Monday, November 9, 2015

My Answer to "Forty Questions for Christians Who Oppose Marriage Equality"



 
This is my answer to Matthew Vines' 40 questions for Christians who oppose marriage equality.

1. Do you accept that sexual orientation is not a choice?

No, I do not. I believe that many are made the way they are and many have psychological or physical abnormalities.

2. Do you accept that sexual orientation is highly resistant to attempts to change it?

Yes, as any other psychological problem does. Up until about 50 years ago, the APA also thought that same sex attraction was a psychological aberration.

3. How many meaningful relationships with lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender (LGBT) people do you have?

Unfortunately, I have known two of them personally. They were neither happy nor pleasant people. I’ve known quite a few “defenders” of same sex friends, acquaintances, etc. There seems to be a vast majority more defenders of same sex couples than actual same sex couples. Which tells me that many, many people in our society are bending over backwards for people they do not want to offend because of the political or familial backlash.

4. How many openly LGBT people would say you are one of their closest friends?

None.
5.  How much time have you spent in one-on-one conversation with LGBT Christians about their faith and sexuality?

None. I don’t believe you can be both anyway.

6. Do you accept that heterosexual marriage is not a realistic option for most gay people?

*edited* I misread the question: Yes, I accept that heterosexual marriage is not realistic for most people who say they are gay. If one identifies themselves as gay, are they going to keep their vows to a person of the opposite sex? Doubtful. So, they would be going into a covenant without the intention of keeping their promises. That is also grave sin, and a very good reason for an annulment.

7. Do you accept that lifelong celibacy is the only valid option for most gay people if all same-sex relationships are sinful?

Yes.  However, I have known of, and read autobiographical stories of supposed gay people who have become heterosexual. One I know of in particular is now married. He led a gay life style for decades, became a Christian and resigned himself to celibacy. That was not God’s plan for him. He met a fine Christian woman, who he thought would be a good friend. They eventually fell in love and are now married.

8. How many gay brothers and sisters in Christ have you walked with on the path of mandatory celibacy, and for how long?

None. That is neither my place, nor my ministry.

9. What is your answer for gay Christians who struggled for years to live out a celibacy mandate but were driven to suicidal despair in the process?

I would say that they either do not understand what God asks of them through celibacy (or suffering) or they are not strong enough in their Christian faith. The Christian faith is not meant to be an easy road, and the whole LBGT political power trip is not helping any one ease their pain, their walk in life, or the demands of their faith.

10. Has mandatory celibacy produced good fruit in the lives of most gay Christians you know?

I only know of a few cases, and, yes, they did yield “good fruit”.

11. How many married same-sex couples do you know?

None.

12. Do you believe that same-sex couples’ relationships can show the fruit of the Spirit: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control?

I believe that those relationships can have any or all of those feelings or personality traits, but that they not proven to be fruits of the Holy Spirit. People can have moments of joy even in a prison camp. They can love a neighbor even if that neighbor does evil. Their character traits may indicate patience or kindness, goodness or faithfulness, gentleness or self-control, but these characteristics, one or many, can be found in non-Christians, and in non-Christian gay people.

13. Do you believe that it is possible to be a Christian and support same-sex marriage in the church?

No.

14. Do you believe that it is possible to be a Christian and support slavery?

No. One has nothing to do with the other.

15. If not, do you believe that Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Jonathan Edwards were not actually Christians because they supported slavery?

I believe that all were sinners, and all were Protestants, that is they protested the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. I do believe they tried to be Christians in their way but went very awry of actual Christian teachings. I don't know any of their stances on slavery. I know that Martin Luther and John Calvin were of the 16th century and slavery was not the issue in Europe at that time. So, their support of it would be moot. I know that I have much more theological than political problems with Luther and Calvin. I don't know anything about Jonathan Edwards.  I cannot judge their hearts pertaining to their Christianity; only God can judge them.

16. Do you think supporting same-sex marriage is a more serious problem than supporting slavery?

No. I never have and don't compare them. I think murder is a more serious problem, but I don’t equate same-sex "marriage" to murder either (as I don’t equate same-sex marriage and slavery) Those are “apples and oranges” comparisons.

17. Did you spend any time studying the Bible’s passages about slavery before you felt comfortable believing that slavery is wrong?

No. I already, intrinsically, knew it was wrong. And, thank God, slavery has not been legal or supported in the United States for over a hundred and fifty years.  Why would I support it? That is what is called a strawman.

18. Does it cause you any concern that Christians throughout most of church history would have disagreed with you?

No. Because I don’t agree with you that that is true. Small (and small-minded) groups of men tried to justify their grave sin with Scripture—an even greater sin. Not all Christians, and certainly not every Christian, “throughout most of church history” believed that slavery was okay or good. The thing I would ask any gay person—What has this got to do with you?

19. Did you know that, for most of church history, Christians believed that the Bible taught the earth stood still at the center of the universe?

Actually, that statement is not totally accurate. A long time ago just about all people in general thought that the earth was the center of the universe. Some Greek philosopher/scientists understood that the earth revolved around the sun. But, come on, the sun comes up on one side and goes down on the other. Why wouldn’t ancient peoples think that? And the Old Testament was authored by ancient peoples. Those Christians who believed that Sun revolved around the Earth were ignorant (in the original sense of the word) of the science behind the universe; it is simple as that. The Bible also says that Jonah was swallowed by a big fish. Most agree that he was swallowed by a whale, which is now considered a mammal—a distinction not made in ancient times. (A man in modern times, 1930's if memory serves, was swallowed by a whale and recovered within 24 hours, by the way.) When scientists (most of whom were either Catholics monks or Catholic laymen in the early Christian era), watched the sky and “discovered” that we were moving around the sun, the Church adopted this as true—as it was proved to be true.

20. Does it cause you any concern that you disagree with their interpretation of the Bible?
 
No, The ancient peoples who wrote the Old Testament didn’t know any better than their peers about the science of the universe. They sought to explain the universe in terms they could understand. The early Christians did not know either—just as science lagged behind civilization. Who knew eking out a living would take priority over science, huh?

21. Did you spend any time studying the Bible’s verses on the topic before you felt comfortable believing that the earth revolves around the sun?

Really? Do you always address other adults as children? Or just Christians?

I was never, ever in any doubt that the Earth revolves around the Sun. I live in modern times, went to modern schools, and learned about the universe from an early age. There is nothing I needed to get “comfortable” about. I, unlike you, understand that the Bible was written in ancient times and the ancients saw the universe differently.

22. Do you know of any Christian writers before the 20th century who acknowledged that gay people must be celibate for life due to the church’s rejection of same-sex relationships?

No, because it was not an issue before the 20th century.

23. If not, might it be fair to say that mandating celibacy for gay Christians is not a traditional position?

I would say it is not a “traditional position” because no such position needed to be taken. Homosexuality was considered a grave sin, and many Christians still believe it to be so. There was no celibacy “position” because there is only one “position” on sin--confession, forgiveness, and penance, which includes change.

24. Do you believe that the Bible explicitly teaches that all gay Christians must be single and celibate for life?

No. I believe that the Bible explicitly teaches that being “gay” is a sin. If you need to be celibate in order not to sin, then, yes, you need to be celibate. That would be the implication of Scripture--to sin no more.
*edit*: I believe that the Bible explicitly teaches that "gay" sexual acts are sin, not that believing one is "gay" is a sin. This was a definite mistake on my part. The act is a sin, not the feeling.

25. If not, do you feel comfortable affirming something that is not explicitly affirmed in the Bible?

Yes, because it is implicit in the Bible. If you are not do that sin, you must do something to avoid whatever leads to that sin. Therefore, celibacy would be a viable option to do committing the sin of same sex acts.

26. Do you believe that the moral distinction between lust and love matters for LGBT people’s romantic relationships?

I believe that there are LGBT people who believe that.

27. Do you think that loving same-sex relationships should be assessed in the same way as the same-sex behavior Paul explicitly describes as lustful in Romans 1?

Yes. Love is not the problem. Love is good. Feelings are not bad; what you do with them can be very bad. Love does not and should not always lead to sex. So, yes, I agree with St. Paul that women should not be sexually involved with women and men should not be sexually involved with men.

28. Do you believe that Paul's use of the terms "shameful" and "unnatural" in Romans 1:26-27 means that all same-sex relationships are sinful?

Yes, I do.

29. Would you say the same about Paul’s description of long hair in men as “shameful” and against “nature” in 1 Corinthians 11:14, or would you say he was describing cultural norms of his time?

I think that you are grasping at straws with this supposed argument. Here St. Paul is comparing men’s hair with women’s. Yes, I think a man’s long hair, if he looks like a woman instead of a man, is “shameful.” Now, what is long hair? Past the ears? Past the collar? Past the shoulders? Who knows? I have seen men with ponytails that still looked like men. I have seen men with mullets that looked ridiculously feminine. Who is to judge? I do think it “shameful” if you cannot tell if the person is a man or a woman (that goes both ways—when you can’t tell if the person is woman because of her short hair, tattoos, and piercings in every possible place on her face.)

30.  Do you believe that the capacity for procreation is essential to marriage?

Yes.

31. If so, what does that mean for infertile heterosexual couples?

That is not the same thing. I find it rich when an LGBT supporter uses this fallacious argument. Most Christian couples when they marry are open to having children. Infertile couples are usually not infertile on purpose. If they cannot have children because of a physical problem of the wife or husband or both, the intention was still there. They married for the right reasons. Having said that, if the couple makes themselves infertile through artificial contraceptives, operations, or devices, marriage would be a grave sin on the couple’s part. They did not marry for the right reasons and their marriage would be just as wrong as a same-sex "marriage" because they then would be infertile like a same-sex couple.

32. How much time have you spent engaging with the writings of LGBT-affirming Christians like Justin Lee, James Brownson, and Rachel Murr?

None, and I don’t intend to start. I do not believe that you can be a Christian and LGBT or a supporter of LGBT. These to things are intrinsically opposed to each other.

33. What relationship recognition rights short of marriage do you support for same-sex couples?

I support all humans being treated with dignity and respect. I believe same-sex couples are wrong but I do not advocate violence, prison, or the nullification of human rights. Other than that, I do not believe same-sex couple should have the same rights as heterosexual married couples. I don't believe heterosexuals who are shacking up should have the same rights as heterosexual married couples, either, for what it is worth.

34. What are you doing to advocate for those rights?

I am Catholic. The Catholic Church works for the human dignity and rights of all humans. I support the rights of all humans to live in dignity and respect, no matter their condition in life, their religion, their sexual orientation, or anything else.

35. Do you know who Tyler Clementi, Leelah Alcorn, and Blake Brockington are, and did your church offer any kind of prayer for them when their deaths made national news?

No. But by the last part of your sentence the implication is that they were killed because they were gay. I do not know personally, but I am sure that there were prayers said for them. That’s what our church does.We pray for those who are killed unjustly, through murder (as a gay-related killing would be).

36. Do you know that LGBT youth whose families reject them are 8.4 times more likely to attempt suicide than LGBT youth whose families support them?

No, but thank you for letting me know this supposed statistic. I have told all five of my children that if they declared that they were "gay", I would still love them. I draw the line at gay relationships. I will not accept my son's boyfriend or "husband" as family, nor will I accept my daughter's girlfriend or "wife" as family. I will never accept a gay relationship as "normal." As far as I can tell, this will not be a problem. Thank God.

37. Have you vocally objected when church leaders and other Christians have compared same-sex relationships to things like bestiality, incest, and pedophilia?

No, because I have not heard that. My Church does not say such things. I would say something if my church leaders did.

38. How certain are you that God’s will for all gay Christians is lifelong celibacy?

I’m not. I think that change can happen. I know that is not the politically correct view but that is what I believe. If a “gay” person wants to be a Christian, he must change his life, just as any other sinner must.  As Jesus said to the woman “caught in sin” (adultery), “No one accuses you. Go and sin no more.”

39. What do you think the result would be if we told all straight teenagers in the church that if they ever dated someone they liked, held someone’s hand, kissed someone, or got married, they would be rebelling against God?

Since that is a strawman argument, I cannot answer it. Straight teenagers should be taught celibacy prior to marriage, but they will never be condemned for something that is not a sin.

40. Are you willing to be in fellowship with Christians who disagree with you on this topic?

No, not particularly. I’ve had these discussions. I have found that most LGBT supporters are stubborn, hard-headed and not willing to see the other side of this “topic.” For the most part, as this series of questions indicate, there is a set agenda with an A, B, C “logic” they believe supports their “point of view.” I do not agree and I will not be converted to agree that what is evil is good, and that aggravates and angers too many. I do not wish to cause anger, but I will not be submissive either.

Tuesday, June 23, 2015

Fortnight for Freedom--Day Three


"We are Catholics. We are Americans. We are proud to be both, grateful for the gift of faith which is ours as Christian disciples, and grateful for the gift of liberty which is ours as American citizens. To be Catholic and American should mean not having to choose one over the other. Our allegiances are distinct, but they need not be contradictory, and should instead be complementary. That is the teaching of our Catholic faith, which obliges us to work together with fellow citizens for the common good of all who live in this land. That is the vision of our founding and our Constitution, which guarantees citizens of all religious faiths the right to contribute to our common life together. "
Our First, Most Cherished Liberty: A Statement on Religious Liberty, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops Ad Hoc Committee for Religious Liberty, April 12, 2012

O GOD OUR CREATOR,
from Your provident hand we have received our right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  You have called us as Your people and given us the right and the duty to worship You, the only true God, and your Son, Jesus Christ.  Through the power and the working of your Holy Spirit, You call us to live out our faith in the midst of the world, bringing the light and the saving truth of the Gospel to every corner of society.

We ask You to bless us in our vigilance for the gift of religious liberty.  Give us the strength of mind and heart to readily defend our freedoms when they are threatened; give us courage in making our voices heard on behalf of the rights of Your Church and the freedom of conscience of all people of faith.

Grant, we pray, O heavenly Father, a clear and united voice to all your sons and daughters gathered in Your Church in this decisive hour in the history of our nation, so that, with every trial withstood and every danger overcome--for the sake of our children, our grandchildren, and all who come after us--this great land will always be "one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

We ask this through Christ our Lord.

Amen.

Prayer and image: Copyright 2012, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Washington, DC. All rights reserved. 


"We must not be afraid of being Christian and living as Christians!
We must have this courage to go and proclaim the Risen Christ,
for He is our peace, He made peace with His love, with His forgiveness,
with His blood and with His mercy." 
--Pope Francis, Regina Caeli, Divine Mercy Sunday, April 7, 2013 

Monday, June 22, 2015

Fortnight for Freedom Day Two

Religious liberty in many countries of the world is under attack. It continues to be under threat in the United States.  Some example of this threat in the United states are:

--HHS mandates for sterilization, artificial birth control, and abortion-inducing drugs.

--The government attack on and closing down of Catholic foster care and adoptive services for their refusal to release children to same sex couples.

--State laws that penalize Catholic charities for giving Christian charity to undocumented immigrants.

--Discrimination against small church organizations who desire to use public buildings.

--Discrimination against Christian based groups at certain universities.

See the USCCB fact sheet on Current Threats to Religious Freedom.


"When, in the name of an ideology, there is an attempt to remove God from society, it ends up adoring idols, and very soon men and women lose their way, their dignity is trampled and their rights are violated." Pope Francis, Address in Albania, September 23, 2014


O GOD OUR CREATOR,
from Your provident hand we have received our right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  You have called us as Your people and given us the right and the duty to worship You, the only true God, and your Son, Jesus Christ.  Through the power and the working of your Holy Spirit, You call us to live out our faith in the midst of the world, bringing the light and the saving truth of the Gospel to every corner of society.

We ask You to bless us in our vigilance for the gift of religious liberty.  Give us the strength of mind and heart to readily defend our freedoms when they are threatened; give us courage in making our voices heard on behalf of the rights of Your Church and the freedom of conscience of all people of faith.

Grant, we pray, O heavenly Father, a clear and united voice to all your sons and daughters gathered in Your Church in this decisive hour in the history of our nation, so that, with every trial withstood and every danger overcome--for the sake of our children, our grandchildren, and all who come after us--this great land will always be "one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

We ask this through Christ our Lord.

Amen.

Prayer and image: Copyright 2012, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Washington, DC. All rights reserved. 

Sunday, June 21, 2015

Fortnight for Freedom--The Freedom to Bear Witness

Today begins the Fortnight of Freedom in many Archdiocese/diocese in the United States.  This campaign was started four years ago by the United States Bishops to raise awareness that our religious liberties are in constant danger in the US and that Christians abroad are still being persecuted for their faith.  This year's theme is the "Freedom to Bear Witness," focusing on the freedom to bear witness to the truth of the Gospel.  The USCCB website has many resources available for the Fortnight of Freedom to help make US Christian aware of the dangers our modern society poses to religious freedom.

From the USCCB website:
The Fortnight for Freedom: Freedom to Bear Witness will take place from June 21 to July 4, 2015, a time when our liturgical calendar celebrates a series of great martyrs who remained faithful in the face of persecution by political power—St. Thomas More and St. John Fisher, St. John the Baptist, SS. Peter and Paul, and the First Martyrs of the Church of Rome. The theme of this year's Fortnight will focus on the "freedom to bear witness" to the truth of the Gospel.
"[A] healthy pluralism...does not entail privatizing religions in an attempt to reduce them to the quiet obscurity of the individual's conscience or to relegate them to the enclosed precincts of churches, synagogues or mosques."  --Pope Francis, Evanelii Gaudium (The Joy of the Gospel), para. 255.


O GOD OUR CREATOR,
from Your provident hand we have received our right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  You have called us as Your people and given us the right and the duty to worship You, the only true God, and your Son, Jesus Christ.  Through the power and the working of your Holy Spirit, You call us to live out our faith in the midst of the world, bringing the light and the saving truth of the Gospel to every corner of society.

We ask You to bless us in our vigilance for the gift of religious liberty.  Give us the strength of mind and heart to readily defend our freedoms when they are threatened; give us courage in making our voices heard on behalf of the rights of Your Church and the freedom of conscience of all people of faith.

Grant, we pray, O heavenly Father, a clear and united voice to all your sons and daughters gathered in Your Church in this decisive hour in the history of our nation, so that, with every trial withstood and every danger overcome--for the sake of our children, our grandchildren, and all who come after us--this great land will always be "one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

We ask this through Christ our Lord.

Amen.

Prayer and image: Copyright 2012, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Washington, DC. All rights reserved. 

"I cannot fail to recall the many instances of injustice and persecution which daily afflict religious minorities, and Christians in particular, in various parts of our world. Communities and individuals today find themselves subjected to barbaric acts of violence: they are evicted from their homes and native lands, sold as slaves, killed, beheaded, crucified or burned alive, under the shameful and complicit silence of so many." --Pope Francis, Address to the European Parliament, Nov. 25, 2014


Wednesday, June 17, 2015

Answering a Protestant Answer to Why There is Animosity Between Catholics and Protestants



SWB: Came across this gem the other day. I don’t know why I do this to myself. It just irks me. The anti-Catholic ignorance and the latent hostility are unnecessary and unneeded. It certainly did not live up to its seemingly even-handed title.  Sad.  Thought I’d give the other side to this decidedly one-sided answer. My answers are in blue, but also labeled SWB (St. Walburga's Blog) in case the colors cannot be seen.

SWB: On a site called “gotquestions.org” I found this:

Question: "Catholic vs. Protestant – why is there so much animosity?"

SWB: Maybe others can see that this article seems like it would be balanced. However, I was mistaken as gotquestions.org claims to be a "volunteer ministry of dedicated and trained servants who have a desire to assist others in their understanding of God, Scripture, salvation, and other spiritual topics. We are Christian, Protestant, conservative, evangelical, fundamental, and non-denominational." If I'd read that in the first place, I'd have understand that the article would not be balanced.

Answer: [1st para]
This is a simple question with a complicated answer, because there are varying degrees of, and reasons for, animosity between any two religious groups.

SWB: True. There is often animosity between two “religious groups.” However, Catholics and Protestants are both Christian groups. We should have much, much less animosity and much more brotherhood and cooperation. Sure there are doctrinal differences and many prejudices but we are still on the same side. We are all doing our best to follow our Lord’s teachings to the best of our ability.

This particular battle is rooted in history.

SWB: Obviously, “This particular battle” refers to Protestants v. Catholics, but the author does not state it here.

Degrees of reaction have ranged from friendly disagreement (as reflected in the numerous ecumenical dialogues produced between the two groups), to outright persecution and murder of Protestants at the hands of Rome.

SWB:First of all, very little “persecution and murder” happened to Protestants at Catholic hands.  If the author is referring to the approximately 300 years of the Medieval Inquisition, there were in fact less than 300 heretics (not Protestants) convicted or executed; the except to that fact was one “inquisitor” who persecuted the Cathars (a Catholic order of knights) for political reasons and had them declared heretics and had dozens of them executed, leading to the end of the medieval inquisition sanctioned by Rome. And, if this person or any Protestant researched history they’d learn that most people in the middle ages preferred to be tried by the inquisition than local courts because they were guaranteed a much more fair trial. (Just a side note: The Catholic Church did not try or burn anyone accused of being a witch. That was the Protestants, who brought about the death of many women in the “new world.”  Catholic inquisitors generally felt  such accusations were nonsense.)

SWB: Second, if the author is referring to the Roman Inquisition which only had jurisdiction in Rome and the papal states and continued into the 18th century, it only tried a few dozen “heretics” executing a handful in its about 200 year existence.  If he is referring to the Spanish Inquisition of 1492 into the early 1500's only Jewish and a few Moorish converts to the Church were accused, tried and executed. These trials more of a political than religious nature, as the king and queen really needed to see where people’s loyalties lay in the wake of the defeat of the Muslims and their centuries of rule in Spain. Neither of these inquisitions persecuted or “murdered” Protestants.

SWB:Third, the fact is many, many more Catholics were persecuted and murdered under tyrants like Calvin, Elizabeth I, and princes of Luther’s Germany than all the years of the Inquisition combined.  Catholics were persecuted in Britain and then Ireland (that’s why Ireland is divided today—because the British monarch tried to force Protestantism on the Catholic population of Ireland.) Catholics were persecuted and even outlawed in many of the states of the what would become the United States. One example of the continued prejudice in the US is a history of my state for use by homeschool families. It claimed the earliest church established here was a Church of Christ church early in the 20th century. There is no mention of the Catholic church and mission established in the late 18th century and the FACT that many of the Indian tribes here were practicing Catholics when Protestant missionaries deigned to come here. At least these facts are being stated at the state history museum.  Anyway, back to the original “answer.”

Reformation teachings that identify the Pope as the Beast of Revelation and / or Roman Catholicism as Mystery Babylon are still common among Protestants. Clearly, anyone with this view is not going to “warm up” to Rome any time soon.

SWB: All I can say is that this is very true, that is that Catholics will not “warm up” to Protestants who claim to believe this. There is absolutely no evidence that the Beast of Revelation is the Church—none. No matter how you twist the words of St. John, his vision of the "beast" does not indicate the Church. Seeing that St. John was one of the Apostles of Christ and a founder of His Church, now called Catholic (btw, named such by St. Ignatius, a disciple of St. John), why would he aid in the founding of a Church that was a “beast” in his vision? It makes no logical sense. Besides, it is blatantly obvious that Jerusalem is the “whore of Babylon”—the city of seven hills and unfaithful to God. The "beast" is still a mystery.

[2nd para] For the most part, today at least, the animosity comes from basic human nature when dealing with fundamental disagreement over eternal truths. Passions are sure to ignite in the more weighty matters of life, and one's faith is (or at least should be) at the top of the heap.

SWB: I would agree, however, those claiming to be Christians should be able to act with charity towards other Christians and at least be open to the possibility that we are all sincerely following Christ the way we feel is right. I honestly do not understand the close-mindedness of the majority of Protestants in thinking that Catholics are not Christians.

Many Protestants think Roman Catholics teach a works-gospel that cannot save,…

SWB: The Catholic Church has never taught a “works-gospel”. The Church teaches what Christ taught.  He directed His followers to DO.  
"In truth I tell you, in so far as you did this to one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did it to me." and He said "In truth I tell you, in so far as you neglected to do this to one of the least of these, you neglected to do it to me. And they will go away to eternal punishment, and the upright to eternal life.' (Matt. 25: 40, 45-46) 

SWB: Jesus taught that we have to act upon our faith, and if we don't we will be punished. This is a clear teaching that "works" are necessary to our faith and our salvation.  

SWB: The Holy Spirit inspired James, an apostle of Jesus, to write that works are necessary for salvation.

How does it help, my brothers, when someone who has never done a single good act claims to have faith? Will that faith bring salvation?
If one of the brothers or one of the sisters is in need of clothes and has not enough food to live on, and one of you says to them, 'I wish you well; keep yourself warm and eat plenty,' without giving them these bare necessities of life, then what good is that?

In the same way faith, if good deeds do not go with it, is quite dead.

But someone may say: So you have faith and I have good deeds? Show me this faith of yours without deeds, then! It is by my deeds that I will show you my faith.
You believe in the one God -- that is creditable enough, but even the demons have the same belief, and they tremble with fear.
Fool! Would you not like to know that faith without deeds is useless?
Was not Abraham our father justified by his deed, because he offered his son Isaac on the altar? So you can see that his faith was working together with his deeds; his faith became perfect by what he did. (James 2: 14-22)
 SWB: I do have to say that I find it amusing that Protestants claim to use Scripture as their final authority, yet they ignore inconvenient passages of Scripture. I posit that many if not most Protestants have decided or learned certain doctrines and find passages they think supports their beliefs, while ignoring passages they can't explain away without twisting what Scripture actually says.  Christ said we must do acts of charity or we will suffer eternal punishment; that is a clear command. James, the Apostle, said faith without works is dead, and a dead faith cannot save you. But, Catholics believe exactly what Christ and His Apostle taught, but we're the ones accused of not following Scripture. Strange.

…while Roman Catholics think Protestants teach easy-believism [sic] that requires nothing more than an emotional outburst brought on by manipulative preaching.

SWB: As a former Baptist (I became a Catholic Christian at age 36, so it was not naïve), I can attest that this is true, at least in my experience. People would go forward at the “altar call” time and again at church, when is the conversion true? When is it the one?  Our (Baptist) church was very emotional. Most of what I learned in church was fluff. I went to a Baptist college; it left me wanting something more substantive. The Catholic Church is always accused of having people blindly follow doctrines; I found that was much truer in the Protestant churches I attended than the Catholic Church. The majority of the Southern, Independent, and Regular Baptist churches, and the Lutheran and Episcipal churches I attended as an adult told the people that they must believe the pastor’s interpretation of Scripture or they’d be going to Hell.

Protestants blame Catholics for worshipping [sic] Mary,..

SWB: I think “blame” is the wrong word here. Protestants accuse Catholics of worshiping Mary. I believe many relish the accusation because they think it is a slam dunk in helping them convince people that Catholics are not Christians. It simply is not true; Catholics do not worship Mary. No matter how many ways and how often it is explained this accusation will continue. It is a favorite anti-Catholic lie.

… and Catholics think Protestants are apparently too dull to understand the distinctions Rome has made in this regard.

SWB: I don’t believe that is a correct characterization. I don’t know any Catholics, at least any who publicly debate Protestants, who think that Protestants are “too dull” to understand.  In point of fact, most Catholics try to give Protestants the benefit of the doubt that they simply have not heard the arguments for the distinctions. Protestants for the most part simply refuse to see or acknowledge the distinction between the honor we give to the Mother of our Savior and the worship we give God alone.  Mary was after all extremely blessed by God.  She carried God the Son in her womb. She was Christ’s first believer and follower. She is a model of Christian womanhood and a beautiful soul. It is a wonder to me, now, that Protestants are so hateful to Christ’s mother. After all, being disrespectful to anyone’s mother will not endure anyone to another, especially Christ. Even if Protestants refuse to honor her, they should at the very least not be unkind about her.

These caricatures are often difficult to overcome.    

SWB: True, and some caricatures perpetuated in this very article.

[3rd para] Behind the particular disagreements over the role of faith and works, the sacraments, the canon of Scripture, the role of the priesthood, prayers to saints, and all the issues surrounding Mary and the Pope, etc., lies the biggest rift between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism: the issue of authority.    SWB: Very True.   How one answers the authority question will generally inform all the other issues. When it comes down to deciding a theological issue about defined Catholic dogma, there isn’t really much to discuss on the Catholic's side because once Rome speaks, it is settled.

SWB: Yes, when Rome speaks, it is settled.  However, the Church neither asks us to be nor assumes us to be mindless drones. Study of Scripture and Church theology is encouraged. There are many, many resources available to Catholics or anyone interested in the Catholic Church if they have any questions. These resources include but are not limited to the Bible, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, EWTN television and radio, numerous Catholic online outlets such as Catholic Answers, Catholic Bridge, the Vatican website, and many more.

This is a problem when trying to debate a Roman Catholic – reason and Scripture are not the Catholic’s final authority; they can always retreat into the “safe zone” of Roman Catholic authority.

SWB: Protestant perception of Catholic surety as retreat is simply false perception. In point of fact, the majority of Catholic History is one of reason. The Church was the foremost supporter of science throughout history (many of the science discoveries were made by monks). The University system in Europe was built by monks. The earliest private school in America was founded by a nun. Most Catholics who publicly debate Protestants have studied theology for years; they have questioned and studied what the Church teaches through her Christ-given authority. The Church, in fact, encourages inquiry and study. The Protestant’s false characterization of the simple mindedness of Catholics is simply that—false.  The “safe zone” is the two millennia of study and reasoning that can be tested and its truth and consistency relied on.

Thus, many of the arguments between a Protestant and a Catholic will revolve around one's “private interpretation” of Scripture as against the "official teachings of the Roman Catholic Church."

SWB: I would agree with that only if the author also agrees that “private interpretation” not only has led to many diverse Protestant sects who claim to know the “truth” but also makes each individual (or at least there pastor or leader) their own pope, since they brook no argument of their “private interpretation”. And, I would posit that the arguments revolve around individual Protestant interpretations (which by the way cannot all be true) and the study and reasoned theology of a Catholic (which have arrived at one truth).

Catholics claim to successfully avoid the legitimate problems of private interpretation by their reliance on their tradition.

SWB: Actually, no, Catholics claim that they can study the actual words of Christ, His Apostles, and the many, many generations of theologians to approach “legitimate problems.” Two thousand years of theology and debate carry much more weight than one man's "private interpretation"  Two thousand years of consistent, intelligent, deep thought and debate is pretty compelling to billions of Catholics.

But this merely pushes the question back a step. The truth is that both Roman Catholics and Protestants must, in the end, rely upon their reasoning abilities (to choose their authority) and their interpretive skills (to understand what that authority teaches) in order to determine what they will believe. Protestants are simply more willing to admit that this is the case.

SWB: I love how the thousands of reinterpretations and “truths” are considered reasoned. To admit that, one is simply willing to reject two millennia of teaching and that seems awfully unreasoned. Catholics, at least all those I know that debate Protestants, readily “admit” that they rely upon their own reasoning ability. They (Catholics) are just more willing to actually study the theology and the history of the Church. Protestants unnecessarily start from scratch again and again.

[4th para] Both sides can also be fiercely loyal to their family's faith or the church they grew up in without much thought to doctrinal arguments.

SWB: That is not always true.  In point of fact, I know of many, many converts to Catholicism. Many of whom were “fiercely loyal” to the faith they grew up in, but could not in all consciousness stay a Protestant after years of studying the Catholic Faith. That includes me. I studied the Catholic Faith for several years before I entered an RCIA (Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults) class, where I questioned everything.  I did not convert mindlessly or out of loyalty. I became a Catholic because the Holy Spirit answered all my questions at RCIA and led me to the Truth. Christ established one Church, one Body, one Faith. He did not want us to be divided.  His Body was and is to be one.

Obviously, there are a lot of possible reasons for the division between Catholicism and Protestantism, and while we should not divide over secondary issues, both sides agree that we must divide when it comes to primary issues. Beyond that, we can agree to disagree and worship where we find ourselves most in agreement.

SWB: If only we could “agree to disagree.” In my experience as a Catholic, we are much more willing to find commonalities and work together. Christians should treat each other with dignity, respect, and charity. I’ve seen time and time again where Catholics would extend a hand of friendship and cooperation only to be scorned and rebuffed. However and despite our differences, we need to have a united front in the face of the growing violent, Muslim threat. We cannot win souls to Christ with all our infighting. Protestants would do good to at the very least admit that Catholics are sincere, believing Christians. We would all get along better.

When it comes to Roman Catholicism and Protestantism, the differences are just too great to ignore. However, that does not give license for caricatures or ignorant judgments…

SWB: Some of which were included in this article.

 – both sides need to be honest in their assessments and try not to go beyond what God has revealed.

SWB: I agree. I know that the Church does teach what God revealed, and nothing else.

SWB: My recommended resources: Catholic Answers,  Catholic Bridge,

SWB: For anyone who cares, I did earn a Bachelor's Degree (Summa Cum Laude) in Catholic Theology, which makes me just as qualified to speak on theology as those who anonymously author articles on GotQuestions.org.


Copyright disclosure:   Copyright Policy: While all of the material on the GotQuestions.org website is under copyright protection, the only purpose of our copyright is to make sure people copy it right. As long as you always clearly reference and/or link to www.gotquestions.org as the source of the material, you have our permission to copy, print, and distribute our material.

 

Monday, May 25, 2015

Letting Go

Our family went on an outing  1 1/2 hours from home. We attended Mass at a St. Mary's church. I leave out the location for, I think, obvious reasons. 

The last time we were at Mass there I felt very, very unwelcome. We were at Mass early which, judging by the fact that there were about five other people there (there are seven in our family), seems to be unusual.  We planned to sit in one of the front section of pews, because our cousin Fr. Donovan was to say his first Mass there. We were told that we could not sit there because they were reserving that section for other clergy. The other front section was for immediate family only. So, we sat in the middle section. Then, they decided about five minutes before Mass that they'd let people sit in the empty "clergy section." My son was too embarrassed and did not want to move.

So, we stayed in the middle section, and thought, oh well, we'll stay here. When it was time for the Eucharist, we found out that we were in the wrong section. Apparently, they reward those being late as those in the back and the those in the cry room got to go after the front section. Okay, so we stood up as the two front sections had gone. We were informed that it was not our turn; not only was it not our turn but we were in the section that went after every front side and back section went. I was mortified at being told to sit down and wait. I've never, ever felt so unwelcome at any Mass--to see my Lord. Not only did the stop us from sitting in the front section, which was subsequently empty, but we were not told that we were sitting (in the very next section behind the front pew sections) that we would be the very last in the whole church to receive communion.

I was so hurt by this that I left the nave before the end of Mass. I cried, and looked like a crazy woman because no one seemed to understand why I was upset. We had a family function in the parish hall so I had to get it together. I eventually did, but I've harbored a resentment of that church ever since.

This weekend, we had to go back there for a family function. With my resentment intact, we were on our way. I felt it all the way there; I felt it as I entered the church. I prayed for the Lord to help me let it go. I did however, make sure we did not, under any circumstances sit in the same section as last time. I did notice they redid the sanctuary.  The Tabernacle was actually in the center behind the altar; there was a statue of Mary in an alcove on our left (Jesus' right) and a statue of Joseph on the right.  A crucifix was in the center over the Tabernacle. I liked this new arrangement very much.

       The Scriptures this weekend were all about the coming of the Spirit of God. The homily talked not only about Pentecost but the need for forgiveness--forgiveness of others' offenses even when they do not know or do not ask forgiveness. It felt as if it were aimed at my heart. As were were in the second section and to one side, I thought we'd be receiving the Eucharist from one of the Lay Extra-Ordinary Eucharistic ministers.  However, to my surprise and delight we were ushered to the center and the priest. I had the privilege of receiving the Eucharist from the Priest's own hand this time around. My resentment was now completely gone. I let it go this weekend, and it was good.