Short Piece Published Online

On Christianity.com/magazine: Do You Want to Come Home?

Paganism in Christian Holidays?

"Smashing Pumpkins," from the September/October 1998 issue of Envoy Magazine, is an article I wish I had read many years ago.

It begins by addressing the accusation that Halloween is an evil celebration that should be shunned by Christians, but it goes further. With brevity and clarity, it answers the charges that Christian holidays (and other practices) are nothing more than resurrected pagan practices.

The writer is familiar with the names and titles I was familiar with growing up: Jack Chick, The Golden Bough, Alexandor Hislop of The Two Babylons, Ralph Woodrow of Babylon Mystery Religion, etc.

All of these "historical" sources "proved" to me and my family that those who observe Easter, Christmas, and other Christian celebrations are modern-day pagans, blindly participating in the ways of this world, headed by Satan.

I did not, and still do not, resent growing up Christmasless. My family and church rejected Christian holidays because we thought of them as "so-called 'Christian' holidays." We truly believed, because of their alleged pagan origins, that they were abominations in God's sight. They were "counterfeits" that distracted society from God's economy of true worship.

Our intentions were noble, but our understanding was lacking.

It wasn't until my mid- to late-20s when I began to reconsider how reasonable and scriptural some of my ingrained beliefs were.

Now I wonder how I would've responded had I read an article such as this one in my mid- to late-teens. It would have been a good introduction to the "other side," but at that age I imagine I would have dismissed it as a set of "clever" arguments, a spiritual pit into which Satan would just love for me to fall.

In the late 1990s and early 2000s, I did fall -- I fell into the Truth that I was unable to see before, because it was buried and covered.

I think the key is (to borrow a phrase) a relentless pursuit of the Truth:

Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened.

--Matthew 7:7-8

Catholics and Evolution

From a Friend:

Howdy Heavy D!

I thought you'd find this WND article interesting, and was curious as to
whether you might have heard of this. Whad'ya thinks?

V.S.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47205

My Reply:

Greetings, V.S.

Yeah, I've seen variations of that article coming from the same Reuters report. The issue pops up now and then in the news.

Of course, some writers seem to leave the impression that the Catholic Church is snuggling up to the brand of evolution that has atheism as its backdrop. To many "regular" people, "evolution" is seen as the opposing alternative to divine Creationism.

The Catholic Church always has and always will "believe in God, the Father, the Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen." She also believes that "through [Jesus], all things were made" (Nicene Creed). That's the Faith of the Church; it's foundational to the deposit of faith that she has preserved and transmitted to this day.

To explain how God did His creating is something we cannot understand, at least not comprehensively. How does something come from nothing? I don't know -- but God does. He did it! But did He do it in 518,400 seconds (6 days as we reckon them)? He sure could have, and He sure may have. Did He do it more gradually over the course of a much longer time, as in millions of kabillions of trajillions of years? He sure could have.

Yet the question isn't whether He "could have," but what did He do?

The answer depends on the correct interpretation of the Creation narrative in Genesis. Some people want to metaphorize the whole thing away so that there were no two original parents, Adam & Eve; and that there was no Fall into Original Sin; etc. The whole thing, they would believe, is a purely humanly devised, fictitious account with no basis in reality. "Metaphorized" in that fashion, I'm not sure what the point of the metaphor is supposed to be, other than ancient peoples sure had "creative" minds to come up with such a whopper.

Others, as you know (like I can tell you something new), want to stretch the poetically structured account of Creation to the strictest literal sense possible. Understanding Scripture with that kind of "literalism" is very good . . . IF the Holy Spirit intends for that particular portion of Scripture to be understood that way. (Did God and the ancient writers He inspired only know the one style of writing, that of a reporter working for Eye-Witness Action News?)

In a nutshell, the Church teaches that God created all things out of nothing. Beyond that, the Church has no power or authority to dogmatize in scientific terms how matter and life forms came to exist. It's just not part of the "religion business" to explain science.

Yet, the Church also teaches that faith and science -- TRUE science -- cannot contradict each other. It may be that many IN the church have their own scientific views (recall the Galileo thing), but these views are not necessarily those of this Church or its Management. These views can be wrong.

I like [Christian apologist and philosopher] Peter Kreeft a lot, but he apparently believes in some kind of evolutionary process. Other Catholics, however, totally reject the idea. They're all free to investigate and hold certain scientific views as long as they don't contradict the clear teachings of the Church (summarized anciently in the creeds).

I would want to ask the Cardinal featured in the article what he meant by "evolution" and what he means by there being "proof" for it. I am sure he didn't mean the same thing my high school biology teacher meant by it.

I believe in certain things that some people might label "evolution" -- such as what you discussed in a sermon about your little Coconut being a descendent of wolves. Certain kinds of "natural selection" seem to be commonsense fact.

But, from a scientific viewpoint, I do not see any compelling reason to believe, for example, that birds came from lizards or that man came from apes. It is a theory, but I don't see logical "proofs" for it that stand up to scientific scrutiny, certainly not to my satisfaction at all. I just don't believe it. It "doesn't make sense." One can interpret scriptures in a way that fits that scenario, but I don't think it's good science to start with. Just my humble opinion.

My belief is what the Church teaches: God made all things.

The Church encourages us all to investigate science, to be open and not be afraid of it. We are also to recognize that there is good and bad (i.e., true and false) science. But the Church has not, and is not , going to proclaim particular scientific views as part of Divine Revelation (that which she is commissioned to preserve and teach).

Genesis 1 and 2 are most definitely part of Divine Revelation, but the Church does not dictate a particular understanding of every single phrase and word in the account. Instead she gives us the freedom to grapple with and be awed by the mystery of Creation. She does give us guidelines, or confines, rather, that we must stay within (e.g., God directly creates the human soul; Adam & Eve were our first parents, who sinned and fell from grace; all that exists was created out of nothing -- i.e., the universe did not exist from all eternity).

It's good that the Church has not dogmatized scientific views in her history, because science (in many ways) has changed, mostly for the better. And the Church's dogmas cannot be reversed. So it's good that the Creed does not say, "We believe in God, the Father, the Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, which is at the center of the universe, and around which all other celestial bodies orbit. . . . Amen."

If individual Catholics -- even certain high-ranking officials -- believe in something that is contary to the constant Faith of the Church, then they are . . . what's the word? . . . wrong. If they hold views which don't contradict the Faith, yet can be proven incorrect scientifically (whether now or later), then they simply hold an erroneous view of science.

In the same way, certain officials of the Church can and do have the "wrong" view of our war on terrorism. The Church does officially set up criteria for what a "just war" is (it's in the Catechism), but she also says that it is the responsibility of governments to determine whether the use of force is justified according to the criteria. JP2 and B16, if I understand correctly, both had great reservations against the war in Iraq, but I don't think they watch FOX News or listen to Rush like everyone should. Either way, they are entitled to their geopolitical opinions like the rest of us, because "dealing with modern Islamic terrorism" is not part of the deposit of Faith. But because B16 is of considerable intellect and wisdom, and because of his position, I do not despise his analyses. His words ought to be considered, but they are not to be treated as Gospel -- unless, of course, he's speaking in an official capacity about the Gospel.

Another thing about that article -- the part about falling prey to "fundamentalism." In context of the article, that sounds awful to some people because it seems to equate "fundamentalism" with "Creationism," but that's not a fair understanding. A fundamentalist would be one who has a rigid, literalistic, narrow interpretation of Scripture that he believes no matter how goofy it is. I would say a typical fundamentalist, for example, might insist that the earth (the dirt, this third floating rock that goes around the sun) has only existed for some five or six thousand years (because he "believes the Book"). He doesn't allow room in the text of Scripture for the possibility that the universe (and even the earth) is much, much older, and that the earth was only recreated or prepared for man in more recent times. He may tend to ignore certain scientific facts. But we should be mature enough to not shun or fear science. We should instead pursue and embrace science (true science), realizing it cannot contradict the articles of our Christian Faith.

Fundamentalists do not own Creationism. At their core, Catholics are Creationists. Always have been, always will be.

I need to get ready for work. Sorry this email took longer than expected, but it's your fault for asking, "Whad'ya thinks?" I have much to do, though. I wish it only took six days for me to recreate the [Web site I'm working on].

His reply again:

Greetings again, El Darrenator!

Thanks for the reply. I'm glad you don't wholeheartedly embrace the cardinal's ideas. What struck me as odd is the fact that he speaks of "proof" of "evolution" (I'm fairly certain he meant the gradual development of all life forms from a single organism) at a time when there is more evidence against evolution than ever before, along with an abundance of evidence that fully developed life forms appeared suddenly. (Maybe the cardinal should be a little more open to the science he appears to be ignoring.) Anyway, thanks for taking the time to reply.

Miscellaneous Thoughts

These are some random, miscellaneous thoughts of minimal importance, but I wanted to jot them down just for me.

Changing Doctrine?
If the apostles thought Jesus would return in their lifetime, does that mean the Church's teachings have "changed"?

No. I say Jesus' imminent return was something that was speculated about, and believed by many, but not the official teaching of the Church, not to be included in the deposit of faith that was to be believed by all Christians.

"Progressive Revelation"?
I viewed a sermon by a Church of God International minister who said we know things today that the authors of the Bible didn't understand fully.

Does that mean there is new revelation? Or does it mean, as the speaker said, that we have the benefit of looking through the spectrum of history and are able to see a clearer picture of "truth"?

That's what the Catholic Church believes about her own doctrinal clarifications and defined dogmas. Catholics believe that public divine revelation ceased at the death of the apostle John, but that the Spirit guides us into all truth, continues to help us deduce insights based on previously defined revelation.

Did God "Call" You?
In the same CGI sermon mentioned above, the speaker maintains that those who know the "truth" about the seventh-day Sabbath, the holy days, the mortality of the soul, prophetic scenarios, etc., have been called and drawn by God. The billions of others on this planet have not been "called" and are not being judged now, he says.

Yet, later, he quotes the scripture that says many are called but few are chosen, and he says that even though many are drawn and receive the same calling, those who are "chosen" are those who respond to this calling.

How is this so different from Catholic teaching, that we are judged according to how we respond to the light that we are given?

The CGI minister wants to simultaneously hold on to his church's traditional teaching (only those with their understanding are "called") and to what commonsense biblical teaching is (the "chosen" are those who respond to God's call). It is a contradiction, but he has a hard time letting go of his church's tradition

Still a Hypocrite?
I've heard it argued that a person can't "preach" to someone else about morals if the person has been guilty of the failing himself.

Example: If a father tells his son that he is not to smoke marijuana because it is harmful and illegal, can the son rightly ignore his father's instruction if it is known that the father tried it when he was younger? Does that make him a "hypocrite" with nothing to offer?

Notice Matthew 7:3-5:

Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, "Let me take the speck out of your eye," when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.

It makes sense to me that a person can learn from his mistakes and sins by turning away from them, and then he is able (obliged) to help others. A father with a dubious past can indeed (and in fact must) pass along his wisdom to his son, even if the wisdom was acquired at the school of hard knocks.

A hypocrite is a person who preaches one thing and does another, but a person who conforms his actions with his preaching repents of the sin of hypocrisy, and is therefore no longer a hypocrite. He is now able to see clearly enough to take the speck out of his brother's eye.

In any case, correct moral teaching is still valid, no matter who speaks it.

"Call No Man Father"
The link to this article comes from Karl Keating's e-letter. It is an article written for The Christian Century in 1985. The article is titled "Are 'Mother' and 'Father' Appropriate Titles for Protestant Clergy?" The author is David L. Holmes, who teaches in the religious studies department at the College of William and Mary.

This explains that the title "Father" was used even in American Protestant circles in earlier centuries.

Ceremony for Ceremony's Sake?

"I don't like ceremony for ceremony's sake," said a Baptist friend of mine in reference to the Catholic Church's liturgy. I smarted off something in return, but should have given a more thoughtful reply. Something like this.

The Real Presence of Christ is why the Church conducts its liturgy with such formality and reverence.

It makes perfect sense. I'm not arguing it here, but if it is true, as the Catholic Church teaches, that Jesus is really and truly and substantially present in the Mass, then there's no other way to be but "formal."

In many if not most non-Catholic Evangelical churches, a worship service finds its climax in the pastor's sermon. At least, that is the most "serious" part -- the time when one is expected to be most focused. (It's when you smack the kids and tell them to sit up straight and be quiet.)

The Catholic Church is different. Her liturgy leads up to a more profound summit.

The Church believes Christ is present in four ways at Mass:

1. In the congregation. Where two or more are gathered in His name, Jesus is present.
2. In the liturgy of the Word. The spoken Scripture readings from the Old and New Testaments, as well as the biblical psalms and prayers, are heard as if they were from the lips of Jesus. Scripture is God's special communication to us. It is God speaking to us.
3. In the priest. The priest acts "in a Jesus way." Through the sacrament of ordination, his soul is indelibly marked. He IS a priest. He is not just performing menial table duties that anyone can do; he fulfills what he really is, for Jesus has shared His own Priesthood with him. The priest, in this way, acts or stands in for Christ. When the priest conducts his priestly duties in celebrating the Mass, it is Jesus standing up there spiritually.
4. In the Eucharist. This is the fullest, most profound, most true, most "real" kind of presence -- hence its popular name, "the Real Presence."

The Mass, then, finds its climax in the Eucharist. Its celebration is the highest form of worship possible on earth. All other segments of the Mass lead up to the Eucharist (not to the sermon).

The Church believes that, in the celebration of the Eucharist, ordinary bread and wine actually become the true Body and Blood of Christ (not in its appearance, but in its essence), whereas most non-Catholic churches teach that the bread and wine of their "communion," or "Lord's Supper," or "New Testament Passover," etc., are mere symbols that only remind us of Jesus' 2000-year-old sacrifice. Catholics believe that the once-for-all sacrifice of Jesus is presented to God at the altar, and that its power is again applied to us, for we are still all sinners needing God's graces even after accepting Christ as our Savior.

Arguments for or against the Real Presence aside, the fact is that Catholics believe it. And that explains why the Mass is conducted with solemnity.

It also explains why the Mass is seen by many non-Catholics as "ceremony for ceremony's sake." Understandably, they can't relate to anything other than their own experience, for the non-Catholic view of "church" is usually just a place where like-minded believers can fellowship and encourage each other. They listen to the Word of God expounded. They worship God in prayer and song.

Sometimes this kind of limited worship can end up being too folksy. It's almost as if Jesus is our Pal, our Buddy, a heavenly Good Ol' Boy strumming an acoustic guitar with a blues harp in His back pocket. Jesus loves you as you are. And He's most comfortable wearing a tank top, cut-off shorts, and flip-flops.

Catholics also believe Jesus loves us and accepts us all as individuals at the most intimate level. Yet we go on to correctly emphasize that Jesus, in addition to being the lover of our souls, is the King of kings and Lord of lords. He is the Creator that sustains the existence of all things, whether in heaven or on earth. If God did not have us in His mind, we would instantly vanish from existence -- just as quickly as we leapt into existence by His spoken Word.

When we recognize this infinite chasm between the all-powerful, all-loving, life-inherent God of the universe and us puny, sinful humans, we can do nothing but worship Him with awe.

And if the Word of God who created us is literally present on the altar at Mass, we are obliged to act as if His presence is more significant than that of Roy Clark or Buck Owens and the Buckaroos. Jesus is supreme majesty. He is holy, holy, holy -- the Lord God Almighty.

No society is a stranger to ceremony. We have no problem with funerals, weddings, presidential inaugurations, the presentation of medals of honor, etc. So is it then okay -- no, obligatory -- to treat the presence and procession of the Son of God with even more reverence?

Whether Jesus is truly present in the sacrifice of the Mass is what we should ask. The Real Presence is the real question. I'll steer you toward this link, which contains good articles and audio clips that explain the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

Do You Want to Come Home?

"We are all sinners." It's a Christian cliche that's worn to tatters. When it is proclaimed, eyes roll, shoulders shrug, and ears close. It's reflexively dismissed as religious gobblety-gook.

Yet understanding this fact is the essential first step toward reconciling with the Creator of your soul. In other words, you need to accept that you're at odds with your heavenly Father before you can begin your journey "home."

The proverb condemns the "adulteress" for her denial:

This is the way of an adulteress: she eats, and wipes her mouth, and says, "I have done no wrong" (Proverbs 30:20, RSV-CE).

The imagery here is almost obscene if you let your mind wander, but it illustrates how there are some who, whether because of poor moral formation or force of habit, have no sense of remorse or even acknowledgement of their sins. You know people like that. Perhaps you feel you are a people like that sometimes.

Searing one's conscience is dangerous; it is evil. A person who persists in sin disposes himself toward eating, wiping his mouth, and saying, "I have done no wrong." This very denial of sin is flirting with true human evil.

Christian psychologist M. Scott Peck says that

it is necessary that we first draw the distinction between evil and ordinary sin. It is not their sins per se that characterize evil people, rather it is the subtlety and persistence and consistency of their sins. This is because the central defect of the evil is not the sin but the refusal to acknowledge it. (People of the Lie, p. 69; emphasis mine).

The prodigal in Jesus' parable of the lost son (Luke 15:11-32), after disregarding his father's inheritance through wild and sinful living, was finally able to see himself for what he was: a sinner.

"Father," he said, "I have sinned against heaven and against you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son."

It was only after the prodigal was willing to be honest and confess his sinfulness that he could return home to the open arms of his father.

Our heavenly Father is always awaiting our return with open arms, for "[i]f we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness" (1 John 1:9).

Do you want to come "home"? Do you want to finally harmonize your life with God's will? Do you want to fulfill your incredible human potential?

Stop playing games, and admit your faults. Don't cover your sins -- that is God's job. And be willing to let God not only "blot your sins" from a legal record book, but cleanse you from the inside out.

It will cost you your pride, your passions, your wants, and your will. Maybe even your life. Confronting and confessing your sins will hurt, but if you can search your soul and find it within you to surrender your all to Him, God will heal you. He will welcome you home with open arms.

On Front Page of The National Catholic Register

Tim Drake, staff writer of The National Catholic Register, did a story on Catholic podcasting. As part of his story, he wanted to pull a few quotes from a regular listener, so he interviewed me by telephone.

Yes, I'm shamelessly showing off my name. Click here to see a close-up of this issue's front page of The Register. Click here to read the entire article online.

I happen to think it's cool to be quoted in this newspaper, but what is cooler is the podcast phenomenon, my favorite podcast being "The Catholic Cast." Check it out and enjoy each week.

It's Hard to Be Pope

I don't think it's easy being infallible in matters of faith and morals.

I find the Papa Ratzi Post to be a good source for news on Pope Benedict XVI, and sometimes I wonder how he handles the "stuff" that is thrown at him.

A professor of Feminist Theology at the Graduate Theological Union in Berkeley, California, has reportedly announced that the Pope is "not our pope" because, I'm guessing, he upholds the consistent Catholic teachings about the all-male priesthood, about contraception, and about abortion. I didn't read much into the story because I have no interest in it. But I have to wonder: Based on these issues, have any popes been "our pope"?

Others have problems with his stance on evolution. Pope Benedict XVI said,

The purpose of our lives is to reveal God to men. And only where God is seen does life truly begin. ... We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary.

Benedict simply believes that God is "maker of heaven and earth," but does not attempt to scientifically explain Creation. Whether God created all things as they are in six 24-hour periods, whether He guided an evolutionary process to bring us about, whether He used a huge stork to fly a diapered Adam to this earth -- it doesn't matter. The fact remains that God willed each of us into existence.

A critic, however -- a liberal Catholic named Andrew Sullivan -- wrote,

Now we have Benedict in charge and the rush back to the Middle Ages, already seen in fundamentalist Islam and fundamentalist Protestantism, looks as if it is going to be endorsed in the Vatican. I expected reactionary radicalism from Benedict. But this kind of stupidity? ... And so we return to the 19th century.

I don't understand such reactions, other than to say they surely come from the unfaithful. What sound-minded Christian believes Benedict's view on Creation is "reactionary radicalism"? How is that "radical" coming from a pope? Does it contradict the Church's constant teaching? Would it be more in keeping with Catholicism to say, "Who knows how we got here? It's probly all just a big accident an' stuff"?

Should it surprise us if the pope is Catholic? Absurd!

I would be tired of all the crazy criticisms if I were Pope Darren. I'd be tired, oh so tired. No wonder popes -- when they aren't sitting down -- have to walk around using that "pope pole," that sceptre or staff with a crucifix on top. They would never get anywhere without leaning on the cross of Christ.

What Is the Point of Prayer?

This is a message from Msgr. Zacharias Kunnakkattuthara, pastor of Sacred Heart Catholic Church in Palestine, Texas, for July 17, 2005 (sixteenth Sunday in Ordinary Time). Republished with permission.

Dear Friends,

Prayers are used (and misused) for every conceivable purpose. A prayer is sometimes a perfunctory ritual before civic and social affairs . . . or a sporting event. Often, even in religious settings, prayer takes on a promotional or informational function: "Lord, bless the meeting of our officers at seven o'clock this evening." We may also forget to whom we are praying. A newspaper once reported that a certain prayer was "the finest prayer ever addressed to a Boston audience." What is the point of prayer?

Some see the point of prayer as [moving] an otherwise inactive God into action in the world. It is like calling God on stage from somewhere in the wings. Something in the world about us needs to be changed, so we pray. A little girl, saying her bedtime prayers, asked, "Dear God, make Dallas the capital of Texas." When she had finished, her mother asked why she had made such a request. She answered, "Because that's what I put on my test paper today in school." If the point of prayer is some rearrangement of the objective world, then we must say that, at least most of the time, it is ineffective. In a culture that is mistaken about the point of prayer, it is no wonder that so many complain about the futility of prayer. Any day you may hear, "I tried prayer. It didn't work." This kind of experience is not an argument against prayer but against superstition and magic. The point of prayer is not simply the rearrangement of the physical world.

Prayer is a form of communication. Communication is an expression of a relationship. Prayer is not mechanical, but relational. The point of prayer, then, is communion with God. Communion with God is more than one-way communication. No relationship can survive long when all the communication is from only one side. Communion with God involves at least as much listening as speaking. Prayer as communion means offering ourselves as we are to God, and it also means being open to God's presence, power, and purpose in our lives.

If you feel you don't know how to pray, there is good news for you. St. Paul's letter to the Romans tells us that God offers us help in a most remarkable way. He acknowledges that, in our weakness, "we do not know how to pray as we ought." But God's own Spirit intercedes for us. God's own Spirit carries our inarticulate yearnings to God's ears. When we don't know how to pray, we can trust God's own Spirit to come to our aid. God does not just hear our words, but listens to our "inexpressible groans," too.

Praying "in Jesus' name" will help us remember the point of prayer. To ask in Christ's name is to ask in the Spirit of Christ, to ask with something of Jesus' insight into the nature of God. For Jesus, prayer was intimate communion with God. Study the prayers of the saints. Rarely do they ask God for anything more than a clearer understanding of His will.

Your friend in Jesus,
Msgr. Zach

Magisterial Man

From Curt Jester.

July 4 in Palestine, TX

My wife and I just returned home from the local fireworks display, which was synchronized with music from the local radio station. It was a blast.

Pictured below-right: After the show, on our way out of the parking lot (from which we viewed the fireworks), a minority driver was cutting people off in a most obnoxious fashion. As we predicted, the local rednecks didn't take kindly to the blatant disrespect, so one redneck from the right-hand side lunged his own vehicle in front of the offender, rolled down the window, and had some choice words to share that were punctuated with spirited hand gestures.

Then, as if performing a synchronized redneckian stunt, redneck number 2 (pictured to the left of the offending gold-colored car directly in front of us) followed by cutting off the offender from the left, forcing him over to be trapped behind a parked car to the right. Several vehicles kept up the flow of traffic so the offender's exit would be delayed.

It's wise advice offered on street signs throughout our state: "Don't Mess With Texas!"

Checking Out Glimpses of the Devil

I'm not sure what possessed me to go to the library that day on my way home from work last week, but during my book browsing I was delighted to see M. Scott Peck's new book, Glimpses of the Devil. I didn't even know he had written it, but I knew I wanted to read it.

I checked it out and read it in two sittings. A well-respected psychiatrist and Christian, Peck is an extraordinarily insightful writer. Not only are his words profound, they are easy to read, as I had already learned from reading his previous books People of the Lie and The Road Less Traveled. That's my favorite kind of writing: profound and readable.

Peck writes two credible accounts of real-life exorcisms that he led. And he believes, in both cases, that he encountered not just lower-rank demons, but also their commander-in-chief: Satan himself.

He was skeptical of the existence of demons until he came across his first case of possession about twenty years ago. It made a believer out of him.

Equipped with insights from the late Malachi Martin's book (Hostage to the Devil) and numerous personal conversations with Martin, he decided to be the lead exorcist in a team he assembled. In this his latest work, Peck finally describes what he witnessed (and videotaped) and offers his commentary, much of which comes from his background as a science-minded psychoanalyst. Not only does he describe his successes, he notes what he believes were his mistakes and glaring oversights -- all in the interest of helping others who are interested in studying demonology and possession.

Some things stood out to me:

1. Unlike the accounts of the popular case behind The Exorcist movie, his accounts were not filled with sensational paranormal events such as bodily levitation or untouched objects being slung across the room. The supernatural evil he saw was more subtle, though no less real. Interestingly, he criticized the Catholic Church's guidelines which recommend delaying an exorcism until more sensational demonic signs are witnessed.
2. Peck believes that the 33-day exorcism that inspired the movie The Exorcist could've been reduced to three days had the exorcist known to separate the demon from the demoniac. In the early state of "Pretense," it is easy to confuse the demon with the victim: you're not quite sure who's speaking, and it can cause great confusion. Once the demon is forced to shed its pretense -- when it is clearly distinguishable from the victim -- then the hardest part of the battle is won.
   
3. Peck seems to pride himself in being nondenominational. He mentions that when he converted to Christianity, he didn't know if he should be Orthodox, Methodist, Lutheran, Episcopalian, or "even Southern Baptist," because it would take so long to sort out all the issues. This was disappointing coming from such a good thinker. Also, he mentions having occasionally celebrated the Eucharist with someone, "consecrating" the elements himself. As someone who is looking to join the Catholic Church, I winced at this, but I understand Peck is acting in good faith.
4. Finally, as did Malachi Martin, Dr. Peck believes that the victim of possession plays the most important role in his or her own exorcism. It's a matter of the will, wherein the victim must choose between darkness and light, between lies and truth.
   

I wondered whether my fascination with reading accounts of the demonic and exorcisms was symptomatic of an unhealthy curiosity, but I believe it has helped me more clearly see the reality that there is indeed a "dark side," an invisible realm in which powerful and truly evil spirits are working toward our destruction.

All the more reason to "put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand" (Ephesians 6:13).

Modern Apostle Claims to Lead Bullet-Proof Churchgoers

Every so often -- that is to say, once a week -- David C. Pack, leader of the Restored Church of God and self-acclaimed "apostle" of these last days, gives us another glimpse into his bizarre world of religious deception.

In a sermon he delivered one week after the event, Pack spoke about the now three-month-old Milwaukee, Wisconsin, tragedy in which a gunman killed seven members of the Living Church of God during worship services.

And now, Apostle Pack is gracious enough to share his wise words of discernment with us all by posting his taped message online, "because many said it benefited them; it made things clear; it made events on that Sabbath [Saturday] become clear to them."

Leaders of other churches have commented on the tragedy, "but I want to give you what God has to say about this event," Pack says.

The Apostle, in his 36-minute message, goes on to talk about the actual event, but we are left with important lessons:

A demon or a deranged person cannot murder one under God's protection on the street, let alone in church.

Now when he speaks of "one under God's protection," the Apostle means a member in good standing of his exclusivist Restored Church of God, headquartered in Wadsworth, Ohio. This protection, however, does not cover members of other churches whose teachings are nearly identical to his own (note that Pack's own church splintered from the Living Church of God!).

Explaining God's protection further, the Apostle says,

You don't have to sit here wondering if that door is gonna burst open. Now let's, let's talk about this. I'm not saying that someone with a demon couldn't get into the church. But I'm telling you the gun jams. An angel pushes his arm and he pumps 21 bullets into the wall before he's subdued, you understand? Or he trips on his briefcase and shoots himself or has a flat tire on the way to church. You don't die in God's church; it doesn't happen. There's protection promised to those who are buckled with truth, who understand God is their refuge.

I've heard pastors try to energize their congregations with more youth activities, more lively worship music, more potlucks -- but isn't this pushing the envelope?

I can get angry with a man like this because of how he affects his followers, but at the same time I am saddened. And I am curious how he would be diagnosed by a psychoanalyst. What is the name of his mental illness and that of his devoted followers? They need our prayers.

Rather than cling to a gospel of physical safety, we as Catholics can entrust our eternal lives to Jesus Christ as we share in His sufferings -- even unto death. Deacon Stephen was killed by stoning. The great apostles, Saints Peter and Paul, were martyred gruesomely in Rome. We understand that the Church's countless saints, whose lives were characterized by extraordinary holiness, were rewarded in heaven even though first met with persecution and death (cf. Revelation 6:9).

Thank God we know that Jesus is come not to save our hides, but to save our souls.

Testing Audioblogger

Welcome to Papal Encyclicals Online

Welcome to Papal Encyclicals Online

Personal Update

Sorry I haven't been around for a while. I should be back within a month.

Aside from my regular job, I've been helping to build a barbed-wire fence around five acres of wooded area, I've been mowing a lot of grass for a mobile-home park, and, along with a friend of mine, I've been asked to teach a beginner's class on apologetics at church, which will go on for about four more weeks.

So I haven't been able to spend any quality "So Let It Be Written . . . " time.

A week from today I'm taking some days off, perhaps to go camping. It will be nice to relax, pull in some fish, take naps, go for walks, take naps, enjoy nature, read, and take naps.

I'll be back as soon as I can.

Catholic Cast Podcast -- Discussion of Shroud of Turin

Catholic Cast Podcast

Check out the 5/09/05 broadcast (mp3). Contains a very interesting interview with an expert on the Shroud of Turin.

Not All Repetitions Are "Vain"

Hank Hanegraaff is the voice of the Bible Answer Man radio broadcast. He always has something interesting to say, and always comes up with pithy, well-formulated quips and explanations in defense of the Christian faith.

But sometimes he is the Wrong-Answer Man.

I was listening to him as I drove home from work today, and he was broadcasting his audio book, The Prayer of Jesus, in commemoration of the national day of prayer. His book is based on the Lord's Prayer as found in the Sermon on the Mount.

He quotes the scripture about not praying in "vain repetitions," implying that repetitious use of the Lord's Prayer defeats its power and purpose. "You can put away your prayer beads," he says, which would certainly include the Rosary, because you can't "wear God down" through repetition; God knows what you need even before you ask Him.

Hanegraaff then addresses an anticipated objection: Why should we pray at all if God already knows what we need?

Good objection! I thought, if one follows Hanegraaff's logic.

The answer he gave was that we are mistaken if we believe supplication (or, asking God for stuff) is the only form and purpose of prayer. His answer here is correct, for prayer is also a means of thanksgiving, meditation and contemplation, and intercession for others.

My question, however, is: Who says that the intent of a repeated prayer must be to "wear God down" as you beg Him for stuff?

The Rosary, for example, includes repetitions of the Hail Mary and the Lord's Prayer (the "Our Father"), but anyone who knows how to pray it understands that the purpose of the Rosary is to meditate on the mysteries of the gospel -- to meditate on Jesus! It is not to wear Him down in order to get what you want.

These "mysteries" include:

1. The Annuncation of Our Lord
2. The Visitation
3. The Nativity of Jesus
4. The Presentation in the Temple
5. The Finding in the Temple
6. The Baptism in the Jordan
7. The Wedding at Cana
8. The Proclamation of the Kingdom of God
9. The Transfiguration
10. The Institution of the Eucharist
11. The Agony in the Garden
12. The Scourging at the Pillar
13. The Crowning with Thorns
14. The Carrying of the Cross
15. The Crucifixion and Death
16. The Resurrection of Our Lord
17. The Ascension into Heaven
18. The Decent of the Holy Spirit
19. The Assumption of Mary
20. The Coronation of Mary

With the exception of the last two mysteries, Hanegraaff would commend our meditation on all of these. They are a summary of the story of Jesus. Recited prayerfully, they are a mental and spiritual review of the gospel, seen through His mother Mary's eyes. It brings to mind the great events of Christ's ministry. You might call it "spiritual muscle-building," for reciting the Rosary is an ancient spiritual exercise indeed.

I suppose one could argue that the Psalmist should not have repeated the phrase "His love endures forever" 26 times in 26 short verses (Psalm 136). "God already knows His mercy endures forever," one might say. "He doesn't need you to tell Him that 26 times in rapid succession! That's 'vain repetition'!"

But prayer, as Hanegraaff already understands and has taught, is not so much about changing God as it is about changing you, the pray-er.

So go ahead -- get out your "prayer beads" -- because sometimes repetition is the best teacher.

The Two Sides of Peace

This is written for the Sixth Sunday of Easter by Monsignor Zacharias Kunnakkattuthara, pastor of Sacred Heart Catholic Church in Palestine, Texas. Republished with permission.


Dear Friends,

In what has become a famous phrase, the prophet Jeremiah condemns leaders who promise, "'Peace, peace,' when there is no peace" (6:14). Why is peace so hard to find and, when found, so hard to keep? Isn't it true that our concerns about peace can be divided into an inside dimension and an outside dimension?

There is what we call inner peace. We speak of peace "in the heart." We all want peace within. God wants it for us, too. However, there are things that are clearly more important to God than mere peace of mind. We have almost forgotten this. There is also the outside dimension of peace. This is peace between people, peace within families, peace between races, peace among nations. God wants this kind of peace for us, too. However, we never find God promoting peace at any price. Jesus spoke of how doing the will of God would create conflict for his followers, Having said this, we must remember that the biblical revelation points to an ultimate vision of the peace of God that will triumph.

The peace of God within us and the peace of God among us represent the inside and outside of peace. What may be difficult to see, however, is how inseparably these two dimensions are related. In John 14, Jesus prepares the disciples for his departure. After assuring them of the Holy Spirit he speaks to them of peace: "Peace I leave with you; my peace I give to you. I do not give to you as the world gives."

What Jesus says is that we cannot make peace in the world without having something of Christ's peace in our hearts. Conversely, we cannot have his peace in our hearts without making his peace in the world. The inside and outside of peace are connected. Making Christ's peace with the neighbor may be the only way of genuinely having Christ's peace within.

Is it any wonder, then, while we spend billions of dollars building the weapons of warfare, that there is so little peace of mind in our world? Is it any wonder that there is so little peace of mind among us when, in the name of love, we use other people for our own gratification? -- when, in our play winning is everything? -- when we live to be happy? -- when we can't keep commitments, can't deal in truth, can't live by faith, can't love? Is it any wonder that, after all these centuries, it is still neighbor against neighbor, nation against nation, religion against religion?

So long as there is conflict within our souls, there will be conflict in our external worlds. Jesus fully embodies the two sides of peace -- the inside and the outside. He has come to offer us his life, his spirit, his peace. But who has tried his way? He has been seldom followed. When Jesus is followed, people both make peace and find peace.

Your friend in Jesus,
Msgr. Zach

Papa Ratzi Post

Papa Ratzi Post

This blog is a "Chronicle of Pope Benedict XVI." Looks good.

Is the Catholic Church a Monolith? . . . YES!

In an effort to defend its many divisions and serious doctrinal contradictions, Protestant Christian apologists often claim that Catholic representations of Protestant doctrinal disunity are exaggerated -- caricatures of what it means to be Protestant. Further, they point the finger at disunity in the Catholic Church, whose laymen and theologians on an uncomfortably large scale disagree on big issues.

Therefore, the Protestant apologist says, since the Catholic Church itself is no doctrinal monolith, then neither can Protestant churches be condemned for their differences, especially since most of them agree on the "essential issues."

But I say unto you, that there is a big difference between Catholic divisions and Protestant divisions.

All the various Protestant churches can and do have their own doctrinal creeds, their official beliefs. Therefore, one church, for example, can officially teach that baptism is necessary for salvation, while the church across the street can teach that it is not necessary for salvation.

The individual Christian, then, is free to join up with either of these churches (or still others) depending on his or her own interpretation of Scripture. As their interpretations evolve, for better or for worse, they may seek to attend a new "fellowship," or even start one of their own.

In the name of "can't we all just get along?", many non-denominational churches widen their acceptable doctrinal boundaries to accomodate as many people as they can. If you want to believe Jesus is God, great. If you want to believe Jesus is a divinely sent created being, that's okay, too, as long as we all believe in Jesus. In this way, by avoiding the responsiblity of defining and defending truth, they seem to encourage doctrinal disharmony. Truth is sacrificed in the name of acceptance.

On the other hand, there is no dispute about what the Catholic Church officially teaches. Now, you can find a complete and faithful summary of her teachings in the recently published Catechism of the Catholic Church. Therefore, if a Catholic layperson or theologian disagrees with the teachings of the Church, then it's his own fidelity that comes into question, not that of the Church.

The Church's teachings are widely known and open to public scrutiny, and she promulgates, defends, and preserves them with tenacity. For two thousand years, her teachings have never changed or compromised, but rather developed and strengthened. Yes, as a teacher of truth, she is a monolith. But unfortunately her members are not always faithful, and there are tares among the wheat, as Jesus explained.

The non-Catholic Christian may be a holy person, sincere in his love of God, but he does not have access to all the sacraments offered by God through the Church, nor does he have the advantage of learning the fullness of the faith as handed down by the apostles. He is forced to do the best he can with the Bible alone, which, perhaps unknown to him, is itself a gift handed down by the Catholic Church. Understandably, he will frequently err in his judgments, oftentimes falling into serious error.

All of this is not to say that Catholics aren't free to hold various theological positions. No, the Church extends this freedom quite liberally, but only in matters that have not already been defined. Catholics can speculate about what a particular scripture might mean; whether all, the majority, or the minority of mankind will ultimately be saved; in what manner God predestines us; or any number of other issues that aren't already defined authoritatively, or as dogma.

It seems the faithful Catholic enjoys what the Protestant apologist desires for himself: freedom to theologize within the boundaries of Christian dogma. The difference is that the Protestant has no way to determine where those boundaries lie.

JIMMY AKIN.ORG: New Pope's Reaction To Ratzinger Fan Club

JIMMY AKIN.ORG: New Pope's Reaction To Ratzinger Fan Club

This is interesting.

I saw it before, but I think the t-shirt is hilarious:

The Cardinal Ratzinger Fan Club. Putting the smackdown on heresy since 1981.

(Before his election as pope, Ratzinger was head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.)

Purgatory: Effecting Christ's Work on the Cross

Non-Catholic Christians often raise this objection to the doctrine of purgatory:

It insults the saving power of Christ's work on the cross, because only the cross saves -- not the cross PLUS purgatory or plus anything else.

The response is simple:

It is only through the blood of Christ on the cross that a sinner is saved in purgatory.

We face all kinds of trials and sufferings today, and these sufferings have a purifying effect on our souls (if we join them with Christ's sufferings).

The Apostle Peter speaks of the faithful who suffer through all kinds of trials, which

. . . have come so that your faith–of greater worth than gold, which perishes even though refined by fire–may be proved genuine and may result in praise, glory and honor when Jesus Christ is revealed. (1 Peter 1:7)

Many scriptural passages speak to this idea of suffering as a purifying agent, bringing us to a more perfect union with God. That's not to say our suffering takes the place of Christ's suffering, or somehow insults the efficacy of His saving work, but rather is used by Jesus -- it becomes an extension of His own suffering.

We know that "without holiness no one will see the Lord" (Hebrews 12:14) and that "[N]othing impure will ever enter" the glorified kingdom (Revelation 21:27). Yet most of us will die with some impurity, and without perfect holiness.

Therefore it stands to reason: Just as Christ uses our present sufferings to bring us closer to Him, so Christ can complete our conversion to holiness after we die through purgatorial (purging) sufferings.

Jesus loves us so much that He won't refuse us entrance to heaven even if we die as well-intentioned sinners. He provides a way to clean us up, to purify our souls, so that we, as true sons and daughters, can see God face to face, as it were, and live with Him forever.

Don't confuse Purgatory with a "second chance." It is all part of the first and only. If you die as an enemy of God, then you are "frozen" in that spiritual state for eternity. But if you die in communion with God, even an imperfect one, that communion is locked in as well; it is only the imperfections, stains, and "spiritual dingleberries" that are burned away like chaff, leaving behind a soul that is pure and holy.

We can't know the exact nature of the "sufferings" of purgatory, for the Church doesn't define it. But I would guess that it "hurts good," since we know that all souls who enter purgatory are guaranteed entrance into heaven. Purgatory is God's gift to poor sinners, while hell is God's gift to those who ultimately reject Him.

Whether our conversion to holiness is completed before or after our death, it is singularly Jesus' work on the cross that makes our salvation possible. It is all grace. We just need to accept -- and not reject -- His grace by believing and acting on His Word, trusting in His perfect mercy and perfect justice.

ZabaSearch.com Free People Search

ZabaSearch.com Free People Search

An amazing tool for finding people.

7 Things to WATCH for After Election of Pope Benedict XVI

I am delighted that Cardinal Ratzinger was elected the new bishop of Rome today. The new German-born pope has taken the name Pope Benedict XVI.

Here are seven things to WATCH for in these exciting times:

1. Pope Benedict XVI will not allow ordination of women to the priesthood.

2. He will not reverse the discipline of celibacy for priests.

3. He will not "ease up on restrictions" against contraception, nor will he permit homosexual marriages.

4. He will defend the dignity of the human person -- of life.

5. He will not seek a one-world religion since he only believes in Catholicism. Even in a spirit of "let's all get along," he will insist that the Catholic Church alone is the pillar and foundation of the truth.

6. He will come under attack by religious and political liberals for promoting orthodox Christian teaching. Even more than now, the Church will be persecuted by many, but will grow in faith and fervor.

7. The gates of hell will not prevail against the Church. Meanwhile, look for Pope Benedict XVI to write some awesome encyclicals!

Live Video of St. Peter's!

Live Video of St. Peter's! See it happen as it happens. (RealPlayer or Windows Media Player)

Micro-Catechism

Micro-Catechism

This is a well-written condensed version of the exhaustive Catechism of the Catholic Church. It's available to read at the above link, but it's also offered as an 8-page Word document and 13-page PDF.

Check it out.

Why the Title "Holy Father"

The pope is called by the title "Holy Father" not because he is holy in the sense of being sinless or divine, but in the sense of being "set apart."

That's how certain things can be holy, because they are consecrated for spiritual purposes. That's why the ark of the covenant could be "holy," even though it was an object that couldn't make moral decisions. It was set apart for a divine purpose.

While all priests and bishops in the Catholic Church are called "father," appending the word "holy" before it indicates the special Petrine ministry that is executed by the bishop of Rome -- the pope. He is "set apart" from the others just as Peter was singled out among the apostles.

Priests are called "father" because of their fatherly role in forming us in the faith. I explained this further in "Answers to an Ex-Pagan Critic of the Church."

"When They Were Sore"

Maybe it's just my warped guy humor, but I can't read Genesis 34:25-26 without grinning (or grimacing):

And unto Hamor and unto Shechem his son hearkened all that went out of the gate of his city; and every male was circumcised, all that went out of the gate of his city.

And it came to pass on the third day, when they were sore, that two of the sons of Jacob, Simeon and Levi, Dinah's brethren, took each man his sword, and came upon the city boldly, and slew all the males.

"Mary Worship" Explained to Church of God Member

On an Internet forum, I briefly answered an accusation from a Church of God member: "It's just that [Mary] is worshipped by many in the Catholic Church. It stands out as idolatry. What say ye?"

My guess is that you have a different understanding of what "worship" is.

I know full well that not all COGers are the same, but, I heard a COG minister just the other week (online) say that one day all these people in the world will bow down to us in worship during "Tomorrow's World."

When he says worship, he means worship! The idea is that since we will be God Beings one day, we will receive the kind of worship that is due to God alone (or I guess to "God Beings" alone). But that won't happen until we have our glorified bodies, when we are transformed at the Second Coming.

Now consider the Catholic view: According to Catholic teaching, Mary was the exception and even now has her glorified body (unlike the other saints who must wait for the resurrection). She has her full reward already. That's what the teachings of the Assumption and Coronation of Mary explain.

Even though Mary is fully glorified now, the Church teaches:

The Church rightly honors "the Blessed Virgin with special devotion. From the most ancient times the Blessed Virgin has been honored with the title of 'Mother of God,' to whose protection the faithful fly in all their dangers and needs.... This very special devotion ... differs essentially from the adoration which is given to the incarnate Word and equally to the Father and the Holy Spirit, and greatly fosters this adoration." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 971)

So if someone thinks it's okay for one of us created beings to be truly worshiped after our glorification, then he should not be indignant that Catholics give tremendous honor (not worship) to Mary, whom Catholics believe has already received her final reward.

Pope John Paul II: Newspaper Front Pages

Pope John Paul II: Newspaper Front Pages

This is a compilation of world newspapers with JP2's death featured on the front page. You can click any of them to enlarge. Pretty cool.

The Pope Blog: Chinese Catholics Honor Pope John Paul II in Secret; Modern Martyrs in the Middle Kingdom

The Pope Blog: Chinese Catholics Honor Pope John Paul II in Secret; Modern Martyrs in the Middle Kingdom

Baptist Legalism?

A young Baptist woman asked if I believed certain ones in my previous church affiliation (a heterodox Christian sect) would be saved.

"Sure," I replied. "They really believe what they're doing is right. I did, too."

"But do you think sincerity is really enough for someone to get into heaven?"

Her last question stirred me to further thought later on.

Her church believes in "once saved, always saved" -- that is, once you've "accepted Christ as personal Lord and Savior," you can never lose out on salvation no matter what you do.

Southern Baptists are very big into "grace" and "mercy." Even if a "truly saved" person dies immediately following a premeditated series of serious sins, then according to them, he will be saved since salvation is an irrevocable gift.

Naturally, "legalism" is the avowed enemy of Baptist thought. It strikes me as odd, then, that a good Baptist would revert to a legalistic approach salvation.

Let me explain.

The Baptist will say that nothing a person can do can qualify him for salvation. That would be legalism. Salvation is a freely given gift of God's love.

The Baptist will say that nothing a person can do can DISqualify him for salvation. That would be legalism. Salvation is a freely given gift of God's love.

But can a young person who died of starvation in a non-evangelized part of a Third-World country be saved? No, says the Baptist, because he did not explicitly, verbally confess Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior.

Where's the mercy in that? To believe God only bestows His freely given gift of love when one makes a knowledgable, audible confession of Jesus as Lord does not sound like grace, but an awful lot like legalism!

What says the Church? The Catholic believes baptism is necessary for salvation (cf. 1 Peter 3:21). But Catholic theology allows for God's working outside the boxes He created (the sacraments He instituted). Just as the thief on the cross was to be saved without baptism, so can other non-baptized individuals be saved under certain circumstances. There are such things as "baptism of blood" (martyrdom) and "baptism of desire" (invinsible ignorance) that effect the same results as sacramental water baptism.

Catholics are not so "legalistic" as some of its critics suggest, even though they rightly emphasize obedience and fidelity to the Gospel.

It is true that Paul wrote,

That if you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. (Romans 10:9)

But it is also true that Jesus said,

If you want to enter life, obey the commandments. (Matthew 19:17)

These are not contradictory statements, or two different paths to God, but two sides of the same salvation coin. What the Holy Spirit has joined together, let no man separate. As far as salvation is concerned, to confess with your mouth is to walk with your feet, and vice versa.

Chapters one and two of Paul's epistle to the Romans explains how salvation may be granted to those who are ignorant, as well as some of those "in the know."

Donnie's Pope Blog: A Papal Succession Primer

Donnie's Pope Blog: A Papal Succession Primer

The Powerful Passing of a Popular Pope

The pope died maybe fifteen minutes ago.

Earlier in the day, reflecting on all the news coverage of his life, I was impressed by how many people held such great admiration and love for Pope John Paul II. There have been numerous moving tributes.

It confirms the fact that everyone deep down believes in truth, in goodness. Even non-Catholics and unbelievers respect and love this man because of what he represented in his actions: the love of God. The Catholic Church is often ridiculed, mocked, and impugned, and has recently been hit hard by scandals, but the Light in John Paul II's life shines through it all.

In contrast, imagine if a widely known drug dealer, prostitute, or porn star died. How would he or she be remembered? Would people say, "She gave joy and happiness to so many men"? "She helped improve the love life of hundreds and thousands of fans"? "He enabled people to take their mind off their troubles"?

No, there would be no such adulation, because deep down we all know their lives were ill spent. We can't help but praise that which is good. This is a testament to the "natural law" that God instilled in each of us.

I am not horribly grieved over the pope's passing. "Precious in the sight of the LORD is the death of his saints" (Psalm 116:15). It is sad, but on the other hand, "to live is Christ and to die is gain" (Philippians 1:21). Our pope is now in God's hands, and he is undoubtedly experiencing unspeakable joy.

We can all be thankful that he showed us how to live, how to suffer, and how to die.

The Catechsim of the Catholic Church speaks on the Christian vision of death:

1012 The Christian vision of death receives privileged expression in the liturgy of the Church:

Lord, for your faithful people life is changed, not ended. When the body of our earthly dwelling lies in death we gain an everlasting dwelling place in heaven.

1013 Death is the end of man's earthly pilgrimage, of the time of grace and mercy which God offers him so as to work out his earthly life in keeping with the divine plan, and to decide his ultimate destiny. When "the single course of our earthly life" is completed, we shall not return to other earthly lives: "It is appointed for men to die once." There is no "reincarnation" after death.

1014 The Church encourages us to prepare ourselves for the hour of our death. In the ancient litany of the saints, for instance, she has us pray: "From a sudden and unforeseen death, deliver us, O Lord"; to ask the Mother of God to intercede for us "at the hour of our death" in the Hail Mary; and to entrust ourselves to St. Joseph, the patron of a happy death.

Every action of yours, every thought, should be those of one who expects to die before the day is out. Death would have no great terrors for you if you had a quiet conscience .... Then why not keep clear of sin instead of running away from death? If you aren't fit to face death today, it's very unlikely you will be tomorrow ....

Praised are you, my Lord, for our sister bodily Death,
from whom no living man can escape.
Woe on those who will die in mortal sin!
Blessed are they who will be found
in your most holy will,
for the second death will not harm them.

FOXNews.com - U.S. & World - Pope John Paul II in 'Very Serious' Condition

Looks like the pope is facing the end.

Those who are fixated on seeing people die a "dignified" death (e.g., starvation of an innocent woman) should fix their eyes on the pope.

His will be a death of dignity.

FOXNews.com - U.S. & World - Pope John Paul II in 'Very Serious' Condition

Schiavo "Allowed to Die"

A photo caption on ABCNews.com reads:

Terri Schiavo died March 31, 2005, after 15 years in a vegetative state. She became the center of a national debate over whether she should be kept alive or allowed to die.

Isn't this a classic example of "liberal media bias"?

That Terri was "15 years in a vegetative state" is contested by many in the medical community. But that apparently doesn't matter to ABC News.

And the national debate was not over whether she should be "kept alive" or "allowed to die." It was whether she should continue to live or face starvation.

Terri was always "allowed to die." I'm allowed to die, too. We shouldn't fear losing this "right," because none of us will miss out. But when a society imposes starvation on another, that's not letting nature take its course. That's not being "allowed to die." It's being forced to die. And that is "murder."

I'll never see how eating is to be "kept alive," but starvation is to be "allowed to die."

God bless Terri Schiavo's soul, and may He stir all of ours to repentance.

The Catechism on Euthanasia

Since Terri Schiavo has reportedly been a devout Catholic, and because of her husband's intent on starving her to death (with the apparent eager support of judges), we would do well to review the official Catholic teaching on euthanasia.

The following is an excerpt from the authoritative Catechism of the Catholic Church. The section on euthanasia is clear and informative. Though it necessarily contains some ambiguities, judge for yourself how the Church would view Terri Schiavo's case. It seems crystal clear to me.

Euthanasia

2276 Those whose lives are diminished or weakened deserve special respect. Sick or handicapped persons should be helped to lead lives as normal as possible.

2277 Whatever its motives and means, direct euthanasia consists in putting an end to the lives of handicapped, sick, or dying persons. It is morally unacceptable.

Thus an act or omission which, of itself or by intention, causes death in order to eliminate suffering constitutes a murder gravely contrary to the dignity of the human person and to the respect due to the living God, his Creator. The error of judgment into which one can fall in good faith does not change the nature of this murderous act, which must always be forbidden and excluded.

2278 Discontinuing medical procedures that are burdensome, dangerous, extraordinary, or disproportionate to the expected outcome can be legitimate; it is the refusal of "over-zealous" treatment. Here one does not will to cause death; one's inability to impede it is merely accepted. The decisions should be made by the patient if he is competent and able or, if not, by those legally entitled to act for the patient, whose reasonable will and legitimate interests must always be respected.

2279 Even if death is thought imminent, the ordinary care owed to a sick person cannot be legitimately interrupted. The use of painkillers to alleviate the sufferings of the dying, even at the risk of shortening their days, can be morally in conformity with human dignity if death is not willed as either an end or a means, but only foreseen and tolerated as inevitable. Palliative care is a special form of disinterested charity. As such it should be encouraged.

What Is Truth? (Aristotle vs. Tommy Smothers)

In a previous short post, I quoted the definition of truth according to an ancient philosopher.

Aristotle:

If a man says of what is that it is, or if he says of what is not that it is not, then he speaks the truth; but if a man says of what is that it is not, or if he says of what is not that it is, then he does not speak the truth.

On the TV Land awards show the other night, we were treated to a definition of truth from another great philosopher.

Tommy Smothers:

Truth is whatever you can get others to believe.

A primer on Triduum (Link to "A Voice From Eden")

a voice from eden: A primer on Triduum


An excellent, concise article about the annual Lord's Supper, "Good Friday," and Easter from my friend Vox at "A Voice From Eden."

Please read this!

Yawning and Sex

Well shut mah mouth!

I never heard this connection between Yawning and Sex.

It's late and I'm getting sleepy. I think I'll . . . I'll . . . *yaaaaawn!* . . . get to bed now. After a cold shower.

Overcoming "Troubling Catholic Issues"

A non-Catholic Christian emailed me the other day:

I have some friends in many different churches including catholics but they all hold conservative family values that christianity was famous for.

. . . [H]ow have you been dealing with troubling catholic issues: "queen of heaven","papacy","praying to many gods" - not official position but one could honestly and successfully argue it has been supported by the catholic church or at least by less than honest bishops within the church.

My reply is below:

I like conservative-family-values Catholics, too. It's a shame there are so many unfaithful ones, though. I heard a guy from Massachusetts say that his state has a lot of "Kennedy Catholics," but hardly any Catholic Kennedys.

Don't think I've never questioned or hesitated over "troubling Catholic issues." I have. One thing that simplifies the process is to understand the authority issue. That's the biggie. But then, over time, the "troubling" issues clear up through research or contemplation and are no longer troubling. That's not to say that some things -- a lot of things -- are never fully understood. Not everything is meant for comprehensive understanding in this life. It's far easier for a flea to understand Algebra II than for us to understand how God can make something out of nothing.

The common Protestant objections to Catholicism, however, can be overcome. Most are refuted through gaining a proper understanding of the Church's teachings, correcting what "they say" she teaches.

Mary is in fact the "Queen of Heaven," in the sense that she gave birth to (is the mother of) the King of Kings. Queens aren't queens only when they're married to the king; we also have queen mothers, who are queens by virtue of the fact that their son is king. This is the case with Mary, who is naturally exalted because of her Son the King, who is the ultimate Exalted One.

To say that ANY of Mary's titles imply she is a "goddess" is to clearly violate the First Commandment, and that's a big one.

The pope is merely the bishop of Rome. Of all the world's bishops (the successors of the apostles), the Roman bishop alone holds the "keys of the kingdom," for he is the successor of Peter, who, along with Paul, ended up in Rome. Jesus gave Peter the keys, and it was upon Cepha that the Church was founded. Christ is the true foundation, but in His absence Peter is given the "keys" (a symbol of genuine authority, an allusion to Isaiah 22).

The idea of a man "filling in" for Christ for certain responsibilities is not such a terribly difficult concept really. Even [non-Catholic] ministers administer bread and wine in the Lord's Supper. They validly baptize "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." They claim to make "binding and loosing" decisions in the church. They believe they teach authoritatively what Christ taught since they're teaching straight from God's Word. I know it's not exactly the same, but they do claim to possess some kind of divinely given authority, to one extent or another.

"Praying to many gods." That's not good! Catholics are the ultimate Christian defenders of the truth that there is only ONE God. That is fundamental, foundational. Anything else is unthinkable.

But just as you asked me to pray for you the other day, and I asked you to pray for me, so it is that one might ask Mary or another saint to pray for him. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous person avails much, so if (that's the key word, "if") Jesus' mother is now with God, and has attained the holiness we're all striving for now, who better to pray for us?

"Pray" is not always synonymous with "worship." To a lot of people, prayer is the highest form of worship (since they don't believe in the true sacrifice of the Mass), but "prayer" often means lesser things. Even in the KJV, it is frequently used of people making requests of others (e.g., Genesis 13:8: "And Abram said unto Lot, Let there be no strife, I pray thee, between me and thee . . . "). Making requests of someone is not worship. We do honor Mary (Jesus did that, too) with great esteem, but she is "merely" the highest exalted creature. God alone is the Creator; He alone is not created. So in fact it glorifies HIM when we exalt and bless that which HE created, and exalted, and blessed. Mary's prophetic word is true: "All generations will call me blessed" (Luke 2).

If someone spoke glowingly of your parents, your brother, your wife, or your children, that would not detract from the glory that's due to you. Just the opposite: it would bring honor to [you]. You would be pleased, because they are your family.

A Catholic "prays to," or speaks to, Mary and the other saints because they enjoy a special closeness to God. And, biblically, that's an advantage when it comes to answered prayer.

Finally, there are bishops who are corrupt. There have even been scandalous scoundrels who became pope. Jesus said there would be both wheat and weeds in His Church (Matthew 13:24-30). But never in 2,000 years has any bishop or pope changed (reversed) any Catholic dogma. Even when certain popes held a particular heretical view, they could not declare it as official doctrine. Not a bad record, especially when you compare it to certain self-appointed "apostles" of recent history.

One of many big differences between modern false "apostles" and the Catholic Church's bishops in union with the pope is this: one tries to restore the truth, and the other preserves and transmits the truth. The first believes the truth is always being lost and needs to be found; the second believes truth is always faithfully passed on and needs to be believed.

Hannity's Prediction

Sean Hannity, on his radio program today, predicts Terry Schiavo's feeding tube will be reinserted before tonight's edition of Hannity & Colmes (9:00 p.m. Eastern).

I pray he's right.

Death Is Unnatural

This morning on WBAP's Mark Davis Show, Dr. Dean Adell said he couldn't understand why those who believe in a better life after death are so bent on keeping people like Terri Schiavo alive. Don't you believe her afterlife will be better?

I growled.

We were not created to be dead. Death is unnatural, a result of sin. We were made to be a composite of body and spirit. At the moment of death, our spirit is separated from our body.

Even when our spirit, or soul, "goes to heaven," that is not the final state of our being. We will be awaiting the resurrection. We'll attain our perfected state then, when our soul and body are finally reunited.

In the meantime, we should try to keep it together.

Starvation: When Nature Takes Its Course

During last night's debating over the life of Terri Schiavo, I heard a culture-of-death apologist on TV make the argument about letting "nature take its course." In other words, let's not try to save and rehabilitate Ms. Schiavo.

I don't remember the name of the congresswoman who made that remark, but I just found a comment on the Democrats.com Blog that restated the argument:

Would you want to live for years if you were in Terry's condition? and
Would you want to be the husband or wife for years of someone in Terry's condition?
Has anyone here set up a living will, and if you have, have you instructed that if you end up in a similar condition as Terry that you want to keep the tubes in for years or have them removed and let nature take its course??

Miffed about the comment I heard on TV, I told the person next to me that the same argument could be made about newborn babies. They will starve to death if you don't feed them. Oftentimes we use factory-made formulas in "unnatural" plastic bottles to feed them, but we consider it our responsibility.
We feed babies the way babies have to be fed. We must also feed brain-damaged people the way brain-damaged people have to be fed.
Neither action is "unnatural" in the sense of tampering with God's natural order for mankind. I wonder if those same people who are concerned with "nature" also condone homosexual acts, contraceptive sex, abortion, human cloning, and fetal stem-cell research.
To answer the other questions posed in the above-quoted comment: No, I would NOT want to live for years in Terri's condition; and no, I would NOT want my spouse to live for years in that condition.

That's not to say that suicide or murder is the answer. We have to endure our sufferings -- whatever they are -- in a way that glorifies God and purifies of our souls. "Blessed are they who mourn, for they will be comforted" (Matthew 5:4).

And yes, taking away Ms. Schiavo's supply of nutrition is murder. Many people would dehumanize her by saying she's in a "persistant vegetative state." I'm no farmer, but I've never seen vegetation that could see, hear, sit up in a chair, smile, and express itself in grunts. Terri Schiavo is not a mere piece of meat, a soul-less lump of tissue prevented from seeing corruption because of pumps, machines, and gadgets. All she needs is food and water. That sounds natural to me.

I hope everyone is familiar Jesus' fitting parable about the sheep and the goats:

“When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

“Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in,I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

“Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

“The King will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.’

“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

“They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’

“He will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’

“Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.” (Matthew 25:31-46)

The Apostle Pack

In a recent vital sermon, David C. Pack, founder of the Restored Church of God (RCG) in Wadsworth, Ohio, humbly explains for nearly four-and-a-half hours that Jesus has appointed him to the highest position of "apostle." He says there have been perhaps three apostles in the last 800 years or so. The most recent apostle was the late televangelist Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong, who died in 1986.

While David Pack holds such titles as "watchman" and "apostle," he is not the biblically prophesied "Elijah to come." John the Baptizer was a kind of "Elijah to come" (Matthew 11:10-15), but that role was ultimately and definitively fulfilled by Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong.

Apostle Pack also reveals that the prophesied, end-time "two witnesses" of Revelation 11 will be two members of his Restored Church of God. Because they will submit to God's government on earth, these two greatest prophets of all time will "report" to the higher-ranking Apostle Pack, who will certainly train them before they begin their mission.

I learned all sorts of great things listening to Pack's "coming out of the apostolic closet" sermon. He even predicts that he will be "attacked" by others because of this new truth. In fact, he says he is the "most attacked" person in the world next to the deceased Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong.

I suppose a blog post like this is part of that prophesied persecution. See, he is right after all! Amazing!

My interest in the Apostle Pack stems from my memories of him when I was a youth in the Worldwide Church of God (WCG). I was big into basketball, and so was he. (He is just plain big at six-feet-seven.) He coached the Akron, Ohio, team, and -- thanks to my clutch free throws in overtime -- our Toledo team defeated his for the district championship in 1991. Soon afterward, he coached our district all-star team. And if I recall correctly, I gave him reason to stand tall with pride by scoring a few three-pointers for him.

Because of these basketball memories, and a morbid curiosity, I subjected myself to hearing some of Apostle Pack's online sermons. In a way, he is a captivating speaker because he demonstrates a certain kind of logic, and he speaks as one having authority, not as the WCG "splinters." He is set apart from "the splinters" in his apparent zeal and conviction in his message.

What is amusing, however, is that he never adequately explains how he is different from "the splinters." Apostle Pack (then Pastor Pack) left the Worldwide Church of God in 1993 to join a splinter group called the Living Church of God, from whom he later split to form his Restored Church of God. As a second-generation splinter, he does not number himself among "the splinters," for he alone is "extending the apostle's [Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong's] ministry."

The plain truth is that if only Apostle Pack would annoint his eyes to see, he would be forced to admit that Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong splintered from a splinter from a splinter from a splinter -- going all the way back, like everyone else, to the Church that Jesus built: the Catholic Church.

I made the point in a previous post that the only reason Pack can give for his claims of exclusivity is that he "goes by the Bible." All a person needs to do is "blow the dust off" his Bible and "prove all things and hold fast to that which is good"; if you do that, then, according to Pack, you'll be left holding only his doctrines.

There is one other reason offered by the Apostle Pack: he is faithful to the teachings of the Apostle Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong, a claim he can "prove" with many quotations from Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong. Even so, how do we know Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong was God's apostle? Simply because the teachings of Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong "go by the Bible."

In other words, you must read and interpret the Bible for yourself (with God's assistance, of course), and then you must judge the fidelity of the teachings of Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong and the Apostle Pack. If in your judgment they agree with the Bible, then you must agree with them; if you determine they don't agree with the Bible, then "it's just not your time yet." You're not among the "called," but you will be given the opportunity to repent in another resurrection when God finally opens your eyes.

Too many sad souls are playing pin-the-tail-on-the-apostle and neglecting the fundamentals of the Christian faith. They are so enraptured with the idea of being unique and set apart that they don't think to be orthodox and faithful to the one gospel message transmitted by the Church through its 2000-year history.

Amidst all the religious confusion in the Christian world, we can find our way to the Truth by knowing the Scriptures (cf. Mark 12:24) and knowing "the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth" (1 Timothy 3:15).

Stay close to the tradition of the true apostles, and to their successors the bishops. If you remain faithful to the Church's deposit of truth, then you will never be deceived by a false apostle's Pack of lies.