box. Neither can it be so arrogant as to ignore fields like Theology, Philosophy, etc and go it alone in search of definitive answers. These fields 'purify science from idolatry and false absolutes' while science has a role of 'purifying religion from error and superstition'.

Reaping And Sowing: A Real-World Perspective

2006-07-11T15:47:00.000-07:00

This op-ed piece was in the Los Angeles Times. First, I can't believe it was actually run, given the secular press' agenda as bastions of liberal social activism (only when it suits itself, of course). Second, in a town like Los Angeles, this piece probably attracted more venom and disdain than you could shake a stick at! Our brothers and sisters in the Episcopal Church are in the midst of social and spiritual upheaval and this piece offers an excellent perspective from one outside the fray.

Liberal Christianity is paying for its sins
Out-of-the-mainstream beliefs about gay marriage and supposedly sexist doctrines are gutting old-line faiths.

By Charlotte Allen, CHARLOTTE ALLEN is Catholicism editor for Beliefnet and the author of "The Human Christ: The Search for the Historical Jesus."July 9, 2006

The accelerating fragmentation of the strife-torn Episcopal Church USA, in which several parishes and even a few dioceses are opting out of the church, isn't simply about gay bishops, the blessing of same-sex unions or the election of a woman as presiding bishop. It also is about the meltdown of liberal Christianity.Embraced by the leadership of all the mainline Protestant denominations, as well as large segments of American Catholicism, liberal Christianity has been hailed by its boosters for 40 years as the future of the Christian church.

Instead, as all but a few die-hards now admit, all the mainline churches and movements within churches that have blurred doctrine and softened moral precepts are demographically declining and, in the case of the Episcopal Church, disintegrating.

It is not entirely coincidental that at about the same time that Episcopalians, at their general convention in Columbus, Ohio, were thumbing their noses at a directive from the worldwide Anglican Communion that they "repent" of confirming the openly gay Bishop V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire three years ago, the Presbyterian Church USA, at its general assembly in Birmingham, Ala., was turning itself into the laughingstock of the blogosphere by tacitly approving alternative designations for the supposedly sexist Christian Trinity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Among the suggested names were "Mother, Child and Womb" and "Rock, Redeemer and Friend." Moved by the spirit of the Presbyterian revisionists, Beliefnet blogger Rod Dreher held a "Name That Trinity" contest. Entries included "Rock, Scissors and Paper" and "Larry, Curly and Moe."

Following the Episcopalian lead, the Presbyterians also voted to give local congregations the freedom to ordain openly cohabiting gay and lesbian ministers and endorsed the legalization of medical marijuana. (The latter may be a good idea, but it is hard to see how it falls under the theological purview of a Christian denomination.)

The Presbyterian Church USA is famous for its 1993 conference, cosponsored with the United Methodist Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and other mainline churches, in which participants "reimagined" God as "Our Maker Sophia" and held a feminist-inspired "milk and honey" ritual designed to replace traditional bread-and-wine Communion.

As if to one-up the Presbyterians in jettisoning age-old elements of Christian belief, the Episcopalians at Columbus overwhelmingly refused even to consider a resolution affirming that Jesus Christ is Lord. When a Christian church cannot bring itself to endorse a bedrock Christian theological statement repeatedly found in the New Testament, it is not a serious Christian church. It's a Church of What's Happening Now, conferring a feel-good imprimatur on whatever the liberal elements of secular society deem permissible or politically correct.

You want to have gay sex? Be a female bishop? Change God's name to Sophia? Go ahead. The just-elected Episcopal presiding bishop, Katharine Jefferts Schori, is a one-woman combination of all these things, having voted for Robinson, blessed same-sex couples in her Nevada diocese, prayed to a female Jesus at the Columbus convention and invited former Newark, N.J., bishop John Shelby Spong, famous for denying Christ's divinity, to address her priests.

When a church doesn't take itself seriously, neither do its members. It is hard to believe that as recently as 1960, members of mainline churches — Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Methodists, Lutherans and the like — accounted for 40% of all American Protestants. Today, it's more like 12% (17 million out of 135 million)......

When your religion says "whatever" on doctrinal matters, regards Jesus as just another wise teacher, refuses on principle to evangelize and lets you do pretty much what you want, it's a short step to deciding that one of the things you don't want to do is get up on Sunday morning and go to church.

It doesn't help matters that the mainline churches were pioneers in ordaining women to the clergy, to the point that 25% of all Episcopal priests these days are female, as are 29% of all Presbyterian pastors, according to the two churches. A causal connection between a critical mass of female clergy and a mass exodus from the churches, especially among men, would be difficult to establish, but is it entirely a coincidence? Sociologist Rodney Stark ("The Rise of Christianity") and historian Philip Jenkins ("The Next Christendom") contend that the more demands, ethical and doctrinal, that a faith places upon its adherents, the deeper the adherents' commitment to that faith. Evangelical and Pentecostal churches, which preach biblical morality, have no trouble saying that Jesus is Lord, and they generally eschew women's ordination. The churches are growing robustly, both in the United States and around the world.

Relativism is, by its nature, divisive. This was so when Henry VIII took his ball and went on his own way and why Protestantism divides exponentially today. Truth is unitive because it satisfies the hungry heart. It breeds clarity, vision, and boundaries which keep it within the one fold of Christ. Pray for unity--that Christians will be one in mind, body, doctrine, and spirit.

And The Darwin Award In Advertising Goes To...

2006-07-11T15:42:00.000-07:00

Courtesy of an outstanding Catholic Blog, here you see and feel the evil of those marketing artificial birth control. This is an advertisement for Legends Condoms in Australia. It won the bronze medal at the Cannes Advertising Awards and truly puts a face on artificial birth control, don't it? Please say a prayer for all involved in this grotesque and tasteless magazine ad.

Call me crazy but the sheer graphic nature, audacity, and honesty of this advertisement seems like a pretty good advertisement AGAINST artificial birth control. The image is as truthful as they come and provokes thoughts that otherwise may not arise. This reminds me of the Darwin awards in which some poor sap undertakes seemingly harmless and even fun activity like, say, taking a drive in his rocket propelled IROC Z-28 and ends up becoming a crater. This ad seems to punch itself in the proverbial condom holder.

Now when Priests For Life wants to place an ad in a magazine showing the graphic nature of an abortion, they are solidly and roundly denied at every front. Yet a condom manufacturer can submit this eerie and haunting piece and get an award for it. Many thanks to Curt Jester and The Cafeteria Is Closed who are always timely, relevant, and invaluable.

DA VINCI CODE--WHAT'S ALL THE FUSS?

2006-07-11T15:37:00.000-07:00

Let me begin this by making a couple of statements. First, I have not read the Da Vinci Code. Many I know have read it with reviews ranging from 'mindless drivel' to ' a decent page turner'. On the whole, recommendations have been against reading The Da Vinci Code based upon the merits of the story alone. Second, and more importantly, I am familiar with the Gnostic ideas conveyed in The Da Vinci Code. The theory that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married, that Jesus was never considered divine by those who 'really knew him', the idea that the Catholic Church suppressed and waged a war against the 'sacred feminine' by applying a spiritual chokehold to the Gnostic gospels, and the idea that Holy Scripture is riddled with errors and unreliability are not new. And so I will speak to these assertions but, moreso, will drop some common sense on the peeps, as it were. What will follow is the brain droppings of one who takes time to think critically. Here goes:

1. Why does the world read this book and react as if these 'revelations' are something concealed for centuries until some truth-seeker only now unearthed them? The truth is that the Catholic Church has dealt with these attacks from the very beginning. They are not new even though they are new to a generation that is clamouring for anti-establishment, anti-rules, and any reason NOT to live their lives according to traditional Catholic/Christian teaching. It doesn't take a lot of effort to go to your local Border's, pick up a book of Early Christian Writings, and see writings from those who sat at the feet of the Apostles of Jesus, let alone read the New Testament. In these writings, the ideas of Jesus' Divinity, the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, the Lord's Day, the hierarchy of bishops and Apostolic succession, and the importance of the Bishop of Rome to the spiritual nourishment of the Christian Church are everywhere! In one particular writings by St. Ignatius of Antioch, we see a mention of those who do not celebrate the Eucharist and do not discern what it is--a rebuke of the Gnostics and other sects as early as 110 AD! The Church has dealt with Gnostics, Judaizers, Dualists, and Pagans from the beginning, yet the Da Vinci Code is hailed as some new, deliberately suppressed, revelation.I suspect it's because 21st century Americans (and Europeans) have exchanged Truth for comfort. It is no longer important to know what really happened in history, it's only important to find a history that corresponds to our moral position that we can use to justify our amoral lives. And so, we hear a statement like 'The Council of Nicea was pre-determined by Constantine and that, in a close vote, Jesus was given an upgrade from a merely wise human to an omnipotent Deity.' and we believe precisely because we need this to be true if we are to live a guilt-free life. We don't bother to check things like the ACTUAL vote on this fundamental Christian belief at Nicea ( 218-2 in favor of the already entrenched Divinity of Jesus), nor do we bother to see that the EARLIEST New Testament writers allude to Jesus as God over 100 times at least two generations before we see the first 'Gnostic Gospel'. The implications of the truth are easy to see but harder to accept when we blur the lines of morality well established by Jesus and taught unwaveringly by His Church.

2. Why does nobody ever have a problem with Jesus but, instead, choose to assail the Catholic Church? Jesus utters, from his own mouth, that divorce simply cannot occur once a covenant of marriage has been established between man and woman. Oddly, nobody ever takes Jesus to task for this position, even though HE was the one who took the Jewish concept of being able to 'put away' your wife and, on his own authority, completely changed the law! Instead, we see people hurl stones at the Church for implementing Jesus' commandment with regard to divorce as if the Church took it upon Herself to legislate this prohibition of divorce. They stomp the Church for its stance against abortion and artificial birth control as if Jesus somehow allowed it but the Church has vetoed Him. The earliest Christian writings make it crystal clear that the teaching handed down from Jesus, to His Apostles, to their successors, was that abortion and artificial birth control were (and still are, contrary to what countless Protestant churches have done in now creating exceptions for both to accommodate cultural pressure) contrary to God's plan for humanity. The reason Dan Brown and others pick on the church, and not Jesus, is because they know that they could never be taken seriously if they assail Jesus. I suspect that they know that something was going on in Jesus that wasn't going on in any other person throughout all of history. And so, to sell books, they attack the human aspect of Jesus Church, ignoring its divine component, namely the Holy Spirit. A cheesy, but particularly effective strategy, no?

3. The Da Vinci Code capitalizes on the world's last acceptable prejudice--anti-Christianism, particularly Anti-Catholicism. Can you imagine if someone wrote a book ('well researched', of course) about the secret and suppressed beginnings of Islam or Judaism? Yes, Moses was some poor schlub or, better yet, he was fictional and didn't even exist. He didn't really get the 10 Commandments from the finger of God but, rather, they were engraved later by priests who wanted to dupe the Israelites. Moses did nothing of consequence but was a really nice guy and so these priests wrote stories about him being a great military leader and was given an upgrade to 'prophet' status replete with the ability to part water, summon locusts, the whole nine yards. The priests then wrote that the only way to know God would be to obey Moses and his brother (also fictional) and conduct animal sacrifices in which they, the successors of Moses and his Billy Carter-like sidekick, could take all the best meat and live like kings! You see, Judaism was fabricated largely so that a certain segment, the priests, could hold the people in bondage and maintain their power.Can you imagine such a story? Charges of anti-semitism would begin as the first copy came off the press! Yet in Dan Brown's case, we see people calling him 'brave' and 'insightful'. He's given a place as a scholar without anyone even bothering to dig even the slightest bit to test Brown's own claims that his facts are without flaw. Why? Because the Catholic Church has been unyielding in its teachings for 2000 years. It hasn't caved to parishoners wanting to use Artificial Birth Control. It hasn't changed its teaching on divorce despite the culture accepting it as commonplace. It refuses to affirm abortion despite the world seeing it as a viable way to control population and allow humans to experience 'sexual freedom' without the consequences that come with it. While the world moves toward moral relativism, the Church holds fast to the traditions handed down to it from the Apostles. In other words, the Catholic Church is treated now by a secular world just as it was by the first century pagan world. It is blamed for things like the proliferation of AIDS, starvation, population explosion, unwanted pregnancies, suppression of women, and an unwillingness to update its teachings to accomodate a modern world. Of course, that's how I know the Catholic Church is the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church that every Christian church professes to believe in on Sundays. Only one stays true to her bridegroom, that i've seen. Only one is willing to take the brunt of the world's scorn for not only making Jesus' teachings known, but also for holding humans to this higher standard for salvation's sake. And so it goes--the world puts the Church on the wheel, breaks out the whip, and scourges it with all its might. It glorifies anything that denounces Her, spits at Her when she speaks, and brings its full weight with every accusation it can muster, every conspiracy theory that people will listen to. The first conspiracy theorist slithered along the ground, was hell bent on deception, and brought about sin, death, and Hell in what was a paradise of eternal life, union with God, and abundance. He convinced Adam and Eve that God was insecure and afraid that they would become like Him and they (we) believed him. There's nothing worse than a snake with an agenda and a pen.

4. It's only fiction, lighten up, dude! Here's my problem with books that couch these ideas in a provocative plot and represent 'facts' untruthfully. A book like this would not shake my faith because I have tackled most of these issues in my journey back home to the Catholic faith. Scripture and History are things that make me distinctly and unwaveringly Catholic. But given the shabby catechesis in many parts of the Church coupled with the great numbers of Catholic and Christians at large who do not know their Scriptures or Church History, this type of book can do great damage. American Christians have been raised on a steady diet of skepticism, reason, and disdain for authority. We had a king 200+ years ago and we threw him out. We had religious leaders that we decided did not represent how we chose to live so we started our own churches. We have a media that deems itself reponsible for bringing down any and every authority it can so we can all feel equal in value (it's called self esteem in psychological circles). And so we Americans devour anything that assails authority. What greater authority figure exists than the Catholic Church? It's existed for 2000 years and can be traced back as such. It holds itself up as Christ's Church with authority from Him and Him alone. It claims that salvation of humanity goes directly thru its doors and that any other way than Christ is futile. It calls everyone but teaches that lip service is for chumps, that you either live your faith or die at enmity with God. The audaciousness of this Church in a world of 'I'm OK, You're OK' and 'Worship The God/Goddess In The Mirror' makes it a target, just like its founder. And so this firmly entrenched ideal plants seeds in Christians that maybe the Gospels aren't reliable. Maybe God doesn't hold me to a moral standard. Maybe Jesus was just a really nice, smart man who was just a slob like me with a wife, 2.5 kids, and a pet llama, not God. Faith is shaken because of the presentation--people see the bells and whistles in the Da Vinci Code and indiscriminately accept the message in the process.

Finally, this book provides those who hate the Church with more ammunition. It walks up to them, places an axe in their hand, and tells them to start swinging. The fact that the book is replete with historical inaccuarcies and assumptions based on agenda and not on truth seems to be secondary to the fact that people have a shiny new axe.

POP QUIZ, HOTSHOT! a.k.a. DEAL OR NO DEAL?

2006-07-11T15:33:00.000-07:00

In talking with a friend who attends a non-denominational ecclesial community, the topic of Holy Scripture and discernment of Holy Writ came up. This gent claimed that the Holy Spirit aids him in discerning both the meaning/interpretation of the Scripture as well as providing him with the ability to discern whether or not Scripture is "god-breathed". The aid of the Holy Spirit enables him to discern, for example, that 1 Timothy is Scripture and The Shepherd of Hermas is not. I put him to the test and now put YOU to the test. My take, being Catholic, is that God inspired the Church to determine which writings were Scriptural and which were not and that the Church did this without error, otherwise we have a flawed collection of books that we call Scripture. How do YOU know that the Gospel of Matthew is inspired?I've selected four passages. It will be up to you to tell me which ones are Scriptural and which ones (if any) are not.

This is not a test of your ability to use internet search engines. If you cheat, you've convicted yourself of sin and are bearing false witness. We are on the honor system here, boys and girls.

1) Yet Michael the archangel, when he was disputing with the Devil in a debate about Moses' body, did not dare bring an abusive condemnation against him, but said, "The Lord rebuke you!" But these people blaspheme anything they don't understand, and what they know by instinct, like unreasoning animals--they destroy themselves with these things. Woe to them! For they have traveled in the way of Cain, have abandoned themselves to the error of Balaam for profit, and have perished in Korah's rebellion.

2) And it came to pass, behold a man full of leprosy: who seeing Jesus fell on his face, and besought him, saying, Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean. And he put forth his hand, and touched him, saying, I will: be thou clean. And immediately the leprosy departed from him. And he charged him to tell no man: but go, and shew thyself to the priest, and offer for thy cleansing, according as Moses commanded, that this may be a testimony to you.

3) And they went and found the sepulchre open : and they drew near and looked in there, and saw there a young man sitting in the midst of the sepulchre, of a fair countenance and clad in very bright raiment, which said unto them: Wherefore are ye come? whom seek ye? not him that was crucified? He is risen and is departed; but if ye believe it not, look in and see the place where he lay, that he is not here: for he is risen and is departed thither whence he was sent. Then the women were affrighted and fled.

4) Seeing that the army was strong, he prayed thus: "Blessed are you, O Savior of Israel, who broke the rush of the mighty one by the hand of your servant David and delivered the camp of the Philistines into the hand of Jonathan, the son of Saul, and his armor-bearer. Give this army into the hands of your people Israel; make them ashamed of their troops and their cavalry. Strike them with fear, weaken the boldness of their strength, and let them tremble at their own destruction. Strike them down by the sword of those who love you, that all who know your name may hymn your praise." Then they engaged in battle, and about five thousand of Lysias' men fell in hand-to-hand fighting.

RECONCILIATION

2006-07-11T15:21:00.000-07:00

The sacrament of Reconciliation, after the Gospel (the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ) and the Eucharist, is the greatest gift Our Lord gave to us. A way to 'get right with the Man' while becoming humble, meek, and clean!

I was confirmed on Easter Vigil of 2005. Prior to receiving God’s sacrament, it had been almost 25 years since my last confession. When I said, ‘Bless me Father for I have sinned, it’s been 25 years since my last confession’, I could hear the priest fall off his chair. I am God’s proof that no amount of time is too long and no sin is too heinous that He cannot forgive us if we repent as he taught us. I’ve attested to anyone who will listen that the feeling I had when the priest said just 5 simple words—I ABSOLVE YOU OF YOUR SINS—was the greatest feeling I have ever experienced as a Christian.

But first, I want to take you back to when I was 16. It’s around this age when I began to think I had life figured out. I’ve called it ‘being my own Pope’. At this age, I thought Confession was for suckers. I could go directly to God myself and didn’t need some ritual or a priest to tell me God forgave me. I viewed the priest as just another sinful human who had no right to hear what I’ve done to offend God if I didn’t get to hear his. I used to think that my objections were reasonable but, in reality, they were uninformed objections that came from pride, arrogance, and shame. Nevertheless, for the next 19 years, I convinced myself that it was about Me (with a capital ‘M’) and God. I conducted myself as I saw fit (being my own Pope and all) and He was my get out of jail free card. I created this weird world in which I would commit a sin and God would forgive it simultaneously since He knew that deep down, I was sorry. Over these 19 years, as all people do, I sinned early and often. I had my instant absolution that I had, in effect, granted myself and cut God, the middle man, out of the equation completely. It wasn’t until 2003 when a sin I committed left myself and those around me in shambles. God had pulled the rug from under me and taken all that I judged I myself had made.

And so, with my life, and the life of those I loved dearly, virtually destroyed, I instinctively reached out to our Blessed Mother. Anyone who tells me that Mary is not their mother just hasn’t sunk low enough to hear her calling them. I hadn’t prayed a Rosary in 20+ years and didn’t even remember how to. I simply prayed, ‘Mary, I don’t know if I’m even doing this right but I know you want me to understand. I don’t want to bargain with you, I just want you to take me and fix me. I’ve done nothing but destroy my soul without your son and am tired of following my passions and desires. I know that without God, I am utterly incapable of saving myself and so I ask you to talk to your Son for me. In return, I will pray this Rosary with you everyday.’ Within a day, God had sent me multiple signs that I could use to find Him and repair the damage I had done. In praying the Rosary, I could hear Mary telling me to repent, confess, and then let go of my sins. God had also put in me a hunger for all things Catholic. I devoured books about Church doctrine, apologetics, and anything else I could get ahold of. He was leading me to the answer for every question, doubt, and misunderstanding I had about Catholicism. And after 19 years, I didn’t feel fear or arrogance—I felt humility, sorrow, and hope. I saw a speaker on EWTN who, at that very time, said, ‘The only sin God will not forgive is the one we don’t repent of.’ Suddenly, the hope began to grow and I swore I would give the best confession I could give. I sat down and examined my conscience—I came up with a list that covered 2 pages fully, front and back. I entered the Confessional, got on my knees, fought through tears, and did exactly what God tells us all to do—repent, confess, and let go. The priest was gracious, kind, and did all that God had given him authority to do—forgive me in the person of Christ. He congratulated me on a good confession and said those 5 wonderful words. Making things right with God feels wonderful. The weight leaves you and you go to Holy Communion with a new soul—one worthy of receiving Jesus.

This year, I have been to confession just about once per month. Even when I have no mortal sins to confess, I know that venial sins add up and they dispose me (and all of us) to bigger sins. Frequent confession keeps my sins right there for me to see and reminds me of the damage sin does to the soul.I won’t tell you that Confession is fun, or happy, or easy. It’s none of those things. Neither was our Lord’s trip toward Redemption. But after toying with every Protestant Church I could find, twisting Scripture to fit my moral code, and taking this spiritual reality of God, the Devil, and my salvation for granted, I’m here to tell you that at the end, forever, you and I will be in Heaven or Hell…Period.

Pleased To Meet You...

2006-07-11T15:08:00.000-07:00

In lieu of an introduction, I believe this piece I wrote with regard to Terri Schiavo, her ordeal, and its effect on us can best convey who I am. Pray for Terri and for all in her condition, but mostly pray that governments of, by, and for the people don't take their God-given responsibility for granted as they have in Florida.

WAKE UP FROM THIS NIGHTMARE, AMERICA--April 1, 2005

We now live in a nation where the state ordered murder of its own innocents is not only legal but encouraged. The bumper sticker 'Dude, Where's My Country?' is very apropos today. The apathy that we Americans have shown at the ballot box, in our town halls, and in our state capitals has come for its reckoning. Our toleration of incremental steps toward this culture of death, and by allusion, the blood that comes with it, is on OUR hands. We all have it and it ain't gonna wash off.

We've elected men and women on misguided and amoral/immoral principles and we have not held them accountable. We have trusted them with much more authority than they are capable of handling and, sadly, have not learned from our mistakes. We continue to dredge up candidates who are spineless, deceptive, and fundamentally lacking in what their job, their authority, and their obligation is. We bow to the political machines who submit these candidates rather than taking the machine apart and rebuilding it in God's image.

The expression, 'I'll worry about it when it affects me.' is very common in our people. It's as if we are holding up a single rock--the one that affects us if it falls--while every other rock around us is plummeting to the ground and smashing those who held them up. The bottom line is that we do not INSIST upon looking at things from an eternal perspective, but merely from a temporal one. Does it cause ME pain? Does it take more money out of MY pocket? If not, then I'll get back to my chores and my favorite reality show.

A woman who was not dying was cruelly punished for no crime except being inconvenient. What part did WE play in it? The disabled, in our society, now are stigmatized and targeted for extermination upon judicial and legislative whim. How did WE contribute to their demise? Every authority, from the President on down to Michael Schiavo have, via their action or inaction, turned America into a nation which is no better than Hitler's Germany or Stalin's Russia. Is this a strong statement? You bet. The nation has taken on, by its judicial decisions and legislative actions, a disregard for its citizens which I'm sure no member of the politburo or Nazi parliament could complain about. Sure, we can point to our free society as a clear distinction from these others but it's possible and, in this case, a reality that the same regard for life exists here.

As the rock group The Who says, 'We won't get fooled again!'. This is a call to every Catholic. A call to every person who still has a conscience. A call to every person that has a heart that beats in their chest. The effect of our apathy in the public square has wrought horrible consequences in which you, your disabled children, your most vulnerable friends, are in danger. PLEASE stay connected and hold your elected officials to morality in all they do. PLEASE do not shirk your responsibility to demand justice in our society. PLEASE read and understand the Catechism and its explanation of our duties as citizens or as elected officials. We all have some responsibility for Terri's situation and the situations of many others. Let us ask ourselves during this Triduum if we are doing all we must in fulfilling Jesus' wish of feeding the hungry, giving water to the thirsty, and honoring the lives of our people as God's masterpieces. If we are not, then let us find inspiration and determination in our sacraments and in the example of our Lord and follow through with unyielding action. If we are, let us pray for the grace to make even greater sacrifices for our nation.

An interesting thing that Pope John Paul II has said in his writings is that when Jesus comes again and the Kingdom is initiated on Earth, all evil will be wiped away but the good things we did in life will be integrated into the Kingdom. Let this Easter become the dawn of a new time for our people. It is a time in which Christ performed the ultimate sacrifice for His people and a time of calling to us to follow. He calls us to be partakers in His divine nature and to bring about the Kingdom of God. If we fail, then evil, as it has in Florida, will have its day. Luckily, we know how the story ends--with Jesus reigning in justice. Let’s make our nation a collection of god-fearing people who defend morality at EVERY turn. Give no quarter to sin and understand that our life here is not a game. As Father John Corapi says, at the end, forever, you and I will be in Heaven or Hell, period. If we cannot even get to the battlefield, how are we going to fight?