September 2004 Archives

“Christianity has not been tried and found wanting. It has been found difficult and left untried.” - - G. K. Chesterton

I’m a sucker for a great quote. I thought it would be interesting to ask our visitors to put up some of your favorite Christian quotes (not in Scripture). Over the years there have been some unbelievable Christian writers (such as Chesterton above) and excellent quotes. What are you favorites? Just post them as a comment.

Some of my other favorites:

“Ignorance of scripture is ignorance of Christ.” -- St. Jerome

“Psychoanalysis is confession without absolution.” - - Gilbert K. Chesterton

“Not 100 in the United States hate the Roman Catholic Church, but millions hate what they mistakenly think the Roman Catholic Church is.” - - Bishop Fulton J. Sheen

And the best quote from the famous Patrick Henry (of “Give me liberty” fame):

“I have now disposed of all my property to my family. There is one thing more I wish I could give them, and that is the Christian religion.” - - Patrick Henry

There are million more (I don’t even have CS Lewis above). I’m looking forward to others you may have.

God bless,
Jay

PS – I can’t resist this one:

“If you're going to do a thing, you should do it thoroughly. If you're going to be a Christian, you may as well be a Catholic.” - - Muriel Spark

;-)

Terri Schiavo's parents will appear on Larry King Live tonight. As many of you know, Micheal Schiavo, Terri's husband (in the legal sense), has been trying to kill her for a while now and the Florida courts continue to try and help him. Meanwhile, Terri Schiavo's parents are trying desperately to save their daughter's life. It will be interesting to see where Larry King takes this interview . . .

I think this is a defining case for Americans and euthanasia. Can a husband kill his sick wife? Can he do it if he has no real evidence that she wanted to be killed? Is he still her guardian if he has moved on and joined an entirely new family? Much prayer is needed.

You can find more details on the case at CURE's blog.

Hat tip to Fr. Rob at Thrownback and Amy Welborn (again) at Open Book.

God bless,
Jay

UPDATE: Kudos to the Schindler's Attorney, who id an excellent job of explaining the situation. I also finally heard a reasonable explanation of why Michael won't simply turn her over to her parents: she might explain what happened in that mysterious "accident" that the police felt should be investigated by homocide.

Hello Everyone! It's been quite some time since my last posting, in fact this is my first time on the blog in over a month. So please know that my lack of responses hasn't been due to the fact that any particular Protestant brother or sister has stumped me nor has me waivering in my firm belief in the Catholic Faith. In truth, I have been quite overwhelmed with the arrival of Samuel (the newest member of our family), the beginning of a new semester, and the starting of a new business.

I found a great website for all of you interested in "reading the Bible from the heart of the Church." It is called the St. Paul Center for Biblical Theology and it is run by a lay organization founded by Dr. Scott Hahn. It is full of interesting resources and articles about Sacred Scripture. It has a Biblical theology course that is outstanding. I recommend it even to our Protestant friends interested in understanding how we Catholics read the Bible.... Who knows it may actually be an eye-opener for some of you. I have decided to quote a message from the website about what Catholic Biblical Theology is...enjoy:

What Is Biblical Theology? By Dr. Scott Hahn

When it comes to working a puzzle, there are two kinds of people: One looks at the "big picture" on the box while they're working; the other enjoys figuring out how the pieces fit together and watching the picture slowly emerge. I'm definitely a big picture kind of person.

I tell you that as a way of answering one of the questions I hear most often: "What exactly is biblical theology? Why didn't you start The St. Paul Center for Bible Study?"

If you think of the Bible as a collection of "puzzle pieces" - all those individual books and chapters and verses, then biblical theology is the picture that shows you how those pieces are meant to fit together.
That's how we read the whole Bible and discover a unified vision of salvation history.

Biblical theology is based upon God's Fatherly plan ("divine economy"), the unity of the Old and the New Testaments ("typology"), and how this applies for us today in all seven sacraments, especially the Mass ("mystagogy").

But biblical theology is more than simply one of many possible methods for reading the Bible - it is the way the Church mandates that Scripture be studied.

Something interesting occurred to me yesterday that applies directly to this blog. We have a number of protestants suggesting that the Church is merely a human institution, which means it can fail or develop unChristian beliefs and dogmas. I’ve often argued that God in the person of the Holy Spirit protects the Church from this happening in a very real way (see Acts 5), but I’ve never pointed out the historical reality of the topic.

If you look at history and what is considered the “core” Christian beliefs concerning morality, what is happening? The reality is that those who adhere to sola scriptura or the “Bible alone” are the ones who change these traditional realities to fit their personal lifestyle. The Church remains firm. What I’m suggesting is that without the Church you are more likely to compromise the Christian ideal Jesus taught – the Church provides the foundation that prevents this.

Do you think I’m crazy? Let’s look at some of the issues. Until the 1930’s every Christian church condemned contraception as a serious sin. Today only the Catholic Church condemns it. Fifty years ago, no church would have ordained a female minister (Scripture is painfully clear on this). Now the Church is routinely criticized for “discriminating” against women, since many other Christian communities do it. Until recently every Christian Church condemned homosexual acts as immoral. Now many protestant churches allow actively homosexual ministers (and even bishops). The Catholic Church stands with very few protestant denominations on this issue. Abortion was always taught to be intrinsically evil by Christians until recently, when a few denominations have suggested that in certain situations abortion is okay (it starts with the life of the mother and slips down the slope to rape, incest, and more).

Yesterday we had a post that proclaimed that masturbation is a gift from God to single people, among others. This idiocy is the type of stuff that will become “commonsense knowledge” in a decade or so, despite the fact that it grates against the reality of the Christian experience. What I’m suggesting is that sola scriptura leads us to situational morality; if I can interpret the Bible with as much authority as the great Christian leaders of earlier times, who can tell me I’m wrong? If everyone is right, no one is wrong – no matter what they teach.

Others may find it fascinating that only the Church remains on the right side of these issues, I find it expected. Jesus Christ promised us that the gates of Hell will not prevail against His Church and I believe Him.

God bless,
Jay

Today we have another example of our judicial system gone mad: The Florida Supreme Court ruled that Terri's Law was unconstitutional. This is fascinating from a legal perspective:

The unanimous court said the law that kept Terri Schiavo alive violated the separation of powers between the judicial branch and the legislative and executive branches.

Now, I'm no legal expert, but I thought the only oversight of the judicial branch of goverment was legislative power to write laws. The judges seem to be suggesting that you cannot overturn a judicial fiat through normal lawmaking. This seems perverse and scary (judges, after all, cannot be removed from the bench easily).

And somewhere in this mess, Michael Schiavo finally gets to kill his wife so he can keep the insurance money. It's a shame that he isn't willing to simply turn her over to her parents (who have been fighting for her right-to-live for years) and continue his new life with his new wife/fiance/whatever (she'd better hope she stays healthy!).

Much prayer is needed - especially considering the direction our courts have taken in recent years.

God bless,
Jay

I think there is some confusion about whose responsibility it is to teach children about God. This is a big subject, since parents must be aware of who is ultimately responsible for their children’s Christian education:

CCC 2221-2228. The fecundity of conjugal love cannot be reduced solely to the procreation of children, but must extend to their moral education and their spiritual formation. "The role of parents in education is of such importance that it is almost impossible to provide an adequate substitute." The right and the duty of parents to educate their children are primordial and inalienable.

Parents must regard their children as children of God and respect them as human persons. Showing themselves obedient to the will of the Father in heaven, they educate their children to fulfill God's law.

Parents have the first responsibility for the education of their children. They bear witness to this responsibility first by creating a home where tenderness, forgiveness, respect, fidelity, and disinterested service are the rule. The home is well suited for education in the virtues. This requires an apprenticeship in self-denial, sound judgment, and self-mastery - the preconditions of all true freedom. Parents should teach their children to subordinate the "material and instinctual dimensions to interior and spiritual ones." Parents have a grave responsibility to give good example to their children. By knowing how to acknowledge their own failings to their children, parents will be better able to guide and correct them:

He who loves his son will not spare the rod.... He who disciplines his son will profit by him.
Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord.

The home is the natural environment for initiating a human being into solidarity and communal responsibilities. Parents should teach children to avoid the compromising and degrading influences which threaten human societies.

Through the grace of the sacrament of marriage, parents receive the responsibility and privilege of evangelizing their children. Parents should initiate their children at an early age into the mysteries of the faith of which they are the "first heralds" for their children. They should associate them from their tenderest years with the life of the Church. A wholesome family life can foster interior dispositions that are a genuine preparation for a living faith and remain a support for it throughout one's life.

Education in the faith by the parents should begin in the child's earliest years. This already happens when family members help one another to grow in faith by the witness of a Christian life in keeping with the Gospel. Family catechesis precedes, accompanies, and enriches other forms of instruction in the faith. Parents have the mission of teaching their children to pray and to discover their vocation as children of God. The parish is the Eucharistic community and the heart of the liturgical life of Christian families; it is a privileged place for the catechesis of children and parents.

Children in turn contribute to the growth in holiness of their parents. Each and everyone should be generous and tireless in forgiving one another for offenses, quarrels, injustices, and neglect. Mutual affection suggests this, the charity of Christ demands it.

Parents' respect and affection are expressed by the care and attention they devote to bringing up their young children and providing for their physical and spiritual needs. As the children grow up, the same respect and devotion lead parents to educate them in the right use of their reason and freedom.

As parents, it is our job to educate and inform our children about God. We cannot simply send our kids to Sunday School or Mass and hope they learn it. We have the responsibility to ensure our kids learn their faith and are able to share it with others. This is not the Church’s responsibility. I think the Catechism makes it clear that it should not be the Church’s responsibility – the family is the place where a child looks to learn from his/her birth.

Having said that, I think it’s important to note that at some point in your life, as you become an adult, the responsibility shifts to you. You cannot continue suggesting that others are at fault for your ignorance: personal responsibility comes into play as you get older. Can you go out and learn the truth for yourself? Absolutely. And you must, whether your parents were good or bad instructors of the Christian faith.

God bless,
Jay

Archbishop John J. Myers of Newark weighed in on the debate this morning in the Wall Street Journal with A Voter's Guide: Pro-choice Candidates and Church Teaching. It's a pretty good (and not too long) piece, so take a minute to read it. I thought this was well done:

Thus for a Catholic citizen to vote for a candidate who supports abortion and embryo-destructive research, one of the following circumstances would have to obtain: either (a) both candidates would have to be in favor of embryo killing on roughly an equal scale or (b) the candidate with the superior position on abortion and embryo-destructive research would have to be a supporter of objective evils of a gravity and magnitude beyond that of 1.3 million yearly abortions plus the killing that would take place if public funds were made available for embryo-destructive research.

Frankly, it is hard to imagine circumstance (b) in a society such as ours. No candidate advocating the removal of legal protection against killing for any vulnerable group of innocent people other than unborn children would have a chance of winning a major office in our country. Even those who support the death penalty for first-degree murderers are not advocating policies that result in more than a million killings annually.

He also addressed the common complaint that the War on Iraq is equivalent to abortion:

Consider, for example, the war in Iraq. Although Pope John Paul II pleaded for an alternative to the use of military force to meet the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, he did not bind the conscience of Catholics to agree with his judgment on the matter, nor did he say that it would be morally wrong for Catholic soldiers to participate in the war. In line with the teaching of the catechism on "just war," he recognized that a final judgment of prudence as to the necessity of military force rests with statesmen, not with ecclesiastical leaders. Catholics may, in good conscience, support the use of force in Iraq or oppose it.
Abortion and embryo-destructive research are different. They are intrinsic and grave evils; no Catholic may legitimately support them. In the context of contemporary American social life, abortion and embryo-destructive research are disproportionate evils. They are the gravest human rights abuses of our domestic politics and what slavery was to the time of Lincoln. Catholics are called by the Gospel of Life to protect the victims of these human rights abuses. They may not legitimately abandon the victims by supporting those who would further their victimization.

It seems that the American Bishops are less and less inclined to avoid politics by not focusing completely on issues like abortion. Take a minute and read the article - especially if you're Catholic. I know there is considerable confusion on this topic.

God bless,
Jay

Michael Coren, a Canadian writer and speaker, has come back to the Catholic Church. Most probably don't know him, but he does a great deal of speaking on faith, morals, etc. in evangelical churches (at least he did). The reason I bring it up is that he wroten an excellent column on his conversion. Here's the best:

I hardly think that the gay militants, Muslim radicals and atheist extremists who abuse and insult me on a regular basis will suddenly stop their antics. Nor will I stop loving the evangelical church and defending it and its members in public and in private. But while we agree on so very much, we do differ on certain core beliefs.

I am convinced that the church founded by Christ is the Roman Catholic Church and that Jesus gave earthly authority to Peter and his successors, down to and beyond Pope John Paul II.

I believe that Jesus is present on the alter during the Mass. I believe in the seven sacraments.

Any spiritual journey is part intellectual, part emotional, part visceral, part supernatural. The path winds and turns and around each corner is revelation and wisdom. I've read a great deal of theology and have enormous respect for the great reformers. I love and know my Bible, including the passages that will surely be quoted to me by those who regret my swim across the Tiber.

Do not tell me about historical failings or current problems because I've heard them all. I've met lapsed Catholics and lousy Catholics as well as good Catholics and glorious Catholics. Not relevant. It is the truth of a belief, not the failure or success of alleged followers to live up to that truth, that is of importance.

I'm a miserable sinner. But at least I know it. Please pray for me. Or, if you can't, try to tolerate me.

He makes some great points on our spiritual journey. Hat tip to Relapsed Catholic - the only Canadian blog I can't live without . . .

God bless,
Jay

I’m a little surprised to be writing this article, but we’ve had a couple of posts lately that suggested a lack of belief and/or understanding of Original Sin. As far as I’m aware, every major Christian theology teaches that original sin exists, so I’m assuming these thoughts come from those simply misunderstanding their belief system.

It’s important to note the difference between personal sin and original sin. Personal sin involves an action, thought, or desire contrary to God’s law; it is the personal fault of the one committing the sin. Original sin is contracted, rather than committed, and does not involve the personal fault of any individual (other than Adam and Eve).

Where did Original Sin come from?
When God first created man and woman in the form of Adam and Eve they were made “in the image of God” (Gen 1:26) and were completely without sin – perfect, in other words. They did have free will, but they also had complete self-dominion, which means they could control their will and it was possible for them to live forever without sin (note that without sin Death does not exist – Romans 5:12). In addition, because of their sinless state, they were literally full of God’s sanctifying Grace (which gave them the self-dominion). However, Adam and Eve intentionally and freely choose to disobey God, Eve because she was deceived (Gen 3:13, 2 Cor 11:3) and Adam because he was scared (Heb 2:15).

So why do we have Original Sin, it’s not my fault!
This is the beginning of Original Sin: Adam and Eve’s personal sin stripped them of many gifts they had from God (Gen 3:16-24). The key issues (to this topic) are that they lost the Grace they were filled with through sin as well as the self-dominion they were accustomed to. No longer was man able to resist temptation perfectly; now through sin death and concupiscence became a reality of humanity. Once this original state was lost, Adam and Eve no longer had the ability to pass the gifts of grace and self-dominion down to their children (since they had lost these “traits”), thus original sin is really more of a lacking that we receive from our parents, a lack of grace and self-dominion. As the Catechism puts it:

CCC 405. Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of personal fault in any of Adam’s descendents. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it; subject to ignorance, suffering, and the dominion of death; and inclined to sin – an inclination to evil that is called “concupiscence.” Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace, erases original sin and turns a man back toward God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.

Wait, wait – where is this in the Bible?
A couple of key explanations directly from Scripture are also very enlightening:

Psalms 51:5. Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.

David acknowledges being born with original sin (he was not suggesting his mother sinned when he was conceived) – note verse seven as well, which is a veiled reference to baptism cleaning us after the resurrection.

Romans 5:12, 18. Therefore as sin came into the world through one man [Adam] and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned . . . Then as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men.

The whole passage here is excellent, but a little long for a blog quote, so I just picked out two examples relating to the topic. Adam’s sin “led to condemnation for all men,” but Christ’s righteousness can free us from this bondage.

1 Corinthians 15:21-22. For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.

These verses typically contrast Adam and Christ, since Christ is the “new Adam” who reverses the destruction done by the old Adam. And this gets to the heart of the problem: If you don’t believe in original sin, then why did Christ have to come and be crucified? If we are not under the power of sin by being children of Adam, then we could choose to follow God as He originally intended Adam and Eve to. In other words, without original sin Christ would not be required to die for us.

So how do we cure Original Sin?
St. Thomas Aquinas was the first to express the thought: O happy fault of Adam, which is now a part of our Easter liturgy. At first, this sounds a little crazy. After all, Adam’s “fault” introduced death, degradation, travail, and concupiscence into the world. But he finishes the verse with “which gained for us so great a Redeemer.” Christ is not only a medicine which helps us deal with original sin, He is the God who restores us to the grace our first parents lost. Through Christ we regain heaven and more: “but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more” (Rom 5:20). Through man sin was brought into this world, but God Himself removed it. How grateful we should be.

God bless,
Jay

I know this issue is a key concern of Catholics and we've clearly been on one side of the bandwagon. Today I read Jimmy Akin's treatment of this topic based on Cardinal Ratzinger's letter. Take a few minutes to read it, I think it explains the various issues involved very well.

Let me know what you think, Jack. ;-)

Hat tip to The Curt Jester (again - he's doing an excellent job).

God bless,
Jay

Here come the calls for the legalization of pedophilia. That's right: pedophilia. It's really a simple equation:

Contraception reduces the value/seriousness/reason for existence of marriage, which leads to Divorce. Acceptance of remarriage after divorce, implies that marriage isn't sacred and is merely a temporary arrangement for satisfying a person's wants or desires, which leads to (1) "living together" and (2) Gay Marriage. Once "alternative" sexuality is accepted, we move into Multiple-partner marriage and, inevitably, acceptance of pedophilia (or "adult-child love," which is the politically correct term for molesting children these days).

I can't say it enough: if you accept that the function of marriage does not involve procreation and raising children, then you cannot stop Divorce or Gay Marriage. If you can't stop Gay Marriage, then you definitely can't stop Polygamy. Gay marriage and polygamy justify sex as a means of satisfying lust - it removes sex as a sacred act and turns people into sexual objects meant to please others. This leads to the belief that children should also work as sexual objects. Which means: we decriminalize pedophilia.

When we make significant societal changes, we have to be aware of what is coming down the pipeline: every action has an effect and sometimes this effect isn't as fun as the action. When a society legalizes an act, it tends to normalize the act and make it more acceptable to new generations of kids. Perhaps to clarify think about it this way: a child raised in the 1910's or 1920's can understand the problems and the concerns of contraception (all churches condemned contraception as a sinful act until 1930, when the first church began accepting it). In our age, people look at you like you're crazy if you suggest contraception is sinful (especially in the South, where I am). This will be how children born in the decade from 2000 to 2010 will think of Gay Marriage. Scary, huh?

God bless,
Jay

The baptism of infants is an interesting discussion because it must be based on our understanding of baptism. If baptism is merely symbolic – a public announcement of our commitment to God, as I used to be taught – then baptism of infants is silly. But if baptism is a powerful sacrament that washes away sin and opens the doors to heaven, then we would naturally want our infants baptized. We have argued that Scripture clearly indicates the necessity of baptism, so I will assume this point of view in this article, but here are a few Scriptures that support this point of view:

• Acts 2:38. Peter suggests we be baptized “for the forgiveness of [our] sins”
  
• Acts 22:16. Baptism washes away our sins, literally.
  
• Titus 3:5. Jesus saved us “by the washing of regeneration”
  
• 1 Peter 3:21. Baptism now saves us
  

There are other verses, but this is just a quick overview to begin the article.

So what does Scripture say about baptizing infants? We can only infer, since Scripture does not condone or condemn the practice. Many are under the belief that somewhere the Bible says that infants cannot or should not be baptized. It does not. And I believe it strongly lends itself to the belief that they should be baptized.

Acts 2:38-39. And Peter said to them, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him.”

First, we believe that God calls all to Him, we simply have the ability to reject this call. Above Peter indicates that the promise is to us and our children, which implies that children are not to be kept away from baptism.

Matthew 19:13-14. Then children were brought to him that he might lay his hands on them and pray. The disciples rebuked the people; but Jesus said, “Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven.”

This is often cited to suggest we should not prevent infants from being baptized. And typically the response is that the children must “come” to Jesus, which implies older children. However, this argument fails when you look at the preceding verse and the parallel text in Luke 18:15, which specifically notes that infants were being brought to Him. So are those that forbid infants from being baptized hindering them from coming to Jesus? I think the answer is a clear yes: baptism removes original sin as well as personal sin, which makes anyone closer to Christ.

And furthermore, baptism is the replacement for Old Testament circumcision. In the New Testament, the Old Testament rituals are replaced by Christ with the sacraments, which actually have the ability and power to confer grace upon us. Circumcision was replaced by baptism:

Colossians 2:11-12. In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of flesh in the circumcision of Christ; and you were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.

Paul is intentionally juxtaposing baptism and circumcision in this passage and explaining the new covenant’s improvements over the old. What is really interesting is when circumcision was performed: eight days after a child’s birth. Circumcision was seen as your entrance into God’s church, which is exactly how baptism is seen now. I believe that an indepth understanding of circumcision leads to the conclusion that infants should be baptized.

But are any children baptized in the Bible? I think it’s hard to argue that they weren’t. If you look at Acts 16:15, Acts 16:33, and 1Corinthians 1:16, you’ll see three instances where one man believed and his entire “household” was baptized. In Scripture, the household often includes wives, children, and even servants. Two questions: (1) Do you believe that everyone in this person’s household believed? Or were there some doubts, maybe among the teenagers? And, (2) can you logically argue that there were no infants in any of these households (even among servants, etc)? They didn’t have the pill or IUD back then, so healthy men and women had children throughout their lives. If infant baptism is incorrect, wouldn’t the Biblical writers have noted that either the infants weren’t baptized or that there were no infants present? The fact that this isn’t seen as important further supports the Catholic position. There were likely infants in these homes and they were baptized along with the others, based on the faith and conviction of the father.

Finally, it’s important to note that the early Church did, in fact, baptize infants. There are several key passages in the writings of the early Church that refer to the baptism of infants, but I thought Origen’s was most powerful:

The Church received from the Apostles the tradition of giving Baptism even to infants. For the Apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of the divine mysteries, knew that there is in everyone the innate stains of sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit.
- - Origen Commentaries on Romans

Baptism removes original sin and personal sin, but it also inclines us to God through purity. Infants deserve this sacrament and should be taken to God in baptism as soon as possible.

God bless,
Jay

Please remember to pray for the children held captive in Russia today. The death toll numbers I'm hearing are scary . . . let's pray for healing and grace.

God bless,
Jay

PS - It's interesting to note that these terrorists are Muslim. For some reason, the news media seems to be avoiding this admission to a fault.

Proof that without any Scriptural understanding, you can make the Bible say anything. Again, this is why Christ created a Church in Matthew 16:18 - to make sure this kind of silliness didn't occur.

Hat tip to the Saintly Salmagundi.

By the way, we'll be back to our regular posting soon . . . I promise!

God bless,
Jay