June 2004 Archives

Recently a couple of those commenting on our blog have suggested we are misrepresenting the protestant position concerning the nature of Scripture in various protestant denominations. So, I wanted to document the various positions of the major protestant denominations in a post. Some have changed drastically over the years (see the Baptists) while others are pretty steady.

The Methodist Church spells out this belief in Article V of their Articles of Religion:

The Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation; so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man that it should be believed as an article of faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation. In the name of the Holy Scripture we do understand those canonical books of the Old and New Testament of whose authority was never any doubt in the church. The names of the canonical books are:
Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, The First Book of Samuel, The Second Book of Samuel, The First Book of Kings, The Second Book of Kings, The First Book of Chronicles, The Second Book of Chronicles, The Book of Ezra, The Book of Nehemiah, The Book of Esther, The Book of Job, The Psalms, The Proverbs, Ecclesiastes or the Preacher, Cantica or Songs of Solomon, Four Prophets the Greater, Twelve Prophets the Less.
All the books of the New Testament, as they are commonly received, we do receive and account canonical.

First, they clearly state the belief we associate with most protestant churches: that Scripture contains “all things necessary to salvation”; in other words, Sacred Tradition is unnecessary. It’s interesting that they never address the problems of interpretation of Scripture. After all, interpretation is where most self-taught theologians get in trouble and where Tradition really comes into play.

The Lutheran Church’s take is interesting for two reasons. The first is that this is Luther’s namesake church and it contains one of the more liberal understandings of sola scriptura, a key doctrine invented by Martin Luther. The second will follow:

To borrow a phrase from Luther, the Bible is "the manger in which the Word of God is laid." While Lutherans recognize differences in the way the Bible should be studied and interpreted, it is accepted as the primary and authoritative witness to the church's faith. Written and transcribed by many authors over a period of many centuries, the Bible bears remarkable testimony to the mighty acts of God in the lives of people and nations. In the Old Testament is found the vivid account of God's covenant relationship to Israel. In the New Testament is found the story of God's new covenant with all of creation in Jesus.
The New Testament is the first-hand proclamation of those who lived through the events of Jesus' life, death, and Resurrection. As such, it is the authority for Christian faith and practice. The Bible is thus not a definitive record of history or science. Rather, it is the record of the drama of God's saving care for creation throughout the course of history.

Again, this doesn’t directly address the sufficiency of Scriptures alone for our salvation, but does say they are “the authority for Christian faith and practice.” I’ll look for more detail and add it as I find it. Did you notice the second interesting point? This states that the “New Testament is the first-hand proclamation of those who lived through the events of Jesus’ life.” Is that true? Actually, no. Think about the gospel writers, St. Paul, and some of the other writers; many weren’t around until after the ascension of Christ into heaven. This makes their accounts second-hand. How have they not caught that error yet?

Christopher Hitchens, a liberal on the left side of his party, has written a review of Michael Moore's Fairenheit 9/11. Hitchens doesn't ask for much, but he does ask that a documentary have some honesty in it:

Some people soothingly say that one should relax about all this. It's only a movie. No biggie. It's no worse than the tomfoolery of Oliver Stone. It's kick-ass entertainment. It might even help get out "the youth vote." Yeah, well, I have myself written and presented about a dozen low-budget made-for-TV documentaries, on subjects as various as Mother Teresa and Bill Clinton and the Cyprus crisis, and I also helped produce a slightly more polished one on Henry Kissinger that was shown in movie theaters. So I know, thanks, before you tell me, that a documentary must have a "POV" or point of view and that it must also impose a narrative line. But if you leave out absolutely everything that might give your "narrative" a problem and throw in any old rubbish that might support it, and you don't even care that one bit of that rubbish flatly contradicts the next bit, and you give no chance to those who might differ, then you have betrayed your craft. If you flatter and fawn upon your potential audience, I might add, you are patronizing them and insulting them. By the same token, if I write an article and I quote somebody and for space reasons put in an ellipsis like this (…), I swear on my children that I am not leaving out anything that, if quoted in full, would alter the original meaning or its significance. Those who violate this pact with readers or viewers are to be despised. At no point does Michael Moore make the smallest effort to be objective. At no moment does he pass up the chance of a cheap sneer or a jeer. He pitilessly focuses his camera, for minutes after he should have turned it off, on a distraught and bereaved mother whose grief we have already shared. (But then, this is the guy who thought it so clever and amusing to catch Charlton Heston, in Bowling for Columbine, at the onset of his senile dementia.) Such courage.

Read the full article for a liberal's viewpoint on the movie. I cringe at the number of Americans so intelligent they will believe this tripe nonsense. By the way, Hitchens does have a little "DeoOmnisGloria" in his blood:

However, I think we can agree that the film is so flat-out phony that "fact-checking" is beside the point. And as for the scary lawyers—get a life, or maybe see me in court. But I offer this, to Moore and to his rapid response rabble. Any time, Michael my boy. Let's redo Telluride. Any show. Any place. Any platform. Let's see what you're made of.

How often do you see one writer go after another like that? It's nice to see someone so offended by lies they challenge the liar! By the way, I don't agree or like Hitchens - mainly because of his piece on Mother Teresa. But I wanted to point out that this film is essentially a lie and even those on the left recognize it. I'd love to hear a review if you've seen it.

By the way, thanks to Dappled Things for pointing out the article.

God bless,
Jay

The Dark Ages were characterized by a terrible lacking of knowledge and learning. People were illiterate and ignorant with little opportunity to gain knowledge outside of the monasteries and churches. I believe we are currently in a second Dark Ages characterized by a lack of morality. Just as in the first, not everyone is immoral, but a lack of morality is accepted by the masses as normal. Situational morality, after all, is not morality but weakness – the inability to stick to morals when it really counts. And this type of morality is so infused with American culture that I believe future generations will look back on this as the second Dark Ages in history.

Our society is characterized by this lacking of morality. Babies are killed before being born simply because their mothers weren’t moral enough to either not have premarital sex or not to murder the inevitable consequences. Politicians feel free to condemn immorality and then vote in a way that allows this immorality to continue, as if this duplicity itself isn’t immoral. Truth has been relativized to the point where those claiming to have some portion of it are condemned by the relativist masses. Our culture’s motto may as well be Pilate’s own words. Movies, which have the ability to shape and mold culture, are moving in even worse directions – a future movie starring Nicole Kidman graphically depicts her sexual involvement with a ten-year-old boy. Morality is lacking in our culture – to the point of depravity. I have heard this referred to as a “post-Christian world” and I would agree to this point.

So what can we do about this? Is there a solution? The most powerful counter to any issue is prayer. God can do what no other can; and this includes the ability to turn a culture around. But we are called to act as well. Culture begins in the home. Are you teaching your children true morality? Not just by your words, but also by your actions. True morality means telling the truth even when it will cost you. Exposing yourself in order that you can be a greater person. Culture is also shaped by art. Movies, books, music, and art can have strong influences over a society’s culture. Can we create a respect for morality through these media? Absolutely, but it takes effort. Now is the time to pray hard and work hard towards turning America back into a moral stronghold. What do you think?

God bless,
Jay

We've often argued on this blog that the Democratic political party would be shocked at the number of votes they would get by putting forward a pro-life candidate (this is apparently against party "doctrine"). But a new Wall Street Journal article discovered something even more pathetic: abortions are killing Democrats much more than Republicans. This makes some sense; Democrats are more likely to have an abortion (way more likely actually), just as regular church goes are more likely to vote Republican. But take a look at the article.

The article shows that had Abortion been illegal over the last 30 years, Gore would have won the last election. In other words, so many Democratic voters have been killed by abortion that it cost the Democrats an election (and may cost them the next one as well). This is a great example of how abortion has dismantled the Democratic party, which originated as the party for the common man, but now has become the party of Michael Moore and other left-wing, atheistic lunatics.

God bless,
Jay

You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews. But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for such the Father seeks to worship him. God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth. - John 4:22-24

Since the time when Jesus uttered these words, Christians have sought to worship God in spirit and truth. Jesus Himself gave us the means to do so in giving us Himself in the Eucharist.

Today I wish to share with all of you young adults between the ages of 18 and 35 about a Catholic Lay Movement committed to helping each of you grow in your personal relationship with Jesus Christ through the Eucharist and Christian Fellowship. The name of this movement is Spirit and Truth and it is rapidly spreading across our country.

Spirit and Truth Mission Statement

The mission of Spirit and Truth is to bring young adults into deeper relationship with Christ through worship of Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament, study of Church Teachings and Sacred Scripture and celebrations of Catholic Traditions, while forming a community of life-giving relationships. - Taken from Spirit and Truth's Website

I attended one of their WOW (Wide Open Worship) celebrations and was amazed at their love and reverence for our Lord Jesus in the Most Blessed Sacrament as well as their fervent joy in praising Jesus through songs of praise and worship and through the celebration of the Holy Mass. It was an awesome event.

If you would like more information about Spirit and Truth please visit their website:

Spirit and Truth

On the Spirit and Truth website you can learn more about the movement's history, goals, as well as where various communities are throughout the United States. There are many wonderful movements in the Church that assist the faithful in deepening their relationship with Jesus Christ. Spirit and Truth is most certainly one of them.

In Christ,
Joe

Congratulations Jon and Keri on your wedding day!

I just ask that everybody keep the happy couple in your prayers today. Jon and Keri are both teachers at a private Catholic school. Keri is a kindergarten teacher. Jon teaches middle school religion and assists in the academy's young adult formation program. Jon is also the youth music director at a local parish and the music director for a young adult organization called Spirit and Truth. Jon discerned a vocation to the priesthood for about four years while attending the Franciscan University of Steubenville, where he majored in Theology. But God had other plans for my little brother and we are all so happy that He did.

Jon and Keri are an awesome couple who share a deep love for each other and, more importantly, for our Lord Jesus Christ and His Church. I wish the two of them love, happiness, patience, and peace all the days of their lives. May God give them many children!

In Christ,
Joe

We have often discussed on this blog the role of Mary in the Early Church. Many have insisted that her role was minimal and insignificant. Yet we cannot deny the vividly strong presence of the Blessed Virgin Mary in the Gospel of St. Luke.

Most certainly there is proof of St. Matthew having some contact with Mary in the events that he depicts in the first two chapters of his Gospel, yet St. Luke's Gospel is unique in the extensive detail provided in his first two chapters. It is St. Luke that writes about Mary's dialogue with the angel Gabriel. It is St. Luke that writes about Mary's visit to Elizabeth. It is St. Luke that records word for word Mary's famous proclamation, the Magnificat. It is St. Luke who tells us of the presentation in the Temple and the prophecies of Simeon and Anna. It is St. Luke who details the events surrounding the finding of Jesus in the Temple.

Two things must stand out to us when considering these things; (1) ultimately, either St. Luke or someone helping him, sought Mary's interpretation of the events of Jesus' early life, and (2) St. Luke, inspired by Almighty God, felt it was absolutely necessary to include it in his Gospel.

Acts 17:11. Now those Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.

Absolutely.

That’s the simple answer, but in our modern world it is more complex - particularly since the advent of protestant versions of Christianity. Why do I say that? Well, there are two ways to interpret our charge of examining the Scriptures and the difference is significant.

The first way I refer to as the "inclusive" interpretation. Which means, if the Bible states something, no truth can be opposed to it. For example:

John 6:53. So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you"

In other words, no one can state that you do have life in you without consuming the flesh and blood of Christ - since it is explicitly included in the Bible, it is established as Truth. Using this inclusive method, Tradition fills in the blanks, essentially; it does not exclude the "oral traditions" that the Bible speaks of (ex. 2 Thessalonians 2:15).

The second way of interpreting this charge is what I refer to as the "exclusive" interpretation, which means, if it is not explicitly in the Bible, then it cannot be true. This method of understanding our obligation excludes the "oral traditions" and assumes that every single thing necessary is contained within Scripture. For example, the Bible does not teach that Mary had additional children, but it also does not explicitly say she did not (often those using this interpretation demand an explicit statement of truth). This method ignores the overwhelming historical and theological proofs of Mary’s virginity and demands that it be shown in Scripture. Obviously, I believe this interpretation to be incorrect. One of the problems associated with this method becomes clear when you start discussing the Trinity. Nowhere in Scripture is the word "Trinity" used or the concept of Trinity explained. The Bible does contain this truth, but only in a very small way - it requires you to really examine Scriptures in detail and work through to the answer. This is similar to the sinlessness of Mary, which is required by Luke 1:28 (being "full of grace" requires being without sin). But this requires some study and careful reflection. So this type of interpretation would remove our comprehension of the Trinity as well as have other consequences, such as attending church services on Saturday (some protestant groups have started suggesting this is a requirement). Clearly there are problems with this type of exegesis.

Historically, Christians have utilized the inclusive method above, however more and more I see specific points attacked from an exclusive viewpoint. Which begs the question: where does the Bible teach it is the exclusive arbiter of Truth? The Bible does not teach this in any way (not even inclusively). It is not a valid way to interpret Scripture, so be careful in demanding the every tidbit of knowledge be contained within Scriptures.

Even after working through these issues, another problem arises: the problem of intepretation. I’ll deal with this issue in a future post.

God bless,
Jay

I recently read an interesting article by Doug Giles called A Biblical Defense for Giving Offense that I thought was very interesting. Mr. Giles makes the argument that throughout Scripture (and in the early Church), Apologists for God weren't overly nice. His point:

As I see it, much of the clergy, the church, Christian music and Christian literature have become pathetically soft and have lost their holy punch.

If you don’t believe me, then take this Nestea challenge: From now on when you read the scripture, pay close attention when you land on a chunk of text in which Moses, Joshua, David, Elijah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, John the Baptist, Paul or Jesus is engaged in dialogue with an idiotic idolater, a pompous Pharisee or a vacillating vixen.

Know what? You won’t see these searing saints doling out nicely-nicely stuff all day and night. Not a bit of it: they’ll be challenging—oft times ridiculing--the very ground the impenitent unbeliever or the feigned professor stands on. Not only that. You will rarely see God’s holy ones repenting of the verbal invectives they have aimed at their audience’s willful blindness.

I tend to agree with Mr. Giles. Back in my protestant days, if engaged by a "nice" apologist, I would merely have a discussion with the guy and walk away. However, if someone got under my skin or told me clearly that I was wrong, I would go back and do research; basically I got mad and was determined to prove the other person wrong. This type of research lends itself to achieving the apologists' goal: conversion. It was those who weren't trying to be my friend during the discussions that ultimately convicted me of my ignorance. Mr. Giles ends this way:

If … if … we truly desire revival, reform and a national renaissance, then get ready for the spiritual wrecking cranes, i.e., the prophets, to come in. When the prophets poked the pompous … when they mocked the haughty and religiously arrogant … when they wreaked havoc on stale religious and political symbolism: they were clearing the ground for fresh, godly growth. I know it may seem ugly at times, but it can be fun, and it can effect change. That is, if we understand it, cheer it on and yield to it … especially when it’s aimed at us.

What do you think? On this site we're occasionally accused of being too hard or sarcastic, etc., but Mr. Giles (a protestant by the way) seems to think some of this is necessary. Take a minute and read the full article - it's very interesting. One of my co-bloggers emailed Mr. Giles and invited him to our site after reading the article. I wonder what he would think?

God bless,
Jay

Often on this blog we engage in dialogue, or maybe debate would be the better word, about "oral tradition" verses the "written word." Many of our Protestant brothers and sisters insist that it is the Bible alone that reveals to us the truths of God. We have consistently shown that this is a false notion easily disproven by Sacred Scripture itself, but more importantly, by a simple exercise of reason. To limit God's ability to reveal to humanity the truths about Himself and what it is He desires of us to a single book isn't reasonable. Sacred Scripture is of the utmost importance in knowing the truths of God, but it is not the only means God has chosen to reveal Himself to us. I often find it ironic how our Protestant brothers and sisters want to preach to us about having a personal relationship with Jesus Christ but then cannot accept the fact that God would actively be involved within His Church, teaching it all things through the workings of the Holy Spirit (cf. Jn 14:26). As Jesus said:

And I will pray to the Father, and he will give you another Counselor, to be with you for ever... - John 14:16

Yet we find "oral tradition" even in the early days of the first covenant made between God and man. God dealt directly with His people and they held to "oral traditions" during those early centuries of Judaism, before any part of the Old Testament was written.

The hot topic these days often centers on the sexual abuse cases of Catholic priests. We haven’t said much about this on our blog, but I felt it was important to at least detail that we understand the problem and aren’t unaware of its existence.

I believe that our Christian leaders are under more attack than ever by Satan and his demons (Eph 6:12). However, this means that before their ordination the Church must weed out those who cannot withstand the fight. The sexual abuse problems represent individual priests stepping outside of the Church, essentially leaving that which is holy for a temporal satisfaction that is very sinful. In the 70’s and early 80’s, psychologists taught that this was a “curable” problem. Catholic Bishops sided with the psychologists and attempted to move the priests to another area after treatment hoping that they were cured. We know now that this was very shortsighted and naïve of the Bishops, clearly some of these men were not cured and repeated these same offenses.

Some of the issues with these cases are not being dealt with honestly, however. The vast majority of these problems are not caused by pedophiliac priests, but by homosexual priests. Most of the cases involved teenage boys (pedophilia typically is defined using children who have not reached puberty). Over 90% of all cases involve boys, not girls – if this were normal pedophilia we would expect 50% of the cases to be girls. This does not make it better, but to solve the problem we must be honest about the results.

A second issue involves numbers. There are 50,000 Roman Catholic priests in the US. How many do you think have committed these horrific acts? You might be surprised that most put the number at less than 300 priests (most cite between 0.2% and 1%). Surveys done on protestant clergy have put the number between 2% and 3% - more the double the Catholic average. The average is even higher for married men, believe it or not. So the question is: Why the focus on Roman Catholic priests when others have bigger problems? I believe the answer lies in the Roman Catholic Church’s refusal to permit birth control, abortion, or any other sexual sin. No one likes the holy man who can condemn him/her for his/her sins.

In summary, I want to make clear that I believe these priests should face the same sentences that any other pedophile would face (possibly more because of their unique position of power). But I also want to point out that these priests are acting outside of their church – they know, even more than us, that the sin they commit is condemned and vile. They are not representative of the overwhelming majority of Catholic priests, which as a whole are less likely to commit this sin than others. And the problem is more accurately caused by homosexual priests that by pedophiliacs.

May God heal those whom they have hurt.

God bless,
Jay

When considering the Mass, one can reach hasty conclusions as to the meaning and purpose of it in the life of the individual believer and the Church. In fact, many reveal their conclusions by making such premature statements as; I get nothing out of the Mass, or I don’t like going to Mass because I don’t like our priest, or again, The Mass is boring. All of these statements display a lack of understanding and, more importantly, faith. For to participate in the Mass, we, as Catholics, enter into the “heavenly liturgy” and are revealed the “Sacred Mystery” of God’s love for us and of how He wants us to love one another. It is the source of unity and community. It is the God-given sacrament of worship and thanksgiving. Through the Mass, we enter into the Holy of Holies, the inner sanctuary of God and find Him there giving Himself to the Father and in return the Father gives Him back to us. The Mass is a foretaste of heaven in that it is the participation, of the believer, in eternal life since through the Mass we enter into and become one with the Holy Trinity.

Before we enter into this meditation allow me to apologize for the inadequacy of it. There have been far better books written that go far beyond what I have written here. My desire is this – to create in all who read this a greater interest in the meaning of the Mass, a curiosity to draw them to the Mass, and yet, most importantly, to create a renewed love in their hearts for the Mass, our Divine Liturgy.

To understand the Holy Mass we must first understand the meaning of liturgy. Liturgy, as defined by the Catholic Church, is as follows:

1069 The word “liturgy” originally meant a “public work” or a “service in the name of/on behalf of the people.” In Christian tradition it means the participation of the People of God in “the work of God.” Through the liturgy Christ, our redeemer and high priest, continues the work of our redemption in, with, and through his Church.
1070 In the New Testament the word “liturgy” refers not only to the celebration of divine worship but also to the proclamation of the Gospel and to active charity. In all of these situations it is a question of the service of God and neighbor. In a liturgical celebration the Church is servant in the image of her Lord, the one “leitourgos”; she shares in Christ’s priesthood (worship), which is both prophetic (proclamation) and kingly (service of charity):
“The liturgy then is rightly seen as an exercise of the priestly office of Jesus Christ. It involves the presentation of man’s sanctification under the guise of signs perceptible by the senses and its accomplishment in ways appropriate to each of these signs. In it full public worship is performed by the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ, that is, by the Head and his members. From this it follows that every liturgical celebration, because it is an action of Christ the priest and of his Body which is the Church, is a sacred action surpassing all others. No other action of the Church can equal its efficacy by the same title and to the same degree.” - Catechism of the Catholic Church, pg. 277

So the very act of liturgy must, by its very nature, be an action of God. Yet through the liturgy, we, as members of His Body, enter into the very “action of God.” Considering it as such, we are now obliged to seek to understand what this action is.

I thought I would take a different path in this post and just point out why every person should consider looking into the Catholic Church. Some people never examine Catholicism when choosing their faith, but I think it’s important to do so for many reasons (including the 12 below). So this post points out the top ten reasons you should consider the Catholic Church:

1. The Eucharist. In John 6:53 Jesus demands that we eat His flesh and drink His blood. Only the Catholic Church teaches that every week at mass we actually consume Jesus’ body, blood, soul, and divinity. Others have watered-down versions of this, but none makes the claims the Catholic Church does. The desire for God is completed in the Eucharist.
   
2. The Church claims to be established by Christ. Only the Catholic Church makes the claim that it was established by Jesus Christ in Matthew 16:18 and can trace the line of popes all the way back to Peter. This is a claim of direct authority by God and, if proven true, seems to indicate that Jesus wanted us to attend the Catholic Church. All other Christian churches were created by men revolting against this original church - why not be part of the original?
   
3. The Catholic Church gave us the Bible. What better place to learn about the Word of God than the Church whose members wrote it and compiled it?
   
4. Unchanging, uncompromising Truth. Other churches change their views on key issues as society changes. The Catholic Church does not. For example, the Catholic Church will stand firm on homosexual marriage and abortion just as they have stood firm on contraception. This strength of purpose can only come from God - men are too weak to remain firm in this way - so the Church clearly has the hand of God behind it.
   
5. The ‘democracy of the dead’ is clear. Over the last 2,000 years the vast majority of Christians (virtually all of them actually) have been Catholic. Even in our day, the overwhelming majority of Christians are Catholic. This doesn’t mean the Catholic Church is right, but it is an indication - billions of people are less likely to be wrong than thousands.
   
6. Confession. This might seem odd or scary to some, but the Bible is clear that in confession the priest can forgive you your sins - imagine being completely without sin (if only for a minute!). The practical aspect of this is substantial as well - how many Americans use psychologists to get things off their chest? A priest is a psychologist with power: you get it off your chest and he gets it off your soul.
   
7. The Leadership of the Saints. The Catholic Church has a long line of saintly men and women who have set the example of how we should live. Simply by following their example you can gain insight into the true Christian life. In addition, we can ask these holy saints to pray for us - the prayers of the holy are very powerful.
   
8. Continual miracles. Most people don’t realize that miracles still occur in surprising ways within the Catholic Church. The Eucharist still turns into flesh, miraculous healings still occur, and long dead bodies remain uncorrupted over time. This is an indication of God’s work within the Catholic Church.
   
9. Consistent beliefs. You can look back to the Bible and to those writing just after the Resurrection (the early Church Fathers) and see the same beliefs Catholics profess today. Catholic faith is unchanging in its basic beliefs and doctrine over time. Although doctrine develops, which means we understand it at a deeper level, it does not change.
   
10. The Unity of Catholicism. Unlike other churches which continually divide based on this or that man’s understanding of Scripture, the Catholic church is united behind one set of dogmas and belief. Catholics live up to Jesus’ prayer that we be “one” in John 17:21.
    
11. The beauty and completeness of Catholicism. Beauty can be a sign of truth and the Catholic Church certainly is beautiful: the individual churches, the devotions, baptisms, etc. all contain a very beautiful devotion to God. In addition, Catholics accept the belief that grace does not destroy humanity. In other words, God uses us and can use human things to work in His way. For example, the Catholic church can accept science, philosophy, etc. in their sphere of influence without being threatened. Truth overcomes all. This beauty and comprehensiveness of Catholicism is just another reason to be Catholic.
    
12. The Catholic contribution to society. The Catholic Church invented universities, hospitals, and many of the other mainstays of our lives that we now take for granted. In fact, the Church has taken the lead in helping the poor and homeless in virtually all countries of the world (see Mother Teresa as an example). This warrants at least the time needed to look into the claims of the Catholic Church.
    

As an added bonus there’s this reason: You can always get the straight truth. In Catholicism, you can go to the Catechism and get the honest truth on any subject easily. Even if others are afraid to tell you the straightforward truth, you can find it. Sometimes this is difficult in other places.

Each of these is significant, but as a whole they are captivating. I believe this adds up to offer a compelling reason to look into the Catholic Church and its claims. If you would like to know more, I would suggest reading more of the articles on this blog and possibly going by to meet your local parish priest.

God bless,
Jay

“If you’re going to do a thing, you should do it thoroughly. If you’re going to be a Christian, you might as well be a Catholic.” - - Muriel Spark (a British novelist)

Fatherhood is a special gift from God as well as a special responsibility. A father is known through his children, the "fruit" of his life. We're praying today for fathers, that they have the love, leadership, and willpower needed to raise Christian children in a post-Christian world.

By the way, our thoughts are especially with first-time fathers, such as Joe on this blog. Remember, those with pregnant wives are fathers, even if their children haven't been born yet (they become our children at conception).

God bless,
Jay

I recently ran across a site that pretended to be a "Godly" site (I won’t link to it here). However, the site had a funny definition of "hate" that simply meant: don't tell anyone else they are wrong.

This is the inevitable consequence of relativist thinking and I think it is a dangerous definition. It points to a love which is very fuzzy and kind, but doesn't really care about the other person. Why would I say this? If you believe that you have a truth others need to know for their personal salvation, how can you say telling others is hateful? True hate is not telling them and simply allowing them to live without the chance of salvation (or with a harder path to heaven).

Our society’s theological depth has degraded to the point where "hate" can be defined in such a way. This is similar to Ireland's decree that Papal documents which condemn homosexual acts are hateful - priests have been instructed that they will be jailed for offering the truth. The documents don't attack anyone personally and clearly say that we should not hate those with homosexual tendencies. Yet, these documents can be called "hateful" by those to whom there is no objective truth.

Flannery O’Connor pointed to this best in A Memoir of Mary Ann: "In the absence of faith, we govern by tenderness, and tenderness leads to the gas chamber.” Essentially, true love involves faith, real belief and honesty. We are tender when we refuse to tell someone they are wrong, but we might be leading them to the gas chamber. We each have a moral obligation to lead others to God. This doesn't mean you have to tell every person you know about Jesus at every minute. It does mean that you must be honest, at a minimum. It does mean that your life should be lived in such a way that they are encouraged to ask about your beliefs. It does mean you are a bright light in the world - you may light the way for some, but you're likely to blind others. That's okay as long as you love all by simply offering them the truth, which is the purest form of love for others.

God bless,
Jay

Saved! is a new movie just released which takes aim at Evangelical Christianity. Although I have not seen the movie, I wanted to point out this Wall Street Journal Op-ed piece detailing the contents of Saved!. Jonathan Last points out the obvious:

In the weeks leading up to the movie's release, United Artists, the studio behind it, nervously suggested that it thought--hoped--that "Saved!" would play to the same religious audience that made "The Passion of the Christ" such a hit. Peter Adee of MGM (UA's parent company) told the New York Times that the movie "has a certain Christian appeal, but it's also a little irreverent."

That anyone could believe such a movie to have "Christian appeal" is one measure of how out of touch Hollywood is. The irreverence of "Saved!" consists of portraying most Christians as dim, many as malevolent and all as hypocritical. Wisdom and good faith do make an appearance in "Saved!," but they are displayed by explicitly antireligious characters.

It's amazing to me how clear the difference is between The Passion of the Christ and movies like The Last Temptation of Christ. I can't understand how Hollywood just doesn't get it - perhaps the writers and producers are the "dim" ones and the satire is on them?

One comment in the article really shows ignorance; a critics states that the movie is "a gentle exploration of why the judgments of the Catholic church are so screwed up." The author points out that this movie is not about the Catholic Church, but apparently the critic knows so little about the major religion of our country that he can't tell the difference!

If anyone sees Saved! I'd love to hear your thoughts. It sounds pathetic at this point, so I'm probably not going to be standing in line.

God bless,
Jay

The pitch for this book was very compelling to me; Deal Hudson had a different conversion experience from me, but he also came from a Southern Baptist background. His conversion centered around his desire for beauty and his belief in philosophy and art. It sounds strange, but the book leads you through point by point in his journey.

Overall, the book is very good and offers a different take on the value of the Catholic Church. Rather than simply going through Scripture, he focuses on the unity of though in the Church and the lack of unity in protestant Churches. This unity ties together the body and the mind:

The unity of the material body and immaterial intellect through the form of the soul in human beings is central to the Catholic understanding of philosophy and theology, especially in ethics, politics, epistemology, and education. The loss of that unity, falling either in the direction of the soul or the body, is a challenge to the Catholic tradition and apologetics. Think only of the Catholic belief in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist verses the evangelical understanding of the bread and wine as symbols. For the evangelical at communion the flesh and blood is a name pointing away from itself toward what is not there. For the Catholic there is no need to look away; the Eucharistic feast in not understood in nominalist terms, meaning in name only, not in substance. The bread and wine are united with the divine presence analogously to the unity of the mind and body and the divine and human nature in Jesus Christ.

Deal Hudson’s thought process is highly philosophical - his readings of Aristotle, Aquinas, and others highly influences his relationship with God and his understanding of divine things. I think the journey is summed up close to the end of the book:

Evangelicals view human nature as fallen and the work of grace as extrinsic to an unredeemable human nature. In other words, I was asked to live in a radically divided world, described best in Luther’s words, “at once justified, at once a sinner” (simul justus, simul peccator).
       This hard distinction leads, I believe, to the evangelical mistrust of human works of all kinds, not just claims to good works, but to the works of culture - the arts, philosophy, the humanities. Philosophy was studied among Baptists primarily to find out what it was lacking, how it was in basic discord with Scriptures. There was no spirit of cooperation, no instinct to wed the truth of philosophy with revealed truth.

In the end, Hudson accepts Aquinas’ mantra: “grace perfects nature; it does not destroy it.” In other words, grace “strengthens human love, inwardly ordering it once again to God.” This is far different from the protestant theology he started with.

I recommend this book as a must read. It’s full of rich theological insights that demand time to chew over them and meditate upon their effects on your life. It’s a quick read, but it will stay with you for a long while, I imagine. Click here to order from Amazon.com.

God bless,
Jay

In an interesting twist in American schooling today, the Southern Baptists debated passing a resolution encouraging parents to remove children from public schools in favor of religious schools or homeschooling. Traditionally, the Southern Baptists have been ardent supporters of public schooling. The resolution wasn't passed, but it brings up an interesting point for parents.

I believe at this point in our history, parents must really consider if public school is the best place for their children. The original Southern Baptist resolution referred to public schools as "anti-Christian" - I believe there is much truth to this. If you really want a positive educational experience for your children, can you get it from a public school?

I'm interested in your opinion. Personally, my wife and I have already started homeschooling our eldest for two reasons: (1) we believe this is the only way to prevent anti-Christian propaganda from being pushed on her from an early age; and (2) we believe this is the best education possible for her. The socialization aspect of public schools is always the first brought up by non-homeschooling parents, but studies tend to show that kids learn most socialization from the home, not the school, and that they only pick up the negative social habits from outside the home. In addition, homeschoolers can choose weekly sessions with other children if they so desire.

What do you think?

God bless,
Jay

There has been some discussion on the blog where non-Catholics claim the Early Church was not convinced of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. So, I've pulled together the references to the Eucharist from Scripture and the Early Church.
I've probably missed some Scriptural references (they are overwhelming), so let me know if I'm missing something. The Early Church, by the way, was united in their faith in the Real Presence - some of the quotes are outstanding.

Biblical references are always listed first (regardless of date) and formatted as so: Verse. Short synopsis of content and other comments.

Early Church Father references are formatted as so: Author Name of Work. Date – traditional numbering (Jurgen’s Faith of the Early Fathers Numbering). Short synopsis of content and other comments.

The Real Presence (the Eucharist)

• Genesis 14:18. The first mention of a priest offering “bread and wine.” This (along with the other Old Testament references) prefigures the Eucharist. See Psalm 110:1-4.
  
• Exodus 12:5-11. Explains the Passover, which is key to understanding the Eucharist.
  
• Exodus 16:4-35. Manna from heaven prefigures the Eucharist.
  
• Micah 5:3-4. A prophecy concerning Christ that specifically notes he will “feed his flock” - note that this ties into Jesus telling Peter to “feed My sheep” as well.
  
• John 2:1-11. Jesus turns water into wine, another prefiguring of the Eucharist.
  
• John 6:4-10. Jesus multiplies bread and feeds the people. Note that He uses His apostles to offer the bread/food.
  
• John 6:43-68. A key passage where Jesus calls Himself the “bread of life” and demands we eat him literally (the word “eat” gets stronger each time he says it and literally means “gnaw”). He also loses many of His disciples who cannot accept the teaching.
  
• Luke 22:19-20, Matt 26:26-29, and Mark 14:22-25. The passage recited in the mass, which says “This is My body” etc.
  
• Luke 24:29-31. They don’t recognize Jesus until He celebrates the Eucharist with them.
  
• Acts 2:41-42. Notice that they dedicate themselves “to the breaking of bread.”
  
• 1 Corinthians 11:23-27. Paul explains the reality of the Eucharist and points out that those who accept unworthily become sick and some die. Very clear.
  
• 1 Corinthians 10:15-21. The cup is a “participation” in “the blood of Christ” and the bread is a “participation” in the “body of Christ.”
  
• Hebrews 9:11-14. The blood of Jesus “purifies your conscience”
  
• Revelation 5:6. Description of the slain Lamb of God, which points to the Passover and Eucharistic sacrifice.
  
• St. Ignatius of Antioch Letter to the Romans. c. 110 A.D. - 7, 3 (54a). He desires “the bread of God, which is the Flesh of Jesus Christ”.
  
• St. Ignatius of Antioch Letter to the Philadelphians. c. 110 A.D. - 3, 2 (56). There is “one Flesh . . . and one cup” - refres to them as the Eucharist.
  
• St. Ignatius of Antioch Letter to the Smyrnaeans. c. 110 A.D. - 6, 2 (64). Chastises those who don’t believe that the Eucharist is the Flesh of Christ.
  
• St. Justin the Martyr First Apology. c. 148 A.D. - 65 (128). Explains clearly that the Eucharist is the flesh and blood of Christ, literally. A detailed quote.
  
• St. Irenaeus Against Heresies. c. 180 A.D. - 4, 18, 4 (234). The bread is no longer bread but Eucharist - “the Body of the Lord.” Long explanation of transubstantiation and how it affects the receiving believer.
  
• St. Irenaeus Against Heresies. c. 180 A.D. - 5, 2, 2 (249). Another long explanation of the purpose of the Eucharist and the reality. Says it “is the Body and Blood of Christ.”
  
• Tertullian The Resurrection of the Dead. c. 208 A.D. - 8, 2 (362). Shows the importance of the Eucharist to us and says “the flesh feeds on the Body and Blood of Christ, so that the soul too may fatten on God.”
  
• Tertullian The Crown. c. 211 A.D. - 3, 2 (367). Notes: “We take anxious care lest something of our Cup or Bread fall on the ground.”
  
• St. Hippolytus of Rome The Apostolic Tradition. c. 215 A.D. - 21 (394i). This is a detailed explanation of how to baptize new Christians and afterward how they are to receive the Eucharist. Points out that “they who believe are nourished like little children” on “the very flesh of Christ.”
  
• St. Clement of Alexandria The Instructor of Children. c. 202 A.D. - 2, 2, 19, 4 (410). Explains that the Eucharist is spiritual and actual; also notes that both are present in the Eucharist.
  
• Origen Homilies on Exodus. c. 244 A.D. - Hom. 13, 3 (490). Notes those who worry about one particle falling to the ground and that they should worry about this.
  
• St. Ephraim Homilies. c. 340 - 373 A.D. - 4, 4 (707). Explains the Last Supper and the reality of the Eucharist. Notes “if anyone despise it or treat it with ignominy . . . he treats with ignominy the Son, who called it and actually made it to be His body.”
  
• St. Ephraim Homilies. c. 340 - 373 A.D. - 4, 6 (708). The disciples at the Last Supper “knew that they had eaten of Christ’s body.” An excellent explanation of the reality of the Eucharist.
  
• St. Cyril of Jerusalem Catechetical Lectures. c. 350 A.D. - 22, Mystagogic 4, 3 (845). Points out that we are “sharers of the divine nature” through His Body “in the figure of bread.”
  
• St. Cyril of Jerusalem Catechetical Lectures. c. 350 A.D. - 22, Mystagogic 4, 6 (846). Warns you to not mistake the Eucharist for bread and wine, “for they are . . . the Body and Blood of Christ.”
  

God bless,
Jay

As a starting note, we’ve shown where the Bible teaches that Peter was the first Pope here and in numerous other places, so this is not a discussion on that topic, but rather an overview of papal infallibility and what it means.

CCC 891. “The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith - he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals . . . The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter’s successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium,” above all in an Ecumenical council. When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine “for belief as being divinely revealed,” and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions “must be adhered to with the obedience of faith.” This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine revelation itself.

To start off, I’ll answer the question above: Is the Pope completely infallible? No, he is not. The pope is just a man and like any devout Catholic goes to confession regularly. Infallibility would imply that the pope also does not commit sin, since sin is an error. Can the Pope make mistakes? Yes, and popes do. So what is infallibility?

First, I think it’s important to note one thing: Catholics don’t depend on a man for perfection. Our faith is not based upon the thought that the Pope cannot err, he can. Our faith, rather, is based upon the trust that God created the office of Pope in Matthew 16:18-19 and that God Himself in the person of the Holy Spirit will insure that this office does not err in certain conditions. We offer our complete obedience and trust in the Holy Spirit - this is faith in action.

So what are the conditions in which we know the Pope is infallible? There are two:

• He must intend to speak infallibly (this is called “from the Chair of Peter”)
  
• It must be pertaining to faith or morals (he can’t speak infallibly on space travel for example)
  

In his personal life, the Pope can and does things incorrectly - even in personal letters - so it is only in limited cases where the Pope speaks infallibly.

But where does this come from? Is this just another doctrine Catholics ‘invented’? No, this is Scripturally based as are all Catholic doctrines.

Why did I choose to read The Fountainhead? It’s considered Ayn Rand’s key work detailing her philosophy of Objectivism in a work of fiction. Objectivism, for those who are unaware, is a philosophy espoused by more and more Americans who often deem themselves Libertarians. I’m a sucker for fictional books with a philosophical basis, so I couldn’t pass up the opportunity to read this, even though it was a large 700 page work.

As an initial warning, this is not the best written book. Some large works are so captivating they are difficult to put down (I’m thinking of Stephen King’s The Stand or Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings for example), this book was not like that. I had trouble getting through a few overly boring sections of the book; I felt it could be cut down by 200 or 300 pages and still effectively get across the story. The characters aren’t perfectly developed either. In fact, this may be the only book I’ve ever read where the hero is a rapist and his victim is happy to be raped! But that’s another issue.

The core reason for the book’s existence is Ayn Rand’s philosphy of Objectivism. It’s difficult to quickly sum up Objectivism, so I’ll simply say that it is a philosophy that teaches that man can be excellent and should strive for this. It also teaches that the perfect man is completely self-serving and only concerned about his own wants and needs. In Ayn Rand’s words:

My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.
- - Ayn Rand

Needless to say, this philosophy does not mix well with Christian philosophy and especially with Christian morality. Rand understands this instinctively and gently mocks religious believe in the book. It’s important to note that she originally included another character, a pastor, who “tries to save the world with an outworn ideology . . . [his ideals are] precisely what the world has to be saved from” (from her notes on the book).

I am currently reading The Mystical Rose by John Henry Cardinal Newman. For all of those not familiar with Venerable John Henry Cardinal Newman it would be well worth your time to learn more about him. I have provided a link here that will take you to a website that is full of information about him as well as his many writings. It's a great site:
Venerable John Henry Cardinal Newman: The "Father" of the Second Vatican Council
Here I have decided to post one of the chapters from the book in order to explain the meaning of faith and devotion in the Catholic Church. The Mystical Rose is, first and foremost, a book discussing the various Catholic beliefs surrounding the Blessed Virgin Mary, but this particular chapter explains much more than simply the traditional devotions to Mary. It provides a substantial overview of faith and devotion in the Church. Enjoy!

I begin by making a distinction which will help to remove some of the difficulty of my undertaking, as it presents itself to ordinary enquirers - the distinction between faith and devotion. I fully grant that devotion towards the Blessed Virgin has increased among Catholics with the progress of the centuries; but I do not agree that the Church's teaching concerning her has undergone a growth, for I believe that it has been in substance one and the same from the beginning.

There's an interesting article in the Wall Street Journal today entitled Do It Yourself Religion about individuals who decided their choice of churches didn't fulfill their needs, so they started small churches of their own, essentially.

I find this fascinating. Most countries understand that going to church isn't about you - it's about God. When you go to church, it isn't your needs that should be fulfilled, but God's needs. You are their to worship, not to be served. But more and more I see this type of decision process which plainly says, "I'm going to the church which does it for me." Often this is an emotional decision based purely on emotional needs - the church doesn't offer the "experience" I want.

In the article they detail some of the decisions to do this and it is extremely sad. The first person is a Catholic woman - and perhaps the most revealing. She states plainly that in her worship group "dogma doesn't get in the way." Dogma, for those who don't know, is defined by God, not man. To clarify, the Pope cannot change or contradict dogma in any way - he doesn't have the authority to. Dogma is like the laws of nature; it's the pure truth and reality of God. So basically this woman is saying that in her group, "God doesn't get in the way" - that's the most honest statement in the article.

Anyway, if you get a chance read it (Wall Street Journal Online is a pay service, so I can't link to it). It is a fascinating and horrifying look into Americans and how some view faith and religion.

God bless,
Jay

Darius Lesesne is a personal friend of mine and a fellow parishoner at our local Catholic Church. Darius is a convert to Catholicism and now produces Christian gift cards. Each card portrays a unique Christian historical figure as well as a quote or statement from the selected person. Darius has chosen such individuals as Pope John Paul II, Mother Teresa, Charles de Foucauld, Evelyn Waugh, G.K. Chesterton, Rich Mullins, C.S. Lewis, T.S. Eliot, Thomas Merton, Flannery O'Connor, and many others. Below is a piece written by Darius:

I tend to look upon myself as an artist in the traditional sense of that term--as one who "makes", rather than as one who "creates". An artist works with givens--the stuff of creation. The artist also recognized the givenness of his own being as "intellectual soul incarnate" (Marion Montgomery); and beyond this he is aware that he imitates his Creator in a highly significant way, namely, he makes things. If this work is beautiful, then God is praised, for phenomenal beauty invariably points to transcendent beauty, and hence to beauty's source, God Himself.

The artist, Andrew Lytle said, is not a special kind of man, but rather he is a special kind of craftsman. I am the latter--a maker of cards with ink and white paper. I often get asked, "Why are you learning Humanist Miniscule and Textura Prescisus?" or "Will people buy these cards?" First, a doctor practicing without bothering to learn anatomy is inconceivable--likewise, I must learn the "rhetoric" (de Rougemeont) of my own craft (which certainly includes historic caligraphic styles). Second, attached to the question about people buying cards is the implied one about "making any money". Both of these, Dorothy L. Sayers observed, should be reduced to the simplicity and pointedness of this question: "...are (these cards) useful things well made?" And, yes, you are quite right to think that it is you who must answer this simple question.

It must be said, furthermore, that any man's work, whatever it is, is the means by which he offers himself to God (D. Sayers)--I believe this. Moreover, artists offer the viewer beauty not as something which startles his mind like a stranger; no "the intelligence delights in the beautiful because in the beautiful it finds itself again and recognizes itself, and makes contact with its own light" (Jacques Maritain). Again Maritain affirms that when we experience beauty, we are left with a residue of longing for a more perfect Beauty.
- Darius Lecesne

If you are interested in learning more about Darius' cards please visit:

Possum Cards.com

In Christ,
Joe

Prayer is a key aspect of every Christian's relationship with God. As C.S. Lewis eloquently put it, prayer doesn't change God, it changes us. Through prayer we grow in hope, love, and charity; we also seek God's assistance through grace to get through the suffering and problems we endure in this world.

In this view I'm adding this as a permanent prayer request page (link will be on the top left). Simply add your requests below and I will commit to praying for them (hopefully others will as well). Feel free to also add thank you notes to God when a prayer request is answered (this builds the faith of others).

Note that over time, I'll remove the older prayer requests, so that there will always be room for new ones. If yours is a permanent need, just come back every few months and add it.

May God bless you all,
Jay

Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life. I am the bread of life. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread which came down; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh. The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink His blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me and I in him. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever.” -John 6:47-58

Throughout the Gospels, there are several things that Jesus clearly states are necessary for eternal life. In John 3, when speaking to Nicodemus, Jesus mandated Baptism with water (John 3:5-8) and faith in the Son of God and a life of good deeds (John 3:16-21). In John 4, when speaking to the Samaritan woman, Jesus proclaimed the need to worship in both spirit and truth (John 4:24-26). Then later in John 4, Jesus commands his disciples to be laborers of service(John 4:35-38). In John 5, Jesus mandates belief in His power over death and acceptance that He is the fulfillment of the Old Testament. And so we come to John 6. Out of all the things necessary for salvation, as laid out in John’s Gospel, the need to consume the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ is the most clear. Jesus commands it repeatedly in John 6. He goes to such great detail as to compare the relationship between Himself and the Father to the relationship the faithful believer can experience with Him through the eating of His Body and the drinking of His Blood. As Catholics, when we receive Holy Communion we fulfill the commandment given by our Lord Jesus Christ.

Many of our Protestant brothers and sisters will claim that this was only a symbol and that communion is simply a symbolic replicating of the Last Supper, yet that is not what was thought by the Apostles nor the Early Church Fathers.

In recent days we hear the word conscience quite a bit. Politicians claim they must follow their conscience rather than church teaching when deciding on matters of life or death. But what is conscience? How can you know if your conscience is leading you down the right path?

Many times emotion or desire are confused with conscience. Conscience is not “what I want to do,” but rather “what I know I should do.” The Catechism states:

CCC 1778. Conscience is a judgement of reason whereby the human person recognizes the moral quality of a concrete act that he is going to perform, is in the process of performing, or has already completed. In all he says and does, man is obliged to follow faithfully what he knows to be just and right. It is by the judgment of his conscience that man perceives and recognizes the prescriptions of the divine law:

Conscience is the law of the mind; yet [Christians] would not grant that it is nothing more; I mean that it was not a dictate, nor conveyed the notion of responsibility, of duty, or a threat and a promise . . . [Conscience] is a messenger of him, who, both in nature and in grace, speaks to us behind a veil, and teaches and rules us by his representatives. Conscience is the aboriginal Vicar of Christ.

So conscience is an inherently moral concept and necessity. We use concepts to make moral decisions and to comprehend whether a decision is wrong or right. Conscience is the little voice in the back of our minds that consistently tells us what is right and wrong.

But, if conscience is the “voice of God” in our minds, how can someone suggest that his conscience forces him to vote pro-abortion? How can one suggest that his conscience will not allow him to forbid homosexual marriage? The key is in the formation of conscience. We are all responsible for learning truth and goodness and rejecting sin. The Catechism points out: “Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgements about acts to be performed or already committed.” (CCC 1790) So the conscience can make errors if we don’t properly inform and/or form our conscience:

CCC 1791. This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man “takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin.” In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.

So when a man suggests his conscience is forcing him to make an obviously erroneous decision on morals, he is really revealing the state of his personal religious life. The person has either ignored the responsibility to find out what is true and good or his habitual sin has dulled and possibly blinded his conscience. The Catechism goes on to clarify the source of errors in moral conduct:

CCC 1792. Ignorance of Christ and his Gospel, bad example given by others, enslavement to one’s passions, assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church’s authority and her teaching, lack of conversion and charity: these can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct.

The problem with American spirituality is its selfishness. We all seem to believe we are personally just under the Holy Spirit in terms of rank or that we know what the Holy Spirit really wants (no matter that His Church says differently). Obedience to truth is a weakness in the American blend of religion, and those that invent new materialistic doctrines are seen as brilliant (after all, the open the way of sin to more people). Clearly, the first mistake in forming your conscience is often the decision to reject the authority and teaching of God’s Church. This is something we should all keep in mind - along with humility.

God bless,
Jay

I found this great article by the Archbishop of Milwaukee while poking around the Website, Pentecost Message. This is a stirring call to true Catholicity, and with the day of Pentecost just passed, it is very timely.

The article is a good launching pad for discussion for several reasons. For the orthodox concerned about the dissent in the Church, it admonishes hope. For the social activist concerned about abuse in the Church, it counsels fidelity. For the radical seeking compromise from the Church, it demands submission. For the outsider seeing disunity in the Church, it demonstrates solidarity. May the Holy Spirit bless each of you, fill you with his counsel, and lead you to Christ and His Church.

In Christ,
Dave

Which movies best present Catholic life? Take ten minutes and add your suggestions:

This is a good idea by NCR.

God bless,
Jay

PS - thanks to the Curt Jester for the classy banner ad . . .