Love and Justice Both: Losing Sight of the Big Picture

In dealing with the concepts of the love of God and the justice of God, it’s easy to lose sight of the big picture. It’s easy to get so caught up in focussing on one thing that one forgets that there are obligations to the other side of thing which God calls us to do. We are called, for example, to love those who hate us and to admonish the sinners.

For example, one of the things I notice when it comes to people being offended by the Church is that they tend to be too close to the issue to consider it objectively. It’s natural to feel threatened when someone is personally affected by an issue. But the problem is, when a person takes it too personally, they may lack the objectivity to listen to what needs to be said. It’s important to note that this is not limited to one faction or another. It’s not something that only happens to other people. Each one of us can feel attacked by something we need to hear and respond by refusing to listen. It’s common to hear things like, “God doesn’t care about your rules,” or “you need to stop being legalistic."

This becomes a problem when it comes to denying Church teaching because, as Catholics, we believe that the Church teaching has authority because Christ Himself gave the Church authority to teach, and so the denial of the Church is a denial of Christ. For example, if Jesus did tell Peter in Matthew 16:19 and the rest of the apostles in Matthew 18:18 that what they bound on Earth is bound in Heaven, then God does care about the rules of the Church.

Of course, God also cares about how we apply His rules. While we cannot set His commandments aside, it is possible to forget about the side of compassion and mercy required in teaching His commandments. The possibility of being so focussed on punishing the guilty and worrying about somebody “getting away with” things is dangerous. The possibility of a past mistake or sin repented of is not seen as relevant. If Bishop X once held a problematic position, he cannot ever be trusted again and whoever considers the possibility is not to be trusted either.

So it seems there is a problem with people confusing both what truth requires and what compassion requires. It seems like certain people think that God being loving and merciful cannot condemn the actions being done. From that error, it becomes easy to make one of two opposite false conclusions. Either the person...

1. wrongly assumes that compassion and love means the Church cannot say things we do are wrong.
2. wrongly assumes that compassion and love means the Church is failing to teach right and wrong.

That’s the danger of becoming so rigid or so attached to one’s sins that one loses sight of the big picture—that God is both loving and just. Ignoring one of these in favor of the other is going to give a person a distorted view of God and what we are called by Him to be. Losing sight of God’s justice means expecting God to just turn a blind eye to our sins. Losing sight of God’s love means viewing the sinner as an enemy to oppose instead of a person in need of salvation that we have to reach out to.

Both views need to be opposed. The person who does not want to change his or her ways, and thinks of Church teaching as “manmade rules” are creating a false image of God and risking their souls over a lie.  The person who thinks of the sinner as “the enemy,” are claiming the role of judge that they are not allowed to have, risking becoming alienated from Christ and His Church. We need to realize that the role of the Church does not embrace either extreme. Rather, the Church loves the sinner, while rejecting the false ideas the sinner clings to. The role of God’s teaching is to lead us in living according to His will. Those who have not fallen into a particular sin are called to help their brethren who have and love them—even if the response we receive from them is hostile.

We are called to love and follow Our Lord Jesus Christ, and that means heeding the Church He established (Matthew 18:17). That also means serving in love in doing so. We can’t just point to the failures of the “other side.” We have to consider our own actions in relation to these two pitfalls.

Remembering the Fear of the Lord

For they will not mend their ways; 
they have no fear of God. (Psalm 55:20)

The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom;
prudent are all who practice it.
His praise endures forever. (Psalm 111:10)

When I witness the anger against the Church and her insisting on teachings, over and over I hear the same thing: "God doesn't care about my doing X! The Church is being unfair!" It isn't surprising. In the West, there is a tendency to turn Jesus into a "nice guy" who doesn't care about what we do as long as we don't hurt anybody else while we do it. After all, they ask, didn't Jesus say to love one another and not to judge?

Basically, Western views of Christianity can be summed up as H. Richard Niebuhr put it:

"A God without wrath brought men without sin into a Kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a Cross."

In other words, the popular view of Jesus is Christianity stripped of everything which makes it meaningful. He's no different than any other pop guru out there.

But that is not what Jesus had to say to us. He warns us to be holy and to be ready:

If you love me, you will keep my commandments. (John 14:15)

Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me. (Luke 10:16)

“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name? Did we not drive out demons in your name? Did we not do mighty deeds in your name?’ Then I will declare to them solemnly, ‘I never knew you. Depart from me, you evildoers.’ (Matt 7:21-23)

“If your brother sins [against you], go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have won over your brother.  If he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, so that ‘every fact may be established on the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church. If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector. (Matt 18:15-17)

And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” (Matthew 16:18-19)

That's the very opposite of the "Santa Claus" type Jesus people tend to believe in. He is the Way to salvation, but His salvation is not given indifferently. It requires following Him wholeheartedly. It requires fear of The Lord. That scandalizes people . . . especially if they contrast the Old Testament God with the person of Jesus.

Now Fear of the Lord, in the context of the Psalms cited, is not a sort of servile response to a divine argumentum ad baculum from a God who can't wait for you to screw up so He can bash you. 

Fear comes from the word יִרְאַ֬ת  (yir'ah) meaning (in this context): Reverence, Piety, Knowledge (Francis Brown, Samuel Rolles Driver, and Charles Augustus Briggs, Enhanced Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon, 432).

In other words, if we would be wise and follow God, it requires Reverence to Him (as opposed to presuming that He didn't really mean what He said), Piety (as opposed to thinking a lackluster approach is good enough) and knowledge of His teachings (as opposed to thinking that however I personally interpret what I think the words mean).

Basically, Fear of the Lord can be summed up in the old Catholic saying: Know, Love and Serve God. Know and accept as true what He teaches, follow His teachings out of Love for Him (as opposed to "It's a rule the Church made and I have to do it until they change their mind") and live your life in a way that emphasizes this.

We need to recognize that all too often our passions interfere with knowing, loving and serving God. Either we desire something that we are told is sinful (harmful) for us or we fear losing something if we follow Him. So we "shoot the messenger" and blame the Church . . . as if the Church would invent such strict rules to be odious.

Really, the whole concept of blaming the Church is irrational. If we accept that the Catholic Church is what she claims to be (the Church established by Christ that teaches with His authority), then what she teaches ought to be heeded because she has the authority to bind and loose. But if the Catholic Church is not what she claims to be, then any truth in her teaching is mere coincidence, and it makes no sense to want to remain in her to begin with. (I firmly believe anti-Catholics are wrong and grossly misled, but at least they are more logically consistent in their error than the Catholic dissenter who wants to "change" Church teaching).

Our Western Society has become very foolish. Our society rejects God's commands when people do not want to follow them. Our society will continue being foolish until we realize that we need to turn back to knowing, loving and serving God and not putting our own passions first.

Remembering the Fear of the Lord

For they will not mend their ways; 
they have no fear of God. (Psalm 55:20)

The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom;
prudent are all who practice it.
His praise endures forever. (Psalm 111:10)

When I witness the anger against the Church and her insisting on teachings, over and over I hear the same thing: "God doesn't care about my doing X! The Church is being unfair!" It isn't surprising. In the West, there is a tendency to turn Jesus into a "nice guy" who doesn't care about what we do as long as we don't hurt anybody else while we do it. After all, they ask, didn't Jesus say to love one another and not to judge?

Basically, Western views of Christianity can be summed up as H. Richard Niebuhr put it:

"A God without wrath brought men without sin into a Kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a Cross."

In other words, the popular view of Jesus is Christianity stripped of everything which makes it meaningful. He's no different than any other pop guru out there.

But that is not what Jesus had to say to us. He warns us to be holy and to be ready:

If you love me, you will keep my commandments. (John 14:15)

Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me. (Luke 10:16)

“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name? Did we not drive out demons in your name? Did we not do mighty deeds in your name?’ Then I will declare to them solemnly, ‘I never knew you. Depart from me, you evildoers.’ (Matt 7:21-23)

“If your brother sins [against you], go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have won over your brother.  If he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, so that ‘every fact may be established on the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church. If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector. (Matt 18:15-17)

And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” (Matthew 16:18-19)

That's the very opposite of the "Santa Claus" type Jesus people tend to believe in. He is the Way to salvation, but His salvation is not given indifferently. It requires following Him wholeheartedly. It requires fear of The Lord. That scandalizes people . . . especially if they contrast the Old Testament God with the person of Jesus.

Now Fear of the Lord, in the context of the Psalms cited, is not a sort of servile response to a divine argumentum ad baculum from a God who can't wait for you to screw up so He can bash you. 

Fear comes from the word יִרְאַ֬ת  (yir'ah) meaning (in this context): Reverence, Piety, Knowledge (Francis Brown, Samuel Rolles Driver, and Charles Augustus Briggs, Enhanced Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon, 432).

In other words, if we would be wise and follow God, it requires Reverence to Him (as opposed to presuming that He didn't really mean what He said), Piety (as opposed to thinking a lackluster approach is good enough) and knowledge of His teachings (as opposed to thinking that however I personally interpret what I think the words mean).

Basically, Fear of the Lord can be summed up in the old Catholic saying: Know, Love and Serve God. Know and accept as true what He teaches, follow His teachings out of Love for Him (as opposed to "It's a rule the Church made and I have to do it until they change their mind") and live your life in a way that emphasizes this.

We need to recognize that all too often our passions interfere with knowing, loving and serving God. Either we desire something that we are told is sinful (harmful) for us or we fear losing something if we follow Him. So we "shoot the messenger" and blame the Church . . . as if the Church would invent such strict rules to be odious.

Really, the whole concept of blaming the Church is irrational. If we accept that the Catholic Church is what she claims to be (the Church established by Christ that teaches with His authority), then what she teaches ought to be heeded because she has the authority to bind and loose. But if the Catholic Church is not what she claims to be, then any truth in her teaching is mere coincidence, and it makes no sense to want to remain in her to begin with. (I firmly believe anti-Catholics are wrong and grossly misled, but at least they are more logically consistent in their error than the Catholic dissenter who wants to "change" Church teaching).

Our Western Society has become very foolish. Our society rejects God's commands when people do not want to follow them. Our society will continue being foolish until we realize that we need to turn back to knowing, loving and serving God and not putting our own passions first.

Reflections on Faith and Suffering in the Book of Job

Of all the books in the Old Testament, I believe the Book of Job is my favorite. It details the struggles of a person to make sense out of suffering—in fact the destruction of everything Job found dear--and his faith in God.

The basic synopsis of the Book can be summed up as follows:

The devil claims that Job is only a faithful follower because he is materially blessed. God permits the devil to afflict Job, first by destroying his property, then his family, then his health. His friends (and with friends like these, who needs enemies?) assume that Job is suffering because he sinned and he needs to repent. Job knows he did not sin, but feels betrayed by how he is treated when he tried to live a holy life. Finally God shows up in the middle of the debate and demonstrates that both Job and his friends are operating from false premises which lead them to false conclusions. God then restores to Job the blessings he lost.

The premises used in the Book of Job run as follows.

Job's detractors, wanting to defend the goodness of God, reasoned:

• God punishes the guilty
• You're being punished
• Therefore, you're guilty

Job's counter argument, wanting to emphasize his innocence, was:

• God is afflicting me
• I don't deserve it
• Therefore God is not treating me as I deserve, and I want to know why

Both of these seem to be irreconcilable. If Job speaks the truth, then his detractor's premises must be false. If his detractors speak the truth then Job's premises must be false. Up to this point, we're left with a dilemma. Either Job is a bad man or God is not just. That's where the opponents of Christianity smirk. "Well, which is it?" they ask.

God's response shows both Job and his detractors have missed the point:

• You cannot judge what is beyond your ability to understand
• What I do is beyond your ability to understand
• Therefore, you cannot judge what I do.

Job's detractors argued under the assumption that they had all the facts in concluding Job was guilty. Job's also argued under the assumption that he had all the facts, that because he did not behave in a way that deserved these acts as a punishment, he should not be experiencing these acts. God's response was to show how both ways of thinking were wrong.

But, this way of thinking is not a product of ancient times. Many people undergo loss and suffering. When they do face this suffering, some ask "Where is God in all of this? Why did He let this happen?" Because they cannot find an answer, some begin to doubt some aspect of God . . . or even whether He exists.

The common lament is, "If God exists/is all powerful/is good, how can He allow X to happen?"

That's probably why a common modern approach to God argues that, to avoid contradiction, we have to admit that God has one of the following weaknesses:

1. God is not all powerful
2. God is not all knowing
3. God is not all good

Some argue this way to try to justify dissent. Others to justify their unbelief. But when one reads Job, it becomes clear that God is All powerful, all knowing and all good. However, WE are not. Therefore, to accuse God of one of those charges reflects the false belief that finite human reason is sufficient and anything outside of what we can understand is unjust.

But when we think this way, we are actually thinking "If I were God, I would stop this!" The problem is, we are not God. We do not have all the knowledge required to truthfully say this way is better than how God handled it! That brings us back to God's response to Job. We can't judge what we don't understand. That's where Faith comes in. If we believe God is all knowing, all powerful and perfectly good, then when some misfortune strikes, we have to trust that God is not acting out of negligence . . . even if we don't understand why He permits some things to happen.

God, being all knowing, all powerful and all good knows all the ramifications of His choosing to act or not to act. The Catechism of the Catholic Church reminds us:

272 Faith in God the Father Almighty can be put to the test by the experience of evil and suffering. God can sometimes seem to be absent and incapable of stopping evil. But in the most mysterious way God the Father has revealed his almighty power in the voluntary humiliation and Resurrection of his Son, by which he conquered evil. Christ crucified is thus “the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.” It is in Christ’s Resurrection and exaltation that the Father has shown forth “the immeasurable greatness of his power in us who believe.”

I think this is important to remember. On Good Friday, the friends and family of Jesus were no doubt thinking, "How could God allow this to happen?" But the fact of the matter is, this happened for us and our salvation even though people present at that moment in time could not realize this.

It is important for all of us to remember this when we suffer a hardship, or lose a loved one. Jesus suffered on the cross and died for us. Suffering is not necessarily a sign of punishment. It is certainly not a sign of God's absence or weakness. When we face suffering and loss, we must remember God is still in control and He does love us. We must not assume we know all there is to know and turn away from God in our pain and grief.

Reflections on Faith and Suffering in the Book of Job

Of all the books in the Old Testament, I believe the Book of Job is my favorite. It details the struggles of a person to make sense out of suffering—in fact the destruction of everything Job found dear--and his faith in God.

The basic synopsis of the Book can be summed up as follows:

The devil claims that Job is only a faithful follower because he is materially blessed. God permits the devil to afflict Job, first by destroying his property, then his family, then his health. His friends (and with friends like these, who needs enemies?) assume that Job is suffering because he sinned and he needs to repent. Job knows he did not sin, but feels betrayed by how he is treated when he tried to live a holy life. Finally God shows up in the middle of the debate and demonstrates that both Job and his friends are operating from false premises which lead them to false conclusions. God then restores to Job the blessings he lost.

The premises used in the Book of Job run as follows.

Job's detractors, wanting to defend the goodness of God, reasoned:

• God punishes the guilty
• You're being punished
• Therefore, you're guilty

Job's counter argument, wanting to emphasize his innocence, was:

• God is afflicting me
• I don't deserve it
• Therefore God is not treating me as I deserve, and I want to know why

Both of these seem to be irreconcilable. If Job speaks the truth, then his detractor's premises must be false. If his detractors speak the truth then Job's premises must be false. Up to this point, we're left with a dilemma. Either Job is a bad man or God is not just. That's where the opponents of Christianity smirk. "Well, which is it?" they ask.

God's response shows both Job and his detractors have missed the point:

• You cannot judge what is beyond your ability to understand
• What I do is beyond your ability to understand
• Therefore, you cannot judge what I do.

Job's detractors argued under the assumption that they had all the facts in concluding Job was guilty. Job's also argued under the assumption that he had all the facts, that because he did not behave in a way that deserved these acts as a punishment, he should not be experiencing these acts. God's response was to show how both ways of thinking were wrong.

But, this way of thinking is not a product of ancient times. Many people undergo loss and suffering. When they do face this suffering, some ask "Where is God in all of this? Why did He let this happen?" Because they cannot find an answer, some begin to doubt some aspect of God . . . or even whether He exists.

The common lament is, "If God exists/is all powerful/is good, how can He allow X to happen?"

That's probably why a common modern approach to God argues that, to avoid contradiction, we have to admit that God has one of the following weaknesses:

1. God is not all powerful
2. God is not all knowing
3. God is not all good

Some argue this way to try to justify dissent. Others to justify their unbelief. But when one reads Job, it becomes clear that God is All powerful, all knowing and all good. However, WE are not. Therefore, to accuse God of one of those charges reflects the false belief that finite human reason is sufficient and anything outside of what we can understand is unjust.

But when we think this way, we are actually thinking "If I were God, I would stop this!" The problem is, we are not God. We do not have all the knowledge required to truthfully say this way is better than how God handled it! That brings us back to God's response to Job. We can't judge what we don't understand. That's where Faith comes in. If we believe God is all knowing, all powerful and perfectly good, then when some misfortune strikes, we have to trust that God is not acting out of negligence . . . even if we don't understand why He permits some things to happen.

God, being all knowing, all powerful and all good knows all the ramifications of His choosing to act or not to act. The Catechism of the Catholic Church reminds us:

272 Faith in God the Father Almighty can be put to the test by the experience of evil and suffering. God can sometimes seem to be absent and incapable of stopping evil. But in the most mysterious way God the Father has revealed his almighty power in the voluntary humiliation and Resurrection of his Son, by which he conquered evil. Christ crucified is thus “the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.” It is in Christ’s Resurrection and exaltation that the Father has shown forth “the immeasurable greatness of his power in us who believe.”

I think this is important to remember. On Good Friday, the friends and family of Jesus were no doubt thinking, "How could God allow this to happen?" But the fact of the matter is, this happened for us and our salvation even though people present at that moment in time could not realize this.

It is important for all of us to remember this when we suffer a hardship, or lose a loved one. Jesus suffered on the cross and died for us. Suffering is not necessarily a sign of punishment. It is certainly not a sign of God's absence or weakness. When we face suffering and loss, we must remember God is still in control and He does love us. We must not assume we know all there is to know and turn away from God in our pain and grief.

An Analogy on the Importance of Baptism

Preliminary Note: The use of the analogy of citizenship in this article has nothing at all to do with the current issue of illegal immigration and children from Central America. Comments attempting to argue immigration issues in this article will simply not be approved.

Introduction

I have encountered some people—some believers, some not—who object to the Catholic view of Baptism and the Fall of Man in Genesis 3. They ask how is it fair that humanity has to be punished for the sin of Adam and Eve? Others object to our view of Baptism because they think that only a person who can rationally accept the faith can be baptized, and thinking that baptism of children is required implies all children must go to hell.

It sounds arbitrary because I think some people have not understood the story of the Fall and what the sin entailed. Nor do they understand how it impacts each one of us. So I propose this analogy for people to consider.

The Analogy

(Remember . . .every analogy is weak at some point. So it's best to look at the general story as opposed to trying to tie each point to a specific point of theology)

Consider a married couple being gifted with citizenship in a nation. Because of this citizenship, they have access to all the rights, privileges--and the responsibilities that go with them in terms of obeying the laws. They would pass on this citizenship

But instead of carrying out their responsibilities, the couple commits treason against the nation. The result is they are stripped of their citizenship and exiled. What happens to their children?

Well, if children had been born before the couple committed treason, obviously they would have remained citizens because the sins of the parents would not fall on them. If only one of the parents had committed treason, the children born later would still be citizens.

But because both individuals committed treason and lost their citizenship before having any children, any children born to them after this fact have no claim to citizenship. This is not the fault of the ruler. This is the fault of the parents. You cannot give what you do not possess. Since neither parent possesses citizenship, none of their children can possibly be born citizens.

The result is, because this couple committed treason and lost their citizenship, there is literally nothing they can do to make their children citizens. It seems hopeless for any of them.

But, the ruler is aware of their plight and does not want to leave them in some refugee camp. But He simply can't just say, "Well, your treason doesn't matter. I'll just pretend that it didn't happen." So he needs to set up a plan that allows all of them a way to regain citizenship that they lost (the married couple) or never had to begin with (their children). It is a plan that this ruler would carry out at the cost of his son . . . and both were willing to do this for us.

When this plan was carried out, it became possible to become citizens again . . . but not automatically and not with a general grant. Each individual who has reached the age of reason has to make the decision to become a citizen on their own, promising to be faithful to their country. Parents may apply for their children not yet at the age of reason to become citizens, promising to raise them to live in accordance with the rights and responsibilities of the nation.

Unfortunately, some have forgotten the fact that the induction ceremony for citizenship was not an option and not a symbol. It is the means the ruler set in place as the ordinary way to become a citizen. Some believe that as long as you have good intentions, the act of becoming a citizen is not necessary. Others think that parents should not apply for their children's citizenship. Why not just let them decide whether or not to decide when they become adults? So as not to prejudice them, they tell their children nothing about this choice. After all, if this ruler is just and merciful, it won't matter with such a small thing, will it?

Yes this ruler is just and merciful . . . he makes citizenship free to all who seek it.He also sends members of his kingdom to go out and make known the importance of becoming citizens and living according to the laws of the kingdom. See, this ruler knows that a calamity is coming that will sweep the neighboring lands and his kingdom will be the only place which is safe. That is when the ruler will determine who may enter.

Those who accepted citizenship and followed the laws (or would have if they had only known what they needed to do) will be admitted. Those who reject his authority or his laws cannot enter—in fact they would probably refuse to enter the country. Certainly the ruler cannot be faulted for excluding people from his kingdom who refuse to accept his citizenship and his laws. He offers it to everyone, but some will refuse to cooperate, just as the first couple did.

The Evaluation

God is that ruler. Heaven is His kingdom. The plan allowing people to enter His kingdom that cost the death of His Son was the Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ. Baptism is the way to citizenship His teachings are His laws and His emissaries are His Church. The calamity is the end of the world.

Now when you consider that, the knowing refusal to accept God or His Plan or His Baptism or His Laws or His Church is not a thing of no importance . . . it is the rejection of God, the refusal to accept His reaching out to us to save us.

God will judge us with Love and Mercy and Justice. But the person who refuses to accept God's Love and Mercy will face what's left . . . His justice. God doesn't withdraw it. The sinner refuses it in this case. Since Heaven is the place of God's love and mercy, where can the person who refuses it go? God will not force it on the person.

The only place left is the place outside Heaven . . . the ruins. Hell. Hell isn't a final failing grade for people who aren't "nice enough." It's the choice of the person who knowingly refuses God.

That's why the Church can say God is Love and Mercy—and say Hell exists, and not contradict herself.

An Analogy on the Importance of Baptism

Preliminary Note: The use of the analogy of citizenship in this article has nothing at all to do with the current issue of illegal immigration and children from Central America. Comments attempting to argue immigration issues in this article will simply not be approved.

Introduction

I have encountered some people—some believers, some not—who object to the Catholic view of Baptism and the Fall of Man in Genesis 3. They ask how is it fair that humanity has to be punished for the sin of Adam and Eve? Others object to our view of Baptism because they think that only a person who can rationally accept the faith can be baptized, and thinking that baptism of children is required implies all children must go to hell.

It sounds arbitrary because I think some people have not understood the story of the Fall and what the sin entailed. Nor do they understand how it impacts each one of us. So I propose this analogy for people to consider.

The Analogy

(Remember . . .every analogy is weak at some point. So it's best to look at the general story as opposed to trying to tie each point to a specific point of theology)

Consider a married couple being gifted with citizenship in a nation. Because of this citizenship, they have access to all the rights, privileges--and the responsibilities that go with them in terms of obeying the laws. They would pass on this citizenship

But instead of carrying out their responsibilities, the couple commits treason against the nation. The result is they are stripped of their citizenship and exiled. What happens to their children?

Well, if children had been born before the couple committed treason, obviously they would have remained citizens because the sins of the parents would not fall on them. If only one of the parents had committed treason, the children born later would still be citizens.

But because both individuals committed treason and lost their citizenship before having any children, any children born to them after this fact have no claim to citizenship. This is not the fault of the ruler. This is the fault of the parents. You cannot give what you do not possess. Since neither parent possesses citizenship, none of their children can possibly be born citizens.

The result is, because this couple committed treason and lost their citizenship, there is literally nothing they can do to make their children citizens. It seems hopeless for any of them.

But, the ruler is aware of their plight and does not want to leave them in some refugee camp. But He simply can't just say, "Well, your treason doesn't matter. I'll just pretend that it didn't happen." So he needs to set up a plan that allows all of them a way to regain citizenship that they lost (the married couple) or never had to begin with (their children). It is a plan that this ruler would carry out at the cost of his son . . . and both were willing to do this for us.

When this plan was carried out, it became possible to become citizens again . . . but not automatically and not with a general grant. Each individual who has reached the age of reason has to make the decision to become a citizen on their own, promising to be faithful to their country. Parents may apply for their children not yet at the age of reason to become citizens, promising to raise them to live in accordance with the rights and responsibilities of the nation.

Unfortunately, some have forgotten the fact that the induction ceremony for citizenship was not an option and not a symbol. It is the means the ruler set in place as the ordinary way to become a citizen. Some believe that as long as you have good intentions, the act of becoming a citizen is not necessary. Others think that parents should not apply for their children's citizenship. Why not just let them decide whether or not to decide when they become adults? So as not to prejudice them, they tell their children nothing about this choice. After all, if this ruler is just and merciful, it won't matter with such a small thing, will it?

Yes this ruler is just and merciful . . . he makes citizenship free to all who seek it.He also sends members of his kingdom to go out and make known the importance of becoming citizens and living according to the laws of the kingdom. See, this ruler knows that a calamity is coming that will sweep the neighboring lands and his kingdom will be the only place which is safe. That is when the ruler will determine who may enter.

Those who accepted citizenship and followed the laws (or would have if they had only known what they needed to do) will be admitted. Those who reject his authority or his laws cannot enter—in fact they would probably refuse to enter the country. Certainly the ruler cannot be faulted for excluding people from his kingdom who refuse to accept his citizenship and his laws. He offers it to everyone, but some will refuse to cooperate, just as the first couple did.

The Evaluation

God is that ruler. Heaven is His kingdom. The plan allowing people to enter His kingdom that cost the death of His Son was the Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ. Baptism is the way to citizenship His teachings are His laws and His emissaries are His Church. The calamity is the end of the world.

Now when you consider that, the knowing refusal to accept God or His Plan or His Baptism or His Laws or His Church is not a thing of no importance . . . it is the rejection of God, the refusal to accept His reaching out to us to save us.

God will judge us with Love and Mercy and Justice. But the person who refuses to accept God's Love and Mercy will face what's left . . . His justice. God doesn't withdraw it. The sinner refuses it in this case. Since Heaven is the place of God's love and mercy, where can the person who refuses it go? God will not force it on the person.

The only place left is the place outside Heaven . . . the ruins. Hell. Hell isn't a final failing grade for people who aren't "nice enough." It's the choice of the person who knowingly refuses God.

That's why the Church can say God is Love and Mercy—and say Hell exists, and not contradict herself.

Reflections on the Solemnity of Mary, Mother of God

The Catholic Church celebrates the Solemnity of Mary, Mother of God on January 1st, which I think is utterly fitting. Secularly, the New Year is generally a time for hope that the new year will bring good things. Of course, for some who have lost hope, the new year can be a time of dread... how much worse will things get?

In terms of Our Lady, we see that God has prepared to have His Son enter humanity taking on human flesh through the pregnancy of a young virgin.  This showed the plan of God for our salvation, His being willing to do something so humble for us for our benefit.

So, when we consider 2014 and all the concerns we have, let's remember that this Solemnity shows God cares for all of us. He is not neglecting us, He is not neglecting His Church.

Whatever may happen to us in 2014, whatever our fears, let us remember God continues His plan of salvation... for each of us individually and for all of us as a whole. Remembering this, let us go forth trusting Him and cooperating with Him.

Reflections on the Solemnity of Mary, Mother of God

The Catholic Church celebrates the Solemnity of Mary, Mother of God on January 1st, which I think is utterly fitting. Secularly, the New Year is generally a time for hope that the new year will bring good things. Of course, for some who have lost hope, the new year can be a time of dread... how much worse will things get?

In terms of Our Lady, we see that God has prepared to have His Son enter humanity taking on human flesh through the pregnancy of a young virgin.  This showed the plan of God for our salvation, His being willing to do something so humble for us for our benefit.

So, when we consider 2014 and all the concerns we have, let's remember that this Solemnity shows God cares for all of us. He is not neglecting us, He is not neglecting His Church.

Whatever may happen to us in 2014, whatever our fears, let us remember God continues His plan of salvation... for each of us individually and for all of us as a whole. Remembering this, let us go forth trusting Him and cooperating with Him.

TFTD: God Cares About the Church He Established

I think in dealing with Catholic concerns about the direction the Church is going in, we have to remind them that God has a role to play, and it is not only in the hands of human members.

I think the trilemma is an important thing to keep in mind here. Let us demonstrate it by creating two sets of categories.

1) Either God exists or He does not.
2) God either cares about His Church or He does not.

This leaves us with the following:

1) God does not exist (if He does not exist, whether or not He cares about His Creation is irrelevant).
2) God exists and cares about His Church.
3) God exists and does not care about His Church.

Now, with options 1 and 3, the direction the Church is going in doesn't matter. If God doesn't exist, there is no direction for the Church to go in. If God exists, but does not care about what happens to his Church, then it is pretty irrelevant what direction the Church goes in... since He does not care.

However, if God exists and does care about His Church, it stands to reason He will look after it and protect her. That means He won't permit the Church to teach error in matters involving salvation.  He will not let the gates of Hell prevail against the Church.

So why all the fear? Unless a Catholic denies God exists or believes God does not care for His Church, he or she should have faith that the Pope isn't going to formally teach error or change Church teachings.

That isn't some sort of "papalotry" claiming the Pope can do no wrong. That's faith in God that He will be keep His promises out of love.

TFTD: God Cares About the Church He Established

I think in dealing with Catholic concerns about the direction the Church is going in, we have to remind them that God has a role to play, and it is not only in the hands of human members.

I think the trilemma is an important thing to keep in mind here. Let us demonstrate it by creating two sets of categories.

1) Either God exists or He does not.
2) God either cares about His Church or He does not.

This leaves us with the following:

1) God does not exist (if He does not exist, whether or not He cares about His Creation is irrelevant).
2) God exists and cares about His Church.
3) God exists and does not care about His Church.

Now, with options 1 and 3, the direction the Church is going in doesn't matter. If God doesn't exist, there is no direction for the Church to go in. If God exists, but does not care about what happens to his Church, then it is pretty irrelevant what direction the Church goes in... since He does not care.

However, if God exists and does care about His Church, it stands to reason He will look after it and protect her. That means He won't permit the Church to teach error in matters involving salvation.  He will not let the gates of Hell prevail against the Church.

So why all the fear? Unless a Catholic denies God exists or believes God does not care for His Church, he or she should have faith that the Pope isn't going to formally teach error or change Church teachings.

That isn't some sort of "papalotry" claiming the Pope can do no wrong. That's faith in God that He will be keep His promises out of love.

TFTD: Meaningless…

If a person believes in God in a meaningful way, it is reasonable to expect that this person will seek to follow the teachings of God to the best of his or her understanding and ability.

If a person believes in Christ in a meaningful way, it is reasonable to expect that this person will seek to follow the teachings of Christ to the best of his or her understanding and ability.

If a person claims to be a Catholic, in a meaningful sense, it is reasonable to expect this person to recognize that the Catholic Church was established by Christ and teaches with Christ's authority, protected from teaching error on issues necessary for salvation.

Thus…

If one rejects the teaching and authority of God the Father, Jesus Christ and the Church Christ founded, such a person cannot claim to be a faithful Catholic in any meaningful sense of the term.

Once we realize this, when we look at the claims of those Catholics who deny the commands of God and Jesus Christ and/or the teachings of the Catholic Church are binding, what they claim to profess… is pretty meaningless.

TFTD: Meaningless…

If a person believes in God in a meaningful way, it is reasonable to expect that this person will seek to follow the teachings of God to the best of his or her understanding and ability.

If a person believes in Christ in a meaningful way, it is reasonable to expect that this person will seek to follow the teachings of Christ to the best of his or her understanding and ability.

If a person claims to be a Catholic, in a meaningful sense, it is reasonable to expect this person to recognize that the Catholic Church was established by Christ and teaches with Christ's authority, protected from teaching error on issues necessary for salvation.

Thus…

If one rejects the teaching and authority of God the Father, Jesus Christ and the Church Christ founded, such a person cannot claim to be a faithful Catholic in any meaningful sense of the term.

Once we realize this, when we look at the claims of those Catholics who deny the commands of God and Jesus Christ and/or the teachings of the Catholic Church are binding, what they claim to profess… is pretty meaningless.

Understanding the Nature of the Church

With the current attacks on the Catholic Church in the United States of America, we see that a large portion of Americans and even some American Catholics seem to believe the propaganda used by her opponents – the canards of "celibate old men" who are trying to "control" people and "impose their views on others."  It is believed that if the Church were not governed by this group, it would have different teachings on sexuality.

Such a view demonstrates a lack of understanding, thinking it is about factions and not understanding why the Church acts as she does.

The first thing to realize is Christianity is not some sort of philosophy with competing schools of thought.  It is not a human system of gaining some sort of enlightenment.  Christianity is a revealed religion given to the world by Christ which is focused on the salvation of humanity – the reconciliation of God with man.  Christianity acknowledges that each person is estranged from God, but God redeems us because He loves us.

Reconciliation between God and man indicates a separation between God and man exists however.  Reconciliation also indicates a response on our part – a desire to change our lives, rejecting behaviors and attitudes which are contrary to a loving relationship with God.  The behaviors and attitudes may differ.  The person uneducated in religion may be bound up in sex and drugs, while the person who is more advanced in faith might struggle with pride and disdain.  In any case, no person can honestly claim to be without need for God's grace and no person honestly can claim to be without sin.

Second, the Church is not a "School of thought" that forms around a certain interpretation of Christ the Philosopher.  The Church is the means Christ chose to bring His salvation to the world.  From the Twelve Apostles to the present day, the Church preaches the message of salvation to the world.  She reminds the world that every person is in sin and needs to repent to enter the right relation to God.  The Magisterium of the Church is not supposed to be a career (though some have treated it this way).  One doesn't enter the priesthood with the goal of getting a "promotion" to Bishop or Cardinal.  The intended role of the clergy is to serve Christ looking after His flock.  The priest or bishop who looks it as a career looks at it wrongly.

The teaching authority of the Church ensures the teaching of Christ passed on to the Apostles remains uncorrupted.  She evaluates, accepting the compatible formulations and rejecting those which contradict this teaching.  This includes what we believe about God, doctrinally, and the moral teachings we are called to follow.

Because certain behaviors are incompatible with the relationship of God and man, the Church must speak out – both to the whole world and to the members of the faithful.  To the former to inform them there is a God who loves them and to call them to holiness.  To the latter to remind them that Christianity is not a "check the box and move on."  It is a lifelong relationship with God, constantly growing more intimate.  The Church must speak out even when such vices are morally acceptable to the world.

Third, those who would claim to be Catholic must, obviously, accept what the Church teaches.  Can you imagine the NAACP accepting as a valid point of view that blacks are naturally inferior to whites?  Can you imagine B'nai B'rith accepting the views of a member that the Nazis were right?  Of course not!  Such views are grossly incompatible with the purpose of these groups.  Nobody would accuse the NAACP of bigotry for refusing to accept as a member someone who was openly racist.  Nobody would accuse B'nai B'rith of intolerance for refusing to accept a Nazi skinhead into their ranks.

Moreover, why should someone who openly rejects the beliefs of such a group want to be a member to begin with?

But this is the problem with the so-called "cultural Catholic" who dissents from Church and wants to change her teachings.  They effectively deny what the Church believes about herself.  Given the scope of what she claims (that she is the true Church established by Christ and teaches with Christ's authority, not her own), the dissenter has a dilemma.

1. If what she teaches is false, no sane person should even want to remain in a Church that makes such a wild claim.
2. If what she teaches is true, the dissenter is not rebelling against man, but against God.

Either way, the attempt to get the Church to "change her views" is absurd.  If her teachings are false, she is a sect of people who dress funny one day a week.  People are free to leave such an institution.  If one thinks the Church is not Christ's, they are fools to remain in her and have no cause for complaint because the Church teaches differently than they like.

BUT, if she is what she claims to be, she cannot change what she teaches to be held definitively because to do so would be unfaithful to the God she believes in.  She then must stand firm against all the hostility of the world, when compromise would be humanly easier.  People are still free to leave her, but to do so would be to trade truth for a lie.

In the first case, the attempt to change Church teaching is a waste of time.  In the second case, it is rebellion.

I believe it is clear that the Church is not on some power trip.  Because she believes she serves Christ, she must preach Christ in season and out of season.  She must preach to the ones who are in her and those who are outside her, even at the cost of being hated.

We can then see that the bishops are not being political in opposing the HHS mandate being imposed on the Church.  They believe that the government is promoting a lifestyle which is in opposition to reconciliation with God, and they must warn them that they risk losing everything if they continue on the path.

Understanding the Nature of the Church

With the current attacks on the Catholic Church in the United States of America, we see that a large portion of Americans and even some American Catholics seem to believe the propaganda used by her opponents – the canards of "celibate old men" who are trying to "control" people and "impose their views on others."  It is believed that if the Church were not governed by this group, it would have different teachings on sexuality.

Such a view demonstrates a lack of understanding, thinking it is about factions and not understanding why the Church acts as she does.

The first thing to realize is Christianity is not some sort of philosophy with competing schools of thought.  It is not a human system of gaining some sort of enlightenment.  Christianity is a revealed religion given to the world by Christ which is focused on the salvation of humanity – the reconciliation of God with man.  Christianity acknowledges that each person is estranged from God, but God redeems us because He loves us.

Reconciliation between God and man indicates a separation between God and man exists however.  Reconciliation also indicates a response on our part – a desire to change our lives, rejecting behaviors and attitudes which are contrary to a loving relationship with God.  The behaviors and attitudes may differ.  The person uneducated in religion may be bound up in sex and drugs, while the person who is more advanced in faith might struggle with pride and disdain.  In any case, no person can honestly claim to be without need for God's grace and no person honestly can claim to be without sin.

Second, the Church is not a "School of thought" that forms around a certain interpretation of Christ the Philosopher.  The Church is the means Christ chose to bring His salvation to the world.  From the Twelve Apostles to the present day, the Church preaches the message of salvation to the world.  She reminds the world that every person is in sin and needs to repent to enter the right relation to God.  The Magisterium of the Church is not supposed to be a career (though some have treated it this way).  One doesn't enter the priesthood with the goal of getting a "promotion" to Bishop or Cardinal.  The intended role of the clergy is to serve Christ looking after His flock.  The priest or bishop who looks it as a career looks at it wrongly.

The teaching authority of the Church ensures the teaching of Christ passed on to the Apostles remains uncorrupted.  She evaluates, accepting the compatible formulations and rejecting those which contradict this teaching.  This includes what we believe about God, doctrinally, and the moral teachings we are called to follow.

Because certain behaviors are incompatible with the relationship of God and man, the Church must speak out – both to the whole world and to the members of the faithful.  To the former to inform them there is a God who loves them and to call them to holiness.  To the latter to remind them that Christianity is not a "check the box and move on."  It is a lifelong relationship with God, constantly growing more intimate.  The Church must speak out even when such vices are morally acceptable to the world.

Third, those who would claim to be Catholic must, obviously, accept what the Church teaches.  Can you imagine the NAACP accepting as a valid point of view that blacks are naturally inferior to whites?  Can you imagine B'nai B'rith accepting the views of a member that the Nazis were right?  Of course not!  Such views are grossly incompatible with the purpose of these groups.  Nobody would accuse the NAACP of bigotry for refusing to accept as a member someone who was openly racist.  Nobody would accuse B'nai B'rith of intolerance for refusing to accept a Nazi skinhead into their ranks.

Moreover, why should someone who openly rejects the beliefs of such a group want to be a member to begin with?

But this is the problem with the so-called "cultural Catholic" who dissents from Church and wants to change her teachings.  They effectively deny what the Church believes about herself.  Given the scope of what she claims (that she is the true Church established by Christ and teaches with Christ's authority, not her own), the dissenter has a dilemma.

1. If what she teaches is false, no sane person should even want to remain in a Church that makes such a wild claim.
2. If what she teaches is true, the dissenter is not rebelling against man, but against God.

Either way, the attempt to get the Church to "change her views" is absurd.  If her teachings are false, she is a sect of people who dress funny one day a week.  People are free to leave such an institution.  If one thinks the Church is not Christ's, they are fools to remain in her and have no cause for complaint because the Church teaches differently than they like.

BUT, if she is what she claims to be, she cannot change what she teaches to be held definitively because to do so would be unfaithful to the God she believes in.  She then must stand firm against all the hostility of the world, when compromise would be humanly easier.  People are still free to leave her, but to do so would be to trade truth for a lie.

In the first case, the attempt to change Church teaching is a waste of time.  In the second case, it is rebellion.

I believe it is clear that the Church is not on some power trip.  Because she believes she serves Christ, she must preach Christ in season and out of season.  She must preach to the ones who are in her and those who are outside her, even at the cost of being hated.

We can then see that the bishops are not being political in opposing the HHS mandate being imposed on the Church.  They believe that the government is promoting a lifestyle which is in opposition to reconciliation with God, and they must warn them that they risk losing everything if they continue on the path.

God, Invisible Pink Unicorns and Flying Spaghetti Monsters

I had a drive-by atheist come by the other day anonymously posting a comment on a post I wrote over a year ago.  There was nothing especially brilliant about what he said.  Essentially it boiled down to "Prove God exists," while making use of the Argument from Silence and the Shifting the Burden of Proof.

Such drive-by trolling indicates a certain type of thinking:

1. It presumes anything which exists has a physical existence.
2. If one can't prove a physical existence of a thing, it isn't true.

This is where we get the concepts of the "Invisible Pink Unicorn" and "The Flying Spaghetti Monster" invoked by some atheists as a mockery of the belief in God.  (It's essentially a rehashing of Bertrand Russell's Tea Cup).

There is a problem with such materialist beliefs.  Let's use the following exercise to demonstrate it:

1. Think of your hair color.
2. Are you aware of your hair color?
3. Are you aware of being aware of your hair color?
4. Prove that your thought in #3 exists.

This is the problem with materialistic atheism in a nutshell: In order to attack the belief in God, they have to make use of special pleading (exempting themselves from the standard they demand others follow).  Anything which is not material is denied to exist.  A counter example is used.  The response is to try to explain away the counter example as not mattering.

The end result of this is to recognize some important facts.  Science is entirely limited to the physical realm of things which are observable in some way.  That's good for what it can do.  However, it becomes useless in determining something beyond the scope of the physical realm.  If such a thing exists, the fact that science cannot detect it indicates a limitation of science, not a delusion in thinking it exists.

This doesn't mean "Science is useless."  Instead it means we use science for dealing with the material world and with material causes, and recognize that to try to use it in dealing with the supernatural is just as effective as using a microscope for astronomy.

Let's consider a historical example (For a more detailed view of this example, see my previous article here).  Prior to 1492 [Let's leave aside all the other claims of who "really" discovered America as a distraction], the belief of Columbus was one could sail West to get to China.  His critics claimed he underestimated the size of the Pacific Ocean and one couldn't carry enough food to reach China from Europe.

At this time, a European speculating that a land mass existed between Europe and Asia would not be able to prove it scientifically… but that doesn't change the fact that the Americas existed.  The hypothetical European who used materialistic views to demand proof that such a continent existed, could argue that there was no evidence and since there was no evidence, it was more reasonable to assume such a land mass did not exist.

The point is: Lack of physical knowledge of a thing does not mean there is no reason to believe it exists. 

I want to offer a caveat however.  I am not saying we are free to therefore believe anything.  Reason is still important, and we should not merely go and accept Tertullian's maxim of "I believe because it is absurd."  There are good reasons not to believe in the ancient Greek gods for example and those reasons do not deny the existence of one God.  Philosophical Knowledge, Logic and revelation from one who has knowledge are all valid forms of knowledge.

Philosophical knowledge and reasoning can tell us some things about a thing that does not have physical existence (such as Justice for example), and revelation can tell us of the existence of a thing we cannot verify: If Native Americans came to Europe in 1492, they would have been witnesses to the existence to something a member of Renaissance Europe could not verify on his own. 

So to conclude, it is unreasonable to demand physical proof as the only kind of proof until it can be proven that only things with a physical existence do exist.

God, Invisible Pink Unicorns and Flying Spaghetti Monsters

I had a drive-by atheist come by the other day anonymously posting a comment on a post I wrote over a year ago.  There was nothing especially brilliant about what he said.  Essentially it boiled down to "Prove God exists," while making use of the Argument from Silence and the Shifting the Burden of Proof.

Such drive-by trolling indicates a certain type of thinking:

1. It presumes anything which exists has a physical existence.
2. If one can't prove a physical existence of a thing, it isn't true.

This is where we get the concepts of the "Invisible Pink Unicorn" and "The Flying Spaghetti Monster" invoked by some atheists as a mockery of the belief in God.  (It's essentially a rehashing of Bertrand Russell's Tea Cup).

There is a problem with such materialist beliefs.  Let's use the following exercise to demonstrate it:

1. Think of your hair color.
2. Are you aware of your hair color?
3. Are you aware of being aware of your hair color?
4. Prove that your thought in #3 exists.

This is the problem with materialistic atheism in a nutshell: In order to attack the belief in God, they have to make use of special pleading (exempting themselves from the standard they demand others follow).  Anything which is not material is denied to exist.  A counter example is used.  The response is to try to explain away the counter example as not mattering.

The end result of this is to recognize some important facts.  Science is entirely limited to the physical realm of things which are observable in some way.  That's good for what it can do.  However, it becomes useless in determining something beyond the scope of the physical realm.  If such a thing exists, the fact that science cannot detect it indicates a limitation of science, not a delusion in thinking it exists.

This doesn't mean "Science is useless."  Instead it means we use science for dealing with the material world and with material causes, and recognize that to try to use it in dealing with the supernatural is just as effective as using a microscope for astronomy.

Let's consider a historical example (For a more detailed view of this example, see my previous article here).  Prior to 1492 [Let's leave aside all the other claims of who "really" discovered America as a distraction], the belief of Columbus was one could sail West to get to China.  His critics claimed he underestimated the size of the Pacific Ocean and one couldn't carry enough food to reach China from Europe.

At this time, a European speculating that a land mass existed between Europe and Asia would not be able to prove it scientifically… but that doesn't change the fact that the Americas existed.  The hypothetical European who used materialistic views to demand proof that such a continent existed, could argue that there was no evidence and since there was no evidence, it was more reasonable to assume such a land mass did not exist.

The point is: Lack of physical knowledge of a thing does not mean there is no reason to believe it exists. 

I want to offer a caveat however.  I am not saying we are free to therefore believe anything.  Reason is still important, and we should not merely go and accept Tertullian's maxim of "I believe because it is absurd."  There are good reasons not to believe in the ancient Greek gods for example and those reasons do not deny the existence of one God.  Philosophical Knowledge, Logic and revelation from one who has knowledge are all valid forms of knowledge.

Philosophical knowledge and reasoning can tell us some things about a thing that does not have physical existence (such as Justice for example), and revelation can tell us of the existence of a thing we cannot verify: If Native Americans came to Europe in 1492, they would have been witnesses to the existence to something a member of Renaissance Europe could not verify on his own. 

So to conclude, it is unreasonable to demand physical proof as the only kind of proof until it can be proven that only things with a physical existence do exist.

What is it to Thee? Follow thou Me

Jesus saith to him: So I will have him to remain till I come, what is it to thee? follow thou me. (John 21:22 Douay Rheims)

The recent outrage by Pelosi reminds me of an incident a few weeks ago, where a person in one of the faith groups I lead with expressed a concern over how certain Catholic politicians tend to go along taking positions grossly incompatible to the faith and how certain bishops who have the authority and obligation to carry out the discipline of their diocese seem to do nothing over the whole affair.  Now I can understand such a view, having encountered it often in the past.  I can certainly understand how demoralizing it can be to see the individual politician who scandalizes with his or her position and seems to suffer no consequences for it.

It can be uncomfortable to be asked (and not have an answer to) the question: "Why doesn't the Church do anything about it if it is so important?"  I have seen those who disagree with Church teaching seek to use this as evidence of justifying dissent and I have seen those who support Church teaching express fears that a lack of action indicates sympathy or support for the dissenting view.

Such a concept is one which needs to be carefully assessed.  It assumes several things which need to be demonstrated as true and not merely accepted as true.  Some of these are:

1. We have to avoid an either-or assumption of "Either the Church would act OR she doesn't care."  We have to acknowledge the possibility that the Church does care and does attempt to act but is acting in a manner which is not visible.
2. We have to consider the possibility of the wayward politician being instructed and refusing to heed correction.
3. We have to consider the possibility that what tactics we prefer may not be what the Bishop in question sees as the best way.  We need to remember that the Bishop is tasked to save the lost sheep.
4. We must remember that the bishop may not sympathize with the dissenter but may behave in a way which is ineffective, because all of us are in need of God's grace.

We must remember "God is not mocked" (Galatians 6:7) and all will be judged on what they should have done.  There will be no excuse for living in open defiance to Church teachings.  As it says in Luke 12:

^47 That servant who knew his master’s will but did not make preparations nor act in accord with his will shall be beaten severely;

^48 and the servant who was ignorant of his master’s will but acted in a way deserving of a severe beating shall be beaten only lightly. Much will be required of the person entrusted with much, and still more will be demanded of the person entrusted with more.

We who have knowledge of the Catholic teachings cannot say we are ignorant of our Master's will after all.

Now what I say next may be misunderstood so I want to make this clear.  I am not saying we should just ignore the actions of our fellow believers who go astray.  To admonish the sinner is one of the spiritual works of mercy.  When Jesus says “Stop judging, that you may not be judged," (Matt 7:1) it does not mean tolerating evil silently or letting everyone do as they please.  "Stop judging" means not assuming to know whether one will be saved or not.

So what I am saying is that we cannot point at a lack of perceived action as a sanction of dissent.  We know what the Church teaches.  Thus we know what we are called to do.  Because of this, Christ's words, so beautifully expressed in the Douay Rheims becomes an admonishment to us:  What is it to thee? Follow thou me.  (The NAB puts it: "What concern is it of yours? You follow me.")  Since we know what we are called to do, the bad behavior of others is not an excuse for us to do as we will.  Nor is the lack of visible reprimand from the Church an indication of permission or approval.

If we are troubled by the scandal of the fellow believer, we should remember what Christ has so sternly warned in Matthew 18:

^6 “Whoever causes one of these little ones ^who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.

^{7 }Woe to the world because of things that cause sin! Such things must come, but woe to the one through whom they come!

This is a grave indictment here.  Since we know that all of us are called to bring God's message of salvation to others, we are called to bring this message to the sinners of the world who are within the Church as well.

Since we should not desire the death of the sinner (God does not — see Ezekiel 18:23), we should feel obligated to pray for the repentance of the public sinner within the Church and pray for the bishop for who has the task of handling the case to do what is just.

Then we continue to follow Him, praying for the grace that we might not stumble on our own road.  We do not know what graces God provides to others and we do not know whether the scandalous ones will continue to reject these graces or whether they will repent.  We know our own task and we must be faithful in carrying it out, knowing the actions of others do not justify our own slack.

What is it to Thee? Follow thou Me

Jesus saith to him: So I will have him to remain till I come, what is it to thee? follow thou me. (John 21:22 Douay Rheims)

The recent outrage by Pelosi reminds me of an incident a few weeks ago, where a person in one of the faith groups I lead with expressed a concern over how certain Catholic politicians tend to go along taking positions grossly incompatible to the faith and how certain bishops who have the authority and obligation to carry out the discipline of their diocese seem to do nothing over the whole affair.  Now I can understand such a view, having encountered it often in the past.  I can certainly understand how demoralizing it can be to see the individual politician who scandalizes with his or her position and seems to suffer no consequences for it.

It can be uncomfortable to be asked (and not have an answer to) the question: "Why doesn't the Church do anything about it if it is so important?"  I have seen those who disagree with Church teaching seek to use this as evidence of justifying dissent and I have seen those who support Church teaching express fears that a lack of action indicates sympathy or support for the dissenting view.

Such a concept is one which needs to be carefully assessed.  It assumes several things which need to be demonstrated as true and not merely accepted as true.  Some of these are:

1. We have to avoid an either-or assumption of "Either the Church would act OR she doesn't care."  We have to acknowledge the possibility that the Church does care and does attempt to act but is acting in a manner which is not visible.
2. We have to consider the possibility of the wayward politician being instructed and refusing to heed correction.
3. We have to consider the possibility that what tactics we prefer may not be what the Bishop in question sees as the best way.  We need to remember that the Bishop is tasked to save the lost sheep.
4. We must remember that the bishop may not sympathize with the dissenter but may behave in a way which is ineffective, because all of us are in need of God's grace.

We must remember "God is not mocked" (Galatians 6:7) and all will be judged on what they should have done.  There will be no excuse for living in open defiance to Church teachings.  As it says in Luke 12:

^47 That servant who knew his master’s will but did not make preparations nor act in accord with his will shall be beaten severely;

^48 and the servant who was ignorant of his master’s will but acted in a way deserving of a severe beating shall be beaten only lightly. Much will be required of the person entrusted with much, and still more will be demanded of the person entrusted with more.

We who have knowledge of the Catholic teachings cannot say we are ignorant of our Master's will after all.

Now what I say next may be misunderstood so I want to make this clear.  I am not saying we should just ignore the actions of our fellow believers who go astray.  To admonish the sinner is one of the spiritual works of mercy.  When Jesus says “Stop judging, that you may not be judged," (Matt 7:1) it does not mean tolerating evil silently or letting everyone do as they please.  "Stop judging" means not assuming to know whether one will be saved or not.

So what I am saying is that we cannot point at a lack of perceived action as a sanction of dissent.  We know what the Church teaches.  Thus we know what we are called to do.  Because of this, Christ's words, so beautifully expressed in the Douay Rheims becomes an admonishment to us:  What is it to thee? Follow thou me.  (The NAB puts it: "What concern is it of yours? You follow me.")  Since we know what we are called to do, the bad behavior of others is not an excuse for us to do as we will.  Nor is the lack of visible reprimand from the Church an indication of permission or approval.

If we are troubled by the scandal of the fellow believer, we should remember what Christ has so sternly warned in Matthew 18:

^6 “Whoever causes one of these little ones ^who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.

^{7 }Woe to the world because of things that cause sin! Such things must come, but woe to the one through whom they come!

This is a grave indictment here.  Since we know that all of us are called to bring God's message of salvation to others, we are called to bring this message to the sinners of the world who are within the Church as well.

Since we should not desire the death of the sinner (God does not — see Ezekiel 18:23), we should feel obligated to pray for the repentance of the public sinner within the Church and pray for the bishop for who has the task of handling the case to do what is just.

Then we continue to follow Him, praying for the grace that we might not stumble on our own road.  We do not know what graces God provides to others and we do not know whether the scandalous ones will continue to reject these graces or whether they will repent.  We know our own task and we must be faithful in carrying it out, knowing the actions of others do not justify our own slack.

Reflections on Primacy and Infallibility (Article IIIb): What Catholics DO Believe

Preliminary Notes

I have not forgotten this series.  Rather it was a matter of prayer and study in seeking to present the Church teachings as best as I am able to express myself.  Hopefully this article will succeed in expressing what Catholics in fact do believe about Infallibility and not lead the reader to a false understanding on the subject which the Church does not intend.

The Series Thus Far:

• Article I
• Article IIa
• Article IIb
• Article IIc
• Interlude
• Article IId
• Article IIe
• Article IIIa

Introduction

So now we come down to the defining moment.  What the Church does in fact believe about infallibility.  From what the Church does believe and why, criticisms which are relevant can be made.  Those who criticize based on false assumptions, they do not validly challenge our belief.

This becomes especially relevant in light of certain individuals who have recently claimed that the Pope was changing the Church view of condoms on the basis of an interview published by a third party and not released by the Vatican itself.  I think enough has been said on that topic, but it remains an interesting example of how Papal Teaching can be misunderstood.

Primacy and Infallibility are Linked

The first thing we need to do is recognize how infallibility is linked to primacy.  Contrary to other denominations, Catholicism believes that Jesus intended a visible Church with a visible head which has the authority to make the final determination on what is and is not compatible with following Christ and that determination is binding.  Thus, while we may have individuals or groups who disagree with Catholic teaching as passed on by the Magisterium, we believe such individuals/groups have no authority to impose their own interpretations over the whole Church.

Thus, while I am free to read the Bible and to seek to apply the teachings of Scripture to my life, I am not free to declare my own interpretation of the Bible binding and free of error.  (later on in the series I will discuss the idea of Church authority vs. Sola Scriptura).

Because Catholics believe that Christ entrusted His mission to the Apostles, with Peter as the head of the Apostles, and because we believe that the Pope and the Bishops are the successors to Peter and the Apostles, we believe they continue to have the authority to bind and loose (Matt 16:19; 18:18).

Now, if what is bound on Earth will be bound in Heaven, we have three possible scenarios:

1. If the Church binds in error, error will be found in Heaven
2. If the Church binds in error, and error is not bound in Heaven, then Christ spoke falsely or imprecisely.
3. Because God will not bind error in Heaven, He will protect His Church from binding error on Earth.

While non-Catholics may reject the idea that this is the meaning at all, it does follow that, in the Catholic faith, it is not unreasonable for Catholics to believe that God can protect His Church from teaching error.

The Analogy of the Math Test

I think the best analogy I have read for infallibility was given by Karl Keating (Catholicism and Fundamentalism page 215), which I will paraphrase.  He offers this scenario.  Assume that the Pope was considered infallible in Math rather than in Faith and Morals.  Assume he was given a set of 100 problems to solve.  How many would he have to get right in order to be infallible.

The answer is not 100.  It is actually zero.  If the Pope turned in a blank sheet of paper, he would not have gotten any wrong.

Of course turning in a blank sheet of paper would not actually benefit anyone looking to the Pope for instruction, and the same would be true here.  There will be constant incidents as long as the Church is on Earth where the faithful will have ideas and questions.  Is this war just?  Is this behavior with my spouse moral?  Do I have a right to steal from a company which unjustly fires me?  Does the Bible support Arianism?

Merely Remaining Silent Is a Failure to Follow Christ's Mandate

The Church cannot simply hide away and say nothing when faced with the question of what must I do to be faithful to Christ?.  The great commission of Christ commands us…

^19 Go, therefore, ^and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, ^20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. ^And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.” (Matt 28:19-20)

… and requires the Church to face the challenges of the world pointing out what is right and what is wrong in relationship to our following Christ.  So if a man named Arius comes out with an idea, "There once was a time when the Son was not," and cites Scripture to justify his rule, does the Church stay silent?  Or does she admonish the sinner, making use of the authority given her by Christ to determine what is authentic and what is not?

Since I have pointed out that Infallibility is not some sort of prophecy, but rather a protection from error and since I have pointed out above that the Church cannot simply remain silent to avoid error because Christ commands us to make disciples of all nations, it follows that the Church must pray, study and reflect on the teachings of Christ through Scripture and Tradition, and look to how the saints have expressed the relationship of Christ and Man in the past to determine whether or not a proposed view is compatible with this teaching of Christ passed on to us by the Apostles.

What Infallibility Is

The Vatican I document Pastor Aeternus explains what it means to be infallible, though due to the language of the 19th century, it may be harder for the 21st century audience to understand.  So let us first look at the text and then seek to explain it:

Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God our savior, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the Christian people, with the approval of the Sacred Council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.

(See also Catechism of the Catholic Church #889-891 for further explanation)

From this description, we can see an infallible teaching has certain conditions:

1. The Pope is speaking as the supreme pastor and teacher of the Church, and not as a private individual
2. the Pope proclaims by a definitive act
3. a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals
4. which directed to the entire Church.

This actually excludes a lot which some have pointed to in order to reject infallibility.

What this definition excludes

When the Pope speaks as a private individual (as he did in Light of the World or Jesus of Nazareth), he is not using his Papal authority and such a work is not viewed as a document of the Church.  It may repeat doctrines which are held definitively by the Church, but the authority of those doctrines come through the Church teaching and not that private view.  These books may indeed offer brilliant insights to further our understanding of the faith, but the point of such a book is not to be an "official teaching."

This is why the media reports of "changing teaching" in Light of the World was false.  This sort of medium is not used to make a definition to be binding on the faithful.

Because it limits ex cathedra to a definitive act, we are made aware of what is binding.  For example of a definitive act, John Paul II wrote in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, the following:

Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church's divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful.

By his formal declaration, Pope John Paul II has made clear that the Church cannot ordain women and that this must be held by the faithful.  Any view which denies this teaching cannot be considered a Catholic belief.

By limiting it to faith and morals, other elements like disciplines and customs are not considered infallible.  Limiting the priesthood to unmarried men in the West, whether to permit the vernacular in the Mass, whether to permit or withhold the chalice to the laity or other practices… these are disciplines, not doctrines, and can be changed for the good of the Church at the time without disproving the infallibility of the Pope.  This is because such disciplines were never held to be infallible to begin with.

Finally, by directing it to the entire Church, it eliminates obligations which are merely directed to certain areas or groups.  If the Pope denounces a behavior in one region (say for example, performing a devotion which is being abused), it does not mean that such a behavior is denounced everywhere.

For example, in Medieval France, there was a heretical group known as the Cathari or Albigensians who had a rather warped view of God and Jesus Christ.  To prevent the errors of the Albigensians from spreading, the laity in that region were forbidden from reading Scripture on their own.  It does not follow from this that the Catholic Church "forbade the laity everywhere" from reading the Bible.  The limited time frame and limited region demonstrate that such an obligation was not infallible, and was never considered to be a universal ban (in all times and places) on reading the Bible .

Ordinary Authority of the Magisterium

Now there is an unfortunate view among certain Catholics that anything which is not explicitly bound by an infallible decree is merely an opinion.  This is false however.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church has this to say about the Ordinary magisterium:

892 Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a "definitive manner," they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful "are to adhere to it with religious assent"422 which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it.

So it isn't a case of "either infallible or opinion."  The ordinary teachings of the Magisterium in terms of faith and morals lead to a deeper understanding of Revelation.  The difference is that the Church does not intend a formal definition (which is usually used to define the difference between what view is inside the Church and what view is outside the Church), but rather a deepened understanding where a formal ex cathedra definition is seen as unnecessary.  Far from being "an opinion" such a teaching requires "religious assent" (must be firmly believed)

Lumen Gentium #25 tells us:

Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.

Donum veritatis #23 tells us:

When the Magisterium proposes "in a definitive way" truths concerning faith and morals, which, even if not divinely revealed, are nevertheless strictly and intimately connected with Revelation, these must be firmly accepted and held.(22)

When the Magisterium, not intending to act "definitively", teaches a doctrine to aid a better understanding of Revelation and make explicit its contents, or to recall how some teaching is in conformity with the truths of faith, or finally to guard against ideas that are incompatible with these truths, the response called for is that of the religious submission of will and intellect.(23) This kind of response cannot be simply exterior or disciplinary but must be understood within the logic of faith and under the impulse of obedience to the faith.

In other words, even when the intent is not to define something in an infallible manner, when the Church teaches in a way to show how an aspect of faith and morals is conformity with the truth or to show how an attitude is not compatible with the faith, this is not an opinion, but rather still within the prerogative of Peter to bind and loose in a way obligatory for the faithful.

Such a teaching may be further refined, but will never contradict what the Church teaches already has taught.

Conclusion: It All Leads Back to Primacy

It is crucial to keep in mind that this is not some sort of charism which makes the Pope a sinless prophet, but is our faith that God will not let the gates of Hell prevail over His Church by authoritatively teaching error when Christ has made obedience to the Church necessary (See Luke 10:16).  Catholics believe that God would not make a declaration that those who will not listen to the Church are to be treated as tax collectors (Matt 18:17) without protecting the Church from teaching what is wrong.

Now I recognize that certain non-Catholics who deny Papal primacy will point to certain teachings and say "What about [X]?  That contradicts the Bible!"  This is an issue of interpretation and the authority to interpret the Bible in a binding way.

I hope to address this issue of Church Authority and Sola Scriptura beginning in article IVa.