November 2004 Archives

Check out the new Catholic Carnival at Happy Catholic. It's focused on the fruits of the Holy Spirit and there are some great articles.

God bless,
Jay

Like a frog moving from lily pad to lily pad, I tend to jump around through the blogosphere reading articles and generally seeing what’s going on. Somehow in this process I ran across Chuck Currie’s blog. Currie is self-described as a “United Church of Christ Seminarian” and a “liberal Christian,” which is all fine and dandy. However, in the first post I read, Chuck suggested that abortion was okay. So I got into a little discussion with Chuck.

What I found fascinating is that Chuck Currie won’t answer direct questions or challenges, particularly on key issues. For example, when I asked that he provide a Biblical basis for his belief that abortion is good, he simply referred me to another article, that simply states Christians can be pro-choice with no Scriptural backing (it did include a lot of links to other people, though).

Interestingly enough, he seems to base his entire position on the fact that there are starving children in the world. Odd, huh? So it’s better to kill them before they are born, Currie seems to be saying, than to let them live in hunger. Of course, I did ask this question and Chuck did not answer it.

In my mind this is the exact problem of Sola Scriptura as I know I’ve said before. Virtually all Christians can read the Bible and agree that it requires us to protect life. However, because no Scripture says “Abortion is a horrible sin,” (even though it’s close) there will always be those who try to say it is “okay” or “good.” My question has always been: what about the Chuck Curries’ of the world, how do you point out their error? Chuck seems very unwilling to even reference Scripture, and this guy is supposed to be seminarian!

Without an infallible interpreter an infallible book can be misinterpreted. And without the Church Christ created in Matthew 16:18, there will always be those who someone like Chuck Currie will lead astray.

By the way, I recommend everyone try to convince him. But in his pro-abortion post linked to above, there were some great arguments in the comment boxes that Chuck Currie simply ignored. We live in a sick society where even those who claim to be followers of Christ might teach that it’s fine to kill babies.

God bless,
Jay

PS - By the way, it goes without saying that we should be praying for those who miss the point of the Gospel. Especially in the case where they might one day lead other Christians.

Catholics might start by asking, “Why does this matter?” And one must forgive them for doing so. After all, a Bishop of a diocese does not have to be physically present in order to manage the diocese. There have been bishops, for example, forced to flee their diocese because of persecution, but they retain their status. In other words, even if Peter wasn’t in Rome, he could have been the Pope.

Yet, there is this Catholic tradition (lowercase “t”) that Peter was in Rome at the end of his life and was actually martyred there. So the thought goes, if we can prove Peter wasn’t in Rome, we can discredit in some way the Catholic Church. Thus, I am here answering the question. Let’s start with some background information . . .

BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The Pope is, by definition, the Archbishop of Rome, Italy. Peter, in Matthew 16:18 was named the first Pope, so he was the first Archbishop of Rome. Why can we assume that Rome was his diocese, and not Jerusalem or some other important city? I addressed that in an early post entitled Why are we Roman Catholics, and not just Catholics? I recommend you take a moment and read it if you have not – it’s important to understand in this discussion.

The important point to take from the article is that the Jews could be sure that the Catholic Church was true because it was in Rome (each of the four conquering powers in Daniel eventually converted to the “true” religion, the first three to Judaism, the last to Catholicism). So there was no question that if Catholicism were ordained by God, Rome would be its focal point.

From the early Church, tradition has maintained that Peter was living in Rome and was martyred there (he was crucified upside down). So, some feel they can discredit the Catholic Church in some way by showing that Peter was never in Rome. As I’ve already pointed out, even if true this doesn’t prove anything, just as the proof that Peter was in Rome doesn’t prove he was the first Pope. However, since it seems important to some, let’s look at the evidence.

Biblical Evidence
We can begin by looking to Scripture. Peter wrote two books of Bible, 1st & 2nd Peter, and is featured prominently throughout Scripture. Does Scripture attest to Peter being in Rome?

As a matter of fact, it does:

1 Peter 5:13. The church here in Babylon, united with you by God’s election, sends you her greeting, and so does my son, Mark.

I can already her the cry “Wait, that doesn’t say Rome!” That is true, we’ll get there. But clearly, Peter is writing from a city he calls “Babylon” and is “sending” greetings from that church. Note that he is also writing instruction to another church.

So what about Babylon? Babylon was the capital of the Babylonian Empire, but it had been crushed and reduced to ruin over the years. In fact, it was the first city converted in the prophecy of Daniel I mentioned. Babylon was known in Old Testament days for persecuting the church (see 2 Kings 24) and now Rome was the persecutor of the church, as Daniel prophesied.

For the early Church, “Babylon” was the code word for Rome. I know you want proof, and only Biblical proof, so take a look at the other uses of the word Babylon in the New Testament. One example:

Revelation 14:8. A second angel followed, who cried out, Babylon, great Babylon is fallen; she who made all the nations drunk with the maddening wine of her fornication.

Other examples include Rev 16:19, Rev 17:5, Rev 18:2, Rev 18:10, and Rev 18:21. In these verses, Babylon is repeatedly referred to as a “great city,” which immediately removes ancient Babylon from the running. But why would the Apostles not simply use the word “Rome” when talking about Rome? Rome was the chief persecutor of the early Church and martyred more than its share of early Christians. I have personally stood in the catacombs in Rome where the bodies of martyred Christians are piled in small graves along the walls. They used the word Babylon to hide their presence, their location, from those looking to kill them. A simple study of Roman history will illuminate the wisdom of this choice.

What fascinates me about this is that the very people who suggest Peter was never in Rome will immediately refer to the verses in Revelation as pertaining to Rome, particularly to the Catholic Church. In other words, they agree the Apostles used “Babylon” to refer to Rome when it suits their purposes, and disagree when it doesn’t. There are numerous protestant scholars that also agree with this:

The key to the problem, in the view of most critics, lies in the fact that in the 1st century ‘Babylon’ was becoming in Jewish and Christian circles a symbolic title for Rome. For the prophets (e.g. Is 13; 43:14; Jer 50:29; 51:1-58) the name had denoted the proud, immoral, godless city that dominated their world, and it was natural for later Jews to see this as the type of the Rome they knew and which embodied these very characteristics. So we find Rome referred to as ‘Babylon’ in the rabbinical literature . . . ‘She who is at Babylon’ simply means ‘the church in Rome’ . . . So the church in Rome is in Babylon because Rome is its place of exile.
- - J.N.D. Anderson A Commentary on the Epistles of Peter and Jude

Several extra-Biblical sources (as Anderson alluded to above) also refer to Rome as “Babylon,” for example the Sibylline Oracles and the Apocalypse of Baruch do so. Virtually all serious protestant scholars in modern times agree with this (I’m not aware of any that don’t), mainly due to the vast evidence which has come out more recently through archeology (we’ll get there).

This is pretty clear Biblical evidence, but like all infallible books, without an infallible interpreter they can be misused. So there are those who argue that the “great city” of Babylon isn’t Rome. But, there’s more evidence.

I see more and more protestants rejecting Birth Control in our day – this is a very hopeful sign for the pro-life movement and Christianity in general (it takes a strong belief and trust in God to throw away your “protection”). So, I just wanted to point out that two protestant bloggers have recently changed their views on contraception as it relates to God. Dawn Eden announced recently that she has come to the conclusion that “all contraception is wrong.” You can read her reasoning on the topic here. The end of the post includes some great links on contraception as well.

Then more recently, LilacRose also moved in that direction.

I think it’s important to note that these are people accepting the reality of contraception based only on Biblical arguments. Dawn Eden even points out a few I hadn’t considered. By the way, I also recently read of a study that found only 2% of couples that don’t use birth control divorce. That’s a powerful number . . .

God bless,
Jay

PS - Hat tip to My Domestic Church.

A pretty good site named The Crossroads Initiative was recently pointed out to me and I thought I’d pass the information along. It’s the website of Dr. Marcellino D’Ambrosio of Our Sunday Visitor and Catholic Exchange fame. In particular, he has this list of free articles which you can download and even distribute. They are excellent articles on a wide variety of topics – take a minute to check them out.

God bless,
Jay

I was recently involved in a discussion with a Protestant brother belonging to a non-denominational fundamentalist church. As many of you know, I was raised in a Christian home as a pastor's son. I will tell you that I was introduced to and accepted Christ before I can remember. This, however, was insufficient for my friend. He insisted that I must have a "moment" that I can instantly identify where I accepted Christ. According to him, that would be the necessary moment of being born again. For obvious reasons, as a Catholic, I disagreed with him. Besides, my own personal experience was one of faith in Jesus from as far back as I could remember, and even before. And despite his nominal "Scripture alone" position, that particular doctrine is nowhere expressed in Scripture. In point of fact, Christ stated, "Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child he shall not enter therein." Mark 10:15. A more powerful statement regarding salvation is difficult to find. What else is Christ saying except that it is in our frailty and humility that we receive Christ, not our wisdom and discernment. And who is more frail or weak that a tiny infant? To me, God's grace is very powerful. To be sure, it can be resisted (Calvin was wrong on just about every aspect of "TULIP"). But it is not so weak as to be incapable of reaching infants. Moreover, Paul indicates that the children of believing parents are made holy by their parents' faith. I Cor. 7:14. These two verses are at the core of an infallibly formed doctrine that infants may receive God's grace and salvation unto eternal life. (Oddly enough, it was Evangelical Jonathan Edwards that stated, "Hell is paved with the skulls of unbaptized children...")

Today, I was thinking back to this whole discussion as a visited with family at my mother's house. I sat with my grandmother whose mind was long ago decimated by Alzheimer's, and I wondered about the person who doted on me as a young boy... Where is she, I thought? Was this person in front of me still her? She didn't look like my gramma. Her bottom teeth are missing. Her hair is short and wispy, her body a mere 80 pound shell of its former self. And gone is the gentle advice, the warm words of love, and the deep and abiding affection that once filled her eyes. No longer would she casually disregard my mother's insistence that my brothers and I not be given any sweets with the non-responsive "What kind would you like, boys?" This woman was not the person that I knew.

And yet I know in my mind that the physical person in front of me is the continued being that I have always labeled gramma. So the question was and is, is there anything meaningful left of this woman?

The answer lies in the proper understanding of the person. This understanding, always taught by the Church, is that the whole of a person is made up of both body and soul. The body is comprised of not only the chest, stomach, arms, and legs, but also the mind. So often, people seem to think that our relationship to God is a product of the mind (fundamentalists will object that it is "the heart", but that is really code talk for a deeper committment of the mind). And certainly the mind may play a part in that relationship. So too does the rest of our bodies, as they are temples of the Holy Spirit. But we must also recognize that bodies are in a constant state of flux and are ultimately corruptible. The bodies (including minds) of infants are not fully developed. The bodies of the mentally and physically handicapped are incomplete (not in the destinational sense but in the original design sense). And as with my gramma, the body will ultimately deteriorate to such a degree that it is unrecognizable. So, if our relationship with the Lord depended to any large degree on our bodies, we would be in a great deal of trouble. Salvation could only belong to those between the ages of 10 and 70!

Speaking solely of our mental faculty, the infant, mentally incompetent, and aged are all in the same boat. They lack the capacity for communication. And this is where the idea that infants may not have salvation springs from. It is the somewhat arrogant notion that our salvation depends upon us. And not only us, but our ability to understand and communicate. Of course most people don't extend this notion to the mentally ill/aged, but some do. How terribly unfortunate, but also very typical of the common thought these days.

The Truth is that our worth comes not from our bodies, nor any part of it. In fact, our Savior laid down His body and gave it up to death. He asks us to do the same thing. And this is not so shocking because these bodies are destined for death anyway. Of course, we will have resurrected bodies, but first this flesh must die. So our relationship with God does not depend on our bodies. In reality, it reaches its apex only when we have shed these bodies. And at that stage, all that is left (until united to a new body) is the soul. Therein lies the core of every human being--the soul! And that is what I realized while sitting with my gramma. She may not look the same, sound the same, or think the same as she once did. She may not even be conscious of her own existence. In fact, before too long there will be no life in her old body at all. But there is much more to that woman that a body and mind. There is that breath of God first given to Adam and subsequently given to every one of us at the moment of our conception, the soul. And right now, buried in her decaying and broken body and unsound mind, is a soul that yearns to see Jesus.

My grandmother's soul is not unique in this experience. Every soul possesses this capability. That of the unborn, that of the infant, and that of the mentally ill. Whether every soul accepts Christ in a state of mental and physical incapacity is something that neither I nor indeed the Church has cared to expound upon. The relationship between the depths of the soul and its Creator is a mystery known to God alone. But two things I know. First, that the dignity of the human person has nothing to do with the immaturity or decaying status of the body, but rather exists because of the soul that lives within them. And second, God's salvation and grace are cannot be defeated by any condition of the body and mind.

This Thanksgiving, I am thankful for the presence of the soul of the beautiful woman I have been privileged to call "Gramma". I am also thankful for the reception of the sacraments that my family received this past Sunday: baptism for my four children, Eucharist for me, my wife, and my two oldest, and Confirmation for me and my wife. Happy Thanksgiving to all of our readers and God bless you.

In Christ,
Dave

Remember, the Pilgrims gathered in November of 1621 to give thanks to God for their many blessings of that year (primarily for a good harvest). They gathered with Indians and celebrated for three days, praising God for His goodness.

Make sure you take the time to praise God for His goodness today. Go to Mass and celebrate with the Eucharist (which means “thanksgiving”). Rest in the Lord.

By the way, Thanksgiving didn’t actually become a holiday until the time of Abraham Lincoln, who gave a tremendous speech creating what we now know as Thanksgiving:

The year that is drawing towards its close has been filled with the blessings of fruitful fields and healthful skies. To these bounties, which are so constantly enjoyed that we are prone to forget the source from which they come, others have been added, which are of so extraordinary a nature, that they cannot fail to penetrate and soften even the heart which is habitually insensible to the ever watchful providence of Almighty God. In the midst of a civil war of unequalled magnitude and severity, which has sometimes seemed to foreign States to invite and to provoke their aggression, peace has been preserved with all nations, order has been maintained, the laws have been respected and obeyed, and harmony has prevailed everywhere except in the theatre of military conflict; while that theatre has been greatly contracted by the advancing armies and navies of the Union. Needful diversions of wealth and of strength from the fields of peaceful industry to the national defense have not arrested the plough, the shuttle, or the ship; the axe had enlarged the borders of our settlements, and the mines, as well of iron and coal as of the precious metals, have yielded even more abundantly than heretofore. Population has steadily increased, notwithstanding the waste that has been made in the camp, the siege and the battlefield; and the country, rejoicing in the consciousness of augmented strength and vigor, is permitted to expect continuance of years with large increase of freedom.
No human counsel hath devised nor hath any mortal hand worked out these great things. They are the gracious gifts of the Most High God, who, while dealing with us in anger for our sins, hath nevertheless remembered mercy. It has seemed to me fit and proper that they should be solemnly, reverently and gratefully acknowledged as with one heart and voice by the whole American People. I do therefore invite my fellow citizens in every part of the United States, and also those who are at sea and those who are sojourning in foreign lands, to set apart and observe the last Thursday of November next, as a day of Thanksgiving and Praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the Heavens. And I recommend to them that while offering up the ascriptions justly due to Him for such singular deliverances and blessings, they do also, with humble penitence for our national perverseness and disobedience, commend to his tender care all those who have become widows, orphans, mourners or sufferers in the lamentable civil strife in which we are unavoidably engaged, and fervently implore the interposition of the Almighty Hand to heal the wounds of the nation and to restore it as soon as may be consistent with the Divine purposes to the full enjoyment of peace, harmony, tranquility and Union. [my emphasis]
Abraham Lincoln

Thanks be to God and to God be all Glory (Deo Omnis Gloria). I hope you and yours have a wonderful Thanksgiving and Christmas season. Thanks for being a part of our blog community.

God bless,
Jay

Odd title, I know, but it fits something I’m hearing more and more. That’s the philosophy that everyone is really okay and as long as they are happy, we shouldn’t worry about it. I can’t tell you the number of times that someone has suggested this type of philosophy to me. I call it the “live and let live” way of Christian thinking. Is this a reasonable philosophy? Sure, if you don’t believe in heaven, hell, Christ, or right and wrong.

Essentially this is the end result of moral relativism. We should never point out to anyone their errors, if they are happy. This kind of ignorant bliss enlightens us to those who are ignorant of Scripture. Did Jesus simply come and die to “live and let live”?

Matthew 10:34-38. "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn
" ‘a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law--
a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.’
"Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me.”

Moral relativism suggests that what is bad for one can be good for another, but this is not true, it is simply false. It assumes there is no absolute truth, no good which is universal and good for all. Another incorrect assumption. True love means telling someone the truth, which may save their soul, though they hate you for it. True love means offering another the Truth that may set them free.

Furthermore, we have an obligation to offer others the truth:

Matthew 19:16-19. Now a man came up to Jesus and asked, "Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?"
"Why do you ask me about what is good?" Jesus replied. "There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, obey the commandments."
"Which ones?" the man inquired.
Jesus replied, " 'Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, honor your father and mother,' and 'love your neighbor as yourself.' "

If we truly love someone, would we allow them to wither in sin and possibly not attain heaven? No, we would try to consistently show them the truth of God and man in order that they may be saved. Christ orders us to “love our neighbor” as ourselves, which involves an honesty about heaven, hell, Jesus, and salvation.

What I’m getting at is that we have an obligation to help others get to heaven. This is part of loving another as we love ourselves and it requires us to tell others the truth. They may not want to hear it, but sometimes they have to. The philosophy of “live and let live” is disastrous for those who need to hear the Truth.

God bless,
Jay

The fifth Catholic Carnival is another great collection of Catholic blog posts. The Carnival typically includes a good variety of topics and is always interesting.

God bless,
Jay

There’s been a lot of discussion on this blog and on others I’m reading about birth control and how it relates to God, so I thought I would address it as comprehensively as possible on a blog (in other words, I’ll try to keep it short!).

Several people who are reading this probably have never even heard the suggestion that there is a problem with contraception (I use “contraception” and “birth control” interchangeably). The debate centers on whether or not God approves of contraception. Until 1930, all Christian churches universally condemned contraception. In 1930, the Anglican Church first suggested that contraception could be used within marriage for grave reasons. Over the next 40 years, virtually all protestant churches abandoned their condemnation of birth control and began accepting it as a normal part of life (most did this around 1960, when the Birth Control Pill and feminist theology began gaining traction). At this point (as far as I know), the Catholic Church is the only Christian church to retain the traditional view that birth control is immoral.

On a side note, the Birth Control Pill can cause abortions, which is still pretty much universally condemned by Christian churches. For this argument, I’ll assume we can agree that the Pill is intrinsically evil simply because of the possibility of an abortion exists.

The Bible and Marriage
But what you first want to know is: what does the Bible say about Birth Control? There are a few paths we can take here, but to keep it short I’ll focus on the most obvious. I’ll make the assumption (and I think we can agree on it) that a child is always a gift from God (Gen 33:5, Ps 127:3-5, Prov 17:6, Luke 1:8-38) and only God can open and close the womb (Gen 20:18, Gen 29:31, Jer 1:5, Job 31:15, Luke 1:31, Gal 1:15).

Now, what does the Bible say about marriage, children and contraception? From the beginning, God commands us to be “fruitful and multiply” (Gen 1:28) – in fact, this is the first command God gives after creating man and woman. And this so important that God repeats this blessing to Noah in Gen 9:1 – again as the first command after the flood. There was no end date given, except to “fill the earth” (at this point the earth is nowhere near full).

Marriage in many ways mimics God as the Trinity. The love of the father and the son is so strong, that it resulted in a third person, the Holy Spirit (Eph 3:15). In the same way, a love between husband and wife is so strong it results in children, which are new, eternal persons created by God (Jer 1:5). In the Bible, a “fruitful” wife is actually a blessing from God (Psalms 128:1, 3-4), rather than a problem to be controlled. All these verses paint a picture of marriage, but does Scripture specifically mention birth control?

The Bible and Birth Control
Now we get to Onan. I think it’s important to start by understanding the levirate marriage:

Deuteronomy 25:5-9. “If brothers dwell together, and one of them dies and has no son, the wife of the dead shall not be married outside the family to a stranger; her husband’s brother shall go in to her, and take her as his wife, and perform the duty of a husband’s brother to her. . . And if the man does not wish to take his brother’s wife, then his brother’s wife shall go up to the gate to the elders, and say, ‘My husband’s brother refuses to perpetuate his brother’s name in Israel; he will not perform the duty of a husband’s brother to me.’ Then the elders of his city shall call him, and speak to him: and if he persists, saying ‘I do not wish to take her,’ then his brother’s wife shall go up to him in the presence of the elders, and pull his sandal off his foot, and spit in his face . . .”

This is the levirate law. Essentially, you can refuse to marry your brother’s wife, but you have to suffer what amounts to public humiliation. This law was enforced even in the time of Christ (see Matt 22:23-28). This is the situation facing Onan:

Genesis 38:8-10. Then Judah said to Onan, “Go in to your brother’s wife, and perform the duty of a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother.” But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went into his brother’s wife he spilled the semen onto the ground, lest he should give offspring to his brother. And what he did was displeasing in the sight of the Lord, and he slew him also.

God killed Onan for what he “did” according to Scripture, but what exactly did Onan do? According to the passage, Onan married his brother’s wife (per the levirate law) and assumed all of his property and possessions. Then Onan practiced Onanism (the common term for birth control) by pulling out during sexual intercourse. In other words, he enjoyed the physical gratification of sex within marriage, but did not want the natural outcome of intercourse. And God killed him, which shows the seriousness of the offense.

This is the passage used for 1,900 years to prove birth control was a mortal sin. In order to get around this, you have to suggest that Onan did something else wrong. Often the answer is that Onan didn’t fulfill the levirate law. However, if God simply wanted him to provide a child at some point (he was married to the woman now), wouldn’t have God waited? In other words, killing him for not providing a child on the first attempt seems unjust. Onan could have refused to marry the woman and simply suffered public humiliation. What did Onan do to merit the death penalty (and no opportunity to repent)? The only answer available is that he practiced a form of birth control. In fact, every Scriptural instance of someone enjoying the pleasure of sex while ensuring that a child cannot result is deemed worthy of the death penalty – see Lev 20:13-18.

But is this just an Old Testament teaching?

Clem, a regular poster here, sent me one of the oddest links I've seen. This guy argues that God and the Bible are pro-abortion. He has other articles that argue abortion is actually "moral." I say "argues" although his arguments are terribly bad - my child probably understands Biblical exegesis better - and I noticed he doesn't allow comments (I wonder why!).

My question for protestants is: how do you explain to this guy he's wrong? As a Catholic, I can point to Scripture, which is clear on abortion by the way, and to doctrines of the Church. So even if a Catholic doesn't turn around, I can explain to others why the person isn't really Catholic. But I'm sure the guy in that article has led numerous non-Catholics astray. Why? They don't have the Church's teaching to fall back on if confused on a subject. In other words, because our Church is built on solid rock we can rely on its doctrines, rather than the shifting sand of personal opinion which protestant churches are built on.

I also think it's important to point out that virtually all Christians would agree that this guy's a bozo in our day and time. But even 50 years ago we would have all agreed that contraception is intrinsically evil as well - this could be the future of the protestant church if contraception and/or the Anglican church is analyzed. In fifty years, this guy's nonsense could be popular opinion.

This also is a good example of the notion that without an infallible interpreter, an infallible book is worthless. Even a book as holy as the Bible can be used for evil purposes by the ignorant - as this guy proves.

In the end, you should read the "About the Author" information for some background material. Basically, the guy doesn't believe in the Bible, so why is he using it to try and justify evil acts? It makes about as much sense as his arguments!

God bless,
Jay

Scott Peterson today was convicted of double murder: the murder of his wife and their unborn child. Why is it that Laci could have gone without Scott's consent and paid a doctor to rip her child into pieces, but if anyone else does it (including the father) it's 2nd degree murder?

Don't get me wrong, I agree that it is murder. I'm just wondering why a father can't have a mother imprisoned for aborting a child he wanted. After all, he is a biological parent of the child. At least the law could require his signoff before killing his offspring!

Once abortion is made illegal, I think 1st degree murder would be more approriate (it is premeditated after all).

God bless,
Jay

We've had this discussion several times on this blog, but I recently read a piece by Dave Armstrong (see his book to your left) that was so good I had to link to it: Why Did God Kill Onan? (Contraception).

The article analyzes the Scriptural information about Onan and includes many references from great Catholic and Protestant scholars. I recommend you read the whole thing, but one of the better parts:

It is an historical fact that no Christian communion sanctioned contraception until the Anglican Lambeth Conference in 1930. Protestant historian Roland Bainton states casually that the Church “very early forbade contraception” (Early Christianity, 56). According to The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, “many Christian moralists . . . repudiate all methods of family limitation” (Cross, 889). Ronald Knox eloquently recounted how Christians used to detest contraception:

"Practices hitherto connected with the unmentioned underworld have found their way into the home . . . it is not merely a Christian principle that has been thrown overboard . . . Ovid and Juvenal, with no flicker of Christian revelation to guide them, branded the practices in question with the protest of heathen satire. It is not Christian morality, but natural morality as hitherto conceived, that has been outraged by the change of standard."

(Knox, 31-32)

Christianity (Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and Protestantism alike) had always opposed contraception as gravely sinful. When I first learned of this in 1990 (as an inquiring evangelical pro-life activist curious about the “odd” and inexplicable Catholic prohibition) it was a shocking revelation to me and the first step on my road to conversion to Catholicism.

I think many protestants are even unaware that there is a moral argument against contraception. As a protestant who, like Dave Armstrong, accepted the sinfulness of contraception well before I became Catholic, I was always subjected to the question, "Why?" as if there were no arguments against it. In fact, I can't ever remember during my childhood and early adult life hearing the suggesting that contraception wasn't God's Will or that children were not something to be planned and controlled. One of my first "aha" moments with the Catholic church was when a friend said, "If you trust your money to God through tithing, why would you not trust God with your body, with the number of children you have and when you have them?"

There's more:

One might still retort as follows: “it is not contraception per se that was wrong in Onan’s case, but the fact that he wanted to have sex with the woman but not to have children. He had the right to refuse the levirate marriage, but once he agreed to it he was obligated to produce the children which was the purpose of it.”

I would agree with this hypothetical objection prima facie, but (upon closer inspection) I would add that it actually confirms the central moral point on which the moral objection to contraception is based: the evil of separating sex from procreation. It is precisely because the central purpose of marriage is procreation, that the levirate law was present in the first place. If one married, they were to have sexual relations, which was (foremost) for the purpose of having children.

If a husband died with no children, it was so important for children to be born that God commanded the man’s brother to take his wife after he died. But Onan tried to separate sex from procreation. He wanted all the pleasure but not the responsibility of fatherhood or to help perpetuate his brother’s family. He possessed the “contraceptive mentality” which is rampant today, even among otherwise traditional, committed Christians.

This is what is evil: an unnatural separation of what God intended to be together. If Onan didn’t want children, he shouldn’t have agreed to the levirate marriage. Once married, he should have agreed to having children. But he tried the “middle way” of having sex but willfully separating procreation from it. This was the sin, and this is why God killed him.

Go read the article. Dave consistently does a great job of presenting the Scriptural realities behind Catholicism. By the way, we link to his blog at the left, you should check it out daily.

God bless,
Jay

PS - thanks to My Domestic Church for pointing out the article.

Take a look at this week's Catholic Carnival. It's a pretty good roundup of Catholic posts.

God bless,
Jay

PS - Don't worry, we'll be posting more this week! We've gotten a little busy lately.

Arlen Specter is in line to become the next chairman of the Judiciary Committee unless the population works against him soon. Specter is a pro-abortion nitwit who is known for raging against the "Religious Right." The fact that he is even in office is a shame, since a pro-lifer could have won until Specter was backed by other pro-lifers - it's a long story.

Anyway, we all need to contact several people. First, call Bill Frist at 202-224-3344 and demand that Specter not be considered. Second, contact the other members of the Judiciary committee here. Third, find and contact your Republican Senators (if any) here. These are the people that would put Specter in this position.

Remember, social conservatives put the Republicans in this position. To quote Bush, that gives us some "political capital" and it's time to spend it. Being pro-life requires more than just a vote, a prayer, or a silent commitment. Now is your chance to stand up and be counted as an actively pro-life voter. Sometimes all that is required for evil to occur is for good people to do nothing.

This will take little time, but might have excellent results. If you're wondering why, check out NotSpecter.com for details on the urgency of this. Help the unborn now with just a few minutes of your time!

God bless,
Jay

The “Carnival of the Reformation” decided to do a special session this week on Sola Scriptura and I just have to respond in kind.

What I found fascinating is the differing views of Sola Scriptura. The main blogger teaches that “Scripture alone is the final authority for all matters of life or doctrine.” Another blogger (Mark Byron) calls it the “primary authority for Christian doctrine.” These are different enough to suggest that Sola Scriptura is interpreted just like the Bible: individually as you see fit.

But all seem to agree that at minimum that the Bible is the authority on doctrine. Doctrines should be present in the Bible to be believed. By this logic, the Bible must then teach Sola Scriptura, right? Otherwise it would be thrown out as an invalid doctrine. I would appreciate anyone letting me know of any verse that teaches Sola Scriptura - - I don't mean a verse that says that Scripture is "profitable" or good, but a verse that specifically teaches that "Scripture is the primary authority of Christian Doctrine.”

The Bible never teaches Sola Scriptura. Rather, it teaches that the Church is the "pillar and foundation of Truth" (1 Tim 3:15) and through the Church, the "wisdom of God is made known" (Eph 3:10). There are also numerous passages in Scripture that suggest the oral teaching (Tradition) is equal to the written word (Scripture). I recommend reading this article on Sola Scriptura for those quotes.

It's funny, but for 1500 years, Scripture was only believed because of the authority of the Catholic Church. St. Augustine famously remarked, “Indeed, I would not believe in the Gospel myself if the authority of the Catholic Church did not influence me to do so.” Luther managed to throw out this authority, but somehow retain people’s faith in the infallibility of Scripture (even after he removed some of the books he didn't like).

There are also numerous practical problems we have pointed out with Sola Scriptura. For example, the Catholic Church didn’t compile the Bible until almost 400 A.D. and until that point various churches (all Catholic) had various pieces of the Bible. How did these Christians function without the entirety of Scripture? Even to our day, the vast majority of the world is illiterate, so they require a person in between them and God. This person’s reading of Scripture can influence greatly what they believe (is it reasonable to believe that the entire Bible is being read to the illiterate population? Only if they’re Catholic). Finally, the whole notion of Sola Scriptura ignores the realities of interpreting Scripture. Proper interpretation requires some knowledge of Scripture and the times of Christ, which the common person doesn’t have. Need proof? Go ask each protestant denomination what they believe about Baptism or Homosexual marriage or Communion or even Salvation. They each have wildly differing views even on things central to faith and, some would argue, clear in the Bible.

If the Bible was so important - essentially the foundation of your faith - why didn't Jesus order it written? Or write at least a chapter Himself? Shouldn't He have at least picked out the authors? The answer is that He didn't have to - Jesus knew the Church He founded in Matthew 16:18 would do it infallibly.

How do you know the Bible is true? Without recognizing the authority of the Church, you can't be sure. The answer I continually hear these days is that we have a “fallible collection of infallible books.” This is just silly. First, how do you know the individual books are infallible? Don’t give me a history lesson, I can find other books that would be rated infallible under that scheme. Don’t suggest “the Apostles wrote it” – there are books by the Apostles that aren’t infallible as well as Biblical books by non-Apostles. Second, if your collection is infallible you must be suggesting that there could be other Divinely Inspired books available. How can you know you are doing the right thing if you don’t have them? What if they reinforce Jesus’ teaching in John 6 that you must gnaw His flesh and drink His blood or you have no life in you? This is perhaps the weakest argument for the authority of the Bible.

In the end, Sola Scriptura is not Biblical. We’ve gone through this numerous times with non-Catholics and they tend to admit in the end that this is true. There is nowhere in the Bible that teaches Sola Scriptura. Period. And thus, it cannot be believed. Time to come home to the Catholic Church.

God bless,
Jay

I think the most important thing that came out of last night's results (other than the pro-life judges we'll get on the bench) was the point that many in Ohio and other states voted for Bush though they were against the War on Terror and felt his economic policies were ineffective.

Why did they do this? Because the Democratic Party has ceded moral values to Republicans - in other words, voters chose moral issues over economic or political issues in a big way. The Democratic Party has to deal with its perception as the pro-abortion, pro-euthansia, pro-embryonic stem cell research, anti-marriage party. There were 11 states with a ballot initiative to define marriage as being between one man and one woman. How many passed? Every one of them. The majority of the population defines themselves as pro-life. These are big issues the Democrats aren't dealing with.

I was very disappointed to see California pass Proposition 71. Basically a state that can barely pay its bills is funding junk science in a way no corporation would ever do. Shame on Arnold, who - by the way - is another pro-abortion Catholic that shouldn't be receiving communion.

Let's hope the Democrats start rethinking their Party ban on pro-lifers. Imagine the percentage of the Catholic vote a pro-life Democrat would get! In the meantime, it's now up to the population to push President Bush in a more pro-life way. He has a stronger Senate and House majority, so hopefully some of those pro-life judges will make it through the nomination process. But in order to succeed, much prayer is needed.

God bless,
Jay

The Second Catholic Carnival is now up at The Curt Jester, so go take a look. It is focused on the Eucharist, the source and summit of the Christian life.

Because of the Eucharist's importance to Catholics, I recommend everyone learn more about it. Remember, in Scripture when Christ is asked for a sign proving that He is God, Jesus responded with His teaching on the Eucharist. Why? The Eucharist is that sign from God.

God bless,
Jay

I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. Choose life, then, that you and your descendants may live. - - Deuteronomy 30:19

Ultimately in elections, countries get what they deserve (see the Old Testament). The conscience of a nation pushes us in one direction or another. Pray that God would not only allow you to cast the correct ballot, but that he would also lead others to do otherwise.

And remember that the unborn have no one to protect their lives, unless you choose to take it upon yourself. Choose wisely . . .

God bless,
Jay