Today a man was killed in his own church among the community of believers which share the same views and beliefs. It was a place of prayer and a place where there were people of all walks of life and ages. I’m certain there were children there. They didn’t deserve to be witnesses to murder.
That man was George Tiller, a noted abortionist who has been a focal point in the abortion dialogue in this country for many years. He has literally provided thousands of abortions and he works at one of only three facilities in the United States that regularly performs abortions on unborn children who are over 21 weeks past conception. At this point it appears that George was the sole target of the attack. This was no accident. A human being had his life taken away today in the sight of his friends, family, and fellow believers in a building which should be the safest place in the world.
It has not yet been released whether or not the suspect is a “follower” of the Pro-life movement or not. I will assume that this person would claim for themselves that they would be. After all, why else would this man be singled out among his entire faith community? It was no accident.
Yet this person is not a member of the pro-life movement in the least. Someone who supports the pro-life agenda defends life at all stages, from conception to natural death. There is nothing natural about murders and even less so in churches. You can’t be pro-life and take life. It’s an inherent, logical contradiction.
The entirety of the Pro-life movement will condemn this brutal attack on life for exactly what it is; an attack on the sacredness of life all life. In the United States the constitution defends the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of all of those who are endowed by their creator with these unalienable rights.
George Tiller has these rights too. We must say that either all humans have these rights, or no humans have these rights. If we say that George Tiller doesn’t have these rights, than we must accept the position of others who claim that the unborn child doesn’t have these rights either. It doesn’t matter what George’s occupation is or what his sins may be; he has a right to life. For if we don’t accept George’s right to life, then we cannot expect pro-choice persons to accept an unborn child’s right to life either.
Each and every attack on the sanctity of life is of equal value. Please continue to pray for George’s family, especially for his wife, that God will grant them the grace necessary to persevere through this tragic experience. Pray for the congregation at George’s church who will no doubt never be able to feel as safe in their church as they did last Sunday. And finally, pray for those persons, who despite their claims to being pro-life, had a feeling other than sickness and compassion when they first heard this news. Let’s not forget to pray for the many people, much like George’s murderer, who believe that we can build a civilization of life and love, while attacking the very sanctity of life that they claim to uphold. We can’t build a civilization of life and love without people like George, but we sure can build one with them.
That’s why I’d ask everyone to pray for the conversion of heart of all of those who do not share the ideal that every human life, from the moment of conception to natural death, is sacred. Unfortunately, George had the opportunity for this conversion of heart taken away from him. As a child of God, created in the image and likeness of his creator, he deserved so much better.
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Catholic Apologetics #1 "Catholic Church: Departed the Faith?"
Recently a friend posed the following question to me:
[Name removed],
First, I just want to say thank you for asking the question. It shows that you care for my soul a great deal and for that I am truly thankful. I'm going to comment on verse three, with the implications of your question and then go back to verses 1 and 2. This will allow me to address your excellent questions first and then make a few comments.
1) The Catholic Church does not forbid marriage. I am Catholic, I was married, and I was married in a Catholic Church. Paul does not say here, "They allow certain persons to freely choose not to marry in order to better serve God." What he says is, "Forbidding to marry." I know that you already knew that, but I think that it deserves our immediate attention. The Catholic Church believes that marriage is a Sacrament, a means by which God gives grace to the members of His body. A sacrament is simply a visible sign of an invisible reality. In the Catholic understanding, there are seven Sacraments. Once you receive a Sacrament, you can't "undue" the Sacrament. I mention this because Catholics believe that marriage is instituted by God and, therefore, so sacred that once a man and woman enter into a valid marital covenant with God and with each other, that it cannot be "undone." This is why divorce is not allowed in the Catholic Church. What God has put together, let no man put asunder (Mk 10:9).
The invisible reality that is seen visibly (you could say sacramentally) in the Sacrament of Marriage is the eternal wedding feast of the Bridegroom, Jesus Christ, with His bride, the church. Marriage is a sign of the intimate union between God and His people. In the Old Testament when Israel was unfaithful to God, it was called a Harlot or a Prostitute, because it was unfaithful to the "marital" covenant with God. Paul is so emphatic about the eternal wedding feast of Christ and the Church that he calls is a great mystery in Ephesians 5:32. Therefore, our brothers (priests, deacons, bishops, and religious brothers) and sisters (nuns) in Christ freely choose to live the celibate life in order to dedicate themselves completely to God. They in a sense, remind us as married people, that our marriages are not ends in themselves. They remind us that our end, is our 'marriage' as the Body of Christ, to our bridegroom, Jesus Christ.
It should be noted that clerical celibacy is not a 'Doctrine of the Faith.' Since it is not a doctrine of the faith it can be changed at any time. Only those things which come from God are doctrines and cannot be changed. For example, Jesus Christ is God is a doctrine of faith. We as humans cannot change it because it is revealed by God and is true. God is unchangeable and therefore our doctrines cannot change either. Yet clerical celibacy is a custom or discipline imposed not by God, but of men, and therefore the church can change it at any time. I'll revisit this point later. That said, clerical celibacy's foundation comes from the Sacred Tradition of the church and Sacred Scripture. Paul writes in 1 Cor 7:32-35,
Also the book of Revelation adds this in 14:3-4:
And finally and most importantly, Jesus Christ spoke these very words in Matthew 19:10-12:
Therefore, we can conclude three things about the custom of celibacy in the Catholic Church. 1) It is freely chosen, 2) It is a sign to others of the Kingdom of God, 3) According to Scripture it is a better way of serving the members of the Body of Christ.
At this point I will say in honesty that I don't know what your beliefs are about this, but I will ask a simple question. Christ says that people will receive the gift of celibacy (made eunuchs) for the sake of the Kingdom of God. Are there such people who have received the gift of celibacy from God in your faith tradition? In light of these strong words of Christ it is a question worth asking.
2) As a Catholic I am not forced to abstain from certain meats. Again, the context in Paul's writing is, "they abstain from meats." He does not say, "People abstain from meats certain days of the week for penitential purposes." As you well know, Jews were forbidden to eat certain meats such as pork, always. One could never eat pork as a faithful Jew. As a Catholic, I can eat any meat that I want to. However, it is true that the Code of Canon Law requires Catholics to abstain from meat during Penitential days. But it is not considered total abstinence, such as I can never, under any circumstances eat meat or a particular kind of meat (such as pork). Rather the church calls it penitential abstinence. Simply put this is denying oneself meat during days in which the church considers penitential.
Why meat? Meat, especially in the Old Testament, is used as a form of celebration. The parable of the prodigal son comes to mind. Immediately the father asks to kill the fatted calf to celebrate the return of the prodigal son.
Also important to note is that much like clerical celibacy, the practice of abstaining from meat during penitential days is not a matter of faith and morals. It is not revelation of God, but rather, custom and discipline of men. Therefore men can change it.
I mention this again because the beginning of the passage in question stated this: "Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils." Both of these issues, Penitential Abstinence and clerical celibacy, are not doctrines of the Catholic faith. Therefore, customs and disciplines of the faithful would not apply to whatever it is that Paul is referring to here. Yet total forbidding of all persons to marry would be a departure from Christian faith since marriage was instituted by God. In the same manner it would be a departure from the faith, if a faithful Jew, who had converted to Christianity would say, "You cannot be a faithful Christian and not adhere to the Old Testament dietary laws." The Council of Florence spoke of this in their document Pro Jacobitis:
Paul's words to Timothy are strong and clear, those who depart from the faith give heed to seducing spirits and doctrines, not of God, but of devils. Therefore, at least one of us, possibly both of us, believes in Paul's words, doctrines of devils. This should give us both great pause and humility.
Yet, just as it is certain that at least one of us has departed from the faith, it necessarily is just as certain that Paul could know with certainty what the faith is. Otherwise he could not know that people had departed from it. If God wanted Paul to know what the faith was, why wouldn't He also want me to know with the same certainty what the faith is? Does He not love me as much as He loved Paul? Does He not want me to be united with me in Heaven just as much as He wanted to be united with Paul? Then why wouldn't He give me the same opportunity to know the faith with certainty that He gave to Paul? These are rhetorical questions, but they should not be so quickly disregarded.
Again, [name removed], my only question I would like for you to answer is this. How do you know which one of us has departed from the faith?
Your Brother in Christ,
Nathan
I have been studying up on 1st Timothy in the bible and came across these things...My response to him was as follows:
1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
I'm not trying to get a big stir out of you, but the King James bible addresses a religion very closely resembling Catholicism. Lent? Priests being celibate?
Please, fill me in on what your thoughts are on this... thanks :)
[Name removed],
First, I just want to say thank you for asking the question. It shows that you care for my soul a great deal and for that I am truly thankful. I'm going to comment on verse three, with the implications of your question and then go back to verses 1 and 2. This will allow me to address your excellent questions first and then make a few comments.
1) The Catholic Church does not forbid marriage. I am Catholic, I was married, and I was married in a Catholic Church. Paul does not say here, "They allow certain persons to freely choose not to marry in order to better serve God." What he says is, "Forbidding to marry." I know that you already knew that, but I think that it deserves our immediate attention. The Catholic Church believes that marriage is a Sacrament, a means by which God gives grace to the members of His body. A sacrament is simply a visible sign of an invisible reality. In the Catholic understanding, there are seven Sacraments. Once you receive a Sacrament, you can't "undue" the Sacrament. I mention this because Catholics believe that marriage is instituted by God and, therefore, so sacred that once a man and woman enter into a valid marital covenant with God and with each other, that it cannot be "undone." This is why divorce is not allowed in the Catholic Church. What God has put together, let no man put asunder (Mk 10:9).
The invisible reality that is seen visibly (you could say sacramentally) in the Sacrament of Marriage is the eternal wedding feast of the Bridegroom, Jesus Christ, with His bride, the church. Marriage is a sign of the intimate union between God and His people. In the Old Testament when Israel was unfaithful to God, it was called a Harlot or a Prostitute, because it was unfaithful to the "marital" covenant with God. Paul is so emphatic about the eternal wedding feast of Christ and the Church that he calls is a great mystery in Ephesians 5:32. Therefore, our brothers (priests, deacons, bishops, and religious brothers) and sisters (nuns) in Christ freely choose to live the celibate life in order to dedicate themselves completely to God. They in a sense, remind us as married people, that our marriages are not ends in themselves. They remind us that our end, is our 'marriage' as the Body of Christ, to our bridegroom, Jesus Christ.
It should be noted that clerical celibacy is not a 'Doctrine of the Faith.' Since it is not a doctrine of the faith it can be changed at any time. Only those things which come from God are doctrines and cannot be changed. For example, Jesus Christ is God is a doctrine of faith. We as humans cannot change it because it is revealed by God and is true. God is unchangeable and therefore our doctrines cannot change either. Yet clerical celibacy is a custom or discipline imposed not by God, but of men, and therefore the church can change it at any time. I'll revisit this point later. That said, clerical celibacy's foundation comes from the Sacred Tradition of the church and Sacred Scripture. Paul writes in 1 Cor 7:32-35,
"But I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord: But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife. There is difference also between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married careth for the things of the world, how she may please her husband. And this I speak for your own profit; not that I may cast a snare upon you, but for that which is comely, and that ye may attend upon the Lord without distraction."Paul is telling his listeners that they are better able to serve God by remaining celibate. As married men, you and I know all to well that our family duties do get in the way of our full and entire devotion to the Lord. Paul is not saying marriage is bad, he is only encouraging those to remain celibate for the purpose of devoting themselves entirely to God as he did.
Also the book of Revelation adds this in 14:3-4:
"And they sung as it were a new song before the throne, and before the four beasts, and the elders: and no man could learn that song but the hundred and forty and four thousand, which were redeemed from the earth. These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins. These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were redeemed from among men, being the firstfruits unto God and to the Lamb."Without worldly concerns these celibate men can follow Jesus Christ in ways that men with worldly concerns (our spouses) cannot.
And finally and most importantly, Jesus Christ spoke these very words in Matthew 19:10-12:
"But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it."Important to note here is that celibacy is a gift from Christ. It is not the denial of one's sexuality, but rather a gift God. Those are strong words from our Lord and Savior.
Therefore, we can conclude three things about the custom of celibacy in the Catholic Church. 1) It is freely chosen, 2) It is a sign to others of the Kingdom of God, 3) According to Scripture it is a better way of serving the members of the Body of Christ.
At this point I will say in honesty that I don't know what your beliefs are about this, but I will ask a simple question. Christ says that people will receive the gift of celibacy (made eunuchs) for the sake of the Kingdom of God. Are there such people who have received the gift of celibacy from God in your faith tradition? In light of these strong words of Christ it is a question worth asking.
2) As a Catholic I am not forced to abstain from certain meats. Again, the context in Paul's writing is, "they abstain from meats." He does not say, "People abstain from meats certain days of the week for penitential purposes." As you well know, Jews were forbidden to eat certain meats such as pork, always. One could never eat pork as a faithful Jew. As a Catholic, I can eat any meat that I want to. However, it is true that the Code of Canon Law requires Catholics to abstain from meat during Penitential days. But it is not considered total abstinence, such as I can never, under any circumstances eat meat or a particular kind of meat (such as pork). Rather the church calls it penitential abstinence. Simply put this is denying oneself meat during days in which the church considers penitential.
Why meat? Meat, especially in the Old Testament, is used as a form of celebration. The parable of the prodigal son comes to mind. Immediately the father asks to kill the fatted calf to celebrate the return of the prodigal son.
Also important to note is that much like clerical celibacy, the practice of abstaining from meat during penitential days is not a matter of faith and morals. It is not revelation of God, but rather, custom and discipline of men. Therefore men can change it.
I mention this again because the beginning of the passage in question stated this: "Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils." Both of these issues, Penitential Abstinence and clerical celibacy, are not doctrines of the Catholic faith. Therefore, customs and disciplines of the faithful would not apply to whatever it is that Paul is referring to here. Yet total forbidding of all persons to marry would be a departure from Christian faith since marriage was instituted by God. In the same manner it would be a departure from the faith, if a faithful Jew, who had converted to Christianity would say, "You cannot be a faithful Christian and not adhere to the Old Testament dietary laws." The Council of Florence spoke of this in their document Pro Jacobitis:
"Everything made by God is good and nothing is to be rejected provided it is received with thanksgiving (1 Tim 4:4) for, as the Lord says, what enters a man's mouth does not make him unclean (Mt 15:11), and the distinction made by the Mosaic Law between clean and unclean food belongs to a rite which has been superseded and which ceased to be effective with the advent of the Gospel."Before I end, I'd like to go back to verse one just for a moment:
"Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils."You and I do not share the same faith. If we spoke long enough we would find disagreements between us about matters of faith such as Apostolic Authority, Apostolic Succession, Salvation, the authority of the Bishop of Rome, the compilation of the bible, the Eucharist, etc. Yet the Scriptures are clear that there is only one faith. Eph 4:4-6:
"There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all."Therefore, since we don't share the same faith, and Scripture tells us there is only one faith, it necessarily follows that at least one of us has 'departed from the faith.' This in no way affirms that one of us has not 'departed from the faith,' maybe both of us have, but at least one of us certainly has. My question to you would be this. How do you know which one of us has departed from the faith?
Paul's words to Timothy are strong and clear, those who depart from the faith give heed to seducing spirits and doctrines, not of God, but of devils. Therefore, at least one of us, possibly both of us, believes in Paul's words, doctrines of devils. This should give us both great pause and humility.
Yet, just as it is certain that at least one of us has departed from the faith, it necessarily is just as certain that Paul could know with certainty what the faith is. Otherwise he could not know that people had departed from it. If God wanted Paul to know what the faith was, why wouldn't He also want me to know with the same certainty what the faith is? Does He not love me as much as He loved Paul? Does He not want me to be united with me in Heaven just as much as He wanted to be united with Paul? Then why wouldn't He give me the same opportunity to know the faith with certainty that He gave to Paul? These are rhetorical questions, but they should not be so quickly disregarded.
Again, [name removed], my only question I would like for you to answer is this. How do you know which one of us has departed from the faith?
Your Brother in Christ,
Nathan
What is Catholic Apologetics?
Sometimes I am asked questions by people about issues of faith. I have decided to start a series on this blog called Catholic Apologetics. In these I will share the question that was given to me, and my response to it.
In case any readers are not familiar with the term apologetics can read a very short and easily understandable explaination here: http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/apologetics/two_minute#1
In case any readers are not familiar with the term apologetics can read a very short and easily understandable explaination here: http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/apologetics/two_minute#1
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Notre Dame, Barack Obama, and Reducing Beautiful Sunsets
Yes, today was Barack Obama's commencement address at the supposed Catholic University of Notre Dame. Yes, I watched it and yes, President Obama received his honorary law degree. Yes, I disagree with his invitation, yes, I'm disgusted by his receiving the degree and yes, I have gotten rid of all of my Notre Dame shirts and jerseys. But this isn't about Notre Dame. It is about Barack Obama and the logic of reducing beautiful sunsets.
See, sunsets are beautiful, and all things that are truly beautiful are good. Like sunsets many other things are good. Oxygen is good, having an ample supply of safe drinking water is good, and having a healthy body is good. These are universal goods. And I don't want to see them reduced because they are, by their very nature are good. Since these things are objectively good I want to see them increased. The more beautiful sunsets the better. The more people who have access to clean, safe drinking water the better.
But President Obama said today that, while he and the Catholic Church disagree about abortion, we should work together to see abortions reduced. He received much adulation and applause for this, but I must ask, Mr President, why would you want to reduce anything which is in itself good? I want smoking to be reduced because it's not good. I want to see cancer reduced because it's not good. I want to see famine reduced because it too, like abortion, is not good.
See the logic of Barack Obama is this. Either abortion is bad or it's good. If abortion were neutral, we wouldn't care to see it reduced or increased. If abortion is good, why wouldn't we want it increased Mr. President? We must only want it reduced if it is not good. By admitting that he wants abortions reduced, President Obama admits that abortion is not good and if it is not good, I ask why should we accept it? It is for this reason that I'd like to see Mr Obama's influence reduced, because it, much like abortion, is not good.
See, sunsets are beautiful, and all things that are truly beautiful are good. Like sunsets many other things are good. Oxygen is good, having an ample supply of safe drinking water is good, and having a healthy body is good. These are universal goods. And I don't want to see them reduced because they are, by their very nature are good. Since these things are objectively good I want to see them increased. The more beautiful sunsets the better. The more people who have access to clean, safe drinking water the better.
But President Obama said today that, while he and the Catholic Church disagree about abortion, we should work together to see abortions reduced. He received much adulation and applause for this, but I must ask, Mr President, why would you want to reduce anything which is in itself good? I want smoking to be reduced because it's not good. I want to see cancer reduced because it's not good. I want to see famine reduced because it too, like abortion, is not good.
See the logic of Barack Obama is this. Either abortion is bad or it's good. If abortion were neutral, we wouldn't care to see it reduced or increased. If abortion is good, why wouldn't we want it increased Mr. President? We must only want it reduced if it is not good. By admitting that he wants abortions reduced, President Obama admits that abortion is not good and if it is not good, I ask why should we accept it? It is for this reason that I'd like to see Mr Obama's influence reduced, because it, much like abortion, is not good.
Sunday, May 10, 2009
It's Not Enough to Sit at Home
It's amazing how the Lord works in our lives. One of the first readings I ever read at Mass as a proclaimer of the Word was this passage.
"Thus the word of the LORD came to me: Son of man, I have appointed you a watchman for the house of Israel. When you hear a word from my mouth, you shall warn them for me. If I say to the wicked man, You shall surely die; and you do not warn him or speak out to dissuade him from his wicked conduct so that he may live: that wicked man shall die for his sin, but I will hold you responsible for his death. If, on the other hand, you have warned the wicked man, yet he has not turned away from his evil nor from his wicked conduct, then he shall die for his sin, but you shall save your life." Ezekiel 3:17-21
These are strong words. The following week I was at a friends house who had a porn movie. I saw it on his bookshelf and was reminded of this passage. I asked him why he had this DVD. He responded that it was from a friend of his who gave it to him as a prank. My friend further responded that he was going to give it to someone else as a prank as well. It was at this point, I read this passage to him. I was afraid of my friend getting angry or combative. He took the DVD and asked me if I had ever seen a DVD get microwaved. And that is exactly what he did with it.
I have been blessed with great friends.
While it is true that we cannot just go around and beat people over the head with their sins and expect to promote the Truth with them and within them. It is just as true that it is not enough to sit at home. We need to share Truth with the world.
"Thus the word of the LORD came to me: Son of man, I have appointed you a watchman for the house of Israel. When you hear a word from my mouth, you shall warn them for me. If I say to the wicked man, You shall surely die; and you do not warn him or speak out to dissuade him from his wicked conduct so that he may live: that wicked man shall die for his sin, but I will hold you responsible for his death. If, on the other hand, you have warned the wicked man, yet he has not turned away from his evil nor from his wicked conduct, then he shall die for his sin, but you shall save your life." Ezekiel 3:17-21
These are strong words. The following week I was at a friends house who had a porn movie. I saw it on his bookshelf and was reminded of this passage. I asked him why he had this DVD. He responded that it was from a friend of his who gave it to him as a prank. My friend further responded that he was going to give it to someone else as a prank as well. It was at this point, I read this passage to him. I was afraid of my friend getting angry or combative. He took the DVD and asked me if I had ever seen a DVD get microwaved. And that is exactly what he did with it.
I have been blessed with great friends.
While it is true that we cannot just go around and beat people over the head with their sins and expect to promote the Truth with them and within them. It is just as true that it is not enough to sit at home. We need to share Truth with the world.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)