Apologize and Don't Be Sorry!

Women and Evangelization: I Timothy 2:12

2006-11-28T07:56:00.000-08:00

Dear Father Tharp:
I read in 1 Tim 2:12 that women aren't supposed to teach, presumably the Gospel. Does that mean that women shouldn't evangelize?  What is the role of a Christian woman? Are we supposed to try to bring others to the knowledge of Jesus Christ?

Name and Hometown Withheld.

     Your question centers upon a common problem.  Proper reading of the Sacred Scripture depends upon three things: context, context, context.  While it can come across as an excuse not to read the Bible, the fear of misunderstanding a particular passage is a problem.  Reliable interpretation remains paramount.  Women’s roles in the Church seem like a modern issue.  As your question demonstrates, it was a question for the early Church as well.
Let’s begin with a proper context for reading this verse.  When interpreting a particular verse from the Bible, you have seven layers of context to consider.  The verse sits within a particular selection (first layer), the particular selection within a specific chapter (second layer).  The chapter rests within a particular book (third layer). That book belongs to a particular type of biblical literature (fourth layer).  Reading the book in question means understanding the historical background of the Testament in which it is found (fifth layer).  Understanding the relationship of the Testament – Old or New – to the whole of the Bible follows next (sixth layer).  Lastly, because the Bible didn’t fall bound from heaven, you must read the Bible in relationship to the Church’s tradition and teaching authority (seventh layer).
Returning then to the verse in question, what is St. Paul driving at when he says: “I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man. She must be quiet.” Reading in the immediate context, St. Paul has begun a discussion of his role as apostle and therefore, logically, moves to the subject of how men and women conduct themselves as Christians (Cf. I Tim. 2:7-3:16).  Essentially, the whole letter represents St. Paul helping St. Timothy serve faithfully as a bishop.  As St. Paul addresses the role of women in the immediate context, we catch a connection which directs us to a further interpretation point.  In verses 2:13-15, St. Paul mentions Adam and Eve and the relative roles of our first parents.  It would be logical to assume that this is the heart of the matter: verse 12 is less about teaching and more about proper authority in the Church.
Consulting a couple of commentaries shed some further light on this matter.  In one commentary, the author points out that when it comes to gathering for prayer in the public assembly, both men and women were to observe proper decorum.  However, when addressing the matter of leadership, the commentator notes that St. Paul’s reference to Adam and Eve is meant to affirm the leadership role of men in the public worship of the Church.  The passage might act, therefore, as a corrective against a push for women’s ordination that was coming from various Gnostic Christian groups.  Peter Kreeft, in his book You Can Understand the Bible, makes the valid point that rather than demeaning women, St. Paul emphasizes the unique role of women in both the life of the Church and the life of the world in general.
The role of women in the arena of evangelization and proclamation of the Gospel is identical to that of men.  The Second Vatican Council’s Decree on the Apostolate of lay people puts it well: “On all Christians, accordingly, rests the noble obligation of working to bring all men throughout the whole world to hear and accept the diving message of salvation” (Apostolicam Actuositatem #3.3).  Every member of the faithful, with due respect to their state in life, are called to witness to the saving truth of Jesus Christ.  Just because that role for women doesn’t include ordained ministry, it doesn’t follow that women should not be involved.  Based on that logic, EWTN, founded by Mother Angelica, would have to go off the air.  Further, we would have to ignore the contribution of great saints and reformers such St. Monica, St. Catherine of Siena, and St. Teresa of Avila – to name three -- if the only contribution that counted was ordained ministry.
     With this in mind, I want to throw my support behind the upcoming Catholic women’s conference.  The one-day conference takes place on January 27 at St. Monica’s parish in Edmond.  Programming meant to foster devotion in a way suited to the genius of women has been long overdue.  Our non-Catholic friends have done much work in this area; it is high time that Oklahoma Catholics got into the game as well.  As this is the first year for this program, high attendance helps insure future events.  More information is available at www.ocwconference.com or by contacting Sharmin Romero at 405-330-8733.

2006-10-19T10:38:00.000-07:00

For the last several weeks, I have been asked about Islam and if I knew of any good sources for the subject. Thankfully, Sandra Miesel did all the heavy lifting for me.

Catholic Podcasting: Catch the Evangelization Wave!

2006-09-01T06:27:00.000-07:00

     “It’s the most wonderful time of the year…”  We usually associate those words with the Christmas season, but thanks to the industry of Staples, that phrase now evokes images of back-to-school.  In my family, everyone knew that back-to-school was my Christmas.  Walking down the aisles at TG&Y, admiring the rainbow kaleidoscope of unsharpened #2 pencils, coveting a new Trapper Keeper, looking forward to ripping into a new package of loose-leaf paper filled me with glee.  Face it: I loved school.  The totally amazing potentialities contained within the covers of my textbooks always left me giddy with anticipation.
     However, this is not a paean to my school days.  There is a connection to our lives as Catholics.  Unfortunately, many Catholics act as though that because they are adults they don’t have anything more to learn about the Catholic Faith.  Some will think this is an unfair characterization but my experience suggests something different.  Many Catholics will confide to me that they wish they were better informed, but when I suggest a book, a bible study, or a formation opportunity, they respond with “Oh, I couldn’t do that.”  The excuses vary but at the base, they are excuses.  With our kids going back to school and going back to religious education, I want to encourage all Catholics, especially parents, to do likewise.  We live in a time when it has never been easier to get your hands on the best Catholic information and formation.  This week, I want to talk about the high-tech solutions.
     You see them everywhere you go, a person bopping their head to inaudible music, pumped directly into their brain from their personal MP3 player.  These devices are made to play digital audio files which allow an enormous amount of data to be played back at your convenience.  For example, I own a 4 gigabyte capacity IPod.  That translates to 120 hours of music I can take with me.  This device doesn’t take up a great deal of space; my IPod is no bigger than the palm of my hand.  The versatility of this technology inspired various Catholics to try a new way to spread the Gospel.  They are podcasting, bringing the truth of Christ to everyone through the Internet.
     A podcast is an internet radio programming to which one subscribes.  A piece of software called an aggregator downloads new files to your computer as they are posted by the author of the podcast.  Then from your computer, you can play them either on your computer or download them to your MP3 player and take it with you.  Imagine how different your commute is when you would take Catholic programming with you.  Your car becomes a portable classroom or a chapel on wheels, rather than enduring the din of the morning radio shows.  Your time on the road becomes a prime opportunity to grow in your Faith.  Personally, these Catholic podcasts have made the five hour round trip from Oklahoma City to my parish in Alva much more bearable.  They allow me to make good use of time that might otherwise be wasted.
     There are podcasts for every taste and need.  Here are just a few examples.  Since this is an apologetics column, I have to give first mention to Catholic Answers Live.  Karl Keating started Catholic Answers to provide information on how to defend and explain the Catholic Faith.  I use Catholic Answers almost daily in my work, so being able to receive their radio program on my IPod is quite helpful.  You can subscribe at www.catholic.com.  For the Catholic families, I recommend you check out the Rosary Army podcast.  Greg and Jennifer Willits began this apostolate to promote the making and distribution of all-twine knotted rosaries.  Their podcast, however, deals with the struggles of a young couple as they strive to remain faithful to the Catholic Faith while working and raising their boys.  I am often inspired and amused by what they have to say.  You can subscribe at www.rosaryarmy.com.  For the young and the young-at-heart, you could look up the best in Catholic contemporary music at Catholic Rockers.  George Leite takes listeners on a tour of the contemporary music scene through interviews and featured performers.  You can subscribe at www.catholicjukebox.com.    You can also subscribe to these and other Catholic podcasts via the music store on ITunes.  Podcast Alley provides a comprehensive list as well.  The podcasts mentioned here are small sample of the excellent and enriching material that’s out there.
     As with any good thing, it takes time to grow in our understanding of the Faith.  St. Thomas Aquinas observed that for the vast majority of people, learning the Faith takes hard work and dedicated time.  However, spare time is something in short supply.  It’s funny.  Even as the number of time-saving devices increases, our time to enjoy leisure activities decreases.  Spending time pouring over many a quaint and curious volume of Catholic lore is not in the cards.  But everyone could listen to good programming while driving the car or working around the house.  By taking advantage of podcasts, you can fill out your knowledge and hopefully your love of our Lord and His Holy Church.

2006-07-20T10:24:00.000-07:00

Dear Father Tharp:
My son who is a Catholic was married in his wife’s church (Methodist) last year. Does the Catholic Church recognize them as being married, and when they have children will they be able to have them baptized in the Catholic Church? His wife feels that if their marriage is not recognized that she does not feel like going to Mass any longer. Up until recently, they have been alternating attending services between each others’ churches.

Name and Hometown Withheld

Sacraments are an essential element to the life of a Christian. They are conduits of grace and represent our participation in the Paschal Mystery of Christ. They are not just ceremonies for the benefit of the community; they are living encounters with the Risen Christ and a sharing in His Divine Glory. Hence, what makes up a sacrament is a critical consideration in addressing your question.

Let’s begin with a definition. Sacraments are visible signs instituted by Christ to confer grace. We can put this more formally by saying that sacraments have three components: form, matter, and intention. (We could also include the proper minister and what is required to fruitfully receive a sacrament as well.) Generally speaking, the form is the words that are spoken over the visible sign (the matter) with the intention of doing what the Church wants done in each sacrament. For example, at the Holy Mass, when the priest confects the Holy Eucharist, he takes bread and wine (matter) and speaks the words of institution over them (form). In this action, he intends what the Church intends, namely to make present the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ. These same three elements are present in the Sacrament of Marriage.

In marriage, the matter of the sacrament is the consent expressed by the exchange of vows. When a person enters into marriage, he or she is making a faithful, permanent gift of self for the good of the other and for the good of children the marriage ought to bring forth. If a person doesn’t intend to make a faithful, fruitful, permanent gift of self when giving the vows, this can prevent the marriage bond from coming into existence.

The form of the sacrament concerns how the consent is obtained. For the Church, the proper form for marriage entails the exchange of vows by one man and one woman, who are free to marry, in the presence of the Church’s properly delegated minister (usually a priest or deacon) or duly delegated representative, in the presence of two witnesses. The intention of course is to live as a Christian husband and wife until death. Based upon what you have said in your question, I would have to conclude that the marriage is invalid. In not fulfilling the form of marriage, there is some question about whether a valid sacramental bond came into effect.
Your son had the obligation to follow the Church’s law concerning marriage. By not doing so, he has failed in a basic duty as a Catholic. In essence, looking at it from the outside, I would have questions about his intention to live as a Catholic. Is being Catholic simply a tie to a cultural dimension of his family background or is it the living well-spring of his knowledge of Christ?

Further, based on your question, it sounds like he is not regularly going to Sunday Mass. If the couple wants to have the child baptized, there must be evidence that the couple practices the Catholic Faith. If they are going back and forth between the Methodist church and the Catholic parish, then reasonably, one could infer that this couple doesn’t know what faith they are going to profess. Therefore, the child ought not to be baptized until such a time as this marriage can be regularized as well as question surrounding the practice of the Faith.

The good news is this situation is easy to correct. Assuming that there are no other impediments and that both spouses are free to marry, the couple could receive a convalidation of their vows. The act of convalidation euphemistically is called “having the marriage blessed.” In a convalidation, the couple seeks to fix anything which might leave the status of the marriage in doubt. In your son’s case, the lack of proper canonical form needs to be corrected. As I would see it, it could be a very simple ceremony in which the couple could fulfill the canonical form and thus bring their marriage into line with what the Church intends for the Sacrament of Marriage. If they are interested in straightening out this situation, their parish priest can help iron out any specific questions they may have.

With all that said, however, I would like to point out two things. On the one hand, from your question, I detect that this couple seeks to live in union with God and to know Him authentically. I think that needs to be praised and encouraged. On the other hand, I can’t help but notice a certain manipulative potential in your daughter-in-law’s statement. If she was really all that concerned with what the Church thought about her marriage, why were they married in the Methodist church in the first place? The statement about not feeling comfortable at Mass if the marriage isn’t recognized sounds vaguely like a threat. Implicitly, her attitude suggests that if you don’t like what I have done, then I am going elsewhere. As the Catholic who will, in all likelihood, serve as the bridge to bring her into the Church, you must avoid being sidelined by this sort of emotional argument. Regardless of how she feels about her relationship with the Church, there is an objective norm to these matters and she and her spouse didn’t follow it. If she is really interested in feeling comfortable at Mass, why not see into having the marriage blessed and take part in RCIA? In these two ways, she can truly taste and see the goodness of the Lord.

I appreciate how difficult this must be for you as a parent. It’s hard to see your kids turn away from the Faith that you worked so hard to encourage in them. Know that you and your family will be remembered in my prayers as your family works out this situation.

2006-07-20T10:14:00.000-07:00

Dear Father Tharp,

A week ago Saturday, in the religious section of the Oklahoman newspaper, my husband read an article stating that there is to be more Latin in the Mass? Is this true and when does it start and how much more Latin?

Thanks,
Mary and Bill
St. James the Greater Parish, Oklahoma City

Ah, thanks for the question which allows me to vet my favorite subject: What did the Second Vatican Council actually teach? As you might gather from these columns, I am a pretty simple guy and when it comes to what the Council intended to teach, I tend to start from the documents the Council produced. Put another way, it is difference between the reforms the Holy Spirit wished to enact in our time versus a false reform coming from a so-called “Spirit of Vatican II.”

This might come as a surprise, but a priest needs no special permission to celebrate the Mass of Paul VI, also known as the Novus Ordo Mass, in Latin. In prudence, a priest should prepare a parish before diving into the Mass in Latin. I have wonderful memories of my time in seminary when, at least once a month, the Mass would be celebrated in this ancient and venerable language. I could faintly hear the echo of the ages reverberating through the chapel, hearing the voices of generations who uttered their praise of God in this way.

At no time did the teaching of the Second Vatican Council suggest that Latin should be completed expunged from the Mass. If anything, the opposite was true. As the Council’s Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy states: “The use of the Latin language, with due respect to particular law, is to be preserved in the Latin rites” (Sacrosanctum Concilium #36). However, the Council Fathers recognized that the faithful could benefit from the inclusion of the vernacular language; hence, greater use of it was encouraged. Specifically the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy lists three places where the faithful might realize this benefit: the readings from the Sacred Scriptures, directives, and in some prayers and chants (Sacrosanctum Concilium #36). Furthermore, even where the vernacular was permitted, the Council Fathers cautioned that the faithful should still “be able to say or sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them” (Sacrosanctum Concilium #54). You can see, then, that the battle is between Latin versus vernacular language; true to Catholic sensibilities, the ideal was a “both-and” gesture, keep what is good from the past and include what might benefit for the future.

We can find this line of reasoning echoed in the General Instruction of the Roman Missal from 1975 and 2000. In the 1975 edition we find this “both-and” aspect echoed in paragraph 12: “Since no Catholic would now deny the lawfulness and efficacy of a sacred rite celebrated in Latin, the Council was able to acknowledge that ‘the use of the mother tongue frequently may be of great advantage’ and gave permission for its use.” People found the vernacular so beneficial that even broader use was permitted by the Holy See (GIRM 1975 #12; GIRM 2000 #12). Notice though that there is no conflict between the use of the vernacular and the use of Latin in the mind of the Church. The same document reaffirms the use of Latin especially in situations where people of different countries, hence of different languages, come together for the sacred Liturgy (GIRM 1975 #19; GIRM 2000 #41). Specifically, the Creed and the Our Father are cited as concrete places for this to happen.

In the end, Latin is the patrimony of every Catholic. To be deprived of exposure to its riches is unfortunate, at best. It was only a hundred years ago when to be well-educated meant being well-versed in classical languages, Latin and Greek. The article you mention shows how people misunderstand the role of Latin in the Liturgy. In my own parish, I am working with my music director to broaden our parish’s use of Latin. This implementation will require cooperation but ultimately, putting my parishioners in contact with the fuller picture of the history and practice of the Faith can only benefit them and me. Even though it might take work, I would encourage any pastor to do the same.

Salvation by Faith Alone

2006-05-03T08:37:00.000-07:00

Anyone who has lived in Oklahoma or the Southern United States for any appreciable period of time has run afoul a most basic difference between Catholics and Protestants: how is one saved?  Protestant theology enshrines the notion that salvation is by faith alone.  Martin Luther and the other reformers made this, along with Scripture alone and Grace alone, the banner under which the call to reform was made.  As this issue, salvation by faith alone, forms one of the three pillars of the Protestant Reformation, it is important for Catholics to know how to speak to this matter.
The origin for this doctrine comes from Romans 3:28: “For we hold that a man is justified by faith apart from works of law.”  First, we should note that the context of this verse is conversion from Judaism to the Christian Faith.  Hence, the works in question are the observances tied to the Mosaic Law, i.e. circumscion.  With the coming of Christ, that law lost its power to save; the Law of Grace in Christ has supplanted it.  Second, notice that the verse says nothing about Faith alone or that there are no works which are connected to Faith.  All St. Paul is claiming is faith is necessary for salvation.  I think we would all agree to that.  Could anyone reasonably think that they could “buy off” God with a myriad of good works?  But, what if Faith has a series of consequent actions which demonstrate the presence and authenticity of said Faith?  It is this second sense that the Bible and the Church who wrote it endorses.
In many places in the Sacred Scriptures, the various writers pair faith with loving action.  In John 14:21, our Lord directs us that if we love Him, we will keep His commandments.  Matthew parallels this in his account of the rich, young man who comes seeking salvation and is told to “keep the commandments” (Matthew 19:16-17).  This is significant as St. Paul brings out how salvation comes by “faith working though love” (Galatians 5:6, cf. I Corinthians 13:2).  St. Paul confirms this line of reasoning in his letter to the Ephesians when he writes: “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God – not because of works, lest any man should boast.  For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them” (Ephesians 2:8-10; emphasis added).  Even though Faith is a gift and cannot be earned, you will notice that Faith does have obligations, namely to perform good works because these evince the presence of the Christian Faith.
Elsewhere in the Sacred Scriptures, along with Faith, we also see other requirements for salvation.  Matthew’s Gospel records the Last Judgment in the form of a parable of Jesus (Matthew 25:41-46).  What does Jesus use as the standard for salvation and damnation?  Jesus uses a series of good works like feeding the hungry.  There is no explicit mention of Faith, but there is an understanding that Faith places demands upon Christians which must be realized if one would be saved.  This is the same reasoning present in the Book of Revelation when Christ addresses the various churches to whom this revelation is addressed warning them against works which will lead them away from Him (Revelation 2:5, 3:2-5).  When it comes to a life of Faith, St. Paul lists the various actions and behaviors which show that the Faith of the person is inauthentic (cf.  Galatians 5:1-5, 19-21, I Corinthians 6:9-10).  St. Paul sees clearly that the one who has given himself to Christ, then sin cannot remain (Romans 6:1-3).  Well, what else is the avoidance of sin but a work which one performs; the Christian seeks the good action in opposition to the sinful former way of life.  In Romans 8:24, St. Paul records that hope is needed for salvation, hope in the Resurrection.
If the following hasn’t been convincing, here’s the coffin nail on the theory that one is saved by faith alone.  The only place in the whole Bible where the phrase “faith alone” appears, it appears in the negative.  St. James tells us this: “Do you want to be shown, you foolish fellow, that faith apart from works is barren?....You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone…. For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so faith apart from works is dead” (James 2:20,24,26).  Scholars speculate that St. James is acting as a corrective to a potential misunderstanding of St. Paul’s comments from the Letter to the Romans.  Taken together as a whole, you see the real interesting nature of Faith – Faith brings us to serve God, not because we have a specific legal code, but because we are grateful to God for saving us.  Hence, if I am going to claim that I have the Faith, I have to put my money where mouth is, so to speak.  Faith and works go hand in hand to make a true life of Faith.
Faith is bigger than we suspect.  Perhaps that is the origin of the disagreement in modern times about this issue.  Faith is bigger than simply saying “I believe in Jesus;” it requires dedication and a public witness to that Faith.  In the end, we have to ask not do I have the Faith, but rather how big is my Faith and how does this Faith change the way of living my life.

2006-04-18T13:24:00.000-07:00

Dear Fr. Tharp:
In the Creed we pray at Mass, we say, “On the third day, he rose again from the dead.” I was wondering what the word “again” refers to? Thanks.

Name and Hometown Withheld.

Your question touches upon a couple of interesting subjects, that of translations and the role of Creed. With space permitting, I will try to cover both.

Let’s start with translations. Translations are equal parts linguistic science and artful literary sense. Anytime you move between one language and another, you will lose something in the transition. This is because language is tied to culture and worldview, and because of the unique conditions which go into forming culture and worldview, languages often express something which when literally translated don’t quite scan. For example, if your Lithuanian friend turns to you and says, “Don’t hang macaroni from my ears,” what is he trying to express? Is he concerned that you are about to accost him with your latest pasta creation? Well, no. This phrase, “Don’t hang macaroni from my ears,” is the Lithuanian way of saying, “Don’t pull my leg.” Therefore, the quality of the translation depends on being faithful both to the original language’s meaning and carrying that over to the receiving language.

The original language of the Creed was Greek which was then rendered into Latin. I don’t have access to the Greek edition so I can’t comment to that. Consulting the Latin text of the Creed (and we will focus upon the Nicene Creed which we use each Sunday), we find the article concerning the Resurrection stated thus, “et resurrexit tertia die, secundum Scripturas, et ascendit in caelum, sedet ad dexteram Patris.” Literally, we would render that in English as “And he resurrected on the third day, according to the Scriptures and ascended into Heaven, and is seated at the right of the Father.” You’ll notice that I didn’t mention “again.” That’s because it isn’t in the Latin. So, why is the word “again” included in the English?

I couldn’t find translator notes from the International Commission on the Use of English in the Liturgy, the body responsible for this translation of the Creed, so anything I say on this subject will be provisional. If I had to guess, I would suspect that the “again” is meant to suggest a real, bodily Resurrection, the idea that Christ really came back to life here on earth. In the history of the Church, some groups have proposed that the Resurrection is merely “spiritual,” meaning not bodily or not a real event. Hence, the English translation uses “again” to reinforce that the Resurrection happened as an actual, historical event.

You can see then how when translating that phrase from the Creed, I used both my knowledge of Latin, limited as it is, and my knowledge of the history of doctrine and heresy, again limited as it is. The translation depends on faithfulness to both. When it comes to the Creed and other theological matters, accurate translations are critically important.

On an average Sunday, we recite the Creed by rote, the words rolling off our lips with almost no engagement of the brain. This, however, was not the intention the Church had in formulating the Creed. The Creed serves as a seal of membership. By publicly professing the Creed, we are saying, “I am a Catholic Christian and I don’t care who knows it. I hold all these things in the same way that the Church who gave me the Creed I am professing them means them.” The Creed then represents the foundation for all the other matters of the Faith. That is why, I suspect, no mention is made of the Sacraments or Morality in the Creed. If we do not profess orthodox belief in the person of Christ, for instance, then the Sacraments which He instituted are going to be completely inscrutable. The same goes for morality. How can do what would be pleasing to Christ if I am confused about His person and Nature?

So, here’s the take away point. Your question is a question that I wish more Catholics would ask, not because I think everyone should be perplexed over the word “again” in the Creed. Your question suggests that you are paying attention and engaging the content of the Faith, even in its smallest details. Our life of Faith is the preamble to the Glory of Heaven we hope to share. I can’t understand why people take the Faith so for granted when at the heart of our Faith is a loving and informed engagement with the God who loved and made us.

Christ died and rose from the dead to conquer death and to give us life. In this Easter season, may we commit ourselves to “resurrecting” our engagement with the Faith, in heart, in mind and in strength of conviction.

Scandal and the DVC

2006-04-05T08:26:00.000-07:00

Father Tharp,
Is it better to read "the Da Vinci Code" and see the movie so one is aware of what people are talking about or to avoid them all together and not contribute to the financial success of the persons mocking God? (So far, I have avoided it.)

A believer,
Sharon P.
Edmond, Oklahoma

This is a tricky question.  On the surface of it, it looks like we have a situation where we must choose between two goods: the good of being informed versus the good of avoiding scandal.  Certainly, being informed about the errors of The Da Vinci Code -- the purpose of these last several columns -- would help guide those misinformed by it.  Further, keeping money out of the hands who would mock God and those who love Him helps break the chain of inevitable copycat books.  The last time I was at the local bookstore I spied no less that 5 Dan-Brown-knock-offs and a couple of new books from authors whom Brown used in writing his work.  Well, the good news is, I think, that you can achieve both goods.  Here’s how.
In apologetics, there is a basic principle which runs, “That which is freely asserted may be freely rejected.”  As Dan Brown gives no real credible sources for his assertions and makes several elementary mistakes concerning history and other matters, there is no absolute requirement to read the source material.  All of the authors I have recommended here have provided thorough commentary and citations from Brown’s work and reliable historical sources, so that should suffice for the average Catholic.  After all, most folks are going to throw Brown’s assertions at you, not specific citations from the book.  So, if you understand the basic issues and errors, and you can do this without slogging through his blasphemous assertions.
As to not putting money in the pockets of these folks, avoiding the movie and the book is a good idea.  However, this doesn’t mean you are powerless to send a message to Hollywood.  Barbara Nicolosi, executive director of Act One, gave the best solution for this.  Go to the movies on the opening weekend May 19-21 but go see something else.  Opening weekend box office deeply influences movie executives for future projects.  There are a couple of good films coming that weekend which would be a good alternative.  By going to some other movie, you not only keep money out of The Da Vinci Code coffers, you are encouraging Hollywood to make better movies.
The core issue here involves scandal.  “Scandal is an attitude or behavior which leads another to do evil (CCC #2284).” When we read or promote things like Dan Brown’s book, we are in essence saying, “There’s nothing wrong with this.”  I don’t know about your reading of the Ten Commandments but it seems to me that blasphemy gets under his skin, so to speak.  It should be avoided.  As Christ himself said, “Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened round his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.”
When it comes to matters like this, we should be thankful for all the dedicated authors who have stood up for the truth.  I would like to publicly thank Carl Olson, Sandra Miesel, Amy Welborn, Mark Shea, Ted Sri, Barbara Nicolosi and Matt Arnold for their valiant efforts to expose the disastrous effect Dan Brown’s work is having on the cultural landscape.  Through their works, I was reminded that as a pastor, it is my task to stand against scandal to the flock, and I hadn’t done that.  It hadn’t even really crossed my radar screen.  They deserve all the credit for the last several columns and are to be commended heartily for their faithful witness.

2006-03-21T09:42:00.000-08:00

Dear Father Tharp,
I want to ask you to please contact Dan Brown and tell him the true gospel, as you know it. I am convinced that Mr. Brown's soul is searching and the Da Vinci code is part of that search.

Peace,
Theresa Taylor-Abramson
Oklahoma City, OK

It is gratifying to receive positive feedback on the content of my column. Further, I am flattered that you think that my preaching of the Gospel might impact Mr. Brown so as to move him to conversion. While you didn’t have a question, your email allows me to address a basic requirement inherent in all apologetics.

Many media outlets, when reviewing Mr. Brown’s Da Vinci Code, complemented upon him on his “meticulous research.” When I hear the phrase, “meticulous research,” I think of hours spent in the library, trying to comprehend all the angles and the various positions differing groups hold. Meticulous research, usually, results in a comprehensive understanding of all degrees of knowledge, from essential details to arcane trivia. You don’t find meticulous researchers making elementary mistakes in their works. For instance, Brown claims that when the Pope had the Templars destroyed, he had them burned and their ashes scattered in the Tiber. A couple of problems: historians generally blame the King of France, Philip the Fair, for the destruction of the Templars and as the Papacy was in exile in France, it would make depositing ashes in the Tiber impossible. That sort of mistake a child makes, not a so-called meticulous researcher.

Preaching requires an audience receptive to its message. I agree with you. Mr. Brown is searching for the truth. I know this because every human heart restlessly searches for the truth. If you think you have the answers, or worse, that those who could give reliable testimony are liars, then the search is over. I hate to say it, but The Da Vinci Code doesn’t represent the beginning of a journey to truth; it represents its end. Let me explain.

“History is written by the winners” is one of those things we take for granted, but don’t think about what it means. This principle essentially means take both sides of the story. For example, if you were writing about Columbus and his arrival in the New World, you would include not only Columbus’ own journals but also the observations of those living in the West Indies at the time. However, Mr. Brown uses this idea that “history is written by the winners” to suggest that even basic dates and facts are open to question. Therefore, even if you bring to light contradictory evidence, Mr. Brown can dismiss it because it was recorded by “the winners.” This is irony, par excellence. For approximately 300 to 400 years, Christianity was hardly a winner; either persecution, isolation, and minority representation in the society rendered Christianity anything but powerful, except on the spiritual and metaphysical fronts.

The Gospel, as I know it, is not the issue here. The Gospel according to Father Shane Tharp won’t save a single soul. Only the Gospel according to Jesus Christ, faithfully preserved and handed on through the teaching office of the Catholic Church, only that brings salvation. To the degree the content of my preaching conforms unflinchingly to the content of the Gospel can we have any confidence in my preaching. Yet, it seems that Mr. Brown rejects the traditional content of the Faith. If he will not accept the testimony of the Gospels, the Magisterium, the Church Fathers, centuries of faithful Christians, and learned Doctors of the Church, I am not optimistic what my preaching might achieve, but what do I know? God’s grace certainly can overcome the greatest of obstacles.

This issue, I don’t have a book to recommend; I have something for you to listen to. Matt Arnold is the creative director for St. Joseph’s Communication and he has put together a three CD presentation debunking the most egregious of Mr. Brown’s historical and theological gaffes. The CD set also features a fascinating discussion of the historical and archeological claim that the Santo Caliz in the Cathedral of Valencia might be the Holy Grail, the Cup of the Last Supper. In all, it is a useful resource for all Catholics, especially those pressed for time.

For a positive action to respond to The Da Vinci Code, get with your pastor and host an evening discussion group about the errors found within Mr. Brown’s work. After all, I am perceived as part of the hierarchy, those people trying to hide the truth. However, if an average lay person were to call Mr. Brown’s assertions into question, it would carry more weight. Ascension Press, in conjunction with Catholic Exchange, have a ready-made evening program called “The Da Vinci Antidote.” You can find more information at http://www.davinciantidote.com. You could also invite one of the authors I have recommended (Carl Olson, Sandra Miesel, Amy Welborn, and Matt Arnold) and have them give a workshop. I suppose, if you wanted to go low rent, you could invite me to do the same.

2006-03-07T09:29:00.000-08:00

Will the Real Mary Magdalene Please Stand Up?

Back in the golden age of television, “To Tell the Truth” entertained people with a simple premise. Three people presented themselves as the same person but in truth, only one of them was the real Ethel Greenblat of Walla Walla, Washington, master plate spinner. Through a series of clever questions, celebrity judges would decide who was the real Ethel Greenblat. When it was all said and done, then, the real Mrs. Ethel Greenblat would stand up and would treat the viewing audience to a sample of her artistry. This premise has proved so popular that occasionally the show gets revived; it’s even being revived in popular literature.

Dan Brown’s Da Vinci Code version involves Mary Magdalene. We are presented with three versions of this same woman and are asked to figure out which one is the real Mary Magdalene. Let’s meet them. Mary Magdalene #1 claims not only to be a follower of Jesus, but his wife. In this “sacred marriage,” she represents the Divine Feminine, the other half of the Divine Image which has been so long repressed and is necessary for mental and spiritual well-being of the human race. Mary Magdalene #2 claims that she was a leader in the early Church, the real head until St. Peter and his cohort set up a smear campaign to denigrate her, labeling her a prostitute. Mary Magdalene #3 writes in front of her name “Saint” and smiles as she tells how she participated in salvation history by supporting the work of Christ and the Apostles. Okay, folks, who is the real Mary Magdalene?

Let’s start with Mary Magdalene #1. The Da Vinci Code claims that Mary Magdalene represents the Sacred Feminine because she is married to Jesus. This sacred marriage imparts divinity to Mary because she carries the offspring of this so-called holy union. One problem: Brown asserts that Jesus was a mere mortal, that Constantine engineered a false doctrine of Christ’s divinity so that he could solidify the unity of the Roman Empire. How can Mary Magdalene be the Goddess suppressed if Jesus isn’t God? If Jesus is merely a mortal prophet, then Mary Magdalene is merely a prophet’s wife. Mary Magdalene #1 is not the real Mary Magdalene.

Then we turn our attention to Mary Magdalene #2. Was she really the leader of the early Church and it was only after a smear campaign that she lost her prominent place? Dan Brown asserts that even mentioning Mary Magdalene’s name was forbidden. That should immediately strike us as odd. Mary Magdalene is mentioned some 12 times in the Gospels. If Constantine had altered the Gospels, as Brown claims, he must have forgotten that it was forbidden to mention her name. Then you look at the actual citations and another fact jumps out at you: she is the first witness of the Resurrection (cf. Mt. 28:1, Mk. 16:9). She is the one who informs the remaining Apostles and it is on her witness that they go to the tomb (cf. Lk. 24:10, Jn. 20:18). Because of this, Mary Magdalene is called the “Apostle to the Apostles.” This is startlingly, considering that a woman’s testimony was not accepted as evidence in either secular or religious courts of the time. Also, if Mary Magdalene’s name was forbidden to be spoken, why do early Church Fathers, both before and after Constantine, not only write about her but preach publically about her virtues. It’s an awfully odd smear campaign. Mary Magdalene #2 is not the real Mary Magdalene either.

By process of elimination, the real Mary Magdalene is Mary Magdalene #3. Pope St. Gregory the Great makes the case that Mary Magdalene was a reformed prostitute, a tradition which finds its origins in Jewish literature. While there isn’t space sufficient to go into the historical background for Gregory’s assertion, it’s worth noting that every Christian comes from sin into the righteousness of God. Mentioning a previously sinful lifestyle isn’t odd or defamation; it’s par for the course. You don’t hear people saying that the Church waged a smear campaign against St. Matthew for mentioning that he was a tax collector which would hardly have won him any points. The reason for the supposed marriage between Mary Magdalene and Christ is that she is one of the few, unattached women we know of from the New Testament. All the other women mentioned either aren’t given a name (e.g. the Syrophoenican woman of Mark 7:26) or are already married (e.g. Mary, the wife of Clophas mentioned in John 19:25).

The Church, rather than smearing Saint Mary Magdalene, has honored her as the model of conversion and repentance, a model of the ideal Christian. She remained close to our Lord, often being associated with the woman who anoints our Lord in preparation for his Passion and Mary, the sister of Martha. Even if the seven devils which our Lord drove from her are taken as representing the seven deadly sins, we have to accept that Christ worked a powerful act of love in her life. This lead to a powerful conversion of her life. When we meet her, the real Saint Mary Magdalene, we meet the concrete possibility which grace can work in our lives too.

For your further reading and consideration, let me suggest the excellent book by Amy Welborn, Decoding Da Vinci. In this slender volume, Mrs. Welborn addresses many of the basic fallacies and errors Dan Brown presents as fact. This book is especially noteworthy as it is ideal for high school and college students. The presentations are brief enough to be engaging with enough meat to stimulate further conversation.

As a positive step in response to Dan Brown’s novel, let’s take a page out of St. Mary Magdalene’s play book: go to confession and make a holy hour in front of the Blessed Sacrament. In going to confession, you will find forgiveness for all those times when you were not faithful to the loving Bridegroom of the Church. In making your holy hour before our Lord’s true presence, you will prepare yourself to listen to our Lord and to receive instruction for your life from Him.

2006-02-22T08:26:00.000-08:00

Discover the Whole Jesus!
The Church teaches that Jesus Christ is both True God and True Man.
Check it out in the Gospels and the New Testament.

Jesus Christ as True God

Matthew 1
Matthew 2:1-11
2:2, 8, 11
Matthew 3:17
Matthew 4:7-11
Matthew 10:40
Mark 1:11
Mark 2:1-12
Mark 3:1-6
Mark 15:39
Luke 1-2
Luke 3:22
Luke 4:7-8
Luke 7:36-50
John 1:1-18
1:1, 14, 18
John 8
8:23-30, 34-47, 52-59
(cf. Exodus 3:14)
John 10:24-42
10:30
John 14-17
14:8-14
John 20:26-28
20:28

Acts 10:25-26
Acts 20:28-29
Philippians 2
Colossians 1
1:16-17
Colossians 2:8-10
Titus 2:11-15

Jesus Christ as True Man

He has a particular birth date and real childhood:
Matthew 1:16, 18-25
Matthew 2:1-4
Luke 2
Luke 2:7-11
Galatians 4:4

He hungers:
Matthew 4:1-11
Matthew 21:18
Mark 11:12
Luke 4:2

He experiences sorrow:
John 11:35

He suffers Death:
Matthew 26:37-38
Mark 15:37-39
Luke 23:46
John 19:30-34
Romans 5:6-15
I Corinthians 8:11, 15:3
II Corinthians 5:14-15
Galatians 2:21

2006-02-22T08:24:00.000-08:00

Every Thursday night, on CBS, millions of viewers tune in for the adventures of police officers dedicated to solving crime using the best forensic science. In the course of each investigation, the forensics team searches for evidence in order to piece together the sequence of events leading up to the crime and find the culprit. The team finds the best evidence the sooner they come upon the scene of the crime; the older the scene the less useful the evidence is. What works for forensic science also applies to the profession of the Christian Faith.

The modern person has greater difficulty in coming to the Christian Faith merely on the basis that we are separated from the events by such a great span of history. For us to assent the Church’s Faith, we have to sort through evidence for the person of Christ and for the claims of the Church. For those who think that this is a silly observation, consider that in the Italian courts recently had to hear a case in which an atheist charged an elderly priest with fraud, claiming that Christ never existed. In saying that we are Christians, we must be familiar not only with the evidence but also know why the evidence is reliable.

Dan Brown wants his readers to choose another source for their evidence for Christ. Mr. Brown would have us believe that the four Canonical Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) are not reliable evidence for Christ; rather Mr. Brown would have us turn to the works of the Gnostics and their literary products. There is not sufficient time to go into the claims of Gnostic Christians here. Instead, I would like us to consider why the Canonical Gospels are a better source for our evidence concerning the person of Christ.

Playing Gil Grissom for a moment, we might ask which evidence comes from a time most proximate to the events in question. The best scholarship would suggest that the Canonical Gospels date from mid-first century (50 -100) A.D. More conservative scholars favor an earlier date given that none of the Canonical Gospels mention the destruction of the Temple which occurred in 70 A.D. For Christians making the case that Judaism is fulfilled in Christ, hence ending the worship of the Temple, this would be a curious omission. More liberal scholars favor an later dating of the Canonical Gospels, pushing the date of the composition of St. John’s Gospel to the mid-second century (150) A.D. The sophistication found in St. John’s Gospel suggests that there had to be a long period of formulation. In either case, we can place the Canonical Gospels in the mid- to late first century. How do the Gnostic Gospels match up?

According to the best historical records, the Gnostic Gospels date from the mid-second century and later. In contrast to Mr. Brown’s claim that some eighty gospels were considered for inclusion in the Bible, historians note the existence of about 20 or 30 Gnostic Gospels, some known only from mention in texts refuting their claims. For The Da Vinci Code, two Gnostic Gospels stand out: The Gospel of Philip and The Gospel of Mary Magdalene. Scholars would date the Gospel of Philip to 250 A.D. and the Gospel of Mary Magdalene to the late second century (175 - 200) A.D.

This should give us pause. Brown wants us to accept the testimony of texts which appear approximately 150 years after the events they purport to describe over those sources which are virtually contemporary to the events they relate. Frankly, that doesn’t make any sense. When you then add that the Gnostic Gospels are often vague and disagree with one another, that they only exists in a few copies, mostly fragments, and their generally misogynistic tone, it seems odd that we should accept the Gnostic version of events over the Canonical Gospels.

For this week’s response to The Da Vinci Code, I would suggest something elementary. If you are unfamiliar with the real Jesus, why not get to know Him through the best historical documents we have, the New Testament? On my website, Apologize and Don’t Be Sorry, I provide a list of relevant citations from the New Testament in which we see clearly that the early Church professed that Jesus Christ is True God and True Man. There are enough citations that you could read one each day of Lent.

For your further reading, try out the book which, in my estimation, is the pick of the litter. In their work, The Da Vinci Hoax: Exposing the Errors in The Da Vinci Code (Ignatius Press, 2004), Carl Olson and Sandra Miesel have collaborated to produce a systematic debunking of most of Brown’s baseless assertions. A good feature of this work is the ample citation of other scholarly works, not necessarily from Catholic authors, which permits readers to go more in depth in their own research. I would have liked a more complete treatment of Opus Dei, but as they couldn’t address every single error, some matters must be omitted.

2006-02-07T09:08:00.000-08:00

Each person is the unique product of the intersection of various forces. Put another way, each of us is the product of a culture. Culture is that which a society produces which gives expression to its core beliefs and what it values. Notably, culture is generally associated with creativity and artistic expression. For instance, if we go to the museum and tour a selection of Impressionist paintings, we have made contact with our common European culture, a culture that, at the time Impressionism was en vogue, wrestled with the nature of knowledge and the mutability of our perceptions. This movement however goes in both directions. As we encounter various expressions of our culture, those encounters touch us. If this isn’t clear, a brief historical aside will demonstrate this point.

On the surface, it would seem that a book would not possess the power to change the landscape of a country or its particular history. Well, that depends. Harriet Beecher Stowe may not have realized it but when she wrote of the plight of African slaves in the antebellum South, she lit the fuse on a conflict that had simmered since the foundation of the United States. Uncle Tom’s Cabin, a work of fiction, impelled readers to re-consider matter they had put to bed. Abraham Lincoln met her at the White House in 1862. His purported remark was “So you're the little woman who wrote the book that started this great war!”

Take for instance another piece of fiction burning up the bestseller list: Dan Brown’s The Da Vinci Code. What starts out as a basic thriller/murder mystery rapidly turns into a series of perplexing claims concerning history, theology, art, and the Catholic Church. Soon, the reader questions many things that they had considered settled. Was Jesus really married to Mary Magdalene? Was Jesus a merely mortal prophet later re-cast as God for political purposes? Has the Catholic Church been hiding the truth for all these centuries?

Now, I know what some of you are thinking. “Come on, Father. It’s just a work of fiction. What’s to get upset about?” I will grant that: you won’t find this book hanging out with scholarly non-fiction at your local Barnes and Noble. However, while the cover says “fiction,” the author claims “fact.” A cover page purports that all art, architecture, rituals, and documents depicted within its pages are accurate. Here’s the source of our problem.

Historical fiction tells a story against the backdrop of a particular historical moment. Gone with the Wind certainly is not a textbook on the American Civil War. It’s the story of love in the time of war. In historical fiction, the author makes a deal with the reader. The author agrees to portray the time period correctly, so that the reader can focus on the action of the story. In The Da Vinci Code, this process is reversed. By keeping the action and details concerning the characters and the plot light, Dan Brown directs readers to pay attention to his assertions. In short, it is a clever way to counter-evangelize the culture. Mr. Brown wants to have his cake and eat it too: he can claim that the book is fiction while asserting that everything you know about Christianity is false.

When this book came to my attention, I knew it was right up my alley and conformed perfectly to the purpose of this column. To make the case for faith in Christ and in his Holy Church is to make a case based in fact, not feeling. Brown has his fictional symbologist claim that every faith is a fabrication and that every informed believer knows that. Believing in something known to be false is not faith; it’s foolishness. Faith is an act of the reason, grounded in real information from which the person draws a conclusion. If I going to make tomato sauce, I go to the store and buy canned tomatoes. How do I know there are tomatoes in this can? I can’t see them. What if someone changed the labels? I could be buying anything. You can see where this kind of thinking leads. I would be standing to this very moment in the grocery store rather writing this article. We can’t live our lives without relying on acts of faith, even in the most insignificant aspects of our lives.

Faith in Jesus Christ is the doorway to salvation, and this faith is and must be grounded in the facts of history. As Saint Paul is swift to remind us, these things did not happen in a corner; they happened in full view of the world (Acts 26:26). So, instead of simply being disgusted at the blasphemous claims found in The Da Vinci Code, I am going to use this as an opportunity. Mr. Brown’s book gives you and I the chance to review the basic facts of our Christian faith, perhaps leading us to greater acts of love and devotion. Also, it will equip us to answer the questions our friends, family, and colleagues will bring to us. With a major studio film version of the book coming out in May, I don’t expect this to disappear from the cultural radar any time soon.

Over the next several issues, I will address the most basic and most obvious errors found in Mr. Brown’s book. To paraphrase St. Thomas More, to study for errors in The Da Vinci Code is akin to studying the sea for water. Also, I want to propose materials for further reading as any in-depth, systematic analysis is beyond the scope of this column. Lastly, I will suggest some practical ways that you can respond effectively and positively to this latest attack on our Catholic Faith.

2005-12-13T09:10:00.000-08:00

Dear Fr. Tharp,
Other than the Bible are there any other accounts, records (i.e. historical) of the worldly tax ordered by Caesar Augustus at the time of Jesus’ birth?

Sincerely,
Jan Reordan
Oklahoma City, OK

I assume you are referring to the event recorded in the Gospel of St. Luke 2:1-3: “In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that the whole world should be enrolled. This was the first enrollment, when Quirinius was governor of Syria. So all went to be enrolled, each to his own town.” The Roman Empire, as you note, assigned taxation rates to a particular district or region of the empire by means of these sorts of enrollments. Your question points to an essential feature of the Gospel, its historicity, i.e. the historical fact of the events recounted. If the Gospels are reliable historical records then I should be able to verify its claims from sources outside their pages. Many opponents of the Church try to shoot holes in the Gospel, and in the Bible in general, by suggesting that there are historical contradictions within the text, thus proving, in their minds, the falsity of the Church’s claims. Hence, historical verification becomes essential to solid evangelization.

Caesar Augustus was the emperor of the Roman Empire from 30 B.C. to 14 A.D. Caesar Augustus contracted various censuses throughout his reign so St. Luke might be thinking of one of these censuses. In addition, the Empire often respected the practices of cultures it had absorbed. Thus, in the land of Israel, officials used the accepted Jewish custom of returning to one’s ancestral home for the census. A problem crops up in that Quirinius was not governor of Syria until 6 A.D., a full ten years after the generally accepted scholarly dating of the birth of Christ (4-6 B.C.). When you add that the historical record doesn’t mention an empire-wide taxation census at the end of the first century B.C., you have a full blown mess on your hands. These discrepancies lead historians to suggest various solutions ranging from claiming St. Luke goofed his facts to contorting the historical record into a shape which doesn’t readily fit the historical data we do possess.

Recent historical data has suggested some simpler ways of understanding what St. Luke is referring to. While the Empire generally used the census for taxation purposes, taxation was not the only reason for a census. Both the Jewish historian Josephus, a contemporary of the Gospel period, and the fifth century Christian historian, Orosius, refer to an oath of loyalty to Caesar Augustus that all citizens of the Empire were required to make. A public act of fealty of this sort would require a census be drawn up in each province so that a provincial governor might prove the loyalty of his own subjects. Caesar Augustus himself alludes to this loyalty oath when he claims that the whole Empire proclaimed him its “father.” Historians date this event to around 2 B.C. Hence, while we don’t have a record of a taxation census at the time of the Nativity of Christ, we do have evidence for a different type of census which would fit the description found in St. Luke’s Gospel.

As to Quirinius’ governorship of Syria, we should note that St. Luke uses the same word for Quirinius’ role as he does for Pontius Pilate’s. Hence, St. Luke may have in mind that Quirinius was only a procurator before being governor of Syria. St. Justin Martyr (100-165 A.D.) refers to Quirinius being a procurator in Judea and not in Syria at the time of the Nativity while Tertullian (160? - 240? A.D.) states that Saturninus was the official legate of Syria at the time in question. Hence, Quirinius’ presence in the Gospel account can be explained by demoting him. Also, this is a good example of how a translation can introduce difficulties that don’t actually exist in the original language.

On a final note, I would like to suggest that despite concrete evidence from the historical record or confusion over what sort of act St. Luke describes in his Gospel, we need to keep a basic fact of the early Church’s proclamation of the Gospel in mind. One of the key tactics that evangelizers used in proclaiming Christ was to stress the historical fact of the life of Christ. St. Paul in his defense before going to Rome makes this bold statement, “I am not mad, most excellent Festus; I am speaking words of truth and reason. The king knows about these matters and to him I speak boldly, for I cannot believe that (any) of this has escaped his notice; this was not done in a corner” (Acts 26:25-26). With this in mind, I would advocate giving more credit to the Gospel’s account because they have more to lose if they are not being forthright and accurate. After all, these things didn’t happen in a corner, did not happen on the periphery of society, but rather happened in broad daylight. If the evangelists are not telling the truth to their prospective audiences, then they doom the effort to bring all people to Christ, thus bringing shame upon themselves.

If you would like to read more on the question of biblical skepticism, there are a pair of articles available on the Catholic Answers website (http://www.catholic.com). They are available free of charge.

2005-11-18T06:53:00.000-08:00

Discussion Questions for Living the Mysteries
These questions are provided for the use of those who reading the book recommended on Catholic Ragemonkey. They are free for re-production for those using this book in group discussion.

Discussion Questions #1
1. Name one thing you learned about the Sacraments in general from this week’s reading.
2. Discuss how the Church Fathers used the Old Testament to explain various aspects of the Sacred Mysteries.
3. Using specific information from the reading, demonstrate how you could more effectively explain the role of tradition in the life of the Church.
4. Based upon your reading, which element of the Sacramental Mysteries is most important to the Church Fathers?
5. Given what is said about the commonness of the signs used in the sacraments, explain what effect that might have on a Christian’s identity and self-perception.
6. When the Church Fathers speak of "change," do they perceive change as a positive or negative reality?

Discussion Questions #2
1. List the effects of Baptism and Confirmation according to St. Cyril. Be sure to show where you found your answer.
2. Describe how the ancient practices surrounding Baptism and Confirmation are similar and dissimilar to what the Church does today.
3. Interpret what the rituals and details of the sacrament of Baptism communicate about the human person.
4. Discuss the paradoxical nature of Baptism as it is understood by St. Cyril.
5. Using the readings, name some practical ways to live out the promises of your baptism.
6. Does the location of St. Cyril’s preaching of these instructions enhance the points he is making?

Discussion Questions #3
1. In your own words, define the concept of ‘illumination’ as understood by St. Clement of Alexandria.
2. Describe the effects that come from illumination.
3. St. Clement uses several strong analogies for the process and work of illumination. Interpret
why these images are particularly fitting for the topic of illumination.
4. Distinguish between the various causes for man’s illumination. Why is it important to make these distinctions?
5. Since all Christians are illuminated through Grace and Faith, compose a daily schedule for yourself that better reflects your illuminated nature. What must go into that regime?
6. When St. Clement discusses the Holy Eucharist, which images employed were most obvious to you? Which images were most moving for you?

Discussion Questions #4
1. According to St. Ambrose, what is the Holy Eucharist? (Be careful; this one is a loaded question.)
2. Discuss how reception of Holy Communion immerses us in the fullness of salvation history.
3. What petition of the Our Father is underlined in the preaching of St. Ambrose on the Holy Eucharist? What changes in your personal life might this create?
4. Do you see a pattern in the evidence St. Ambrose marshals for the reality of the Holy Eucharist, i.e. the Holy Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Christ? What is that pattern? Why is it relevant?
5. Using elements from St. Ambrose’s homilies, explain how the Church can describe the Holy Mass as "Heaven on Earth."
6. In one of the readings St. Ambrose uses especially strong, if not erotic language, to describe the act of receiving Holy Communion. Did you find that strange? Why or Why Not? How can he use such language to describe this holy gift?

Discussion Questions #5
1. List the characteristics of the Church as St. Augustine presents them in the given selections.
2. What one characteristic of the Church most influence and shapes St. Augustine’s thought concerning the Church?
3. Given the various images and types St. Augustine uses to describe the nature and operation of the Church, do these images and types help you to have a more dynamic life in the Church? How so?
4. What unforeseen consequence arises from our union with the Church and our reception of the Holy Eucharist? (Hint: While I have one specific idea in mind, it doesn’t exclude other possible answers.)
5. Could one call the Church a sacrament? What aspects of St. Augustine’s teaching would support this?
6. Could you relate St. Augustine’s teaching on the Church to your own experience as a Catholic? What might one do to bring a deeper richness to one’s lived experience of the Church as a Catholic?

Discussion Questions #6
1. According to St. John Chrysostom, to which three theological mysteries does the Sacrament of Matrimony refer?
2. Contrast the common understanding and perception of celibacy with that of St. John. How are they different? How are they the same?
3. Using the commentary provided in the reading, illustrate how the Christian married couple is called to live. Give specific examples.
4. Of the three goods of marriage – faithfulness, permanence, and fruitfulness – which one would St. John say permits marriage to be a symbol of the Holy Trinity?
5. Taking into consideration what St. John Chrysostom said on the subject of priesthood, marriage, and celibacy, could a renewal of married life result in an increased response to the vocation of priesthood and religious life? How? Why?
6. If you were St. John, summarize how he might suggest strengthening your marriage, if you are already married, or how one might go about finding a spouse, if you aren’t married.

Discussion Questions #7
1. Which events of our Lord’s life give a hint of our final destiny and by what means do we encounter and participate in this destiny?
2. Discuss how, in the thought of St. Leo, glorification achieved by Christ corrects the Fall.
3. How can St. Leo the Great’s discussion of glory correct the Protestant notion of "Salvation by Faith Alone?"
4. What relationship does the virtue of hope have with the reality of God’ glory? Which vices related to the virtue of hope does this allow us to correct?
5. Are the mysteries of the Faith mere metaphors? Why or why not?
6. Why can the topic of glorification be both a fitting conclusion to our study and a fitting resumption of our spiritual journey?

2005-11-16T10:34:00.000-08:00

Dear Father Tharp,
I was recently discussing cremation with my mother who is not Catholic and she asked me what the Church’s teaching is on cremation. I looked in the Catechism for direction, but I was not able to locate information regarding the specific question we were hoping to find answered. What does the Church teach about cremation and spreading of ashes? Thank you for any information you may direct my way.
Tami Young, Edmond, OK

Perhaps we need to make a small distinction here at the outset, to avoid any possible confusion. The Church proposes various matters of doctrine which she, through the act of Revelation and the work of the Magisterium, professes as part and parcel of her being the Bride of Christ. These teachings have necessary, practical consequences in the lives of Christians. They result in various outward expressions or practices that constitute the outward expression of one’s own professed Faith. The key distinction rests on the fact that the Church’s doctrines do not change, but her practices often do and must in order to address new issues that confront the Church as she proceeds through history. Hence, in your question, you have both realities competing for space. On the one hand, we need to understand what the Church teaches about the nature of the human body and the nature of death. Only after that can we point to what practices are acceptable when disposing of someone’s mortal remains.

The Church teaches that the body is a constitutive element of being human. Unlike much of the pagan, pre-Christian philosophy which treated the body, and all things material, as a prison for the spirit, the Church recognized that man is a unified or composite being, a being of body (material) and soul (spiritual). It is through the body that we make the reality of our personhood known and experienced. It is with human hands, human language, and human gestures that the greatest and most noble expressions of our humanity come to light. When we combine this natural notion of the body with the reality of the Incarnation, a greater light dawns. Man, body and soul, participates in the very life of God by virtue of the Lord’s coming and assuming to Himself a human nature.

Because of Original Sin, death entered the world. For the Church, death is the soul separating from the body. This is significant as it is the soul’s power as the animating and personal principle which allowed the body, in life, to be more than a bag of bones. The mortal remains signal the truth that the one we knew and loved, the real person we had encountered, is gone. With that said, it doesn’t mean that the body suddenly loses its meaning. Instead, we are called to respect the mortal remains of the deceased precisely because they were so integral with the person in question. At the same time, though, we know that death is not the end. Rather, we wait to rise as Christ rose from the dead, in a real body like the one we possessed before, albeit glorified, again as our Lord’s own body was glorified in the Resurrection.

In practice, then, when disposing of someone’s mortal remains after death, nothing can be done which would suggest either a denial of the Resurrection or a disrespectful attitude toward the body (CCC #2301; Code of Canon Law c. 1176, §3). Hence, for many years, cremation was not permitted. In recent times, especially in many countries where scarcity of available land restricts the building of new cemeteries or where infectious disease remain a problem, the Church has seen fit to permit cremation under the circumstances mentioned above, i.e. that the cremation is not being performed in order to disrespect the body or deny the bodily Resurrection of the dead. Generally speaking, it is preferred that cremation take place after the funeral liturgy so that the body may be present (GIOCF #418).

It should then come as no surprise that while the body may be cremated, the ashes cannot be scattered as though they were of no consequence (CCC #2300). Regardless of its condition, those ashes are still the mortal remains of a person for whom Christ died and who, in their body, made evident their being created in God’s image and likeness. As the General Instruction for the Order of Christian funerals clearly states: “The practice of scattering cremated remains on the sea, from the air, or on the ground, or keeping cremated remains in thehome of a relative or friend of the deceased are not reverent disposition that the Church requires” (GIOCF #417). The urn containing the ashes should be interred either in a mausoleum or grave. The ashes may also be buried at sea, so long as the urn is sealed and the body deposited intact.

2005-11-02T08:47:00.000-08:00

Dear Father Tharp,
I am an old-fashioned Catholic. Just wondering about this – Would the Catholic Church approve of a Methodist minister to receive the bread and wine given during the Catholic Mass?

Name and Hometown Withheld

First, let’s clear up a point of confusion that is present in your question. Nobody, Catholic, Protestant, or Pagan, who receives Holy Communion at any Holy Mass receives bread and wine. It is the firm and constant teaching of the Catholic Church that after the words of Consecration, apart from its appearances, nothing of the bread and wine remains. What one receives at Holy Mass is the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ, risen from the dead, the same Body born of the Virgin Mary. On this point, the Catechism of the Catholic Church states, “[I]n the most blessed sacrament of the Eucharist ‘the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ and, therefore, the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained (CCC# 1374).’” It is an unfortunate state of affairs but we have grown far too casual with our language concerning this most wondrous Sacrament. Unclear language gives growth to unclear belief. From unclear belief comes every sort of aberration in the proper and pious witness that Catholics must render so that others may be saved.

Now, in principle, the Church does not advocate or encourage the reception of Holy Communion by Protestant Christians, those ecclesial communities whose origins are found in the Reformation. The Holy Eucharist, along with being the Body and Blood of Our Lord, is also a sign and the source of the visible unity that should exist within the Church. This is why notorious public sinners are excluded from Holy Communion; their actions have distanced them from the Church. Difference in belief and practice result in real divisions within the body of those who profess to believe in Christ and therefore, until the scandal of division is healed, general intercommunion is not possible (cf. CCC #1400).

However, with that said, the Church recognizes that, under grave situations, a non-Catholic Christian, could be admitted to the Holy Eucharist, Penance, and Anointing of the Sick if the following conditions were fulfilled: 1.) the person asked of their own free will and 2.) must profess the same faith as the Church as concerns the nature of these Sacraments (CCC #1401). The Code of Canon Law further specifies that the non-Catholic must be deprived of the minister of their own community and are properly disposed to receive them. Further, the Code adds the instruction that the non-Catholic in question must be in danger of death or in some other serious situation as defined by the Bishop or the Bishops’ Conference (CIC, can. 844, § 4).

So, to answer your question, the answer would be no. The Church would not approve, generally, of a Methodist minister receiving Holy Communion at a Catholic Mass. By the fact the Church’s teaching and law employs the term “grave,” it is reasonable to conclude that any reception of the sacraments, especially the Holy Eucharist, by a non-Catholic should be very rare. In the situation you describe there is the added fact that this person is a minister within his own community. It is impossible for him, barring the circumstances of imminent death, to be without a minister from his own community. Therefore, I cannot see any rationale for that situation persisting.

DVD Bonus: As a bonus for this article I wanted to give a couple of alternative opening paragraphs that ended up in the deleted pile.

Alternative Opening 1: "Wow, you really are an old-fashioned Catholic. You hold a belief about the Holy Eucharist which predates Christianity!"

Alterative Opening 2: "If it all that we were receiving at Holy Mass was bread and wine, then anyone could come and receive. What we receive is not Bread and Wine. It is the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ Our Lord."

There were meaner ones which for sake of not having to go to confession remain hidden in my brain.

2005-10-24T19:32:00.000-07:00

I am rubbing my claws together with delight over this news. Granted, it means that I will have to read like the wind to be ready so that I can be caught up with all the other writings of the Holy Father that are available in English.

2005-10-24T19:28:00.000-07:00

Dear Father Tharp,
Why do we baptize babies? There is nothing anywhere in the Bible about babies being baptized or anything in Church History that I can find. Baptism was always something that came after conversion. Baptism is not what saves us, it is what we do after we are saved, is it not?
Kathy Woncom
Edmond, OK

If Baptism is not what saves us, then St. Peter is a mite confused when he professes “Baptism...saves you now” (I Peter 3:20-21). The opinion you present, Kathy, is one typical of our separated brethren of the Anabaptist stripe. Because the emphasis is placed with these denominations upon “salvation by faith alone,” nothing else can be permitted to be the agent of salvation. So, in fact, there are two questions here: is Baptism merely symbolic of an act of conversion and why would one baptize infants?

I think that the confusion on this first question comes from a misunderstanding of sequence of effects. For instance, if your tooth hurts you, you promptly go to the dentist who then performs his ministrations and alleviates the problem. Now, you wouldn’t say that your acknowledgment of the toothache is what cured you. You would say, “the toothache led me to seek out the one who could solve the problem.” Thus, both your insight and the work of the dentist are needed. This, by way of analogy, occurs here in Baptism as well.

You rightly note that before Baptism came the preaching of the Gospel. The pain of soul that comes from the darkness of sin and the sorrow over being separated from God is analogous to the tooth pain which leads you to the dentist. The Gospel helps us to acknowledge that God has sent the Son to save us from exactly this pain of soul. Through the Church’s administration of Baptism, the actual problem is solved: Baptism cleanses us from Original Sin and for anyone beyond the age of reason, personal Sin as well.

As for biblical testimony to these ideas we first turn to John 3:5 in which Jesus explains to Nicodemus that being born again comes from water and the Holy Spirit. Jesus Himself makes Baptism a condition for entering Heaven (cf. Mark 16:16). In Acts of the Apostles, Peter solemnly proclaims to those gathered in Jerusalem that Baptism provides forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit (cf. Acts 2:38). St. Paul follows this up with his own testimony first in the Letter to the Romans where he states the new life in Christ comes through Baptism (Romans 6:4) and later in Titus, we are saved “by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit” (Titus 3:5). From here we can better see the logic of baptizing infants.

All of us, excepting Our Lord and Our Lady, are born under the effects of Original Sin. This sin separates us from God and until it is remitted we are not part of His Kingdom (cf. Rom. 5:18-19). Through Baptism, even the infant begins to taste the gift of eternal life. The Baptism of infants truly points up the gratuitous nature of salvation. The infant provides nothing to earn God’s grace. The infant must depend upon the faith of his parents to lead him to conversion, but this doesn’t render the sacrament ineffective. Rather, it fulfills Jesus’ own admonition to let the children come unto Him (cf. Mark 10:14).

While there are no explicit commands to baptize infants in the Bible, it is more telling that there are no explicit commands not to baptize infants to found in the Bible either. On the contrary, we hear in the Bible how the Apostles often would baptize entire households and logically this would include infants (Acts 16:15, 33; I Cor 1:16). More to the point, the Bible never reports the Apostles saying “We baptized everyone but the infants; they would have to wait.”
As for Church History’s testimony, a quick spin through the Church Fathers should provide some evidence. St. Justin Martyr (ca.155 AD) acknowledges no other way to salvation except through Baptism. Tertullian also notes that some in his own day suggest deferring Baptism, adult and infant alike, because of the serious obligations Baptism imposes. If the early Church were not baptizing infants, then Tertullian need not make this observation. Origen explicitly mentions that the practice of baptizing infants in of apostolic origin in his Commentary on Romans (ca. 244 AD).

In conclusion, we might also consider a certain type of fittingness for baptism of infants. In the Old Testament, infant boys were circumcised eight days after birth so that they would be enrolled in the people of the Covenant of Abraham. Now that that covenant is fulfilled in Christ, why would God want us to separate the child from the fulfillment, when in previous ages, the child was enrolled immediately in that which was merely preparation?

2005-09-20T08:44:00.000-07:00

Once we have truly met the Risen One by partaking of his body and blood, we cannot keep to ourselves the joy we have experienced. The encounter with Christ, constantly intensified and deepened in the Eucharist, issues in the Church and in every Christian an urgent summons to testimony and evangelization.
Pope John Paul II, Mane Nobiscum Domine #24.

In a former life, I was a musician. Namely, I was someone who didn’t want to take gym, so instead I took choir. While in choir, I came to understand the rich complexity music embodies.

Every piece of music begins with a melody. A composer builds a musical composition on the foundation of a melody. The melody is the part of the music that you hum after the song is over. Upon the melody’s foundation, the composer build a harmony. The harmony highlights a complimentary aspect of the melody, thus emphasizing what the melody plays. In terms of difficulty, the harmony can be as simple as one additional line (the basic duet) all the way to eight and nine additional lines written for male and female voices. This varying degree of possibility suggests how potent and how much potential is hidden in any one line of music. Lastly, the composer can add a further line of definition to the music by adding a descant. This last line acts like a harmony for the harmony, mainly to accent the full potential of what is composed. While many songs are "popular," few are immortal, speaking to generation after generation of listeners.

The life of Christians follows the same angles. A Christian builds his life of grace upon the work of evangelization. No one becomes a Christian on their own; we became a Christian because someone proclaimed the message of Christ to us. The vast majority of Christians are evangelized in their homes, gathered around the kitchen table to hear the lessons the Church hands on. Many Christians enter into the Faith, however, in their adult years, after many passing encounters with Christ. Regardless of when you are evangelized, be it as child or adult, all evangelization demands conversion. If we realize that the only answer to the looming question, "what is my life for?," is "your life is hidden in Christ with God," then we cannot remain the same.

Conversion leads to the next dimension of Christian life, catechesis. Catechesis is the deepening and uncovering of the further implications of the Faith, through further study of the Church’s teaching. Like a harmony in music, catechesis involves varying degrees of complexity the more deeply you explore what the Faith teaches. Every line of the Creed has greater meaning than perhaps our Sunday recitation suggests. Again, effective catechesis draws the Christian towards conversion. Knowledge inevitably leads the person to ask how can I make this active in my life.

Hence, we reach the last degree, formation. Formation, like the descant, is icing on the cake. From our encounter with Christ in evangelization, through the growth in knowledge of Christ in catechesis, we long to live in union with Christ through our formation. Formation comes as the beautiful fruit of evangelization and catechesis. Formation is, in the truest sense, the practice of the Faith.

The connection between the Eucharist and evangelization should be clear then. When Christ commands the Apostles to "do this (the Eucharist) in memory of me," He is giving them a lasting commandment, a commandment to be enacted in every age. The Eucharist becomes the foundation of our encounter with the Risen Christ. For that encounter to happen, we must be informed that Christ is actually, really, and truly present under the appearances of bread and wine. This truth of the Holy Eucharist must be proclaimed to us; it will not occur merely naturally. It is a mystery of faith, beyond the realms of pure reason’s facility to uncover. In short, we must be evangelized to this truth of the Faith.

When we are informed of the reality hidden in the Holy Eucharist, we cannot remain silent. Hence, we begin to reach out to proclaim the saving truth of Christ to our neighbors, our friends, our families. We all have friends and neighbors who at one time were Catholic but now have lapsed. Perhaps this lapse is not a moral fault but a faulty evangelization. They have tried to build a sound house of faith upon unsound foundations. A simple first step for evangelization in our diocese could be taking a lapsed Catholic to Sunday Mass. Granted, without sacramental confession, they cannot receive Holy Communion. At the same time however, seeing the source of our Faith, Jesus Christ, present in the Holy Eucharist, perhaps, the ears of their heart will be unstopped, thus enabling them to hear the beautiful, symphonic music of the True Faith.

2005-06-14T13:00:00.000-07:00

Dear Father:
What is the Church’s teaching on what can lead to eternal damnation, hell? Most practicing Catholics if not all, when they die, usually have a Mass of Christian burial. Also, many of these Catholics have Masses and prayers offered for them after death. Does this imply that all these Catholics have been spared from eternal damnation, if not, are these prayers wasted since once in hell there is no redemption?
Salvador Borrego
St. Phillip Neri Church, Oklahoma City, OK

In the Gospel of St. Matthew we read, "Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the road broad that leads to destruction, and those who enter through it are many. How narrow the gate and constricted the road that leads to life. And those who find it are few (Matthew 7:13-14)." This is only one example of the many times where Christ speaks of our eternal destiny. There are only two outcomes of this life: eternal life or eternal death, a way of destruction. While the outcome is clear for those who follow or reject Christ, we need to know what makes the road narrow.
The Church teaches that one guilty of committing mortal sin and unrepentant of that sin receive the punishment of Hell. This means going to Hell is our choice and not some form of malicious predestination by God. Because we have been given, not only the fullness of Truth as revealed by Christ and which is taught by the Church, but also the freedom of the sons of God through Baptism, we have a profound responsibility to live by the way of Christ. Furthermore, the punishment of Hell is eternal. In our life on earth, it is possible for us to change and to return to Christ. We live immersed in the swirling tides of time itself. At the moment of death, the time for choosing Christ ends. We move into the realms of eternity, where there is no time. The person we are as we cross that spiritual line of demarcation is the person we are for all of eternity. It follows then that those who live a life where even in one aspect was turned from Christ, they are not fit for Heaven. It also suggests that God treats us with great mercy for He gives us time to learn and to assent to His way (CCC #1033-1037).
This insistence on the reality and the eternity of Hell speaks to the profound depth of human actions. Because we have been given a free will, we can freely choose to love God and serve Him or to turn from Him. It further shows that the choices we make, make us into the people we are. The virtues and goodness of virtuous people radiate from them because these good choices have become "second nature" to them; they will them without having to fight their fallen tendencies as strongly. The viciousness taints and clouds those who surrender to it so much so that we can often sense that something is off.
Your second question raises some interesting issues. In the history of the Church, I can find only one person (or persons) whom the Church teaches are definitely in Hell. This is Satan and His fallen angels. Otherwise, no one else has made the list, not even Judas. It would seem then that we should hold out hope that our loved ones are in Heaven, but at the same time, remember that even those who are fit for Heaven, may have some purification to undergo before entering that blessed state.
Through the Funeral Mass and Christian burial, the Church re-states her firm hope in the Resurrection of the Dead and the firm hope that our loved one is at rest in Heaven. But to hope for something doesn’t make it so. Certainly, funeral homilies should avoid saying that someone is definitely in Hell or in Heaven because quite frankly, it’s God’s task to judge the living and the dead, not ours. Instead we should be encouraged to pray for the dead and to remember them through having the Holy Mass said for the repose of their souls.
If the person in question were in Hell, the prayers and sacrifices wouldn’t be wasted, as they go to build up the Body of Christ, the Church. The Catechism puts it this way: "In this solidarity with all men, living or dead, which is founded on the communion of saints, the least of our acts done in charity redounds to the profit of all. Every sin harms this communion (CCC# 953)." Even if our prayers and sacrifices don’t liberate another from the suffering of Hell, it can help to strengthen the Body of Christ as a whole. We should also take note that our sins have the opposite effect. Our actions are not isolated moments; they reach out to all our brothers and sisters, both in this world and in the world to come.

2005-06-14T12:58:00.000-07:00

Dear Fr. Tharp,
Could you please explain Fridays as a day of Penance? What should we be doing?
Jim H.
Hometown Withheld

The question of penitential practice appears in the Gospels in a form of a conflict between the disciples of John the Baptist and the Pharisees on one side and the Lord’s disciples on the other. While His disciples should not fast while the Lord is with them, our Lord does note that "the days will come, when the bridegroom is taken away from them, and then they will fast" (Mt. 9:15, Mk. 2:18-20; Lk. 5:33-35). In another place, the Lord corrects the means by which the disciples will fast rather than removing fasting from their religious practice (Mt. 6:16-18). Hence, this brief aside suggests that Our Lord intended penance and mortification to be part of our life in Him.

On the positive side, our desire for mortification comes from a profound love for the Lord Jesus Christ. Through our mortifications we are made more like Him who suffered for us. On the negative side, we recognize that not everything we do is in conformity with the will of God. We desire to make amends for the wrongs we have committed and to free ourselves from the slavery of sin. We long to put to death in ourselves those things which draw us back to sin. We achieve this by denying ourselves those things which either contribute to the sin or leave us too attached to the material creation that surrounds us. While we, as Catholics, would affirm that creation is good, we must remind ourselves that this life is fading away and that we do not live for this world alone.
Penance, then, is part and parcel of being a Christian. It is not an extra thing done or special action reserved for the particularly pious. As the Code of Canon Law directs, "All Christ’s faithful are obliged by divine law, each in his or her own way, to do penance" (canon 1249). Furthermore, our penance occurs not only private but corporately since we belong to one Body, the Body of Christ. The previously quoted canon goes on to say, "However, so that all may be joined together in a certain common practice of penance, days of penance are prescribed." It follows then that to be a faithful Catholic, there is a communion of Faith, of Worship in the Sacraments, and of Life in the forms of Morality and Penance.

Fridays naturally draw our minds to penance because it is the day of Our Lord’s Passion. The Code of Canon Law enshrines this ancient practice when it states "The days and times of penance for the universal Church are each Friday of the whole year and the season of Lent" (canon 1250). The expectation is stated clearly. Catholics are to practice some form of penance on all Fridays and on all the days of Lent, essentially from Ash Wednesday to Good Friday. As Sundays are like a "mini-Easter," one could be excused from penance on those days (cf. Canon 1251).

In a general sense, penance comes in many forms: prayer, works of piety , acts of self-denial, being more faithful to one’s obligations, and of course, fasting and abstinence. The obligation to abstain from meat on Fridays was not lifted in the new Code. Rather, it modified the obligation so that if a Bishops’ Conference wanted to substitute some other food they could (cf. Canon 1251). The obligation to abstain from meat binds all Catholics from the age of fourteen, the obligation to fast from the age of eighteen until the age of sixty. After that, it is up to the individual person to participate but it is not specifically obligatory. Our own Bishops’ Conference strongly recommends us to this practice of abstinence from meat on Friday as well as encouraging us to other forms of penance as well.

I would say then that the most basic Friday penance should be abstinence from meat and then add something that applies to your particular spiritual need. So if you have been meaning to beef up your spiritual reading, fast from television on Fridays and use the time for spiritual reading. In the end, these Friday observances are really for our benefit. Isn’t it funny that many people will climb over broken glass to get the latest fad diet book so that they can have a trim and lean body, but they won’t take the same effort to grow strong in the Lord?

2005-06-14T12:57:00.000-07:00

The Eucharist is both the source of ecclesial unity and its greatest manifestation. The Eucharist is an epiphany of communion. For this reason the Church sets conditions for full participation in the celebration of the Eucharist. These various limitations ought to make us ever more conscious of the demands made by the communion which Jesus asks of us. It is a hierarchical communion, based on the awareness of a variety of roles and ministries, as is seen by the reference to the Pope and the Diocesan Bishop in the Eucharistic Prayer. It is a fraternal communion, cultivated by a "spirituality of communion" which fosters reciprocal openness, affection, understanding and forgiveness.
John Paul II, Mane Nobiscum Domine #21

In my childhood, on Saturday mornings, as a bumper between shows, one network would show educational vignettes called "School House Rock." In the segment on how to multiply by 3's, the first line we heard was "Man and woman have a little baby / yes, they did / they have three in their family / it’s a magic number." Now, I don’t think it was the intention of the creators to a.) make a pro- or anti- traditional family statement or b.) promote a Trinitarian vision of the world. However, they did hit on a basic fact of existence. Alone, we are diminished; gathered together we discover the magic, the supernatural dimensions, of being human.

Beginning from its Latin roots, communion is union with another. It a particular type of oneness. Many things are one merely because of what they are. So, all cats are animals or all cars are machines. That is unity. Communion goes one step further. Communion implies that those who are in union want to be in that union and have taken some action to make this union explicit. You don’t have to ask your cat, "Do you want to be in union with other animals?" It simply is. Compare this to when someone gets married, even if only according to the natural law. There is a public acknowledgment that this union has begun. Communion lends a perfection to union, grounding union upon knowledge and the act of the will. Communion is a gift and an act of giving.

Our Catholic Faith revolves around communion. Each Sunday, most of us, if not of all of us, process forward to receive Holy Communion. The great majority of Catholics live out the Faith in one of the two sacraments based in communion, Marriage or Holy Orders. Our life in Christ begins when we are baptized thus entering into union with Christ and His Church. To be in Christ, therefore, is both receiving the gift of union from Christ and returning that gift to Christ in order to perfect the union between myself, God, and my neighbor. The Church transcends all we know of union for it is a union of condescension. In the previous examples given, the parties involved were all creatures, limited and contingent. The Church rests upon communion given by one who is infinitely greater. We should stand with jaws agape at this truth. God has deigned to treat that which is closer to oblivion as though it were His equal! Being a member of the Body means that neutrality and indifference to the gifts and responsibilities of communion are most offensive to the very best which God has embedded in our souls.

It should be clearer now why we don’t just admit anyone to Holy Eucharist. For Catholics, there is a presumption that you are in fact practicing what you proclaim. This means that those who are in the state of mortal sin are not to receive Holy Communion until the reception of Sacramental Confession. Objectively speaking, mortal sin kills the life of Grace in us and represents our departure from communion with God. Also, Catholics who are divorced and remarried without having received an annulment for any previous marriage are not to receive the Holy Eucharist.

For our non-Catholic Christian brethren, we certainly recognize that a degree of communion exists due to common belief in Christ and the sacrament of Baptism. At the same moment, sadly, we have to point to real divisions between our fellow Christians. It is these divisions which prevents the sharing of Holy Communion. Each of these divisions represents a "no" to the totality of what the Church professes. It would run counter to the very nature of the Blessed Sacrament as the sacrament of unity to admit those who are in fact not in complete union. Under exceptional circumstances, a non-Catholic Christian may be admitted to Holy Communion but only if the non-Catholic is baptized, asks of their own accord, professes the same Faith as the Church concerning the Most Holy Eucharist, and is without the ministry of their own minister (Code of Canon Law #844).

Groucho Marx once quipped that he didn’t want to belong to any club that will accept him as a member. The membership of any organization says volumes about its direction and purposes. When we look at the Church, we should see the ragged, world-weary, storm-tossed remnant who longs to find their home. Amongst the models of sanctity, the success stories, so to speak, the heart-sick, wounded in sin and suffering sin’s effects, gather to be healed. The Holy Eucharist is a medicine of salvation because it brings us to the true Physician of our souls. As ignoring our doctor’s instructions means our condition’s worsening, so not combating sin and striving to be perfect means we undermine the work of Christ who desires us to have life abundantly, life everlasting.

2005-06-06T06:54:00.001-07:00

Father,
Explain purgatory and who goes there. Does the soul of a dead person go from purgatory to heaven after being made pure by suffering? Is purgatory mentioned in the Bible?
A Confused Person

The Church teaches that purgatory is “the final purification of the elect” (CCC #1031). The doctrine of Purgatory makes good sense. Those who are completely purified and free from all sins would go directly to Heaven. Those who completely reject the ways of God would go to Hell. But what of those who while being free from mortal sins, and thus have not rejected God, are still guilty of either venial sins or the punishment due to their sins? These people go to Purgatory. The Catechism puts it this way: “All who die in God’s grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven” (CCC #1030).

Why would does one need to be purified before entering into Heaven? Since God is perfect holiness (e.g. cf. Isaiah 6:3), to enter into His presence requires us to be pure as well. In Heaven, “...nothing unclean shall enter it nor any one who practices abomination or falsehood, but only those who are written in the Lamb’s book of life” (Rev. 21:27). When we sin, we not only damage or sever the relationship we have with God, but also merit punishment due to the sin committed. For instance, when King David sins with Bathsheba, the prophet Nathan reports “the Lord also has put away your sin; you shall not die. Nevertheless, because by this deed you have utterly scorned the Lord, the child that is born to you shall die.” In Purgatory, we are set free from these attachments and faults. Once we are purified, we go directly to Heaven to enjoy the Beatific Vision. Also, we can demonstrate our love for our neighbors who wait in purgatory by praying for the dead and remembering them in our prayers.

Does the Sacred Scriptures make reference to purgatory? In the first case, it must be said that the Sacred Scripture makes no use of the word “purgatory,” but this shouldn’t cause us much distress. The Sacred Scriptures uses neither the word “Trinity” nor the term “Incarnation,” but we can see how the Scriptures teach these sacred truths. In 2 Maccabees 12:38-45, Judas Maccabees offers sin offerings to make amends for his dead comrades who sinned in committing idolatry. Specifically, the author of 2 Maccabees lauds Judas’s action by saying “In doing this he acted very well and honorably, taking account of the resurrection” (2 Macc. 12:43b). There is only one caveat in using this verse. Given that Protestants don’t accept 2 Maccabees as canonical or inspired, you have to use this as an example of prevalent historical ideas afoot at the time. Also, I find it interesting that if, as some Protestant observers say, praying for the dead was a pagan invention the Church was tricked into accepting, then it makes no sense for 2 Maccabees to praise Judas’s action, since the Maccabees were fighting against the pagan corruption of Judaism by Greek practices. In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus says that sins against the Holy Spirit cannot be forgiven in this world or in the world to come (Matthew 12:32). One can infer that this means that some sins could be forgiven after death, although the Church does make it clear that only venial sins could be forgiven after death. Lastly, we can turn to St. Paul in his first letter to the Corinthians, that our works will be tested after death. “If the work which any man has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as though fire” (1 Cor. 3:14-15) [emphasis mine]. Here we see that St. Paul understands that even those who are destined for Heaven, may have to undergo purification before entering in.

In the end, Purgatory should be seen as a further sign of God’s mercy for his people. Even the best among us, choose the right things but sometimes for the wrong reasons. In Purgatory, all these things will be wiped away so that we can be fully happy with God.

2005-06-06T06:54:00.000-07:00

All these dimensions of the Eucharist come together in one aspect which more than any other makes a demand on our faith: the mystery of the “real” presence....The Eucharist is a mystery of presence, the perfect fulfilment of Jesus' promise to remain with us until the end of the world.
Pope John Paul II, Mane Nobiscum Domine #16.

As a child, I learned a simple, but insightful little rhyme. It went “For want of a nail, the shoe was lost. For want of a shoe the horse was lost. For want of a horse the rider was lost. For want of a rider the battle was lost. For want of a battle the kingdom was lost. And all for the want of a horseshoe nail.” The message is although something seems small, it can be the key to the grandest things. The same applies to the Holy Eucharist.

As the heart of the Church’s assertions concerning the Sacrament and the Holy Mass, there lies a simple nail holding everything in place: the Real Presence of Jesus in the Most Blessed Sacrament. Without the Real Presence, the Mass ceases to be a re-presentation of Calvary. It ceases to be an anticipation of the Heavenly Jerusalem. It ceases to be the fulfillment of Christ’s promise to remain with us throughout our earthly pilgrimage.

The Church professes that under the appearance of bread and wine, the whole Christ is present, His Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity. This presence is not merely symbolic as though it were recalling an idea. Rather, Christ is truly, really, and substantially present through a change in the essence or substance of the bread and the wine. After the words of consecration, nothing remains of the substance of bread and wine; these substances, the things which make bread and wine what they are, are completely converted into the Substances of Christ. This change is called Transubstantiation. Despite all evidence to the contrary, we do not receive bread and wine at Mass. We receive the Flesh and Blood of our Risen Lord, Jesus Christ (cf. CCC #1374-1377).

The Sacred Scriptures are loaded with instances relevant to the Most Blessed Sacrament. In the Old Testament, we can point to the following instances. Genesis 14:18-19 recounts the blessing of Abraham by the priest Melchizedek. The act of blessing involved the use of bread and wine, possibly as a sacrificial gift unto God. Exodus 12 gives the basic narrative concerns the institution of the Passover supper. Along with a roasted lamb that had been sacrificed, the meal was to be eaten with unleavened bread. The bread symbolized the haste with which the people of Israel left Egypt, thus making it a symbol of God’s deliverance. Exodus 16 tells how God fed his chosen people while they wandered in the desert. In addition to quail, the Lord provides a mysterious bread that the people call manna. This is particularly important because in John 6, Jesus describes Himself as the bread come down from Heaven, making an explicit connection between Himself and the manna. Lastly, Leviticus 24:3-9 mentions how in the Tabernacle, and later the Temple, the priests were to keep 12 loaves of bread before the Lord. This bread was called the Bread of Presence or the Show Bread. Through these loaves, the idea was that God would remember the Twelve and bless them.

The New Testament, unsurprisingly, is not wanting for comments on the Blessed Sacrament as well. In the Gospels of St. Matthew, Mark, and Luke, we are given the account of the institution of the Holy Eucharist. In each case, Jesus institutes this sacrament with the words, “This is my Body...This is my Blood” (Mt.26:26-29, Mk. 14:22-25, Lk. 22:19-20) Notice that He doesn’t say “This represents my body” or “This is a symbol of my Body.” St. John sets aside an entire discourse on this matter. In chapter six, we see Jesus affirm that he will give the people his own flesh to eat. Rightly, this provokes a response of revulsion and confusion from his listeners. The prospect proposed revolted his hearers so much that some left His company. Interestingly, Jesus never stops those who leave his company. He never says, “Oh, wait, I was speaking figuratively.” The brutal truth is having life in Christ requires eating His flesh and drinking His blood. The Most Blessed Sacrament fulfills this obligation most perfectly.

What does that mean for our reception of the Most Blessed Sacrament? St. Paul has something interesting to say on that point. In first Corinthians, St. Paul repeats the same tradition concerning the Last Supper that St. Matthew, Mark, and Luke relate (I Corinthians 11:23-26). Then he adds this comment: “Whoever, therefore, eats the bread and drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord...For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself” (I Corinthians 11:27,29). If the Holy Eucharist is only a symbol, why does St. Paul demand that proper reception of the Eucharist includes “discerning the body”? There is only one way for this passage to make sense: St. Paul believes that when he celebrates the Holy Mass and receives the Sacrament of the Altar, he is not receiving a symbol. Instead, he received His same Lord who died and rose for the sake of St. Paul’s salvation. This is the reality that continues in every Mass that is celebrated.

Without the Real Presence, our Christian worship is nothing more than play acting. It is in the Real Presence that we taste now what the future might hold. Because it is truly Christ present under the appearances of bread and wine, we receive a pledge of a place in the Heavenly Banquet.

2005-06-06T06:52:00.000-07:00

Dear Father Tharp:
My teenage daughter has a 6 month-old baby and she is no longer an active practicing Catholic. The father of the baby is in the picture, but he is not Catholic. Our priest published in our bulletin that the requirements for baptism of an infant is that one of the parents must be an active practicing Catholic. My daughter wants to have the baby baptized, but she is not practicing the faith. I am so worried about my granddaughter not being baptized. Would the Church decline to baptize an infant because the parents are not active Catholics?
Name and City Withheld.

First, I applaud your intention and concern for the welfare of your granddaughter. Baptism is the gateway to the other sacraments and the beginning of our life in Christ. It has been a venerable tradition of the Church to baptize both adults and infants, so that the free gift of God’s grace may be poured out on all. The logic of baptizing infants stems from the fact that like our earthly life, our supernatural life comes not by our willing it, but by gracious willing of God. As St. John reminds us, "Love consists in this: it is not we who loved God, but God loved us and sent His Son to expiate our sins" (I John 4:10).

However, at the same time, we must remember that the Sacraments aren’t magic. They require our free co-operation. It is here that the problem concerning your granddaughter’s baptism arises.

The insistence of your pastor that your daughter be a practicing Catholic before granting the baptism of your granddaughter is found in the Code of Canon Law. The Code of Canon Law gives the Church a way to insure that the Sacraments are celebrated in such a way as to prevent them being treated lightly or in a manner unbecoming to their nature. The Code also gives direction on matters of Church governance as well.

The Code initially lays out the responsibility of parents to see that their children are baptized soon after birth (Canon 867, paragraph 1). This same canon assumes that the parents have already spoken to their pastor and received proper preparation for the Sacrament. At the same time, the Code recognizes that for the baptism to take place "...there must be a realistic hope that the child will be brought up in the Catholic religion. If such hope is truly lacking, the baptism is, in accordance with the provisions of particular law, to be deferred and the parents advised of the reason for this" (Canon 868, paragraph 1, degree 2). Given the situation you describe, the burden for raising the child in the Catholic religion falls squarely upon your daughter. That she is not practicing the Faith at this time, the pastor can assume, quite reasonably, that the hope of the child being raised Catholic is slim. The sad fact is the person withholding the baptism from your granddaughter is not your pastor. It is your daughter.

Speaking from my own limited pastoral experience, if I were the pastor in this situation, here are my concerns given this case. First, as your daughter is not practicing the Faith, I would be dubious that she understands either the nature of Baptism or obligations placed on her by her own Baptism. If she doesn’t understand these things, how can she form her child in the practice of the faith? Second, I would be curious to find out what the father of the child thought. Since he is not of the Catholic faith, I would be concerned that he might be more of an impediment than an assistance to the rearing of this child in the Faith.

In closing, I sympathize with you. It must be distressing to see one’s children forego the practice of the Faith that you took such pains to raise them in. You must take St. Monica as your guide and example. It was through her prayers and sacrifices that brought one of the greatest doctors of the Church, St. Augustine, into the Church.

2005-06-06T06:50:00.000-07:00

Holy Mass needs to be set at the centre of the Christian life and celebrated in a dignified manner by every community, in accordance with established norms, with the participation of the assembly, with the presence of ministers who carry out their assigned tasks, and with a serious concern that singing and liturgical music be suitably "sacred".... The best way to enter into the mystery of salvation made present in the sacred "signs" remains that of following faithfully the unfolding of the liturgical year.
John Paul II, Mane Nobiscum Domine #17

In one of the many adventures of the intrepid crew of the Enterprise, the crew makes first contact with a species that communicates only in metaphors. The crew are frustrated and confused, until they understand what metaphors refer to. In other words, the symbols made sense once the crew knew what they stood for. The Sacred Liturgy functions in the same way.

The source and summit of the Christian faith is the Holy Mass. In the Holy Mass, Christ’s paschal mystery, His passion, death, and resurrection, are presented again to us, so that we may assent to them. In our assent, we commit ourselves to living in accord with the Covenant God has made with Man. The liturgy communicates this through its words and ritual gestures. Taken as a whole, these words and gestures are called a particular Rite.

While in the Church’s history, various Rites all had the same goal in mind: to unite Christ’s people in the act of worship before God. The Holy Mass allows us to return to God what is properly His, namely our praise and adoration (cf. CCC #1348-1355, 1368). Therefore, over time, the Church more carefully specified what were proper gestures for the Sacred Liturgy. Anything that might obscure the purpose of the Liturgy was curtailed or eliminated. We can see this present even in the letters of Saint Paul (I Corinthians 11:17-22, 33).

At the time of the Second Vatican Council, a great desire was expressed to reform the Sacred Liturgy, that is, to return to its roots. Unfortunately, a great deal of experimentation that the Council had not approved took place, leaving us with a great deal of confusion as to what is proper to the litugy. Most damaging of all has been a widespread notion that somehow the focus of the liturgy is the gathered congregation, rather than worship of the Eternal God. The Council’s document on the Liturgy has this sobering reminder, "Therefore no other person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority (Sacrosanctum Concilium #22)."

With all this said, what does this require of us? Unfortunately, with the through permeation of television into our consciousness, liturgical action often gets reduced to passive watching on our part. Each element of the Sacred Liturgy points us toward a proper disposition and an act of the will. During the Offertory, for instance, we offer ourselves, symbolized in our gifts of bread and wine and support for the poor. The Holy See’s website (http://www.vatican.va) has a wonderful selection of materials related to the Holy Eucharist. Click on the link for the Year of the Eucharist. These would benefit anyone looking to deepen their understand of this mystery. In particular, the Holy Father has encouraged Catholics to read and study the new General Instruction on the Mass so that they may understand better the signs and symbols the Liturgy employs (MND #17).

As a pastor, perhaps on the most disconcerting sign of Eucharistic indifference I have encountered happens after Mass. We long to linger in the presence of loved ones and close friends – we don’t want the moment to end. If the Mass re-presents the saving work of Christ, if we actually receive the Body and Blood of our Lord in Holy Communion, then shouldn’t we remain in our pews once Mass is concluded, giving thanks for what we have received? The usual occurance is a mass exodus with people running for the doors like there were a fire. It is time for a renewal of the practice of making a thanksgiving after Mass and after communion. The Mass is the closest thing we have to Heaven on Earth. Why wouldn’t we desire to prolong this intimate sharing? In addition, a return of reverential silence in our parish churches would go a long way to communice that we believe that the Lord is present and longing to speak to our deepest needs.

Sunbathing fills the summers of so many people. They love the bronze transformation this activity brings. I wonder what kind of transformation we would see if we basked in the Real Presence of the Son in the Sacred Liturgy.

2005-06-06T06:48:00.000-07:00

Father,
I am a high school student at Bishop McGuinness. Recently in one of my classes we got into a discussion on whether or not stem cell research is right or wrong. I know that the Church teaches that this is degrading to the dignity of the human person, but the counter argument is that the research, if allowed, could save lives. How do you counter that? Also, why is this an important issue when there is do much other disrespect given to life that already exists? Thank you for any help you can give.
Sincerely,
Sarah Rosencrans, Edmond

Scientific research of any kind cannot use a person as a means to an end. When someone takes part in a research study, those conducting the study have a grave obligation to explain all of the side effects and possible outcomes of participation, the good and the bad alike. Then the participant can give full and informed consent to what is about to take place. In stem cell research, the central problem rests with embryonic stem cells being used. Given that life begins at conception, the embryo is a human person. The stem cells are the foundational building blocks from which the embryo fashions its tissues, organs, and systems. To harvest these cells would mean the embryo’s destruction and no matter what theoretical benefit one has in mind, it cannot be purchased with the life of another. It would be no different if I walked up to you, and discovering that you and I share the same blood and tissue types, took your kidney because I might need it later or it might save my life. Using stem cells, with proper consent, from an adult is not a problem and the research seems to suggest that this works better in therapeutic scenarios.

The logical flaw rests on the "ends justifying the means." When we will something, both the end we are shooting for and the means we use to get there must be good (CCC #1789). As a good counter, try this. Remember the movie Jurassic Park? The crazy old rich guy knew that using technology he could recreate dinosaurs and make major bucks. The mathematician (Jeff Goldblum) reminds him, "Just because you CAN do something doesn't mean you SHOULD do something." Then the dinosaurs go on a rampage. Just because research using embryonic stem cells could result in something good does not necessarily mean that it is good to do this research.

Defense of the unborn is important because it is the first link in a long chain of related moral issues. Ever play with dominoes? You stack them in rows and designs and then watch them fall down. Granted that all of them are necessary to make the design take shape and the effect to go off, which one matters the most? The first one matters most. If the first one doesn't set anything off, then the rest is left in the lurch.

With matters of life and respect for life in its most vulnerable state, who is going to speak for an embryo if not his big brothers and sisters? If life is not respected when it is most vulnerable, I guarantee that life will not be respected in any other venue. As an example, it is curious to me that the frequency of reported cases of domestic abuse has increased in proportion to the prevalence of abortion in our society. The argument is not that these other attacks on the dignity of life are not evil or are not important. It is a matter that if life is not defended in the womb, it won't be defended anywhere.

Keep up the good work and the good thinking. Pray to God that He would show you your vocation.

2005-06-06T06:47:00.000-07:00

Dear Father Tharp,
What does the church teach regarding the Terri Schiavo case? I have hear so many different opinions from non-Catholics and CATHOLICS. It seems that Catholics are not united in their beliefs regarding this issue. If you are pro-life, it should be a mortal sin to remove the feeding tube after it has been placed. Is this true?
Name and Hometown withheld

Your question is most timely, indeed. The situation with Mrs. Schiavo was both distressing and disturbing for many reasons. However, given the rate medical technology continues to advance, it is a situation bound to repeat itself. Technology provides the opportunity to prolong life even in the most dire of conditions.

The Church teaches that a patient must accept all treatment that would be considered ordinary given his condition. At the same time, if a particular treatment were deemed extraordinary, then that treatment could be refused with no moral onus attached (CCC #2273-2274). The maintenance of health is the responsibility of each individual person (CCC #2288). Doctors and other medical professions assist in these decisions, giving options for treatment in each case. With such information at his disposal, the patient may give his informed consent to the treatment in question. Informed consent is absolutely essential to making proper moral decisions concerning health care. This leads a new question: how does one assess whether or not a particular treatment is ordinary or extraordinary?

The Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith gave direction on this matter in 1980. In its Declaration on Euthanasia, the Congregation gave four basic principles for assessing the degree of the means employed. First, the treatment must actually benefit the recipient. Second, the treatment must not introduce undue burden or risk to the recipient relative to the benefit procured. Such burden involves not only the physical well-being but also includes issues of financial and medical resources. Third, when all sufficient remedies of an ordinary type are exhausted, a patient may accept advanced treatments, even those still considered experimental. Fourth, when death is both inevitable and imminent, a patient may refuse those treatments which merely prolong life without addressing the underlying disease. In these cases, ordinary care, e.g. painkillers, is not interrupted. Note that all four principles assume the patient’s informed consent and that his wishes are reasonable, not reflecting a desire for suicide. Based on these principles we can see how everything in medicine, from aspirin to ventilators, could be deemed ordinary or extraordinary dependant upon the condition of the patient in question.

With that said, food and water fall into a different category. Strictly speaking, food and water are not medical treatments: they are basics for sustaining life. When one cannot swallow or feed themselves then a feeding tube, generally speaking, should be placed to facilitate nutrition and hydration. Food and water could be withdrawn if the patient were not benefitting or was being harmed by it. In theory, then, one could remove a feeding tube but only under the conditions I’ve mentioned.

In Terri Schiavo’s case, there was no reason to remove her feeding tube. While severely brain damaged, she could still swallow. There was no evidence of drooling at least from what the media reported. Further, apart from the brain damage, Mrs. Schiavo simply was not dying. She suffered from medical condition which was ending her life. To remove her feeding tube was to deny her what each of us daily takes for granted. Put bluntly, Terri Schiavo was starved to death. I find it hard to imagine that a person, reasonably, would want to go without food or water for fourteen days simply because they needed a feeding tube. Rather than asking what Terri’s wishes were, her guardian should have been asking her doctors what is the proper course of treatment for Terri to live out her days. Despite what many said, starving a woman to death, because putatively this is what she wanted, does not give dignity to death. It merely degrades us all.

In closing, the death of Terri Schiavo saddens me. It reminds me of the situation in ancient Israel when the people demanded a king. Even though God, who brought them forth from Egypt, was supposed to be their king, the people wanted to be like every one else around them. So God gave them exactly what they wanted. King Saul acted exactly like every other king, right down to taxing the people and conscripting their sons for war. Apparently, as a society, we are asking for cruelty to become the norm of law. Just as with Israel before, God may give us exactly what we ask for. I dread to think of what the price tag will be.

2005-06-06T06:45:00.000-07:00

Dear Father Tharp:
I don’t agree with the Church’s teachings on some subjects. My children trust me to tell them the truth. I have been told that if I teach the children things that are contrary to the Church’s teachings I may be excommunicated. I love the Church but will not allow my children to be misled. What will happen?

Name Withheld
Kiowa, KS

At the outset, I have to admit some difficulty in responding to your question due to its vagueness. Many Catholics confuse the Church’s dogma and doctrine with her practice and discipline. While the Church’s dogma and doctrine must be adhered to and is irreformable, her disciplines, as history demonstrates, can and have changed. For the sake of this article, I am going to assume that you are not referring to the Church’s discipline, but rather her doctrine.

Your question reminds me of a story that Scott Hahn tells about himself and his conversion to the Catholic Faith. As a Presbyterian, he took for granted the notion that teaching authority came from the Bible alone. However, he was surprised to find that the Bible didn’t support his view. Rather, St. Paul wrote in I Timothy that the Church, not the Bible, is “ the pillar and bulwark of the truth” (I Tim. 3:15).

Certainly, one who obstinately denies, or who maintains obstinate doubt regarding, the Church’s teaching is guilty of the offense of heresy and therefore can be punished with excommunication. The penalty of excommunication underscores two points: the seriousness of the assent of Faith and the desire for the return of the offender through conversion of heart and mind. This sort of action already was present in the early Church. St. Paul makes reference to it in his first Letter to the Corinthians (cf. I Cor. 5:1-4).

Contrary to our society’s general posture about matters of the Faith, we can’t do it our way. We didn’t create the Faith; we received it from the hands of our parents, our pastors, our bishops, ultimately from the hands of the Apostles. If we receive all this from the hands of the Apostles, then we are confident that we have received our Faith from Jesus. Like yourself, the Church is a loving parent. She is our mother concerned for the welfare of the children, born to her in the waters of Baptism. “It is in the Church, in communion with all the baptized, that the Christian fulfills his vocation. From the Church he receives the Word of God containing the teachings of ‘the law of Christ.’ From the Church he receives the grace of the sacraments that sustains him on the "way." From the Church he learns the example of holiness and recognizes its model and source in the all-holy Virgin Mary; he discerns it in the authentic witness of those who live it; he discovers it in the spiritual tradition and long history of the saints who have gone before him and whom the liturgy celebrates in the rhythms of the sanctoral cycle” (CCC#2030). It is simply not possible to hand on the fullness of the Faith when we make ourselves the final arbiter of the Truth.

It is contradictory to claim that you both love the Church and distrust her teaching authority. In the end, just as we pay attention to the advice and assistance of doctors to maintain our physical health, we must adhere to the Church’s Magisterium for they are given the charism, via the Holy Spirit, to hand on faithfully and fully the truth Christ wants us to receive so that we might be saved. You owe it to yourself and to your children to learn what the Church teaches, examine her reasoning, and associate yourself with this work of spreading the Faith, beginning in your home, in the model of the Holy Family.

2005-06-06T06:41:00.000-07:00

In the account of the disciples on the road to Emmaus, Christ himself intervenes to show, "beginning with Moses and all the prophets," how "all the Scriptures" points to the mystery of his person (cf. Lk. 24:27). His words make the hearts of the disciples "burn" within them, drawing them out of the darkness of sorrow and despair, and awakening in them a desire to remain with him: "Stay with us, Lord.
Pope John Paul II, Mane Nobiscum Domine 12

In our world, where information overload is a daily threat, compartmentalization becomes a survival strategy. We try to create a box to file the thousands of tidbits hurled at us. When we transfer this strategy to our religious life, we court great disaster. This is because it runs counter to its essential nature. Christ, upon entering into human history, moves us in two directions at once. Christ comes not to abolish the Law but to fulfill it; Christ touches the depths of Law and allows it to reach its full flower. As He looks backward, He is charting a course for the future.

Because of this, the Christian apologist finds himself in an interesting position. The Christian apologist can look backward into the Old Testament and catch flashes of the coming of Christ and the fullness of faith that implies. As the Catechism notes, "the economy of the Old Testament was deliberately so oriented that it should prepare for and declare in prophecy the coming of Christ, redeemer of all men" (CCC #122). One of the key ways this appears is through the use of types.

Typology is the study of the Sacred Scripture using either recurring themes or central events to see how something in the New Testament is prepared for in the Old Testament. "Typology indicates the dynamic movement toward the fulfilment of the divine plan when ‘God [will] be everything to everyone’" (CCC #130). Typology helps to frame a discussion because it allows you to show how Catholic theology and practice are simply a continuation from what came before. For example, infant baptism makes more sense when one notes that circumcision, a forerunner of the sacrament of Baptism, was performed on children only a few days old. The logic follows then that if the forerunner was considered that important then you follow the same standard with its fulfillment.

The Holy Eucharist has many of these types and foreshadows in the Old Testament as well. Let’s consider just a few of the more important ones. As an act of worship, we note in the Book of Genesis, the priest Melchizedek offers bread and wine as a blessing for Abraham (Genesis 14:18-20). This is significant because the author of the Letter to the Hebrews connects Christ’s priesthood with Melchizedek.

As a subject of religious life, we look to the manna in the desert (cf. Exodus 16:14f). This is one of my favorite because the name the people of Israel give to it. Manna literally means "what’s that". The name expresses the sheer mystery and graciousness of God in feeding His complaining flock. The manna takes on a whole new depth of meaning when Jesus claims that He is the "bread from Heaven" in John 6.

As a symbol of God’s action in history, the bread of the Passover stands out clearly (Exodus 12:1-28). It is significant for two reasons. First, the bread of the Passover is a pure bread, in that it is not made with leaven. In the ancient world, leaven was obtained from bread dough that had begun to mold. So, as the people leave the land, they are being reminded that they are leaving a corrupting influence behind. Second, when Jesus institutes the Holy Eucharist, He acts within the Passover, not looking to our exodus from slavery, but our exodus from sin and death. His sacrifice was anticipated with lambs until the true Lamb came. The Passover supper was considered complete once it was eaten. Now, we eat the Lamb so that we may partake of the Sacrifice which gives us the fullness of life.

Think back on your First Holy Communion. What do you remember? I bet it’s a vivid memory. Think back on your thousandth Holy Communion. What can you tell me about it? That’s our problem as time-bound creatures. We lose our place within the grand plan that God is delicately working out. Taking a moment merely to glance over some of the ways God has prepared this great banquet from Heaven we see how God invites us to be not only observers of His great works. He wants us to dwell in their midst. Taking a moment perhaps we too can recognize the Risen Lord, as those disciples on the road to Emmaus did, in the breaking of the Eucharistic Bread.

2005-06-06T06:39:00.000-07:00

Where the Gospel Begins and Ends

Christmas has become a time when goodwill and fellowship are built up even amongst those who do not share the Christian faith. The generosity of giving, the hospitality of guests, the recognition of the common bond of man enhance the season and highlights our potential. But what happens next? After we dispose of the wrapping paper and wash the mountain of dishes, we are left with the gifts and the memories, the recognition of the flourishing of life itself. That flourishing comes not from a sizable gift certificate. It comes from Christ who made Himself a gift by coming to us from the Father.

The consciousness of the coming of the Son as gift to the world informs the Holy Father’s encyclical letter Evangelium Vitae (The Gospel of Life). Even in his earthly existence, the human person and his supernatural vocation reveals the "greatness and inestimable value of human life" (EV 2.1). He observes that there are many assaults leveled against life in general. But the person of Christ illuminates not only the inner depths of the triune God but also the inner depths of the human person. Only in Christ does man discover what he is truly created for. So in union with the Bishops of the world whom he consulted in preparation for writing this encyclical the Holy seeks to bring to light the Gospel of Life.

In Part One of the encyclical, the Holy Father addresses the central crimes against life and the ideologies that inform them. Using the account of the murder of Abel, John Paul reflects upon how Cain’s murderous thinking is still with us. In the Bible, death is anything that diminishes life as well as the physical cessation of life. So slavery, poverty, starvation caused by injustice, prostitution, arms trading, and many other matter come under this definition (cf. EV 8.5). But the Holy Father draws our attention to times of particular vulnerability of life, specifically at its beginning and at its end.

At the beginning of life, abortion and contraception form a particular threat as does artificial reproduction. Abortion and contraception, while being specifically different evils (EV 13.2), are two fruits of the same poisonous tree, the desire to separate procreation from the unifying effect of human sexuality (EV 13.3). Artificial reproduction threatens human life because it treats the child as the product of technology rather than the offspring of conjugal love.
At the end of life, euthanasia threatens the incurably ill and the dying. Euthanasia grows in popularity because of perceived financial benefits or the relieving the suffering of someone we love. The Holy Father dismisses these reasons and points to the loss of the redemptive dimension of suffering as the culprit. "All this is aggravated by a cultural climate which fails to perceive any meaning or value in suffering, but rather considers suffering the epitome of evil, to be eliminated at all costs (EV 15.2)."

The roots of this conflict are profound indeed. Among these root causes, the Holy Father places the largest concern upon a distortion of freedom. For the Christian, freedom comes from God as a necessary component of participating in God’s life and plan. For others, and this is the problem, freedom means doing whatever one wants without reference to responsibility or consequence. This distortion of freedom, echoed in Cain’s question "Am I my brother’s keeper?," leads one to see not a neighbor but an impediment to my freedom and therefore my well being.

In Part Two, the Holy Father examines the specifically Christian claim in reference to the value of life. The testimony of the Sacred Scripture affirms the value of human life. By being created in the image and likeness of God, man is set apart as cooperator with God’s plan. Children represent the concrete sign that God has continued to uphold the people of the Covenant. This represents the foundation. The Grace of eternal life draws our earthly existence upward to its highest dimension. Eternal signifies not just a quality or duration. This life is eternal because it is life with God and in God. It is the life that arises from communion with Christ. Because of this lavish gift then no one is a stranger or an enemy. All are potentially siblings. Therefore, when crimes are committed against life, there are not abstract offenses. They are offenses against my own kin.

In Part Three, the Holy Father draws out specific moral norms from Revelation. The responsibility to defend life falls upon all people. No one can exempt themselves from this moral reality. The Holy Father reaffirms the consistent teaching of the Church: the voluntary killing of an innocent human being is always gravely immoral (EV 57.4). It can never be sanctioned and cannot be used as a means to achieve a greater good.

Amongst these instances, the Holy Father specifically mentions abortion as possessing "characteristics making it particularly serious and deplorable (EV 58.1)" At the same time, the Holy Father demonstrates the great compassion the Church has for women who have undergone an abortion, observing that abortions are often forced upon women due to various circumstances. Euthanasia receives treatment under a similar rubric. The question of the legitimate uses of self-defense and the death penalty are dealt with in some detail.

Of great importance is the connection of the moral law with the civil law. The Holy Father, in conformity with the Church’s tradition, rejects the secularized solution of excluding moral truth from the creation of common law. Without moral truth, the common law becomes not a protection of freedom but the tool of oppression.

In Part Four, John Paul sets out a brave new vision of the future, the building of the culture of life. It begins with evangelization. We are a people ransomed and restored to life. We live within the Church of the Apostles, and just as they were sent so too are we sent. This spreading of the Gospel of life begins by honoring and respecting the gift of life in all the forms it manifests itself. This means care in families, care of families, solidarity with the poor, the imprisoned, the ill, the dying, the immigrant, the alien. The Holy Father encourages the Church not only to defend life but to permit it to flourish. Education and health care are realms marked out for particular work.

This is where the Gospel begins and ends, the gift of Life. It begins with life as it is received from God. It ends with life as we hope for participation in eternal life in Heaven. Along the way, we pave the road of human history with our choices for life or against it. From generosity in welcoming life, from hospitality in nurturing it, from the bond that holds all of us together, the tiniest embryo to the sagest elder, we can construct a more sane future and holier society at large.

2005-03-09T06:54:00.000-08:00

Dear Father Tharp,
Can you give an explanation of why holding hands at the Our Father is incorrect?
Thank you,
Theresa Hurt, OKC.

Before we consider whether a particular gesture is appropriate to the Sacred Liturgy, we need to consider the nature of liturgical action. Put briefly, the liturgy is a holy exchange. Christ, in the Incarnation, takes to Himself a human nature. Through this human nature, He gives to Man what he does not possess himself, namely union with God and forgiveness of sin. Therefore, it becomes Man’s obligation to return to God, in thanksgiving, all of the good things God bestows on him. In the Sacramental Liturgy, we represent this through both visible signs (e.g. bread and wine) and ritual gestures. We receive these signs and gestures through the Tradition (cf. GIRM 2000 #42). The Magisterium of the Church is responsible for implementing a set form for these signs and gestures. Hence, our first criterion for determining the lawfulness of a particular gesture rests upon whether that gesture has received approval for use.

The ritual gestures of the Sacred Liturgy are a second language, spoken with the words of the Body. Hence, these ritual gestures must speak in concord with the Faith of the Church. If a gesture during the liturgy either obscures or detracts from the content of Faith, then it must not be done. Additionally, ritual gestures allow the congregation to express their unity, not just as a particular body gathered in one place, but also as members of the one Church throughout the world (GIRM 2000 #42ff.). So, our second criterion for determining the lawfulness of a particular gesture rests upon how that gesture correctly communicates the truth of the Faith.

Now, we can think through your question. Let’s take our first criterion. Is permission given in the relevant liturgical documents for the holding of hands by the congregation? For this, we look toward two documents: The General Instruction of the Roman Missal (2000) and a recent instruction from the Congregation for Divine Worship Redemptionis Sacramentum (2004). Consulting the General Instruction, we find no directive to hold hands at the time of the Our Father (cf. GIRM #36, 42, 81). As for the priest, he is directed to hold his hands extended during the Our Father as a sign of his unifying and leading the Church in prayer (GIRM 2000 #151, 237). Turning to Redemptionis Sacramentum, no mention is given to this gesture. However, we find this comment: "The reprobated practice by which Priests, Deacons or the faithful here and there alter or vary at will the texts of the Sacred Liturgy that they are charged to pronounce, must cease. For in doing thus, they render the celebration of the Sacred Liturgy unstable, and not infrequently distort the authentic meaning of the Liturgy" (RS #59). In a parallel sense, this could apply to ritual gestures given they function to communicate authentically the content of the Faith.

If you inquire about this practice of holding hands during the Our Father, the answer you generally receive is "It makes us feel like we have real fellowship or community." Here’s where the distortion lies. The Our Father is not the source of our unity as the Church. It is the Holy Sacraments, particularly Baptism and Holy Communion, that makes the Body one. In Baptism the wounds of original sin are healed and the individual is grafted into the Body of Christ. In Holy Communion, this union is perfected. St. Augustine puts it as "The Church makes the Eucharist, and the Eucharist makes the Church." The Sacraments create unity not just in the particular place they are celebrated but throughout the entire body of Christ, reaching across time and space. Furthermore, as a celebrant, I find the holding of hands a bit odd as a visual symbol. While it is supposed to be a moment of closeness, I notice what happens is that the ranks close and everyone is on their row and disconnected from others surrounding them. This in turn detracts from the reality that worthy reception of Holy Communion is what strengthens the bond of Communion in the Church—and not just holding hands.

Granted, holding hands during the Our Father is not the worst of all liturgical abuses. At the same time, though, we are obliged to remain obedient to norms for the celebration of the Holy Mysteries. The Mass is the worship of God and not an opportunity to make someone feel good. If someone finds emotional solace in the Mass, that is icing on the cake. The first question is "What have I come to offer to God?" If anything, the Mass should call us to seek out those who are lonely and give them more than just a little hand holding.

2005-02-07T14:30:00.000-08:00

Thanks to all five of you!

Thanks to everyone who nominated me for the 2005 Catholic Blog Awards. I am up against stiff competition, but as they say, it is a honor just to be nominated.

2005-02-07T14:27:00.000-08:00

The Mass as a Sacrifice

Yet it must not be forgotten that the Eucharistic meal also has a profoundly and primarily sacrificial meaning. In the Eucharist, Christ makes present to us anew the sacrifice offered once and for all on Golgotha.
Pope John Paul II, Mane Nobiscum Domine 15

We can think of the Most Blessed Sacrament as a sacrament of three realities: presence, communion, and sacrifice. Of these three, we welcome the first two modes. Instinctively, we desire intimacy and the knowledge that God has not left us to our own devices. The third mode, the Holy Eucharist as a sacrifice, does not elicit the same reaction. The idea of sacrifice evokes shadowy rituals and the stink of slaughtered animals. However, it is the sacrificial dimension that makes the other two possible.

Israel’s relationship to the God who reveals Himself is bound up with the notion of sacrifice. First, Abraham and the Lord God ratify the covenant between them with a sacrifice of various animals (Gen. 15; cf. Gen. 22:1-18). This encounter influences even the language of how covenants are formed. The word we render in English as "to make" a covenant, in Hebrew has its roots in the word "to cut." Hence the sacred author assumes that where there is a covenant, there is a sacrifice. Further, the sacrifice that binds the covenant suggests that the covenant derives from a gift of one’s self, symbolically linked to the blood which represents life.

Second, Israel’s worship revolved around the Tabernacle, later the Temple, which housed the very presence of God because it was the place where the Ark of the Covenant was kept. At the center of the Israelite calendar was the celebration of the Passover. The Passover recalled the events that led up to the liberation of Israel from Egypt (cf. Ex. 12:1-28, 43-51). The Passover involved the sacrifice of an unblemished lamb. The blood of the lamb marked those who belonged to God and thus would be liberated. It was and is today, for the Jewish people, the renewal of the covenant made at Mount Sinai. As they recalled the events, the memory is not mere nostalgia, but brings these events into the present, thus allowing those who celebrate the opportunity to assent to them, to throw in their lot with those who went before.

So, the key question becomes, did Jesus intend for the Holy Eucharist to be understood as a sacrifice, and if so, what evidence is there for this? Turning to the Gospels, we see two clear indicators that indeed the Lord intended to institute a new sacrifice for a new People of God. One, we can look at the form Jesus uses when He institutes the Holy Eucharist. Notice that Jesus separates the naming and sharing of His Body and Blood. For the Israelite, the message is clear. You separate body from blood when you offer a sacrifice. The body is offered; the blood belongs to God. Therefore, you separate them and use the blood as the sign of the binding force of the Covenant.

Two, we can look to the context for the institution of the Holy Eucharist. Sts. Matthew, Mark, Luke and Paul all agree that Jesus instituted the Holy Eucharist during the Passover meal. A key component of the Passover was the ceremonial meal in which the lamb of sacrifice would be eaten. Given the absolute centrality of this ceremonial meal, one would not expect any deviation from accepted forms. Yet, Christ stops one celebration and inserts a new one. "Take it and eat;...this is my body....Drink all of you from this...this is my blood, the blood of the covenant" (Mt. 26-29; cf. Mk. 14:22-5, Luke 22:19-20; I Cor. 11:23-31). Suddenly, the words of John the Baptist make sense. Jesus is the True Lamb of God, who will take away the sins of the world, through His own bloody sacrifice. His bloody sacrifice fulfills the Old Testament foreshadowing of the Exodus and Passover with a new Passover from Death to Life, our Exodus from Sin. So that His People can remain in contact with this saving reality, Jesus institutes a new unbloody sacrifice, the Holy Mass, which allows every generation to know and to serve the Lord. He dies once for all upon the Cross; with every Mass we attend and assist at, we are brought back to this moment and allowed, like our fathers in Faith, to throw in our lot with the Lord Jesus Christ.

And this is why the sacrifice dimension of the Holy Eucharist is essential. Without it, the aspects of communion and presence are merely symbolic. But given that the Holy Mass re-presents the Sacrifice of Calvary, it is very hard to see the Holy Eucharist as mere symbol. Mysteriously, the same altar, the same priest, the same oblation must be there if the two presentations are one sacrifice. Since Jesus cannot die again and again, having died once for all and now raised from the dead, it must follow that we are truly blessed by the Mass as the Sacrifice of the New Covenant. In it, we stand beside the Cross with St. John and our Lady and the entire chorus of the Church triumphant in Heaven, rejoicing to know from whence our salvation comes.

2005-01-08T13:56:00.000-08:00

I promise an update sooon...

To my three readers, I apologize for not putting up more stuff recently. As you can imagine and probably experienced, the month of December is busy for priests. I am planning a little jaunt down to the city to compare notes with newspaper archives and as soon as I get those notes together, I will post something new, probably two or three new things.

So, be patient. Your patience will be rewarded.

2004-11-02T13:27:00.000-08:00

The Year of the Holy Eucharist

Familiarity breeds something more insidious than contempt. Familiarity breeds indifference. Like a well-worn pair of shoes, we don’t think much of them, until the day comes along that they have to be replaced. Then we start all over trying to get those shoes into shape.

Unfortunately, our life of Faith falls into a similar rut. We become accustomed to the elements of the Faith that we take them for granted. We treat the great Mystery of our Faith with indifference. Like those disciples on the Road to Emmaus, we must come to our senses, re-embracing, saying a fresh "yes" to the truths we have learned (II Timothy 3:14-15). Our Holy Father has provided us with just such an opportunity this year.

From this October to October 2005, the Holy Father has declared a Holy Year in honor of the Holy Eucharist. In his Apostolic Letter, Mane Nobiscum Domine (MND), the Holy Father calls each of the faithful, laity and clergy alike, to rediscover a more profound wonder in the light of the Eucharist (MND 2). "In [the Holy Eucharist, Christ] is received in person as the "living bread come down from heaven" (John 6:51), and with him we receive the pledge of eternal life and foretaste of the eternal banquet of the Heavenly Jerusalem" (MND 3).

Some readers may wonder why I am covering this event in my column. On a practical front, the doctrine of the Holy Eucharist is one of the first topics the novice apologist must master. On the spiritual level, the Holy Eucharist should serve as our apologetics motivator. The Holy Eucharist is the source and summit of our Christian faith (CCC 1324). The unity and completeness of Christian Faith that the Eucharist both brings and effects motivates our desire to clear the obstacles for others to come to fullness of Faith in the Catholic Church. Until all Christians share the common faith and the common life of worship, the prayer of our Savior, that all who believe in him may be one, remains unfulfilled (John 17:20-23).

At the heart of this Holy Year stands a personal commitment. Certainly the Holy Father expects local pastors and bishops to find ways, appropriate to particular situations, to observe this special time in the Church. With that said, this doesn’t exclude the personal response of every Catholic. As the Holy Father notes, "…I am confident that the People of God, at every level, will welcome my proposal with enthusiasm and fervent love" (MND 5). Everyone should ask themselves and set a goal for what they are going to do to respond to this opportunity, not expecting parish programming to do everything for them. Here are a few basic suggestions.
If you want more information, you could spend time reading the appropriate sections of the Catechism or studying the Pope’s most recent encyclical, Ecclesia de Eucharistia. If you want to grow in your relationship with Jesus present in the Blessed Sacrament, spending time before the Blessed Sacrament, speaking with him in the intimacy of your soul, is quite effective. It doesn’t matter if the Blessed Sacrament is in the tabernacle or exposed in a monstrance. He is there and longs for your presence. Perhaps, your participation in the Holy Mass leaves something to be desired. Now would be a time to become more aware of the Sacrificial nature of the Holy Mass. Prepare yourself through reflection upon the Scripture readings used at Mass and more frequent confession. If we are seeking freedom from the slavery of sin, we are more free to give ourselves to God through the worship of the Holy Mass.

Archbishop Fulton Sheen, each day, spent one hour in front of the Blessed Sacrament. He called it his "Hour of Power." He found the strength to serve the Church through this time, growing in love for the Lord. What’s most important is don’t let this chance past you by. Find a way to renew yourself in the Love that flows undiluted from the Heart of Christ, hidden under the appearances of bread and wine, present in the Most Blessed Sacrament.

2004-11-02T13:26:00.000-08:00

Limbo is not a Caribbean Dance

Limbo is a classic bugbear of apologetics. Usually, if you encounter a non-Catholic who makes the claim that the Church changes her teachings, limbo is one of the matters that comes up. The reason for this is simple. For most non-Catholics, there is a profound confusion about the relationship between an individual theologian opinion on a matter of the Faith and the definitive teaching of the Church which comes to us through the Magisterium. The Magisterium’s task is to protect and to clarify the Deposit of Faith in its content and expression. The Magisterium effects this protection and clarification either, extraordinarily, through ecumenical councils and ex cathedra teachings of the Popes or ordinarily, when they confirm that which has been taught previously in accord with the over all history of the Church. The theologian’s task rests upon drawing new conclusions or unpacking what is present in the Church’s official teaching.

Limbo falls into the category of a theological opinion. There is no evidence that limbo was ever taught officially by the Church, either through extraordinary or ordinary means. The idea of limbo comes from a convergence of two apparently contradictory notions. First, we believe that Original Sin separates us from God and that through the sacrament of Baptism, we are freed from this condition. Second, we know that, sometimes, infants and many others, who through no fault of their own, fail to receive Baptism and therefore die in the state of Original Sin. Therefore, it seems unmerciful to claim that the infant would go to Hell, even though that is the logical conclusion of the propositions of the Faith given. At the same time, it would violate justice if somehow this objective fault of the Fall were not dealt with. What are we to conclude?

The solution was to speculate that there was a place for those who die in Original Sin without baptism and without fault. Limbo was proposed, at least by St. Thomas Aquinas, as a state of natural happiness, excluded both from the punishment of Hell and the Beatific Vision of God in Heaven. If I remember correctly, limbo also makes an appearance in Dante’s Divine Comedy as the place where the "good pagans" from the time before Christ rest until the Resurrection of the Dead. Without being glib, I often say that limbo is a sophisticated way of saying "We aren’t exactly sure what happens to one who dies without receiving Baptism."

The Catechism of the Catholic Church treats the subject in this fashion: "As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God.... Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children...allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism" (CCC #1261). In my personal opinion, this is a much better way of thinking this matter through, because it requires to return to the fundamentals of Faith and to practice one of the theological virtues, the virtue of Hope. This doesn’t mean that parents shouldn’t strive to tend to their children’s baptisms as soon as possible. It simply reminds that God is not bound to act only within the sacramental system He has given to His Church. In this month dedicated to the Faithful Departed, let us renew ourselves in praying for those who have gone before us, marked with the signs of Faith, held aloft on the mercy and justice of God.

2004-10-05T10:35:00.000-07:00

(Author’s Note: For the next few issues, in honor of school starting, all of the questions come from a group of college students studying the Catholic Faith.)
Dear Father Tharp,
Is it really a mortal sin to miss Mass? If I sleep late on Sunday and then later get hit by a bus on the way to dinner, will I really go to Hell? What if I believe sincerely as God as my savior (Jesus) and do good but just don’t believe that Mass is necessary for heaven? What if I am a regular Mass go-er and sometimes go instead to church with my protestant boy friend?
Sincerely Yours,
Trish Brown, Alva, OK

By way of review, there are three conditions for a sin to be mortal: 1. the object of the act must be grave, 2. the act must be committed with full knowledge of the evil, and 3. the act must be committed with deliberate and full consent (CCC #1857). In your question, you give the example of someone who accidentally over-sleeps and misses Sunday Mass. In this example, the person probably is not guilty of a mortal sin because it was not deliberate. Your question revolves, it seems to me, around whether or not the obligation to attend Mass on Sunday qualifies as grave matter.

For modern people, worship is an odd thing. Frequently, I hear the complaint that someone no longer attends Sunday Mass because it is boring or that they "get nothing out of it." This mentality reveals an attitude that worship is for the participant, but this is not properly speaking, a Christian line of reasoning. Worship, first and foremost, is service that we render back to God, in thanksgiving for everything that He has rendered to us in His goodness. We go to worship, not to receive something, but rather to GIVE something, a gift of ourselves, through active, participation in worship. Only after we have presented our gifts of self does Christ respond with a gift of His own.

When we look at the Ten Commandments, you will notice that the Commandments do not begin with how do we treat our neighbor. The first matter they address is what are my obligations to God. We are given three: that we have no idols or other gods that we worship, that we honor and reverence the name of God, and that we keep holy the Sabbath (Cf. Exodus 20:1-11, Deuteronomy 5:6-15, CCC #2168-2173). Thus, belonging to the Covenant God makes with His people involves the necessity of rendering worship and service back to Him. While it is laudable that people do good, they are still objectively out of step with God and His plan if they do not render Him the worship that in justice we owe to Him.

We find this notion strengthened in the New Testament in two senses. First, that on the eve of His sacrificial Death which will bring a new Covenant of Grace into the world, Jesus institutes a new definitive form of worship, the Holy Mass. He does this by taking the Passover celebration, which celebrated the first covenant and the liberation of Israel from Egypt, and instituting the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist, which represents for all generations the saving Death and Resurrection that liberates from our greatest oppressors sin, suffering, and death. When Jesus commands that the Apostles should "do this in memory of [Him]," the Greek verb tense used here for "do" is translated more fittingly as "keep on or continue to do this in memory of me." In short, the Holy Mass is a perpetual offering for the Church to connect us to this life-giving Mystery of the Lord. Through this sacrifice, we make clear our belonging to this covenant.
Second, we see the Sabbath moved from the last day of the week to the first in honor of the Resurrection. The Sabbath was the high point of God’s creation because it pointed to what we were made for, union with God. Due to sin and the Fall, we could not attain to this union. The Resurrection confirms that Christ’s sacrifice has redeemed Man and initiates a new covenant, one sealed in the Blood of Christ. As in the previous Covenant, the heart of the Sabbath centered on the worship of the temple. In the New Covenant, if the Sabbath is to be fulfilled, it too must center on worship, otherwise it would lose its essential connection to work of God in previous ages.

It goes without saying then that a person who misses Holy Mass on a Sunday or Holy Day of Obligation without grave reason, e.g. serious illness, commits a mortal sin (cf. CCC #2174-2188). Furthermore, if we recognize that the Mass is divinely instituted worship, instituted by Christ, we see that while the intention of our Protestant brothers and sisters is to worship God, it cannot hold a candle to the Mass. No matter how good the preacher might be, or how lovely the choir, it is not the worship that Christ demands of us and that the Church through the centuries, in various forms, has celebrated.

2004-10-05T10:29:00.000-07:00

Dear Father Tharp:
My girl friend would like me to join the Catholic Church. She says it doesn’t matter if we don’t agree on all the same things as long as we believe in God and in Christ as our Savior. She says it is ok for me to not believe in all of the teachings, since most Catholics don’t anyway. Is it ok to join if you don’t agree with all of the doctrines? I respect the Catholic Church and my girlfriend’s beliefs, I just can’t share some of them. What do you think?
Jesse Whitaker
St. Louis, MO.

The short answer to your question is "Absolutely not." With all due respect to your girlfriend, it doesn’t make a lick of sense to join the Catholic Church when you don’t agree with her teachings. It would akin to saying to an immigrant who wanted to be a U.S. citizen, "We’re so pleased to have you in the United States, but don’t feel like you have to follow our laws."

When one becomes a Catholic, either through baptism or through a public profession of faith, the person assents to all that Church teaches and binds themselves to follow the Church’s laws and practices. This derives from the fact that Catholics recognize the teaching authority of the Church comes not from men but from Christ Himself. To the apostles, He gave the authority to teach and to govern in His name (e.g. Matthew 28:18-20; Luke 10:16ff). This authority was handed over to the Bishops so that the voice of Christ can be heard even until the end of time. It follows then that when we follow and obey the Church’s teachings, we are actually following Christ.

Professing the Faith of the Church requires further growth and development on our part. While a candidate or a catechumen must understand the basic aspects of the Faith, this doesn’t mean he has exhausted it. As the teaching of the Church pertains to the mystery of God, what she professes can be understood while never being utterly spent. Each day to grow in knowledge is the task of a Catholic because ultimately Faith is not a matter of mastery of a topic; it is to know intimately the person of God.

However, with all that said, you, and every other authentic searcher for the truth, have an obligation placed upon them. You have the obligation to make sure you know to what and to whom you are saying "no." Archbishop Fulton Sheen had the line that most non-Catholics don’t hate the Church, but hate what they think the Church is. In the same way, you have to take the appropriate effort to understand what the content of the Church’s Faith actually is. I would recommend to you either The Catechism of the Catholic Church or The Catholic Catechism by Fr. John Hardon. Both works will be able to give you the proper perspective on your questions concerning the Catholic Faith. Your respect for both your girlfriend and for the Church are healthy signs, to me, for what it’s worth, of a search that is just beginning.

When it comes to being a Catholic, there are two approaches. On the one hand, you can treat the Church and her teachings like a cafeteria, where you take only the parts you like or want. You can see how that isn’t nourishing in terms of food and is less so when it comes to spiritual matters. On the other hand, you can treat the Church and her teachings as a rich banquet where one fills their belly with every wondrous, delightful thing. That’s all the Church offers, a chance to taste the fullness of the good things that Christ has given us for our salvation.

2004-09-21T09:45:00.000-07:00

(Author’s Note: We continue this week with letters from college students.)

Dear Father Tharp:
I have been studying Church history. I can’t find anywhere that says there was any sort of "papacy" in the early Church or that Peter was supreme. What gives?
Sincerely Yours,
Jon Longman
Sand Springs, OK

When dealing with issues like this one, you first have to let go of the notion that you are going to find that particular term used. After all, the Bible doesn’t mention things like "Incarnation" or the "Trinity" and yet we would say that those things are being taught. Since your letter had so much in it, I couldn’t reproduce it. Instead, I will try to answer each of the objection you present.
What is Peter’s relationship to the other Apostles? That Peter was first among the Apostles rests upon Scriptural testimony. First, the New Testament mentions a list of the Apostles, Peter heads the list (Mt. 10:2-4; Mk. 3:16-19; Lk. 6:13-16; Acts 1:13-15). Second, before the other Apostles are given in the power of binding and loosing, Peter receives this power in the form of the Keys of the Kingdom (Mt 16:19). In Isaiah 22: 20-23, we see this imagery used to describe how Eliakim, as the Prime Minster in Hezekiah’s kingdom, was to bind and to loose. In this same way, we see how Peter is to be the guardian and protector this new Kingdom that Christ establishes. However, it doesn’t make a lot of sense to appoint a guardian only to have the office fade away as soon as the first office holder is dead. Also, in the Sacred Scriptures, when someone’s name is changed, it designates a unique role in Salvation History being given. A good example of this is Abraham. Another good example is St. Peter. Recall that his given name is Simon. In the same instance that Christ gives him the Keys of the Kingdom, we find his name being changed so that he and his successors would permit the Church to stand rock steady in every age. Third, as to your observation that if Peter were obviously the leader, the other disciples would not argue who is the greatest (e.g. Mark 9:34ff), I don’t find that particularly germane. Even in our enlightened times, people jockey for positions of power precisely because they know they are not the top of the food chain, so to speak. Fourth, if St. Peter’s role is not that important, then why would the Lord single him out as the one who will strengthen his brothers by feeding the sheep (John 21:15-17)?

What’s the difference between being "impeccable" and being "infallible"? The incident you mention from Galatians 2:11-14 where Paul has to correct Peter’s behavior in reference to the Gentile Christians is an ironic selection. St. Paul chastises St. Peter for showing favoritism to the Jewish converts and neglecting and even avoiding contact with the Gentile converts. Of interest though is the origin of this mandate. In the Acts of the Apostles, the person who receives the vision and makes the declaration that the Gentile Christians are equal to the Jewish Christians is St. Peter (Acts 11:4ff). So for St. Paul confront St. Peter over this matter rests upon St. Peter’s authority to teach definitively.

The confusion here has to do with what infallibility entails. Infallibility means that when the Pope teaches concerning faith and morals, whether extraordinarily via ex cathedra statements or the work of an ecumenical council, that the teaching will be free from error. The other bishops share in the office of teaching by remaining in communion with the Pope. This special charism that is attached to the Office of Peter comes from the Holy Spirit. What Paul points to, and the history of the Church sadly records, is that many Popes have not been free from sin, hence they are not impeccable. The Popes, just as any Christian must, listen to the Lord and His Church and seek to be transformed.

I’m sorry that I could treat more of the things you asked about but I hope this is a good first start. I would ask you to consider one other point. The Pope serves as a visible sign and source of communion amongst the faithful; when things become disputed, he is to restore unity to the Body. If the papacy were really an invention that came about later, then unity should still be able to be achieved. At last count, though, there are more than 20,000 Protestant denominations in the United States alone. That doesn’t sound like unity to me.

2004-08-11T09:56:00.000-07:00

Dear Father,
Why do we pray to Mary more than other Saints? What makes her so special? She was just a woman like us wasn't she?

Name and Hometown Withheld.

Three features of Catholic life consistently draw questions from non-Catholics: the Pope, the Mass, and the Blessed Virgin Mary. In reference to the Blessed Virgin, I suspect these questions come from a genuine concern not to have Christ’s unique mediation minimized (I Timothy 2:5-6). When you encounter such objections, keeping this point in mind helps maintain a charitible frame of mind.

At the outset, one point needs to be made. As Catholics, we don’t worship the Blessed Virgin Mary. To do so would be a terrible offense against God and a terrible insult to Mary as well. She is a creature and therefore is not to be worshipped (Exodus 20:4-5; Deuteronomy 5:8-9). Rather, we show her respect and honor due to her unique and significant role in salvation history.

The Church’s teaching draws our attention to four particular graces that were bestowed upon the Blessed Virgin Mary. These graces outline the manner of Our Lady’s cooperation and ground our veneration of her. We, first, venerate her as the Mother of God. The shocking aspect of the coming of Jesus is not that he is the Messiah; the shock comes in the revelation that this Messiah is also the Son of God (Luke 1:32). In the flesh of Man, flesh he takes from his Mother alone, the Second Person of the Trinity, who without beginning or end, becomes incarnate in the womb of the Blessed Virgin Mary. The Church officially defined this teaching at the Council of Ephesus (431 A.D.) in an effort to stress the unity of Jesus’ divine and human natures.

Second, we honor Mary as being immaculately conceived. When the angel Gabriel appears to Mary, to announce her role as Mother of God, he addresses her as "full of Grace" or in other translations, "highly favored one." The meaning of the Greek word here indicates both a quality of Mary and a status conveyed to her. By declaring that Mary is conceived immaculately, the Church declares that Mary is preserved from the taint of Original Sin from the moment of her conception in anticipation of the merits of Christ. Therefore, the Church doesn’t teach that Mary didn’t need a redeemer. What she does teach is that Mary received a unique participation in that redemption.

Mary also receives our veneration, thirdly, because of her perpetual virginity. This one is very hard for many Protestants, and not a few Catholics, to understand and accept. It seems unnatural for Mary not to have other children. Yet, as Christ is dying upon the Cross, Jesus doesn’t entrust his Mother to an unmentioned sibling. Christ gives responsibility of her well-being and protection to Saint John. If Jesus truly did have blood siblings, born of the marriage of Joseph and Mary, then he would trespass upon a solemn family obligation. In Hebrew, family bonds were more fluid than we understand them. There are no words for relationships like "cousin." As the Gospel writers were more familiar with Hebrew than Greek, they would describe the relationship using a Hebrew notion expressed in Greek terms.

Lastly, the Church honors Mary because of her Assumption, Body and Soul into Heaven. In the Book of Revelation, St. John relates a vision of the eternal Jerusalem descending from Heaven (cf. Revelation 11:19-12:6). St. John sees the temple of God in Heaven and the ark of the Covenant could be seen. The great sign of this is the Woman clothed with Sun. Many commentators want to limit this apparition merely to being a symbol of the Church. This doesn’t gibe well with the next verses which describe the birth of a son who will rule the nations. A better interpretation for this is that St. John reveals that Mary was assumed into Heaven and already shares fully in the promises made by Christ to those who follow in His way.

Mary then becomes an icon for every Christian. We strive to imitate her virtues of faith and humility. We long to be faithful to our mission to and for Christ as she was. We hope to one day be with her who served her Son, in the joys of Heaven.

As a brief postscript, a reader contacted me requesting a clarification on my last article. For a Catholic, Fridays in Lent are days of mandatory abstention from meat. All other Fridays of the year, while highly recommended, the abstention from meat is not mandatory. I hope that clarifies any confusion.

2004-07-24T19:34:00.000-07:00

Dear Fr. Tharp,
Could you please explain Fridays as a day of Penance? What should we be doing?

Jim H.
Hometown Withheld

The question of penitential practice appears in the Gospels in a form of a conflict between the disciples of John the Baptist and the Pharisees on one side and the Lord’s disciples on the other. While His disciples should not fast while the Lord is with them, our Lord does note that “the days will come, when the bridegroom is taken away from them, and then they will fast” (Mt. 9:15, Mk. 2:18-20; Lk. 5:33-35). In another place, the Lord corrects the means by which the disciples will fast rather than removing fasting from their religious practice (Mt. 6:16-18). Hence, this brief aside suggests that Our Lord intended penance and mortification to be part of our life in Him.

On the positive side, our desire for mortification comes from a profound love for the Lord Jesus Christ. Through our mortifications we are made more like Him who suffered for us. On the negative side, we recognize that not everything we do is in conformity with the will of God. We desire to make amends for the wrongs we have committed and to free ourselves from the slavery of sin. We long to put to death in ourselves those things which draw us back to sin. We achieve this by denying ourselves those things which either contribute to the sin or leave us too attached to the material creation that surrounds us. While we, as Catholics, would affirm that creation is good, we must remind ourselves that this life is fading away and that we do not live for this world alone.

Penance, then, is part and parcel of being a Christian. It is not an extra thing done or special action reserved for the particularly pious. As the Code of Canon Law directs, “All Christ’s faithful are obliged by divine law, each in his or her own way, to do penance” (canon 1249). Furthermore, our penance occurs not only privately but corporately since we belong to one Body, the Body of Christ. The previously quoted canon goes on to say, “However, so that all may be joined together in a certain common practice of penance, days of penance are prescribed.” It follows then that to be a faithful Catholic, there is a communion of Faith, of Worship in the Sacraments, and of Life in the forms of Morality and Penance.

Fridays naturally draw our minds to penance because it is the day of Our Lord’s Passion. The Code of Canon Law enshrines this ancient practice when it states “The days and times of penance for the universal Church are each Friday of the whole year and the season of Lent” (canon 1250). The expectation is stated clearly. Catholics are to practice some form of penance on all Fridays and on all the days of Lent. As Sundays are like a “mini-Easter,” one could be excused from penance on those days (cf. Canon 1251).

In a general sense, penance comes in many forms: prayer, works of piety, acts of self-denial, being more faithful to one’s obligations, and of course, fasting and abstinence. The obligation to abstain from meat on Fridays was not lifted in the new Code. Rather, it modified the obligation so that if a Bishops’ Conference wanted to substitute some other food or practice they could (cf. Canon 1251 and 1253). The obligation to abstain from meat binds all Catholics from the age of fourteen, the obligation to fast from the age of eighteen until the age of sixty. After that, it is up to the individual person to participate but it is not specifically obligatory. Our own Bishops’ Conference strongly recommends us to this practice of abstinence from meat on Friday as well as encouraging us to other forms of penance as well.

I would say then that the most basic Friday penance should be abstinence from meat and then add something that applies to your particular spiritual need. So if you have been meaning to beef up your spiritual reading, fast from television on Fridays and use the time for spiritual reading. In the end, these Friday observances are really for our benefit. Isn’t it funny that many people will climb over broken glass to get the latest fad diet book so that they can have a trim and lean body, but they won’t take the same effort to grow strong in the Lord?

2004-06-22T07:21:00.000-07:00

Requirements for Baptism

Dear Father Tharp:
My teenage daughter has a 6 month-old baby and she is no longer an active practicing Catholic. The father of the baby is in the picture, but he is not Catholic. Our priest published in our bulletin that the requirements for baptism of an infant is that one of the parents must be an active practicing Catholic. My daughter wants to have the baby baptized, but she is not practicing the faith. I am so worried about my granddaughter not being baptized. Would the Church decline to baptize an infant because the parents are not active Catholics?
Name and City Withheld.

First, I applaud your intention and concern for the welfare of your granddaughter. Baptism is the gateway to the other sacraments and the beginning of our life in Christ. It has been a venerable tradition of the Church to baptize both adults and infants, so that the free gift of God’s grace may be poured out on all. The logic of baptizing infants stems from the fact that like our earthly life, our supernatural life comes not by our willing it, but by gracious willing of God. As St. John reminds us, “Love consists in this: it is not we who loved God, but God loved us and sent His Son to expiate our sins” (I John 4:10).

However, at the same time, we must remember that the Sacraments aren’t magic. They require our free co-operation. It is here that the problem concerning your granddaughter’s baptism arises.

The insistence of your pastor that your daughter be a practicing Catholic before granting the baptism of your granddaughter is found in the Code of Canon Law. The Code of Canon Law gives the Church a way to insure that the Sacraments are celebrated in such a way as to prevent them being treated lightly or in a manner unbecoming to their nature. The Code also gives direction on matters of Church governance as well.

The Code initially lays out the responsibility of parents to see that their children are baptized soon after birth (Canon 867, paragraph 1). This same canon assumes that the parents have already spoken to their pastor and received proper preparation for the Sacrament. At the same time, the Code recognizes that for the baptism to take place “...there must be a realistic hope that the child will be brought up in the Catholic religion. If such hope is truly lacking, the baptism is, in accordance with the provisions of particular law, to be deferred and the parents advised of the reason for this” (Canon 868, paragraph 1, degree 2). Given the situation you describe, the burden for raising the child in the Catholic religion falls squarely upon your daughter. That she is not practicing the Faith at this time, the pastor can assume, quite reasonably, that the hope of the child being raised Catholic is slim. The sad fact is the person withholding the baptism from your granddaughter is not your pastor. It is your daughter.

Speaking from my own limited pastoral experience, if I were the pastor in this situation, here are my concerns given this case. First, as your daughter is not practicing the Faith, I would be dubious that she understands either the nature of Baptism or obligations placed on her by her own Baptism. If she doesn’t understand these things, how can she form her child in the practice of the faith? Second, I would be curious to find out what the father of the child thought. Since he is not of the Catholic faith, I would be concerned that he might be more of an impediment than an assistance to the rearing of this child in the Faith.

In closing, I sympathize with you. It must be distressing to see one’s children forego the practice of the Faith that you took such pains to raise them in. You must take St. Monica as your guide and example. It was through her prayers and sacrifices that brought one of the greatest doctors of the Church, St. Augustine, into the Church.

2004-06-16T07:32:00.000-07:00

Notes on the Inquisition
For those who get beaten about the head and shoulders by people who criticize the Church for the Inquisition, this article should give you some ammo. Yahoo! News - Vatican: Inquisition Not So Widespread

2004-06-10T09:19:00.000-07:00

What is it worth to you?

I often hear good, faithful Catholics lament that there are no opportunities for them to be better formed in the Catholic Faith. Fair enough; there ought to be more. But what if something was right under your nose? What would you be willing to sacrifice to go?

The Fifth Annual Midwest Family Life Conference will take place on August 6-8, 2004 in Wichita, KS. Last year's conference was great and this year's is shaping up to be more of the same. The conference's theme this year is "Be Not Afraid: Open Your Heart to Christ the Savior." The list of featured speakers is long with some notable names among them such as Fr. Andrew Apostoli, C.F.R., Jason Evert, Jeff Cavins, Tim Staples, et al. Did I mention there will a concert by John Michael Talbot and a one woman performance on the life of Saint Therese. There are programs also for high school, jr. high, and children. This way, you really are discovering the depths of the Faith as a family. Also, the show floor has some of the best in Catholic literature for sale. I have to hide my credit cards before I go, lest I permanently bankrupt myself. Also, since St. Joseph's Communications helps to put this on, tapes of ALL the talks are available at reasonable prices.

Now, let's talk practical stuff. As far as travel time goes, I sat down with a map and estimated that most people would be willing to drive 8 hours to get to Wichita for such a great conference. So along the outer ring of cities would be: Sioux Falls, SD; Des Moines, IA; Kansas City (both versions); Little Rock, AR; Dallas, TX; Abilene, TX; Lubbock, TX; Colorado Springs, CO; and Denver, CO. If you are inside this ring, then you are less than 8 hours from the conference. How much does it cost? If you register before July 22, then the cost $80.00 for each family, $70.00 for married couples, $35.00 for each adult, $30.00 for each senior citizen, and $15.00 for each child/teen. That's for the WHOLE WEEKEND! That's a steal! Hotel costs of course vary but the average is about $70.00 a night.

Call to Register at 877.526.2151 or online. Tell 'em the Ragemonkey sent you!

2004-06-08T13:58:00.000-07:00

Purgatory: What is It and Where is it in the Bible?

Father,
Explain purgatory and who goes there. Does the soul of a dead person go from purgatory to heaven after being made pure by suffering? Is purgatory mentioned in the Bible?
A Confused Person

The Church teaches that purgatory is “the final purification of the elect” (CCC #1031). The doctrine of Purgatory makes good sense. Those who are completely purified and free from all sins would go directly to Heaven. Those who completely reject the ways of God would go to Hell. But what of those who while being free from mortal sins, and thus have not rejected God, are still guilty of either venial sins or the punishment due to their sins? These people go to Purgatory. The Catechism puts it this way: “All who die in God’s grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven” (CCC #1030).

Why would does one need to be purified before entering into Heaven? Since God is perfect holiness (e.g. cf. Isaiah 6:3), to enter into His presence requires us to be pure as well. In Heaven, “...nothing unclean shall enter it nor any one who practices abomination or falsehood, but only those who are written in the Lamb’s book of life” (Rev. 21:27). When we sin, we not only damage or sever the relationship we have with God, but also merit punishment due to the sin committed. For instance, when King David sins with Bathsheba, the prophet Nathan reports “the Lord also has put away your sin; you shall not die. Nevertheless, because by this deed you have utterly scorned the Lord, the child that is born to you shall die.” In Purgatory, we are set free from these attachments and faults. Once we are purified, we go directly to Heaven to enjoy the Beatific Vision. Also, we can demonstrate our love for our neighbors who wait in purgatory by praying for the dead and remembering them in our prayers.

Does the Sacred Scriptures make reference to purgatory? In the first case, it must be said that the Sacred Scripture makes no use of the word “purgatory,” but this shouldn’t cause us much distress. The Sacred Scriptures uses neither the word “Trinity” nor the term “Incarnation,” but we can see how the Scriptures teach these sacred truths. In 2 Maccabees 12:38-45, Judas Maccabees offers sin offerings to make amends for his dead comrades who sinned in committing idolatry. Specifically, the author of 2 Maccabees lauds Judas’s action by saying “In doing this he acted very well and honorably, taking account of the resurrection” (2 Macc. 12:43b). There is only one caveat in using this verse. Given that Protestants don’t accept 2 Maccabees as canonical or inspired, you have to use this as an example of prevalent historical ideas afoot at the time. Also, I find it interesting that if, as some Protestant observers say, praying for the dead was a pagan invention the Church was tricked into accepting, then it makes no sense for 2 Maccabees to praise Judas’s action, since the Maccabees were fighting against the pagan corruption of Judaism by Greek practices. In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus says that sins against the Holy Spirit cannot be forgiven in this world or in the world to come (Matthew 12:32). One can infer that this means that some sins could be forgiven after death, although the Church does make it clear that only venial sins could be forgiven after death. Lastly, we can turn to St. Paul in his first letter to the Corinthians, that our works will be tested after death. “If the work which any man has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as though fire” (1 Cor. 3:14-15) [emphasis mine]. Here we see that St. Paul understands that even those who are destined for Heaven, may have to undergo purification before entering in.

In the end, Purgatory should be seen as a further sign of God’s mercy for his people. Even the best among us, choose the right things but sometimes for the wrong reasons. In Purgatory, all these things will be wiped away so that we can be fully happy with God.

2004-05-26T07:26:00.000-07:00

What I Wanted to Say, but Chose Not To

Referring back to the question on Donatism and Contraception, I wanted to make a observation about the overpopulation causing starvation comment but ran short of space. And given what I wanted to say, maybe it is better this way.

This is what I wanted to say:
"On the issue of overpopulation and starvation, I know an equally viable and more profitable way to bring that to a close. The world governments can set a mandatory death date of 60.5 years. On that day, the government agency will euthanize you for no charge in the presence of all your loved ones. Think of all the money we would save on medical care for you. Then after your loved ones leave, we will send your corpse to a rendering plant where it will be turned into a savory paste. It would be chock full of protein and other nutrients. Then, the governments can distribute this paste to all the starving people. Now, after you pick up your jaw, I want you to think about the logic of my statement. I used the same contraceptive logic against the elderly that some would suggest being used against the unborn. If you aren't a person in the womb, and you are not supposed to be the product of a married couple's conjugal union, then a person is simply a means to an end rather than a good in itself."

2004-05-25T09:18:00.000-07:00

Hell and Its Punishments
Dear Father:
What is the Church’s teaching on what can lead to eternal damnation, hell? Most practicing Catholics if not all, when they die, usually have a Mass of Christian burial. Also, many of these Catholics have Masses and prayers offered for them after death. Does this imply that all these Catholics have been spared from eternal damnation, if not, are these prayers wasted since once in hell there is no redemption?
Salvador Borrego
St. Phillip Neri Church, Oklahoma City, OK

In the Gospel of St. Matthew we read, “Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the road broad that leads to destruction, and those who enter through it are many. How narrow the gate and constricted the road that leads to life. And those who find it are few (Matthew 7:13-14).” This is only one example of the many times where Christ speaks of our eternal destiny. There are only two outcomes of this life: eternal life or eternal death, a way of destruction. While the outcome is clear for those who follow or reject Christ, we need to know what makes the road narrow.

The Church teaches that one guilty of committing mortal sin and unrepentant of that sin receive the punishment of Hell. This means going to Hell is our choice and not some form of malicious predestination by God. Because we have been given, not only the fullness of Truth as revealed by Christ and which is taught by the Church, but also the freedom of the sons of God through Baptism, we have a profound responsibility to live by the way of Christ. Furthermore, the punishment of Hell is eternal. In our life on earth, it is possible for us to change and to return to Christ. We live immersed in the swirling tides of time itself. At the moment of death, the time for choosing Christ ends. We move into the realms of eternity, where there is no time. The person we are as we cross that spiritual line of demarcation is the person we are for all of eternity. It follows then that those who live a life where even in one aspect was turned from Christ, they are not fit for Heaven. It also suggests that God treats us with great mercy for He gives us time to learn and to assent to His way (CCC #1033-1037).

This insistence on the reality and the eternity of Hell speaks to the profound depth of human actions. Because we have been given a free will, we can freely choose to love God and serve Him or to turn from Him. It further shows that the choices we make, make us into the people we are. The virtues and goodness of virtuous people radiate from them because these good choices have become “second nature” to them; they will them without having to fight their fallen tendencies as strongly. The viciousness taints and clouds those who surrender to it so much so that we can often sense that something is off.

Your second question raises some interesting issues. In the history of the Church, I can find only one person (or persons) whom the Church teaches are definitely in Hell. This is Satan and His fallen angels. Otherwise, no one else has made the list, not even Judas. It would seem then that we should hold out hope that our loved ones are in Heaven, but at the same time, remember that even those who are fit for Heaven, may have some purification to undergo before entering that blessed state.

Through the Funeral Mass and Christian burial, the Church re-states her firm hope in the Resurrection of the Dead and the firm hope that our loved one is at rest in Heaven. But to hope for something doesn’t make it so. Certainly, funeral homilies should avoid saying that someone is definitely in Hell or in Heaven because quite frankly, it’s God’s task to judge the living and the dead, not ours. Instead we should be encouraged to pray for the dead and to remember them through having the Holy Mass said for the repose of their souls.

If the person in question were in Hell, the prayers and sacrifices wouldn’t be wasted, as they go to build up the Body of Christ, the Church. The Catechism puts it this way: “In this solidarity with all men, living or dead, which is founded on the communion of saints, the least of our acts done in charity redounds to the profit of all. Every sin harms this communion (CCC# 953).” Even if our prayers and sacrifices don’t liberate another from the suffering of Hell, it can help to strengthen the Body of Christ as a whole. We should also take note that our sins have the opposite effect. Our actions are not isolated moments; they reach out to all our brothers and sisters, both in this world and in the world to come.

2004-05-11T08:47:00.000-07:00

Donatism and Contraception, Part Two
This is the second part of an answer to a question posed for the column. I felt the need to separate the two issues and this article deals with contraception and the nature of marriage. See below for the original question.

Last time, we considered the way the Church teaches. Through the Holy Spirit, Christ continues to shepherd His people in the person of the Pope and the Bishops who are in union with him. In spite of personal failings the bishops might possess, the Church can teach infallibly and in a binding fashion because the Holy Spirit confirms the validity of these teachings. After all, Jesus didn't say, "He who hears you, hears me if and only if you are a good boy." Rather, to the Apostles and to their successors, Christ has given the power to bind and loose, not only in terms of sins or Church administration, but also, in matters of faith and morals. At the same time, it is important to note that the Bishops, and all Catholics, must strive to live in accordance with the Church's moral teachings. While our witness and our fidelity don't make the teaching true, it can make them more credible.

Many find the Church's teaching on contraception confusing. The reason stems from starting at the wrong end of the argument. All moral teaching of the Church comes from a recognition of the nature of the thing in question. So, for example, the Church's consistent insistence of the grave evil of abortion comes from the recognition of the value of the human person and his creation in the image and likeness of God. As a moral teaching, the logic of contraception resides in the nature of marriage and human sexuality.

Throughout the Sacred Scripture, marriage plays a pivotal role in God's advancement of His plan of salvation. In Genesis 1:27, God blesses man and imposes the first moral demand upon him, Be fruitful and multiply. In short, be like God who gives life and provides for those He has created. In Genesis 2:23-24, we find marriage introduced as the sign of the unity of man and woman. It is as though the man, Adam, only comes to understand himself when he stands and looks into the face of the woman, Eve. Marriage then becomes the context for the building of the people of Israel. The patriarchs and the great figures of salvation history exercise their roles first on the stage of the human family. We can also find a protection of marriage and women in particular in the listing of the Ten Commandments as they are listed in the Book of Deuteronomy. In this listing, the injunction against coveting another's wife is separated from the coveting of another's spouse. In the prophets, we find many references to marriage as the symbol for the faithfulness Israel should show to God or how Israel has failed in its obedience and therefore has played the harlot against God. So, it should be clear that marriage is a significant reality in the Old Testament.

This is not to say that what we would think of as marriage is completely present either. When you look through the Old Testament, you can find some problems. First, the presence of polygamy worked against the dignity of women. Second, ritual temple prostitution became a problem for Israel as it was regularly practiced by the nations surrounding them. Third, the presence of divorce suggested that this bond was for right now but not necessarily for the long haul.

Christ elevates marriage to the nature of a sacrament in the Gospels. Along with the injunction against divorce as given in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:31-32), we can point to the encounter with the Pharisees found in Matthew 19:1-9. In this, the Church sees Christ elevating the practice of the Old Testament to its definitive form. Also, it is of interest that Christ frequently compares Himself to the bridegroom waiting to wed to His bride. In St. John's Gospel, this finds expression upon the Cross, when Jesus cries out, "It is finished." A better translation for the Greek word, tetelestai, would be "it is consummated" or "it is accomplished."

Moving to the New Testament, St. Paul makes great use of the sacrament of Marriage as the sign of Christ's union with the Church. In Ephesians 5:31-32, Paul says that marriage is a great mystery because it refers to Christ and the Church. What makes this quote most illuminating is that St. Paul goes all the way back to Genesis to set this notion in place. As Christ is united to the Church, this is what ultimately marriage was made for. Otherwise, when St. Paul brings up marriage, it generally concerns questions of how does Christian couples live together as Christians.

Marriage then can be seen to encompass three goods: permanence, fidelity, and fruitfulness. Permanence means that when one enters into marriage, they are there to remain for the long haul. Fidelity means that no other person will intrude upon this gift of self that the couple has made. Fruitfulness means that the couple will participate in the work of creation that God has entrusted to the human family. When a couple gets married, their vows reflect each of these goods and if the couple intends not to fulfill that good, it can invalidate the bond.

This brings us to consider the nature of human sexuality. Human sexuality has two purposes: to bond the couple and to produce offspring. In a powerful way, sexuality makes manifest the promises and goods that the couple promised to each other in marriage. By the sacramental bond, this gift of self made through the consent, the couple is capacititated to have sexual relations. Without the bond, sex is as invalid a reality as would Holy Communion received at a Mass celebrated by a layman. In marriage, genital sexual expressions find their summit and their goal.

Now we can consider what the injunction against contraception really drives at. Contraception damages the nature of marital self-giving, not just in the bedroom but in all aspects of the marriage. Consider how the onus of using contraception falls on only one partner, usually the wife. Furthermore, in chemical contraception, we see the good of fruitfulness treated as though it were a disease. When else do you take a pill or wear a medicine patch except when you are sick? Barrier methods are concrete signs of the division between the couple. Imagine a romantic scene between a husband and wife and just as they are starting to kiss, he says, "Oh, wait, let me put on my barrier." In either case, that doesn't sound like a gift of self.

In addition, one must not overlook the connection between contraception and abortion. In the Supreme Court case Doe v. Bolton, makes reference to the fact that abortion must remain legal in case of contraceptive failure. In the pill and the patch, both can cause a spontaneous abortion by preventing the implantation of the embyro. While some researchers might claim that breakthrough pregnancy is uncommon, one child lost is too many.

The Church teaches that every act of sexual intercourse must be open to the gift of life as God sees fit to bestow it. The married couple must learn to respect the gift of children and to welcome them into the home. The Church does recognize that, for grave reasons, a couple can delay when they will have children, but, the couple must use moral means to effect this spacing. This method is called Natural Family Planning and doesn't frustrate fruitfulness. It fulfills it because with contraception there is a "no" being stated. NFP can actually assist couples in having children and fulfilling the duties and responsibilities of marriage.

In closing, I find your thought ironic that couple somehow have to lie about their marriage when they use contraceptives. In truth, the marriage is in danger of becoming a lie once contraceptives are brought into play.

2004-04-27T12:21:00.000-07:00

Donatism and Contraception, Part One
Well, here is a final draft of an earlier question. The next part will address the contraception part of the puzzle. Any comments please leave them here.
Dear Father:
With all the priests’ Scandals, etc., and Bishop O’Brien convicted of a felony, the first in U.S. History, Why doesn’t our Religion lift the Ban on contraception and let thousands of married Catholics stop lying about their marriages? Teach to follow sexuality outside of marriage, and stop teenagers from getting pregnant, but let legally married couples have their children and the number they can and will take care of. Look at all the starving people in the world.
Received unsigned.

In order to address your question adequately, there are two matters to consider. First, we need to understand how the teaching office of the Church is present and is exercised. Second, we need to examine not only the Church’s teaching concerning contraception but also the nature of human sexuality in general. Given the relative complexity of these two issues, I want to deal with each one separately. This issue we will examine the teaching office and next issue will have an examination of the moral issues involved.

In the fourth century, an issue arose concerning the validity of sacraments administered by bishops and priests who had surrendered sacred books and various liturgical articles to the Romans during a time of persecution. Eventually a schism arose between those who believed that the sacraments of these lapsed clergy were invalid, i.e. not real sacraments, and the Church. It seems to me that your question follows a similar line of logic. You seem to assume that the teaching authority and the truth value of the Church’s teaching rests upon the impeccability of those who hand on the Church’s teaching. This is not the case.

From the beginning, God has desired that man should come to know, to love, and to serve Him, and by extension one’s neighbors. Because of the gifts with which God endows mankind, it is possible for man to know that God exists. But, if man truly wants to know the inner heart of God, then God will have to show that inner depth to him. God’s manifold perfection renders it impossible to know His essence by merely human means. It requires Revelation.

This revelation has proceeded in stages that lead to the coming of Jesus Christ. In Christ, the Revelation of God is made fully and definitively revealed to all peoples. As the Gospel of Saint John puts it, “For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him might not perish but might have eternal life (John 3:16).” This revelation therefore is not only informative, it is life-giving. It serves as the means of salvation. But here is where we encounter a problem. How does anyone come to know Jesus Christ? After all, we live 2000 years after the events in question. The gulf in time, not to mention space, between now and then, yawns menacingly, threatening to engulf us in the mere succession of days intervening. How can we come to know Christ and through Him find salvation? The means of receiving the revelation of Christ is the Church.

There are so many images for the Church out there in people’s minds and perceptions, but the one we need here is one not often considered, the Church as Mother of the Living. A good mother makes sure that her children are fed and healthy. A good mother makes certain that her children are well educated and well formed. Since her foundation by Christ, she has remained at His side to carry within herself the fullness of Revelation Through the sacraments, the presence of Christ in the world has been maintained. She continues to present Christ through the Sacred Scriptures which she has both gathered together and zealously preserved and through the Sacred Tradition which represents those things which the Apostles preached and taught but that are not preserved in the Sacred Scriptures. But again, we encounter a problem. How can we know what the Church hands on actually constitutes the teaching of Christ? The definitive revelation of Christ demands a definitive arbiter. The Church not only receives the revelation so that it can be transmitted to later generations, but also possesses the agency to preserve it from error or distortion. That agent is the Magisterium.

If the teaching of the Church were likened to meat, then the Magisterium would be the salt preserving that meat from spoilage. When Christ established the Twelve Apostles as the core of the fledgling Church, he gave them several mandates and capacities. For example, He commissioned them to give the sacramental life to those who believed in Him (cf. Matthew 28:19-20, Luke 22:19). He also gave them the mandate to teach in His name so that He can continue to shepherd His people (Matthew 10:40, John 13:20). As the Church continued to grow in the days after Easter, the Apostles would appoint and ordain other men to continue in this role for the new local churches they established. And that is how it continues today.

The Magisterium, the bishops of the Church in union with our Holy Father, the Pope, continues to teach infallibly on matters of faith and morals, preserving the great gift the Church has received not because they are particularly gifted, intelligent, or holy. The Magisterium can teach and guide us because of a particular charism they receive. Ultimately, it is the Holy Spirt who guides and teaches the Church through these chosen men.

So to answer your question bluntly, the Church cannot lift the ban on contraception because it is part of Revelation, or at least, closely related to it. The Church couldn’t lift the ban on contraception any more than she could change her tune and declare Christ is not God. But you’ll have to tune in next week to find out why that is.

2004-04-13T10:15:00.000-07:00

More on the Creed: Seen and Unseen

Dear Father:
In the Nicene Creed: We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen. What does seen and unseen refer to? Thank you.
Name/city withheld

The phrase “seen and unseen” refers to the belief of the Church that God created not only the material universe (seen) but also the heavenly universe (unseen). In this way, the Church professes that God is the creator of the angels and Heaven itself. Here’s what the Catechism gives us:

The Scriptural expression "heaven and earth" means all that exists, creation in its entirety. It also indicates the bond, deep within creation, that both unites heaven and earth and distinguishes the one from the other: "the earth" is the world of men, while "heaven" or "the heavens" can designate both the firmament and God's own "place" - "our Father in heaven" and consequently the "heaven" too which is eschatological glory. Finally, "heaven" refers to the saints and the "place" of the spiritual creatures, the angels, who surround God. The profession of faith of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) affirms that God "from the beginning of time made at once (simul) out of nothing both orders of creatures, the spiritual and the corporeal, that is, the angelic and the earthly, and then (deinde) the human creature, who as it were shares in both orders, being composed of spirit and body.” (CCC #326-327)

I’m going to let my science nerd persona hang out for a moment. For the modern person, you can see a definite beauty to this assertion. Step out on your porch tonight and look into the sky. There is more of the universe that you are not seeing rather than what you are seeing. Now, look at your hand. There is more to be seen there that cannot be seen at first look. It is a great comfort to me that He who made the swirling galaxies made the viruses and bacteria living on my skin.

2004-04-06T22:15:00.000-07:00

The Definition of Apologetics

In recent years, there has been a literal outburst of material concerning apologetic approaches to the Catholic Faith. The authors of these books and tracts have been either converts from various Protestant ecclesial communities or “reverts,” people who defected from the Catholic Faith only to return to the open arms of Holy Mother Church. Their experiences lead them to write about how they became Catholic and how they overcame the obstacles to embracing the fullness of the Christian Faith in the Catholic Church. But this begs the question. What is apologetics?

The word “apology” evokes, in most minds, an act of contrition and amends-making over wrongs done. This however, is only one side of the word. The older sense of the word means to make a reasoned explanation and defense for one’s actions and belief. It is in this sense that St. Justin Martyr and Venerable John Henry Cardinal Newman used it when penning their great apologies. In the second century, the Roman world viewed the Christian Faith as seditious and an act of treason against the state. The Church lived underground. Naturally, because Christians kept to themselves and the powers that be encouraged hostility toward Christians, rumors and misconceptions concerning the Faith began to circulate. To combat these errors, St. Justin (d. 165 A.D.) began to debate with pagan philosophers of his time. When he saw the cruelty the agents of the Emperor heaped upon his fellow Christians, St. Justin penned the first apology. It was his hope that the apology would win some relief for those undergoing persecution. That was not meant to be. St. Justin meets a martyr’s fate, being beheaded. From this apology, we gain tremendous insight not only into the Faith but also a glimpse of liturgical practice of the time.

Our own times resemble the second century. The media and the entertainment industries see in the faith and the faithful an object of ridicule. If one lives the faith courageously and obviously, others advise him against becoming a “fanatic.” Our separated Christian brethren pass on the same confusion concerning the Catholic Church that they themselves received. Our age needs committed Christians. Our age needs literate Christians who can make clear the reason for their hope in Christ. In many ways, this is a role particularly suited to the laity. When I speak about the faith, it has a limited effect. The Roman collar creates the expectation that this guy “has to toe the party line.” Average Joe Parishioner being able to explain the faith over a cup of coffee or in the local supermarket impresses much more. It sounds counter intuitive, but it is the state of affairs.

If you live the faith with any degree of seriousness, people are going to come to you for information. The world hungers desperately to know God, but they don’t know how to enter into contact with him. This means that ALL Catholics must equip themselves to speak and defend the faith whenever the chance presents itself. There are three simple steps to becoming an effective apologist. First, study the faith. St. Thomas Aquinas once wrote, “One cannot give what one does not possess.” If you are confused about what the Church teaches, there is no way that you can effectively defend what she teaches. Start with the Catechism and dip into it through the topics that interest you. After you gain familiarity with its language and forms, read it from cover to cover. Another useful book is Karl Keating’s Catholicism and Fundamentalism from Ignatius Press. He addresses well the basic issues that separate Catholics and “Bible Only” Christians. Second, pray the faith daily. If you only know about the faith and the person of Christ, then your apologetic effort will lack vital force. We are most effective when we speak about someone we know. Through the life of prayer, we come to know God, to bask in the intimacy of his inner life. And it is important that this is a daily activity. Imagine what state your marriage would be in if you spoke to your beloved spouse once a week and for an hour only. Yet that is how so many Christians approach the Mass and the life of prayer. Third, frequent the sacraments and live the faith. Americans do not respond well to abstraction. Further, one cannot say “I possess the faith” if he is not first possessed by the faith. When one lives the faith well, it becomes “incarnated” in virtues promoted and the graces received. From this budding apologist finds strength sufficient to proclaim Christ.

2004-03-15T12:52:00.000-08:00

A Summary of Evangelium Vitae

Christmas has become a time when goodwill and fellowship are built up even amongst those who do not share the Christian faith. The generosity of giving, the hospitality of guests, the recognition of the common bond of man enhance the season and highlights our potential. But what happens next? After we dispose of the wrapping paper and wash the mountain of dishes, we are left with the gifts and the memories, the recognition of the flourishing of life itself. That flourishing comes not from a sizable gift certificate. It comes from Christ who made Himself a gift by coming to us from the Father.

The consciousness of the coming of the Son as gift to the world informs the Holy Father’s encyclical letter Evangelium Vitae (The Gospel of Life). Even in his earthly existence, the human person and his supernatural vocation reveals the “greatness and inestimable value of human life” (EV 2.1). He observes that there are many assaults leveled against life in general. But the person of Christ illuminates not only the inner depths of the triune God but also the inner depths of the human person. Only in Christ does man discover what he is truly created for. So in union with the Bishops of the world whom he consulted in preparation for writing this encyclical the Holy seeks to bring to light the Gospel of Life.

In Part One of the encyclical, the Holy Father addresses the central crimes against life and the ideologies that inform them. Using the account of the murder of Abel, John Paul reflects upon how Cain’s murderous thinking is still with us. In the Bible, death is anything that diminishes life as well as the physical cessation of life. So slavery, poverty, starvation caused by injustice, prostitution, arms trading, and many other matter come under this definition (cf. EV 8.5). But the Holy Father draws our attention to times of particular vulnerability of life, specifically at its beginning and at its end.

At the beginning of life, abortion and contraception form a particular threat as does artificial reproduction. Abortion and contraception, while being specifically different evils (EV 13.2), are two fruits of the same poisonous tree, the desire to separate procreation from the unifying effect of human sexuality (EV 13.3). Artificial reproduction threatens human life because it treats the child as the product of technology rather than the offspring of conjugal love.

At the end of life, euthanasia threatens the incurably ill and the dying. Euthanasia grows in popularity because of perceived financial benefits or the relieving the suffering of someone we love. The Holy Father dismisses these reasons and points to the loss of the redemptive dimension of suffering as the culprit. “All this is aggravated by a cultural climate which fails to perceive any meaning or value in suffering, but rather considers suffering the epitome of evil, to be eliminated at all costs (EV 15.2).”

The roots of this conflict are profound indeed. Among these root causes, the Holy Father places the largest concern upon a distortion of freedom. For the Christian, freedom comes from God as a necessary component of participating in God’s life and plan. For others, and this is the problem, freedom means doing whatever one wants without reference to responsibility or consequence. This distortion of freedom, echoed in Cain’s question “Am I my brother’s keeper?,” leads one to see not a neighbor but an impediment to my freedom and therefore my well being.

In Part Two, the Holy Father examines the specifically Christian claim in reference to the value of life. The testimony of the Sacred Scripture affirms the value of human life. By being created in the image and likeness of God, man is set apart as cooperator with God’s plan. Children represent the concrete sign that God has continued to uphold the people of the Covenant. This represents the foundation. The Grace of eternal life draws our earthly existence upward to its highest dimension. Eternal signifies not just a quality or duration. This life is eternal because it is life with God and in God. It is the life that arises from communion with Christ. Because of this lavish gift then no one is a stranger or an enemy. All are potentially siblings. Therefore, when crimes are committed against life, there are not abstract offenses. They are offenses against my own kin.

In Part Three, the Holy Father draws out specific moral norms from Revelation. The responsibility to defend life falls upon all people. No one can exempt themselves from this moral reality. The Holy Father reaffirms the consistent teaching of the Church: the voluntary killing of an innocent human being is always gravely immoral (EV 57.4). It can never be sanctioned and cannot be used as a means to achieve a greater good.

Amongst these instances, the Holy Father specifically mentions abortion as possessing “characteristics making it particularly serious and deplorable (EV 58.1)” At the same time, the Holy Father demonstrates the great compassion the Church has for women who have undergone an abortion, observing that abortions are often forced upon women due to various circumstances. Euthanasia receives treatment under a similar rubric. The question of the legitimate uses of self-defense and the death penalty are dealt with in some detail.

Of great importance is the connection of the moral law with the civil law. The Holy Father, in conformity with the Church’s tradition, rejects the secularized solution of excluding moral truth from the creation of common law. Without moral truth, the common law becomes not a protection of freedom but the tool of oppression.

In Part Four, John Paul sets out a brave new vision of the future, the building of the culture of life. It begins with evangelization. We are a people ransomed and restored to life. We live within the Church of the Apostles, and just as they were sent so too are we sent. This spreading of the Gospel of life begins by honoring and respecting the gift of life in all the forms it manifests itself. This means care in families, care of families, solidarity with the poor, the imprisoned, the ill, the dying, the immigrant, the alien. The Holy Father encourages the Church not only to defend life but to permit it to flourish. Education and health care are realms marked out for particular work.

This is where the Gospel begins and ends, the gift of Life. It begins with life as it is received from God. It ends with life as we hope for participation in eternal life in Heaven. Along the way, we pave the road of human history with our choices for life or against it. From generosity in welcoming life, from hospitality in nurturing it, from the bond that holds all of us together, the tiniest embryo to the sagest elder, we can construct a more sane future and holier society at large.

2004-03-15T12:50:00.000-08:00

To Live is To Change

Ever have that moment where you knew nothing would ever be the same? For the Christian, it happens the moment he encounters Christ. St. Anthony (251–356) would become a noted spiritual director and the father of eastern monasticism. But first he had to undergo a change. When his parents died, he was left with extensive land and great wealth, as well the care of his sister. But coming to church on Sunday, he heard the words Christ addressed to the rich young man, “If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me” (Mt. 19:21; Mk. 10:21; Luke 18:22). For Anthony, these were not just words off the page; those words were addressed to him. Afterwards, he sold everything, holding back only enough as he thought necessary for himself and his sister. Most people would think that Anthony had done enough. But then on another occasion, Anthony went to church, the words of Christ, “Therefore do not be anxious about tomorrow, for tomorrow will be anxious for itself” (Mt. 6:34) struck home. Anthony disposed of the remaining wealth. He placed his sister with a group of women who were living a common life of prayer and sacrifice for the Lord. With this final duty dispensed, he set out to live a life for Christ alone. What permitted this remarkable change to occur? Anthony’s willingness to change permitted it to occur.

St. Paul, in his letter to the Colossians, advises that one must “[p]ut to death therefore what is earthly in you: fornication, impurity, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry... But now put them all away: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and foul talk from your mouth...Put on then, as God's chosen ones, holy and beloved, compassion, kindness, lowliness, meekness, and patience, forbearing one another and, if one has a complaint against another, forgiving each other; as the Lord has forgiven you, so you also must forgive” (Col. 3:5-13). There exists a clear dividing line between the ways of the world and the ways of Christ. If one does not leave behind the things of the previous life, the life before the encounter with Christ, one can wonder what kind of encounter it was. Our actions have concrete meaning that communicate the basic elements of what we believe to be important. The person who recognizes the gratuitous nature of God realizes that this places a serious obligation to renounce those things which are contrary to living in Christ.

Our actions can signal from where our happiness arises. In the canonical Gospels, the Beatitudes are recorded twice, once in St. Matthew and once in St. Luke. The set from Matthew is probably the ones with which we are more familiar. In St. Luke, the Beatitudes are matched with a set of warnings. “But woe to you that are rich, for you have received your consolation. Woe to you that are full now, for you shall hunger. Woe to you that laugh now, for you shall mourn and weep. Woe to you, when all men speak well of you, for so their fathers did to the false prophets” (Luke 6:24-26). In short, if one clings to the goods of this world to the neglect of the source of these goods and the service of one’s neighbor, there is not a happy future in store. The only way out is to change. Learning how to give to those in need because we are needy begins the movement toward Christ. Learning how to share the sorrows of others leads us to see, perhaps for the first time, that they are just like us. Learning how to speak the words that will rouse a weary soul to seek redemption in Christ, despite the unpopularity of the message, brings into play all of the talents we have received from God.

The most fundamental disposition of the serious disciple of Christ is the willingness to change. We are called to change not because something new and improved has come into view. This is the modern obsession with novelty. We change because someone has demanded new things of us and has given us the power to make them happen.

2004-03-03T11:51:00.000-08:00

Embryonic Stem Cell Research

Father,
I am a high school student at Bishop McGuinness. Recently in one of my classes we got into a discussion on whether or not stem cell research is right or wrong. I know that the Church teaches that this is degrading to the dignity of the human person, but the counter argument is that the research, if allowed, could save lives. How do you counter that? Also, why is this an important issue when there is do much other disrespect given to life that already exists? Thank you for any help you can give
Sincerely,
Sarah Rosencrans, Edmond

Thank you for your very interesting and relevant question. I will address your question in a later column because it is so much in the news and will continue to be. Please permit this short answer to suffice.

Question #1: "I know that the Church teaches that "stem cell research" is degrading to the dignity of the human person, but the counter argument is that the research, if allowed, could save lives. How do you counter that?"
Answer: Scientific research of any kind cannot use a person as a means to an end. For example, I cannot force someone to take an experimental medication without first advising them of all the known and suspected risks of such a procedure. In stem cell research, the central problem rests with embryonic stem cells being used. The embryo is a human person. Life begins at conception. This is not just the teaching of the Church but also the assessment of modern science. To obtain stem cells from an embryo means its destruction. The stem cells are what the embryo fashions its tissues, organs, and systems from. It would be no different if I walk up to you, and discovering that you and I share the same blood and tissue types, took your kidney because I might need it later or it might save my life. Using stem cells, with proper consent, from an adult is not a problem and the research seems to suggest that this works better in a therapeutic sense.
The logical flaw rests on the "ends justifying the means." When we will something, both end we are shooting for and the means we use to get there must be good (CCC #1789). As a good counter, try this. Remember the movie, Jurassic Park. The crazy old rich guy knew that using technology could recreate dinosaurs and make major bucks, etc. The mathematician guy (Jeff Goldblum) reminds him, "Just because you CAN do something, doesn't mean you SHOULD do something." Then the dinosaurs go on a rampage. Just because research using embryonic stem cells could result in something good doesn't necessarily mean that it is good to do this research.
Question #2: "Also, why is this an important issue when there is do much other disrespect given to life that already exists?"
Answer: Ever play with dominoes? I love watching those elaborate designs and shows. But which domino is most important? Granted that all of them are necessary to make the design take shape and the effect to go off, which one matters the most? The first one matters most. If the first one doesn't set anything off, then the rest is left in the lurch.
So with matters of life and respect for life in its most vulnerable state. Who is going to speak for an embryo if not his big brothers and sisters? If life is not respected when it is most vulnerable, I guarantee that life will not be respected in any other venue. One example. It is curious to me that the frequency of reported cases of domestic abuse has increased in proportion to the prevalence of abortion in our society. The argument isn't that these other attacks on the dignity of life aren't evil or aren't important. It is a matter that if life is not defended in the womb, it won't be defended anywhere.
Keep up the good work and the good thinking. Pray to God that He would show you your vocation.

2004-03-02T15:38:00.000-08:00

How To Interpret The Sacred Scriptures

Dear Father Shane,
I was recently in Arkansas visiting friends, and they posed a question which I could not answer. How do we (Catholics) know that Jesus was speaking literally about His Body and Blood in John 6 but not literally in the Scripture referring to plucking one’s eyes out or chopping off one’s hand (I’m did not look up the citation for this verse, but I figured you would know which one I am talking about). I told my friend I would do my best to find the answer to his question. Would you help me?
K. Miller
Edmond, OK

The key to proper interpretation of the Scripture lies in three simple words: context, context, context. A fundamentalist approach to the Sacred Scripture tends to encourage reading particular verses out of context. This tendency became more widespread with the introduction of chapters and verses into the text in the 15th and 16th centuries. Before this, Christians knew the Scriptures by the context in which they were found.
We can look at this context in three levels. The first level of context comes from the unity of the Sacred Scripture (CCC #112). Since God is the primary author of the Sacred Scripture, there will be an inherent continuity of the content of the Sacred Scripture (CCC #105). Therefore, when we look to understand the Scripture, a particular passage must be read in light of what comes before it and what comes after it. The New Testament sheds light on the Old Testament; the Old Testament gives roots to the New Testament.
The second level of context involves the role of Tradition (CCC #113). For most non-Catholics, the word “tradition” gives them the willies. Tradition means what St. Paul wrote in his first letter to the Corinthians “handing on what I myself have received...(cf. I Corinthians 11:23, 15:3).” The New Testament is the product of the Catholic Christians of the first century. The Church, through her teaching office, complied the texts of the Sacred Scripture, discerning which ones were inspired by the Holy Spirit. Therefore, a proper interpretation is going to be in line with Tradition handed on (cf. II Peter 1:19-21) . This explains why all of our personal interpretations of Sacred Scripture must be submitted to the authority of the Church. The Magisterium serves the Sacred Scripture to insure that proper interpretation is always available (CCC #85-86).
The third level of context concerns the overall act of Revelation (CCC #114). Christianity is not a Religion of the Book. It is a religion of the Word, Jesus Christ, who revels to us the heart of the Godhead (CCC #108). When we interpret the Sacred Scripture, if our interpretation fails to conform to either the plan of revelation or to the truths of the faith, then we have to reject that interpretation.
In addition to these three levels, there are two other consideration to take up. First, while God is the primary author, God inspired human authors to compose the actual texts. They bring their own idioms and genres of writing to the task (CCC #106,109-110). When we read the Sacred Scripture, we must try to hear it in their words if the texts are to be understood correctly. Second, ultimately, the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth, leads us all to proper understanding of the Scriptures (CCC #111). We should pray to the Holy Spirit, in particular, before we read or study the Sacred Scriptures that we might be lead into all truth.

2004-03-02T15:36:00.000-08:00

Resources for Bible Study: Don't Catholics Do This?

Dear Fr. Tharp,
It seems some of the Protestant faiths have some type of question/answer books that help them study and learn about the Bible. Why do we as Catholic not have something like this or do we? If there is, where can it be found? Would it not be good for us to have an adult Bible study or “Sunday School,” after Mass, like our fellow Protestant Christians do?
Name withheld
Jones, OK

It is the obligation for every Catholic to come to know the truth of Revelation given to us in the person of Christ. For the Catholic, this one Revelation is transmitted to us in two ways: through the Sacred Scripture and through Sacred Tradition. So when a Catholic desires to become better acquainted with the truth of the Faith, they need to take both parts into account.
As to specific resources for studying the Bible, the best place to start is with a good study bible. I have found the best translations for study are the New American, the Revised Standard - Catholic edition and the Jerusalem Bible. I find the Jerusalem Bible’s page formats make for easier reading while the New American and Revised Standard make study for particular topics easier. You should look for a Bible that has good footnotes and introductory notes concerning each of the individual books. Also, a good commentary can help supplement one’s mastery of a particular text. There is a new series of brief commentaries from Ignatius Press. The commentaries contain the text of the book and can easily be carried in a purse or pocket. Right now, the series only covers the four Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, and the Letter to the Romans. The Navarre Series is more complete encompassing the entire New Testament and much of the Old Testament. This one is more scholarly but yet readable.
For those looking for a program for study, I recently came across a superb program from Saint Joseph’s Communication. The program is called “The Great Adventure” and was created by Jeff Cavins. Cavins for a time defected from the practice of Faith and worked as a Protestant minister. He returned to the Faith and has been a zealous promoter of greater comprehension of both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. As he observes, so many people try to read the Bible, but they get lost along the way. The names and places are out of context and therefore the reader cannot make the connections necessary to understand what he is reading. Cavins takes the participant through the main historical books of the Bible to give the necessary architecture to hang up the individual pieces of our Biblical knowledge. I recommend it very highly.
While we are growing in our knowledge and love of the Sacred Scriptures, we have to remember to study the full picture of the Faith. We should deepen our comprehension of the Church’s teaching so that we correctly interpret the Scriptures we read. There are several good overviews of the Faith that employ a question/answer format. For young adult readers, Did Adam and Eve Have Belly Buttons? by Matthew Pinto comes to mind. It features questions from young people concerning the things of interest to them. A classic among question/answer format works is the Baltimore Catechism. Many people have dismissed this work as old fashioned. I find that people retain information better when they have a specific point to focus the reflection. It is available through Catholic Book Publishers. A more recent work in this vein is Life in Christ by James Kilgallon. It was recently updated and comprehensive treats questions proposed.
As to having Bible studies, you might want to ask your pastor. From my own limited experience, I find that, with an already crowded schedule, it is hard to accommodate the extra study and preparation if I am not confident that there will be a good turnout. In my case, apart from my work in Alva, I have two missions which keep me on the road quite a bit. I would say, that if you and others in the parish are interested in having a regular bible study, having a sign up sheet available will help demonstrate to the pastor that you are committed to further study.

2004-03-02T10:55:00.000-08:00

Donatism and Contraception: Mismatched Cousins
This one is a work in progress because it is a little complicated. The question is less about contraception and is more about how does the Church teach and how does the Church insure the veracity of her teaching. Any comments you want to send me via email would be appreciated. I'll leave a note letting you know when it is complete.

Dear Father:
With all the priests’ Scandals, etc. and Bishop O’Brien convicted of a felony, the first in U.S. History, Why ? doesn’t our Religion lift the Ban on contraception and let thousands of married Catholics stop lying about their marriages. Teach to follow sexuality outside of marriage, and stop teenagers from getting pregnant, but let legally married couples have their children and the number they can and will take care of. Look at all the starving people in the world. Received unsigned.

At the outset, let me clarify a policy of this column. I have no problem with withholding someone’s name or hometown if they so request. But I do not answer unsigned letters. I am making this one exception. After that, if the letter comes without a signature or address, it goes directly into the round file.
You seem to make the assumption that the teaching authority and the truth value of the Church’s teaching rest upon the impeccability, i.e. the personal holiness, of those who hand on the Church’s teaching. This is incorrect. The power to teach with authority comes from Christ and is imparted in the conferral of the sacrament of Holy Orders. So even if a guy is a terrible sinner or even a convicted felon, this doesn’t detract from the authoritative weight of his teaching.
Now, this may come as a surprise to most readers, but the 1969 papal encyclical Humanae Vitae is not the first instance where the Church teaches about contraception. To find that you have to go back all the way to the Book of Genesis. In Genesis , we read about the sin of Onan. Because of the death of his older brother, Onan is asked help his sister-in-law a child so there would be a proper heir. But Onan says no to this and “spills his seed on the ground.” The Church has recognized two “evils” present in Onan’s actions: 1. Selfishness in the masterbatory dimension and 2. Selfishness in trying to withhold himself from God’s plan. Children

The irony is that couples aren’t lying about their marriage when they aren’t using contraception. They lie about their marriage when they are.

2004-03-02T10:51:00.000-08:00

Some Questions on Confession
This is part one of a two part article that I wrote for the diocesan newspaper. This article deals more directly with the nature of sin. The next article deals with the sacrament of Penance directly.

It is an interesting phenomenon to witness as a pastor. During Mass, when it is time for Communion, practically the entire assembly comes forward. During the week, I am available to hear confessions for about two hours. Few come forward to celebrate the forgiveness God desires to give. This dissonance is not unique to my parish. As I have traveled around the United States, pastors and parishioners alike describe this same scenario to me. There seems to be a serious confusion concerning the Sacrament of Penance. In addition, remaining faithful to the intention of this column, the sacrament of penance is a “hot button” issue for non-Catholics, right behind questions concerning the Pope, the Blessed Virgin Mary, and the Holy Mass. To renew our celebration of the Sacrament (yes, priests have to go to confession), I want to address some fundamental questions surrounding the Sacrament. In this issue, the questions will revolve around the nature and effects of sin. Next issue, the questions will pertain more directly to the Sacrament of Penance.
What is Sin? Sin is a conscious choice that goes against the Law of God (CCC #1849). It can be an act committed, for example when we act against someone, or an act omitted when we had the power to act but chose not to.
Where Does Sin Come From? To find the origin of sin, we have to go back to the Garden of Eden. In the Garden, God created man to live in perfect harmony and justice. When Adam and Eve fell, they lost these special graces and found that their natures were profoundly wounded. Their intellects were darkened. Their wills for doing good were weakened. Death ended into human history.
The ultimate source of our sins is the Fall. The proximate source for our sins is improper attachment. We essentially attempt to love a created thing as though it were God (cf. CCC #1849).
Are All Sins the Same? In their nature, all sins are the same. They represent disobedience and a heart turned from following the will of the Father (CCC #1850). In another sense, they are all idolatry in that we treated a created, limited good as though it were the ultimate Good. However, in their malice and the gravity of the act, not all sins are the same (CCC #1854). St. John in one of his letters introduces this distinction. “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).” There are two degrees of sin: mortal and venial.
What Makes a Mortal Sin Mortal? The Church, through her teaching office, has determined that there are three conditions for mortal sin: 1.) the content of the act involves grave matter, 2.) the person had full knowledge of gravity of their act, and 3.) the person was acting with freedom (CCC #1857).
What Constitutes Grave Matter? We can find several sources to understand what is grave matter. Our first stop should be the 10 Commandments. Even though Christ has come to fulfill the Old Testament Law, it still retains force and meaning for Christians. Our next stop should take us to the Beatitudes as found in the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Luke. Pay especially close attention to St. Luke’s version. Running parallel to the declarations of blessings are a series of curses on those who do not follow the way of the Gospel. This sobering reminder directs us to see the import of our actions. Then we can take into account the Seven Capital Sins: Pride, Anger, Gluttony, Lust, Greed, Sloth, and Envy. We can think of these as dispositions at the heart of our sinful behavior. They represent the “why” of the wrongdoing in question. Lastly, we can find direction about grave matter from the Precepts of the Church. These precepts represent the most basic elements of what is required as an absolute minimum from Catholics. The Catechism gives a basic outline of these in paragraphs 2041-2046. Also, traditionally, the precepts assume that Catholics will follow the Church’s teaching and law concerning the sacraments of Confirmation and Marriage and will work to spread the Gospel through various apostolates.
Can Anything Compromise The Other Two Components of Mortal Sin? Paragraph #1860 covers this well. “Unintentional ignorance can diminish or even remove the imputability of a grave offense. But no one is deemed to be ignorant of the principles of the moral law, which are written in the conscience of every man. The promptings of feelings and passions can also diminish the voluntary and free character of the offense, as can external pressures or pathological disorders. Sin committed through malice, by deliberate choice of evil, is the gravest.” We all have a grave obligation therefore to form our consciences and our intellects in accord with God’s eternal law.
What Effects Does Sin Have? Mortal sin kills the life of grace in us (CCC #1855). Because the gravity and the consciousness that it entails, we turn backs on God. Because of this death in the soul, “a new initiative of God’s mercy and conversion of heart” (CCC #1856) is necessary to restore the person to communion with God. Venial sin spoils the life of grace in us without obliterating it. Venial sins weaken our resolve to be faithful to Christ and tempt us to commit mortal sin as well (CCC #1855).
Who Does Sin Harm? Sin harms my neighbor (cf. CCC #1849). It harms my neighbor when he is the target of my wrongdoing. It harms my neighbor through the building up of vices or through depriving others of grace that my virtuous acts could have brought. “In this solidarity with all men, living or dead, which is founded on the communion of saints, the least of our acts done in charity redounds to the profit of all. Every sin harms this communion (CCC #953). Sin harms me. Because sin deforms my choices, it leads to me to view evil as good and vice versa. As I submit to sin, I become more vicious and less virtuous. Sin harms God. Now, we need to be careful in how we understand this. Since God is immutable and unchangeable, He is beyond being hurt, in the sense of a change in His nature. However, when we sin, we obscure His Glory. Think of the many people who deny the existence of God because of the wrong others do. In another way, we can see how sin harms God when we reflect on our Lord’s Passion. As St. Thomas Aquinas reminds us, the Incarnation’s sole purpose is to make the Passion possible. While Jesus Christ is the second person of the Trinity, consubstantial with the Father and the Holy Spirit, through His human nature, He can undergo suffering and death for us (CCC #1850-51). This reveals the true horror of sin. God offered us life. In Adam and Eve we chose death. Jesus accepted our death and offers us new life, the life of Glory in and with the Most Holy Trinity. And we still choose death. When will we finally learn?

2004-02-24T13:55:00.000-08:00

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.

2004-02-24T13:51:00.000-08:00

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.

2004-02-24T13:50:00.000-08:00

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).

2004-02-24T13:49:00.000-08:00

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.