Question
In grade 12 bio class we talked about contraception and birth control. NFP is the only form of this that is in line with the Catholic Church, which originally made sense. But then we were told that the failure rate was almost 20%, meaning that if 100 families use NFP for a year 20 will end up with a pregnancy. That caught me by surprise, because that sure doesn't seem like a very practical way for families who can't afford to have another child to keep themselves out of that situation, especially because the success rate for families trying to get pregnant is only about 25%. It seems like at that point, its no longer just a chance thing where God is saying "no just trust me and do this, there's a reason why its happening", but more so a given and almost expected. Someone brought up Andrew Greeley, because he was one who said that they Church should change its policies that were created back before population control was an issue, and if he'd stopped there I'd almost be able to see where he's coming from. It just seems like the Church isn't really giving people a practical option.... unless I've been misinformed somehow?
Answer
The 20% stat is inaccurate. According to a recent study by the Chinese gov, a group that is definitely pro population control and definitely opposed to the Catholic Church, the Billings method of NFP had a failure rate at 0.5%, as opposed to IUD's which had a 2% failure rate. http://www.woomb.org/omrrca/bulletin/vol27/no4/chinaEvaluation.html
I've seen other studies that indicate that the failure rate for condoms over the course of a year is 16%. (Only 2% if it is a brand new condom and used perfectly, but that is not the conditions most people use it in!)
The problem with NFP is that it incorporates a number of methods, including the long discredited rhythm method. The rhythm method assumed that women have a 28 day cycle, and so based on that assumption, couples would abstain from sex about 14 days after the woman's period. Decent logic, but deeply flawed because many (if not most) women have irregular cycles. So the failure rate with that method was quite high!
Educated people know that there are more advanced methods, and if you took an NFP course in Catholic Circles today it would almost certainly be Billings or Serena- no one teaches the rhythm method! Billings and Serena require the woman to chart when their period happens, and pay attention to biological factors like temperature, and the viscosity of their mucus, etc. (Maybe not something you want to bring up in grade 12 bio, but anyway...) These biological indicators are very strong indicators of whether a woman is fertile or not!
Like condom use, the failure rate may be higher due to human error... or lack of will power! It is true that a woman's sex drive is most powerful when she is fertile- that she will enjoy sex most- and that she sends of pheromones which make her more sexually attractive. And that the more she enjoys sex (if she climaxes) the likelihood of pregnancy is increased. I would argue though that all of this seems to indicate a reality- That God wants sex to be enjoyable, and wants it to be open to life! If the best sex is the most likely to result in babies... seems logical to me!
The thing is, once you are practicing NFP, and you have the urge to have sex, each time you want to have sex you have to ask yourself "Is she fertile?" and "do we want a baby right now?". You may have to discipline yourself and say no, but it will also shift your interior attitude to make you more open to life! Catholicism is not about a whole bunch of external rules, though people always try to reduce us to that. It is about an interior conversion. All of the rules should reflect an interior reality.
For Catholics, sex is an act of love that is open to life. So every sexual act should be loving and open to life. And Catholics definitely believe that self control should be used in sexuality! The assumption of our culture is that sex is primarily for pleasure (they may not say so, but you will notice that this is true) and that all of life is about pleasure, and so, why should people who are married ever abstain from sex? Thus all the forms of birth control, etc. It should be noted too that the legalization of the Pill in the 1960's was the catalyst for the sexual revolution, which resulted in the rise of divorce (which resulted in the breakdown of the family and the rise of crime and poverty), the rise of STDs (STIs), the porn industry, homosexuality, and a host of perversions and fetishes. Even the Catholic Church fell victim to this shift, as the vast majority of priests implicated in the sex abuse scandals committed their misdeeds at the height of the sexual revolution, when an attitude that sex for pleasure was the dominant cultural attitude.
Sigmund Freud once said something to the effect that separation of sex from procreation is the most basic of perversions. I don't like much of what he said, but I think he nailed it there. Chesterton actually predicted the sexual revolution as most of it's outcomes as early as the 1930's, when the Anglican Church reversed their policies on Birth Control. Until then all Christians were opposed to Birth Control!
This brings me to yet another tangent. If Catholics were to, like many other religions, change their standpoint on Birth Control, this would indicate that the Church could reverse their standpoint on other moral issues, which would indicate that she might be wrong, in which case morals would be reduced to everybodies best guess. The Church would not longer have any moral authority. Interestingly, the Church has never changed any of it's morals on anything!
To criticize the Church's teaching on contraception is somewhat like saying "The Catholic Church thinks that if you want to maintain a healthy body, you should eat well and exercise, but they are opposed to bulimia." Instead of indulging yourself but making sure that you don't get the things that the good thing you're indulging in was intended for, you practice discipline, and only indulge in measured ways which result in the desired end. Neither sex nor food are intended for pleasure alone, and the Church never condones self indulgence the way our culture does. Our culture is so steeped in hedonism that any number of church teachings, from sexual morality to fasting, are completely counter intuitive. We need to recognize that we are not created to maximize our own pleasure, but rather we are created for love, and within that context if you ask the question what is more loving? To have sex to satisfy your desire but deny the possibility of children, or to discipline yourself and develop and attitude that every sexual act is a full gift to the other and is open to life? Catholic logic plays out beautifully!
I think when people debate the Catholic rules of morality, they need to look at the underlying assumptions. Since we do not agree with our culture that the purpose of life is to have pleasure and get stuff.... we end up drawing all kinds of different conclusions!
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.
Showing posts with label authority of the Church. Show all posts
Showing posts with label authority of the Church. Show all posts
Tuesday, April 3, 2012
Tuesday, December 6, 2011
Question: Is it a sin to masturbate?
AnswerThe short answer is "yes". Here's the long answer!
There's a pretty simple way to figure out if a sexual thing is regarded as sinful or not in the Catholic Church.
Sex is supposed to be open to life (make babies) and be a sign of love. By Love here we mean committed, lifelong love- not just some potentially fleeting emotion. So in other words, married love. the pleasure is a bonus- it's good, and within moral sex trying to maximize pleasure is good, but you can't have it without the other 2 things!
If either of those elements are missing, then the sex is considered immoral. So for example, premarital sex is immoral because it lacks the sacramental commitment. Birth control is immoral because it closes the sexual act from the possibility of making life. Masturbation is immoral because it is neither loving nor is it open to life.
Typically when someone masturbates, they are imagining a woman, or looking at porn, or something like that. What happens is that something that is supposed to make you more loving to the opposite sex makes you more selfish instead. Studies show that guys who look at porn treat women worse than guys who don't. When you masturbate, you are hard wiring your brain to use women for your pleasure- and this hard wiring can take years to undo, even after you are married and trying to be pure! That's cause your brain teaches itself how to get pleasure, and literally lays down the paths, and creates habits. So there are married men who can't have pure sex with their wives, but need to look at porn to get turned on first!
The rush of pleasure you feel when checking out a woman is a hormone called Epinephrine. Epinephrine is good, because after the rush there is stress relief, and because again it hard wires your brain to think that whatever you are looking at is the most beautiful. So in married life you would find your wife more and more attractive! but if you look at porn, you will compare your wife more and more with porn stars, and thus find her less and less attractive.
But like other drugs, Epinephrine is subject to the 'law of diminishing effects'- in other words, you need bigger and bigger doses to have the same outcome! So a guy looks at soft porn- say "Maxim magazine"- and gets a small high. Eventually Maxim is not good enough, he needs playboy or some Internet video or something. And he gets addicted, because he gets this rush and stress relief, and learns to cope through self indulgence!
Moral of the story? Just like you should not do any drugs, because they draw you in deeper and you may eventually get addicted, so you shouldn't masturbate or look at any porn because it draws you in. Porn addictions are one of the number one causes of divorce!
Something I should add to this- put homosexuality into the equation of moral sex. Even if it is a sign of committed love (it cannot be part of sacramental marriage, but let's assume for a minute...) Homosexual sex is by it's nature not open to life. Therefore it is intrinsically (by it's nature) sinful. This is why homosexual marriage is impossible for Catholics. Marriage is a sacrament, and sex is a sacramental- it is part of the sacrament. If Catholics allowed for homosexual marriage they would be taking something that is intrinsically sinful and calling it 'holy'. That would be sacrilege! It would be like saying that looking at pornography was part of the sacrament! And the Church cannot change her teaching on homosexuality, any more than it can change it's teaching on any other matter of faith and morals. After all, if it could, what authority would it have? When everyone else changes their mind, the Church remains consistent.
However, some people take this as a sign of hatred from Catholics to Gays. This is not the case- Catholics must fight genuine homophobia. (Although labelling every viewpoint contrary to that of the homosexual community homophobia is, I would say, homophobophobia...) Catholics do not 'hate' gays any more than they 'hate' heterosexual unmarried people, or married people using contraceptives, and Catholics who are divorced but not annulled.
AnswerThe short answer is "yes". Here's the long answer!
There's a pretty simple way to figure out if a sexual thing is regarded as sinful or not in the Catholic Church.
Sex is supposed to be open to life (make babies) and be a sign of love. By Love here we mean committed, lifelong love- not just some potentially fleeting emotion. So in other words, married love. the pleasure is a bonus- it's good, and within moral sex trying to maximize pleasure is good, but you can't have it without the other 2 things!
If either of those elements are missing, then the sex is considered immoral. So for example, premarital sex is immoral because it lacks the sacramental commitment. Birth control is immoral because it closes the sexual act from the possibility of making life. Masturbation is immoral because it is neither loving nor is it open to life.
Typically when someone masturbates, they are imagining a woman, or looking at porn, or something like that. What happens is that something that is supposed to make you more loving to the opposite sex makes you more selfish instead. Studies show that guys who look at porn treat women worse than guys who don't. When you masturbate, you are hard wiring your brain to use women for your pleasure- and this hard wiring can take years to undo, even after you are married and trying to be pure! That's cause your brain teaches itself how to get pleasure, and literally lays down the paths, and creates habits. So there are married men who can't have pure sex with their wives, but need to look at porn to get turned on first!
The rush of pleasure you feel when checking out a woman is a hormone called Epinephrine. Epinephrine is good, because after the rush there is stress relief, and because again it hard wires your brain to think that whatever you are looking at is the most beautiful. So in married life you would find your wife more and more attractive! but if you look at porn, you will compare your wife more and more with porn stars, and thus find her less and less attractive.
But like other drugs, Epinephrine is subject to the 'law of diminishing effects'- in other words, you need bigger and bigger doses to have the same outcome! So a guy looks at soft porn- say "Maxim magazine"- and gets a small high. Eventually Maxim is not good enough, he needs playboy or some Internet video or something. And he gets addicted, because he gets this rush and stress relief, and learns to cope through self indulgence!
Moral of the story? Just like you should not do any drugs, because they draw you in deeper and you may eventually get addicted, so you shouldn't masturbate or look at any porn because it draws you in. Porn addictions are one of the number one causes of divorce!
Something I should add to this- put homosexuality into the equation of moral sex. Even if it is a sign of committed love (it cannot be part of sacramental marriage, but let's assume for a minute...) Homosexual sex is by it's nature not open to life. Therefore it is intrinsically (by it's nature) sinful. This is why homosexual marriage is impossible for Catholics. Marriage is a sacrament, and sex is a sacramental- it is part of the sacrament. If Catholics allowed for homosexual marriage they would be taking something that is intrinsically sinful and calling it 'holy'. That would be sacrilege! It would be like saying that looking at pornography was part of the sacrament! And the Church cannot change her teaching on homosexuality, any more than it can change it's teaching on any other matter of faith and morals. After all, if it could, what authority would it have? When everyone else changes their mind, the Church remains consistent.
However, some people take this as a sign of hatred from Catholics to Gays. This is not the case- Catholics must fight genuine homophobia. (Although labelling every viewpoint contrary to that of the homosexual community homophobia is, I would say, homophobophobia...) Catholics do not 'hate' gays any more than they 'hate' heterosexual unmarried people, or married people using contraceptives, and Catholics who are divorced but not annulled.
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
I'm a Wiccan. What do you think?
The thing that keeps me going back to Christianity is two fold. One, the firm conviction that Jesus really did rise from the dead. I think the historical evidence for this is fairly difficult to refute, from eyewitness testimonies to physical evidence like the shroud of turin, to the fact that there was no evidence to the contrary, that is, no corpse of Christ which could be presented to say "no he didn't", even though there were a lot of people denying it even at that time. And the testimonies are written in a very historical form, shortly after the events. They do not have the mythic elements you would expect if someone were making this up.
The other reason is because of the teaching authority. I do not believe that people could guess at spiritual truths with any hope of accuracy. I think the only way we could be right is if God revealed Himself to us, and ensured that we could not go wrong. The reason there are so many religions in the world is precisely because there are so many people attempting to guess at truth. But in order for God to reveal the truth, there would first have to be a god who cares about us enough to do so. Interestingly, only the monotheistic religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam) even claim to have been revealed. Everyone else- Hindus, Native Spritualists, Wicca, etc- are just guessing.
That said, it would be pretty ignorant to declare Christianity true and all others false without demonstrating that it is. But if I could convincingly demonstrate that Christianity were true and nothing else was, I would be a remarkably gifted man. I don't think I can do that to most peoples satisfaction, even my own. But I have convinced myself that it is the most likely thing to be true, and have thus chosen to believe it.
So starting from the basis of Christianity being true, there are many things about Wicca that I think are not only wrong, but dangerous. For one, Wicca does not appear to have any real moral base, asside from "an it harm none, do what ye will". This sounds great, but it begs the question when it comes to issues like abortion, just war, divorce, pornography, self indulgence, accumulation of wealth, infidelity etc. It does not define the sanctity of life or love or sex, or our social obligations to one another. I think there is a higher morality. There is objective good and objective evil, not just 'positive and negative'.
Secondly, Christianity affirms that there is one God, and we should worship no others. The majority of Wiccans worship at least 2 gods, niether of which can easily be said to be the one God that Christians worship. The problem is that if Christianity is real, and there is only one God that we must worship, but Wiccans worship 'gods' who are not figments of their imagination, then who are the gods? In the Old Testament, idols were either just madeup, or they were demons. This belief was still held in the New Testament and early church. In fact, the Greek god Pan, with goat legs and horns, became the image for Satan. I notice that though most Wiccans would not like to say that they worship Satan, as they do not really believe in an evil being like Satan, they do worship a horned God, someimes called Pan. As for Goddess worship, this was considered a very dangerous cult in the Old Testament. So what if Christianity is true, but so is Wicca? The implication is that Wiccans are worshiping demons, and not the true God.
The last thing is the use of magick. Fortune telling, contacting the dead, etc, were expressly forbidden in the Old Testament. There is actually a witch in the OT, called the witch of Endor, who contacts the dead. In the New Testament there is a magician, known to history as Simon Magus, who could also be said to be a witch, as it does not appear that he was merely an illusionist. Simon, when he saw the power that the apostles had in the name of the Holy Spirit, attempted to purchase the power. He did not understand that you cannot purchase the Holy Spirit, and as a result to this day the purchase of holy or blessed objects is known as the sin of simony.
Anyway, Christianity does not say that magic does not exist, but that it is forbidden. There is power, but God has not granted us the authority to use it. A couple of years ago, I had the opportunity to travel to Kenya with Renewal Ministries on a mission. The leader of our group, Peter Thompson, had previosuly been on a mission where he prayed for a woman who had gone to a witch doctor who had done magic on her. The woman had remarkable demonic manifestations. You can see his testimony here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWkvjniU6jM.
There are countless other stories where demons get involved because people get involved in occult practices. (I think it is interesting that in the Salem Witch trials, which I by no means condone, the girls who started it all had been involved in fortune telling, and suddenly began manifesting demonic activity, which triggered the whole thing).
The question I think you need to ask is this. Did Jesus really rise from the dead? If so, what does that imply about his teaching? If he is God, and God has forbidden the worship of other gods and the use of magic, then do we dare to do what he has forbidden?
The other reason is because of the teaching authority. I do not believe that people could guess at spiritual truths with any hope of accuracy. I think the only way we could be right is if God revealed Himself to us, and ensured that we could not go wrong. The reason there are so many religions in the world is precisely because there are so many people attempting to guess at truth. But in order for God to reveal the truth, there would first have to be a god who cares about us enough to do so. Interestingly, only the monotheistic religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam) even claim to have been revealed. Everyone else- Hindus, Native Spritualists, Wicca, etc- are just guessing.
That said, it would be pretty ignorant to declare Christianity true and all others false without demonstrating that it is. But if I could convincingly demonstrate that Christianity were true and nothing else was, I would be a remarkably gifted man. I don't think I can do that to most peoples satisfaction, even my own. But I have convinced myself that it is the most likely thing to be true, and have thus chosen to believe it.
So starting from the basis of Christianity being true, there are many things about Wicca that I think are not only wrong, but dangerous. For one, Wicca does not appear to have any real moral base, asside from "an it harm none, do what ye will". This sounds great, but it begs the question when it comes to issues like abortion, just war, divorce, pornography, self indulgence, accumulation of wealth, infidelity etc. It does not define the sanctity of life or love or sex, or our social obligations to one another. I think there is a higher morality. There is objective good and objective evil, not just 'positive and negative'.
Secondly, Christianity affirms that there is one God, and we should worship no others. The majority of Wiccans worship at least 2 gods, niether of which can easily be said to be the one God that Christians worship. The problem is that if Christianity is real, and there is only one God that we must worship, but Wiccans worship 'gods' who are not figments of their imagination, then who are the gods? In the Old Testament, idols were either just madeup, or they were demons. This belief was still held in the New Testament and early church. In fact, the Greek god Pan, with goat legs and horns, became the image for Satan. I notice that though most Wiccans would not like to say that they worship Satan, as they do not really believe in an evil being like Satan, they do worship a horned God, someimes called Pan. As for Goddess worship, this was considered a very dangerous cult in the Old Testament. So what if Christianity is true, but so is Wicca? The implication is that Wiccans are worshiping demons, and not the true God.
The last thing is the use of magick. Fortune telling, contacting the dead, etc, were expressly forbidden in the Old Testament. There is actually a witch in the OT, called the witch of Endor, who contacts the dead. In the New Testament there is a magician, known to history as Simon Magus, who could also be said to be a witch, as it does not appear that he was merely an illusionist. Simon, when he saw the power that the apostles had in the name of the Holy Spirit, attempted to purchase the power. He did not understand that you cannot purchase the Holy Spirit, and as a result to this day the purchase of holy or blessed objects is known as the sin of simony.
Anyway, Christianity does not say that magic does not exist, but that it is forbidden. There is power, but God has not granted us the authority to use it. A couple of years ago, I had the opportunity to travel to Kenya with Renewal Ministries on a mission. The leader of our group, Peter Thompson, had previosuly been on a mission where he prayed for a woman who had gone to a witch doctor who had done magic on her. The woman had remarkable demonic manifestations. You can see his testimony here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWkvjniU6jM.
There are countless other stories where demons get involved because people get involved in occult practices. (I think it is interesting that in the Salem Witch trials, which I by no means condone, the girls who started it all had been involved in fortune telling, and suddenly began manifesting demonic activity, which triggered the whole thing).
The question I think you need to ask is this. Did Jesus really rise from the dead? If so, what does that imply about his teaching? If he is God, and God has forbidden the worship of other gods and the use of magic, then do we dare to do what he has forbidden?
Monday, May 16, 2011
Do we have to believe in the Devil?
Question
I was watching a re run of Criminal Minds and in it, they say that if you believe in God then you must believe in the devil. It is part of the Catholic teachings. We are taught that the devil was one of Gods closest angels but his intentions were in the wrong place. He tried to over through God but instead of coming out on top he was cast out of heaven and sent to hell. So therefore if you believe in God do you have to believe in the devil?
I do believe in the devil and that he really does exist but my guidance counselor at school who is also a nun doesn't. When I was in the darkest point of my depression I talked to her because I felt that I was being watched and followed by something evil and that I would occasionally hear voices talking to me and telling me to do bad things. Don't worry I no longer feel or hear anything evil around me. So while I was talking to our counselor she mentioned to me that she thought I might be I guess a little crazy. She then proceeded to tell me that she believes in God and the good but she doesn't believe in the devil and evil. Which strikes me as weird and almost wrong. But I could be wrong. She's a nun so she would obviously have to believe in God but I just think that she should have to believe in the devil. For me I think that you can choose to not acknowledge evil but still know that it exist.
Answer Yes, Catholics are supposed to believe in the Devil. The thing about Catholicism is that it is a whole package- if you believe that the Church has authority to teach, than you believe what it teaches. If you don't think it has authoity, than why be Catholic?
The Church leaves a lot of things open to debate- as in, she does not have a clear teaching on many things. But she is clear that there is such a thing as the Devil, and Demons. Many people do not want to believe in the Devil, or Hell, because those are so unplesant to think about. I have to be honest, if I could drop Hell from my set of beliefs, I would! But then the Church and the Bible would be wrong, so I would not know what to believe.
There are some people who don't belive the holocaust5 happened. And I think most people like to live their lives as if people today are not dying of starvation. But just because something is unpleasant to think about, does not mean it isn't real. Many times it means that we have to do something about it!
Many Catholics pick and choose what they want to believe, and hold their own opinion up as if it is higher than that of the Church. But the Church has taught the same stuff for 2000 years without contradiction, aparently because she is inspired by the Holy Spirit. I for one am glad that there is an authority out there, so I don't have to guess about everything. It's funny that people who know nothing about science will choose to trust a scientist, but people who know nothing about religion still think their ignorant opinion is more likely correct that the experts, the Church!
As for the voices you heard- on the one hand, demons are real, and possession is real. In face, almost every diocese still has an exorcist! But if you were to call an exorcist, he would first want to eliminate the psychological possibilities. Knock out schizophrenia first, then look at the spiritual. It can be potentially dangerous to start wondering if you are posessed. Interestingly, the Devil gets stronger power over us as a result of our fear and our fascination in him. It is much better to just keep going to God, and think about God instead!
I was watching a re run of Criminal Minds and in it, they say that if you believe in God then you must believe in the devil. It is part of the Catholic teachings. We are taught that the devil was one of Gods closest angels but his intentions were in the wrong place. He tried to over through God but instead of coming out on top he was cast out of heaven and sent to hell. So therefore if you believe in God do you have to believe in the devil?
I do believe in the devil and that he really does exist but my guidance counselor at school who is also a nun doesn't. When I was in the darkest point of my depression I talked to her because I felt that I was being watched and followed by something evil and that I would occasionally hear voices talking to me and telling me to do bad things. Don't worry I no longer feel or hear anything evil around me. So while I was talking to our counselor she mentioned to me that she thought I might be I guess a little crazy. She then proceeded to tell me that she believes in God and the good but she doesn't believe in the devil and evil. Which strikes me as weird and almost wrong. But I could be wrong. She's a nun so she would obviously have to believe in God but I just think that she should have to believe in the devil. For me I think that you can choose to not acknowledge evil but still know that it exist.
Answer Yes, Catholics are supposed to believe in the Devil. The thing about Catholicism is that it is a whole package- if you believe that the Church has authority to teach, than you believe what it teaches. If you don't think it has authoity, than why be Catholic?
The Church leaves a lot of things open to debate- as in, she does not have a clear teaching on many things. But she is clear that there is such a thing as the Devil, and Demons. Many people do not want to believe in the Devil, or Hell, because those are so unplesant to think about. I have to be honest, if I could drop Hell from my set of beliefs, I would! But then the Church and the Bible would be wrong, so I would not know what to believe.
There are some people who don't belive the holocaust5 happened. And I think most people like to live their lives as if people today are not dying of starvation. But just because something is unpleasant to think about, does not mean it isn't real. Many times it means that we have to do something about it!
Many Catholics pick and choose what they want to believe, and hold their own opinion up as if it is higher than that of the Church. But the Church has taught the same stuff for 2000 years without contradiction, aparently because she is inspired by the Holy Spirit. I for one am glad that there is an authority out there, so I don't have to guess about everything. It's funny that people who know nothing about science will choose to trust a scientist, but people who know nothing about religion still think their ignorant opinion is more likely correct that the experts, the Church!
As for the voices you heard- on the one hand, demons are real, and possession is real. In face, almost every diocese still has an exorcist! But if you were to call an exorcist, he would first want to eliminate the psychological possibilities. Knock out schizophrenia first, then look at the spiritual. It can be potentially dangerous to start wondering if you are posessed. Interestingly, the Devil gets stronger power over us as a result of our fear and our fascination in him. It is much better to just keep going to God, and think about God instead!
Thursday, December 9, 2010
Can the Church contradict it's own teaching?
Question The Church is protected by God from making an error in teaching and basic principles, but the people running it can still mess up, just as long as this mistake doesn't go against the teaching of the Church?
Answer The Church can still sin, even against it's own teaching. It just can't teach the wrong thing. This applies to matters of 'faith and morals'- ie:, things you can't prove by science or discover on your own, like "the trinity" and "abortion is wrong". But a pope could still be evil- he could even be a murderer! But if the Pope speaks with the authority of the Church, or if all the Bishops unite in a council, they can't teach the wrong thing. (An individual bishop, ior a Pope teaching just on his own, could make a mistake. It's like the disclaimer in my blog, that what I teach may be just my ideas, and not the teachings of the Church or even OLVC. That way if I make a mistake, no one can accuse the Church of being wrong!)
Suppose there was a Pope though who wanted to undermine Catholicism, for some reason. He says he's teaching with the full authority of the Church, and he says that the Eucharist is just a symbol. Theoretically, he would die before he could teach the thing- or go mute or something. In fact, aprantly rthere was a pope who wanted to teach error, and he died suddenly. There have evem been Popes who believed error- that Jesus was not God- but for some reason they never taught it!
Answer The Church can still sin, even against it's own teaching. It just can't teach the wrong thing. This applies to matters of 'faith and morals'- ie:, things you can't prove by science or discover on your own, like "the trinity" and "abortion is wrong". But a pope could still be evil- he could even be a murderer! But if the Pope speaks with the authority of the Church, or if all the Bishops unite in a council, they can't teach the wrong thing. (An individual bishop, ior a Pope teaching just on his own, could make a mistake. It's like the disclaimer in my blog, that what I teach may be just my ideas, and not the teachings of the Church or even OLVC. That way if I make a mistake, no one can accuse the Church of being wrong!)
Suppose there was a Pope though who wanted to undermine Catholicism, for some reason. He says he's teaching with the full authority of the Church, and he says that the Eucharist is just a symbol. Theoretically, he would die before he could teach the thing- or go mute or something. In fact, aprantly rthere was a pope who wanted to teach error, and he died suddenly. There have evem been Popes who believed error- that Jesus was not God- but for some reason they never taught it!
Why do protestants believe in Sola Scriptura?
Why do Protestants believe the only source of truth is the Bible, given the clear contradiction to that idea you made? Do they not believe in the trinity either? (see How can the Church teach things not found in Scripture?)
When Luther seperated, one of his mottos was "Sola Scriptura". I don't think he forsaw the difficulties this would raise. Protestants read the bible, come to a conclusion, and when they find out that The Catholic Church has a different conclusion, they say 'well the Church must be worng'. So basically, they have to keep believing in just the Bible, or change too many other things they believe in!
Luther still believed in the true presence of Jesus in the Eucharist (though slightly different than Catholics)- but even in his day, Calvin and Zwingli came to different conclusions using the Bible alone- so they formed new denominations! Nowadays, there are thousands of protestant denominations all with their own teachings- all using 'just the Bible'!
So, most of them still believe in the Trinity, but not all. Jehovahs Witnesses (usually not considered a denomination, but a cult) think Jesus was St Michael the Archangel, and not God. The United Church officially stated that they don't know for sure.
The problem is they grow up proving everything they believe in scripture to each other, and learn to argue so intensely from the Bible that they never even ask the question if it can stand alone or if the Bible ever intended to teach on things like the trinity. Catholics do this too, so that when Protestants ask us to defend our faith, we show them scripture passages that support our teaching, even though at the end of the day some of the passages were not written to do that. We basically treat scripture like a countries constitution- a basis from which to debate. And we read it like we're a bunch of lawyers. This is not how Catholic have traditionally read scripture- it is not to argue about theology, but rather to come to know the person who is God. This is why we ordain preachers- so that we can say they officially represent what the Church has to say, and we know when we hear a preacher that they are not just spouting off their opinion!
When Luther seperated, one of his mottos was "Sola Scriptura". I don't think he forsaw the difficulties this would raise. Protestants read the bible, come to a conclusion, and when they find out that The Catholic Church has a different conclusion, they say 'well the Church must be worng'. So basically, they have to keep believing in just the Bible, or change too many other things they believe in!
Luther still believed in the true presence of Jesus in the Eucharist (though slightly different than Catholics)- but even in his day, Calvin and Zwingli came to different conclusions using the Bible alone- so they formed new denominations! Nowadays, there are thousands of protestant denominations all with their own teachings- all using 'just the Bible'!
So, most of them still believe in the Trinity, but not all. Jehovahs Witnesses (usually not considered a denomination, but a cult) think Jesus was St Michael the Archangel, and not God. The United Church officially stated that they don't know for sure.
The problem is they grow up proving everything they believe in scripture to each other, and learn to argue so intensely from the Bible that they never even ask the question if it can stand alone or if the Bible ever intended to teach on things like the trinity. Catholics do this too, so that when Protestants ask us to defend our faith, we show them scripture passages that support our teaching, even though at the end of the day some of the passages were not written to do that. We basically treat scripture like a countries constitution- a basis from which to debate. And we read it like we're a bunch of lawyers. This is not how Catholic have traditionally read scripture- it is not to argue about theology, but rather to come to know the person who is God. This is why we ordain preachers- so that we can say they officially represent what the Church has to say, and we know when we hear a preacher that they are not just spouting off their opinion!
How does the Catholic Church settle arguments that protestants can't settle?
Question Take the example of all of the disagreements you said protestants have (Whether or not homosexuality is right or wrong, whether or not we should be allowed to divorce, have women pastors, how much to give, who gets saved, sacraments, honor Mary, etc.). How do we, as Catholics, know the answers to these?
Answer Again, we have the authority of the Church which has never contradicted itself. The Church is inpsired the same way as scripture- so if something is not explicit in scripture, the Church herself can teach on it. We don't have to read the Bible to find the truth- but rather God directly insp[ires the Church. You can see how this idea is offenseive to protestants, but on the other hand you can see the Church teaching the same thing all over the world and all throughout history, where protestants acknowledge that they do not have that authority.
Answer Again, we have the authority of the Church which has never contradicted itself. The Church is inpsired the same way as scripture- so if something is not explicit in scripture, the Church herself can teach on it. We don't have to read the Bible to find the truth- but rather God directly insp[ires the Church. You can see how this idea is offenseive to protestants, but on the other hand you can see the Church teaching the same thing all over the world and all throughout history, where protestants acknowledge that they do not have that authority.
Why can't women be priests?
Question Why can't women be priests? Isn't this incredibly sexist and something that as a society we've evolved away from?
Answer This goes back to the idea that our bodies reflect our spiritual nature. While men and women are perfectly equal, we are not the same. You should know that feminists like to argue that men and women are the same, and that saying otherwise is sexist. In fact, the president of Harvard was recently fired for making the outlandish claim that men and women are different. It's funny because it is so obvious that we are different, it's actually pretty ridiculous to imply otherwise!
So, in being different, it should not be surprising that our roles are different. Jesus, for some reason, only chose male apostles. Some people say that he was just going according to his culture, but then he did choose tax collectors and ignorant fishermen for apostles, and hung out with prostitutes- he didn't seem too concerned with the culture!
The Catholic Church claims to be inspired by God- but God only made male priests! (Might as well ask why men can't have babies- isn't that sexist? God decided) We don't have the authority to change what God did. If God wants women priests, than theoretically he could tell the Church that, and we could start making women priests- but so far God has not told us that, and I suspect He never will!
The significance of the difference between Men and Women is that men have to give love to accept love, and women have to accept love to give love. This is true physically- and that is a sign. The man has to penetrate the woman. It's also just how we are- men want to pursue, and women want to be pursued! (I bet when this is on my blog I will be eventually called sexist for writing this stuff.)
So because of this, we always refer to God in the masculine, even though God is pure spirit, and so technically neither male nor female. We always refer to the Church in the feminine. The preist is in 'personal Christi'- the person of Christ, so he represents Christ. He is a much better symbol as a male.
There's this funny notion out there that the Catholic Church should change her teachings according to culture. But again, the Church is above and outside of culture- we don't sway with the tide. JPII pretty much settled the debate on women in the pristhood when he said (quoting Pope Paul VI) "She holds that it is not admissible to ordain women to the priesthood, for very fundamental reasons. These reasons include: the example recorded in the Sacred Scriptures of Christ choosing his Apostles only from among men; the constant practice of the Church, which has imitated Christ in choosing only men; and her living teaching authority which has consistently held that the exclusion of women from the priesthood is in accordance with God's plan for his Church." Ordinatio Sacerdotalis
Answer This goes back to the idea that our bodies reflect our spiritual nature. While men and women are perfectly equal, we are not the same. You should know that feminists like to argue that men and women are the same, and that saying otherwise is sexist. In fact, the president of Harvard was recently fired for making the outlandish claim that men and women are different. It's funny because it is so obvious that we are different, it's actually pretty ridiculous to imply otherwise!
So, in being different, it should not be surprising that our roles are different. Jesus, for some reason, only chose male apostles. Some people say that he was just going according to his culture, but then he did choose tax collectors and ignorant fishermen for apostles, and hung out with prostitutes- he didn't seem too concerned with the culture!
The Catholic Church claims to be inspired by God- but God only made male priests! (Might as well ask why men can't have babies- isn't that sexist? God decided) We don't have the authority to change what God did. If God wants women priests, than theoretically he could tell the Church that, and we could start making women priests- but so far God has not told us that, and I suspect He never will!
The significance of the difference between Men and Women is that men have to give love to accept love, and women have to accept love to give love. This is true physically- and that is a sign. The man has to penetrate the woman. It's also just how we are- men want to pursue, and women want to be pursued! (I bet when this is on my blog I will be eventually called sexist for writing this stuff.)
So because of this, we always refer to God in the masculine, even though God is pure spirit, and so technically neither male nor female. We always refer to the Church in the feminine. The preist is in 'personal Christi'- the person of Christ, so he represents Christ. He is a much better symbol as a male.
There's this funny notion out there that the Catholic Church should change her teachings according to culture. But again, the Church is above and outside of culture- we don't sway with the tide. JPII pretty much settled the debate on women in the pristhood when he said (quoting Pope Paul VI) "She holds that it is not admissible to ordain women to the priesthood, for very fundamental reasons. These reasons include: the example recorded in the Sacred Scriptures of Christ choosing his Apostles only from among men; the constant practice of the Church, which has imitated Christ in choosing only men; and her living teaching authority which has consistently held that the exclusion of women from the priesthood is in accordance with God's plan for his Church." Ordinatio Sacerdotalis
What is the Church teaching on tatoos?
Question Levitiucs 19:28 says that we should not get Tatoos. I've heard that what the Bible was getting at was that it was a costomery thing to do where they would tattoo pagan things on those ready to die or dead to prepare them for death or something like that, and this violated the first commandment about not having any false gods. Does that make sense to you?
AnswerI think it's good to look at the passage in context:
27“‘Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard.
28“‘Do not cut your bodies for the dead or put tattoo marks on yourselves. I am the Lord.
So, if people take seriously the admonision against tatoos, they would also have to believe that men should all have beards, and long hair at the sides of their heads (like Orthodox Jews). Most people, Protestant and Catholic alike, would agree that these rules were to set the Jewish people apart, as a seperate people, who lived differently from the rest of the culture. They are like the rules of Kosher foods, or circumcision. In Acts 15, the Church specifically dealt with these things and said they were not binding- especially not on non Jews who were becoming Christian! So those laws are not universal moral laws, but rather customs for a certain people in a certain period of history. Christians need to learn to distinguish between these.
(That's part of the debate about homosexuality and womens ordination- are they universally binding laws, or just customs for the time? Without someone to answer that question difinitively, that's how you end up with the wide range of beliefs among protestants, and churches like the Anglican one splitting over it!)
AnswerI think it's good to look at the passage in context:
27“‘Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard.
28“‘Do not cut your bodies for the dead or put tattoo marks on yourselves. I am the Lord.
So, if people take seriously the admonision against tatoos, they would also have to believe that men should all have beards, and long hair at the sides of their heads (like Orthodox Jews). Most people, Protestant and Catholic alike, would agree that these rules were to set the Jewish people apart, as a seperate people, who lived differently from the rest of the culture. They are like the rules of Kosher foods, or circumcision. In Acts 15, the Church specifically dealt with these things and said they were not binding- especially not on non Jews who were becoming Christian! So those laws are not universal moral laws, but rather customs for a certain people in a certain period of history. Christians need to learn to distinguish between these.
(That's part of the debate about homosexuality and womens ordination- are they universally binding laws, or just customs for the time? Without someone to answer that question difinitively, that's how you end up with the wide range of beliefs among protestants, and churches like the Anglican one splitting over it!)
If Luther did believe that Jesus was physically present in the Sacrament of the Alter, then how come protestants today don't belive this?
Question If Luther did believe that Jesus was physically present in the Sacrament of the Alter, then how come protestants today don't belive this?
Answer Lutherans still believe in the true presence, and so do most Anglicans. The problem with Sola Scriptura is that everybody decides for themselves what they believe...so other protestants dissagreed with Luther. Zwingli was a famous protestant who lived at the same time as Luther, and this was one of their big debates. Even if you talk to Anglicans, though they are all part of the same church, they can't agree on what they believe (even though the Anglican book of common prayer says that transubstantiation is 'repugnant to holy writ").
The problem with protestants is that no one has any real authority to translate for anyone else. You should hear this guy on the radio called the 'Bible Answer Man'- people ask him questions and he answers as though he knowsd the answer, but often he speaks out against what other famous protestants teach.
The homosexuality quesition is so big that it's causing the Anglican church to break up- and the head of it, the Archbishop of Canterbury, recently lamented that he needed the authority to teach like the Pope has. But since he doesn't have it, all he can do is try to govern the varied opinions- he can never settle a debate.
Answer Lutherans still believe in the true presence, and so do most Anglicans. The problem with Sola Scriptura is that everybody decides for themselves what they believe...so other protestants dissagreed with Luther. Zwingli was a famous protestant who lived at the same time as Luther, and this was one of their big debates. Even if you talk to Anglicans, though they are all part of the same church, they can't agree on what they believe (even though the Anglican book of common prayer says that transubstantiation is 'repugnant to holy writ").
The problem with protestants is that no one has any real authority to translate for anyone else. You should hear this guy on the radio called the 'Bible Answer Man'- people ask him questions and he answers as though he knowsd the answer, but often he speaks out against what other famous protestants teach.
The homosexuality quesition is so big that it's causing the Anglican church to break up- and the head of it, the Archbishop of Canterbury, recently lamented that he needed the authority to teach like the Pope has. But since he doesn't have it, all he can do is try to govern the varied opinions- he can never settle a debate.
Harry Potter, good or bad?
Question; One more quick thing, harry potter, good or bad? I've heard that it should be shunned by the Church because it has magic and that's evil, but to me it seems like trying to live in a bubble of protection from the world is impractical. The more aware of what's around us, the better equiped we can be to fight it, right? And I don't even think it's that bad, as long as we realize that magic isn't real at all and that nothing can contradict God's power. what do you think? and for when I try to bring this argument to school, how do Protestants view this "dilemma"?
AnswerJesus prayed for us that we should be 'in the world, but not of the world'- so in a sense you're right that we shouldn't create a bubble around ourselves. I think one of the things that most discredits Christianity and our message is our unwillingness to intelligently dialogue with people of opposing views- and that the consequence of this is that we are considered irational, and shoved out of the marketplace of ideas.
The Church doesn't take a stand, per se, on things like Harry Potter, but there is a healthy debate in the Church. The most intelligent argument I have heard against it is that witches are actually real (and they are) and their power is not from God, but is of a supernatural nature, so it is thus from Satan. If someone wrote a kids book about drug dealers, but they were good drug dealers... of course, everyone would object. But if there are characters that are using power that essentially comes from Satan, but using it for good, we are all OK with it. This blurs the distinction between good and evil, and lends itself to relativistice thinking.
However, Catholic writers such as Tolkien also employed Wizards for good, and treated magic as though it were fantasticv and not real, which is what happens in the Potter series.
I think as Christians the more we object to this kind of stuff, the more ridiculous we look, and the more we effectively promote the stuff by stirring up controversy. I myself am listening to the series on CD as I drive back and forth from Wetaskiwin. (I also deliberately read both the Dan Brown books). I would not choose it as reading for my kids, as there is a lot of bettre stuff out there, but I don't think I would ban it either.
I think my opinion is pretty much in keeping with the Church- there is no definitive answer, and frankly it's not a big enough deal to care. By the time my kids are old enough to read, Harry Potter will just be a vague cultural memory. Something worse will have come along!
AnswerJesus prayed for us that we should be 'in the world, but not of the world'- so in a sense you're right that we shouldn't create a bubble around ourselves. I think one of the things that most discredits Christianity and our message is our unwillingness to intelligently dialogue with people of opposing views- and that the consequence of this is that we are considered irational, and shoved out of the marketplace of ideas.
The Church doesn't take a stand, per se, on things like Harry Potter, but there is a healthy debate in the Church. The most intelligent argument I have heard against it is that witches are actually real (and they are) and their power is not from God, but is of a supernatural nature, so it is thus from Satan. If someone wrote a kids book about drug dealers, but they were good drug dealers... of course, everyone would object. But if there are characters that are using power that essentially comes from Satan, but using it for good, we are all OK with it. This blurs the distinction between good and evil, and lends itself to relativistice thinking.
However, Catholic writers such as Tolkien also employed Wizards for good, and treated magic as though it were fantasticv and not real, which is what happens in the Potter series.
I think as Christians the more we object to this kind of stuff, the more ridiculous we look, and the more we effectively promote the stuff by stirring up controversy. I myself am listening to the series on CD as I drive back and forth from Wetaskiwin. (I also deliberately read both the Dan Brown books). I would not choose it as reading for my kids, as there is a lot of bettre stuff out there, but I don't think I would ban it either.
I think my opinion is pretty much in keeping with the Church- there is no definitive answer, and frankly it's not a big enough deal to care. By the time my kids are old enough to read, Harry Potter will just be a vague cultural memory. Something worse will have come along!
What if science contradicts scripture? What about evolution?
Question I was reading in your blog and you said that St. Augustine said that if science contradicts scripture then we need to re-interpret scripture. How can this be? What then is the Catholic Church's teaching on evolution? If everytime there is a new scientific discovery we have to re-interpret scripture, it seems to me like it won't be very long and scientific "proofs" (like in the 1960s how black people were scientifically proven to be dumber than white people because of their head shape) will contradict the entire bible, and then what?
Answer Evolution is the perfect example.
Evolution is science- not faith and morals. The Church- and indeed, even scripture- purport to be authorities on faith and morals, but not on science or history, or these other things which can be known without the dirrect inspiration of God. So if science were to 'prove' that evolution happened, then the Church would have no problem with that since it is very easy (in fact easier) to inrterpret the creation story in Genesis as poetry than as science or history.
Read Genesis 1, and you will quickly discover that it is written in a very poetic style, complete with repetion and timing, etc. A literal interpretation begs someimportant questions. If we were meant to believe that each day was a 24 hour time period, then how do we know this when there were no people to measure the time, and no sun to rise and set? If God told Moses that that is what happened, (which is what most literalists believe), well scripture also says that to God one day is like a thousand years, so who is to say that it was literally one day?
There are Christians, and even Catholics, who believe that the world is literally 6 thousand years old, and was created in 6 days. They have to account for things like dinosaurs and the extreme ages that people lived before thf flood, by what is generally considered to be 'pseudo science'- and claims that maybe dinosaurs were mostly killed off by the flood, but of course some God on tha ark (2 of each kind), but when the flood receded climate had changed so drastically that they couldn't survive, as the iceage was now started, so most dinosaus died out, but maybe the occaisional ones survived in Africa or Peru, where the Ice Age didn't effect the climate as much. Then some of Noahs decendents went to cold places, like England and America,
and became Cave Men, where as other people went to warm places where farming was possible, like Egypt and India and Babylon, and built great civilizations, so that these great civilizatioons and cave men lived on Earth at the same time. It is a facinating discussion, which I do not have time to delve into here. (Note the picture of the human riding a dinosaur, purportedly a 500 year old image from Peru)
Evolutionary scientists have a different bias. They want to explain the existence of everything, but cannot use anything imeasurable (science only deals with measurable things) so anything which is pure spirit, like God, is outside the realm of science. So they try to explain how everything got here but they absolutely cannot entertain the idea of God- so evolution is really the only theory that works.
So, literalists have to believe that everything in the bible is literal. Athiestic evolutionists have to account for the universe without the possibility of God. Catholics have the advantages of both schools of thought, without the dissadvantages. We are not required to believe that everything in the Bible was even meant top be taken literally, much less that it should be. the first 12 chapters of Genesis are generally considered to be possibly more myth than literal history. However, discerning what should be requires mature and honest inspection. If you read Lukes account of the story of Jesus, it is very obvious that it was meant to betaken literally, and as Catholics we obviously do take it literally. You can't lump the whole Bible into one genre of literature.
In short the Church does not have a teaching on evolution, excpet that it is a possible and highly respectable idea, because the Church is not and does not claim to be an authority on science. Incidentally, there were many who though a heliocentric (sun at the center) universe was contrary to scripture, and this is what caused some of the problems for Galileo. (The Pope he had a conflict with, though, just said he should present his views ballanced with the traditional view that Earth is at the center. Galileo refused, and effectively printed documents where the pope was being called a simpleton. The Pope was a worldly authority, so had him arrested. Galileo was never tortured, that's a myth.)
Science cannot possibly 'disprove' matters of faith and morals, simply because faith and morals are about things which are immeasurable, which science cannot deal with. So science and theology are 2 completely seperate disciplines, but they both lead us to truth. That is the Catholic standpoint- if it is the domain of science, listen to science, if it is the domain of faith and morals, listen to the Church. That way you get the fullness of truth!
Answer Evolution is the perfect example.
Evolution is science- not faith and morals. The Church- and indeed, even scripture- purport to be authorities on faith and morals, but not on science or history, or these other things which can be known without the dirrect inspiration of God. So if science were to 'prove' that evolution happened, then the Church would have no problem with that since it is very easy (in fact easier) to inrterpret the creation story in Genesis as poetry than as science or history.
Read Genesis 1, and you will quickly discover that it is written in a very poetic style, complete with repetion and timing, etc. A literal interpretation begs someimportant questions. If we were meant to believe that each day was a 24 hour time period, then how do we know this when there were no people to measure the time, and no sun to rise and set? If God told Moses that that is what happened, (which is what most literalists believe), well scripture also says that to God one day is like a thousand years, so who is to say that it was literally one day?
There are Christians, and even Catholics, who believe that the world is literally 6 thousand years old, and was created in 6 days. They have to account for things like dinosaurs and the extreme ages that people lived before thf flood, by what is generally considered to be 'pseudo science'- and claims that maybe dinosaurs were mostly killed off by the flood, but of course some God on tha ark (2 of each kind), but when the flood receded climate had changed so drastically that they couldn't survive, as the iceage was now started, so most dinosaus died out, but maybe the occaisional ones survived in Africa or Peru, where the Ice Age didn't effect the climate as much. Then some of Noahs decendents went to cold places, like England and America,
and became Cave Men, where as other people went to warm places where farming was possible, like Egypt and India and Babylon, and built great civilizations, so that these great civilizatioons and cave men lived on Earth at the same time. It is a facinating discussion, which I do not have time to delve into here. (Note the picture of the human riding a dinosaur, purportedly a 500 year old image from Peru)
Evolutionary scientists have a different bias. They want to explain the existence of everything, but cannot use anything imeasurable (science only deals with measurable things) so anything which is pure spirit, like God, is outside the realm of science. So they try to explain how everything got here but they absolutely cannot entertain the idea of God- so evolution is really the only theory that works.
So, literalists have to believe that everything in the bible is literal. Athiestic evolutionists have to account for the universe without the possibility of God. Catholics have the advantages of both schools of thought, without the dissadvantages. We are not required to believe that everything in the Bible was even meant top be taken literally, much less that it should be. the first 12 chapters of Genesis are generally considered to be possibly more myth than literal history. However, discerning what should be requires mature and honest inspection. If you read Lukes account of the story of Jesus, it is very obvious that it was meant to betaken literally, and as Catholics we obviously do take it literally. You can't lump the whole Bible into one genre of literature.
In short the Church does not have a teaching on evolution, excpet that it is a possible and highly respectable idea, because the Church is not and does not claim to be an authority on science. Incidentally, there were many who though a heliocentric (sun at the center) universe was contrary to scripture, and this is what caused some of the problems for Galileo. (The Pope he had a conflict with, though, just said he should present his views ballanced with the traditional view that Earth is at the center. Galileo refused, and effectively printed documents where the pope was being called a simpleton. The Pope was a worldly authority, so had him arrested. Galileo was never tortured, that's a myth.)
Science cannot possibly 'disprove' matters of faith and morals, simply because faith and morals are about things which are immeasurable, which science cannot deal with. So science and theology are 2 completely seperate disciplines, but they both lead us to truth. That is the Catholic standpoint- if it is the domain of science, listen to science, if it is the domain of faith and morals, listen to the Church. That way you get the fullness of truth!
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
Does the Church have authority to release souls from purgatory?
Question Does the Church have authority to release souls from purgatory? How far does this authority extend?Doesn't the idea of indulgences and the Church being capable of just "sending souls to Heaven" contradict the idea of being made just rather than declared just?
Answer This is like the question of forgiving sins. When Jesus forgave someones' sins, the scribes asked how he could be doing that, since only God has authority to forgive sins. (Mark 2:6-12). Yet later he gives this authority to his apostles! (John 20:23). So something that only God could do properly, he has given authority to the Church to do.
This is also what is meant by the keys of the kingdom in Matt 16. When the king went away, he would give the keys to someone else (prime minister) in order to indicate that they were responsible and had the kings authority to make decisions. Jesus gave the keys to Peter, the first pope. So the Church only has that authority because Christ has given it to them.
But to be clear, the Church cannot arbitrarily declare that someone is in Heaven. For all we know, they may have gone to Hell. What the Church can do is offer the means to pay the debts we have incurred through our sins. (Though we are forguiven our sins, we still have to make up for the damage caused. If I sleep with someone other than my wife, and she and God forgive me, it will still take a long time to rebuild the relationship with Catherine, get rid of the images of the other girl, etc. And she may get pregnant, or I could get an std. So being forgiven does not remove the consequences of sin.)
Suppose you stole a Ferrari from some rich person, went on a joy ride, and smashed it. Afterwards you go back, and ask forgiveness- the person forgives you, but you still owe them the Ferrari! You will never be able to afford to pay it... so the rich person says "I tell you what. For the next 2 months, you come hear every day and work for me from 9-5, and we'll call it even." The wages you would have earned are not nearly equal to what you owe- but the rich person gives you the means of paying the debt.
So God gives us the means of paying the debt through indulgences, that would otherwise have taken a very long time. basically what it means is that we can use our suffering, work, prayer, donations, etc, and get way more value out of them then we actually deserve! We are still being transformed- it is still a process- but God is helping with the process.
Answer This is like the question of forgiving sins. When Jesus forgave someones' sins, the scribes asked how he could be doing that, since only God has authority to forgive sins. (Mark 2:6-12). Yet later he gives this authority to his apostles! (John 20:23). So something that only God could do properly, he has given authority to the Church to do.
This is also what is meant by the keys of the kingdom in Matt 16. When the king went away, he would give the keys to someone else (prime minister) in order to indicate that they were responsible and had the kings authority to make decisions. Jesus gave the keys to Peter, the first pope. So the Church only has that authority because Christ has given it to them.
But to be clear, the Church cannot arbitrarily declare that someone is in Heaven. For all we know, they may have gone to Hell. What the Church can do is offer the means to pay the debts we have incurred through our sins. (Though we are forguiven our sins, we still have to make up for the damage caused. If I sleep with someone other than my wife, and she and God forgive me, it will still take a long time to rebuild the relationship with Catherine, get rid of the images of the other girl, etc. And she may get pregnant, or I could get an std. So being forgiven does not remove the consequences of sin.)
Suppose you stole a Ferrari from some rich person, went on a joy ride, and smashed it. Afterwards you go back, and ask forgiveness- the person forgives you, but you still owe them the Ferrari! You will never be able to afford to pay it... so the rich person says "I tell you what. For the next 2 months, you come hear every day and work for me from 9-5, and we'll call it even." The wages you would have earned are not nearly equal to what you owe- but the rich person gives you the means of paying the debt.
So God gives us the means of paying the debt through indulgences, that would otherwise have taken a very long time. basically what it means is that we can use our suffering, work, prayer, donations, etc, and get way more value out of them then we actually deserve! We are still being transformed- it is still a process- but God is helping with the process.
How do Protestants interpret the binding and loosing passage?
There are several ways of interpreting this passage. One is that priests have the authority to forgive sins. (Jesus was explicit in John 20:23 that Apostles have that authority). Another is the authority to teach- because if a rabbi 'bound' something, that meant he was making that the rule. If we bind and loose on Earth, then it is bound or loosed in Heaven- in other words, what the Church teaches as true actually is true. Another is the strange idea that the Church can distribute graces. It's like God gave the Church a storehouse of graces... so the Church can make a decision like creating indulgences, etc.
Another interpretation which would probably be more popular among protestants is the binding and loosing of demons. For a lot of protestants, demons are not just what you picture in exorcisms and stuff, but are actually the source of bad moods, inconveniences, anger, illnesses, etc. (Catholics tend to just attribute these things to nature). There is even a joke, how many pentecostals does it take to change a lightbulb? 5. 1 to change the bulb, and 4 to cast out the spirit of darkness. So you'll often hear proetstants binding and loosing' spirits- something you don't often hear Catholics doing.
Another interpretation which would probably be more popular among protestants is the binding and loosing of demons. For a lot of protestants, demons are not just what you picture in exorcisms and stuff, but are actually the source of bad moods, inconveniences, anger, illnesses, etc. (Catholics tend to just attribute these things to nature). There is even a joke, how many pentecostals does it take to change a lightbulb? 5. 1 to change the bulb, and 4 to cast out the spirit of darkness. So you'll often hear proetstants binding and loosing' spirits- something you don't often hear Catholics doing.
What is the biggest difference between Protestants and Catholics?
I'd say the biggest difference is the authority of the Church. Protestants believe in 'Sola Scriptura"- only the Bible is the source of truth. Catholics believe in the Church as well. Amongst protestants, there is a huge variety of ideas, because they all interpret the Bible differently. If Sola Scriptura worked, all the protestants would agree. But by in large, they can't figure out if homosexuality is wrong or not, or whether they should divorce, have women pastors, how much money to give, sacraments, who gets saved, honour Mary..... etc. Protestants are really all over the place! Jehovahs Witnesses even use the same bible, and come to completely different conclusions, like that Jesus was not God, and only 144,000 people go to Heaven. So the bible alone is not only unscrpitural- it has been demonstrated to not work! Whereas in 2000 years, all over the world, the catholic Church has always (officially) taught the same thing. (I say officially because there are always wack jobs who claim to be Catholic, but teach their own opinions instead of truth.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)