Canon and Tradition
Dear Father,
I talk regularly with people of other faiths about issues of the day and scripture always comes up leading to a discussion of which version of the Bible one should use. I’d like some history of the King James version to better explain to my friends why I use catholic versions. Additionally, I’d like to have a comeback for when they say the “Apocrypha” is unnecessary and the rest of their version covers everything.
M. Ryan
Edmond, OK

I cannot speak to your personal reasons for using a Catholic Bible, but your letter brings up a good question. What kind of Bible should a Catholic use? There are two issues to consider. First is the issue of canonicity. The word “canon” comes from a Greek word for a rule or measuring rod. In the time of the compilation of the Sacred Scriptures, there were many worthy and not-so-worthy candidates for inclusion. For example, we all know the four Gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. In existence at the same time however were the Gospel of Thomas, the Proto-Evangelium of Philip, and many others. The Church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit discerned which writing deserved inclusion in the Sacred Scriptures. Through various councils, the first being the Council of Hippo (386 A.D.) and the Council of Carthage (397 A.D.) and definitely declared at the Council of Trent in the 16th century, the canon of Sacred Scriptures took shape. The King James version uses the Protestant canon, rejecting several Old Testament books as not inspired by the Holy Spirit. So that’s strike one against Catholics using the King James.

Second is the issue of translation. There are two extremes in the work of translation. One end of the spectrum is the principle of “dynamic equivalence.” Here the translator tries to bring to the fore the sense of the text. The concern is will the reader understand what the text means. In this mode, there is less emphasis upon word by word translation. At the other end of the spectrum lies the principle of “literal correspondence.” Here, the translator strives to be absolutely faithful to every single word of the text. In this mode, the text can often be confusing because of modes of thought were prevalent in the time of the text’s composition. Most translations hover between these two poles. In the Catholic world, the New American translation more reflects the literal correspondence method while the Jerusalem Bible takes a more dynamic equivalent tack. However, any serious student of the Bible should avoid paraphrase translations such as the Good News for Modern Man. While more readable, often sections are missing or combined to enhance the reading experience. Contrary to popular myth, there were several English editions of the Bible before the King James edition appeared. By way of analogy, the King James is the Shakespeare of English translations. When it was first translated, the translators sought to bring the best of the English language into use when translating. So that is a point in its favor, the beauty of the language.

On a closing note, I don’t know of a fool-proof way to talk about the Apocrypha. For Protestants, Apocrypha means interesting but not inspired. So I tend to take a different approach. My first question is where did the Bible come from? Unknown to most Protestants, by their reverence for the Sacred Scriptures, they accept the authority of the Catholic Church at least in reference to the New Testament. Without the magisterium, we would not know what belonged in the Bible. Once you show them that, you can leave the person with this question. If you accept the authority of the Catholic Church concerning the New Testament, why don’t you concerning the Old Testament? The goal here is invite the person to think through the relationship of the Bible to the Church. The Bible is a product of the Church and not vice versa.

For more information, Where We Got the Bible: Our Debt to the Catholic Church by Henry Graham from Catholic Answers is most useful.

A Question of Evil

We live in a world permeated with shades of grey. The Fall of our first parents has left us with an intellect darkened, a will weakened, and a body susceptible to death (Catechism of the Catholic Church [CCC] 399-400). Despite these shortcomings, we recognize that all our human acts have moral value and eternal consequence. No one can read the twenty-fifth chapter of St. Matthew’s gospel and not shutter at the fate of the “goats” nor the blindness that prevents them from recognizing Christ in those in need.

The first principle for our moral actions directs us to “avoid evil and do good (CCC 1777).” If the world is truly a place of grey, one cannot fulfill this principle. We are doomed to muddle through a series of half-hearted decisions for which no real moral determination exists. As the Gospel demonstrates to us, the world is not grey. It is more like a carpet fiber, where good and evil are closely woven together, such that the impression created is of grey. Each of our moral choices attempts to extract the white threads of good and leave behind the black threads of evil. This leads us to the all-important question. Given that I cannot combat all the evils of the world simultaneously, which evil do I combat first?

Let’s start with what evil is. The Church defines evil as “the absence or a privation of a good that should be present.” Evil is not a force that exists as the “opposite” of God. Rather evil is an emptiness which exists in either our choices or in reality. Further, we can make the distinction between physical evil and moral evil. Physical evil represents a privation in the created order, and we usually experience this as the weakness of our bodies (CCC 310). Anyone who has been laid up with a bad case of flu knows all too well a small taste of physical evil. Moral evil represents the absence of good in someone’s moral choosing (CCC 311, 1849). Either the person has chosen a bad end, a bad intention, or a bad means to the end (CCC 1750). The result is the same. Evil enters the world anew.

But not all evils are equal. The Church recognizes this when she makes the distinction between mortal sin and venial sin. In the first letter of Saint John, Saint John writes, “If anyone sees his brother sinning, if the sin is not deadly, he should pray to God and he will give him life. This is only for those whose sin is not deadly. There is such a thing as deadly sin, about which I do not say that you should pray. All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin that is not deadly (I John 5:16-17).” Therefore, we must strive to overcome first those things which are deadly sins. That which is dead, by definition cannot change. It can only decay.

In our moral choices, we must rank evils by the goods which they assault. There are the goods of health, education, shelter, proper environment, and just laws. Before all these goods comes the most basic, the good of existence. All those other goods are irrelevant if one does not come into being. What does proper shelter matter if one is never born? Therefore, when one argues for the priority of abortion in moral considerations, it is not to say that other things are not evil. They are of a different priority. The Church deems some actions to be intrinsically evil or morally unacceptable. This means that no matter what the motive, the act is always wrong (CCC 1755). Using the Catechism as a guide, it identifies the following: artificial fertilization and insemination, contraception, detraction, direct sterilization, economic theories which make profit the only goal, euthanasia, fornication, homosexual acts, masturbation, murder, and rape. For abortion, the Catechism sets out especially strong language. First, of those listed here, only abortion carries a penalty of automatic excommunication which attaches “by the commission of the act (CCC 2272).” Second, the moral evil of abortion is a teaching that “has not changed and remains unchangeable (CCC 2271).” The moral teaching concerning abortion enjoys an infallible status, defined through the ordinary office of the magisterium. This highlights the severity of the matter in the mind of the Church.

Notice what did not make the list. Capital punishment is not intrinsically evil. The Holy Father’s admonition goes to how capital punishment is employed, not the punishment per se. War is not intrinsically evil. It is a legitimate use of force to defend one’s self from a hostile aggressor. While the average citizen might have reservations about whether our recent outing against Saddam Hussein was justified, ultimately, that prudential decision fell into the lap of our President.

If we really want elected officials who are going to make good decisions in all matters they must recognize “the inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation: ‘The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority...(CCC 2273).” If they are unwilling to concede that point, there is no limit to what can be condoned. Once the human person is valued only for what he can give and not for what he is, half the work is over. If it starts with infants in the womb, why can’t it extend to the elderly who are a “burden” on the health care system. They can be eliminated. How about the mentally ill or disabled? They don’t have a high enough quality of life. They can be eliminated. While a slippery slope is not the best argument, it is the human history most often follows.

More importantly, the question of evil and cooperation with evil reminds us of our need for forgiveness. The Gospel calls us to love God and to love our neighbor as ourselves. Before the issue of our elected officials’ possible collaboration in moral evil, we must examine our complicity in moral evil. Each one of us must weigh in his conscience whether his action is good or evil. It follows that we have a grave obligation to form our consciences properly, in accord with the dictates of right reason and the moral law (CCC 1783-1784). The best way to form our conscience is to examine its decisions. Where an error of judgment appears, we repent of it as an offense against God and against our neighbor. Perhaps this explains the decline in the use of the sacrament of Confession. We do not feel the need to repent because we do not examine our behavior often enough. Because we do not examine ourselves properly, we remain mired in the sins we commit, inflicting new wounds upon the ones we love. Thankfully, the Gospel also reminds us that God, through His priests, desires to forgive sins and to restore communion to those who would repent (Matthew 16:19, John 20:21-23).

In closing, we must not delude ourselves. Democracy will not prevent the United States from turning into a totalitarian state. Recall that Hitler started out as an elected official. When law loses its connection with the natural law and with supernatural law, the state in question is already on its way to totalitarianism. Only the truth of the goodness and the intrinsic worth of the human person will prevent a further slide into darkness.

Baptism and Miscarriage

Dear Father Tharp:
What happens to a child of miscarriage? Does that child go to heaven? Does it need to be baptized? My wife and I lost our first child several years ago to miscarriage. Our priest told me at the time when it happened, we knew it was coming, baptize the six-week old fetus. I did this. What does the Church teach?Name withheld
El Reno, OK.

First, I would like to extend my condolences to you and your wife. The loss of a child is a heartbreaking cross for a couple to share. May the Lord share with you his abundant healing graces.

The Church teaches that the sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation (CCC #1257). Through the sacrament of Baptism, three effects take place: Original Sin and any personal sin is forgiven, a character or permanent seal is placed upon the soul, and the person becomes part of the Church, the Mystical Body of Christ (cf. CCC #1267-1270). Along with the sacrament, the Church also recognizes that Baptism can be conferred in two other ways. The first is the baptism of blood (CCC #1258). Here the unbaptized person are baptized by their death for Christ and with Christ. The second is a baptism of desire (CCC #1259). In this case, a person expresses the desire to be baptized but for one reason or another it is not possible to baptize them. Along with the desire for baptism, the person should express contrition for their sin and charity. This is how the Church thinks of those who died before the coming of Christ.

However, the Church also recognizes that while God distributes his graces through the sacraments, He is not bound by the sacraments. Therefore, for those who are not baptized, so long as they have not formed a positive intention against Christ, we can hope for their salvation as well.

In the matter of your child, your actions were warranted. Life begins at conception, and in the words of Horton, “a person’s a person no matter how small.” The Church would want to show solicitude for the child, even in the moment of death. Some might object that sacraments are for the living. This is a valid point. But, because we do not know when or how the soul separates from the body, as long as the condition, “if you are alive,” is mentioned during the conferral of the sacrament, then we have not done offense to the sacrament. At the same time, if the person is obviously dead, i.e. decomposition has set in or the corpse is cold, then baptism should not be administered. Lastly, when aborted fetuses are found alive, they also should receive baptism (Code of Canon Law canon 871).

A New Clearinghouse!

If you found your way here, it's probably because you know me as the chief Ragemonkey over at Catholic Ragemonkey.

Along with being the pastor of three parishes in Northern Oklahoma, I also write for our diocesan newspaper with a column called, "Apologize and Don't Be Sorry." Since our diocesan website doesn't support an on-line version of the paper, I thought it might be useful to post my past articles here. Initially there will be a lot of activity and then less so as the tide of articles tops out.

If the column continues for a long enough period of time, then a book might be in the offing. But for now this is just a resource for others to use. Also, if you have apologetic questions to ask, then just send them here.