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.
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.
Thursday, December 9, 2010
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
Why do protestants believe in 'once saved always saved'?
Question You said that we do not believe in 'once saved always saved', that even once we are Christian we can still fall back into sin and away from God. So then being saved is kind of like it is in flag wars- you get freed, but can get caught again? Given this passage, why do Protestants believe "once saved always saved"? wouldn't it make more sense that the passage would be interpreted in this way? (Follow up on Can we work for our own salvation?)
AnswerThat's a decent analogy, except remember that the word 'saved' means healed, forgiven, rescued, freed.... so depending on the context in scripture, it could be refering to any number of things.
But protestants tend to use the word only in the sense of 'rescued', like from Hell.
The Calvinists taught (teach) that we are predestined, and can do nothing to contribute to out own salvation. This idea is scriptural, in that we can't possibly deserve salvation and it is only because of the mercy of God that we can be saved- but it ignores the fact that scripture tells us to wortk for our salvation and that we will be judged and saved according to what we did. For a Calvinist, if you're 'predestined' it means that from before all time it was decided, so it is impossible to lose your slavation. So, "once saved, always saved". When confronted with someone who obviously was a Christian and later rejected Christ, they just say that he was never really saved in the first place, he was never really predestined.
It is a problem, because scripture does refer to the 'elect', and 'predestination' (Eph 1). Like anything the ballance has to be struck between two extremes. One is that we can totally earn our way to Heaven, the other that we can't do anything and we just passively recieve salvation. Catholics are somewhere between these two extremes, and we say that anything good we do is done by the grace and prompting of God, grace builds on nature, but nature must cooperate with grace. I don't think we'll fully understand this until Heaven. (Though it'd be interesting to look into further...)
AnswerThat's a decent analogy, except remember that the word 'saved' means healed, forgiven, rescued, freed.... so depending on the context in scripture, it could be refering to any number of things.
But protestants tend to use the word only in the sense of 'rescued', like from Hell.
The Calvinists taught (teach) that we are predestined, and can do nothing to contribute to out own salvation. This idea is scriptural, in that we can't possibly deserve salvation and it is only because of the mercy of God that we can be saved- but it ignores the fact that scripture tells us to wortk for our salvation and that we will be judged and saved according to what we did. For a Calvinist, if you're 'predestined' it means that from before all time it was decided, so it is impossible to lose your slavation. So, "once saved, always saved". When confronted with someone who obviously was a Christian and later rejected Christ, they just say that he was never really saved in the first place, he was never really predestined.
It is a problem, because scripture does refer to the 'elect', and 'predestination' (Eph 1). Like anything the ballance has to be struck between two extremes. One is that we can totally earn our way to Heaven, the other that we can't do anything and we just passively recieve salvation. Catholics are somewhere between these two extremes, and we say that anything good we do is done by the grace and prompting of God, grace builds on nature, but nature must cooperate with grace. I don't think we'll fully understand this until Heaven. (Though it'd be interesting to look into further...)
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!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)