Protestant and Catholic Bibles

What's the difference between Protestant and Catholic Bibles? Here is the historical answer to the question that lead to many interesting conversations in my life. It also denies the false notion that Catholics added seven books to the Bible.

After you have read this article, (Which I found on twopaths.com), please visit the amazon link and provide yourself with the Original King James Version released in 1611 for further clarification.

_________________________________________________________________

The First Christian Bible

At the time the Christian Bible was being formed, a Greek translation of Jewish Scripture, the Septuagint, was in common use and Christians adopted it as the Old Testament of the Christian Bible. However, around 100 A.D., Jewish rabbis revised their Scripture and established an official canon of Judaism which excluded some portions of the Greek Septuagint. The material excluded was a group of 15 late Jewish books, written during the period 170 B.C. to 70 A.D., that were not found in Hebrew versions of the Jewish Scripture. Christians did not follow the revisions of Judaism and continued to use the text of the Septuagint as the Old Testament.

Protestant Bibles

In the 1500s, Protestant leaders decided to organize the Old Testament material according to the official canon of Judaism rather than the Septuagint. They moved the Old Testament material which was not in the Jewish canon into a separate section of the Bible called the Apocrypha. So, Protestant Bibles then included all the same material as the earlier Bible, but it was divided into two sections: the Old Testament and the Apocrypha. Protestant Bibles included the Apocrypha until the mid 1800s, and the King James Version was originally published with the Apocrypha. However, the books of the Apocrypha were considered less important, and the Apocrypha was eventually dropped from most Protestant editions.

Catholic and Orthodox Bibles

The Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches did not follow the Protestant revisions, and they continue to base their Old Testament on the Septuagint. The result is that these versions of the the Bible have more Old Testament books than most Protestant versions. Catholic Old Testaments include 1st and 2nd Maccabees, Baruch, Tobit, Judith, The Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), additions to Esther, and the stories of Susanna and Bel and the Dragon which are included in Daniel. Orthodox Old Testaments include these plus 1st and 2nd Esdras, Prayer of Manasseh, Psalm 151 and 3rd Maccabees.

_________________________________________________________________

[1] Twopaths.com

[2] Amazon.com - Original King James Version of the Bible. 1611 Edition

Saint Augustine On Sins Against Nature

"Sins against nature, such as those of Sodom, are always and everywhere to be abominated and punished. Even if all nations committed them, the law of God would hold them all alike guilty of the same crime; for that law did not make them so that they could use themselves thus; inasmuch as the bond of fellowship which ought to exist between us and God is violated when that nature of which he is the Maker is defiled by lust and perversion. . "

[1] The Confessions. Augustine. Everyman's Library. Book III. 3.8.15

The Church on Abortion (Hint: it has been a little longer than 50 yrs. Ms. Pelosi)

The Didache
"The second commandment of the teaching: You shall not murder. You shall not commit adultery. You shall not seduce boys. You shall not commit fornication. You shall not steal. You shall not practice magic. You shall not use potions. You shall not procure [an] abortion, nor destroy a newborn child" (Didache 2:1–2 [A.D. 70]).

The Letter of Barnabas
"The way of light, then, is as follows. If anyone desires to travel to the appointed place, he must be zealous in his works. The knowledge, therefore, which is given to us for the purpose of walking in this way, is the following. . . . Thou shalt not slay the child by procuring abortion; nor, again, shalt thou destroy it after it is born" (Letter of Barnabas 19 [A.D. 74]).

The Apocalypse of Peter
"And near that place I saw another strait place . . . and there sat women. . . . And over against them many children who were born to them out of due time sat crying. And there came forth from them rays of fire and smote the women in the eyes. And these were the accursed who conceived and caused abortion" (The Apocalypse of Peter 25 [A.D. 137]).

Athenagoras
"What man of sound mind, therefore, will affirm, while such is our character, that we are murderers?. . . [W]hen we say that those women who use drugs to bring on abortion commit murder, and will have to give an account to God for the abortion, on what principle should we commit murder? For it does not belong to the same person to regard the very fetus in the womb as a created being, and therefore an object of God’s care, and when it has passed into life, to kill it; and not to expose an infant, because those who expose them are chargeable with child-murder, and on the other hand, when it has been reared to destroy it" (A Plea for the Christians 35 [A.D. 177]).

Tertullian
"In our case, a murder being once for all forbidden, we may not destroy even the fetus in the womb, while as yet the human being derives blood from the other parts of the body for its sustenance. To hinder a birth is merely a speedier man-killing; nor does it matter whether you take away a life that is born, or destroy one that is coming to birth. That is a man which is going to be one; you have the fruit already in its seed" (Apology 9:8 [A.D. 197])."Among surgeons’ tools there is a certain instrument, which is formed with a nicely-adjusted flexible frame for opening the uterus first of all and keeping it open; it is further furnished with an annular blade, by means of which the limbs [of the child] within the womb are dissected with anxious but unfaltering care; its last appendage being a blunted or covered hook, wherewith the entire fetus is extracted by a violent delivery."There is also [another instrument in the shape of] a copper needle or spike, by which the actual death is managed in this furtive robbery of life: They give it, from its infanticide function, the name of embruosphaktes, [meaning] "the slayer of the infant," which of course was alive. . . ."[The doctors who performed abortions] all knew well enough that a living being had been conceived, and [they] pitied this most luckless infant state, which had first to be put to death, to escape being tortured alive" (The Soul 25 [A.D. 210])."Now we allow that life begins with conception because we contend that the soul also begins from conception; life taking its commencement at the same moment and place that the soul does" (ibid., 27)."The law of Moses, indeed, punishes with due penalties the man who shall cause abortion [Ex. 21:22–24]" (ibid., 37).

Minucius Felix
"There are some [pagan] women who, by drinking medical preparations, extinguish the source of the future man in their very bowels and thus commit a parricide before they bring forth. And these things assuredly come down from the teaching of your [false] gods. . . . To us [Christians] it is not lawful either to see or hear of homicide" (Octavius 30 [A.D. 226]).

Hippolytus
"Women who were reputed to be believers began to take drugs to render themselves sterile, and to bind themselves tightly so as to expel what was being conceived, since they would not, on account of relatives and excess wealth, want to have a child by a slave or by any insignificant person. See, then, into what great impiety that lawless one has proceeded, by teaching adultery and murder at the same time!" (Refutation of All Heresies [A.D. 228]).

Council of Ancyra in AD 341
"Concerning women who commit fornication, and destroy that which they have conceived, or who are employed in making drugs for abortion, a former decree excluded them until the hour of death, and to this some have assented. Nevertheless, being desirous to use somewhat greater lenity, we have ordained that they fulfill ten years [of penance], according to the prescribed degrees" (canon 21 [A.D. 314]).

Basil the Great
"Let her that procures abortion undergo ten years’ penance, whether the embryo were perfectly formed, or not" (First Canonical Letter, canon 2 [A.D. 374])."He that kills another with a sword, or hurls an axe at his own wife and kills her, is guilty of willful murder; not he who throws a stone at a dog, and unintentionally kills a man, or who corrects one with a rod, or scourge, in order to reform him, or who kills a man in his own defense, when he only designed to hurt him. But the man, or woman, is a murderer that gives a philtrum, if the man that takes it dies upon it; so are they who take medicines to procure abortion; and so are they who kill on the highway, and rapparees" (ibid., canon 8).

John Chrysostom
"Wherefore I beseech you, flee fornication. . . . Why sow where the ground makes it its care to destroy the fruit?—where there are many efforts at abortion?—where there is murder before the birth? For even the harlot you do not let continue a mere harlot, but make her a murderess also. You see how drunkenness leads to prostitution, prostitution to adultery, adultery to murder; or rather to a something even worse than murder. For I have no name to give it, since it does not take off the thing born, but prevents its being born. Why then do thou abuse the gift of God, and fight with his laws, and follow after what is a curse as if a blessing, and make the chamber of procreation a chamber for murder, and arm the woman that was given for childbearing unto slaughter? For with a view to drawing more money by being agreeable and an object of longing to her lovers, even this she is not backward to do, so heaping upon thy head a great pile of fire. For even if the daring deed be hers, yet the causing of it is thine" (Homilies on Romans 24 [A.D. 391]).

Jerome
"I cannot bring myself to speak of the many virgins who daily fall and are lost to the bosom of the Church, their mother. . . . Some go so far as to take potions, that they may insure barrenness, and thus murder human beings almost before their conception. Some, when they find themselves with child through their sin, use drugs to procure abortion, and when, as often happens, they die with their offspring, they enter the lower world laden with the guilt not only of adultery against Christ but also of suicide and child murder" (Letters 22:13 [A.D. 396]).

The Apostolic Constitutions
"Thou shalt not use magic. Thou shalt not use witchcraft; for he says, ‘You shall not suffer a witch to live’ [Ex. 22:18]. Thou shall not slay thy child by causing abortion, nor kill that which is begotten. . . . [I]f it be slain, [it] shall be avenged, as being unjustly destroyed" (Apostolic Constitutions 7:3 [A.D. 400]).

Thanks to Taylor Marshall for compiling this list from Catholic Answers.

Defending Marriage

I want to share this recent article from the Catholic News Agency (CNA) regarding the fight to protect marriage. Please read and support.

_________________________________

Sacramento, Aug 13, 2008 / 01:10 am (CNA).- ProtectMarriage.com, the campaign favoring Proposition 8, the California initiative that would ban same-sex marriage, on Tuesday announced the launch of the official grassroots effort dedicated to supporting the campaign. The organization Catholics for ProtectMarriage.com is led by the Knights of Columbus, the California Catholic Conference and Catholics for the Common Good.

Catholics for ProtectMarriage.com is chaired by Bill May, who is also chairman of Catholics for the Common Good.

“Our strong Catholic faith teaches us the importance of treating all of God's children with love and respect, it also teaches us that marriage between a man and a woman is the foundation of the family - the first school of love, peace and justice," May said in a statement. "The ruling by the California Supreme Court nullifying the legal definition of marriage in state law was a shock to Catholics and other citizens who are concerned about how this will affect their own children's understanding of marriage.”

California Catholics reportedly played a large role in the passage of Proposition 22 in 2000, which defined marriage as being between one man and one woman. The proposition was approved by more than 60 percent of California voters.

Proposition 22 was overturned on May 15, 2008 by the California Supreme Court. The court’s majority found that domestic partnerships are not an adequate substitute for marriage.
Ron Prentice, chairman of ProtectMarriage.com, welcomed Catholics to the effort aimed at amending California’s Constitution. “The fight to protect marriage is an all-encompassing effort that affects everyone in California," he said. "We're honored to have Catholics for ProtectMarriage.com offer us their assistance and to add them to our diverse list of supporters. We expect they will help us motivate a groundswell of support for Proposition and we're confident that with that support we will restore the definition of marriage in California, come November.”

Catholics for ProtectMarriage.com reportedly supports volunteer activities such as literature distribution and phoning in parishes and surrounding communities. Its website is located at http://catholicsforprotectmarriage.com/.

[1] Full Article

[2] Protect Marriage.com

By Whose Authority? (Part II)

In order to deal with the issue of authority, we must make sure that we are clear on something. Often times our Protestant brethren make the argument regarding authority out to be Church vs. Scripture. This is a false dichotomy. It isn't an either/or argument...it is a both/and argument.

Catholics do believe that scripture is materially sufficient in matters of faith and morals, we just don’t believe that it is formally sufficient. What is the difference? The difference between formal and material sufficiency is the difference between having a brick house and having a big enough pile of bricks to build a house. Drawing on this analogy, Christ is the builder and he uses the mortar of Tradition and the trowel of the Magisterium to build His brick house of revelation from a mere pile of bricks (Mt. 16:18, Eph. 2:19-22; 1 Tim. 3:15). It is these three elements together -- written Tradition (that is, Scripture), unwritten Tradition, and the Magisterium -- that hand down the fullness of revelation, who is Jesus Christ. [1]

Many protestants will say that sola scriptura has its safeguards to prevent them from falling into doctrinal error; they believe in having good hermeneutical (how to apply the text) principles by which one must base his understanding of scripture (ie. using clear texts to interpret unclear, interpreting the New Testament in light of the Old, etc.) We can agree to this as well. However, how do we determine the difference between a “clear text” and an “unclear text?” Is a text clear because one understands it, or is it because one thinks he understands it? If we take the sentence: “I never said you stole money”, we can emphasize different words in the sentence and arrive at vastly different meanings. The sentence is pretty simple, yet we can misinterpret it very easily. It is much easier to hold a face to face converstion with someone than it is to write letters. Why? Because we could hear inflection and read body language. As it is, we are merely reading the written word.

We also must recognize that biblical interpretation is more than just good exegesis (interpreting a text on the basis of the text itself). Biblical scholarship can very easily be reduced to merely dissecting a corpse. We must look at the genre of the book as well as the four senses of scripture: literal, anagogical, allegorical and moral. We should then put ourselves in the historical context of the audience for which it was written. In the case of the NT, that would be first century Jews. First century Jews had a covenantal world view that we don’t really understand. Now if SS is to be adhered to, how does the average person do this? Some of us have the advantage of being well educated. Many of us have the resources available to do in depth personal study? How can one interpret the bible if they have no Bible and even if they did, they couldn’t read it? The only access to scripture that may people have had in previous generations is what they heard in church. If you look at the patristic sources, they were trying to determine the canon so that they would have a list of books that were suitable for being read in church. The context of scripture is the liturgy. In the account of the disciples on the way to Emmaus, the Scriptures came alive for the disciples after Jesus took, blessed, broke and gave bread with them. Is that a coincidence that these are the same words used at the last supper? These are the same words we hear every time we attend Mass. We read the Word of God, then we commune (literally) with the Word of God. As Scott Hahn has said many times, "a protestant studies the menu while the Catholic or Orthodox enjoys the meal."

I recently read the question: “Why is there a need for scripture and the Church…why not one or the other?” Well, why do we have textbooks and teachers? Why do we have the constitution as well as the Court? Why do companies have business plans and boards? Why does baseball have umpires? Why do we have the phrase, “that isn’t what I meant?” There will always be a need to clear up confusion.



[1]http://cuf.org/faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=133)

By Whose Authority? (Part I)

Why do we believe what we believe? Do we accept the authority of scripture? Is scripture inerrant? If so, how do we know? Do we accept the authority of the Church? What about tradition? Can we know for sure that our beliefs are correct (orthodox)? Many of these questions are being asked by the authors of the blog "By Whose Authority?" These are all questions that we should be able to wrestle with and ultimately answer. I hope to complete a two part series that will look at the Protestant position of authority (part I) and then look at the Catholic position (part II).

Can we know for sure the we have correct doctrine? For a Catholic, the answer to this is, YES! But for the Protestant, the answer is ...probably, in as much as I am being led by the Spirit and using my well informed reason. The Catholic Church believes that scripture, tradition and the magisterium (teaching office) of the Church work together in order to guarantee right doctrine.

Protestants, however, are unanimous in saying that scripture alone (sola scriptura or SS for short) is the rule of faith. "We believe that the only rule and standard by which all dogms and all doctors are to be weighed and judged, is nothing else but the prophetic and apostolic writings of the Old and New Testaments" (Form. Concordiae, 1577). The problem with this is that scripture doesn't interpret itself. The early reformers had already acknowledged this as well. In 1571 Convocation had put forward what was, perhaps unwittingly, a double rule of faith: "preachers", they say, "shall see that they never teach anything . . . except what is agreeable to the doctrine of the Old and New Testament, and what the Catholic Fathers and ancient Bishops have collected out of that very doctrine" (Wilkins, "Concilia", IV, 267). They acknowledged the necessity of the Church for right doctrine. The irony here is that the reformers themselves were exercising "church authority." [1]

Not too long after, we see attempts to remove any Church authority and the individual, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, is now to be considered the rule of faith. "[I]n the Westminster Confession of Faith (1643-7), which declared that the "Books of the Old and New Testaments are . . . given by inspiration of God, to be the rule of faith and life" (art. ii), but that the "authority of the Holy Scripture . . . dependeth not upon the testimony of any man or church" (art. iv). They add: "We may be moved by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scripture . . . yet our full persuasion of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness by and with the word in our hearts" (art. v). " [2]

First of all, does the Spirit tell us that we are reading the inspired word of God when we open the Bible? If so, how do we know? Is it as simple as the Holy Spirit bearing witness with our hearts? This makes things very subjective. The Mormon Church claims the Book of Mormon to be inspired. They can also claim that the Spirit bears witness with their hearts. Using this logic, we must elevate the Book of Mormon, Koran, or any other religious literature that one can claim to be inspired to be on the same level of scripture. This assertion is obviously false.

Second of all, assuming that we are reading the inspired word of God, how can we know for sure that we are correct in our interpretation? For centuries, there have been disagreements on what the Bible actually says. Is infant baptism appropriate? Is baptism necessary for salvation? Is Christ really present in the Eucharist? Disagreements on these issues have created division after division throughout Christendom. So who is right? If we agree with the assertion that the Spirit led individual is the rule of faith, then we have a major problem.

Basically, I see their logic going like this:

Q: "How does one know if he has right doctrine?"
A: "He must be led by the Spirit."
Q: "How do we know if one is led by the Spirit?"
A: "He must have sound doctrine."

This is what philosophers could call "petitio principii" or begging the question. We could also call it circular argument. You can't prove something if your premise is that which you are trying to prove.

It is difficult for the individual to interpret scripture apart from another authority in one form or another. One may use a commentary to help interpret difficult passages. Or one may look to the Church Fathers. Maybe one will even look to the early Church Councils. "In practice, however, the Reformed Churches have never acted up to the principle of private judgment, but have, in one form or another, urged the authority of the Church in deciding the contents of the Bible, its inspiration, and its meaning."[3]

The irony here is that the problem that a protestant has with church authority, they seem to apply to themselves. So if they believe that the Spirit can guide the individual, why can't He guide the magisterium?

[1]http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05766b.htm
[2] Ibid
[3] Ibid

What is at stake?

"I stand by my votes against confirming Justices Roberts and Alito," he stated to a cheering crowd. "I made it equally clear that I will never back down from making sure that women have their reproductive rights here in this country -- that's what's at stake in this election."

--Barak Obama

Read the entire article here.

How can a Catholic or any Christian for that matter vote for this man?

"If you look at a woman to desire her..." TOB 40

In chapter 2 of TOB John Paul the Great shifts from the creation account to Jesus' sermon on the mount. The passage that he analyzes is Matt 5:27-28:27

"You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery.' 28 But I say to you that every one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.RSV

The word that is used for "lustfully" is better translated as "desire." Two other places where the word desire is used would be : Genesis 3:16 and Genesis 4:7. Take a look at the texts:

Gen 3:16 To the woman he said,"I will greatly multiply your pain in childbearing;in pain you shall bring forth children,yet your desire shall be for your husband,and he shall rule over you." RSV

Gen 4:17 If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin is couching at the door; its desire is for you, but you must master it." RSV

In both of the cases in Genesis, the word desire is used to describe a taking. JPTG gives a great definition of concupiscent desire in 40:1:

Concupiscent "desire," I would say, is the deception of the human heart with regard to the perennial call of man and woman to communion through ta reciprocal gift--a call that has been revealed in the very mystery of creation. Thus, when in the Sermon on the Mount Christ refers to "the heart" or to the inner man, his words do not cease to be charged with that truth about the "beginning," to which he had referred the whole problem of man, woman, and marriage in the answer to the Pharisees (see Mt. 19:8).

Notice that JPTG is not saying that concupiscent desire is completely opposite from that which God intended in the "beginning." We are supposed to desire our spouses. But we are to desire them in the way that we desire communion with God. We must first be willing to give ourselves before we can receive. When we "desire" to take something, we destroy the gift. One of the consequences of original sin is that we take something that is good and treat it as an end in and of itself, thereby foregoing the very thing that God has for us. We reduce the marital act to a physical exchange rather than a communion of persons.

JPTG is trying to tell us that our intentions are as great as our actions.

Work, Love, Romance, Joy - Opus Dei

Finding time to read has not been easy as for me lately as it has been in the past. I still find time here and there to pick up a book, however, new books are not coming in as much as they used to. With our new house, and our first child on the way :), when it comes to buying books I now have a budget, a very small budget. This actually works out for me because it allows me to go back and reread some of my favorite titles that I haven’t read in over a year or two. One of which is, “Ordinary Work, Extraordinary Grace: My Spiritual Journey in Opus Dei” by Dr. Scott Hahn. (I know this is one of David’s favorites as well). Throughout his book Hahn underlines how much joy should enlighten our hearts when we are working for the love of God. Here, Hahn gives us a biblical illustration of that type of love we should all strive for among our daily lives.

". . . Consider the story of Jacob, in the Book of Genesis (Genesis 29). One day while traveling, the young man met a woman “beautiful and lovely” named Rachel. He was so smitten that he wept aloud. Soon he approached Rachel’s father, Laban, and asked for the privilege of marrying her. So much did he love her that he promised to work in Laban’s lands for seven years in order to merit such a wife. “So Jacob served seven years for Rachel, and they seemed to him but a few days because of the love he had for her”. Jacob would, in fact, labor another seven years that way, because of the trickery of Laban.
Notice, however, that Jacob did not toil in bitterness. Nor did he grimly ponder all the places he’d rather be than pushing sheep through the pastures of an untrustworthy man. He worked with joy because his heart was set on the goal: the love of Rachel. He kept a spirit of service because he was serving the only man who could lead him to that goal. In fact, when all was said and done and Jacob had married Rachel, he served Laban for another seven years, out of gratitude!"

We can learn a lot from Jacob, especially when it comes to reaching our ultimate goal, Heaven. As Dr. Hahn asks, “for that goal, how much should we be willing to work? Seven years? Fourteen? Twenty one? Seventy? The longest lifetime would not be enough.” Lets all strive to work with love and joy at every moment in our everyday lives, and especially in our homes.

[1] Ordinary Work, Extraordinary Grace: My Spiritual Journey in Opus Dei” by Dr. Scott Hahn. Pg. 121-122.

Death Wish by Fr. Corapi

DEATH WISH!
THE IMPENDING SUICIDE OF A ONCE GREAT NATION
©2008 REV. JOHN A. CORAPI, SOLT, STD
www.fathercorapi.com
A large number of endangered, unwanted, and unborn children held a town hall meeting on the 4th of July--alarmed at the brutal and untimely killing of millions of their brothers and sisters in recent years. That the murderous war waged on them had the full force and respectability of the law made their plight all the more terrifying. Their complaint was humble and it was simple. They were not distressed by rising gas prices, or the deteriorating economy in general. They were not even frightened by the exponential increase of natural disasters. The threat of global warming or global terrorism did not greatly disturb them.

They had become an endangered species, and little had been done to answer their terrified and silent screams from the womb. They decided that the barbaric treatment that they and their fellow unwanted unborn human beings have had to endure for perilous decades sunconscionable and unbearable. They cried out to their Creator for inspiration and protection, and then unanimously they put forth a declaration. It began as follows:

“When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

WE HOLD THESE TRUTHS TO BE SELF-EVIDENT, THAT ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL, THAT THEY ARE ENDOWED BY THEIR CREATOR WITH CERTAIN UNALIENABLE RIGHTS, THAT AMONG THESE ARE LIFE, LIBERTY AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS….”
THAT AMONG THESE IS LIFE; THAT AMONG THESE IS LIFE; THAT AMONG
THESE IS LIFE!

The first and pre-eminent right is the right to life. This truth the Founding Fathers were sure of, and anyone with any common sense at all is equally sure of it. 232 years after the Declaration of Independence was signed the amount of common sense that seems to be operative in many spheres of influence—most notably the courts and the political arena-- can easily be poured into a very small thimble.

The United States of America seems to have a death wish, and we have traveled far down
the road to having that wish realized. When law divorces itself from common sense and spawns the illegitimate offspring of distortions of law, resulting in illegal laws—based neither on the natural law nor divine law--this undermines law itself, generating disdain for the law. Erosion of trust in the courts, or the system in general, is inevitable.

The genesis of the death wish is rooted in the fall of man that we see in the Book of Genesis. The substance of the fall is wrapped up in Lucifer’s pride, transferred to Adam and Eve—“You can be like gods, knowing good and evil.” The unholy, yet inevitable, consequence of that pride is disobedience—eating the forbidden fruit. The ultimate end is death, as God said it would be. That’s the way it was in the beginning. That’s the way it is now. That’s the way it will be until time breathes forth it’s last moment.

The prototypical sin is pride, the pride that seeks to exalt the creature above the Creator:
“I can be like God.” Then, subjectively and arbitrarily, man tries to assert himself, imagining that he knows what’s good and evil for himself without reference to God and God’s law. This was the fall of the angels and the fall of man. The attempt by creatures to usurp what is only the province of God. Only God knows what is good for His creation.

In recent years it took the form of a self-inflicted heart wound when some dissident Catholics rejected the teaching of the Church, a teaching that clearly held that artificial contraception is intrinsically evil. Then, as Pope Paul VI had warned, it metastasized into abortion. From abortion it degenerated even further into partial-birth abortion. It was then a short and easy step to infanticide.

The exclamation point at the end of the death wish is that now there is yet another candidate for the office of president of the United States who has in an extraordinary way done everything possible to breathe life into all of the barbaric elements of the death wish. He and his party make no apologies for their support of abortion, partial-birth abortion, and even infanticide. It’s hard to believe that we have degenerated to the point that we’ll murder a helpless baby should it escape the violence of an abortion and be born alive. Can a Catholic vote for such persons? We are told, “yes” for a “proportionate reason.” What, I might ask, is the proportionate reason so weighty as to excuse supporting those responsible for what is tantamount to genocide? The judges and politicians that support such barbaric practices are truly guilty of genocide: genocide—the deliberate and systematic destruction of an ethnic, racial, religious, national, or social group. “What is the group so targeted?” you might ask. The group is unwanted, unborn children--tens of millions of them.

The Supreme Court justices that gave us Roe v. Wade will have to plead temporary insanity in the court of history. There will be no defense in the highest Court that is the judgment seat of almighty God if they do not repent of the incalculable evil they have wrought. Yet, despite the life and death importance of this travesty of authentic law, there will be no serious discussion among political candidates, or anyone else. It is as if society has been bewitched, blind to the splendor of truth, deaf to the cries of the most innocent, most vulnerable, and most utterly helpless.

From artificial contraception to abortion to partial-birth abortion, then on to infanticide we march toward the abyss of oblivion, a society marked for death. Is it any wonder we can rationalize the killing of the elderly or the sick through euthanasia? The tragic murder of Terri Schiavo is a logical extension of a morally numb society’s mad march toward its own suicidal death. She wasn’t sick. She wasn’t dying. They murdered her, starved her to death--one of the cruelest forms of death. She was innocent, yet subjected to a most cruel and unusual punishment. Why? Because she was helpless? Because she was too much trouble, too hard to look at?

As Abraham Lincoln asserted, “If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.” We are dying by suicide, moral and spiritual suicide, and the moral demise of a nation almost always precedes the ultimate demise of a nation. Many of our leaders, political and legal, are reminiscent of the horrid witches in Act 1 Scene 1 of Shakespeare’s “Macbeth,” chanting shrilly to a morally sick public all too eager to be confirmed in their sins, “Fair is foul, and foul is fair: Hover through the fog and filthy air.”

Good is evil, and evil is good. The truth is a lie and lies are the truth, hover through the fog of moral relativism and the filthy air of a world gone mad with the madness of sin. The words of the prophet thunder through the ages, “ Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness” (Isaiah 5:20).

We have inverted the poles of the moral power grid. We have begun to call the negative pole the positive, and the positive the negative. This inversion of reality begets disaster: The power fails, the lights go out, darkness falls—and indeed, if your light is darkness, how deep, how very deep will the darkness be! (cf. Mt 6:23).

This death wish has marched toward its logical and inexorable conclusion with little opposition from leaders--political, legal, or religious. The world knows the Catholic Church and any self-respecting and faithful Christian roundly reject abortion and all of the other nails in the coffin of contemporary society, but the defense of life has been weak. Weak leadership, whether in society in general, or in the Church in particular, is punishment for sin. The Old Covenant has examples enough of the Chosen People being turned over to exile and their enemies because of infidelity. They lamented, “We have no priest, prophet, or king.” These were taken away because of infidelity. In recent times large numbers of Catholics and other Christians rejected Pope Paul VI’s landmark and prophetic encyclical Humanae Vitae, on Human Life. A majority of the bishops of Canada did so publicly, formally, and in writing with their infamous Winnipeg Statement.

The great Archbishop Fulton Sheen lamented bitterly in the 1970s that the prophetic spirit of Christ had all but been extinguished in the contemporary Church. Today there are many CEOs, all too few Apostles. Are we afraid of a fight? Do we fear rejection, misunderstanding, or derision? Are we cowed and intimidated by fallacious notions of the separation of Church and state? Could we be afraid of persecution? Could we be afraid of losing our tax-exempt status? Have we declared détente with evil?

The clock is ticking. Midnight is approaching. Time is running out for our nation, a nation that once was great, and could be great again if enough of us wake up and renounce this curse of a death wish. Will God turn his friends over to His enemies as He has done multiple times in the past? Will radical Islam overrun us? Will the planet cook? Will one too many natural disasters grind us into dust? Will we collapse economically? All of the above? Perhaps these are all merely effects of the underlying cause—a death wish that chokes the life out of us.

In the end it is likely that President Abraham Lincoln had it right: “Intoxicated with unbroken success, we have become too self-sufficient to feel the necessity of redeeming and preserving grace, too proud to pray to the God that made us.” Thus forgetting that we are one nation under God, we become a nation gone under (President Ronald Reagan). And, indeed, “If destruction be our lot we ourselves will be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen we must live through all time, or die by suicide.”

May God grant us the grace to awake from this deadly moral slumber, renounce the death wish, and live like truly free men and women—in the glorious freedom of the children of God.

Should We Be Surprised? (Updated)

Art suggested that we submit "Should We Be Surprised?" as a letter to the editor in our local paper. After much deliberation, I have decided to do so. My good friend AJ Fredette looked it over and offered some suggestions, which I will gladly take. I would also like any readers of our blog to offer comments and/or suggestions before I send it off to the paper. So...the semi final draft is as follows:

As we all know, the California Supreme Court recently decided to make same sex marriage a fundamental right. Needless to say, this has created quite a stir. Chief Justice, Ronald M. George wrote the majority opinion and was quoted as saying, "I think there are times when doing the right thing means not playing it safe." I completely agree. Doing the right thing does mean not playing it safe; especially when one is defending the rights of others, which is what the Court believes it has done. Others, however, disagree that this is what was accomplished.The central problem in the debate over same sex marriage revolves around the definition of marriage. There are those who argue, as the California Supreme Court does, that marriage is simply an agreement between parties to share certain assets as a result of the experience of a certain degree of affection. Dissenters, however, recognize that marriage has a deeper meaning, basis, and function.

Marriage, in this view, has two components: contractual and covenantal. The Court has the legal right to do what they please with the contractual part of marriage, as contracts are strictly legal instruments. However, they have no say over the covenantal, or sacramental, aspect of marriage, as this part is subsumed in spiritual considerations. While a contract is an exchange of goods and services, a covenant is a union of persons.

The sacrament of matrimony is more than just two people who love each other agreeing on terms and conditions under which they will share a life. It is more than being able to file a joint tax return or reap legal benefits granted by the government. These are the contractual aspects of marriage that should be the Court’s purview. But the covenantal, spiritual dimension of matrimony transcends and supersedes the contractual and is beyond the scope of the Court’s authority.

Matrimony, in its fullest sense, is about the communion of persons as God intended from the beginning. Look no further than Matthew 19 to see Jesus' teaching on marriage:

"And the Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, "Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?" He answered, "Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, `For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder."

Notice that Jesus refers to the "beginning,” harkening to the Creation. Genesis 1:27 states, “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.” Together, male and female make up "man." And "man" is created in the image of God. The way we reflect the image of God is in the one flesh union of the marital act. This is not possible in a same sex union as the marital act requires a male and a female. Why?If God is a communion of persons, then we, as images of God, are to be a communion of persons. But God is the communion of Three Persons in the Blessed Trinity and a married couple is just a communion of two persons. Where is the third person of the human trinity? Well, my wife and I have four of them. The love between a husband and wife is so real that in nine months you give it a name. That is how we image God. This is what makes marriage a covenant rather than merely a contract. Covenants create families.

Covenants, then, result in procreative, self-perpetuating unions. Contracts specify terms, conditions, limits, and duration of agreement. In contracts, the parties remain separate. In covenants, the parties become one. Further, now that the courts have officially taken marriage out of the context of a covenant and made it purely a contract between consenting adults, what is to keep them from allowing multiple marriage partners? After all, contracts often involve more than two parties. This and a variety of other marital contractual arrangements become permissible by denying or ignoring the covenantal aspect of matrimony.

A difficulty, perhaps by now insuperable, is that many of the folks who are so upset about this decision, claiming that it isn’t the way God intended or it isn’t “natural,” have become part of the problem without realizing it. Marriage was actually taken out of its covenantal context long ago. The 1970’s saw the legalization of “no fault” divorce as well as abortion. And the door to all of this was opened in the first part of the 20th century with the legalization of artificial contraceptives. With the extensive use of contraceptives, most married couples have negated the third person of the family and reduced the marital act to a pleasurable, strictly physical experience. Husbands and wives are simply using each other for pleasure. How is that different from that which a same sex couple can accomplish? The thing that sets the covenant of marriage apart is life-giving love. If the possibility of life is taken out of the marriage by way of contraception, then it is no different than any other act between two people who "love" each other, thereby reducing the marriage to a contract. The irony is striking. While proponents of contraception, “no fault” divorce, and abortion claim to work for happy, healthy families, what they have accomplished is a diminution of the importance of the covenantal, procreative, life-giving aspect of the institution, thus degrading it. Many of these people are the loudest voices protesting the statutory recognition of same-sex marriages.

If we truly want to protect the sanctity of marriage, then we need to reclaim the covenant of marriage. If we want to reclaim the covenant of marriage, we had better take a hard look at how we can protect the sanctity of life. When it comes to life and marriage, God has brought them together, let no man put them asunder. So really, we shouldn’t be surprised by the court’s decision-- our society has been working to destroy the underpinnings of marriage for years.

I would appreciate any feedback I can get...thanks.

US Bishops on Stem Cell Research

The US Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) recently made a statement regarding stem cell research. It is worth reading at length. Stem cell research has caused quite a bit of controversy, and rightfully so. It seems that the stem cells from adults as well as umbilical cord blood has proven beneficial while the stem cells from embroys haven't been proven to be effective. Why would the scientific community insist on "harvesting" stem cells by destroying the lives of human embryos when umbilical cord blood is easy to come by?

Church Authority

Michael Barber had a post containing a video of Scott Hahn discussing church authority. Very appropriate given the readings for yesterday's mass.

Holy Innocents Church

I had the opportunity to travel with Fr. Scott to Long Beach last week. He meets with a group of priests for an Opus Dei circle. The parish we visited was Holy Innocents and Fr. Peter is a fantastic man to talk to. His blog is very interesting and I will be adding it to our blog roll. Take a look when you get a chance. Fr. Peter is doing a great job of spreading the Pro Life message.



To go to Fr. Peters blog, click here.