Always Advent

Critics of the Catholic Church sometimes cite the Bible’s admonition against “vain repetition” as evidence that prayers like the Rosary, Litanies, Novenas and other Catholic devotions are no good.

A friend of mine recently said this in response to that kind of criticism: “Repetition is not vain if the prayer truly comes from the heart.”

Of novenas he said, “Repeating our intentions for nine consecutive days shows the Lord that we are earnest in our request and that we are willing to wait for His timing in answering our prayer.”

Food for thought! Have a relaxing Sunday tomorrow everyone.

I came across this excellent book at my local public library, on the “new books” shelf:

The Catholicism Answer Book by Rev. John Trigilio Jr., PhD and Rev. Kenneth Brighenti, PhD (2007, Sourcebooks Inc.)

Straight-up, no-nonsense, get in/get out question & answer format. I haven’t read the whole thing yet, but it passes all the tests for good, Catholic books: orthodox, faithful answers to the hot button questions about sexual morality (contraception, homosexuality, fornication), life issues (abortion, capital punishment, cloning, embryonic stem cell research), clergy (male priesthood, priestly celibacy), history (the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Da Vinci Code) and the Bible (questions of creation, reading the Bible correctly). And so on.

Best place for this book? On your coffee table, bedside, or the reading rack in your bathroom. Highly recommended.

The authors also wrote Catholicism for Dummies.

Just a reprint today: an excellent editorial from the National Catholic Register last year. Enjoy!

Six Myths of Atheism
http://ncregister.com/site/article/7279

Six Myths of Atheism

BY THE EDITORS
November 18-24, 2007 Issue | Posted 11/13/07 at 1:28 PM

In one respect, it’s good that Golden Compass, a book by a prominent atheist children’s author, is being made into a movie. It could lead to a wider discussion of atheism. It is easy to be a quiet atheist — but much harder to remain an atheist when you actually have to explain your position. Here are a few common myths about atheism that discussion can help dispel.

Myth: Atheists are more logical than believers.

A myth that is kin to this one is the myth that believers are more logical than atheists. In fact, the reasons people become believers or become atheists are rarely reducible to logic. Rather, a number of experiences, observations and emotional states together push someone toward belief or unbelief. The idea that there is an almighty God is terrifying to many people. Rather than be in the power of such a being, they flee him. Others, perhaps, have been so wounded by believers that they reject their beliefs and not just their behavior. Logic is brought in to comfort the atheist with rationalizations. On the other hand, the way we come to believe in God isn’t through a syllogism, either. It’s through a personal encounter with Christ, or with one of his proxies: beauty, truth and goodness.

Myth: The burden of proof is on the religious.

Atheists often say that the default position of mankind should be lack of belief, since there is “no proof” of God’s existence. Others say agnosticism should be the default position of mankind: We should start out by saying “We’re not sure,” and work from there. Anthony Flew, the prominent atheist who recently converted to a position of belief in “the God of Aristotle” said that the default position of mankind should be belief, since, after all, the universe and its complicated laws exists, and you have to deny the obvious to say that there is no creator. Flew saw three irrefutable proofs that there must be a god in the laws of nature, life with its singular organization and the existence of the universe.

Myth: Science makes God obsolete.

There is a widespread assumption that somehow the progress of science has challenged, or will challenge, the reasons that previous generations had for believing in God. But why should it? Imagine if human beings were the size of microbes and lived on a tuna noodle casserole instead of our current size on the earth. Imagine we became so scientifically advanced, we identified all the different constituent parts of the casserole we lived on, and even started to explore the vast kitchen outside the casserole. It would be ridiculous for us to claim that, since we know the ingredients so well, there must not have been a cook.

Myth: Science is a reliable guide for us.

In fact, if you look at the history of science, you don’t see the history of an infallible learning method slowly but surely widening our understanding of the universe. Science is an excellent instrument for fact-finding, but one that has been wrong about fundamental things at every point in its history. Theories of spontaneous generation seemed entirely reasonable at the dawn of science. Paul Ehrlich’s theories expecting mass famine due to overpopulation seemed plausible at the beginning of the 1970s. What theories of today will prove just as false? Scientific knowledge at any stage of its history is merely tentative, and new discoveries are continually refining or discarding previous theories.

Myth: Religion and science are incompatible.

Often, fans of this myth will cite Galileo as proof that religion and science are opponents in a contest that often appears to be a death match. The Galileo incident is actually a good example of the real relationship between science and religion. Search for Galileo at Catholic.com, to learn how the incident is widely misunderstood. Galileo’s theory that the earth travels around the sun and not vice versa was not unique to Galileo. Others held it, and the Church didn’t suppress the idea. Instead, Galileo’s personal animus toward the Pope forced the two into a showdown. The moral of the story? Real religion and honest science are certainly compatible: Religious people and scientists, however, sometimes fail to be.

Myth: Religion has led to violent intolerance.

Undoubtedly, far too many religious people have been violent and intolerant. But if you look at the facts about such notorious incidents as the Inquisition and the witch hunts (look them up at Catholic.com), you’ll find that the crimes of the Church have been greatly exaggerated. Meanwhile, atheist communists in the 20th century killed more people than the Church was ever even accused of killing. Killed were some 65 million (and counting) in China; 20 million in the Soviet Union, 2 million (and counting) in North Korea, 2 million in Cambodia, 1.7 million in Africa, 1.5 million in Afghanistan, 1 million in Vietnam, 1 million in communist Eastern Europe and 150,000 in Latin America.

Catholics should be aware of the threats to faith posed by movies like The Golden Compass, but we shouldn’t be afraid of them. The Church has faced far fiercer and cleverer opponents for more than 2,000 years, and we’re still here to tell the tale.

How are we able to come out ahead so consistently? That’s easy. It’s because there really is a God.

The dictionary definition of jealousy differs only slightly from that of envy, but the moral implications of envy are far worse.

To be jealous is to be “intolerant of rivalry or unfaithfulness; disposed to suspect rivalry or unfaithfulness; vigilant in guarding a possession.” Jealousy most often enters into love relationships. For example, a toddler is jealous of mom and dad’s attentions when the new baby comes along. A smitten young man doesn’t like to see his girlfriend talking to other guys. In the Bible, God even describes Himself as “a jealous God” because He desires above all else our exclusive love and devotion to Him, the only true God, and doesn’t want us chasing after other “gods”. (see Deuteronomy 5:9)

To be envious, though, is to cross the line into malice—envy is “painful or resentful awareness of an advantage enjoyed by another joined with a desire to possess the same advantage.” In other words, you see something that someone else has, you don’t like the fact that they have it, you want it for yourself, and you don’t want them to have it anymore. The object of envy can be a material possession, a quality, talent or virtue, an achievement or success, a relationship, or any number of things.

Envy is so bad that it is listed with six other capital sins, so named because they themselves lead to other sins and vices. St. Gregory the Great wrote that “from envy are born hatred, detraction, calumny, joy in the misfortune of a neighbor, and displeasure in his prosperity.” Envy is a sin against the tenth commandment, which says “You shall not covet…anything that is your neighbor’s…You shall not desire your neighbor’s house, his field, or his manservant, or his maidservant, or his ox, or his ass, or anything that is your neighbor’s.” (Ex 20:17; Deut 5:21) When envy wishes grave harm to a neighbor it is a mortal sin. (CCC 2539)

The biblical story of Joseph and his brothers is a good example of how jealousy can morph into dangerous envy. Joseph’s eleven brothers were jealous of him because their father loved him best and gave him special attention and gifts. Perhaps many of us can even sympathize with them. Who wouldn’t feel bad in a situation like that? But they crossed the line into an envy so malicious that they eventually threw Joseph into a cistern and sold him into slavery. Another familiar biblical story–Cain’s jealousy of his brother Abel—ended violently in the first murder in human history.

The Catechism says that “envy must be banished from the human heart”. But that doesn’t mean we must have no ambition, no desire to move ahead and no desire to do well in our studies or careers. Being inspired by others’ achievements and wanting to emulate their successes is not envy.

But if we do find ourselves struggling with envy, or jealousy that is on the brink of becoming envy, we must take positive steps to root it out of our lives. Envy is closely bound up with selfishness and egoism—wanting everything my way, wanting the world to revolve around me, wanting all the accolades, rewards, and advantages to come to me and to no one else, and so on.

If we find ourselves feeling this way, we can think about Our Lord Jesus, who, even though he was God, emptied himself and became little and humble for our sakes, who said “the first shall be last and the last shall be first”, who said that we must deny ourselves in order to follow him, who said that it’s easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God, and who suffered the humiliation and suffering of the cross out of love for us. (copyright 2007 by Clare Siobhan. Originally published in Family Centered Faith Formation News, January 2007, by the Office of Religious Education at Holy Trinity Catholic Church)

Links

Homily of the Day on Catholic Exchange for 1/24/08: “A Jealous Heart is a Great Destroyer” by Msgr. Dennis Clark:
http://www.catholicexchange.com/node/68478

Articles archived at www.catholicexchange.com (Go to the main page and click on the link “Search CE Archives” near the top right-hand corner. The last couple times I’ve tried to find something here, the page wouldn’t open, but check back occasionally and they may have fixed it. These are good articles.)

“Envy—It’s a Killer” by Fr. James Farfaglia. 11/04/06
“Capital Sins (part 2) by Fr. William Saunders, 9/13/01
“Anatomy of Envy” by Marcellino D’Ambrosio 9/25/06

Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraphs 2535—2550

-
by Clare Siobhan

A few days before he was elected to the papacy, Benedict XVI (then known as Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger) delivered a homily now famous for his use of the phrase “the dictatorship of relativism.” (1) He referred to the letter of St. Paul to the Ephesians, in which Paul warns Christians that we must not be like children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the cunning of men, by their craftiness and deceitful wiles. Rather…we are to grow up… (Ephesians 4:14-15)

The cardinal said that “to have a clear faith according to the Creed of the Church is often labeled as fundamentalism, while relativism – that is, allowing oneself to be carried about with every wind of ‘doctrine’ – seems to be the only attitude that is fashionable. A dictatorship of relativism is being constituted that recognizes nothing as absolute and which only leaves the ‘I’ and its whims as the ultimate measure.”

He was referring mainly to moral and religious relativism, which wants to believe that there is no such thing as absolute right or wrong on any issue. Relativism is not only the opposite of certainty; it is against the very idea that certainty can exist. Relativism puts everything in the gray zone.

The cardinal’s homily generated a lot of interest and commentary, especially after he was elected pope. Cardinal George Pell, Archbishop of Sydney, Australia, addressed his country’s National Press Club several months after Benedict’s election (2), and Bishop Robert Morlino of Madison, Wisconsin spoke on the topic almost a year later at the National Catholic Prayer Breakfast in Washington D.C. (3)

Both Morlino and Pell outlined some of the basic tenets of relativism, which are:

• Inconsistency and the application of double standards. In other words, relativists say that “everything is relative”, but only if they want it to be. For example, in the United States, if a pregnant woman is harmed by a third party in such a way that her unborn baby dies, the third party can be prosecuted for homicide. Yet that same woman, at any time during her pregnancy, can legally hire a doctor to take the life of her unborn baby by abortion.

• The manipulation of language. The use of the term “pro-choice” is a classic. It refers exclusively to the choice to abort a baby; no one ever suggests one can be pro-choice with regards to a person’s decision to rob a bank, or be a racist, or cause pollution.

• Secularism and scientism. Secularism is indifference to, rejection of or exclusion of religion and religious considerations. Scientism is regarding scientific methodology and thought as the only means to arrive at truth and puts itself at odds with religion and theology.

• Religion and religious people are to be tolerated only to the extent that they keep silent and keep the practice of their beliefs private. No religious debate or principles are allowed in the public square. Atheists and relativists cannot stand to see a cross on a hill or a nativity scene in a town center. Elected and appointed officials who try to live and vote their Christian faith are in big trouble from relativists.

• Distortion and misunderstanding of conscience. The Catholic understanding of conscience is that it seeks to learn what God wants and to do just that, to think and believe according to the natural moral law and the revealed truth given to the Church. Secularists and relativists think conscience is the right and the ability to define right and wrong for yourself. Basically, you’re allowed to do whatever you “feel” comfortable doing.

The best way to debunk the reasonableness of relativism is to think it through to its logical endpoint. Cardinal Pell points out that nobody actually lives as a full-blown, across-the-board relativist. Imagine a world in which everyone really believed that everything was relative:

No one would be safe on the streets or in their homes because there could be no law against assault, battery, breaking and entering, burglary, car jacking, child molesting, rape, murder, or any other crime against life, limb, or property. Everyone would have to be allowed to “choose” to do those things as long as they didn’t violate their personal “conscience”. The whole world would be as dangerous as the human womb is already is. Every military tyrant (Hitler, Stalin, Saddam Hussein) would have to be granted free reign to oppress his own citizenry and invade any other country at any time. Religions that demanded human sacrifice would have to be permitted. Drunk driving could not be outlawed. Even cannibalism, under the dictatorship of relativism, would have to be respected as a valid lifestyle choice.

And so on. The relativists don’t really believe what they’re saying. They only want Catholics to shut up and go away. (4)

(1) April 18, 2005 in St. Peter’s Basilica
(2) September 21, 2005
(3) April 7, 2006
(4) The complete texts of Bishop Morlino’s and Cardinal Pell’s talks are available online at Catholic Culture.org. Just type “dictatorship of relativism” into the search box.

(This article originally appeared in the Family Centered Faith Formation News, volume 4, issue 5, January 2007, produced by the Holy Trinity Office of Religious Education, Westmont IL)

Click the “read more” button for a cool Catholic video.

-
by Clare Siobhan

…ANSWERS TO COMMON QUESTIONS ABOUT CATHOLIC TEACHINGS

You’re grabbing your books from your locker. You’re eating lunch in the company break room. You’re dancing the polka at the wedding reception of a second cousin. And someone comes up to you – a classmate, co-worker, distant relation – and asks you one of two questions: “Are you saved?” or “Have you accepted Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior?”

The usual Catholic response to this opening salvo is a slack-jawed blank stare, because we’re just not used to talking that way. What your Protestant friend is really asking you is “Are you serious about the practice of your faith as the living out of a personal commitment to Our Lord Jesus Christ?” Hopefully all baptized, confirmed Catholics can all answer “yes!” to that.

But then the tough questions are likely to begin, and if we’re not prepared, we could find ourselves spinning in circles under a barrage of questions, objections, and Biblical citations. One of the most common Protestant objections to the Catholic faith is:

“Why do Catholics teach things that are not in the Bible?”

The basis of this question is a Protestant doctrine called sola scriptura, which means “scripture alone” and refers to the Protestant belief that the Old and New Testaments of the Bible form the entire and complete revelation of God and contain the sum of all authoritative teaching for Christendom.

Ironically, this foundational teaching is itself not found anywhere in the Bible, but the Protestant arguing this point will usually point to 2 Timothy 3:16-17 – “All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.”

Notice that the text says “all scripture”, not “only scripture”, and also keep in mind that when St. Paul wrote his second letter to St. Timothy, most of the documents contained in the New Testament scriptures had not even been written, so if Protestants really want to use this text as support for sola scriptura, they must limit its application to the Old Testament scriptures only.

But they have a point. Some Catholic doctrines are not directly Biblical. Some are only loosely Biblical and some are not found in the Bible at all. The reason for this is that God has spoken to the world in written form – the Sacred Scriptures – and in unwritten form – the oral and lived practices and teachings of the Church that we call Sacred Tradition. Together, Scripture and Tradition form the two pillars of God’s revelation to mankind. When used in this way, the word Tradition is capitalized, in order to distinguish it from traditions that are truly man-made and not necessarily inspired by God, such as the tradition of having a Christmas tree. Catholics consider Sacred Tradition just as authoritative and without error as Sacred Scripture.

Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition are interpreted for us and passed on to us by the Church’s teaching authority, which comes from Jesus Himself. The term for the authoritative teaching of the Church is Magisterium, from the Latin word for teacher.

Examples of teachings that come to us through Sacred Tradition are:

The contents of the Bible itself
Nowhere in the pages of the Bible is there a list of which texts should be in the Bible. The Bible’s table of contents is an authoritative Tradition of the Catholic Church that Protestants adhere to without even realizing it.

The perpetual virginity of our Blessed Mother
Early Church fathers affirm this teaching repeatedly in their writings, but, even though the virgin birth is explicitly Biblical, the continued virginity of Mary is not found in the Bible.

The practice of infant baptism
Even though some Protestants object to the practice, historical records from the earliest days of the church prove that it was widespread from the beginning because it had been handed on directly from the Apostles themselves.

Observing the Sabbath on Sunday instead of Saturday
It is not from the Bible that Christians derive this practice, but from the lived experience of the earliest Christians, who transferred observance of the Sabbath to Sunday in order to better commemorate the Lord’s resurrection, and also to show that their observance was distinct from the Jewish observance.

The Catholic who wants to prepare himself for these kinds of conversations with Protestants has a wealth of resources at his disposal. Just for starters, try these:

BOOKS
The Catechism of the Catholic Church
Where Is That in the Bible?, Why Is That in Tradition? and Answer Me This! by Patrick Madrid (Our Sunday Visitor)
Catholics and Fundamentalists: Understanding the Difference by Rev. Martin Pable (ACTA Publications)
Catholic and Christian: An Explanation of Commonly Misunderstood Catholic Beliefs by Alan Schreck (St. Anthony Messenger Press)
By What Authority? An Evangelical Discovers Catholic Tradition by Mark P. Shea

OTHER PRINTED MEDIA
Friendly Defenders Flashcards. Designed to help young people explain and defend the Catholic faith. Each card has a common question or objection and the Catholic response. Covers a dozen topics such as Church, Tradition, Saints, Eucharist/Mass, and Papacy.

Beginning Apologetics, volumes 1-9 by Jim Burnham and Fr. Frank Chacon. (Catholic Answers) Apologetics refers to the study of understandable explanations of Catholic belief and practice (from the Greek word apologia, which means “explanation”.) These are short workbooks designed to quickly prepare a Catholic for challenges from any other religion (including Mormonism and Jehovah’s Witnesses), worldview (including atheism) or ideology (including abortion advocacy and human cloning).

The Catholic Answer, a bi-monthly magazine published by Our Sunday Visitor

AUDIO
Catholic Answers Live. A call-in “Question and Answer” format radio broadcast. Many of the guests are well-known converts from Protestantism, such as former Lutheran minister Jeff Cavins, former Presbyterian minister Scott Hahn, former Pentecostal preacher Alex Jones, former Assemblies of God youth minister Tim Staples, and many others.

I’m Not Being Fed – The #1 Catholic Eating Disorder by Jeff Cavins (Ascension Press) Focuses on clear Biblical evidence for the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist.

(This article originally appeared in the Family Centered Faith Formation News, volume 3, issue 5, January 2006, produced by the Holy Trinity Office of Religious Education, Westmont IL)

###