Question Hey, Peter! I noticed that you've started a blog and I was wondering if I could get your opinion on something about a friend of mine.
One of my friends is Catholic but he hasn't been going to church recently. Before school started he told me that he wants to start going back to church and getting involved in the faith again. But there seems to be something that he feels is getting in the way...
Well...he also happens to be gay. He's been keeping it a secret from his friends and co-workers, so I'm a little surprised that he was able to tell me something so personal about himself! He also told me it's not exactly his favorite thing about himself - hence why he doesn't tell people.
Do you have any advise for what I could do or say to help him get his foot back in the door?
AnswerFirst of all, I want to congratulate you that as a Catholic, you are so open and genuine with your friend, that he is willing to come to you with this without fear of being judged.
I would suggest first of all that you remain frank with him- you can even tell him that you are doing so. People hate duplicity, like when you can tell that someone won't come right out and say something, but they are hinting at it. So, you regard homosexual actions as sinful- don't gloss over that. You want your friend to come back to church- tell him that! If he knows that you are being honest and straight up with him, you give him permission to have a similar degree of openess with you. Of course in this, you don't have to tell him about negative feelings or thoughts you have. Hopefully you don't have any! If you do, recognize that you are being judgemental, and repent of that. What you want is to consistently speak the truth, without judgment.
We need somehow to get the message out that homsoexuality is objectively sinful, and as such that it is self destructive. People will tell him that to be homosexual is who he is, that he should take his identity in it, and therefore if you reject the action as sinful, you are effectively rejecting him as damned. This is ridiculous, of course. It would be like if a cancer patient felt judged because you said 'cancer is a disease.' But this is genuinely how homosexual people feel- that if homosexuality is seen as anything less than on par with heterosexuality, this must therefore be a condemnation.
As a Catholic you have an opportunity to do powerful outreach with him. You said he does not like the fact that he is homosexual. Perhaps this is in part why he has come to you. Perhaps he does not want to hear the nonsense that that's just who he is and he should not only cope with it, but take pride in it. Maybe what he wants is hope.
I know of a case of a crossdresser, who had been cross dressing since he was a kid. He rejected that action as sinful and as a psychological dissorder, and now, through his Christian faith, he has been able to put that fetish behind him. On the other hand I know of a kid who is a crossdresser, and was brought to counseling where the counselor gave him womens clothes to wear, as 'therapeutic play'. Rather than helping him get out of this strange habit, she worked to entrench it by telling him that it's who he is and there is nothing he can do about it.
I know of similar cases with homosexuals. I have a friend who is homosexual, but sees the action as sinful, and so is living a fairly contented celibate life. This is the hope that Christianity offers- freedom from sin. The message of the homosexual community is that you are your sin, and thus there is no hope for you. This is frightening, since we know that despair is the unforgivable sin. If you give up hope that God can change you, then you refuse to ever repent and be changed. And of course, if you start with the premise that you can't be changed, you will have to reject Christianity and it's God which declare that you can!
To be clear, though, it is likely that your friend will continue to have homosexual desires, even if he lives a pure life. Just as a married man will still be tempted to look at porn or have extramarital sex. But God is faithful- he gives us the grace to get through it! God may no more 'heal' your friend of homosexuality (though he sometimes does) then He would heal a blind man or a schizophrenic. God has, for whatever reason, created all sorts of people with all sorts of dissorders, but each has to learn to live out their life in a way glorifying to him inspite of all this!
So, your message has to be one of love and hope. Invite him to Church, listen to him, validate his feelings, and continue to communicate the truth. He may reject you, but I suspect he has come to you out of a desire for truth and release in the first place. Beyond that, there are groups that specialize in helping homosexuals to put the homosexual lifestyle behind them. I am not personally aquainted with the various agencies, so I would be reluctant to recommend any particular one, but I would suggest that your friend look into that.
Keep praying for him, and above all, keep loving him and listening to him!
This site is where I let my faith wrestle with reason. If you have a question to submit, do it at vankampen.peter@gmail.com. Although I try to be faithful to the teachings of the Church, these answers are the opinion of a Catholic youth Coordinator, and should not be construed as the views of the Catholic Church.
Monday, November 1, 2010
Sunday, October 31, 2010
The catholic church sold indulgences and were historically corrupt. How do you know it is right?
Question: Hey Peter, I saw your blog and I think it's great! The one question I have that isn't really answered up there is this. Why Catholicism? I know I'm really firmly rooted in my Faith, I just don't really know what Faith that is, if that makes sense. Basically I guess just hearing about how corrupt the Catholic Church was and in some cases still is makes me wonder. I definitely believe in the Bible and that everything actually happened, it just seems like the Catholic Church has taken advantage of people and been hypocritical at times, at least from some of the conversations I've had with some of my Protestant friends. Maybe I just don't have the facts right? Take the example of indulgences. What I've heard from a fairly reliable friend was that the Catholic Church used to sell them, telling people that they'd go to Heaven sooner or at all as long as they bought these indulgences. Is this true?
Answer: Excelent question. I sort of did deal with that question, under the headimg "How do I know I am right"- http://askpeterolvc.blogspot.com/2010/10/how-do-i-know-i-am-right.html. However, that article does not address the historical aspects that you ask about.
This question is so complicated, with so many facets, that my answer will be long, and will likely only serve to raise more questions.
I think it should be first acknowledged that the Church does indeed have a scandalous past- and indeed, present. The Church is full of sinners, and their is corruption in every level. This does not necessarily mean that what they believe is wrong... don't judge the medicine by who it fails on, but by who it works on. Somehow the Church mannaged to produce Mother Teresa and John Paul II and Padre Pio.
Some people would sort of sidetrack the issue by saying the Church was really not that bad. Often you'll hear the Church described in say the crusades or the inquisition, in an eroneous (some times even maliciously eroneus) manner. When you hear this stuff, look up the real history- people like to repeat the most scandalous stuff! Consider that the Church was not only a spiritual, but also a worldy authority- and so there was a lot of money and power to be wielded by bishops, which would attract corrupt people. Looked at in their historical context, these things make a bit more sense. (I sometimes wonder if the Church won't some day be frowned upon for not doing enough to stop abortion...) But, we really did sin in the crusades, and arguably even more so in the inquisition.
So, I think we have a responsibility to do 2 things- first, learn about the mistakes we have made in the past. (For this I suggest you get some cds from Mastthew Arnold, http://www.matthewarnold.org/. They are fantastic!) Secondly, we need to see that the Church is infallible, not inscrutible.- that is to say that it cannot make an error in teaching, though the Pope or even the church as a whole can sin.
As for indulgences... I'll explain the teaching first, and the abuses you refered to later.
This is a hard teaching to grasp, in large part because we have a protestant mindset nowadays. We read the Bible like protestants, we seperate the spiritual world from the physical world, like protestants, we think that we can do nothing to work towards our own salvation (Phil 2:12-13), like protestants. Alot of Catholic do not even realize that they are doing this.
Protestants do not believe in purgatory, in part because it is not explicitly biblical, and in part because it does not agree with their idea of 'justification'. Luther essentially taught that we are 'justified by faith (Rom 3:28)'- meaning, by his definition, declared just by believeing in Christ. Catholics understand both justification and faith differently. We think justification means we are actually made just rather than just declared just, and that this is a process. It is by faith insofar as we have to trust God that He will do what he says he will do in us, and so we have to cooperate with grace- the thing that sancifies us, or makes us just.
So because it is a process, and not just a one off thing (this one off idea gives protestants all kinds of problems, as they then have to wonder about 'once saved always saved', etc)- I say, because it is a process, if the process of sanctification is incomplete in this world, we have to complete it in the next.
So this is what your friend meant by 'getting to Heaven faster'- the purification process gets sped up. However, people who would have otherwise gone to Hell, could not have changed their destination through indulgences.
The seperation of physical and spiritual plays in, because protestants do not understand things like sacraments and relics, or even statues, because they effectively don't get how the physical realm is linked with the spiritual realm. In fact, they don't even understand sex! This is why they don't see that birth control is wrong. Interestingly, most protestants still believe in water with baptism, but they don't know why besides that Jesus said to do it that way. The Catholic understanding is that a sacrament is a physical sign of a spiritual reality- that it effects what it signifies. In other words, a physical thing has a spiritual effect. You can see how this makes no sense to the protestant mind set.
Lastly, they do not think that the Church has any real authority. The Catholic Church claims to have authority from Christ to 'bind and loose',(Matt 16:19) which means (in part) to release graces and make decisions about them! This idea is totally ludicrous to the protestant mind set- just as the idea that the Church has the authority to forgive sins is ludicrous. I should point out though that Jesus' contemporaries thought it was ludicrous too(Mark 2:1-12)- yet Jesus did it, and gave authority to his diciples to do likewise. (John 20:23). The Church does not presume to have this power- rather it is invested in them through Christ.
So, amazingly, the Church has the authority to release graces, and to set conditions for the release! Moreover, another thing protestants don't understand, is that one persons suffering can benefit another, and so we can become a source of grace for each other. So I can meet the required conditions, achieve an indulgence, and even transmit those graces to the soul of another. Today is Halloween... in 2 days it is "All Souls Day". Within a week of all souls day, I can gain a plenary indulgence (get out of purgatory free card) by going to confession, attending Mass, praying in the graveyard, praying for the intentions of the Pope, and having no attachment tio sin. I can get another plenary indulgence every day for 8 days, and get 8 souls out of purgatory! (Again, I must reiterate, the reason this idea seems so incongruent with your ideas about God and your soul is because you are already thinking like a protestant, not like a Catholic. You'll notice, however, that the Catholic mode of thinking can make much better sense out of Jesus' death on the Cross and how it saves us.)
Historically, however, abuses set in. It stands to reason that if you can gain indulgences by saying certain prayers or going on a pilgrimage, likewise you could get them by giving money to charity. And it may be that that charity would be, say, the building of a Church. Around Luthers time, St Peters Basilica was being built in Rome. Pope Leo X offered indulgences to people who gave alms to rebuild St Peres. People started effectively selling indulgences, and pocketing some of the money. It should be noted that even before this, Popes had been trying to reign in abuses like the sale of indulgences... so it would be somewhat misleading to say 'the Church sold indulgences', since really it was people in the Church and not the Church per se. You cannot 'sell' anything blessed, because that is the sin of simony. Likewise, you can't sell the blessed sacrament, or graces. Indulgences for alms should not be seen as puschasing grace, but rather as being rewarded with grace for generosity. But agian, people abused it and 'sold' indulgences. Anyway, this was one of the major things that outraged Luther and started the reformation.
As it stands, the Church affirms the idea of indulgences, but recognizes that the practices at that time were abusive. Shortly after the reformation started, the council of Trent was called, and they looked at this whole practice. They said that only the magisterium could 'publish' induilgences, and eventually added that these could never involve any fees or financial transactions.
So, there you have it. Indulgences is one of a miriad of historical examples where people are outraged by partial information and understanding, but if you do the research, you find that the Catholic position actually makes sense- even if people in practice abused principles found in theology.
Answer: Excelent question. I sort of did deal with that question, under the headimg "How do I know I am right"- http://askpeterolvc.blogspot.com/2010/10/how-do-i-know-i-am-right.html. However, that article does not address the historical aspects that you ask about.
This question is so complicated, with so many facets, that my answer will be long, and will likely only serve to raise more questions.
I think it should be first acknowledged that the Church does indeed have a scandalous past- and indeed, present. The Church is full of sinners, and their is corruption in every level. This does not necessarily mean that what they believe is wrong... don't judge the medicine by who it fails on, but by who it works on. Somehow the Church mannaged to produce Mother Teresa and John Paul II and Padre Pio.
Some people would sort of sidetrack the issue by saying the Church was really not that bad. Often you'll hear the Church described in say the crusades or the inquisition, in an eroneous (some times even maliciously eroneus) manner. When you hear this stuff, look up the real history- people like to repeat the most scandalous stuff! Consider that the Church was not only a spiritual, but also a worldy authority- and so there was a lot of money and power to be wielded by bishops, which would attract corrupt people. Looked at in their historical context, these things make a bit more sense. (I sometimes wonder if the Church won't some day be frowned upon for not doing enough to stop abortion...) But, we really did sin in the crusades, and arguably even more so in the inquisition.
So, I think we have a responsibility to do 2 things- first, learn about the mistakes we have made in the past. (For this I suggest you get some cds from Mastthew Arnold, http://www.matthewarnold.org/. They are fantastic!) Secondly, we need to see that the Church is infallible, not inscrutible.- that is to say that it cannot make an error in teaching, though the Pope or even the church as a whole can sin.
As for indulgences... I'll explain the teaching first, and the abuses you refered to later.
This is a hard teaching to grasp, in large part because we have a protestant mindset nowadays. We read the Bible like protestants, we seperate the spiritual world from the physical world, like protestants, we think that we can do nothing to work towards our own salvation (Phil 2:12-13), like protestants. Alot of Catholic do not even realize that they are doing this.
Protestants do not believe in purgatory, in part because it is not explicitly biblical, and in part because it does not agree with their idea of 'justification'. Luther essentially taught that we are 'justified by faith (Rom 3:28)'- meaning, by his definition, declared just by believeing in Christ. Catholics understand both justification and faith differently. We think justification means we are actually made just rather than just declared just, and that this is a process. It is by faith insofar as we have to trust God that He will do what he says he will do in us, and so we have to cooperate with grace- the thing that sancifies us, or makes us just.
So because it is a process, and not just a one off thing (this one off idea gives protestants all kinds of problems, as they then have to wonder about 'once saved always saved', etc)- I say, because it is a process, if the process of sanctification is incomplete in this world, we have to complete it in the next.
So this is what your friend meant by 'getting to Heaven faster'- the purification process gets sped up. However, people who would have otherwise gone to Hell, could not have changed their destination through indulgences.
The seperation of physical and spiritual plays in, because protestants do not understand things like sacraments and relics, or even statues, because they effectively don't get how the physical realm is linked with the spiritual realm. In fact, they don't even understand sex! This is why they don't see that birth control is wrong. Interestingly, most protestants still believe in water with baptism, but they don't know why besides that Jesus said to do it that way. The Catholic understanding is that a sacrament is a physical sign of a spiritual reality- that it effects what it signifies. In other words, a physical thing has a spiritual effect. You can see how this makes no sense to the protestant mind set.
Lastly, they do not think that the Church has any real authority. The Catholic Church claims to have authority from Christ to 'bind and loose',(Matt 16:19) which means (in part) to release graces and make decisions about them! This idea is totally ludicrous to the protestant mind set- just as the idea that the Church has the authority to forgive sins is ludicrous. I should point out though that Jesus' contemporaries thought it was ludicrous too(Mark 2:1-12)- yet Jesus did it, and gave authority to his diciples to do likewise. (John 20:23). The Church does not presume to have this power- rather it is invested in them through Christ.
So, amazingly, the Church has the authority to release graces, and to set conditions for the release! Moreover, another thing protestants don't understand, is that one persons suffering can benefit another, and so we can become a source of grace for each other. So I can meet the required conditions, achieve an indulgence, and even transmit those graces to the soul of another. Today is Halloween... in 2 days it is "All Souls Day". Within a week of all souls day, I can gain a plenary indulgence (get out of purgatory free card) by going to confession, attending Mass, praying in the graveyard, praying for the intentions of the Pope, and having no attachment tio sin. I can get another plenary indulgence every day for 8 days, and get 8 souls out of purgatory! (Again, I must reiterate, the reason this idea seems so incongruent with your ideas about God and your soul is because you are already thinking like a protestant, not like a Catholic. You'll notice, however, that the Catholic mode of thinking can make much better sense out of Jesus' death on the Cross and how it saves us.)
Historically, however, abuses set in. It stands to reason that if you can gain indulgences by saying certain prayers or going on a pilgrimage, likewise you could get them by giving money to charity. And it may be that that charity would be, say, the building of a Church. Around Luthers time, St Peters Basilica was being built in Rome. Pope Leo X offered indulgences to people who gave alms to rebuild St Peres. People started effectively selling indulgences, and pocketing some of the money. It should be noted that even before this, Popes had been trying to reign in abuses like the sale of indulgences... so it would be somewhat misleading to say 'the Church sold indulgences', since really it was people in the Church and not the Church per se. You cannot 'sell' anything blessed, because that is the sin of simony. Likewise, you can't sell the blessed sacrament, or graces. Indulgences for alms should not be seen as puschasing grace, but rather as being rewarded with grace for generosity. But agian, people abused it and 'sold' indulgences. Anyway, this was one of the major things that outraged Luther and started the reformation.
As it stands, the Church affirms the idea of indulgences, but recognizes that the practices at that time were abusive. Shortly after the reformation started, the council of Trent was called, and they looked at this whole practice. They said that only the magisterium could 'publish' induilgences, and eventually added that these could never involve any fees or financial transactions.
So, there you have it. Indulgences is one of a miriad of historical examples where people are outraged by partial information and understanding, but if you do the research, you find that the Catholic position actually makes sense- even if people in practice abused principles found in theology.
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Should I wear purple on purple day?
Question: K so this morning brought a dilemna my way and I wanted to know your opinion on it and the decision I made. So today is like wear purple day to stand up for those boys who committed suicide after coming out about being gay and then being bullied about it. Where my dilemna lies is that although as Catholics we do not think suicide is the right choice so we would support an anti-suicide thing, we also don't believe it is right to be gay. So do we support this purple thing or not? Yes I feel bad for those people and it wasn't right for them to be bullied because of their sexuality and it wasn't right for them to committ suicide, but I also don't think it's right to be gay. Kinda difficult. I sort of talked to a friend about it this morning because I didn't think as a Catholic I should support it, and she agreed, but was that the right call? Let me know what you think.
Answer
Tough question. I think that if you wear purple it would suggest to people that you support "gay rights", and thus that you are endorsing homosexuality. On the other hand, while as Catholics we think homosexuality is sinful, we do not think homosexuals ought to despair. Suppose there was a similar day as a consequence of, say, prostitutes who felt desperately trapped in their prostitution, and so commited suicide. If we wore, say, Red, on that day, to show our solidarity, I don't think it would be seen as an endorsement rather than as an indication that we want to be there for, and help and love the prostitutes. Whcih is exactly how we should be for the gays! (To be clear, we should also make the distinction that it is not bad to be gay, but to have gay sex. Heterosexual sex is also wrong in many circumstances!)
So, what we somehow have to do as Catholics is clearly communicate a stance that we are supportive and loving of the homosexual person, while still regarding homosexual actions as sinful. Like Christ when He spoke to the woman caught in adultery, and said "Go and sin no more." He clearly loved her, much more so than the religious radicals who were all too happy to condemn her for her sin, but did not endorse or encourage her sin.
I never heard that it was wear purple day. I think at some level I would say that yes you should wear it, coupled with some symbol of Catholicism (crucifix, etc) but then have the courage to stand up for what is true and to tell people what you think when asked. The problem is for the homosexual they are only recieving 2 messages; One, that they are OK, and their whole identity is homosexuality, therefore they are little more than their sexual drives. The other that they are perverted and despised and damned. The truth is somewhere between those 2 extremes, and frankly the only place for hope is in the truth. We have to get the message out!
I think too that the gay community deliberately wants to polarize the argument- if everyone who does not endorse them appears hateful and 'homophobic', then in the name of tolerance everyone will be too scared to take a stand. We have to somehow outsmart that trap!
I guess this answer is probably longer than what you were looking for, and still vague. I'm of two minds on the subject, and have been sorting my own thoughts as I type! I don't have any purple myself, so it's not an issue for me, but I would suggest that whichever way you chose to go, you're probably good, provided you're prepared to speak for truth!
Answer
Tough question. I think that if you wear purple it would suggest to people that you support "gay rights", and thus that you are endorsing homosexuality. On the other hand, while as Catholics we think homosexuality is sinful, we do not think homosexuals ought to despair. Suppose there was a similar day as a consequence of, say, prostitutes who felt desperately trapped in their prostitution, and so commited suicide. If we wore, say, Red, on that day, to show our solidarity, I don't think it would be seen as an endorsement rather than as an indication that we want to be there for, and help and love the prostitutes. Whcih is exactly how we should be for the gays! (To be clear, we should also make the distinction that it is not bad to be gay, but to have gay sex. Heterosexual sex is also wrong in many circumstances!)
So, what we somehow have to do as Catholics is clearly communicate a stance that we are supportive and loving of the homosexual person, while still regarding homosexual actions as sinful. Like Christ when He spoke to the woman caught in adultery, and said "Go and sin no more." He clearly loved her, much more so than the religious radicals who were all too happy to condemn her for her sin, but did not endorse or encourage her sin.
I never heard that it was wear purple day. I think at some level I would say that yes you should wear it, coupled with some symbol of Catholicism (crucifix, etc) but then have the courage to stand up for what is true and to tell people what you think when asked. The problem is for the homosexual they are only recieving 2 messages; One, that they are OK, and their whole identity is homosexuality, therefore they are little more than their sexual drives. The other that they are perverted and despised and damned. The truth is somewhere between those 2 extremes, and frankly the only place for hope is in the truth. We have to get the message out!
I think too that the gay community deliberately wants to polarize the argument- if everyone who does not endorse them appears hateful and 'homophobic', then in the name of tolerance everyone will be too scared to take a stand. We have to somehow outsmart that trap!
I guess this answer is probably longer than what you were looking for, and still vague. I'm of two minds on the subject, and have been sorting my own thoughts as I type! I don't have any purple myself, so it's not an issue for me, but I would suggest that whichever way you chose to go, you're probably good, provided you're prepared to speak for truth!
How do I know I am right?
Question:
Considering that people all over the world believe different things, and believe them strongly, how do you know that what you believe is right?
Answer
I often wrestle with this very idea- and frankly, I do not know that I am right! That said, I would be willing to die for what I believe.
The difficulty is that, we have to make a decision one way or another. Faith is a virtue, not an emotion, subject to our circumstances. That means that by its very nature, Faith is , at least in part, a choice. (It is also a gift, but that's another discussion!)
There is a sense that we should not commit to any one thing being true until we are absolutely certain that it is. The difficulty is, that I think absolutel certainty is impossible- therefore, adopting this philosophy we will live and act as though nothing were true!
We do have to make a choice at some point. Supposing there was a group of people lost in the woods. Each had their own idea of which way was the way, or the best way, out. No one knew for certain. For our analogy, let's suppose that no one was looking for them. The idea that they ought to just sit tight and wait for the way out to become aparent is a mistake. They will die lost. However, if they can apply their reason, determine which idea is most likely true, and follow it- that's probably their best chance.
Here the reasone why I think Catholocism is the most likely thing to be true, thus I choose to believe it and act accoridngly.
1. Miracles: There are some miracles, notably Our Lady of Guadalupe and the miracle at Lanciano, that I do not know what to do with unless I believe that they are true. They only other possibility in my mind is that they are very elaborate and well done hoaxes. (I will not humor the notion, espoused by Richard Dawkins, that the molecules just happened to rearrange themselves in the shroud just such that an image appears there, and all the other anomolies...). The difficulty is, supposing 500 years ago, Juan Diego thought he should decieve people into Catholocism by painting a picture on his robe... how is it that the illusion continues to persist and amaze under scientific scrutiny some 500 years later? Either the Catholic faith is true, or it is deliberately and continually deceptive. Either divine or diabolical.
I have also had personal 'miracles', but we'll leave those where they are for now, since they cannot undergo any scientific or objective scrutiny.
2. Logic. I suspect that if there is a spiritual reality, which by its very nature cannot be percieved by science, than either we would have to guess at it, or it would have to be revealed. Guessing would have no assurance whatsoever, so this leaves revelation.
Here's the difficulty with that. If truth is revealed, then it would have to be revealed by a good and personal God. (An impersonal God would not bother to reveal truth, and a God that is not good may not tell the truth). This immediately eliminates all the Eastern religions, Buddhism or hinduism, for example, which do not hold that there is a good and personal God who would revel 'himself' to us.
The western religions, including Christianity (and the sects- Jehovahs witnesses, Mormons, etc), Islam and Judaism. I will not here get into how Christianity fulfills Judaism,but there is remarkable evidence for that. I would argue however that Christianity- which holds that God is not only good and personal, but moreover is love, which may be said to be a perfection of those qualities- In Christianity, God by His nature suddenly wants to know us, and thus to reveal Himself to us. These ideas are ludicrous to Islam, which holds it as nothing short of blasphemy that Christians refer to God as Father.
So if the only way we could know truth is if God was good and personal, does it follow that the most good and personal God, ie, that of Christianity must necessarily be the right one? I guess not- it's not water tight, but it seems extremely likely to me!
Lastly, within Christianity. Supposing it really mattered to God that we know the truth, and moreover that we are united. (Jesus certainly indicated that this was important.) Either one of 2 things would make this happen. Either God would reveal Himself, and thus truth, to every honest and discerning person who sought Him, and thus all Christians would come to the same conclusions. I think history has demonstrated that this has not happened. The second option is that Christ would make a church infallible- that is, give it His assurance that it would never be wrong. Again, we can see if by history this has happened.
So far as I know, there are only 2 churches making that claim- Catholics and, to some lesser degree, Mormons. As to Mormons, they have also to claim that for several centuries this protection was lifted, and so there was no assurance of truth, and it was only recently restored.
I guess the question is, which Church has never contradicted itself on matters of faith and morals? It should be so remarkably easy to demonstrate that Catholocism has done this... unless it hasn't.
So, the long way around, it comes to this. I do not 'know' the truth, in the scientific, objective sense. I do know my experiences, but those don't weigh much objectively against the experiences of countless others who disgree with me. But in light of history and logic, I have made a decision, and hope to grow in the virtue of faith by living by that decision.
Considering that people all over the world believe different things, and believe them strongly, how do you know that what you believe is right?
Answer
I often wrestle with this very idea- and frankly, I do not know that I am right! That said, I would be willing to die for what I believe.
The difficulty is that, we have to make a decision one way or another. Faith is a virtue, not an emotion, subject to our circumstances. That means that by its very nature, Faith is , at least in part, a choice. (It is also a gift, but that's another discussion!)
There is a sense that we should not commit to any one thing being true until we are absolutely certain that it is. The difficulty is, that I think absolutel certainty is impossible- therefore, adopting this philosophy we will live and act as though nothing were true!
We do have to make a choice at some point. Supposing there was a group of people lost in the woods. Each had their own idea of which way was the way, or the best way, out. No one knew for certain. For our analogy, let's suppose that no one was looking for them. The idea that they ought to just sit tight and wait for the way out to become aparent is a mistake. They will die lost. However, if they can apply their reason, determine which idea is most likely true, and follow it- that's probably their best chance.
Here the reasone why I think Catholocism is the most likely thing to be true, thus I choose to believe it and act accoridngly.
1. Miracles: There are some miracles, notably Our Lady of Guadalupe and the miracle at Lanciano, that I do not know what to do with unless I believe that they are true. They only other possibility in my mind is that they are very elaborate and well done hoaxes. (I will not humor the notion, espoused by Richard Dawkins, that the molecules just happened to rearrange themselves in the shroud just such that an image appears there, and all the other anomolies...). The difficulty is, supposing 500 years ago, Juan Diego thought he should decieve people into Catholocism by painting a picture on his robe... how is it that the illusion continues to persist and amaze under scientific scrutiny some 500 years later? Either the Catholic faith is true, or it is deliberately and continually deceptive. Either divine or diabolical.
I have also had personal 'miracles', but we'll leave those where they are for now, since they cannot undergo any scientific or objective scrutiny.
2. Logic. I suspect that if there is a spiritual reality, which by its very nature cannot be percieved by science, than either we would have to guess at it, or it would have to be revealed. Guessing would have no assurance whatsoever, so this leaves revelation.
Here's the difficulty with that. If truth is revealed, then it would have to be revealed by a good and personal God. (An impersonal God would not bother to reveal truth, and a God that is not good may not tell the truth). This immediately eliminates all the Eastern religions, Buddhism or hinduism, for example, which do not hold that there is a good and personal God who would revel 'himself' to us.
The western religions, including Christianity (and the sects- Jehovahs witnesses, Mormons, etc), Islam and Judaism. I will not here get into how Christianity fulfills Judaism,but there is remarkable evidence for that. I would argue however that Christianity- which holds that God is not only good and personal, but moreover is love, which may be said to be a perfection of those qualities- In Christianity, God by His nature suddenly wants to know us, and thus to reveal Himself to us. These ideas are ludicrous to Islam, which holds it as nothing short of blasphemy that Christians refer to God as Father.
So if the only way we could know truth is if God was good and personal, does it follow that the most good and personal God, ie, that of Christianity must necessarily be the right one? I guess not- it's not water tight, but it seems extremely likely to me!
Lastly, within Christianity. Supposing it really mattered to God that we know the truth, and moreover that we are united. (Jesus certainly indicated that this was important.) Either one of 2 things would make this happen. Either God would reveal Himself, and thus truth, to every honest and discerning person who sought Him, and thus all Christians would come to the same conclusions. I think history has demonstrated that this has not happened. The second option is that Christ would make a church infallible- that is, give it His assurance that it would never be wrong. Again, we can see if by history this has happened.
So far as I know, there are only 2 churches making that claim- Catholics and, to some lesser degree, Mormons. As to Mormons, they have also to claim that for several centuries this protection was lifted, and so there was no assurance of truth, and it was only recently restored.
I guess the question is, which Church has never contradicted itself on matters of faith and morals? It should be so remarkably easy to demonstrate that Catholocism has done this... unless it hasn't.
So, the long way around, it comes to this. I do not 'know' the truth, in the scientific, objective sense. I do know my experiences, but those don't weigh much objectively against the experiences of countless others who disgree with me. But in light of history and logic, I have made a decision, and hope to grow in the virtue of faith by living by that decision.
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
I am a girl, with a girlfriend. Does God still Love me?
The thing about homosexuality, when it comes to sex, is that it is not perfectly chaste. This is because sex is supposed to be at least open to children. Since homosexual sex cannot possibly create children, it likewise cannot possibly be chaste. That being said, niether is sex before marriage, since it is not commited. Or sex within marriage using contraception. Or so on and so forth. Any kind of sex that is not part of a loving, commited relationship, or open to life, is sinful. (It gets pretty technical beyond that.... like a man and woman in marriage can have oral sex, but the act must end in intercourse, so that the act is open to life...etc.)
That said... Gods love is unconditional- period. Having a girlfriend does not affect the degree to which God loves you. But I would suggest to you that it is a sinful practice. (I say suggest, because the Church does not teach extensively on dating, or really at all, leaving alot of it open to interpretation.)
So I will tell you my opinion. Any sexual act outside of marraige would be sin- whether hetero or homosexual. Marriage to another woman is impossible. Obviously there is legal marriage, but it is not sacramental. If you get married legally, but not in the Church, than as far as the Church is concerned, it is still 'extramarital'. Our culture does not readily understand this... they think everyone should simply be permitted to do what they want.
But the Church has 7 sacraments, each of which celebrates something Holy. Heterosexual sex actually consumates the marriage, which is part of the reason that it is kept for marriage. It is Holy, and is in fact part of the sacrament.
Since homosexual sex has always been regarded, in scripture and in Church tradition as a sin, what our culture is asking the Church to do is to say "Something that was once sinful is now Holy." This is a blatant contradiction, and the Church claims to be infallible- which means it can never be wrong. If it can never be wrong, or even if it makes the claim, this means it can never contradict itself. If it did, then you would know that it was full of it, and frankly why would you have to believe anything else it said?
The purpose of dating is to lead to marriage- so dating another girl means setting her up to be broken up with. Or deliberately planning to one day live in sin- which would actually be sinful now. What you are doing then is choosing to put her before God.
This is an incredibly difficult thing, and I have no doubt that your feelings are deep and real, if you say they are. However, the longer you are with her, the deeper the feelings will become.
No one knows what exactly 'causes' homosexuality. In fact, it is something that people cannot even speak openly about. If a psychologist, say, proposed a theory about it, other than 'they were born that way', he could be labelled homophobic, and ostracized from his community. In fact the gay movement has effectively used the word homophobic to make sincere dialogue on the issue impossible. Since I published this response on my blog, people may accuse me of homophobia and hate mongering.... that is the degree to which the discussion has been killed.
I like to say that I am not a homophobic, since I do not fear homosexuals, neither do I hate them, neither am I suspicious of people of being homosexual when they are not. People who like to label people like me homophobic in fact show those symptoms towards me- thus I would say that they are homophobophobic.
Be that as it may, homosexuality is like anything else- the deeper you go, the deeper it gets. I do believe that, though you would have a very hard struggle, that it is not impossible for you to leave this relationship, and future relationships with girls. The gay movement will tell you to 'come out', and essentially identify yourself as gay, and act as though this attraction is what defines you. Take your identity in Christ and nothing else!
Consider, I also have attractions to women- besides my wife, even! I sometimes may be in a situation where, nothing sexual is happening, but I know that I am fostering a relationship with a woman. So, because of my state in life, I also have to choose not to allow those attractions to develop. Celibate men and women are evidence of something that our sex crazed culture cannot accept- that it is possible to live a celibate life!
So what's the deal then? Yes, God loves you, as much as anyone else, and more than anyone else will ever love you. But you do have a difficult road ahead of you, especially in the short run. You do need to choose between God and your girlfriend. I will pray for you that you have the grace to make the right choice.
That said... Gods love is unconditional- period. Having a girlfriend does not affect the degree to which God loves you. But I would suggest to you that it is a sinful practice. (I say suggest, because the Church does not teach extensively on dating, or really at all, leaving alot of it open to interpretation.)
So I will tell you my opinion. Any sexual act outside of marraige would be sin- whether hetero or homosexual. Marriage to another woman is impossible. Obviously there is legal marriage, but it is not sacramental. If you get married legally, but not in the Church, than as far as the Church is concerned, it is still 'extramarital'. Our culture does not readily understand this... they think everyone should simply be permitted to do what they want.
But the Church has 7 sacraments, each of which celebrates something Holy. Heterosexual sex actually consumates the marriage, which is part of the reason that it is kept for marriage. It is Holy, and is in fact part of the sacrament.
Since homosexual sex has always been regarded, in scripture and in Church tradition as a sin, what our culture is asking the Church to do is to say "Something that was once sinful is now Holy." This is a blatant contradiction, and the Church claims to be infallible- which means it can never be wrong. If it can never be wrong, or even if it makes the claim, this means it can never contradict itself. If it did, then you would know that it was full of it, and frankly why would you have to believe anything else it said?
The purpose of dating is to lead to marriage- so dating another girl means setting her up to be broken up with. Or deliberately planning to one day live in sin- which would actually be sinful now. What you are doing then is choosing to put her before God.
This is an incredibly difficult thing, and I have no doubt that your feelings are deep and real, if you say they are. However, the longer you are with her, the deeper the feelings will become.
No one knows what exactly 'causes' homosexuality. In fact, it is something that people cannot even speak openly about. If a psychologist, say, proposed a theory about it, other than 'they were born that way', he could be labelled homophobic, and ostracized from his community. In fact the gay movement has effectively used the word homophobic to make sincere dialogue on the issue impossible. Since I published this response on my blog, people may accuse me of homophobia and hate mongering.... that is the degree to which the discussion has been killed.
I like to say that I am not a homophobic, since I do not fear homosexuals, neither do I hate them, neither am I suspicious of people of being homosexual when they are not. People who like to label people like me homophobic in fact show those symptoms towards me- thus I would say that they are homophobophobic.
Be that as it may, homosexuality is like anything else- the deeper you go, the deeper it gets. I do believe that, though you would have a very hard struggle, that it is not impossible for you to leave this relationship, and future relationships with girls. The gay movement will tell you to 'come out', and essentially identify yourself as gay, and act as though this attraction is what defines you. Take your identity in Christ and nothing else!
Consider, I also have attractions to women- besides my wife, even! I sometimes may be in a situation where, nothing sexual is happening, but I know that I am fostering a relationship with a woman. So, because of my state in life, I also have to choose not to allow those attractions to develop. Celibate men and women are evidence of something that our sex crazed culture cannot accept- that it is possible to live a celibate life!
So what's the deal then? Yes, God loves you, as much as anyone else, and more than anyone else will ever love you. But you do have a difficult road ahead of you, especially in the short run. You do need to choose between God and your girlfriend. I will pray for you that you have the grace to make the right choice.
God loves you whether you're dating or not, right?
QuestionGod loves you whether you're dating or not, right?
Answer I think you know already that Gods love is unconditional. This means that no matter what, he loves you. Even if you're Hitler- which I hope you're not.
Dating is also not a sin, as far as I know. I should tell you that I generelly advise against it for teenagers... dating is supposed to prepare you for marriage. But when you're a teenager, more likely than not, the relationship will end in a breakup. So, something that is supposed to train you for life long commitment instead trains you for divorce, because dating couples think that as long as they are excited about each other, they should stay together, but if the novelty wears off, or they start getting annoyed with each other, or one of them gets excited about someone else.... then they should break up. Alot of people get divorces for these same stupid reasons.
That said, if you are in a relationship, use it ot train you how to love. Just don't think of it in selfish terms!
But alot of teens also feel that their value is somehow hinged in how attractive they are to the opposite sex. So if they don't or have never had a boyfriend or girlfriend.... they think they are less attractive, thus less lovable, less valuable, etc. That is a lie! You should know that men actually find women more attractive if they date less. For example, Catherine never dated anyone before dating me. But she is very beautiful- and in her case, it was not for lack of opportunity. The fact that she said 'no' to other guys spoke to her fine quality in my mind!
But your value should never be hinged in some external thing. People take their identity in all kinds of things- popularity, sports, intelligence, faith, wealth, jobs, etc. You should try to take your identity in Christ, which means this....
If you wonder how good you are, or how beautiful, or any number of like questions, ask Christ. If you don't hear Him answer, try to guess which answer He would give. Jesus is truth, so He cannot lie. The fact that we can guess what He would say indicates that we actually already know the truth- but people and our culture lie to us so much, and we repeat those lies to ourselves so much, that sometimes the truth gets drowned out by lies. Choose to speak and believe the truth!
Answer I think you know already that Gods love is unconditional. This means that no matter what, he loves you. Even if you're Hitler- which I hope you're not.
Dating is also not a sin, as far as I know. I should tell you that I generelly advise against it for teenagers... dating is supposed to prepare you for marriage. But when you're a teenager, more likely than not, the relationship will end in a breakup. So, something that is supposed to train you for life long commitment instead trains you for divorce, because dating couples think that as long as they are excited about each other, they should stay together, but if the novelty wears off, or they start getting annoyed with each other, or one of them gets excited about someone else.... then they should break up. Alot of people get divorces for these same stupid reasons.
That said, if you are in a relationship, use it ot train you how to love. Just don't think of it in selfish terms!
But alot of teens also feel that their value is somehow hinged in how attractive they are to the opposite sex. So if they don't or have never had a boyfriend or girlfriend.... they think they are less attractive, thus less lovable, less valuable, etc. That is a lie! You should know that men actually find women more attractive if they date less. For example, Catherine never dated anyone before dating me. But she is very beautiful- and in her case, it was not for lack of opportunity. The fact that she said 'no' to other guys spoke to her fine quality in my mind!
But your value should never be hinged in some external thing. People take their identity in all kinds of things- popularity, sports, intelligence, faith, wealth, jobs, etc. You should try to take your identity in Christ, which means this....
If you wonder how good you are, or how beautiful, or any number of like questions, ask Christ. If you don't hear Him answer, try to guess which answer He would give. Jesus is truth, so He cannot lie. The fact that we can guess what He would say indicates that we actually already know the truth- but people and our culture lie to us so much, and we repeat those lies to ourselves so much, that sometimes the truth gets drowned out by lies. Choose to speak and believe the truth!
How do we persuade people to love God?
QuestionI beleieve that love is more a matter of will than feelings. So how does one convince another to fall in love? You can set two people up on a date based on similar interests but how do you actually persuade them to love each other...particularly when you think it should be easy if it is simply a choice.
How do you see our role as Christians being carried out in evangelization without being "salesmen" for Christ?
Answer
I once made the mistake of thinking that if Love is a choice, than I should reasonably be able to choose who I would fall in love with. I noticed that if I had an interest in a girl, and it was not reciprocated, I could pretty easily get over it. (Looking back, that's probably because I had not invested enough emotionally in the first place....)
So one day, a fairly attractive, Christ seeking woman began pursueing me. I was not interested. Women like to know the reason why, and I think that if I were to offer a reason, it would be jusdging her or based on my pride, and I knew that. She sincerely desired holiness and loved God, and I did find her objectively attractive, so I decided to make a go of it, and choose to love her.
It was an utter disaster. Now I think that there is an element of love, I call it 'spark', which has no rational, and is not really subject to the will (though you can choose to be romantic...) but is kind of- supernatural. I still think the will is very highly involved- even being married now, I can choose to dwell on my wifes faults, or I can focus on her virtues. You can imagine which one will fan the spark into a flame, and which one will smother it and put it out. But the spark itself has to be there.
This causes problems for loving God, if you follow the analogy all the way through. But this is actually a theological question for me anyway. The Bible says "You did not choose me, but I chose you." So how can we choose Christ anyway? This is actually a massive debate among Christians, and the churches teaching on the matter is unclear to me. But I think that it can basically come down to the same thing as with my wife- did I choose her, or did she choose me? We both choose.
I think that if we want people to want Chrsitianity, if we are going to effectively evangelize, we have to do it as lovers, not as salespeople. You can't sell Christianity. You can only tell people how wonderful Christ is and how glad you are to be in love with Him, and hope other people will eventually fall in love with Him too. I already do that with my wife- tell people how wonderful she is, and hope people will love her. (but not as much as I do!)
As a youth coordinator, I kind of 'set people up on dates', if you will, with God- set the environment, create the occaision, then sit back and hope that they meet God themselves.
How do you see our role as Christians being carried out in evangelization without being "salesmen" for Christ?
Answer
I once made the mistake of thinking that if Love is a choice, than I should reasonably be able to choose who I would fall in love with. I noticed that if I had an interest in a girl, and it was not reciprocated, I could pretty easily get over it. (Looking back, that's probably because I had not invested enough emotionally in the first place....)
So one day, a fairly attractive, Christ seeking woman began pursueing me. I was not interested. Women like to know the reason why, and I think that if I were to offer a reason, it would be jusdging her or based on my pride, and I knew that. She sincerely desired holiness and loved God, and I did find her objectively attractive, so I decided to make a go of it, and choose to love her.
It was an utter disaster. Now I think that there is an element of love, I call it 'spark', which has no rational, and is not really subject to the will (though you can choose to be romantic...) but is kind of- supernatural. I still think the will is very highly involved- even being married now, I can choose to dwell on my wifes faults, or I can focus on her virtues. You can imagine which one will fan the spark into a flame, and which one will smother it and put it out. But the spark itself has to be there.
This causes problems for loving God, if you follow the analogy all the way through. But this is actually a theological question for me anyway. The Bible says "You did not choose me, but I chose you." So how can we choose Christ anyway? This is actually a massive debate among Christians, and the churches teaching on the matter is unclear to me. But I think that it can basically come down to the same thing as with my wife- did I choose her, or did she choose me? We both choose.
I think that if we want people to want Chrsitianity, if we are going to effectively evangelize, we have to do it as lovers, not as salespeople. You can't sell Christianity. You can only tell people how wonderful Christ is and how glad you are to be in love with Him, and hope other people will eventually fall in love with Him too. I already do that with my wife- tell people how wonderful she is, and hope people will love her. (but not as much as I do!)
As a youth coordinator, I kind of 'set people up on dates', if you will, with God- set the environment, create the occaision, then sit back and hope that they meet God themselves.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)