Monday, March 31, 2008

On the Ordination of Women

This issue—whether or not women can be ordained as priests—has been addressed. Rome has spoken. But the ordination of women still appears to be a question. It is debated in Catholic circles. I have debated the issue with Catholic friends. The ordination of women is rather a complex issue particularly in our historical context, in an age directly affected by the growth of feminism.

Can women be ordained to the priesthood? No. The priesthood is not an arbitrary profession, it is an office within the Church—an institution given to us by God not by men. Those who support women priests, I have found, think the opposite, at least in their arguments. The Catholics who have argued for a female priesthood to me conceive of a different view of the human person, a view that is deeply shaded by modern philosophy especially in regard to mind/body dualism. This particular debate is not an argument about feminism and equal rights; it is entirely and wholly theological. The matter itself is not at all unrelated to other pressing issues, particularly question of sex and gender roles, homosexuality, the moral acceptance of the transgendered, same-sex "marriage," contraception, etc.

Catholics who struggle with this issue sincerely face a problem that is intricate and complex. I faced it. I did not adhere to orthodoxy from the start. I did so by the night of baptism, praise be to God. But it took grace, prayer, and intellectual reflection under the direction of the Holy Spirit. I never was Catholic because of a "feel good" experience—I came in kicking and screaming because I knew it was the Truth. I enjoy the experience of the liturgy, certainly. But it was the Catholic intellectual tradition that seduced me as an atheist in my worship of philosophical knowledge. I battled internally to let go of so many sinful inclinations—the strongest being a homosexual, romantic involvement with another person—all that best suited what I wanted versus what is reality. I entered the Church because I was intellectually convinced that the Catholic Church conforms faithfully to Scripture, offers the most coherent view of the history of Christianity, protects Divine Revelation that does not contradict the findings of human reason, and possesses the most profound and sublime Christian moral code, spirituality, social teaching, and philosophical tradition for understanding the human person and life itself.

But many of my brothers and sisters haven't had the long, arduous journey through the desert to understand things in such a profound way. I certainly don't claim to know everything. As a convert, I have the grace to appreciate the gift of the Church in a way many cradle Catholics often take for granted. With all this in mind, I think it can be said that the problem is not the question raised by many Catholics, but the motivation and the thinking of Catholics who advocate for an invitation for women to the sacrament of Holy Orders.

In the study of theology, I have found that people who hold heretical doctrines are not evil people, but they are sensible people, some are even intellectual giants that are to this day counted amongst the Fathers of the Church. But it cannot be overlooked that they are profoundly mistaken (or there is profound miscommunication, i.e. Nestorianism is a heresy certainly, but was Nestorius actually a Nestorian or was he orthodox? It's an open question.) I think my brothers and sisters fail to see the rational incoherence of supporting women priests. Their question is sincere, but their conclusion is terribly mistaken.

Consider the figure Mary of Nazareth. Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy emphasize her place in God's redeeming action and her perfect obedience to God extensively. It is even argued in Protestant circles that we worship her when in fact we do not. In Christian theology, our salvation is linked to Mary's decision; it perhaps could have gone a different way, but it didn't. We know for nine months she bore the eternal Logos, she raised the God-man as her Son, and she was present at His death on the Cross. Despite all this, she was absent from the table, as was all women, in all four Gospels when Jesus instituted the Eucharist. She too was absent from the descent of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.

The Church teaches that Divine Revelation comes from Scripture and Tradition. Tradition consistently argues against women priests. Scripture, itself, does not argue in favor of women priests. There were female prophetesses, several are mentioned in the Old Testament. If this is so, why might a woman not perform the functions of a priest?

But that question begs a more fundamental question: what precisely is a priest? According to Catholic theology, a priest is a man who has received the Sacrament of Holy Orders. The priest himself is a sacrament—a sign that makes visible the visible, a sign of grace. The priest is in persona Christi, that is, "in the Person of Christ." He represents Christ, who was a twofold representative, as the mediator, Christ represented us to God and God to us. Christ was God manifested in the all His glory in the human condition. Jesus Christ is the ultimate sacrament of God. The priest represents the sacrament that is Christ Himself.

Beyond that of prophetesses, there were female deaconesses in the early Church—though it was not an ordained office. These women were the wives of deacons. They preached and helped with the baptism of women.

So it seems, we may accept all of this, but we refuse to ordain women. It certainly is not because she is less holy or less intelligent than a man. A woman can be as "God-like" as a man, and perhaps, a lot of the time even more so. Then, what is the objection?

Consider our theological language if we looked at things the other way around. Suppose we were to say "God our Mother" instead of "Our Father." Suppose that the Incarnation might just as well have taken a female form and the Second Person of the Holy Trinity was called the Daughter. Lastly, of course, the mystery of marriage that St. Paul describes between Christ and the Church is now Christ the Bride and the Church the Bridegroom.

"Why not?" is the immediate question. God is not a biological being and has no sex, so why does it matter that we say He or She, Father or Mother, Son or Daughter? One objection might be is that if we carried out these proposals we would certainly find ourselves in a different religion with its own symbolism and theological context. Secondly, It matters because there is something objective about gender. The idea of masculinity and femininity is not wholly a social construct, but rather there is, in human nature a fundamental reality that makes men and women inherently different. Cultural norms often recognize these differences. "Male and female, He created them." We find this in Genesis. We are equal as we have the same causation, we come from one God, but we were "male and female," different but equal. That is the point. When the two becomes one flesh, literally speaking in marriage, they become co-creators with God, they give life, they are complementary, each offers what the other is missing.

Catholic theological anthropology remarkably expounded upon by Pope John Paul II highlights the fundamental ontological differences of man and woman. St. Edith Stein, a phenomenologist (as was Pope John Paul II) revived the metaphysics of St. Thomas Aquinas to show that the difference in bodies constitutes a difference in spirit, that is, the soul is not unisex. Pope John Paul II championed this in his Theology of the Body. The different bodily structures of men and women lead to different lived experiences—emotionally, spiritually, intellectually, and so forth. For example, women are designed—ontologically—for motherhood. Women are created in a way—body and soul—that gives rise to psychological, spiritual, and emotional characteristics that would be necessary for motherhood. Regardless of whether a woman gives birth, she has the capacity for maternal love in spiritual motherhood while men do not.

The Catholic understanding lies in the reality that our creation includes not only our body but our soul as well. Each of us is a thought of God, willed from eternity. Thus our body not only conforms to our "manhood" or "womanhood" but our souls do as well. The inherent difference between man and woman is not simply biological or physiological, but spiritually as well. Our whole composite, body/soul is inherently different. Men and women share in their humanity—both are on the same level of being—as rational, free agents made in the image and likeness of God, equal in dignity and worth, subject to the same condition of physicality and temporal existence, but they are ontologically not the same. That is the point.

The understanding of the human person that leads to the conclusion that women ought to be ordained by priests is the mind/body dualism of Cartesian philosophy—Cogito Ergo Sum—"I think, therefore, I am." This doctrine holds that we see are simply a consciousness, a "thinking thing" with a body as an instrument. We aren't in anyway our body. The body is a vessel, nothing more. This is totally adverse to the Christian eschatological understanding of the meaning of the body. A woman is simply not a soul in a body that we call physiologically female nor the vice versa of men. The doctrine of the resurrection of the body flies in the face of such a claim. A human being is not simply a soul or simply a body; we are both.

What does this have to do with the ordination of women? Everything. Jesus Christ, God incarnate, was not just a human, he was a man. Properly understood in a Christian context, only a man can properly obtain the sacrament of the priesthood—a sign of God in the flesh, in the masculine as the Giver and Provider and what is given is protected by His wife, the feminine, the Church, the Mother, the Bearer and Nurturer. This goes back to the preeminent bond of God and Israel described throughout the Old Testament in masculine and female imagery established from beginning that goes through salvation history.

The Sacrament of Matrimony is fulfilled by a man and a woman participating in the marriage of Christ and the Church. The two are an image of the ultimate Bridegroom and Bride—that is the sacrament, that is what it reveals—it is a life-giving union just as Christ gives His Church children through baptism [The Easter Candle being plunged into the baptism font has a sexual connotation]. The Church is the Bride of Christ, our Holy Mother Church, of whom we are children of, the fruit of her union with Christ.

This nuptial imagery goes all through Scripture. While Adam was sleeping from his side God created Eve, his companion, his wife. While Christ was "asleep" on the Cross, blood and water poured from his side—two signs of our sacraments, the Eucharist and Baptism—and thus the Church came from Him as Eve came from Adam. Who is the priest? A priest is a man that represents Christ, in His service to His wife, the Church. At the wedding feast of Cana, Christ turned water into wine—which is fundamentally Eucharistic imagery in the transformation of substance. It is Christ's sacrifice that the priest brings to the Church in the Eucharist. It is those ordained that routinely baptise, consecrate the Eucharist, forgive sins, and do the work that Christ commissioned his disciples to perform—it's Christ's fidelity to His wife and she bears His fruits.

Jesus chose twelve Apostles. If he wanted women priests, why did he not choose them? Societal constraints? It seems dubious that God Himself, Creator of the universe, was restrained from doing something because of cultural taboos. Did these societal constraints stop him from talking to the Samaritan woman? Did it stop Him from eating with men who did not wash their hands in accord with the custom? Did it stop His condemnation of hypocrisy of the Pharisees? It certainly did not. So why would he yield on women priests if he were such a revolutionary? In fact, no time favored women priests than the time of Christ when virtually all pagan religions had priestesses and it would have been normal, perhaps, even natural of Him to choose women. The Gentiles certainly would not have rejected it. He had excellent candidates: His Mother, Mary Magdalene, or any of the women who had the courage to witness His Crucifixion—his apostles fled. Still, he chose only men.

What is even more relevant is the rational incoherence of this argument. In Christian revelation, we believe that God Himself has taught us how to speak to Him and of Him. Jesus called God "the Father" and Himself "the Son." Do Christians not believe in God's divine omnipotence? God does not make mistakes. When God became incarnate, as a human being specifically as a male, He did so at a precise time and at an exact moment in human history, which he ordained from all eternity. From the beginning, God has chosen the Jewish people, among whom His Divine Son would be born. It would be their own priestly traditions that would form part of the background and culture which would help them—and others—to see and know Him. As St. Paul teaches us, Christ was born "in the fullness of time." Every detail about the Incarnation was known in the mind of God. How could God not have known?

To argue that the masculine imagery used by Jesus Christ Himself is irrelevant, to say that the masculine imagery used for God in Scripture, or the nuptial imagery used throughout Scripture is not inspired, but merely human in origin, or if not that, though it is inspired, it is arbitrary and unessential is not acceptable. The whole of Scripture is inspired by God, all of it, every word. It all has meaning and significance properly interpreted and understood. The life of Jesus Christ is sacramental and in itself is the fundamental purpose of our faith. It is the center of our faith.

Ultimately, the argument in favor of the ordination of women priests reduces Scripture to outdated writings explaining salvation, while simultaneously promoting the idea that the writers of the time (despite Divine Intervention) could not possibly understand the human person nor human sexuality in any way that we do today enlightened by scientific advancement and historical criticism, thus, the understanding in Scripture of man and woman is both arbitrary and irrelevant, thusly: let's ordain women!

This totally debunks our sources of Divine Revelation. In the end, this is not an argument for the ordination of women, but an argument against Christianty in general. It also ignores the fact that we as human beings know from our poetical experience of life—we know that image and apprehension hang closer together than advocates of this position are prepared to admit. It is common sense that a child taught to pray to a Mother in Heaven will have a religious life radically different and opposed to that of a traditional Christian child. Image and apprehension are an in an organic unity for Christians. The same in our experience of existence—we are humans—body and soul, different sacraments that witness to the same One who made us all.

But, if we keep going with this, sex becomes superficial and irrelevant to the spiritual life—an idea entirely contrary to the theological anthropology of the Church (discussed above). Reason itself cannot tell us because the whole point of divine revelation is that it is knowledge of the supernatural—hence, you cannot know these things by unaided reason, e.g. God is Trinitarian.

In arguing this point, one is almost obliged to say that Scripture and Tradition are fundamentally wrong. That is to say, the Church that Christ promised the Holy Spirit to, the Church that the gates of Hell will not prevail against is a liar. The sources of Divine Revelation are illegitimate. And if this is so, why argue for women priests and not abolish Christianity? If Scripture and Tradition are false, Christianity is a lie.

The point is unless "equal" means "interchangeable," equality makes nothing for the ordination of women. And the kind of equality which implies that the equals are interchangeable—much like counters or identical machines—is among humans, a legal fiction.

One of the ends for which sex was created was to symbolize to us—embodied in the physical—the hidden things of God. That is what a sacrament is, a sign in the physical. One of the functions of marriage is to witness to and express the nature of the union between Christ and His Church. We have no authority to take the living and sensitive figures which God Himself has painted on the canvas of our nature and shift them about as we see fit.

It may be painful that this privilege has been endowed only unto men, but it is given by God and we cannot arbitrarily change what God has done. To "edit" the work of God is to claim an equal status that we all are obliged to recognize that we do not possess. Some men may not fully live up to their priestly vocation, but the solution does not rest in calling women to the task, but to remind these men to respond to their call. A man may make a bad husband, but the solution is not to reverse the roles or do away with them entirely or have women marry women.

It is worth pointing out, in choosing His apostles, Christ was not rewarding them. On the contrary, they did everything before His Death that did not merit reward—denying Him, doubting, betraying Him, etc. The priesthood isn't a badge of honor; it is a call to service for a sinful humanity that does not want the service. But just as bread and wine are essential "matter" of the Eucharist, so men are the "matter" of the priesthood.

Sunday, March 30, 2008

The Dictatorship of Relativism and "The Abolition of Man"

The Catholic Church holds that "deep within his conscience man discovers a law which he has not laid upon himself but which he must obey. Its voice, ever calling him to love and to do what is good and to avoid evil, sounds in his heart at the right moment...For man has in his heart a law inscribed by God...His conscience is man's most secret core and his sanctuary. There he is alone with God whose voice echoes in his depths." (CCC 1776).

The psychological phenomenon that we have coined, conscience, is not merely a personal feeling or opinion. But it is God attempting to speak to us through our brokenness—through the limits of our humanity—and our conscience in action is our last best judgment at the good or evil of an action based upon our intellectual, religious, and experiential understanding of human nature (i.e. the natural law—the law of human nature.)

This view is vehemently challenged by modernity. We ask ourselves: do moral absolutes exist? Are there behaviors, mindsets, or bits of speech which may be called morally right or wrong—for all people, regardless of how anyone might feel? If not, what would it mean for there not to be any objective standards of right and wrong? What is significant should be given to the fact that many people do not live up to their understanding of right and wrong? These are all pertinent questions.

Moral Relativism

It is a common conviction—based on observation—that moral codes differ in every society. But mistakenly, the conclusion is drawn that morality is merely a social construct of acceptable behavior and habits, and thereby, is fundamentally relative. Certainly there is disagreement among nations and even individual people on what is right and wrong. But mere disagreement does not imply that there is no answer—objective, external, and independent on anyone's personal convictions. If a person is to say, "all religions are equally true," this would yield to reason as nonsensical. By this logic, Muhammad is and is not the last great prophet of God. The immediate contradiction would prove the assertion false.

One might say that there are certain moral rules that all societies will have in common because these fundamental rules are necessary for society exist to defend the initial proposal of relativism. Yes, while that may be true, what is common is not coincidence, but perhaps the universal realization amongst nations of certain moral truths that are fundamental and simultaneously necessary for an operating society, e.g. don't steal, don't murder, etc.

The presumption that there are no facts and no one is right when morality is concerned is severely flawed. It is simple (and more rational) to say, "He has his opinion, and others have their opinions" and that might just be the end of it. But it is another thing to say: morals are based upon feelings and nothing more. If morality is entirely subjective, that is, relative to the person, then discriminating against a person for any specific reason whether it be race, sexual orientation, gender, appearance, height, weight, eye color, or identifying characteristic is not morally wrong—not wrong it any universal sense that would be obligatory for the person to change their behavior or binding on anyone else to also protest. It may, in fact, upset your personal moral taste, but you will just have to accept the moral tastes of others, which is, by the acceptance of moral relativism, just as right as your moral position.

Even more, there is a fundamental self-contradiction to the idea of moral relativism. To say that "all morality is relative" is a self-defeating claim. First, since morality is entirely relative to the person, anyone holding such a position is only saying, "It is my opinion…that all morality is relative." This is not true at all, but rather an opinion and opinions don't hold water in philosophical arguments of discerning whether or not something is true.

But what is more problematic is that the claim "all morality is relative" is a universal claim about the very nature of morality itself. It is a determination of the nature of morality for everyone, in all places, and at all times: it is relative. The fundamental idea of relativism is that there are no absolutes, but the very proposition of relativism: 'there are no absolutes' is an absolute claim and this renders moral relativism an inherent contradiction.

It is such thinking of morality being determined by the person and not any standard that leads to statements, such as, "while abortion might not be right for me, it could be the right choice for someone else." Essentially, every individual determines what is morally right for him or her. But disagreement, again, fails to demonstrate that there are no moral absolutes. If two men were to disagree over whether there is life on Mars or not does not make it logical to say, "while there may be life on Mars for you, there isn't life on Mars for me." It's absurd. There either is or isn't life on Mars.

Consider this curious phenomenon: human beings at all times and in all place have had this curious idea that they should behave in a certain way and they cannot get rid of this notion. If you were to witness two people arguing over the good or evil of some action, they silently recognize an unspoken standard. Even if one of them violated this unspoken standard, there is an excuse, a reason, that in their circumstance, under certain conditions, it was acceptable to violate said standard—the standard is never denied.

But even in recognition of this standard of ideal behavior that humans imagine, we do not behave consistently with it. We know the natural law; yet we break it. Where does this natural law derive? Perhaps, moral truths just exist. Moral truths could only be a psychological projection of a certain standard that we perceive to be ideal based on our realization of the flaws in our social contracts. I think this insight is not wholly untrue—it may be how we began to think about our moral failures—but this it would not make the morals truths necessarily true at all, but rather morally relative because the projection would vary person to person. Then again, moral awareness just may be a biological adaptation that is necessary for the survival of our species. But this too would not imply moral truths.

Why else might there be moral truths? Perhaps we are the creation of a moral Creator, thus, the universe is the purposeful work of a righteous God and our moral awareness, rooted in our human nature, is a result of the character and purpose of the God who made us in His image. But this is too far a leap for our agnostic, post-modern world.

Ironically enough, it is arguable that there aren't substantial differences in each culture's values. Murder, for example, has been wrong in every culture at every time in history. The only thing that changes is the concept of justification. Hitler justified killing Jews because Jews were said to be subhuman and not fit for the beautiful new world order that he envisioned. Murdering of human beings remained wrong. The same can be said of people who favor choice in regard to abortion. They do believe that human life is valuable, but they do not believe unborn babies are "persons" that have human rights. In the same way, supporters of embryonic stem-cell research ask the question, do six tiny cells with human DNA qualify as a "person" with human rights? Hence, in many cases, apparent moral discrepancies between cultures only reflect a difference in perception of the same facts pertaining to a particular circumstance not an outright conflict in the values themselves. We live in a world of competing philosophical frameworks that dictate our moral convictions. The presence or absence of God from these frameworks makes a critical difference.

Read this well-written, articulate "First Things" article by J. Budziszewski entitled "The Second Tablet Project" that eloquently illuminates what a metaphysically unfounded moral theory really means and the effects of removing God from morality.

Tuesday, March 25, 2008

Truly "Progressive" Catholics Will Love Pope Benedict

I am a political progressive, which unfortunately has become a loaded term that is almost synonymous with liberal. I might very well be a liberal too—if it means concern for the other guy (including the unborn). But what is even more important than all of this is simple: I am wholeheartedly with and for the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. I have a deep love for the Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI. I came across this article (below) a long while ago. I skimmed it, thought it was interesting and moved on. Now, I think it is something that all Catholics should read. The position of the author as he describes the challenges he faces, what many Catholics face, I unquestionably identify with.

I remember my dark, shameful days of “cafeteria Catholicism.” Praise be to God, I was not baptized yet, and thus, not actually Catholic. Through his servant, Pope Benedict XVI, God showed me what true progressivism is. I have frequently heard it posited that Pope Benedict XVI is more conservative than Pope John Paul II. Perhaps this is true. I have heard many recount how liberal Jesuits they knew were angered by the election of Pope Benedict XVI.

I personally don't like the common tendency to politicize the Church as liberal or conservative. I think Pope Benedict XVI is progressive; he is continuing a beautiful and priceless legacy that Pope John Paul II gave to God, to the Church, and to the human race and like Joshua stepping forward as Moses’ time ends, Benedict XVI now leads the faithful into the third millennium, ever closer to the promised lands.

I applaud this article and I think any true, progressive Catholic should love Pope Benedict XVI.

I would recommend reading Crossing the Threshold of Hope by Pope John Paul II and Christianity and the Crisis of Cultures by Pope Benedict XVI. These two works show how these Catholic intellectual giants are neither "liberal" or "conservative," but rather they are simply orthodox and in being orthodox they desire to see humanity progress toward fulfillment in accordance with the truth.

Truly "Progressive" Catholics Will Love Pope Benedict XVI.

Tuesday, March 18, 2008

The Catholic Church and Capital Punishment


I read this article in a philosophy course on Ethics. It illmuminates the moral nature of the death penalty and presents a coherent evolution of the Church's stance on the issue without undermining of Sacred Tradition. It is a valuable read; all too often are there situations where one person says, "I can't support him, he's pro-choice," and the counter-reply is, "Well, the other guy is in favor of capital punishment."

Though, I am direly opposed to capital punishment myself, the argument of "proportionalism" in regard to voting for a pro-choice candidate doesn't work in this situation. (And this is coming from a Democrat). The two issues, abortion and capital punishment, are not morally equal. Abortion was legalized in 1973 and since then approximately 50 million unborn children have died in 35 years. Capital punishment was reinstated in 1976 in only 37 states and approximately 1,100 criminals have been put to death. The massive margin between those two numbers demonstrate in one respect [frequency and scope] how abortion immediately trumps the death penalty. Moreover, the Church has consistently taught that the State does not have the right to kill, but it has the obligation to protect (i.e. self-defense) the citizens from harm and if there are no other means of maintaining the common good, the death penalty is morally permissible. Abortion, on the other hand, is the deliberate and intentional killing of unborn human life making it sustinctly murder whereas this is not the case of capital punishment, though it proves unnecessary today [the gravity of abortion is greater, i.e. murder vs. "needless bloodshed" as capital punishment isn't necessarily murder.]

Cardinal Avery Dulles, Catholicism and Capital Punishment

A Clash of Orthodoxies


I read the article A Clash of Orthodoxies and wrote a paper analyzing its rhetoric in a course on philosophical ethics. The fundamental problem is the global tendency toward moral relativism. In the end, this approach leaves all of mankind in a false sense of peace.

I highly recommend the article. Robert P. George is an intelligent man. His points are clear and his moral vision is consistent with his view of the human person, a view that is shaded by all human disciplines.

Read the
article.

Monday, March 17, 2008

The Filioque Controversy Still Lives

I went to an Anglican Use Roman Catholic Church and to my surprise—I'm not sure why—the Filioque was not recited in the Creed. It isn’t invalid. I am certain of this. But I later discovered why and I think it is an interesting maneuver that is certainly political.

The words “and the Son” (Filioque) have been removed from the Nicene Creed in accordance with the Lambeth 1978 statement: "The Conference…requests that all member churches of the Anglican Communion should reconsider omitting the Filioque from the Nicene Creed…"

The General Synod [of the Anglican Church of Canada] meeting at Peterborough, in 1980 stated that the omission of the Filioque does not imply change of doctrine or belief on the part of the Anglican Church. The inclusion of the Filioque has driven Western and Eastern Christianity apart for centuries.

If the Filioque is removed, there may be a rich opportunity for dialogue amongst Christians. It, perhaps, was the motive of the General Synod in Canada. The request seems rather plain at first glance, but a closer examination leads to a more important question: if the Filioque is doctrinally sound, why remove it at all? The statement clearly reinforces the fact that the omission of the Filioque does not change the doctrine of the Anglican Church. Nevertheless, there seems to be a need to omit a phrase—and the Son—that is doctrinally legitimate.

The obvious reality is concern for Eastern Christianity. Christians of the East—the Eastern Orthodox—consider the Filioque to be a heretical insertion in the Nicene Creed. Even in reciting the old Creed (without “and the Son”) there still remains a tension in what is believed by the East and the West. The concern should be on whether or not the Filioque is theologically sound. For Western Christians it is certainly the case and the exact opposite is true of the East, except for those in communion with the Roman Catholic Church, e.g. Byzantine Catholics.

The inclusion of “and the Son” in the Nicene Creed rose in Western Christianity because of the Arian heresy that came from the East. The inserted phrase reaffirmed the full divinity of Christ, in an indisputable way, against the Arians. The East condemned the West for the inclusion of the Filioque. Scripture clearly states that the Spirit proceeds from the Father. The Orthodox interpret this to mean the Father alone, whereas Christians of the Latin tradition—who handed on the tradition of the Filioque to the Anglicans—believed that the omission doesn’t necessarily exclude the Son.

Scripture repeatedly refers to the “Spirit of Jesus” and Christ says that He will “send” the Spirit, as in, it would proceed from Him. The East believes that this procession of the Spirit from Christ is only a temporal procession, but it is not an eternal procession, that is, it isn’t the reality in the inner life of God. However, if the economic activity of God, that is, the economy of salvation reveals nothing about the Divine Reality, then nothing can be known about God. We only know God through His Revelation in human history, particularly in the Resurrection of Christ.

In Eastern Trinitarian theology, it is common to begin examining the Trinity from the fact that the Father is the source. St. Augustine picks up on this idea and uses the analogy of love. God is love according to Scripture. However, to love—Augustine argues—one must have an object to love. The Father, the lover, then generates His Son—the beloved—into being. The Son returns the love of the Father and the love between them is the Spirit.

The key to understanding Western Trinitarian theology is that the Father initiated the love, which implies the Spirit proceeds from the Father, but it is in the returned love of the Son that the Spirit proceed from the Son as well in the back and forth exchange of love. This is precisely the understanding of Eastern Catholics in communion with Rome reconciling their Eastern tradition of theology with the Latin West.

The Anglican Church having received most of its traditions from the Roman Catholic Church does not necessarily need to remove the Filioque. It is an understanding of the West that both versions of the Nicene Creed are valid. The Nicene-Constantinoplean Creed used today is significantly difficult than the one composed at Nicea I in A.D. 325. Moreover, the Council of Constantinople in A.D. 381 was merely a general synod of bishops that was not universally accepted until almost a century later. Therefore the inclusion of the Filioque in the West to defend orthodox is valid considering that the Creed itself was not written at a planned ecumenical council.

The necessity of the Filioque is debatable, for it has its place in one tradition and not the other. The Anglicans correctly point out the validity of the Creed either way. Therefore, the theological validity of the Filioque is and should be the primary concern.

Thursday, March 13, 2008

Pro-life Success in Virginia

A pro-life Democrat saves the day!

The Virginia Senate voted to end state funding of abortion largely due to a courageous pro-life Democrat who stood by his commitment to protect the unborn. The House previously passed a similar Amendment.

Senator Charles Colgan cast the key vote on the Cuccinelli Amendment that would end funding to Planned Parenthood of Virginia which performs abortions in the Commonwealth of Virginia. In the Democratic controlled Senate, Colgan’s vote led to a 20 to 20 tie. The Lieutenat Governor ultimately cast the tie-breaking vote that led to the Amendments passage.

Democrats for Life of America

Democrats are often concerned about respect, dignity, and compassion. Unfortunately, many liberal Democrats do not extend these concerns to the unborn.

I believe in the separation of Church and State as much as any other American. I think the separation protects churches from political polarization and the State from serving the interests of one particular church in violation of our right to religious freedom. But, the separation due to the freedom of religion does not entail a freedom from religion. Religion is vital to rational dialogue in the public square.

I believe in personal liberties. But the right to life extends beyond personal choice. I do not look down or even condemn a person who has had an abortion. I respect pluralism (not relativism) and welcome different opinions, that is, the Catholic principle of unity-in-diversity in the American political arena in order to create a “culture of life” that enables us to live out the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to the greatest extent that they can be.

Please consider joining the Democrats for Life of America. As Catholics—Democrat, Republican, third party, or independent—we are called to promote the “Gospel of Life” on all sides of the American political discourse. We must do all we can to see to it that liberal Democrats because of their concern for dignity, compassion, and respect for humanity, extend their concern to the most vulnerable among us—the unborn.

Joining this particular group within the Democratic Party does not require any commitment to vote for any pro-choice candidates or any Democratic candidate at all. It does not mean that you support in your beliefs or financially the DNC, but you will add to the voice of pro-lifers in the party itself. This is a non-profit group and they survive only on the effort of pro-life citizens.

Democrats for Life of America

Who We Are
Democrats for Life of America, Inc. is a national organization for pro-life members of the Democratic party.

Our Mission
Democrats for Life of America exists to foster respect for life, from the beginning of life to natural death. This includes, but is not limited to, opposition to abortion, capital punishment, and euthanasia. Democrats for Life of America is one of over 200 member organizations of Consistent Life: an international network for peace, justice and life.

What We Do
We mobilize Democrats at local, state, and national levels to:

  • elect pro-life Democrats to office
  • support pro-life Democrats while in an elected position
  • promote a pro-life plank in the Democratic Party platform
  • achieve pro-life legislation with the help of national and state pro-life Democrats
  • participate actively in Democratic party functions and offices

Join the Democrats for Life of America: http://www.democratsforlife.org/

An Unrequited Letter to Anne Rice

Prof. Robert P. George, Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton University replies to Anne Rice's public endorsement of Hillary Clinton.

Dear Ms. Rice:

I am a professor of the philosophy of law at Princeton, and someone who enjoyed your fine book Christ the Lord: Out of Egypt. I have read your endorsement of Senator Clinton and your reasoning as to why you support her despite your pro-life convictions.

I am a former Democrat who left the party because it hardened its heart toward the child in the womb. In the 1990s, I had the honor of working for Governor Robert P. Casey of Pennsylvania, the last of the great national pro-life Democratic political leaders. (The governor, you may recall, was denied an opportunity to speak at the 1992 Democratic National Convention because of his pro-life advocacy.) I am the grandson of West Virginia coal miners who, together with my grandmothers, were loyal Democrats. If they were alive today, they would ache, as I ache, to know that the political party they loved has committed itself to the legal protection of the killing of the unborn.

I appreciated the soft voice with which you spoke in expressing your views, and I wish to respond in similarly soft terms. Although I believe you are deeply mistaken in what you are doing and encouraging others to do, I am certain that you are trying to do what is right. That is all any of us can do. Perhaps you are the one who is right, and I am the one who is wrong. I hope, though, that you will consider my reasons.

I will not try to answer all of your points, though all are, I believe, answerable, and if you ask I will be happy to say what I think the answers are. For now, what I hope you will consider is simply this: The child in the womb either is or is not a human being—a member of the human family. If he or she is, then he or she is entitled as a matter of basic justice to the protection of laws and, indeed, to the equal protection of the laws. For a voter or public official to seek to deny to the unborn elementary legal protections against killing that we favor for ourselves and others we regard as worthy is a gross and appalling injustice. There is no way around this. Once one concedes the humanity of the child—as one must in view of the plain facts of human embryogenesis and early-intrauterine development—the principle of the profound, inherent, and equal dignity of every member of the human family requires the legal protection of the unborn.

Yet today the unborn are denied any legal protection and are slaughtered (there really is no other word for what is going on) at the rate of more than one million per year in our country. The scope and gravity of this injustice surely demands that we make the fight against it central in our own deliberations and actions as citizens. It is true that law cannot prevent all abortions; but unless the law recognizes the humanity and rights of the child in the womb we cannot begin doing what you and I wish to do–namely, end the horror of abortion. Recognizing what abortion is—the killing of an innocent human being—is the first step; and that step cannot be taken while we legally protect abortion and even confer on it (as the Supreme Court did) the status of a constitutional right. Our regime of law, as things stand, speaks loudly, clearly, and falsely. It proclaims that no being who matters—no creature possessing dignity and human rights—is destroyed when we tear off the limbs, burn off the skin, or suck out the brains of a human fetus.

I once had the honor of representing Mother Teresa of Calcutta as counsel of record on an amicus curiae brief to the Supreme Court of the United States asking for the reversal of Roe v. Wade. (I would be happy to send you a copy, if you like.) Mother made the point that we cannot fight credibly against other social and moral evils, including poverty and violence, while we tolerate mass killing by abortion. In this, it seems to me, she stated with characteristic simplicity a profound truth.

You have endorsed a candidate and a political party that believes that abortion, far from being an injustice, is a fundamental right. They are pledged to oppose any meaningful legal protections of the life of the child in the womb. They have even sought to protect the grisliest of methods of abortion—the “dilation and intact extraction” procedure. In this, they are promoting the greatest injustice and abuse of human rights to be found in our country today. It is this injustice that we should be most dedicated to fighting. If abortion is what you and I say it is–what we know it to be–then the issue must be given priority in our work as citizens. We should certainly not be tying ourselves to those who see it as no injustice at all. If we do that (and let me say this with the softest and humblest of voices), we are implicating ourselves—deeply—in the grave injustice being committed four thousand times per day against the tiniest and most vulnerable of our brothers and sisters.

I have imposed on you enough, so let me stop there. I will, however,
attach a paper I presented earlier this year addressing the responsibilities of citizens and public officials toward the unborn child. If you read it, I hope you will let me know if you find in it any mistake of fact or error of logic. If my argument is sound, I hope you will prayerfully reconsider the position you have taken.

Yours sincerely,
Robert George
McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence
Director of the James Madison Program in
American Ideals and Institutions
Princeton University

Anne Rice endorses Hillary Clinton

PERSONAL ENDORSEMENT
OF HILLARY CLINTON FOR PRESIDENT


To my readers:

Some time ago, I made an effort to remove from this website all political statements made by me in the past. Many of these statements were incomplete statements, and many were dated. And a good many of the emails I received about these statements indicated that they were confusing to my newer Christian readers. I felt, when I removed the material, that I was doing what was best for my personal vocation—which is, to write books for Jesus Christ.

My vocation at this time remains unchanged. I am committed to writing books for the Lord, and those books right now, are books about His life on Earth as God and Man. I hope my books will reach all Christians, regardless of denomination or background. This has become my life.

However, I have come to feel that my Christian conscience requires of me a particular political statement at this time.

I hope you will read this statement in a soft voice. It is meant to be spoken in a soft voice.

Let me say first of all that I am devoutly committed to the separation of church and state in America. I believe that the separation of church and state has been good for all Christians in this country, and particularly good for Catholics who had a difficult time gaining acceptance as Americans before the presidential election of John F. Kennedy. The best book I can recommend right now on the separation of church and state is A SECULAR FAITH, Why Christianity Favors The Separation of Church and State, by Darryl Hart. However there are many other good books on the subject.

Believing as I do that church and state should remain separate, I also believe that when one enters the voting booth, church and state become one for the voter. The voter must vote her conscience. He or she must vote for the party and candidate who best reflect all that the voter deeply believes. Conscience requires the Christian to vote as a Christian. Commitment to Christ is by its very nature absolute.


My commitment and my vote, therefore, must reflect my deepest Christian convictions; and for me these convictions are based on the teachings of Christ in the Four Gospels.

I am keenly aware as a Christian and as an American that the Gospels are subject to a great variety of interpretation. I am keenly aware that Christians disagree violently on what the Gospels say.

I am also keenly aware that we have only two parties in this country. Only two. This point cannot be emphasized enough. We do not have a slate of parties, including one which is purely Christian. We have two parties, and our system has worked with two parties for generations. This is what we have.

I feel strongly that one should vote for one of these two parties in an election. I suspect that not voting is in fact a vote. I suspect that voting for a third party, when such parties develop, is in effect voting for one of the major parties whether one wants to believe this or not.

To summarize, I believe in voting, I believe in voting for one of the two major parties, and I believe my vote must reflect my Christian beliefs.

Bearing all this in mind, I want to say quietly that as of this date, I am a Democrat, and that I support Hillary Clinton for President of the United States.

Though I deeply respect those who disagree with me, I believe, for a variety of reasons, that the Democratic Party best reflects the values I hold based on the Gospels. Those values are most intensely expressed for me in the Gospel of Matthew, but they are expressed in all the gospels. Those values involve feeding the hungry, giving drink to the thirsty, clothing the naked, visiting those in prison, and above all, loving one’s neighbors and loving one’s enemies. A great deal more could be said on this subject, but I feel that this is enough.

I want to add here that I am Pro-Life. I believe in the sanctity of the life of the unborn. Deeply respecting those who disagree with me, I feel that if we are to find a solution to the horror of abortion, it will be through the Democratic Party.

I have heard many anti-abortion statements made by people who are not Democrats, but many of these statements do not strike me as constructive or convincing. I feel we can stop the horror of abortion. But I do not feel it can be done by rolling back Roe vs. Wade, or packing the Supreme Court with judges committed to doing this. As a student of history, I do not think that Americans will give up the legal right to abortion. Should Roe vs. Wade be rolled back, Americans will pass other laws to support abortion, or they will find ways to have abortions using new legal and medical terms.

And much as I am horrified by abortion, I am not sure—as a student of history—that Americans should give up the right to abortion.

I am also not convinced that all of those advocating anti-abortion positions in the public sphere are necessarily practical or sincere. I have not heard convincing arguments put forth by anti-abortion politicians as to how Americans could be forced to give birth to children that Americans do not want to bear. And more to the point, I have not heard convincing arguments from these anti-abortion politicians as to how we can prevent the horror of abortion right now, given the social situations we have.

The solution to the horror of abortion can and must be found.

Do I myself have a solution to the abortion problem? The answer is no. What I have are hopes and dreams and prayers—that better education will help men and women make responsible reproductive choices, and that abortion will become a morally abhorrent option from which informed Americans will turn away.

There is a great deal more to this question, as to how abortion became legal, as to why that happened, as to why there is so little talk of the men who father fetuses that are aborted, and as to the human rights of all individuals involved. I am not qualified as a student of history to fully discuss these issues in detail. I remain conscientiously curious and conscientiously concerned.

But I am called to vote in this, our democracy, and I am called, as an American and a Christian, to put thought and commitment into that vote.

Again, I believe the Democratic Party is the party that is most likely to help Americans make a transition away from the abortion crisis that we face today. Its values and its programs—on a whole variety of issues—most clearly reflect my values. Hillary Clinton is the candidate whom I most admire.

I want to say something further. I am aware as a Christian writer that making a political statement like this is not a particularly wise marketing move. But my Christian conscience compels me to make this statement. My Christian conscience demands that I not lie in order to sell books. Lying to sell books, pandering to a Christian market—these things would mean the deepest betrayal of my vocation to live for and write for Jesus Christ. I repeat: I won’t lie to sell books.

I have felt a certain pressure of late to express my feelings here; that pressure is mounting. That pressure has come from watching political debate on church and state in the media, from private emails from strangers and friends concerning these issues, and from conversations, often heated, with my fellow Christians and Americans.

My commitment to Christ compels me to respond to that pressure and to speak out on issues that I think are of crucial importance: whether or not we vote, and how we vote, and how our vote reflects our deepest moral concerns.

I repeat: I am a Christian; I am a Democrat. I support Hillary Clinton for President of the United States.

If I receive emails on this issue, I will do my best to answer them.

Anne Rice
August 10, 2007

Anne Rice talks about being Catholic, pro-life, and a Democrat.

Wednesday, March 12, 2008

The Catholic Faith and Sacred Scripture

There is a growing mindset among many Christians that the tradition of the Roman Catholic Church contradicts Sacred Scripture. This is unquestionably the effect of the "sola scriptura" mindset that is very common among non-Catholic Christians. The entirety of this dilemma cannot be exhausted here, but a great deal can be said about this concern.

The canon for the Christian scriptures as we have them today was formally declared centuries after the passion, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. When St. Paul, the earliest Christian writer spoke of "the gospel that I preach," (Romans 16:25), he was not speaking about one of the four canonical Gospels; in the primitive Church, the term "gospel" did not refer to any book as they had yet to be written, but the good news of salvation won for us in Christ Jesus. Similarly, St. Paul often mentions the "Scriptures" in his letters, but he is referring only to the Old Testament. The early Christians were Jews who believed that God fulfilled His promise to Israel and "dwelt among us" as Jesus of Nazareth. In fact, the term "Christian" was applied from the outside by pagans.

The earliest believers considered themselves Jews whose God had fulfilled the messianic promise of the Old Testament. They gathered together for "the breaking of the bread," which is the earliest form of the Christian liturgy. An early Christian liturgical manual called the Didache, or 'Teaching of the Twelve,' written in the first century A.D. gives instructions regarding baptism and celebration of the Eucharist.

The sacraments were already 'the source and summit' of the Christian life. The sacrifice of the Mass was explicitly of the utmost importance. "On the Lord's Day...gather together, break bread and offer the Eucharist, after confessing your transgressions so that your sacrifice may be pure. Let no one who has a quarrel with his neighbor join you until he is reconciled, lest our sacrifice be defiled. For this is that which was proclaimed by the Lord: 'In every place and time let there be offered to me a clean sacrifice. For I am a great king,' says the Lord, 'and my name is wonderful among the gentiles' [cf. Mal. 1:11]" (Didache 14:1–3).

The same text shows us that the Sacrament of Reconciliation had begun to take shape. In Scripture, Christ told His Apostles, "As the Father has sent me, even so I send you...Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained," (Jn 20:21-23). This is reflected in the Didache where the Apostles teach Christians to confess their sins: "Confess your sins in church, and do not go up to your prayer with an evil conscience." (Didache 4:14 [A.D. 70]). This same reality continues as we find St. Basil preaching the same thing three centuries later: "It is necessary to confess our sins to those to whom the dispensation of God's mysteries is entrusted. Those doing penance of old are found to have done it before the saints. It is written in the Gospel that they confessed their sins to John the Baptist [Matt. 3:6], but in Acts [19:18] they confessed to the apostles" (Rules Briefly Treated 288 [A.D. 374]).

There is a specific belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Christ is the bread of life and the Apostles and all the believers gathered together in communion to "eat his flesh and drink his blood," so that they may have eternal life. It is because of the belief in the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, St. Paul wrote "[w]hoever...eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord" (1 Cor. 11:27). Thus, Scripture affirms that those who consume the Eucharist unworthily (in a state of mortal sin) eats and drinks "condemnation" (1 Cor 11:29) onto themselves.

To further the point of the Catholicity of the early Church, consider the Gospel of Mark for a moment. He repeatedly defines and explains things about the Jewish way of life. Why? Historically, we know that Mark was writing to a non-Jewish community—Gentiles—who knew nothing of Jewish customs. He was evangelizing a specific community of people. In the Gospel of Matthew, which was directed to a predominantly Jewish audience has Jesus give the Beatitudes on the Mount. It obviously highlights that Christ is the new Moses as Moses gave the Commandments on Mount Sinai; the focus on Old Testament fulfillment would be key in evangelizing Jews. In the Gospel of Luke, however, the sermon is given on a plain. Luke is writing to Gentiles not Jews, so the allusion to the prophet Moses is useless because it would not resonate with their religious experience.

Not only were the Apostles recording the life and teachings of Jesus Christ, but they were evangelizing. Another case is found in John, where he defines: Rabbi (Teacher), Messiah (Christ), and Cephas (Rock) within three verses (John 1:38-42). This suggests that he had a non-Jewish audience or an audience that extended beyond Jews. Moreover, he is the last to write his Gospel, which explains why he doesn't re-write much of the same material that is in the Synoptics (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) which had already circulated around in Christian communities. And because it is so much later (he makes reference to Christians being banned from the synagogues in A.D. 87), it makes sense that he has a radically different purpose in writing his Gospel, namely to make a case against the Jews who reject Christ. It is held definitively by the Church that the Gospels are inspired by God, but the historical circumstances in which they were written are revelatory. There is a particular purpose and audience that the writer is considering. Moreover, the fact that they are writing implies that the Christian population had grown to such a degree that the oral tradition was no longer sufficient.

In addition, we know of the epistles of Paul, Peter, John, and James. But there are also other non-canonical epistles that were not included in the canon of Scriptures. Pope Clement I, the fourth Pope of the Church, wrote a letter (perhaps two) to the Corinthians that scholars date to 94-97 A.D. St. Ignatius wrote a letter to the Ephesians, to the Romans, and even one to St. Polycarp. St. Polycarp was a disciple of the Apostle John and Bishop of what is today is Izmir in Turkey; he wrote a letter to the Philippians. It becomes clear the more you study the Scriptures and how they came to be, in the light of the tradition that the Apostles spread throughout the known world, proclaiming the Gospel, founding individual churches as part of one Church. The Christian community grew to such an extent that they even began to delegate men to share in their power. The Apostles ordained "bishops," who were their direct equals, sharing in their apostolic mission.

In Acts 14:23, St. Paul the Apostle ordains elders in the churches he founded. Early Christian writings from the Didache to Pope Clement I’s Letter to the Corinthians show that the Church recognized two local church offices—elders (interchangeable term with overseer) and deacons. The beginnings of a single ruling bishop can perhaps be traced to the offices occupied by Timothy and Titus in the New Testament. We are told that Paul had left Timothy in Ephesus and Titus in Crete to oversee the local church (1 Tim 1:3 and Titus 1:5). Paul commands them to ordain bishops/presbyters (priests) and to exercise general oversight, telling Titus to "rebuke with all authority" (Titus 2:15).

It is certain that the office of "bishop" and "presbyter" were clearly distinguished by the second century, as the Church was facing the dual pressures of persecution and internal schism, resulting in three distinct local offices: bishop, elder (presbyter) and deacon. The tradition of reserving ordination for men, too, was already in place: "If women were to be charged by God with entering the priesthood or with assuming ecclesiastical office, then in the New Covenant it would have devolved upon no one more than Mary to fulfill a priestly function. She was invested with so great an honor as to be allowed to provide a dwelling in her womb for the heavenly God and King of all things, the Son of God...But he did not find this [the conferring of priesthood on her] good" (Against Heresies 79:3 [A.D. 377]).

There were certainly women deaconesses in the past who assisted with ministering to women specifically with baptism; but these women were often the wives of deacons and the status of deaconess was not an ordained office. A shade of this can be seen in the East by "presbyteras"—the wives of ordained priests who, without being ordained or demanding to be made a priestess, faithfully assist their husbands in their ministerial tasks.

All of this is simply the result of a developing tradition of the Church that comes from the Apostles. It is the lived experience of Christianity and of the Church in its mission to teach the world the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The Bible as we know it was not in its current form. The first list of "canonical" books that names the same twenty-seven writings found in our New Testament appears in the Easter letter of St. Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria in 367 A.D. By the time of Athanasius, the Church had reached an informal consensus about most of the writings to be included in the "New Testament."

There is evidence that Paul's letters had been collected by churches in several geographical locations by the end of the first century A.D. In a letter sent from Rome, written by Pope Clement I, to the church in Corinth, he writers (1 Clement 47:1): "Examine the letter of the blessed Paul the Apostle. What did he write to you at first, when he was just beginning to proclaim the gospel?" This is a reference to Paul's first letter to the Corinthians. It indicates that the Christians in Rome owned a copy of it and that the church in Corinth still had a copy in its possession, half a century after Paul wrote it. The author of the second letter of Peter also knows about a collection of Paul's letters (3:15–16) and assumes that his readers do as well. Also in the early second century, St. Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, wrote letters to seven churches while he was en route to Rome, where he was martyred. In his letters he uses language that clearly shows his familiarity with the letters of Paul. He refers to Paul frequently by name. Such evidence is clear: by the turn of the first century a number of churches had already acquired copies of Paul's letters for their use. The formative stage of a canonical collection of Paul's writings had already taken place.

The point is this: it was a long time before Christian writers used the books of the New Testament books as Holy Scripture, equal in authority with the Old Testament. Some books were even questioned because of its heavy use by heretics (including the Gospel of John). Other books were considered (some of which don't espouse heresy) but did not make the canon: the Epistle of Barnabas and the Epistle of Clement, for example. The Apostles were all Jewish and they used the Old Testament to show how Christ fulfilled all the prophecies and that was sufficient enough. They did not deny as Jews the revelation of the one God, but they had to incorporate into their prayers and preaching the figure of Jesus.

This is where the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity came from—where we learn that God is Three Persons in One Being, for we see distinctly the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. It is not explicitly written in Scripture, but the understanding is there. St. Paul writes in Gal 4:4-7, "When the time had fully come, God sent forth his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons. And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, 'Abba! Father!' So through God you are no longer a slave but a son, and if a son then an heir."

"It is then in the fullness of time, that is, at the moment of the fulfillment of all the prophecies and expectations of ancient times, as the climax of God's revelation to man of his saving purposes" (cf. The Evidence of the Mystery of the Trinity in the New Testament) that God sends his Son and the Spirit that proceeds from Him (the Father) through His Son—so revealing to us his trinitarian inner life. John the Baptist declared to the Jews that "I baptize with water," but he prophesized that one will come after him who will "baptize with the Holy Spirit." And it is thus: the Son is sent to redeem us and to give us "Son status," to be sons in the Son, so that we can pray the prayer of the Son, "Abba, Father" because we were baptized in "spirit and in truth," thus, receiving the Spirit of the Son, which came to the Son from the Father (this is how Catholics came to the notion of the filioque). The Catholic doctrine of the Holy Trinity is not scripturally explicit, but it is implicit; Scripture flows from the teaching-tradition of the Church. The Church simply definitively states this so that it is more clear and concise. Moreover, the "definitive" nature of doctrine came from combating heresies that declared such fallacies as Christ being only divine and not at all human.

Even the Catholic liturgy itself is actually very Jewish because the Jewish faith is God's original dispensation for His salvific acts and the Apostles themselves were Jewish. In the synagogue the Jews read from the Scriptures, sang psalms and hymns of praise. There is a continuously lit lamp, we still have them today in every Catholic Church usually near the tabernacle symbolizing God's eternal presence. There is an Ark that holds the Ark of the Covenant, which contains the tablets with Ten Commandments. It is the holiest spot in the synagogue. For us it is the tabernacle, which holds for the Body of Christ, which is the sign of the new and everlasting covenant. He is the Lamb of God, put to death on the day that lambs were being slain in Jerusalem for Passover. It is the fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecy and this mystery has made its way into the Christian tradition, not explicitly said in Scripture, but it is implied (and common knowledge) if one is following the Tradition.

The Eucharist is our Passover and we celebrate it daily. St. Paul wrote reflecting on the Jewish faith wrote "Christ, our paschal lamb, has been sacrificed. Let us, therefore, celebrate the festival...with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth," (1 Cor 5:7-8). For by becoming one mystical Body of Christ, we pass over with him from death into eternal life. This is the fulfillment of God's promise of salvation that he made to our Father in faith, Abraham. And that is the heart of the Gospel protected and proclaimed by the Roman Catholic Church for 2,000 years. It is the in the Church that the Revelation of God to the Jewish people, fulfilled by Christ, preached by the Apostles and passed on, lives and is still preached to this day. The Bible came out of the Church and since the writers were of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, committed to unity, to the apostolic tradition, and proclaiming the Good News of Christ, one can see that The Bible testifies to "the Church of the living God, the foundation and pillar of the truth." (1 Tim 3:15).

A Letter to Catholics in Disagreement with Rome

Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

The Lord God has invited all of humanity to Himself with the gift of salvation and Catholics have a special role in witnessing to the truth that He has given us. This is the truth of our Catholic faith and we participate in a special way with His redemptive works. We are called to transform the fallen world in our words and deeds. In our reception of the Lord Jesus Christ in the sacraments, we literally as St. Peter said become “partakers in the divine nature.” He strengthens us in our weakness to carry out the arduous Catholic vocation of Christian virtue.

The catechesis of the average Catholic in the United States is outrageous. This has led to many Catholics being lukewarm in their faith-practice, apathetic toward the faith, and worse, vocal dissidents. It is common practice for Catholics to mistake the Church's doctrines with her disciplines. The doctrines, or dogma, of the Church must be adhered to as it is irreversible and permanent; on the other hand, her discipline, as history has shown us, can and has changed. Catholic theologian Scott Hahn often recounts that he took for granted the Protestant conviction that authority for Christians rested in Scripture alone. He was surprised to find that Scripture did not support his view. On the contrary, St. Paul wrote in his first letter to Timothy that "the Church of the living God", not the Bible, is "the foundation and pillar of the Truth" (1 Tim 3:15).

Certainly, a Catholic who willfully denies the teaching authority of the Church in regard to faith and morality is guilty of heresy and is excommunicated by the act itself—it does not have to be formal. The penalty of excommunication fundamentally underscores two realities: the seriousness of the assent of faith and the desire for the excommunicated Catholic to reconcile with God and the Church through conversion of heart and mind. This was fully present in the early Church. St. Paul makes reference to it in his first letter to the Corinthians (cf. 1 Cor. 5:1-4).

The Catholic Church certainly does not consider itself a Christian denomination. The divisive concept of "denomination" is quite foreign to her. The Catholic Church was founded by Christ, whose authority was passed to St. Peter, the prince of the Apostles, and that apostolic lineage is preserved through the apostolic succession of bishops all over the world. The Catholic Church consists of many different rites and jurisdictions, all under the bishop of Rome, currently Benedict XVI. The Catholic Church has weathered a lot over the years and is the Church of many great saints and sinners who had one goal: to work out their salvation in accord with the authentic teachings of Jesus Christ. Contrary to the typical American disposition in regard to matters of faith, we cannot simply do it our way. We did not create the Catholic faith. We received from the Catholic faith from our parents, our pastors, our bishops, and ultimately from the hands of the Apostles. If what we have received is from the Apostles then we can be confident that what we have received the faith from Jesus Christ who established the Church to preach and safeguard His teachings.

The Church is a loving parent. She is our Mother and therefore she is naturally 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).

We cannot pass on the fullness of faith when we make ourselves the final arbiter of the Truth. It is contradictory to profess simultaneously a love for the Church and distrust in her teaching authority. Just as we heed the advice and warnings of physicians to maintain our biological and psychological health, we must adhere to the Church’s Magisterium for they have been given the charism via the Holy Spirit to hand on faithfully and fully the truth Christ wants us to receive so that we might have all the tools necessary to successfully work out our salvation. We owe it to ourselves to learn what the Church teaches, to examine her reasoning with an open heart, and to associate ourselves with the work of spreading the Faith. We are Catholics through our baptism and public professions of faith; we assent to all the Church teaches through these actions and bind ourselves to follow the Church’s laws and practices.

For Catholics who dissent—not those who carefully question or struggle with theological and moral positions of the Church in order to understand and conform to the truth she preaches—the act of declaring that the Church is objectively wrong on theological and moral matters is no small matter. In fact, it is scandalous to call yourself Catholic after having taken such a position. To be Catholic means to be in communion with the Bishop of Rome, the Pope. If you do not mean the criterion, that is, assent fully to the Catholic faith, one cannot be truly in communion with the Vicar of Christ and successor of St. Peter the Apostle. Pray. Discern. Question with sincerity and purity of heart. Stay close to the sacraments (particularly Confession if you find yourself in a state of objective mortal sin). Don't easily succumb to temptations and the false earthly comforts in place of the will of God; Christ Himself said of those who do such, "I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full."

Sincerely yours,
Eric

Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion

General Principles
by Pope Benedict XVI

1. Presenting oneself to receive Holy Communion should be a conscious decision, based on a reasoned judgment regarding one’s worthiness to do so, according to the Church’s objective criteria, asking such questions as: "Am I in full communion with the Catholic Church? Am I guilty of grave sin? Have I incurred a penalty (e.g. excommunication, interdict) that forbids me to receive Holy Communion? Have I prepared myself by fasting for at least an hour?" The practice of indiscriminately presenting oneself to receive Holy Communion, merely as a consequence of being present at Mass, is an abuse that must be corrected (cf. Instruction "Redemptionis Sacramentum," nos. 81, 83).

2. The Church teaches that abortion or euthanasia is a grave sin. The Encyclical Letter Evangelium Vitae, with reference to judicial decisions or civil laws that authorize or promote abortion or euthanasia, states that there is a "grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection. [...] In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to 'take part in a propaganda campaign in favour of such a law or vote for it’" (no. 73). Christians have a "grave obligation of conscience not to cooperate formally in practices which, even if permitted by civil legislation, are contrary to God’s law. Indeed, from the moral standpoint, it is never licit to cooperate formally in evil. [...] This cooperation can never be justified either by invoking respect for the freedom of others or by appealing to the fact that civil law permits it or requires it" (no. 74).

3. Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.

4. Apart from an individual's judgment about his worthiness to present himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, the minister of Holy Communion may find himself in the situation where he must refuse to distribute Holy Communion to someone, such as in cases of a declared excommunication, a declared interdict, or an obstinate persistence in manifest grave sin (cf. can. 915).

5. Regarding the grave sin of abortion or euthanasia, when a person’s formal cooperation becomes manifest (understood, in the case of a Catholic politician, as his consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws), his Pastor should meet with him, instructing him about the Church’s teaching, informing him that he is not to present himself for Holy Communion until he brings to an end the objective situation of sin, and warning him that he will otherwise be denied the Eucharist.

6. When "these precautionary measures have not had their effect or in which they were not possible," and the person in question, with obstinate persistence, still presents himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, "the minister of Holy Communion must refuse to distribute it" (cf. Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts Declaration "Holy Communion and Divorced, Civilly Remarried Catholics" [2002], nos. 3-4). This decision, properly speaking, is not a sanction or a penalty. Nor is the minister of Holy Communion passing judgment on the person’s subjective guilt, but rather is reacting to the person’s public unworthiness to receive Holy Communion due to an objective situation of sin. [N.B. A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favour of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.]

St. Paul expressed similar sentiments here:
For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, "This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me." In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me." For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died. But if we judged ourselves truly, we should not be judged. But when we are judged by the Lord, we are chastened so that we may not be condemned along with the world. (1 Corinthians 11:23-32)

The Journey Home to Roma Eterna

This is a well written, well thought-out reflection of a Catholic convert on why, as an evangelical Christian unconvinced of the Protestant faith, he believes the Catholic Church bears the "fullness" of the Gospel truth rather than the Orthodox Church.

"Why I Am Not Eastern Orthodox" by Jimmy Akin

Honoring the Legacy of John Paul II

Ron Paul, in my opinion, has some views that are pretty "out there." I think many of his libertarian views are idealistic and unpractical, while some others I actually would agree with or am willing to compromise on. In fact, when he says, Pope John Paul II understood "both social and economic liberties" are necessary for human flourishing, you would think the Pope was a libertarian (Nice try Ron Paul).

Despite this, the speech, in which he gave in honor of the late Pope John Paul II, Dr. Paul articulates the relationship of faith and politics beautifully. Human flourishing requires that governing powers recognize the dignity and intrinsic worth of all human life from conception to natural death. This is a cause that John Paul II championed during his Pontificate and he is certainly worthy of the honor rightly bestowed upon him.

Read Ron Paul's speech
Theology not Politics delivered on April 12, 2005.

"Struggling Alone" with Homosexuality

Some time ago, in fact, I think this might have been before I accepted the Church's teachings on homosexuality and struggled to let go of the one person I love most in this life, my spiritual director Fr. Anthony Giampietro shared this article with me.

Looking back in retrospect, I can identify with the person described in it. I think the writer profoundly illuminates a growing problem within the Church. The sexual chaos that has passed down to this generation is contrary to human dignity and not at all virtuous, to say the least. The Church faces many challenges from modernity on human sexuality. I think this insight is quite meaningful, particularly for me as a homosexual Catholic. It highlights the tendency of the faithful to forget homosexual Catholics living in accord with the Church's teaching, bearing their Cross alone. The current pastoral care and Christian outreach to chaste homosexuals is absolutely unacceptable in it's almost virtual nonexistence.

In my life, homosexuality was always the barrier between God and myself. I would love to have the issue discussed more in Catholic circles with an open-mind, understanding, and compassion without compromising our commitment to orthodoxy. Instead of our unspoken commitment to silence on vital issues, we fail those who need us most. We have entered an age of silence to maintain peace; it is also another age of dissent.

Read the article
here.

This Catholic Loves Benedict XVI

This Catholic Loves Benedict XVI

Knights of Columbus: Champions for the Family

Knights of Columbus: Champions for the Family

The Pro-Life Movement in the Democratic Party

The Pro-Life Movement in the Democratic Party