Apologetics Online II

Please forgive my absence from posting more regularly. Some bloggers keep up with a better regimen and react to news more quickly. I'm beginning to feel as if I'm more in St. John's camp. At the end of his second letter he states that he wishes to speak with his brothers face to face. I'm perhaps the same way.

As I work on other pieces during my break I thought it would be nice to share with you some of my other encounters online doing apologetics. These are a few selections from a number of various topics selected. I give them to you all for your scrutiny and hope we can discuss similar questions together. If you have any additional questions, please ask away.

Much obliged.

As with last time, the person who asks me a question/makes a comment will be in italics. My responses will be in plain text.

[1]

 When someone slags off the church (IE calling them paedophiles) what do you say to them?

Well, it's upsetting because it's ignorant--not ignorant in that there are no pedophiles in the clergy (sad and regrettable)--but sometimes these people only want to be listened to.

The ones who say it as a joke or as slander don't want to be told anything. The best response is patience, really,

Others simply have been hurt by it and need to be heard. Other than that there are plenty of statistics to show that the rate among clergy, especially Catholic clergy, is lower and less frequent than nearly any other populations (e.g., fathers, teachers, etc.).

[2] Note: the wide area a simple question opens up to. It shows, I think, how ready we have to be to approach these subjects specifically and then see the larger picture. In this instance infallibility opens up to questions about truth, veracity, certainty, (Medieval) history, philosophy, and Church procedures. It goes on and on.

(I've done some editing and down-sizing)

Do you believe the pope's word is infallible spiritually or otherwise and how con someone who allegedly have a direct link to an omniscient being be wrong about one thing and not another?

First and foremost Papal Infallibility is limited to the Pope speaking authoritatively on matters of faith and morals to the whole Church, not just one part. His comments on local affairs or specific concerns in a field, while they carry weight by virtue of his authority, are not considered infallible.

The "direct link" to Omniscience is not like a phone call to God. The Holy Spirit works in the Church and ultimately Christ, rather, the Trinity, leads the Church. The Pope is the living authority of the Church who by virtue of His stature, is said to be incapable of error or deceit when it comes to the contents of faith.

This has been misinterpreted for centuries, even after clarification in the 19th century, and has been taken to mean that whatever he says is free from error. The pope has only invoked infallibility according to our definition about 30 times in our whole history. Likewise, as Scripture states "the one who is wise seeks council." Very rarely, if ever, has the pope just come out and said "I infallibly say..." In fact he never has. He consults with his fellow bishops on matters of faith that concern the peoples from all over the world and when conflict arises they discuss this conflict's subject matter and how it relates to the whole of the faith. It's a very long process and never done flippantly.

Again isn't he supposed to be god's mouthpiece on Earth; why would he need to do all that if he can contact the "all mighty" himself?

Well we would first have to examine any assumptions one would make about it. First, I don't recall us calling him "God's mouthpiece." It's not an official or even theological title.

It assumes how God speaks to men or through men. It assumes how men listen for God. I wish I could give you a formula for how it happens but it's not subject to human control (or invocation). The Pope is elected as leader of the Church by his fellow brothers because they see in him a spirit of governance. He is not perfect, he's human. By virtue of his position he is given great responsibility but also a great number of graces--should he choose to accept him.

Describing how the Holy Spirit works through men is not an easy task, nor is it one many Christians wish to reflect on or think through.

I know it might be hard for you to process but has it ever occurred to you that it's most likely all made up?

Of course, but then again how much effort have you dedicated to seeing if it's true?

Most of my adolescence and all of my early adulthood. There is a logical tool that is used to determine the veracity of a claim called Occam's Razor. I'm sure you heard of it.It is a line of reasoning that says the simplest answer is often correct. [someone else, atheist it seems, steps in to say, "Not quite. Occam's Razor is more like "the answer that makes the least amount of assumptions is often correct".]

I've also found that that's the extent of people's knowledge of Ockham.

Let use it in an example then!

Which is the simpler claim: that someone can truly be infallible or that it's a lie?

Asking if he's claiming that it's more probable to tell the truth than a lie he response, "No it is much more likely that someone is telling a lie; especially when making an extraordinary a claim as "selective infallibility". If we are to believe any claim we require evidence and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." [I also ask if he's read Ockham]

Can you give me the probabilities on that? If you call what I described as "selective" you might as well call any truth claim "selective truth claiming."

As for evidence in general, who requires it and why? What makes a claim extraordinary? Likewise, are claims of logic, philosophy, or similar branches subject to the same criteria as the physical sciences, or are their various forms of demonstration according to their proper field?

I also like the notion of "extraordinary claims." Extraordinary has a very emotional ring to it, doesn't it?

You see, Ockham's Razor is very popular except people seem to have forgotten that he did believe in God--did he not follow his own rule? That, and his use of the "Razor" was more concerned with the discussion of universals than every time someone wanted to talk about God.

[Here it gets a bit more complicated:]

[1] Truth as most commonly defined as that which is in accordance with fact or reality.

What you are claiming is that the pope isn't just selectively telling the truth but as I was getting at that the pope is allegedly capable of selectively dictating without error the word of an alleged all powerful being that created the universe.

[2] A claim that is mundane or a commonly observed or experienced occurrence (like: I walked my dog) is an easily determinable as either true or false there should be no reason to doubt me and if you do I could present to you evidence that I have a dog. Simply by presenting my dog. That would be considered ordinary.

Extraordinary (despite your attempt to call me on an appeal to emotion) is something that is as the word describes extra-ordinary. Which is defined as going beyond what is usual, regular, or customary.

Infallibility would fall under the category of an extraordinary claim.

[3] Because just like Sir Isaac Newton, Ockham's scientific contribution is irrelevant to his religious beliefs. 

Ockham believed that  "only faith gives us access to theological truths. The ways of God are not open to reason, for God has freely chosen to create a world and establish a way of salvation within it apart from any necessary laws that human logic or rationality can uncover." His theism was based solely on private revelation and faith and that god was an ontological necessity. Which given the century he lived in there was literally no alternative theory of how things came to exist. Essentially Ockham granted god special pleading because when you apply the Razor to the claim of god it really does a number on it.

[I quote what I'm responding to:]

Truth as most commonly defined as that which is in accordance with fact or reality.

Philosophy is often quite good at challenging even these claims as being self-evident, but I won't argue semantics here.

But regardless of our views about the value of fact or the precise definition of reality you seem to be adding complications to it by your evaluations of a given pope's actions, i.e., I don't understand  "selectively dictating without error the word of [x]." It leads me to believe that you take his action to be some sort of prophecy or divination which it isn't. I can't really argue against things I don't believe or the Church doesn't teach/proclaim.

It doesn't quite answer my question about your comment about the probability of truth.

Extraordinary (despite your attempt to call me on an appeal to emotion) is something that is as the word describes extra-ordinary. Which is defined as going beyond what is usual, regular, or customary.Infallibility would fall under the category of an extraordinary claim.

Then again, given your dog example, you could claim that you've spoken infallibly about your dog. I only say it's "emotional" in that there usually is some wonder in confronting something extraordinary. The vastness of the universe, stellar motions, and the like can provoke wonder. Sub atomic structures, the formation of organisms from single cells, mitosis, etc. may also be extraordinary in a certain sense. Then again even the act of walking our dog or observing the harmony of an animal's motions can be very captivating. Even something as "ordinary" as ourselves--we are with ourselves most of the time after all--is subject to a great deal of contingency and wonder.

Perhaps this serves as a small example of how easily ordinary and extraordinary can sometimes be confusing, even emotional insofar as they cause us to wonder.

Infallibility is not so extraordinary when one is certain. People seem to infallibly claim things all the time such as:

-the universe is infinite
-the universe is only material (and thus finite)
-any evaluation of the Middle Ages seems to be very extraordinary and many non-historians/Christians/etc. claim many fantastic, infallible things off of weak/unfounded/biased/unhistorical evidence

I use that last example of the ordinary way everyday people speak infallibly about things much larger and more complicated than themselves.

Whenever the Pope speaks infallibly, however, it is not apart from a careful examination of the faith of the people, the content of tradition, and the content of revelation--claims rarely made (as I said) flippantly.

Perhaps you're introducing more extraordinary things into the process.

Because just like Sir Isaac Newton, Ockham's scientific contribution is irrelevant to his religious beliefs.

The thing is that Ockham's claim with the "Razor" was not scientific, but philosophical--a bit of a difference. Likewise Newton's physics (Paschal's too) were motivated by both genuine curiosity, genius, and their faith. It was their belief that creation was orderly, not chaotic, that inspired them to find that order in creation (that's how they would see it--how you see it for them is beside the point).

His theism was based solely on private revelation and faith and that god was an ontological necessity. Which given the century he lived in there was literally no alternative theory of how things came to exist. Essentially Ockham granted god special pleading because when you apply the Razor to the claim of god it really does a number on it.


Are you saying that as a scholar of this particular period of theology and philosophy or just an educated opinion?

Given that he was a member of the Catholic Church he believed in some capacity of revelation throughout history and also through the Church, not just privately. A private faith apart from the Body, the Church did not share clearly or accurately with revelation because a private faith alone is not a part of the Body.

As for alternative theories have you read Anselm, Aquinas, Bonaventure, Scotus, Nicholas of Cusa, or Ockham on their own terms to see if your purported truth claim is, well, true?


I thought the same when I started philosophy, that the Middle ages just said "God" was the answer without any real thought behind it. As it turned out I had to be humbled by my peers and by actual reading to find that, all along, I (me personally) had been the arrogant one and I was wrong. There's a richness and variety that we deny these men by assuming what their arguments are all about.

 [This is the conversation thus far....]

***

Reflection:

Apologetics is a task where one has to get to the heart of what one is asking. In matters of making a defense the first claim is the gateway into a number of further disagreements. If we can be civil and honest about such disagreements we can go a long way. Likewise, we have to carefully see how the other uses his vocabulary--eek out certain assumptions and premises. Very often philosophy is misunderstood, let alone medieval philosophy.

Humility always plays a role in evangelization; we don't know everything. Some people want to argue with us and compete while others simply are interested in how we process the many things that happen. I'm learning to approach both these moments with gratitude. God speaks through our enemies and detractors just as He does our loved ones.

Thanks for reading!

M

Apologetics Online (Discussion)

Doing my best "Paul in the Greek Forum" routine, I went to a forum of a website I do apologetic work at and simply told people that if they'd like to inquire about my Catholic faith to ask away.

I'd like to share with you a few exchanges. Feel free to correct me if I've made a mistake, add your own thoughts, or  share any similar experiences.

Note: My responses are in normal text, their questions will be in italics.

====

I have several questions for you, as a Protestant Christian.

1. Why do you pray to the saints as opposed to praying directly to God? What makes the saints "special?"

Prayer to the saints is expressed in the form of seeking their intercession, such as "St. Maximilian, help me overcome my addiction to alcohol." While the syntax makes it seems like Benedict is doing the work, the meaning of the common phrase is "St. Maximilian Kolbe, patron of sufferers/addicts, pray to our Lord Jesus on my behalf that, through his grace, I may overcome this addiction and stay dedicated to the means necessary to fight it."

We faithful, even in life, look to examples of holy men and women not just to emulate them but to ask them to help us know God and grow closer to Him. Prayer to Jesus Christ, the High Priest, is always good. The problem is that we in our sinful state can't even see the depth and depravity of our sin and, as such, we fail to ask for what we really need. We rightly seek the help of others in our life. For example: we seek a doctor to diagnose our symptoms (e.g., fever, soreness in certain areas) are he finds that we have an infection, so he prescribes the proper medicine. A holy man or woman, learned in Scriptures and the soul, is able to find the root of our sin and ask Christ to send the appropriate cure.

Some may say, "But Christ knows what we need." He does know, but He also wants us to know and understand. How did he help His people know and understand His word that he preached? Through the prophets who proclaimed His word. Through judges, kings, and scribes who parsed out and educated others about the Law. Through the Apostles charged with preaching the Gospel. God, Jesus, used men as His messengers. The Apostles also would inform Jesus of the plight of His followers. Of course Jesus knew, but He encouraged and sought that His disciples had an awareness of this.

The saints in heaven were Jesus' faithful servants on earth. They, having received the fullness of His promise (life forever with Him) carry out His work with Him. The saints, in a sense, assist us as being both personal friend and spiritual icon by which we can more clearly see Christ and the conduit through which we can receive His grace more effectively. Scripture tells again and again the powers holy ones can achieve through their prayer. We sinners, though our prayers are true, may not be powerful. When we pray we seek, in some fashion, the power of God--this can come through consolation, correction, and many other ways. We are asking the saints, as followers asked John the Baptist, "who is the one who will save us?" We saw that John preached alongside Jesus for a short while, and he preformed powerful deeds. But all in service of pointing us to Christ, especially when we don't know how to do it ourselves.

Saints have been given a special power in the Spirit to guide others to Christ.

2. Is it true that you have to be baptized as an integral part of your salvation?

This is tough on a number of levels. If you believe in Christ, yes. Baptism in the foundation of eternal life, the waters by which we die to death and are born to eternal life. It's forming a covenant, one that cannot be undone but, like a covenant, can be broken.

3. Why are there extra books in the Catholic Bible as opposed to Protestant Bibles? (Like Maccabees.)

Many ways to go about this. One reason is to observe why those books were taken out of the Christian canon in the 15th and 16th centuries.

Many Protestants point to the Jewish Council (of Jerusalem? I think) where the Jews banned books like Maccabeus and Sirach because they were written in Greek.

Some other sources claim that those written after the cutoff, which is Ezra and Nehemiah (post-exilic), were too new to be accepted. The basis for this wasn't founded on any understanding of revelation and was, some argue, done simply for the purity of the language. Luther argued the same way for Sirach and Maccabeus, but we've found Hebrew manuscripts of Sirach and Maccabeus I. Is the late authorship a problem? Then then New testament poses a problem since it is a continuation of revelation in between which Sirach, Maccabeus, and the others were written.

Some claim, "Shouldn't the Jews decide what their canon is?" Yes, but we should also be scrupulous about how the canon came to be--which requires a lot of research.

There were actually numerous canons proposed by Jerusalem, Alexandria, and diaspora communities. The same goes for the New Testament.

The NT actually stopped the period Scripture could be added at about 115AD (I think), since John the Apostle died in 105/8 AD. Revelation ended with the Apostles, those directly taught by Christ, who is the Revealer and ultimate Revelation in one. Many of the "new Gospels" like Thomas, Peter, Judas were written after the death of the Apostles, often in the 140-180AD period, where the name of the Apostles were being invoked in order to grant legitimacy to their Scripture. This was debunked by a combination of cross-referencing Scripture with many Gnostic-infused claims in those new Gospels and an appeal (first) to the Tradition of the communities founded by the Apostles that didn't preach what these Gospels said. Historical they may be, but they were deemed to be not Inspired.

Maccabeus and Sirach, on the other hand, came from the community of the faithful and were recognized as such by many of the faithful. They were in line with what many believed. It should be noted that the Sadduces, I believe, established that canon that excluded those OT books. They also denied the resurrection, angels, and demons, all of which Christ affirmed.

Christ is also shown when he quotes various OT passages to prefer the Greek (Septuagint) and Scriptures of the Qumran tradition, their canon is what Christians adopted, which did in fact have the books that remain canonical in the Catholic Bible.

4. Why do we need the Pope as a head of authority?

The Pope is the Bishop of Rome, the diocese of the great Apostles and Martyrs Peter and Paul and a host of martyrs. The Pope's role is not one of "master" but of pastor, just as Jesus established the Apostles as shepherds alongside him. This is how the Apostles formed communities. They had the authority to teach and preach. All are charged to preach the good news, but is whatever they teach right and in accord with the whole of the faithful.

The pope is not there to be a dictator, but to govern the people, seek council from other pastors, and to speak with the spirit of authority handed down through Peter when matters of faith and morals are in a difficult dispute. He seeks council in these times but in the end there must be a voice that speaks, like Peter at Jerusalem, of a final say.

5. What is the point of purgatory and how does it fit into the scheme of eternity?

Purgatory, as its name implies, is a place of purgation and purification. Souls who are faithful to Christ in their life, yet remained mired by (venial) sins need to be cleansed of their sins. This "state of being" is a period by which a soul readies his heart to receive Christ. Since they could not do it through the blood of martyrdom or through an exemplary life of charity purgatory allows those souls who are all the same faithful to do a sort of penance to prepare themselves for heaven.

One more, from a different person.

How do you (personally) experience/sense God? I know the answer to that will be in multiple ways, but maybe the most striking one, or the most common one.

I personally experience God in prayer, doing penance before the Father, seeking the intercession of the Son, seeking inspiration by the Spirit. I experience Him physically in the reception of the Eucharist, praying as I process that God have mercy on me, a sinner, praying that "though the reception of your Body and Blood, fill up in me what is lacking in my own flesh and spirit."

I try to listen for God in whispers, not in loud clashes. In the quiet moments among friends, in the peace of walking outside, in bed while I was suffering when sick with nothing around me but darkness. I experience God after I sin because I know its our relationship I harmed and I experience Him in the joy and consolation people find in their children, spouses, and friends.

I experienced Him, although my experiences are limited, in the death of my grandparents--that He is loving and merciful and that a life lived according to His word is worthwhile and beautiful. Living with Him gives dignity even to the scandal of death.

I've experienced Him powerfully and personally only twice--and I mean in those earth-shattering ways. Other times I've found Him reaching for me when I've fallen low and I remind myself constantly to thank Him while things are well.

He answers my prayers. He gives and He takes away.

====

So, what are your thoughts? My answer on baptism was brief. It's one thing to parse out quotes and citations when organizing a text, but it's another thing trying to communicate one-on-one or in public. Do you find these answers to be effective, wrong, or a little of both?

I'd enjoy discussing it with you.

M

The Problem with the New Evangelization

God bless the effort of the New Evangelization. It encapsulates, I think, what many of us faithful Catholics have desired to see (more) publicly for years. Even in my youth I always wondered how so many faithful Catholics relied on their opinion as opposed to integrating the words of the Church, words I found as very beautiful. This is, of course, a reflection in my adult years on my youth. Here's what it may look like:

"Mom, we learned at school today ..."
She replies, "That's great, honey!"
"What do you think?"
"That's good, I just think a little bit differently."
"Why?"
She then proceeds to explain that her experience or ideas tell her that things are different.

It teaches kids that personal experience trumps teaching--an ironic parenting technique. Kids grow up and learn many good things but then there's the real world. Sex is a reality, contraception is a safe reality, etc., etc. They grow up, they use what they've been taught that's useful and the rest is their best judgment.

"And the beat goes on...."

There's always room for experience in life. Experience teaches us and forms us. Experience, however, and our experiences, are not principles of action. Experience tests the limits of principle. They help us gather data in order to form principles or see patterns at work.

If one says, "In my experience no one ever listens to you if you use the Bible" is an experience stated as if it were a principle. One who says, however, "With Protestants I've found Scripture is effective but with atheists and agnostics reasoning and philosophy are more profitable." This is experience that indicates a certain prudence. Prudence is a virtue and a sort of principle (Always act prudently) and experience helps us see what that looks like.

I. Witness

This digression aside, I am happy Catholics are coming out in droves to defend the Church, to be public with their faith, to yearn for clarity and understanding, to confront evil in society, to desire God through prayer, to (gasp!) read Scripture, and to dedicate their intellects for the search of a truth greater than all of us as opposed to opinions which are less than themselves. This is a good thing. Lord, give success to the work of our hands!

My concern, however, is that we progress like soldiers to a battlefield as opposed to progressing like lemmings toward a cliff.

What do I mean? The word for witness is "martyr." Being a witness to the faith is being a visible sign of Christ's saving love to the world. Witness is public, it's living in such a manner that what you believe is evident from your life. In many cases this is a powerful tool for conversion: one learns in the most concrete way, that is by example, that the faith is livable and it can make you happy (regardless of your state in life). This is evangelization in its simplest form, right? I'm not inclined to think so.

In my view witness attracts and evangelization holds onto. No amount of well-crafted, balanced words will make someone Christian. Only God can produce that sort of effect in our lives and only He can penetrate our stony and prideful hearts. Witnessing to the faith reveals God to the world. It shows those who look on, those who are doubtful, that God is active in the world and personally in our lives. Recall from the Gospel of Mark that Jesus is declared the Son of God by a man only when He dies on the cross.

"Jesus gave a loud cry and breathed his last. The veil of the sanctuary was torn in two from top to bottom. When the centurion who stood facing him saw how he breathed his last he said, “Truly this man was the Son of God!" (Mk 15:37-39)

Truly Jesus Christ was the perfect witness, the perfect martyr. The cross symbolizes many things: sacrifice, love, and rejection. It symbolizes much more. The cross stands as a strange image. It draws people to it, whether by disgust or hatred for it, for sorrow of it, or admiration of it. That's the life we're called to lead: a life that is a witness to the cross. "But may I never boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world" (Gal 6:14).

II. Evangelization 

Evangelization, however is different. Perhaps an image will illustrate what words cannot. Christian life is a fire. Witness is the light of that fire but evangelization is the warmth. We are drawn to a fire by its light yet we are compelled to stay by its warmth.

Evangelization contains with in it catechesis, apologetics, preaching, among other things. Various people have certain gifts given to them by the Spirit: some are able to teach and defend the faith while others are able to effectively convey the Gospel message. The USCCB has defined for us the goal of the New Evangelization:

In a special way, the New Evangelization is focused on 're-proposing' the Gospel to those who have experienced a crisis of faith. ... Pope Benedict XVI called for the re-proposing of the Gospel "to those regions awaiting the first evangelization and to those regions where the roots of Christianity are deep but who have experienced a serious crisis of faith due to secularization."

So many of us label our work, our millions of blog posts, and our efforts as "evangelization." This is simply not the case. There is always room for us to relay an experience of strength-in-crisis given to us graciously by Christ. There is room for us to lament insufficient theology, culture, or some offense, but it is not evangelization.

If we are to truly evangelize this culture we cannot simply propose a perspective or practice apologetics (i.e., defend the faith from attacks). We must proclaim the Gospel, that is proclaim the positive claims and truths of revelation, Scripture, and Tradition. If you want to evangelize you must study these things (studying history, science, philosophy, popular culture, etc. doesn't hurt either).


We would all do well to remember that "the wisdom of what a person says is in direct proportion to his progress in learning the holy scriptures--and I am not speaking of intensive reading or memorization, but real understanding and investigation of their meaning" (Augustine, On Christian Teaching, IV.para 7).

Likewise, "Eloquent speakers give pleasure, wise ones salvation" (Idem.)

Nothing will inflame our hearts quite like the Word. 
Not just in reading and memorizing, but penetrating, praying, and understanding.

Evangelization requires prayer, study, and reflection. It also demands a certain training in rhetorical arts, such as clarity of conveyance, force of images, and knowledge of what will speak to the listener.

So many of us, myself included, feel that we further the cause of evangelization by saying nice words about our experiences of grace and prayer. But this only serves as a light in the darkness. Without a serious commitment to Scripture we give a light without warmth.

The New Evangelization is, as many have pointed out, not new in its message. Rather, the "newness" of it all is perhaps best described as a new 'zeal' for the labor so badly needed.

So those who are attempting to try something new my recommendation would be: look to Scripture, look to prayer, and that beauty which is ever ancient, ever new. Thereafter look to Tradition, the Fathers, and the Church. In all this, being an active member of the Church is all the more important: support your local church, your priest, and make yourself a public witness there for our charge is to not only draw new souls to Christ but strengthen those whose spirit fails within them.

Continue to shine the light of Christ to the world by your witness and do not cover it with anything. But in order that they might say, Were not our hearts burning within us while he spoke to us? (cf. Lk 24:32) it is necessary that we begin with Moses and all the prophets, interpreting them what refers to Him in all the Scriptures (24:27).

We can do this in many ways. How you decide to do so is your task. Do not draw anyone to the light but leave them cold.

Our love will keep others close but those who struggle are not looking for us and we are not anyone's fulfillment. Rather we are like John the Baptist, a voice crying out in a world that denies truth and embraces the self.

  

Rather, the Law of the Lord is their joy (Ps 1:2a) and O God, you are my God--for you I long! For you my body yearns; for you my soul thirsts, like a parched land, lifeless, and without water (Ps 63:2). Give them this. Do not show them that it exists, but say to them as John did, "Behold the Lamb of God" and do it in such a way that those who listen hear what you say and follow Jesus (Jn 1:36-37). Only then will our joy be complete (3:29-30).

The Mediation of the Saints 3: Walking Together

 (See the first two!
Part 1: Introduction:
Part 2: God Works Through Us)

III. Walking Together, the Chosen Few

Last time we examined briefly how God uses and works with our desires. He works with our friends and enemies alike to effect His great wisdom. Now this can be hard to understand and it can make it seem like we play no part. Some feel that this makes God controlling or domineering while others feel they have no control or say. Below I will look at how the prophets worked with God, voluntarily, to bring about His will. That through their own acceptance of His will (though it was God's initiative and grace, always) they shared in it.

God sent his prophets to the people of Israel. God preferred them over others to spread His message by asking “Whom shall I send?” (Is 6:8). To Jeremiah He said “I place my words in your mouth” (Jer 1:9). To Ezekiel he said “Son of man, I am sending you … eat this scroll … and speak my words to them” (Ez 2:3, 3:1,4). It did not matter what rank or station. God formed a special relationship with a priest, one already a prophet, and a herdsman. “The Lord took me from following the flock, and said to me, 'Go and prophecy to my people Israel'” (Amos 7:15).

It should be noted that every prophet counted himself unworthy for the task God put before him. God, however, strengthened them by His Spirit. The inspiration he gave them was not a matter of replacing them with His own Body. It was not replacement but literally inspiration, a “breathing into.” The prophets did not lose their soul, mind, speech, or person. They were men who were deeply entrenched in the world they lived in and all of its evils. They were not transported to an ethereal realm but God met them where they were.

More powerfully still it is written: “Do two walk together unless they have agreed? … Indeed, the Lord God does nothing without revealing his plan to his servants the prophets” (Amos 3:3, 7). It pleased God to not merely use the prophets as a tool, nor does he use those faithful to him as a tool. Rather God asks us to walk with Him. He asks that we seek his voice, hear it, and respond. Each of the prophets believed, heard His voice, and were deeply moved by the presence of God. Then God asked them if they would go to his people and speak to them. God speaks through his prophets, but the prophets do not merely speak for God. They speak through God, rather God and the prophet speak together. The prophets stand in His presence (e.g., “Thus the Lord answered me [personally]: if you repent, that I restore you, in my presence you shall stand … you shall be my mouthpiece. Then it shall be they [Israel] that turns to you” (Jer 16:19)).

A prophet listens to the plight of God who looks upon the children that he loves. He sees them turning their backs to Him and instead preferring to sacrifice children to wood and stone. The prophet feels what God feels and cannot help but speak out. The prophet is so attuned to God's will that he acts clearly and directly. But not all men, even the holiest among them, experienced this. Only a select few were called. Some considered weak, faithless, and sinful. Some struggled and failed even after they were called. But God does not necessarily call the strong, the proud, or the sure. God called the Hebrews saying “It was not because you are the largest of all nations that the Lord set his heart on you and chose you, for you are really the smallest of all nations” (Deut 7:7). The same was true with the Apostles and prophets.

All of these men and others—holy men and women alike—were chosen by God to proclaim his word. They were men “of unclean lips in a people of unclean lips” (Is 6:5) and yet God selected them to deliver his message of repentance and reconciliation. He used our humble humanity and at times the wickedness of humanity to do His will. He effected his will through the agency of man. Some are willing while others are unknowing. God's hand directs them both. His kindness rests on those who turn to him.

Next time we will turn to the Resurrection of Jesus and his instruction to his Apostles. We see that the course of history changed at the coming of the Word but we see also that Christ continued the course God set from the beginning. That is to say that men and women from every generation would guide people to God in extraordinary ways. This was true in life and in eternal life, now afforded by the blood of Christ. Because Christ rose death now carried no sway over the souls of the faithful departed. The saints ran the race and so celebrated their victory over death. We will treat the Apostles and their successors and how they too are more than just a model but fully living and forever servants of God leading us to Him.

Contraception: How Free are We? (part I)

[Author's Note: Some of the topics and comments below may be offensive to some viewers as this covers the not-so-easy topic of contraception and sex. Though I avoid all graphic descriptions some of the topics may make readers uneasy. Nevertheless, some of the things I quote are what our friends and children are being taught and in many cases what we've grown up with as well. If we are ever going to understand them we need to confront them with faith, prayer, and courage.

Similarly, there are no restrictions on comments, so please feel free to comment below.]

Sometimes the illusion of choice is more attractive than real choices and real consequences. It’s not unlike a beautiful woman or handsome man who, on the outside, is attractive, desirable, and (for many) ideal to go after. Yet when we find out that this or that attractive person is self-absorbed, mean-spirited, or more concerned with remaining attractive than anything else we are often taken aback—we’re almost shocked. The same is true with many other things: when they fail to meet our expectations we may be disappointed. Stronger still, when things are contrary to how they present themselves we are angered, disgusted at, and are repelled from that same person or thing. The object that was once beautiful and attractive becomes an object of scorn and derision.

Indeed, what is this thing—this idea—that promotes freedom of choice, dresses attractively, and draws many in as a solution to your problems? This idea is contraception. Now for many who support contraception this seems crazy or stupid. Indeed,  many people seem to go out of their way to not find fault with contraception or the reasons behind using it, e.g., “people are having sex anyway, they should be safe!” and “it makes my sex life better [because I can have more of it and not worry about pregnancy].” Of course, perhaps everything I will say below is, in fact, stupid and crazy. But if, as contraception websites claim, you are open to different ideas—even ones that disagree with your own—perhaps you will consider something you hadn’t before.

Generic image of an angry woman who may think I'm a woman hater or want to turn women back into stay-at-home-aspire-for-nothings. I assure you I'm not. Please just bear with me!

I will illustrate my points more specifically below. For now, I want to share one quote (a bit long) that I believe illustrates a theme in the contraceptive position. It is framed very practically and seen as both discerning and tolerant. It only wants the best for young men and women, so it seems. It states that:

Young people can be very interested in the moral and cultural frameworks that bind sex and sexuality. They often welcome opportunities to talk about issues where people have strong views, like abortion, sex before marriage, lesbian and gay issues and contraception and birth control. It is important to remember that talking in a balanced way about differences in opinion does not promote one set of views over another, or mean that one agrees with a particular view. Part of exploring and understanding cultural, religious and moral views is finding out that you can agree to disagree.

…

Attempts to impose narrow moralistic views about sex and sexuality on young people through sex education have failed. Rather than trying to deter or frighten young people away from having sex, effective sex education includes work on attitudes and beliefs, coupled with skills development, that enables young people to choose whether or not to have a sexual relationship taking into account the potential risks of any sexual activity.

…

Young people get information about sex and sexuality from a wide range of sources including each other, through the media including advertising, television and magazines, as well as leaflets, books and websites (such as www.avert.org) which are intended to be sources of information about sex and sexuality. Some of this will be accurate and some inaccurate. Providing information through sex education is therefore about finding out what young people already know and adding to their existing knowledge and correcting any misinformation they may have. (avert.org) (Italics and underlines added for emphasis by me)

It seems strange for a website, or anyone, to advocate safe, restricted, and “responsible” sex while at the same time being perfectly fine both allowing and taking in all ideas. We should choose carefully which person we have sex with but we should be open and receptive to all ideas about sex? Maybe it’s time we started worrying less about protecting our genitals and invested more time protecting and developing our ideas about sex and relationships. It seems to me like the contraction rate of bad ideas in both men and women is very high when you allow them to consider and tolerate every idea (i.e., “agree to disagree”).

Much like (casual) sex, bad ideas are can be very satisfying and fulfilling while they last. Likewise they can also leave you with feelings of regret, unintended consequences, and being forced into situations you didn’t want to get into. Bad ideas are very contagious and easy to spread. It’s even more dangerous because it can come from family, friends, a loved one, teachers, media, or you can contract it all on your own.

 

But rather than dwell on this I’ll get a bit more specific. Contraception is not only a bad idea, it also sets itself up as a solution to a problem it contributes to. I realize that I’m swimming against the current of our culture saying this but there are some nuances here that should be discussed as well. It is the case that many use contraception of some form; many use it for pleasure (or “safe pleasure”) and others for medical purposes. My concern is not for those who use “contraception” for medicinal reasons (necessarily) such as irregular periods, but my concern is rather (1) with those who use contraception for its namesake—conta-(con)ception, or a means to prevent pregnancy. My other concern (2) is those who use contraception for the sake of more casual sex. I plan to treat both briefly below but I will also return to these points (especially the first) in subsequent pieces as well.

As such, I first ask a question: unwanted pregnancies and STDs can certainly be a problem. But why is it that the cause of these things is sometimes simply attributed to “unprotected sex”? It seems rather the case that the idea behind “sex” is the root of our problems here. We’ll see if it’s true.

Many websites and information outlets try to teach and help identify how one can avoid coercion and undue pressure. This is perfectly good and fine. Sex should be freeing, loving, and mutual. Yet, at the same time, many of these same outlets aggressively push for using condoms. Sex, they claim, should be pressureless but we should pressure men to wear condoms because it’s responsible (cf. Condom Exuses from NHS.uk).

This is simply and clearly another case of allowing one bad idea (casual sex) as inevitable and making up additional bad ideas to cover for it. The cascades of rhetoric cannot hide the logic “If you want to have a fulfilling relationship, good (luck!). If you want to have casual sex, as it’s your choice, good. Oh, and here’s how.”

Is casual sex supposed to be a good idea as long as you’re responsible? ‘If you drink excessively but don’t drive’ it is considered responsible in regards to driving (and health) but it tells us nothing about drinking. ‘Have sex but be safe’ is responsible in regards to contracting disease but it doesn’t relate anything about responsibility for sex, much less relationships (we’ll look at this a bit more in a moment).

In reality, though, it's just about driking related to driving not about drinking itself--perhaps because it's a value we are unable to teach.

For now, however, what contraception does as an idea is a few things: 1) it claims that the opposition, especially religious, wants to turn women into ‘baby factories.’ 2) it claims that the opposition wants to impose “narrow moralistic views” while claiming it is open to all ideas and choices—and they give them to you to choose (They also say "If you can't be bothered to use a condom then I can't be bothered to have sex with you.” Condom Excuses, Dr. Petra Boynton). 3) it claims that it’s the safe, responsible option. I’ll address (1) in greater detail in the next piece.

There are many implicit claims about contraception (and by those who advocate their use), but here’s one more: “you can always choose who you have sex with, but if you choose to have sex with one or many use protection.”

The strange thing is that they never explain why you would want to have multiple sex partners—maybe it’s just “fun.” Yes, oddly they do not want to influence why you have sex but they certainly want to jump in the moment you decide and tell you how.

But again, what becomes the problem or risk with regards to casual sex? Many places say that pregnancy and/or STDs are the risks involved, but are they really the problem? An unwanted pregnancy due to failed contraception is something that puts someone in a trap—and then contraceptive-types give you an out. You could have the child or you could have an abortion. This is especially attractive to teens and men and women in their 20s and 30s who can’t/don’t want to support a child. Rather, I would say it seems like they target them: they warn them of the risks but encourage them to have sex (as long as it’s your choice). In reality, there’s nothing quite like a prison that says “Freedom” on the door. In this case, pregnancy is made to be the prison and abortion the door out. Perhaps it’s the other way around.

Maybe the door that seems to be the way out is really the way in.

But perhaps it’s the case that I’ve been wrong about contraception. It is, after all, the other person’s choice to use the pill or a condom, so maybe we should all just let others choose what they will and let them ‘fight it out’ from there. Contraception is just one valid choice among many.

Okay, that’s fine. Let’s juxtapose two ideas and see if anything turns up:

+ You should marry the person you love after a long period of discernment. Through prayer, time, modesty, and plenty of communication you may then decide to spend the rest of your life with this person if it is your vocation. You’ll meet with a priest who helps discuss the many challenges in marriage and helps both to decide if they’re ready, both individually and together. When married you can have sex with someone whom you know will be faithful to you wholly and like no one else. You give of yourself wholly to the other person even insofar as you are open to new life. If a new life does come into your own you both see it as a blessing despite the challenges.

+You should carefully choose whom you have sex with. You should both be ready, but you should both be responsible. A child/pregnancy could be a great burden so use contraception until you’re absolutely ready to have a child. If you choose to have sex with many people remember to be safe and expect the same from others. Sex should be safe, fun, and above all freeing. It’s your body and you should be happy and healthy in it.

I believe I represented both sides well and ask you to review each and see what emerges. Are both devoid of problems? Of course not. I will address the first, Catholic, option later but for now I will turn my focus to the second.

When it comes to presenting these options to children or teenagers which seems more attractive? Staying with one person (for the rest of your lives) or having choices? Kids probably don’t think about sex or relationships in too much detail; they’re just told that if they want answers there are places they can go to. Or, of course, we could teach children to masturbate. An example from Planned Parenthood for elementary school students:

“Q. Is it okay to touch yourself?
A. Sure, it's okay. It feels good to touch ourselves, but we should only touch ourselves in private.” (Talking to kids about sexuality)

Isn’t this the type of openness we all should want? After all, when we teach children to use their sexuality to feel good in the way they want to, how could it negatively affect them, especially if they do it in private? When you teach children foundational ideas when they’re young they can carry it into their adult lives with ease, as long as they keep up with it. But, in the end, “negative feelings about masturbation can threaten our health and well-being. Only you can decide what is healthy and right for you” (http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/sex-101/masturbation-23901.htm).

Only you can decide. Not your parents, not your doctor, not any visible code of morality or ethics. Just you. Planned Parenthood is just here to help, folks.

Just this reassuring image I found. Nothing suspicious at all.

Teens, on the other hand, not only know a bit more about sex they also desire it more. Their passions run a bit higher as well. Because things always seem to be changing for them they seek permanence in something—and for many it’s sex. They see it everywhere, some indulge in pornography or masturbation, many occupy their thoughts with it, and are encouraged to have it if they think they’re ready. Well, it probably goes without saying that plenty of teens (and even adults) believe they’re ready.

I suppose somewhere along the way many teens forgot (or we forgot to tell them) that not only is life itself temporary but sexual attraction, acts, and desires are even more temporary. One side tells them to wait and to control themselves through abstinence. The other tells them to explore their bodies, exploit what is pleasurable to them (in their bodies) for their health, wait until they’re ready, and then “control” themselves by using a condom or other contraceptive methods. Perhaps as disease prevention this is a very good method. Why throw teens into the fire with abstinence? Throw them into the fire with fire-retardant gloves.

Sexual urges are powerful things and the more we occupy our minds with sex the more we want it, the more we tend think about it, and the more it influences our future actions. Will this set you free? Or is this putting us in a prison, especially when we teach our children to indulge and explore what is pleasurable to them?—especially with something as intimate and pervasive as our own bodies?

Is it better to understand and control our passions until we are ready to use them, or is it better to explore and indulge our passions so we can learn what benefits us most? But what if it’s too late and we become a slave to our passions? Who do we depend on when we can’t depend on ourselves or our inclinations-made-tyrants?

Regardless, contraception remains a physical tool that is used and promoted by people who see the world physically. Because condoms or pills do not care about family life, relationships, children, or healthy relationships they rather speak about only what they can: preventing disease and pregnancy (in perfect usage). But I must admit that both reasons are dressed very attractively.

Another reason for this is the already self-admitted rule for teaching about contraception: For them there are many different values about relationships, sex, morality, gender, etc. Since they cannot endorse any single one value for anything, they have to simply talk about the biological merits and function of contraception, stating them as objective facts (for biological use only) and giving them as a tool or instrument we place into our own personal value sets. So it’s not that contraception-ideology doesn’t care about your unique situation, it’s that it can’t care about your unique situation. All it can do is tell you that it does this or that biologically and wish you well on that whole happiness thing. But, biologically speaking, sex is a lot of fun and feels really good, so how could more sex (and significantly safer sex) not contribute to happiness? Why wouldn’t you pursue it if you’re ready?

I guess if it's a frank discussion it can't be that bad. She certainly doesn't seem to promote immoderate behavior. Just tell'n it like it is.

But we need another angle. Perhaps we need to ask ourselves some different questions. Questions like ‘is he using a condom because he really loves me?’ ‘Is she taking the pill because she cares about my well-being?’ Perhaps, but does the pill guarantee that? Does it really make relationships better or more loving? Does it even help?

Sometimes it comes down to what people look for in sex. Those who only want sex for pleasure will end up using you or others. But many more look for sex to be completing, intimate, and loving. Many, in some cases, see sex itself as all three. Does contraception facilitate or complete any of these things? When a condom means “I love you” I’ll congratulate you on finding love. When the pill means “my life is complete” I’ll rejoice that you’ve moved past more difficult times—such as time before the pill.

But as far as I’ve seen it contraception remains that mirage that many seek and run towards. Has it really made your life better? Does your man say he’ll love you forever, but it’s a different story if you’re pregnant? And men, if you are responsible for a boy or girl can you call yourself a man by running away? For you see, the challenge of commitment does not lie in how good your sex is and will be but if in the face of the greatest challenges you persevere. A child is a challenge but a blessing because it is by that fire you can forge a true commitment and completely transform your life. What is more conducive to commitment in your life? Is it an unplanned pregnancy or an openness every time to have children if they come?

Do I say this to “scare you from having sex,” as avert.org might say? No. In reality I’m just beginning to “give you the facts.” Sex is a gift and a blessing, but its blessing does not lie tat in it is just pleasurable alone. It is a blessing precisely because it is unitive and procreative. True, holy, and proper sex is an openness to life, a love for life when it comes, and that expression of unified love of a husband and wife powerful enough to conceive life and sustain it happily and lovingly. More still, sex should be the culmination of many things—it should be the expression of love, commitment, trust, and friendship and not a tool by which we think we have all these things. The moment sex becomes a tool is the moment it can be misused. When we think something can be used against us is precisely the moment we feel we need protection from and against it.

Contraception is and has been dressing up as that thing you want and need for a while now. Is there nothing or no one else you can look up to? Next time, I will attempt to provide you with an alternative you can look up to. I will show you how contraception makes you a prisoner—especially women—and how, lades, much of the change we need begins with you. Men and women alike need to change, truly, how they look at relationships and sex. But the victims in many ways are women who leave men consequence-free by taking contraception that can (and does) affect their bodies, all in the name of their own personal pleasure—all the same still exploited by men looking to use women and women looking to use men.

Next time we will begin scratching the surface of the Catholic-Christian response and how through it you can be happier and more fulfilled, with or without sex.

On Hierarchy and the Church

Do you fear or hate hierarchy, especially in a life of faith? If so, would you also reject a temple and a church because you see it only as gaudy ornamentation? But are not both built on a foundation and layer upon layer? In the same way the living Church is built upon Christ. Its pillars are the teaching of the Apostles, the martyrs are the windows by which the light of Christ enters, and the bishops and priests are the supports fastened to these pillars. But what of the laity? They are the rich ornaments that adorn the living Church. They rely on all of these others and yet their place is the expression of beauty and harmony. For any place of beauty is diverse, yet harmonious. Therefore, we should not treat the laity as superfluous (or consider ourselves superfluous) because it is their beauty and harmony which amplifies the temple to those who look outside curiously. Likewise they amplify, by that same harmony, the glorious mysteries within.

The beauty in here is possible by the firm foundations it was built upon. Who could deny that the living Church is different? Beauty lifts us up to God because it reflects the sacredness of that space.

However, can the ornate exist without its foundations? Those who wish to be a temple unto themselves—meaning that they do not need a Church but just a personal relationship—heed St. Paul half-heartedly. They read "your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit" (1 Cor 6:19) but then, like children, listen to what they want to hear and ignore what else is told to them. Did they not recall that we are one Body (1 Cor 12:12)? And is this "Body" just of the spirit—that is to say a "spiritual Church"?

If so, who teaches you as a teacher? Who rebukes you? Are we all just equals before one another in all things by virtue of faith in Christ Jesus? What I mean is this: do you not see that if you reject the Church that you will inevitably make one of your own, either with others or of yourself. Was it vain that Paul said that some are prophets, administrators, and interpreters, while others should silent and speak at the appropriate time (cf. 1 Cor 12:26-40)? No. The structure of the living Church, then, lies in the Spirit and lies outside the spirit of mere belief. For did Paul intend that the living Church be a collection of those who merely believed—and that each would stand as equals in many matters just because of that faith?

More still, do you believe that our authority comes from Scripture alone or, rather, that the only authority to teach is Scripture? Indeed we must be obedient to the truth, but this sentiment is not obedience but pride. For by our own will we listen to Paul when he says "all Scripture is inspired by God [for many tasks]" (2 Tim 3:16) and take it to mean Scripture is the only source by which we have, by default, the gifts of teaching or interpretation. But "no prophecy came through human will but rather human beings moved by the Holy Spirit" (2 Pet 1:20). Are we so bold to claim that we are given all gifts by reading Scripture? Are we so bold to claim that the Spirit acts in those who only speak through Scripture? (Did not Satan also quote Scripture?)

The sentiments of this man, however good, are not Christianity but pride.

 Does not authority come from the Spirit? Yes, for Paul says that it is according to the will of the Spirit that each of us has particular gifts (cf. 1 Cor 12:4-11). They are distributed to many and individually so that we may heed one or another, not just by the utterance of Scripture but by the power of the Spirit in them.

We are ready, like trusting children, to imbibe quotes of Scripture as if it were milk. Yet when another rebukes us by virtue of reason, science, or his position of education we become more obstinate than the Jews in the desert. Is all they utter true? Of course not, but if the words are spoken by one who is gentle yet forceful, and is a man of proven character, why should we deny his rebukes? Below we shall explore this:

Since there is even more to write on this subject alone I will be brief. Read and contemplate these words which are connected to those above. Paul tells us plainly, "Let every person be subject to higher authorities for there is no authority except from God and those that exist have been established by God. Therefore; whoever resists authority opposes what God has appointed and those who oppose it bring judgment on themselves" (Rom 13:1-2). Obviously we should not consent to wicked rulers and wicked things, but how quick we are to call those whom we don't like wicked and against God! However, that God gave us leaders, rulers, and kings is not a lie. Furthermore, do you think that if God appointed kings and rulers to be judges in civil matters and instruments of His justice that He would not appoint men to be rulers and authorities in spiritual matters? "Respect those who are laboring among you and who are over you in the Lord and who admonish you, and … show esteem for them with special love on account of their work" (1 Thes 5:12-13).

And even if some are wicked, are they not still instruments?

They exist to serve you but also, by virtue of their leadership, see what is spiritually harmful for you. They stand atop a hill that is attacked from all sides, and are even attacked within.

King Josiah and the Apostles were praised for increasing the faith of countless people.

The Babylonians and Assyrians both prepared the hearts of the Jews for the Messiah by their bitter exile. By trial and tears the understanding of almighty God was purified from the pagan influence that has assailed those same Jews. Nero and the other Emperors, likewise, in their attempt to destroy the Church unwittingly caused it to flourish and spread to all corners of the earth.

Is every authority wicked? No, but even still we can judge who is a good or bad authority by the fruit of their labor. But remember that every authority is placed by God—all deserve their due (cf. Rom 13:7). Whether good or bad, that will be decided at the appointed time.

Subjecting ourselves to authority, then, takes humility. Deferring to your own reading of Scripture is easy, rejecting authority is even easier. Humility is a virtue we should work on and a grace which we should pray for unceasingly. Was it not humility that brought about conversion for Cornelius and his household? Was it not the humility of Peter who raised him up to equality and made him and his household coheirs to the Kingdom? (Acts 10:9-49)

And likewise Peter was warned, when he refused Christ's humility, that he would have no inheritance in Him?  But upon accepting it he was raised—no longer a servant but a friend, for Jesus revealed to him the model he should follow (cf. Jn 15:15).

Therefore, it is by humility of both those who have authority and those who are subject to authority that both are raised.

Humility brought Cornelius, a Roman, to Peter a Christian. By the love, patience, and humility of Peter he brought them to God. Peter a model of what broken humanity can achieve in Christ.

But for now, let us return to the first point but with another image:

Does not the fruit on a tree exist because of the branches? And the branches because of the trunk? And the trunk because of the roots and the soil? "The branch cannot bear fruit on its own unless it remains on the vine, so neither can you unless you remain in me" (Jn 15:4). Can we be fruit without the branches? A plant has many parts but it works to produce one fruit. The Church has many parts of varying importance but its one fruit is the salvation of souls—we are one Body, "give success to the work of our hands" (Ps 90:17).


And so I say again, do you hate hierarchy? Are you so quick to acknowledge the Master but not the laborers? Though the laborers are nothing without the Master the laborers do the work of the Master and share in His joy.

In this same way, did you build your own faith? "What do you posses that you have not received?  But if you received it, why are you boasting as if you did not receive it?" (1 Cor 4:7). Was it not given to you by others who were likewise convinced in the Power of God?

For we are not a Church of personal faiths, but a building being built upon in every generation—why else would Paul warn us to be careful as we build it? (cf. 1 Cor 3:10). What is your church built upon? Are they the Apostles, Tradition, the saints (wise men and women), the bishops in the line of the Apostles, and Scripture? If no, who leads you?

In reality, this is the pride that makes us accountable to no one but whom we choose. This has become its own false religion.

But truly, men are the ones who labor for God, building so as to support the faith of all. Like a master builder he needs to discern a solid foundation (Christ) and a solid design. Are we not the beneficiaries of such men? Do we give thanks to God for their labors? Ever worker deserves his wages. Deny the laborers in favor of the Master and you mock the laborers that the Master has picked.

Do these men—pillars, protectors, and laborers—not deserve honor for what they have given us? True, that those who ask for honor often deserve little, but the faithful servant who toiled to increase the Master's talents received an even greater honor by virtue of his work. Some more, others less.

In this respect do not neglect your leaders, your spiritual ones most of all. For neglecting them is to be as sheep who neglect their shepherd or plants that reject cultivation. Those neglectful ones produce little or nothing, become unruly, and lead themselves to ruin.

So think carefully and reflect deeply. Is Scripture or your personal relationship the only authority? Or does the Spirit select some to lead, others to interpret, some to teach, others with this or that virtue, and others to follow? Do you fear or hate authority? "Rulers are not a cause of fear to good conduct, but to evil … therefore it is necessary to be subject not only because of the wrath [against injustice] but also because of conscience [for the Lord has given you this authority]" (Rom 13:3, 5). And reflect, finally, that if your church does not acknowledge the Traditions we have been given by word of mouth and by script (cf. 2 Thes 2:15) nor does it have those who are above you in the Lord (1 Thes 5:12) then what church have you built? Can it stand?

For "the work of each will come to light, for the Day will disclose it. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire itself will test the quality of each one's work. … if the work is burned up, that one will suffer loss; the person will be saved, but only as through fire" (1 Cor 3:13, 15). Much is lost in a fire, will your church stand against the true Church?

On Confession (and the Priesthood)

[This is an extended and more in-depth version of the one available on the Knights of Columbus,  Tonti Council's Website]

My dear brothers and sisters in Christ,

As I was praying with my rosary I began thinking about what it means to be a Knight of Columbus [an all-men group who dedicate themselves to fraternity, charity, support of their local churches, and support of priests and bishops]. I would similarly like you to think about what it means to be an adult and member of our Church. The qualities of loyalty, perseverance, and courage come to mind quickly. But as knights of our holy Catholic Church we are called to have an additional set of virtues which are faith, hope, and charity.

Check them out at their website: KOC

We and the Church by our efforts do a great deal of good, and I think we should be proud of that fact. Nevertheless we can also point to times when we're weak, forgetful, and sinful. This is where God comes in—he is our strength, our sword, and our shield. He gives us many personal graces but His greatest gifts are the Holy Eucharist and the other sacraments.

And the key word here is that they're gifts. We don't have to pay for them and sometimes we feel like we don't deserve them but, all the same, they are given for us to take.

The Sacraments founded on the Source of Life.

Now the sacraments Baptism, Marriage, Anointing of the Sick, Confirmation, and Holy Orders are not so much our concern here. What I want to focus on is the Eucharist and Confession/Penance/Reconciliation. Now, I trust all of us regularly attend mass—if not I encourage you wholly!— so my sincere urging this time will be to accept and embrace the gift of Confession.

Many of us readily accept the joy of Baptism and Marriage, and many of us stand before the altar to receive our Lord, but so many of us run away from the Sacrament that was central to Jesus' earthly ministry—that is to say forgiveness.

We all know the command that Jesus gave to His whole Church: go and baptize all nations in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. In this commission we are all 'ones who are sent,' which is to say apostles and disciples.

But Jesus gave a command to His priests, his Apostles specifically chosen from among the people just as the elders of Israel were assembled by Moses (cf. Numbers 11:16-17). This time, however, it was not merely a prophet but the divine Word that selected these men.

For those who would doubt the priesthood of the Apostles, her special function, and the validity of their successive line, consider the following:

He chose twelve men, eleven who remained, to reveal the Word to all by their preaching and priestly ministry. For Christ told them at His last supper “whoever receives the one I send receives me” (Jn 13:20). He selected them from among the people to reveal the meaning of his teaching and to be leaders to those they gathered. As they spread the Word, they also laid their hands and selected from among the many communities men of sound character and true faith to carry on their work. They had the people assemble those from among their own who were “filled with the Spirit and wisdom” (Acts 6:3) so they might be “appointed” for a specific task. Then the Apostles “prayed and laid hands on them” (6:6). These men here were deacons but priests (and even bishops) were also selected from the line of the Apostles. For St. Paul tells Timothy (a bishop himself) to “stir into flame the gift of God that you have through the imposition of my hands” (2 Tim 1:6). That gift is the priesthood specific to the Apostles. Even Paul himself was “appointed [by Christ] as preacher and apostle and teacher” (1:11). Furthermore he praises presbyters [Greek word for priest or elder] who preside well. All the same he warns him, “do not lay hands too readily on anyone [so as to confer this priesthood on them]” (1 Tim 5:22).

The seven men first chosen by the Apostles, men whom they laid their hands upon.

A tradition which continues today.

Truly, let anyone who denies a specific and holy priesthood among the faithful consider these words.

As such Christ selected his Apostles from among the many others he met and set them apart. Christ commanded them: Go and forgive the sins of my people and lead them to me. Be to them as I am to you (and so share the burden of my mission in a special way), give them my Body and Blood and give them forgiveness of their sins.

The Apostles stand as both a representation of mankind in that they are and were like us: weak, fearful, and doubtful. But they stand apart in that they were raised by Christ to bear His name and participate in his royal priesthood. He “gave them authority over unclean spirits and every illness” (Mt 10:1) and to give this gift freely (cf. 10:8). Furthermore, when Christ forgave the sins of the paralytic those around him questioned him and accused him of blasphemy. Yet to prove that He could forgive sins he healed him as well. But, at the end of this passage it states: “But the crowds, seeing this, were awestruck and glorified God who gave such authority to men” (my translation from the Greek, Mt 9:8). A fuller treatment is necessary, but not here. For our purposes it is worth reflecting on why the plural was used by Matthew and that the authority in question was the forgiveness of sins.

All that effort and Christ decides to heal him of his sins first.

This is where Confession is so important. This is the sacrament of healing, the healing of one's sins. And this sort of healing was preferred to the healing of the body (cf. The story of the paralytic, Mt 9:1-8). My brothers and sisters, it is easy to be courageous against a shared threat and it is easy to be courageous against something from the outside. But even truer courage comes from recognizing the threat inside of us: the stain of sin and how we, at times, let the enemy into our gates.

Yet as knights, that is to say faithful Catholics, we are to protect our priests and protect those who are as “sheep among wolves.” We can only be strong when we are weak, that is to say that we must humble ourselves. We can only show others how to convert their hearts when we convert their own. By allowing Christ into our hearts through the Sacraments we are transformed by that grace. We allow, humbly and with joy, simple and concrete realities to effect a great change in us. For in the same way Christ effected a great change in the world by adopting our frail and small humanity—something we received with joy.

Jesus said that we should not fear those who harm our body but rather the Enemy who can harm our soul (cf. Mt 10:28). Confession is a gift that remains unopened and unused, especially here in the United States and Europe. If no one goes, no one cares or notices. I encourage you all to strengthen your soul by a regular reception of the Eucharist and an attempt to regularly receive this great sacrament.

As we walk before the altar we ask for the greatest gift ever given. In Confession we are prepared to stand before the altar, we are instructed by holy priests (find one you know and trust!) to recognize sin and our sinfulness, and we are given Christ's peace. How often is it that we believe we know our own hearts—yet it turns out we live in self-doubt, darkness, and ignorance. This is the true gift of friendship, of good people, and good priests! They will help you know yourself.

"Show me the way to Ars and I will show you the way to Heaven." ~St. John Vianney

A priest, one whom you can trust and one whom you can be honest with will do more for your soul than any personal prayers could accomplish. Personal prayer should never be abandoned, but neither should your priests—let alone the whole body of the Faithful!

Remember that “he who conceals his sins prospers not, but he who confesses and forsakes them obtains mercy” (Prov 28:13). How easy it is to 'conceal our sins' by keeping them to ourselves, saying them only in our head. Even this can be hard. How much harder, yet more freeing, is it to confess openly and in person? But the person you are confessing to is one completely and readily willing to forgive those who seek conversion and absolution. This is because he was commissioned by Christ, installed by His holy Apostles through Him, to help 'share the burden of the people of God.'

Stand up for those who are afraid and ignorant of their own sinfulness and confront your own. It is by the strength of all the Sacraments of the Church—gifts of God—that we will flourish!

Yours in Christ and a sinner like you,

M