July 2005 Archives

A friend recently sent me an e-mail about a Laura Ingrahm interview with the president of the National Abortion Federation, Vicki Saporta. Apparently the end of the segment, Laura asked, "Vicki, do you think a woman's right to abort is the most important issue in America. By that, do you think that if a woman's right to abort is taken away then America will just fall apart?" Vicki replied, "Well.....Roe v. Wade gave women the right to their fertility. It gave them the right to decide when and if they wanted children. Women must have the right to contraception and emergency contraception and if those fail...abortion."

You don't think there is a connection between contraception and abortion? Think again. A review of the history of the contraception movement at the turn of the century (Emma Goldman, Margaret Sanger, etc.) reveals that it was originally the same thing as the abortion movement (both Sanger and Goldman were strong abortion advocates). Consider this quote from the Sacramento Bee in 1999: "'Clearly the pill was an absolute milestone and one of the biggest revolutions affecting women,' said Lynn Fielder,vice president of medical services for the Sacramento area's Planned Parenthood affiliate. 'It really was the century of birth control.'"

We can talk about the Onan passage in the Bible until we are blue in the face, but the fact remains that contraception was considered evil by every Christian for 1900 years until the mothers of the abortion movement convinced Protestants to abandon their morals. I repeat, Protestants accepted an agenda pushed on them by abortionists. Take a moment to consider that it was not a preacher, religious group, prophet, or the family next door that advocated the righteousness of contraception. It was and still is the ABORTIONISTS! Why is it that Orthodox Catholics are the only ones who can see this connection???? And why is it so surprising then that many Protestant churches have also abandoned their position on abortion. After all, the Bible doesn't specifically state that abortion is murder...

In the article referenced above, the impact of the pill was described thus: "Not only women's behavior was affected. By removing the fear of pregnancy from intercourse, the pill helped fuel the sexual revolution by making premarital and casual sex more prevalent, and ultimately, more accepted. Rutgers University anthropologist Lionel Tiger believes the pill may have actually contributed to an increase in single motherhood because many men assumed women were using it." How wonderful! The liberal left has no qualms about asserting the purpose and impact of birth control. All hail contraception. In the light of this obvious shamelessness (each of these purposes and effects being totally contrary to Christian morality), how is it that Christians could be led so far astray?

In Christ,
Dave

The Church is like a boat. The boat is the body of Christ. The ramp to board the can be taken when we have two things: 1) Faith that only by Jesus Christ can we enter the boat (He is also the ramp itself) 2) Baptism.

On the boat there are many baptized Christians. Still in the deep wave filled waters are many who have not had the ramp extended to them. A special gift is given to those on the boat. It is a grace and power to reach out to those in the water. This grace and power is the sacrament of Confirmation. This sacrament is a Jet Ski, which allows for easy and powerful access to all those in the deep waters. It makes "ministry" more effective, for it relies on the power of the jet ski (the Holy Spirit) and not on the swimming efforts of the minister. Although any baptized member of the boat can "evangelize" or go out into the waters for ministry, the gift of the jet ski was intended by Christ to give added grace and benefit to all the ministries of the Spirit which St. Paul describes.

Contrarty to popular belief, confirmation is not so much a sacrament of "initiation into adulthood" in the Church as much as it is an addition to baptismal grace and the conferring of ministerial power to do the works of the Lord.

The Boat also boasts other neat gifts. The Sacrament of Holy Orders empowers those who receive it to carry on three very powerful tasks on the boat:

1) Eucharist - the grace of changing bread and wine into some bark on the boat? Remember, the boat is the very body of Christ, both the people on the boat and the very substance of the person of Jesus Christ. The changed bread (and wine) becomes nourishment to those on the boat and serves a very practical role: if you eat part of the boat, you become attached to the boat, making you nearly inseperable from it, which serves you quite well during hurricanes and other external efforts to dismount you from the boat.

2) Sacrament of Reconciliation - Those who have received Holy Orders receive the ability to throw life preservers out into the water to rescue anyone who intentionally jumped off the boat (mortal sin).

3)For those who are sick and/ or dying on the boat, there is a sacrament of "anointing". This sacrament can bring physically healing and always brings forgiveness of sins.

We also find Marriage on the boat. Have you ever rafted with other people down a river? You may be familiar with the "all down" or "tuck" position. In this position, you lock arms with the person next to you in the boat and you both squeeze into the bottom of the boat. Such a position makes nearly any rapid inable to toss you off the raft. Such a tuck and hold is the sacrament of marriage, which binds us so closely to another person on the boat that is quite hard at all for anyone to bump us off.

The Boat is heading to paradise (heaven). However, because the boat is the person of Jesus Christ it is already, in a sense, heaven itself, for Jesus Christ is God. Yet, those on the boat do not see the island of paradise and participate in it as fully as those who have gone before them. For those who die while on the journey, a helicopter escorts them from the boat to the paradise island, assuming of course they still desire this escort service of salvation.

Michael Tigue
http://www.deoomnisgloria.com
www.michaeltigue.com

If so, we've got a new website for you. Check out Da Vinci Code Resources, which addresses many of the claims made by Dan Brown in The Da Vinci Code.

I highly recommend the document How can we know if something is true and real? about halfway down the page. Also, at the bottom is a list of other great responses to The Da Vinci Code.

Enjoy.

God bless,
Jay

The Lord’s Prayer – or the “Our Father” as many Catholics refer to it – is the perfect prayer. All Christians should agree to this. Taught to us by Jesus Christ Himself, it fits the needs of you on any particular day of your life. But how often do you pray it? The perfect prayer should certainly be said often, right?

Catholics say the Lord’s Prayer very often in comparison to protestant groups. Simply by praying it, we can contemplate the truth behind every line and begin to apply this truth to our lives. Repetitive prayer is not condemned by the Bible, no matter what you may think:

Matthew 6:7. “And in praying do not heap up empty phrases as the Gentiles do; for they think they will be heard for their many words.

The King James Version translates it “But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.” [Emphasis mine]. The point is, the Gentiles were praying, but it was empty repetition – they had no intent on actually being obedient or growing through prayer. Vain is defined as “having no real value; worthless” by Websters. So we cannot pray without meaning what we pray. In fact, vain or empty prayers can happen by habit when we pray any nightly prayer without meaning what we say.

Right after this lesson on prayer Jesus teaches us the Our Father. I like how Thomas Howard puts it in On Being Catholic:

[In the Our Father] the whole mystery of God and man is opened to us. Father. Our Father. Who art in heaven. Hallowed. Every word open onto the whole vista. And the seven petitions place upon our very tongues all that a mortal should be saying on the long itinerary from his conception, stained by original sin, to the fruition of his journey in the Beatific Vision. It is a prayer to be said constantly, for insofar as I say it, investing myself in it with all earnestness, it will configure me to Christ.
It is also a prayer that may be brought into play when I am at a loss altogether about what to say. “Our Father, who are in heaven”: Catholics resort to this utterance in time of great perplexity, or of fear, or of grief, or of a hundred other taxing situations. One scarcely knows what words to frame: the Our Father Supplies one’s need.

How often do you pray the Lord’s Prayer? Not nearly enough no matter. As you pray it, remember to concentrate on what you are saying, the obedience the prayer demands, and the perfect requests for assistance from God. A perfect prayer deserves to be prayed.

God bless,
Jay

In addition to the comment posted by Jay, John C. Roberts has made the following comments on the record regarding abortion:

"We continue to believe that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled." - Roberts, in a 1991 Supreme Court brief he co-wrote for the first Bush administration, while he was principal deputy solicitor general.

---

"The statement in the brief was my position as an advocate for a client." - Roberts, explaining the brief during his 2003 Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on his nomination to a federal appeals court.

---

"Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land. It's a little more than settled. It was reaffirmed in the face of a challenge that it should be overruled in the Casey decision. Accordingly, it's the settled law of the land. There's nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent, as well as Casey." - Roberts, during the confirmation hearing, when asked for his own views on Roe v. Wade.

---

"I don't think it's appropriate for me to criticize it as judicial activism. ... My definition of judicial activism is when the court departs from applying the rule of law and undertakes legislative or executive decisions." - Roberts, during the confirmation hearing, on whether Roe v. Wade was judicial activism.

Roberts has distanced himself from pro-life comments on more than one occasion in the past by noting that he was arguing on behalf of a "client" (the U.S. government). I would also like to note that there is a significant paucity of public statements by Roberts on key issues that are important to Christians (homosexuality, schooling, religion in the public square, abortion, etc.) Republican presidents have appointed such question marks in the past, including John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O'Connor, and most recently David Souter (appointed by Bush Sr.). Without exception, these picks have been very hostile to the culture of life and Christian values in general. All of them voted to protect abortion.

So what is the point? Only this: remain in much prayer over the President's choice, that God would control the outcome of the confirmation process (up or down) in a way that will result in the selection of a justice who would faithfully apply the law of the land and protect this nation from the unjustice of the culture of death.

In Christ,
Dave

President Bush nominated John G. Roberts to the Supreme Court

The big question is: where will he go on the issue of abortion? It actually looks good. In 1990 Roberts wrote:

The court's conclusion in Roe that there is a fundamental right to an abortion. . .finds no support in the text, structure or history of the Constitution.

Let's hope he sticks to his roots (unlike another Supreme Court Justice we know). It looks like the Democrats in the Senate will be unable to stop the nomination - although they may be able to delay it. Much prayer is needed.

God bless,
Jay

The 39th Catholic Carnival is up - it's another good collection of posts from the Catholic blogosphere. Take a minute and check it out.

God bless,
Jay

In this day and age, absolute ignorance always surprises me. After all, you can simply call up Google and find a quick answer to most of your problem. So, when I saw this story on an adoption agency that rejects Catholic couples, I immediately thought it was some bigotry against Catholics. However, the article seems to indicate sheer ignorance.

Apparently, they believe Catholicism contradicts their Statement of
Faith (but other Christian denominations don’t, I guess). There’s only one section they could possibly be thinking of:

I believe that God, by His grace, provided redemption and restoration in Jesus Christ for all who repent and believe. As the Savior, Jesus takes away the sins of the world. Jesus is the one in whom we are called to put our hope, our only hope for forgiveness of sin and for reconciliation with God and with one another.

I believe that in all matters of faith and life, the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are the final authority. The Scriptures point us with full reliability to Jesus, God’s Son. The Scriptures tell us that we receive forgiveness of sins by faith in Jesus Christ, and that God provides salvation by grace alone for those who repent and believe.

I believe that forgiveness comes through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, God’s Son, who was made flesh, took our place in death, rose from the dead, and is now in glory with the Father interceding and praying for His people.

In the article, they seem to suggest that Catholics don’t believe the first part (about us trusting in Jesus for our salvation). Of course, that would be incorrect: Catholics do believe that our forgiveness comes from Christ and our hope is in Him.

However, there is one area that we would not agree with: I believe that in all matters of faith and life, the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are the final authority. In fact, I don’t think Catholics would be alone in saying this is not completely correct.

If they do believe this, then they have a big problem, since the Old and New Testaments themselves disagree. The easy example is 1 Timothy 3:15 which states that the Church is the “foundation and pillar of Truth” – I think all would define “Truth” as the “final authority” in “faith and life.” In addition, protestants have many traditions as well, so not “all” matters of faith and life are covered, apparently (like the style of their worship).

And I’m curious how they think that protestant denominations all agree with this, but have completely different doctrines from one another – on key issues, such as whether baptism is symbolic or not, whether we consume bread or Eucharist, etc. In the end, this part of the statement of faith is questionable, so I doubt this is why they are denying Catholics. My guess is that they think we worship Mary and they just didn’t take the time to find out if their assumptions were correct. It’s really too bad.

Ultimately, I think this story is just sad. Children in need of parents must wait a little longer because of the outright discrimination against faithful Catholics by this agency. The problem with adoption, we always read, is a lack of parents. Why would you throw out a Jesus-loving, mass-attending Catholic family? Let’s hope they look up a fact or two and maybe change this silly policy.

God bless,
Jay

Often I’ve heard from non-Christians the seminal phrase that the Bible is just a collection of writings from men, rather than from God. How can we defend the Bible as God’s divinely written Word? This is tougher than it sounds.

The Truth about the Bible
The problems are pretty straightforward. The Bible is a collection of writings from various time periods written by various men. We aren’t 100% sure who wrote all of the books involved and we don’t have original copies (for many of the books the oldest copy we have available isn’t even in the original language).

In addition comes the logical problems: Christ never (at least in recorded memory) asked for a book to be written. As far as we know, Jesus never wrote anything except on sand. He never stated who could or should write in the Bible and never promised to protect it’s integrity (Christians claim the book is infallible on faith and moral teaching). In addition, until almost 300 A.D. there wasn’t a compiled New Testament (this is over 260 years after the death of Christ) and there was disagreement over whether certain books should be included or not (some were, like Hebrews, some weren’t).

Finally add to that the problem that a reasonably large percentage of Christians use a Bible changed by Martin Luther over 1,500 years after Christ. Luther removed 9+ books of the Bible that didn’t fit in with his theology and suggested other books were also problematic (he called James “an epistle of straw” and had real problems with Revelation).

All of these combine to make atheists, in particular, skeptical of our infallible book.

Suggested Answers to the Atheist
There are those who attempt to answer this question in various ways. The first answer many people run to is that we can trust the Old Testament because Jesus used it and we can also trust books written by the Apostles. This is the worst possible answer, primarily because many New Testament books weren’t written by Apostles (including some Gospels). Also, we have no real way of proving who wrote some of the books. Just one example: Matthew is still somewhat questionable as the author of the first Gospel. And we are simply trusting in Tradition to determine who wrote what (the authors haven’t signed most of their work). Finally, Jesus quoted exclusively from the Septuagint, which was one of the three main versions of the Old Testament used at the time He was living here – this is the Catholic Old Testament, but it is not the Old Testament used by protestants today. More confusion!

Many, even protestants, turn to tradition: we’ve been using these books for years and they are acceptable. This does nothing to convince the atheist that s/he should seriously consider the Bible as the “word of God.” In other words, it does nothing to inspire faith in the many claims we make on the Bible.

The most innovative answer, which we’ve heard on this blog several times, is that we can’t be sure, but we trust in the Holy Spirit. This answer is commonly cited by those who claim we have a “fallible collection of infallible books.” In other words, there may be additional “Scripture” out there that we know nothing of, but we can trust that the Holy Spirit has okayed those books which we do have. This argument also has many holes in it. If the collection is fallible, how can we know an erroneous book didn’t make it in? For example, Revelation is very different from other Scripture and makes some odd claims: can we prove it wasn’t an error? In addition, what of the other Scripture? If God can’t get all of it in our hands, He seems pretty weak or inept, doesn’t He? Finally, remember that Martin Luther removed some books completely and removed parts of other books; was he improving the Bible? This would suggest there were errors made in compiling the Bible and there could be others (he didn’t like James . . . ).

In fact, there is only one answer we can give to how we trust the Bible.

God did protect the Bible
That answer is simple: God gave us something that could protect the Bible and did. That “something” is the Catholic Church. And the Bible agrees.

In Matthew 16:18 Jesus founded a Church (that He calls “His” Church) and placed Peter firmly at its head. In Ephesians 3:8-10, Paul tells us that “now through the Church the manifold wisdom of God can be made known.” And 1 Tim 3:15 plainly states that the Church is the “pillar and foundation of truth” (I bet you thought the Bible was the pillar of Truth). At that time there was only one Christian Church: the Catholic Church.

And, in 397 A.D. it was a Catholic council that decided which books comprised the written Word of God that was simply called “Book” (the English translation of “Bible”). Every Christian church uses the New Testament decided upon at that Council and thus, in a very important way, trusts that the Catholic Church decided correctly on these books. We cannot completely trust the Bible without trusting in the Holy Spirit’s guiding of the Catholic Church.

Conclusion
One of the biggest feats Martin Luther pulled off was to remove the Catholic Church, which gave us faith in Scripture, from the heart of the believer and yet keep their faith in Scripture intact. It is irrational to trust in Scripture without trusting the Church, since Scripture comes straight from her to us.

Do you have a way of knowing that Scripture is true and infallible outside of the Church? If so, I’d love to hear it.

God bless,
Jay

PS - I also recommend you read A Quick Overview of Sola Scriptura for more.

Be sure to check out the newest Catholic Carnival at Be Here Mondays. It's worth your time to check it out.

God bless,
Jay

When I was a Southern Baptist, the preacher often commented that we were creating a worship service that returned “to the way church worshiped in the New Testament.” This was more than a simple belief, it was an ideology. So, the question is clear: what do we know about church gatherings in the New Testament? Surprisingly, we know very little, but there are a few passages that cover this topic. This article is an attempt to look at the early Church and discover how it functioned.

When we look to the Bible, it is clear that we should start with the book of Acts, which is a historical text that covers the early church activities. So what does Acts say about what should happen in church? Well, it’s important to note that Acts was written before the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. For Christians, that moment represents the clear line when the Old Covenant is no longer valid. Up until that point, Christians continued going to the Temple on Saturdays, the 7th day of the week. This continues to happen in Acts – see the start of Acts 3 for an example of this.

Acts does lay out the groundwork for early Church worship. First, we know that church involved three activities:

Acts 2:42. And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.

The structure of this verse breaks out the key aspects of the early Church’s worship: the apostles’ teaching (oral at that time), the Eucharist (breaking of bread), and prayers. We also note that they gathered on Sundays, not Saturdays:

Acts 20:7. On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul talked with them, intending to depart on the morrow; and he prolonged his speech until midnight.

This verse also emphasizes the Eucharist in worship and preaching – apparently Paul was a little long-winded ;-) 1 Corinthians 16 seems to suggest this was a weekly gathering that included collecting donations.

So, in looking at Scripture we come up with a weekly service that includes:

• Preaching of the Apostles
  
• Eucharist
  
• Prayer
  
• Donations
  

That’s not a lot of detail – of course my old Southern Baptist church is already out of the mix because they didn’t even do the Lord’s Supper weekly (note: the Bible actually requires the Eucharist as the Catholic Church teaches, not just a symbolic Lord’s Supper – for more read: Understanding the Eucharist).

This isn’t a lot of detail. If we look into the early Church fathers, especially those that wrote around the same time, we see similar points:

Didache 14,1. On the Lord’s Day of the Lord gather together, break bread and give thanks, after confessing your transgressions so that your sacrifice may be pure. Let no one who has a quarrel with his neighbor join you until he is reconciled, lest your sacrifice be defiled. For this is that which was proclaimed by the Lord: “In every place and time let there be offered to Me a clean sacrifice. For I am a Great King,” says the Lord, “and My name is wonderful among the gentiles.”

The Didache was written before 140 A.D., which puts it just after the New Testament was complete – the writer (who is unknown) is likely a contemporary of the Apostles. Note the emphasis on the Eucharist and on Sunday being the day of worship. Also, this passage puts the Sacrament of Confession outside of Sunday worship, just as Catholics do it today.

Justin Martyr takes the time to explain formally what worship was during that time (remember, this is several hundred years before the Bible was compiled by the Church):

Justin Martyr First Apology 67. On the day which is dedicated to the sun, all those who live in the cities or who dwell in the countryside gather in a common meeting, and for as long as there is time the Memoirs of the Apostles or the writings of the prophets are read. Then, when the reader has finished, the president verbally gives a warning and appeal for the imitation of these good examples. Then we all rise together and offer prayers, and, as we said before, when our prayer is ended, bread is brought forward along with wine and water, and the president likewise gives thanks to the best of his ability and the people call out their assent, saying the Amen. Then there is distribution to each and the participation in the Eucharistic elements, which also are sent with the deacons to those who are absent. Those who are wealthy and wish to do so, contribute whatever they themselves care to give; and the collection is placed with the president . . .

This was written about 150 A.D. and pretty explicitly describes the Roman Catholic mass of today. Notice that the Eucharist is the central aspect of worship and is even sent to those who cannot attend – this emphasizes its importance. The service starts with reading of the Bible (again, the works of the apostles weren’t made Scripture until 395 A.D., so they are simply called the writings of the apostles). The sermon is understated here and mainly consists of appeals to imitate the apostles. Then the community prays and celebrates the Eucharist as Christ told us to in John 6. At the end, we have a collection. The only difference in Roman Catholic mass is that the collection is taken up just before the prayers. Imagine that! For 2,000 years the mass has hardly changed – praise be to God!

When looking for details about early Church worship, the Bible doesn’t cover the details, just the main aspects. However, we can look to other writings just after the Bible was written to get the details of how Christians worshipped during that time. Now look at your church, do they follow the early Church? Do they even follow the general requirements of Scripture?

God bless,
Jay

For "moderate" Muslims (sometimes called "true Muslims") to condemn the murder of innocent citizens to achieve political objectives.

Where is the outrage?

God bless,
Jay

PS - Our prayers are with all of those in London.

Isn’t this the ultimate question: what purpose do we serve? In other words, why did God make us? I’m not just asking why God created the earth and people, I’m asking, why did God create you? Why do you exist and why have you been allowed to live this long?

It’s an interesting question because it is so personal. It’s also difficult to get your hands around an answer, since by definition the answer will require more from you. If you exist for a reason, that implies obligation, particularly to God. If God specifically created you in this time and place, rather than another, then He must have a divine reason behind that choice. Are you fulfilling the need God had when He created you?

In the old Baltimore Catechism, we find the answers in fairly simple language:

Why did God make us? God made us to show forth His goodness and to share with us His everlasting happiness in heaven.

That explains why God made the world and populated it, but why did he make you? This is a significantly more difficult question to answer, since it would be a different answer for each of us. As unique creations of God, we each were created for unique reasons. Reasons, by the way, that are divine, rather than human, which means it would it impossible for us to give a full answer for each of our existences.

Perhaps one reason for our existence is to simply smile at another person on a very specific day. Or to brighten someone else’s afternoon on one day in July. We will never know until – and unless – we get to heaven. However, we can know some of the reasons God created us. The Baltimore Catechism is also famous for the quote “to know, love, and serve God,” which sums up the reason for our existence. The Catholic Catechism starts out with:

CCC 1. God, infinitely perfect and blessed in himself, in a plan of sheer goodness freely created man to make him share in his own blessed life. For this reason, at every time and in every place, God draws close to man. He calls man to seek him, to know him, to love him with all his strength.

To add on, we have specific obligations handed down from God. Both norms and obligations – from the Ten Commandments to the requirement that we go and make disciples of all men. Outside of this, only prayer can light our way. Only an absolute trust that God will guide us to complete the tasks he has for us. In other words, complete faith.

This is extremely difficult for modern Americans. We are taught to be independent, to question authority, to fight for our rights. Yet God calls us to be humble, loving, forgiving, and self-sacrificing, among other things. Ask yourself this, if you were accused of a crime you didn’t commit and jailed, could you quietly pray and trust in God that it was His Will that put you in jail? Could you assume that God had a reason for you to be in that place at that time? There are Saints that have refused to defend themselves, believing that God would free them when the time was right. That is faith. Faith is not using contraception and trusting that you will only get pregnant when God chooses to give you a child. Faith is living up to your Christian obligation even when it requires real sacrifice. Why are you here? Do you trust God to answer that for you?

God bless,
Jay

Sorry for the light posting as of late. We'll be back to normal in a few more days. In the meantime, go check out the latest Catholic Carnival - it's full of good information about Catholicism.

God bless,
Jay

Heavenly Father,
Like the Israelites of old, our ancestors in the faith,
Our country has struggled long and hard to be free
And to keep it’s freedom as a nation.
It too has met with success and failure
In trying to achieve its goals.
Let me take this holiday celebration
To ponder the strengths and weaknesses of my country.
Make me resolve always to do my part to keep it strong
And strive constantly to eliminate its weaknesses:
In the social, political, economic, and religious field.

Teach me to meditate on the teachings of your Son
Who brought us a message of peace and freedom
And instructed us to live as brothers and sisters.
His message took form in the vision of our founders
As they fashioned a nation
Where people might live as one.
May this message live on in our midst
As a task for people today
And a promise for tomorrow.
Thank you for your past blessings
And for that, with your help, we will achieve.

Happy 4th of July!

God bless,
Jay