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!
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 infallibility. Show all posts
Showing posts with label infallibility. Show all posts
Thursday, December 9, 2010
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
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.)
How can the Church teach things not explicitly in Scripture?
Question- If purgatory isn’t explicitly biblical where does it come from and why do we believe it to be absolute truth?
Answer The Trinity is not explicitly biblical either. The idea that something has to be explicitly biblical came from Luther, because he didn't believe the Church was inspired the same way the Bible is. The problem is, the Bible was never written to teach us everything we could know about God, and the idea that everything would be in the Bible is not in the Bible, so it is actually self contradictory!
Catholics do not believe that all of revelation is explicitly in scripture. That would actually pose major problems- for example, where in scripture does it tell you which books belong in scripture? It doesn't- someone needed to decide that! (There were other books written about Jesus in the time of the apostles that did not make the cut, for example.) Because the Catholic Church is inspired, and can't make mistakes, it chose the books which are now in the Bible. By the time they did so- 300 years after Jesus- people were already arguing about stuff like the Trinity. However, it should be noted that stuff like purgatory and the honour of Mary and the true presence in the Eucharist were already well established!
So, in short-
The authority of the Bible does not make sense without the authority of the Church who gave us the Bible. The authority of the Church also taught us about purgatory.
Answer The Trinity is not explicitly biblical either. The idea that something has to be explicitly biblical came from Luther, because he didn't believe the Church was inspired the same way the Bible is. The problem is, the Bible was never written to teach us everything we could know about God, and the idea that everything would be in the Bible is not in the Bible, so it is actually self contradictory!
Catholics do not believe that all of revelation is explicitly in scripture. That would actually pose major problems- for example, where in scripture does it tell you which books belong in scripture? It doesn't- someone needed to decide that! (There were other books written about Jesus in the time of the apostles that did not make the cut, for example.) Because the Catholic Church is inspired, and can't make mistakes, it chose the books which are now in the Bible. By the time they did so- 300 years after Jesus- people were already arguing about stuff like the Trinity. However, it should be noted that stuff like purgatory and the honour of Mary and the true presence in the Eucharist were already well established!
So, in short-
The authority of the Bible does not make sense without the authority of the Church who gave us the Bible. The authority of the Church also taught us about purgatory.
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
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)