Who Killed Goliath?

A fellow named James sent me an email challenging the use of Scripture; later, he clarified that it was not the bible he rejected, just the Catholic version.

He asked a question that he considered a stumper. I commended him for his bible studies, but the question he asked was hardly original with him. It was a set up. A number of critics who hope to ridicule the Catholic bible and confuse poorly educated Catholics are quick to ask, "Who Killed Goliath?"

While remarking that Protestant fundamental literalism and Catholic biblical scholarship represents entirely different hermeneutics, I tried to make an answer.

Most Protestant and Catholic translations of the bible today, as well as all the foreign language texts about which I am aware (original translations) would make his question mute as the same problem with 2 Samuel 22:19 is true of all of them, ". . . and Elhanan the son of Jaareorgim, the Bethlehemite, slew Goliath the Gittite . . ." (RSV). This version was corrected from the earlier rendition from the KJV that edited the translated text in light of 1 Samuel 17 and 1 Chronicles 20:5. It read, " . . . where Elhanan the son of Jaare-oregim, a Bethlehemite, slew the brother of Goliath, the Gittite . . . ." 1 Chronicles 20:5 attributes the killing of Lahmi, Goliath's brother, to Elhanan. While 2 Samuel renders Elhanan's father as Jaareorigim, 1 Chronicles gives a different name, Jair. A copying or dittographical error has been made in the ancient text where the word "oregim" has been duplicated and inserted after the name. (The word, "oregim," refers to the shaft of a spear compared to a WEAVER's beam). Since the naming of Elhanan's father is corrupted, some scholars, Catholic and Protestant, have argued that 1 Chronicles is the superior text where the Lord slays Goliath through his servant, David. Other scholars make still more arguments about the texts. Some say that David originally killed an anonymous Phillistine who is later confused with Elhanan's victim. The Jewish authorities using the Targums and Midrash contend that Elhanan and David was the same person. Thus, David becomes a second name, acquired later. Weight is given this view since the word, "dawidum" was used at Mari and they conclude that David was a title received at his coronation. Arguing a corruption in the consonants, they further claim the name Jair was originally Jesse. However, this seems dubious at best.

While the biblical traditions are not entirely clear, unless we force harmony into the texts as was done for Protestant England in 1611; Catholic authority and tradition has merely favored David as the human slayer of Goliath. Indeed, it was largely this residual Catholicism that led the English Protestant translators to offer what they saw as a correction to 2 Samuel. However, true Catholic translators opted not to take it upon themselves to change the sacred text but to footnote and instruct about what they saw as a corruption of it.

Thus, the Catholic answer to the question is found in these two texts:

1 Chronicles 20:5 - "Once again there was war with the Philistines, and Elhanan, the son of Jair, slew Lahmi, the brother of Goliath of Gath, whose spear shaft was like a weaver's heddle-bar."

1 Samuel 17:49-51 - "David put his hand into the bag and took out a stone, hurled it with the sling, and struck the Philistine on the forehead. The stone embedded itself in his brow, and he fell prostrate on the ground. [Thus David overcame the Philistine with sling and stone; he struck the Philistine mortally, and did it without a sword.] Then David ran and stood over him; with the Philistine's own sword [which he drew from its sheath] he dispatched him and cut off his head."

I finished by saying, "There you have it. I suspect already that it will not satisfy you, but I thought I would make the effort anyway. I will pray that the good Lord will soften your heart to greater charity and open your mind for deeper insight, particularly into his holy mysteries. I trust that you will pray the same for me."

There was no response.

Pope John Paul II Kisses the Koran

Pope JP II Kisses a Koran

Many have wondered, why did the Pope kiss the Koran?

Is it not a book that speaks directly against the Catholic faith? Does it not reduce the Son of God to a mere prophet? Did not the popes of the past demand its burning? The answer to all these questions is YES, and yet what the Holy Father did was more complicated than what the anti-Catholic and/or sedevacantist spin-doctors might say about it.

One critic argues that it was a blasphemous act, showing his "hatred" of God and his apostate defection from the true faith. It was none of these things. The Pope is on the record about the differences between Catholics and the followers of Islam. Let us look at the situation. The Pope has longed to go to Iraq in order to walk in the footsteps of Abraham, claimed as a father in faith by Muslims, Jews, and Christians. Pope John Paul II has seen first hand the debth of man's inhumanity to his brothers and sisters. Our history as a world is written in blood. As illustrated in his many Mea Culpas, he strives for a new understanding between peoples where dialogue, tolerance, and cooperation will replace anathemas, persecution, and rivalry. Abraham is an integral figure of unity in turning things around politically. Looking at the incident in question, the Holy Father received a delegation that included the Shiite Imam of Khadum Mosque, the Sunni President of the council that operates the Iraqi Islamic Bank, and a member of the Iraqi Ministry of Religion. The invitation of a papal visit was renewed. They even went so far as to say that it would be "a grace from heaven". While Iraq has been guilty of real violations of human rights, this Islamic state has been the most tolerant of Christians than any of its islamic neighbors. Many Catholics hold positions in government, commerce, education, etc. The Chaldean Patriarch of Babylon (Iraq), His Beatitude Raphael I Bidawid, who was a major spokesman for the delegation. He applauded the Pope's actions and words as a true sign of concern from the Successor of St. Peter. (Christians represent 5% of the 20 million people in Iraq. Catholics of the large Chaldean rite [implementing the Aramaic language] and of the smaller Latin rite represent 80% of all Christians there.) It was said that a papal visit would confirm the faith of Christian believers while showing forth a genuine love for all in this mostly Muslim nation.

The Koran was a gift to him from the delegation. Islamic peoples are not casual in the giving of gifts. It represents the giver. They knew perfectly well that the Pope was a Catholic Christian, but they gave to him that which was regarded as most important in their life, their own holy book. Thus, at the end of the audience, the Pope showed his deep appreciation to this intimate self-donation, by bowing and kissing the Koran as a sign of respect. Such a gesture ran totally against the grain of crusades and condemnations. It did not mean that the Pope accepted all that was in the book, only that his love for the Muslim people, and the Iraqis in particular, was genuine. He makes the first move, not in the capitulation of our faith, but in the recognition that the followers of Jesus and those who cherish Mohammed should not be engaged in name-calling, or worse, killing each other. The Pope appreciated the suffering of the Iraqi people, particularly the women and children. It showed he did not look down upon them but had a genuine respect for them within the brotherhood of man.

Scripture & Tradition

The fact is that Scripture, separated from the living tradition and Magisterium of the Church, loses its grounding and can be easily distorted. The assertion that the authenticity of the Scriptures rests entirely upon itself is an argument that runs counter to the facts and the history of God's people. The Church collected and, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, is the source for the New Testament. Before one word of the Gospel was written, there was the ministering and teaching Catholic Church. The notion that Old Testament prophesies legitimate the Bible fail to recognize that the promise was given to the Jewish people, the first people called by God to be in covenant with him. There are no Scriptures separated from a community established by God. The Catholic Church recognizes that Old Testament prophecies of the coming Messiah do indeed point to Jesus. This is not a matter of debate. Some anti-Catholic bigots think otherwise.

Sola Scriptura?

Catholics poorly educated in their faith and non-Catholics filled with prejudices, often prejudge the Catholic faith or difficult issues of our discipleship. Such biases, reinforced by others with grievances, are often hard to overcome-- no matter how clearly they are shown to be wrong. The matter of "sola scriptura" is a case in point. Can a believer in Christ interpret the bible without any help from anyone else and without any Magisterium of the Church? While the fundamentalist might distort Scripture by citing isolated verses against Catholic positions; any Scriptures shown to challenge them are dismissed as irrelevant or misinterpreted, no matter how the full context of the teaching is intelligently explained. They are blind to the fact that they have made themselves or their favorite minister into their own private magisterium-- the final authority. They ridicule others holding the same view of "sola scriptura" who interpret the Scriptures differently than they do. Despite the thousands of fragments into which Protestantism has fallen, they insist that there is no NEED for a genuine teaching authority safeguarded by the Holy Spirit in the Church. They violate salvation history by denying that the Church came into being prior to the completion of the Scriptural canon and the composition of the New Testament. Facts do not matter to them unless they are "their" facts. The living tradition and the authority of the Church have always had a part to play in regard to the formation and the truths of Scripture. Just as they reject a teaching authority and are blind to their own claims to infallible interpretation, so too are they hesitant to admit their own church traditions, even if they are only a generation or so old. The "sola scriptura" Christians view the bible as emerging from some vacuum in time to be picked up later by men who themselves would form churches. This contradicts the fact that Jesus himself said that he was going to found a Church and that he was going to give his apostles, with Peter at the head, as its shepherds. Their contradictions to this do not wash. No Catholic Church, no Christian Bible! It is as simple as that, and yet, they still refuse to believe.

False is their view that all personal interpretation of the bible is forbidden to Catholics. Catholic Christians will often search the bible for personal edification and for the voice of God in their lives. What the Church holds is that an individual's interpretation must not contradict a text that has a universally accepted interpretation in the Church, such as regarding the identity or nature of Christ and the means of our salvation, etc. Accompanied by good footnotes and commentaries, the Catholic reader can make great personal use of the Scriptures.

When trounced by a Catholic who really knows the bible, the anti-Catholic bigot will resort to name-calling. One website, upon this very topic, called God's Church "the Roman whore" and a "prostitute." Since St. Paul tells us that husbands should love their wives as Christ has loved the Church, I suppose the derogatory language ultimately targets Christ, no matter whether they know this or not. How would any husband feel to have his wife degraded in this manner? Do they not fear judgment? Failing at any coherent dialogue, the anti-Catholic will tell so-called honest men and women to run for their lives. In other words, even conversation with knowledgeable Catholics is compromise. Instead, they want the gullible and the intellectually ill-equipped who can be easily maneuvered into their camp. The author of the website in question advises Protestants to avoid the Catholic Church and her emissaries as one would the "bubonic plague" and that otherwise, "AIDs and death" might await them.

After urging avoidance, they have the audacity to say that the Catholic Church refuses to allow people to use the brains God gave them. The next big lie is that the Church forbad Catholics to read the bible. The truth is, that long before these anti-Catholic bible Christians or their founders came into existence, the Church had to contend with heresy and the Protestant reformation. Some of these flawed bible texts, even the fundamentalists today would reject. The Church did not ban the bible; rather, she wanted to insure that Catholics read bibles that were accurate and complete. This is the truth upon the matter. Popes have urged believers to approach the Scriptures with real humility and to invoke the Spirit of truth. The Scriptures confirm the claims of the Catholic Church and that of our fathers in faith. This point is also quickly verifiable; however, anti-Catholic critics will have none of it. Indeed they argue the opposite is true. Again, the argument will move from the issues to an attack on the institution and those who speak for her. Thus, someone of my likes would be dubbed "poisoned by his pride" and the Church denounced as a "monstrous entity" which "enslaves the souls of men" in preparation for hell. As you can see, they do not exactly like us. They reduce the Gospel to a propaganda program of hatred and misinformation.

ISOLATED VERSES MISUSED AGAINST THE CHURCH:

I write this to you about those who would deceive you; but the anointing which you received from him abides in you and you have no need that any one should teach you; as his anointing teaches you about everything, and is true, and is no lie, just as it has taught you, abide in him (1 John 2:26-27).

While the anti-Catholic fundamentalist uses this text against the teaching authority of the Catholic Church, it is actually a rebuke against himself. His own role as a teacher of faith contradicts a literal reading of these verses. John speaks here with the authority of an apostle, a role which shall find its succession in the bishops. The warning here is not against the Magisterium of the Church, but against those who would lead God's people astray. There is no other Gospel that saves other than that of Jesus Christ. No community possesses any secret knowledge that surpasses that of the public proclamation of the true Church. Keeping faith in Christ Jesus, the believer is baptized and anointed (confirmation), receiving the Spirit of wisdom, the Holy Spirit. We have a responsibility to know the true faith and to spread it. This is the mission of the Church. The Christian has no need to seek another religious truth and we are to remain in solidarity with the chosen community of faith and in union with God. True wisdom and faith comes as a gift from God. Further, the Holy Spirit leads the humble person to God. Against the Gnostic heretics, John is defending the Catholic truth that Jesus is the anointed Holy One, the Christ. Jesus Christ is indeed the revelation of the Father. In a certain sense, the "sola scriptura" critic of Catholicism is kin to these ancient Gnostics. While they believe that Jesus is both Christ and Savior; like the Gnostics, they minimize the importance of the material in regards to the spiritual. Thus, the Mystical Body and pre-eminence of the Church is denied, the sacramental signs are ridiculed, and the significance of the body in our personhood is often maligned for its wickedness.

Another interesting element about the verses given is their context. At the end of chapter two something is said about our justification that is sure to make the anti-Catholic fundamentalist uncomfortable: "If you know that he is righteous, you may be sure that every one who does right is born of him." A real sign of our being "born again" is our just behavior; dare I say, our good works?

So each of us shall give account of himself to God (Romans 14:12).

The anti-Catholic critic would do well to read a few verses earlier, "Why do you pass judgment on your brother? Or you, why do you despise your brother?" (Romans 14:10). Dissimilar from most other institutions, the inherent unity of Church members in Christ means that an attack against the whole is an assault on each one, and visa versa. The Church is a family. It is not really possible to hate the Church but to love individual Catholics. Hate the family, and you hate all of us. We are the Church.

Again, I am a bit taken aback by such a citation which immediately points to how one's faith is actualized by the life of charity and following the commandments. We will each have to give an accounting for what we did in the body, either good or evil. While there is a particular judgment for each of us, there will also be a general judgment at the end of the world. Individual souls as members of God's holy people or those for whom the Church has interceded will be accorded the reward of the just. The communion of saints is a celebration of the unity of the Church among those glorified by grace and thus worthy of heaven. They have repented and have place their faith in Jesus. They are washed clean in the blood of the Lamb and given the wedding garment of heaven as their vestiture. Those who rejected the gift of salvation remain lost in their sins. They are separated from God and breached from their brothers and sisters by their own selfishness and iniquity.

When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come (John 16:13).

These words are not written for various individuals apart from the believing community; these words regarding the Holy Spirit are directed to the Church as a whole. This promise of Christ is fulfilled when the Holy Spirit descended upon the infant Church at Pentecost. Imaged as tongues of flame over the heads of the apostles, the leadership of the Church would always be enlightened and protected in the truth. Individual members can and should invoke the Holy Spirit for wisdom. But, the gift of infallibility and steadfastness in the truth is conferred upon the Church, particularly the Magisterium, and not to every individual believer. The assurance of Christ's teachings require that members of the faith take seriously the guidance of their lawful shepherds and that they seek to conform their heart and mind to that of Christ realized in the teaching Church. Our Lord speaks to us through his Church.

As we have said before, and now I say again, if anyone preaches to you a gospel other than that which you received, let him be accursed (Galatians 1:9).

Fundamentalist critics love this verse; however, given no restraining context, it might just as well apply to them. Originally it applied to those missionaries who insisted that pagans had to become Jews before becoming Christians. Thus, circumcision and other Jewish rituals would be placed on par with the saving Cross of Christ. Paul denounces this activity and insists that his is the correct Gospel proclamation. Catholics place faith in Jesus and consider baptism as the manner in which we join the new People of God and are touched by Christ's saving activity. The verse can in no way be applied against the Catholic Church.
Now I would remind you brethren, in what terms I preached to you the gospel which you received, in which you stand, by which you are saved, if you hold it fast -- unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, . . . (1 Corinthians 15:1-4).

Paul recalls the living TRADITION which he himself received and transmitted to the Corinthians. Paul stresses their faith in Christ and in his saving actions against the views of those who would deny the bodily resurrection of the Lord. Catholics believe in this very same Gospel and retain the ancient traditions repudiated by non-Catholics.

And they said, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, . . ." ( Acts 16:31).

Here the anti-Catholic critic is purposely deceptive. As the verse reads, it appears that salvation is an entirely personal matter. Nothing could be further from the case. The complete verse reads as follows, "And they said, 'Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, YOU AND YOUR HOUSEHOLD.' AND THEY SPOKE THE WORD OF THE LORD TO HIM AND TO ALL THAT WERE IN HIS HOUSE. AND HE TOOK THEM THE SAME HOUR OF THE NIGHT, AND WASHED THEIR WOUNDS, AND HE WAS BAPTIZED AT ONCE, WITH ALL HIS FAMILY. THEN HE BROUGHT THEM UP INTO HIS HOUSE, AND SET FOOD BEFORE THEM; AND HE REJOICED WITH ALL HIS HOUSEHOLD THAT HE HAD BELIEVED IN GOD" (Acts 16:31-34). Can we presume that even the babies of the household were baptized? Probably so. The household or family becomes the setting for the "little church." The gift of faith brings people to Christ, not simply as isolated individuals, but corporately-- as a family of faith.

He who has the Son has life; he who has not the Son of God has not life. I write this to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life (1 John 5:12-13).

Pope John Paul II stressed this crucial element of the Good News in his encyclical on the Gospel of Life. Christ is the author of life and makes possible our share in eternal life.

For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life (John 3:16).

Again, this is a central teaching of the Catholic faith. Those who would use it to stress belief or faith profession over the merits of the Christian life would do well to read verse 21: "But he who DOES WHAT IS TRUE comes to the light, that it may be clearly seen that his DEEDS have been wrought in God."

You will seek me and find me; when you seek me with all your heart (Jeremiah 29:13).

Yes, we believe as Catholics that God will show his face to those who search for him with humility and with sincere hearts. God is the source of our being. He gives our lives meaning. As St. Augustine would say, "Our hearts are restless O Lord, until they rest in you."

REFERENCES TO PAGAN ROME USED AGAINST THE CHURCH:

Revelation 18:2-8;24 is often misapplied to the Roman Catholic Church. The great harlot Babylon symbolizes the Rome of pagans not of Christians. Despite persecution and martyrdom, Christians of the first century are urged not to surrender their precious faith in Christ.

What is a Christian?

[CCC #1694] Incorporated into Christ by Baptism, Christians are "dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus" and so participate in the life of the Risen Lord (Romans 6:11 and cf. 6:5; cf. Col. 2:12). Following Christ and united with him (cf. John 15:5), Christians can strive to be "imitators of God as beloved children, and walk in love" (Ephesians 5:1-2) by conforming their thoughts, words and actions to the "mind . . . which is yours in Christ Jesus" (Phil. 2:5), and by following his example (cf. John 13:12-16).

Scripture texts taken from Revised Standard Version, Catholic Edition, 1965 & 1966.

Can Catholics Kill Protestants? & Other Fables

There are some charges beyond ridiculous. One of these is that the Canon Law of the Catholic Church advocates the killing of Protestants. Again, the anti-Catholic loves sensationalism and scare tactics. The Church is not only blamed for the Dark Ages and the Inquisition but probably for everything from bad breath to smelly feet. Instead of pictured as a loving mother, the anti-Catholic calls the Church of Rome a "monster." He cannot tolerate her authority or the possibility that there is a claim to truth beyond his control. Such a belligerant stance often puts the anti-Catholic bigot in the embarassing position of castigating even those policies and persons with whom he would have an affinity, if he truly loves the Lord. Thus, he takes public positions against pro-life endeavors which he favors, all because they originate with the Catholic Church. He also suggests that the likes of Mother Teresa is burning in hell because she did not espouse fundamentalist propositions; indeed, she closely associated the Eucharist with her charity endeavors. He becomes the very thing he says he hates about the Catholic Church, intolerant and dishonest.

EXCOMMUNICATION - Turning his attention to this subject, the anti-Catholic denies the Church any authority to discipline her membership. However, he ignores the fact that many Protestant communities shun and expell those who do not follow the party line. In ancient days banishment was preferred to taking the life of an unbeliever. Communion in the Catholic Church implies a uniformity in worship and belief. If such a unity is imperiled by heresy and/or irregular worship, the Church has the obligation to protect the integrity of the faith. One critic compared this policy to the work of Hitler or the Red Scare. However, there is no comparison. The substance of what is being protected is the truth, not a big lie as in totalitarianism. Further, one may still dissent, but one may not do so on a serious matter and pretend to still be a Catholic Christian. The two matters which bring automatic excommunication are harming the person of the Pope and deliberately procuring an abortion. Would the anti-Catholic argue contrary for violence or for excusing the murder of babies? I hope not.

PROSCRIPTION FROM OFFICES - This only pertains to ecclesiastical offices these days as most governments in the West are secular. Should a person continue as a pastor of souls if he is leading them into error or causing scandal by his conduct? I think not. In ancient days, this concern was tied up with the tension with kings over authority and interference in Church matters. While this point is now more historical than current, the Pope has insisted that Catholic priests and male and female religious not hold political positions in civil governments. Would the anti-Catholic who feels this infringes upon private rights really want a Catholic clergyman as his Senator or President? I doubt it. He makes a lot of noise for nothing!

CONFISCATION OF GOODS - This notion is quite archaic and no longer applies except in cases where goods belonging to the Church have been illicitly procured. Would the anti-Catholic want a disgruntled pastor to sell his church from under him or leave it to children with no interest in religion? No. It was the same issue with the Catholic faith. The temporal goods of the Church belong to the People of God. I would readily compare the few hundred dollars a month most of our priests get to the high salaries of many evangelical and fundamentalist ministers any day! Who is it who is really getting rich on religion? On top of this most priests have to maintain their own car, pay insurance, and pay the same taxes as all the rest of us. Religious clergy even take a vow of poverty. Mother Teresa's sisters only possessed two habits each and a bucket to wash them in. Millions upon millions go to charity and the Vatican often suffers a short-fall in funds. Where is this rich Vatican government that anti-Catholics shout about? Should the Church sell off her holdings of art to private collectors and deprive the world of what she safeguards for all humanity? The argument of the anti-Catholic bigot on this score is a tumbling house of cards.

EXECUTION - The anti-Catholics play this theme for all they can get out of it. Again, nations, Protestant, Catholic, Moslem, and Secular have often used religion to their own ends. The complicity of certain ones in the membership (or in leadership) is not grounds for damning the entire Church fellowship. In ancient times, the people themselves would often drag out and lynch heretics. The Church encouraged the rule of law to bring order and justice to the situation. Oftentimes confiscation of property and banishment was the punishment. However, over time the death penalty did encroach upon the scene. Further, until recent times, the Papacy actually retained a substantial territory, the Papal States. Consumed by the Italian unification movement, all that remains is the small Vatican City. The civil legislation of the old Papal States must be reckoned on the same level as other nations. Countries in the past and in the present have sometimes allowed the death penalty for threats to society. Records indicate that such executions in papal lands dealt with capital crimes like murder. Today, the Church has discerned a development in doctrine that would rescind this right of the state to take life since it adds to the current culture of death. Incarceration and rehabilitation are preferred avenues for criminals. However, this is again in reference to what we would all discern to be crimes against society. The irony here is that while many funadamentalists side with Catholics against abortion, they are frequently strong advocates of capital punishment in our own nation. This brings us back to the ludicrous assertion that Catholics are given liberty to kill Protestants. It just is not so. Alongside fundamentalists who want free access to the peoples inside the old Soviet Union, the Catholic Church has joined her voice in defending the right of conscience and religious liberty as a constitutive right of the human person.

Development along these lines does not impinge upon the charism of infallibility regarding faith and morals given the Church. While the Church is holy because of the abiding presence of Christ, her members are always sinners in need of their redeemer, Christ. Regarding matters of science and practical matters of government, the Church has had to feel her way through time just like other organizations. The Church may be infallible, but she is not always impeccable. Anti-Catholics often fail to make this distinction.

One anti-Catholic had to go all the way to Gratian's Decretals of the 12th century (one of the earliest attempts to codify the laws of Christendom) in order to discredit the Catholic Church. His own denomination did not yet exist, indeed, the Protestant Reformation had not yet happened. Nevertheless, he belittles the Church for oppressing his compatriots during that time.
Utterly desperate to show that Catholics can kill Protestants with impunity, one anti-Catholic bigot cites the St. Bartholomew Day Massacre. The king's sister, Margaret of Valois, married an important Protestant leader, Henry of Navarre. Her mother and her family secretly arranged for his assassination. When it failed, they convinced the king that there would be a Huguenot reprisal. They decided to strike first but the government could not retain the violence. Religious war broke out and upon his conversion to Catholicism, Henry of Navarre became king, himself. Unfortunately, another reliious war would follow. The anti-Catholic bigot gives few of the facts and condemns the whole Catholic Church for what was a French civil war.

The bigoted anti-Catholic's views which I have largely reviewed here end with a terrible bluntness. He says that unless one leaves the Catholic Church, one must be damned to hell. He tells the Catholic to run, but only gives him a religion which judges itself by its hate of Catholicism. That is no choice. The Catholic should stay home and explore his own spiritual roots. Our history may have some blemishes, but it also contains many jewels. It is the Church of the saints and the family of God established by Jesus.

Did the Catholic Church Prohibit Bible Reading?

An anti-Catholic critic claimed knowing middle-aged ex-Catholics who were not encouraged to read God's Word. I asked a priest in his mid-60's and he said he never heard such a thing; indeed, a special indulgence was granted to anyone who faithfully read the bible on a daily basis. Pope Benedict XV wrote in his encyclical Spiritus Paraclitus of 1920: "A partial indulgence is granted to the faithful who, with the veneration due the divine Word, make a spiritual reading from the Sacred Scriptures. A plenary indulgence is granted if this reading is continued for at least one half an hour." My late aunt admitted that she was hesitant to read the bible for fear of misinterpreting the texts; however, such a personal sentiment cannot be said to reflect a Catholic prohibition. Anti-Catholic apologists themselves use isolated bits-and-pieces to refute Catholic teachings and then accuse the Church of using the same flawed methods. Such just is not the case. An anti-Catholic author, David Cloud, furthered such distortions in an article entitled, "The KJV and the Latin Vulgate." He writes:

The Council of Trent (1545-1564) placed the Bible on its list of prohibited books, and forbade any person to read the Bible without a license from a Roman Catholic bishop or inquisitor. The Council added these words: "That if any one shall dare to read or keep in his possession that book, without such a license, he shall not receive absolution till he has given it up to his ordinary."

Rome's attempt to keep the Bible from men has continued to recent times. Pope Pius VII (1800-1823) denounced the Bible Society and expressed shock at the circulation of the Scriptures. Pius VII said, "It is evidence from experience, that the holy Scriptures, when circulated in the vulgar tongue, have, through the temerity of men, produced more harm than benefit." Pope Leo XII called the Protestant Bible the "Gospel of the Devil" in an encyclical letter of 1824. Pope Gregory XVI (1831-1846) railed "against the publication, distribution, reading, and possession of books of the holy Scriptures translated into the vulgar tongue."

Pope Leo XII, in January 1850, condemned the Bible Societies and admitted the fact that the distribution of Scripture has "long been condemned by the holy chair."

Let us look at his assertions. First, did the council of Trent really prohibit the reading and ownership of the bible? The answer is, no. The council fathers decreed on April 8, 1546, ". . . the synod, following the examples of the orthodox Fathers, receives and venerates with an equal affection of piety and reverence all the books both of the Old and New Testament, --seeing that one God is the author of both, . . . ." Oddly, I could not find the quotation as given by the above author; however, I did find decrees regarding UNAPPROVED and or FAULTY translations of the Scrtiptures. Just as with theological works, the Church asserted her role over their legitimate use. To suggest that the council of Trent opposed the authentic Word of God is untrue. Second, the prohibition for Catholics in joining Bible Societies was due to the fact that these said groups did not use Scriptures approved by Church sources and were quite anti-Catholic in their approach. Such has been the continued problem with gullible Catholics stolen from Christ's Church by anti-Catholic fundamentalist bible study programs, some which particularly target Catholics. Again, this was no disdain for the holy Scriptures, only for the malicious intent by which some men use them. Third, the concern about bible distribution was that Protestant bibles were being circulated which in missing texts and in footnotes often questioned and ridiculed Catholic teaching. Obviously, the Church preferred that Catholics read bibles which reflected the orthodox Catholic interpretation of the Word of God. The misuse of the Gospel against the Church established by Christ himself is as Pope Leo XII noted nothing less than satanic. Cloud's interpretation of Church history, or tradition, is as cloudy as the anti-Catholic's understanding of the Scriptures.

Having attacked Christ's Church, the anti-Catholic bigot who quoted Cloud on his website has the audacity to call the Catholic his "friend." This hackneyed sign of affection was used several years ago by the pornography and prostitute addicted Jimmy Swaggert in a pamphlet to proslytize Catholics. The anti-Catholic critic, when he runs out of material, will often harp about the so-called multitude killed by Catholics and declared heretics. It is true that civil societies in the past did engage in much nonsense, both Catholic and Protestant, however, both camps equated spiritual murder with physical murder and subsequently confused the penalties. Neither Protestants nor Catholics would want to be classified by the actions of extremists. Returning to the subject of the bible, it is my supposition that if properly studied with care to the sources and the literary forms of the text, it will affirm the Catholic faith. Such an openness to the truth of the Scriptures have led many of the more astute Protestants into the Catholic Church. However, the more emotional, embittered, and ignorant the researcher-- the less affected they are by such truths or the claims of the Catholic Church.

The message of our loving God to such critics would be to put aside their prejudice and hatred and taste and see the goodness of the Lord in the Catholic community.

Response to an Anti-Catholic on John 6 & More

One anti-Catholic apologist declared as blasphemy the claim that Catholics "eat" Jesus. In the same breath, he contended that popes forbid bible reading as illegal. Both statements are inexact and misleading. Catholics receive in holy communion the sacrament of Christ's real presence and do so by the Lord's command. As for the Scriptures, the prohibition was not against reading Scripture but against those translations and texts of the reformers which distorted the true Word of God. Remember, even Martin Luther inserted his own theology into the sacred texts and omitted books (from both the Old and New Testaments) which he found disagreeable. Viewing the Church and the civil society as two sides of the same coin, both Catholics and Protestants alike sometimes exerted undue force in maintaining the ranks and orthodoxy. Exagerations of anti-Catholics regarding such coercion are not to be taken seriously. Further, the Church herself, then as today, was often incapable to stay the hand of civil authorities intent upon using religion as an excuse for intolerance and brutality. So-called incidents of murder and torture by "unholy Romish priests" is rarely documented; in any case, there is something demented in referencing incidents which happened centuries ago as if they happened last Tuesday.

The Catholic Church is the source for the Scriptures: members from her community were inspired in their authorship and by her own authority she determined the canon. The proliferation of bibles throughout the world was not the fruit of reformational protestantism but of the mechanical printing press. Rome has encouraged the reading of the bible and has long offered a special indulgence to those who do so every day. Unlike the anti-Catholic fundamentalist, the entire bible (without deletion of books) is offered her people. Further, her use of a lectionary system for liturgies has resulted in a greater variety in biblical passages than what is usual in protestant services. The Catholic faith is affirmed by an honest and comprehensive understanding of Scripture while the anti-Catholic resorts to biblical fragments, out of context and ignorantly misinterpreted. One anti-Catholic bigot notes that John 6 is frequently used against him by so-called "idolatrous" and "pagan" Catholics. He cites the following:

John 6:51,53-58
I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world. Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him. Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever.

Anti-Catholic Assertion
The anti-Catholic bigot argues that Catholics neglect verse 63 which illustrates, so he says, that Jesus did not mean what he said literally: "It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life."

Catholic Clarification
In otherwords, until verse 63, Jesus is lying? Sorry, I do not think so. Our Saviour is not fickle in his teachings. He would not deliberately mislead and anger the Jews; he meant what he said about the Eucharist. This verse becomes clearer if we look at the one which follows it: "But there are some of you who do not believe." This resonates with verse 52, conveniently omitted by the anti-Catholic apologist: "The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, 'How can this man give us [his] flesh to eat?'" Did the critic purposely omit this line, knowing that he found himself associated with the disbelieving Jews? It sure seems that way. The Jews are murmuring because they do not like what they hear. Some of the number walk away. They know full well that Jesus means what he says. Their sensibilities, especially regarding blood are offended. They will have none of it. It is a mystery that requires supernatural faith to accept. Verse 63 is not a reference to Christ's eucharistic body but is used as it was previously in John 3:6-7. We read: "What is born of flesh is flesh and what is born of spirit is spirit. Do not be amazed that I told you, 'You must be born from above.'" "Spirit . . . flesh" is a Hebraic form of speech which does the very opposite of what the anti-Catholic bigot claims. It affirms the truth of Christ's eucharistic teaching and that to accept it we must be given the gift of faith by his heavenly Father.

We need to pray that the anti-Catholic bigot will be given a greater share in the true faith. He is usually filled with much anger and hate. He can only measure his own religion in reference to that which he opposes. I would fathom to guess that were there no Catholic religion, he would have no faith at all-- or perhaps I should call it an anti-faith? He is quick to judge and to damn Catholics even though there is no consideration that if he is wrong then he has blasphemed the work of the Holy Spirit.

The anti-Catholic may also sin by presumption of God's saving grace. We live in the "sure and certain hope" of our salvation, leaving our eternal destiny to divine providence. The Lord says, "Therefore, by their fruits you will know them." While the fruits of Christ's presence and loving ministry are manifested in the life of the Church, the anti-Catholic critic contends that Jesus shall respond to us with the words from Matthew 7:23, "I never knew you. Depart from me, you workers of iniquity!" Many of our Protestant brethren, with whom we would differ on points of doctrine and manners of worship, work alongside us in the promotion of the Gospel of Life. However, the anti-Catholic bigot contends that these groups are contaminated by their association with Catholics and thus are also lost. What can we say to such a critic? If all he understands are isolated bible texts, then let him pay heed to this one: "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. By their fruits you will know them" (Matthew 7:15-16).

Every Catholic needs to remember the anti-Catholic and the fallen-away Catholic every time they receive holy communion. We need to dedicate our Holy Hours to prayer on their behalf and make reparation for their insults against Jesus, his Mother, and the Church. May our prayer rise like incense to heaven and be found pleasing to Almighty God.

Dealing with Anti-Catholicism

There is no Scripture which invalidates the claims of the Roman Catholic Church. Many of the posts atvthis Blog were in response to an anti-Catholic bigot, and thus the tone may be more harsh and apologetic than usual in interfaith discussions.

The infallibility of the Catholic faith as realized in the protection of the Holy Spirit over the Magisterium (Pope and bishops in union with him) and over revelation, as revealed in Scripture and the life of the Church (tradition) has been proven time and time again. The subject of this safeguard is faith and morals. It does not include all the various secular and scientific truths, upon which the Church's leaders and membership might make human judgments.

Many will offer a donation, called a stipend for a Mass. However, it is a gift and even without monetary help, the sacraments are free-- even if we have to find resources elsewhere to pay for the upkeep of our facilities and materials. Protestant churches also "pass the basket" so this material side cannot be used to harass the Catholic Church. Yes, we pray for the dead, not to hear ourselves talk, but to manifest our continued unity with our beloved deceased who may still be on their way to paradise. It is true that the price for their entry into heaven has been paid by the blood of Christ. However, we must be made perfect as our heavenly Father is perfect. Those in heaven do not need our prayers and those in hell cannot benefit from them. At least upon this much, the anti-Catholic fundamentalist and the Catholic might agree.

The Roman Catholic Church is the largest Church in the world. Catholics have taken seriously their commitment to love God and neighbor. Catholic schools and hospitals abound throughout the nation. Catholic Charities is one of the largest charity and social assistance on the globe and second only to the U.S. Government. We follow Jesus who is the Way and the Truth and the Life. He gave us the Church as his special family and the breaking of his kingdom into the world. It is unfortunate that despite the Church's incredible contributions to society that there should still be a few who hate and malign her.

Confession to a Priest & Petitioning Saints

CATHOLIC TRADITION - Confession (of sins) to a priest. Petitioning Mary and the saints.

WHAT THE ANTI-CATHOLIC HAS TO SAY - Sins and needs are to be confessed only to God.

BIBLICAL CITATIONS OF THE ANTI-CATHOLIC - [Confession to God] "If we acknowledge our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive our sins, and cleanse us from every wrongdoing" (1 John 1:9). [The Our Father] "And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors" (Matthew 6:12). [One Mediator, not the saints, the Pope, or the priests] "For there is one God. There is one mediator between God and the human race, Christ Jesus, himself human, who gave himself as ransom for all" (1 Timothy 2:5). "But if anyone does sin, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous one" (1 John 2:1).

RESPONSE OF A CATHOLIC - The use of 1 Timothy is quite interesting because he affirms the value of good works in fidelity and love to Christ: "But whoever keeps his word, the love of God is truly perfected in him. This is the way we may know that we are in union with him: whoever calims to abide in him ought to live [just] as he lived" (1 Timothy 2:5-6). I would suspect that the anti-Catholic bigot would not like this message very much. None of his citations contradict Catholic faith. Sins can be forgiven, even outside of the sacrament of Confession. However, one must still admit sinfulness, be sorry, and offer an act of contrition. The sacrament is a special and certain way we receive God's mercy. The Church reserves to herself the confession of certain serious sins so that we may assuredly be forgiven, receive the graces to amend our life, repair rift caused by sin in the Mystical Body, and receive appropriate counsel. Because of his configuration to Christ, the absolution of the priest in Confession resonates in perfect harmony with the expiation of the Cross. Christ forgives our sins. He has extended something of this authority to his Church as an element of his abiding and healing presence. The anti-Catholic critic has trouble with Confession for the same reason that he cannot abide the ministry of priests, the authority of the Pope, and the intercession of the saints: his is an intensely privatized faith which makes no concession to a church other than periodic fellowship. Churches, as long as they are not Romanized, are interchangeable and maybe even considered unnecessary. Such is a theology incapatable with the Scriptural view of the Church as the new People of God or the new Israel or Jerusalem.

BIBLICAL CITATIONS OF A CATHOLIC - [All the previous ones are okay as long as they are correctly understood] [Precident in the Old Testament] "The Lord said to Moses: 'Tell the Israelites: If a man (or woman) commits a fault against his fellow man and wrongs him, thus breaking faith with the Lord, he shall confess the wrong he has done, restore his ill-gotten goods in full, ...'" (Numbers 5:5-7). "He who conceals his sins prospers not, but he who confesses and forsakes them obtains mercy" (Proverbs 28:13). [David confessed his sins to Nathan the prophet and was given assurance of pardon] "Then David said to Nathan, 'I have sinned against the Lord.' Nathan answered David: 'The Lord on his part has forgiven your sin: you shall not die" (2 Samuel 12:13). [Responding to John the Baptizer] "Then there went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judea, and all the region about the Jordan; and they were baptized by him in the Jordan, confessing their sins" (Matthew 3:5-6). [Responding to the Apostles] "Many of those who had become believers came forward and openly acknowledged their former practices" (Acts 19:18). [Ordained ministers exert Christ's forgiveness over sins] "So we are ambassadors for Christ, as if God were appealing through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God" (2 Corinthians 5:20). "He therefore said to them again, 'Peace be to you! As the Father has sent me, I also send you.' When he said this, be breathed upon them, and said to them, 'Receive the Holy Spirit; whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained'" (John 20:21-23). "Amen I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed also in heaven" (Matthew 18:18). "And all this is from God, who has reconciled us to himself through Christ and given us the ministry of reconciliation, namely, God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting their trespasses against them and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation" (2 Corinthians 5:18-19). [I will address the matter of Mary and the saints elsewhere.]

Peter the ROCK of the Church

CATHOLIC TRADITION - The foundation stone of the church is Peter.

WHAT THE ANTI-CATHOLIC HAS TO SAY - Jesus Christ alone is the foundation of the church. Peter was a mere man like ourselves. He was not even the best of men. Note that the Lord declared Peter to be "Satan" (Matthew 16:23) when he rebuked Jesus' prospect of betrayal and death. Peter rejected Cornelius' effort to worship him, saying, Get up. I myself am also a human being." (Acts 10:26). The Pope would do well to pay heed to this admonition when his lost souls bow to him and kiss his ring. He is not worthy of worship!

BIBLE CITATIONS OF AN ANTI-CATHOLIC - "...for no one can lay a foundation other than the one that is there, name, Jesus Christ" (1 Corinthians 3:11). "Jesus said to them, 'Did you never read in the Scriptures, ?'" (Matthew 21:42).

RESPONSE OF A CATHOLIC - The critic's citation of 1 Corinthians is purposely misleading. He gives a fragment of a text and twists its meaning to his purposes. Let us look at the previous verse of which 11 is a part: "According to the grace of God given to me [St. Paul], like a wise master builder I laid a foundation, and another is building upon it. But each one must be careful how he builds upon it, ..." (1 Corinthians 3:10). Catholics would agree that Jesus is the center of our Christian faith; however, this passage is about the accountability of those in God's service. It is in this sense that it refers to Peter, Paul, and any and all of the other shepherds of the Church. Peter is only a rock in a secondary sense to Christ who is the true foundation stone. He is the visible head of the entire Church, Vicar of Christ, the invisible head. He has been given a privileged place in the Church to care for the Lord's flock. He is to be trustworthy and steadfast like a rock against the storms of sin, of flesh, and of the world. Peter's failure in appreciating the saving task which Jesus had to undergo would earn him a rebuke; later his denial of Christ would earn him shame. However, despite his weaknesses, he is the one selected out by Christ as the head of the Apostles and the "rock" upon which Christ would build his Church. Note that the roles of the builder and the rock seem to blurr or to be interchanged in the Scriptural texts. Something of this becomes understandable if we appreciate the incarnation of Christ by grace in his followers. The Church is holy because Christ is holy. The ministries and works of the Church are also Christs. He identifies himself and his authority especially in his Apostles and in their successors. Note later in 1 Corinthains 3:16: "Do you not know that you are a temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwells in you?" Later, in chapter 4, verse 1, St. Paul says something which wonderfully resonates with the Pope as the Servant of the Servants of God: "Thus should one regard us: as servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries (sacraments?) of God." The business about worship is hardly worthy of a response. We do not worship the Pope. We respect and honor him as an important and holy personage, but no more. Is a man on one knee proposing marriage to his beloved stealing the worship proper to God? No. Is the custom of a man kissing a lady's hand blasphemous? No. Is the bow rendered to royalty a violation of God's due. I sure hope not. Again, the anti-Catholic bigot proves himself silly and stumbling over himself in bearing false witness against Catholicism.

BIBLE CITATIONS OF A CATHOLIC - [Christ's promise to St. Peter that he will be the head of the Apostles and visible foundation the Church together with him] "Simon Peter answered and said, 'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.' Then Jesus answered and said, 'Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to thee, but my Father in heaven. And I say to thee, thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven'" (Matthew 16:16-19). [Our Lord healed Peter from his thrice denial and makes him shepherd of his entire flock] "When, therefore, they had breakfasted, Jesus said to Simon Peter, 'Simon, Son of John, dost thou love me more than these do?' He said to him, 'Yes, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee.' He said to him, 'Feed my lambs.' He said to him a second time, 'Simon, son of John, dost thou love me?' He said to him, 'Yes, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee.' He said to him, 'Feed my lambs.' A third time he said to him, 'Simon, son of John, dost thou love me?' Peter was grieved because he said to him for the third time, 'Dost thou love me?' And he said to him, 'Lord thou knowest all things, thou knowest that I love thee.' He said to him, 'Feed my sheep'" (John 21:15-17). [Peter confirms the faith of the other Apostles, alludes to papal infallibility in faith] "But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith may not fail; and do thou, when once thou hast turned again, strengthen thy brethren" (Luke 22:32).

Good Works an Element of Salvation

CATHOLIC BELIEF - Good works have a part to play in our salvation.

WHAT THE ANTI-CATHOLIC HAS TO SAY - Fundamentalists tend to say that good works are the fruits which come from being saved. They would insist that they are not a means to salvation. If a person is is one of the elect, it will be manifested by his good works as one filled with Christ's spirit. It is not the works, but the blood of Christ which earns salvation. Sometimes Catholics quote James 2:20 in their defense that "faith without works is useless"; however, all this means is that the type of faith which is saving is one which manifests the work of God. Note that James 2:19 has the demons believing and trembling. Theirs is not a saving faith. Many say they believe in Jesus and yet they refuse to follow him. Theirs is not a saving faith. A person of true faith experiences the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and good works will find expression in his life. Such works are a confirmation of true faith. The model of Abraham is recalled in james 2:21-23 in which he believd in God to the extent of being willing to sacrifice his son, Isaac. God came first and he trusted that God could still keep his promises, no matter what.

BIBLE CITATIONS OF AN ANTI-CATHOLIC - [Blood of Christ saves] "... and the blood of his Son Jesus cleanses us from all sin" (1 John 1:7). {incomplete} [Faith alone saves] "And they said, 'Believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved" (Acts 16:31). {incomplete} "They are justified freely by his grace through the redemption in Christ Jesus, whom God set forth as an expiation, through faith, by his blood, to prove his righteousness because of the forgiveness of sins previously committed, through the forbearance of God -- to prove his righteousness in the present time, that he might be righteous and justify the one who has faith in Jesus. What occasion is there then for boasting? It is ruled out. On what principle, that of works? No, rather on the principle of faith. For we consider that a person is justified by faith apart from works of the law" (Romans 3:24-28).

RESPONSE OF A CATHOLIC - This last Scripture text might be a bit misleading. The works mentioned here are not those which constitute an element of our faith in Christ. The argument here is not entirely different from the circumcision debate at the council in Jerusalem. The tension is not between faith and good deeds but Christian faith and the Jewish law. This contrast becomes clear if we read further: "Does God belong to Jews alone? Does he not belong to Gentiles, too? Yes, also to Gentiles, for God is one and will justify the circumcised on the basis of faith and the uncircumcised through faith. Are we then annulling the law by this faith? Of course not! On the contrary, we are supporting the law" (Romans 3:29-31). The interpretation given to James makes me cringe. James says quite bluntly, "Do you want proof, you ignoramus, that faith without works is useless? (James 2:20). Mentioning Abraham, it was not that his works were just a fruit of his faith; rather, they were a vital ingredient of it. "You see that faith was active ALONG WITH his works, and faith was COMPLETED by the works" (James 2:22). The reformer, Martin Luther admitted that the Letter of James could not be reconciled with his view that we were saved by faith alone. Consequently, he omitted this letter from his bible. Others readmitted this wonderfully Catholic testimony back into the Protestant bible. The anti-Catholic's stereotype of the Church's view of justification is inexact and misleading. Regarding the need for a faith which ushers in saving grace, there would be concord. Further, it is obvious that a true faith will show itself with good fruits. Again, there is no argument here, except in the critic's own mind. The citation from James cited here is not entirely as the fundamentalist describes. It appears that James is indeed offering a correction to an exaggeration of the Pauline view. The Catholic Church herself admits that good works cut off from faith and sanctifying grace would avail us nothing. The one extreme would contend that good deeds earn salvation; the other, that faith in the Lord (dedicating themselves to trust in God through Jesus) would suffice. Paul actually steers a middle course by speaking about the importance of faith lived out in love (Galatians 5). Dynamic faith is not only a profession in words but an interior disposition actuated by the grace of God and substantiated by the life of charity. The Catholic stress on the incarnation is crucial here. If Christ is alive inside of us, then the good deeds we perform are ultimately the works of Christ. Because they are the extension of the Lord's saving activity, they have merit. Justification is intimately bound up with our entry into God's community of faith, the Church. Baptism is the entry into this life and the sacraments are the essential means of our growth. Faith and works (in love) are two sides of the same coin; there may be some tension between these elements, but no strict division.

THE UNIVERSAL CATECHISM ON FAITH & WORKS:

[CCC #1814] Faith is the theological virtue by which we believe in God and believe all that he has said and revealed to us, and that Holy Church proposes for our belief, because he is truth itself. By faith "man freely commits his entire self to God" (DV 5). For this reason the believer seeks to know and do God's will. "The righteous shall live by faith." Living faith "work[s] through charity" (Romans 1:17; Galatians 5:6).

[CCC #1815] The gift of faith remains in one who has not sinned against it (Trent). But "faith apart from works is dead" (James 2:26): when it is deprived of hope and love, faith does not fully unite the believer to Christ and does not make him a living member of his Body.

[CCC #1816] The disciple of Christ must not only keep the faith and live on it, but also profess it, confidently bear witness to it, and spread it: "All however must be prepared to confess Christ before men and to follow him along the way of the Cross, amidst the persecutions which the Church never lacks" (LG 42). Service and witness to the faith are necessary for salvation: "So every one who acknowledges me before men, Ia lso will acknowledge before my Father who is in heaven; but whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven" (Matthew 10:32-33).

BIBLE CITATIONS OF A CATHOLIC - [Blood of Christ saves if we walk in God's ways (good works with faith) in the community of the Church] "But if we walk in the light as he is in the light, then we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of his Son Jesus cleanses us from all sin" (1 John 1:7) [Faith (in Jesus), charity (in caring for injuries and feeding the hungry) and the certain hope of salvation (in baptism) comes to us as a Christian family] "And they said, 'Believe in the Lord Jesus and you and your household will be saved.' So they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to everyone in his house. He took them in at that hour of the night and bathed their wounds; then he and all his family were baptized at once. He brought them up into his house and provided a meal and with his household rejoiced at having come to faith in God" (Acts 16:31-34). [Remarking about Abraham] "See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. And in the same way, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she welcomed the messengers and sent them out by a different route? For just as a body without a spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead" (James 2:24-26). [Faith, Hope, and Love] "For through the Spirit, by faith, we await the hope of righteousness. For in Christ Jesus, neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love" (Galatians 5:6).

Mass as Sacrifice & Eucharist as Really Jesus

CATHOLIC BELIEF - The Mass is purported to be a sacrifice and holy communion (through transubstantiation), the actual blood and body of Jesus Christ.

WHAT THE ANTI-CATHOLIC HAS TO SAY - Jesus, once and for all, died for sins. This saving act is never to be repeated. He now sits at the right hand of God and does not reappear to us in the Mass as a a corpse's blood and flesh.

BIBLE CITATIONS FROM AN ANTI-CATHOLIC - [Christ died only once] "But this one [Jesus] offered one sacrifice for sins, and took his seat forever at the right hand of God; now he waits until his enemies are made his footstool. For by one offering he has made perfect forever those who are being consecrated. The holy Spirit also testifies to us, for after saying: 'This is the covenant I will establish with them after those days, says the Lord: 'I will put my laws in their hearts, and I will write them upon their minds,' he also says: 'Their sins and their evildoing I will remember no more.' Where there is forgiveness of these, there is no longer offering for sin" (Hebrews 10:12-18). [Christ upon the cross] "Therefore, when Jesus had taken the wine, he said, 'It is consummated (finished)!' And bowing his head, he gave up his spirit" (John 19:30). [Remembrance, not the forgiveness of sins] "For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over, took bread, and after he had given thanks, broke it and said, 'This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.' In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, 'This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.' For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes" (1 Corinthians 11:23-26).

CATHOLIC RESPONSE - It is true that Jesus died once and for all. His saving death is unique and the risen Lord will never die again. This is also Catholic doctrine. Further, the Catholic Church also agrees that holy communion is not the flesh and blood of a dead Christ. However, everything else is misunderstood by the anti-Catholic critic. The Mass is a real sacrifice in that it resonates in perfect harmony with Calvary. Each celebration of the Mass is not a new slaughter of Christ Jesus. Sometimes, when spoken about as a repetition of the cross, this confusion arises. The Mass is a sacramental (use of sacred signs) and unbloody re-presentation of the sacrifice of Christ. Like a time machine, we are transported to Calvary and are present at the one saving act of all history. The only thing missing at the cross was our own self-offering with and in Jesus. The appearances of bread remain, but the sacred elements constitute the risen Lord-- body and soul, humanity and divinity-- without division or diminishment. There is but one high priesthood in Christianity, that of Jesus Christ. Every ordained priest allows his very self to be appropriated by Christ in a participation in the one priesthood which offers true worship. If the Mass and Calvary are one and the same, then of course it is a propitiary sacrifice, one which forgives sins. The covenant of Christ is not a stagnant affair locked in past history, the remembrance of the Eucharist makes present what it celebrates. It is a renewal of the new covenant in Christ's body and blood. The Hebrew notion of "anamnesis" is not like our impoverished nostalgia-type of remembrance. The words of institution, said by the priest at Mass, recall the saving supper of the Lamb and makes him present-- both in his person (his identity) and in his saving activity. The sacrifice of Calvary, re-presented to us throughout time and place, calls us all to unity in the Lord. The Lord himself tells us that unless we eat his body and blood, we can have no part of him. Paul's words from 1 Corinthians are not merely an academic exercise in studying the institution narrative of the Lord's Supper. These words were familiar to St. Paul because they constituted the liturgical tradition he had received. These are the words with which St. Paul, an apostle and priest of the new dispensation, offered the Eucharist. Note that after mentioning the Lord's command to repeat his new ritual, St. Paul talks about our need to be worthy in its reception. Otherwise, we would be held accountable. Unless there is a "real presence" of Christ in the consecrated bread and cup, such a warning would be incoherent. He forewarns them against any further abuse at the Lord's Supper, including overeating. (Remember, in the early Eucharists, the Lord's Supper was attached to a regular meal.) It is precisely because of the efficacy of the Eucharist in regard to the forgiveness of sins, the realization of divine mercy, that St. Paul talks immediately about judgment if we neglect or abuse the priviledge.

BIBLICAL CITATIONS OF A CATHOLIC - [See previously, but understood correctly] (1 Corinthians 11:23-26). [Continuation on the tradition of institution; only makes sense if the Eucharist really is the risen Christ] "Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord" (1 Corinthians 11:27). [Self-examination necessary if we are to appreciate the command to unity which flows from Jesus' giving of himself and our requirement to repeat his sacrifice with the same spirit of self-donation] "For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself" (1 Corinthians 11: 29).

Veneration (Worship?) of Images

CATHOLIC PRACTICE - Catholics venerate or (worship?) images. The Pope himself bows before statues of Mary. Similarly, they worship Christ in the Eucharist. They also possess statues, candles, and other such religious objects in their homes and churches.

BIBLE CITATION OF AN ANTI-CATHOLIC - [The fashioning and veneration of images is forbidden as idolatry] "You shall not carve idols [any graven image] for yourselves in the shape of anything in the sky above or on the earth below or in the waters beneath the earth; you shall not bow down before them or worship them. For I, the Lord, your God, am a jealous God, ..." (Exodus 20:4-5).

CATHOLIC RESPONSE - No, Catholics do not "worship" images. Veneration is different from the kind of exclusive worship and adoration owed to God alone. Rather, we honor and treat with respect those things which remind us of God and those in whom the Lord has done wondrous things. The honor we show the Blessed Virgin Mary is particularly pronounced; however, even here it is not the same kind of worship which we render to God. Unlike the ancient idol worshippers, the honor is paid not to the physical representation, but to the one who is signified. Definitions are very important. Holy objects often serve the same function as momentos and photographs in our homes; they remind us our of friends and family. Similarly, religious statues, pictures, and all the rest brings to mind our spiritual family of faith and our identity as part of it. Candles are symbolic of Jesus himself. The smoke rises as prayer is taken into heaven. They give off light and Jesus is the Light of the World, dispelling the darkness of sin and death. They give off heat, and Jesus gave the warmth of healing and forgiveness to others. Like the candle which exhausts itself for our benefit, Jesus surrenders his life that we might be redeemed. Turning to the Eucharist, Jesus himself told us that it was his flesh and blood, the living sacrament of his presence. We can worship this divine mystery because it is Jesus and Jesus is God. Fundamentalist anti-Catholics are not consistent on this score about graven images. Come Christmas, they usually have stuatuary nativity scenes like everyone else. Also, if they were to be consistent in their strict observance of this commandment, it would also include the toy dolls they buy their children. Some cults actually do this! The Catholic view of images is based on the permissable symbolic use of them in the Old Testament and the fact that Christ himself through the incarnation reveals the transcendent God. God allowed images which symbolically pointed to our ultimate salvation in the Lord. The very history fact of the God-Man, Christ, ushers in a new "economy" of images [CCC #2131].

BIBLE CITATIONS OF A CATHOLIC - [To be healed from the poisonous bites of serpents] "So Moses prayed for the people, and the Lord said to Moses, 'Make a saraph and mount it on a pole, and if anyone who has been bitten looks at it, he will recover.' Moses accordingly made a bronze serpent and mounted it on a pole, and whenever anyone who had been bitten by a serpent looked at the bronze serpent, he recovered" (Numbers 21:7-9). {See also Wisdom 16:6-8} [Jesus' humanity is a healing image of God] "'And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the desert, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that those who believe in him may not perish, but may have life everlasting'" (John 3:14). [Regarding the ark of the covenant] "'Make two cherubim of beaten gold for the two ends of the propitiatory, fastening them so that one cherub springs direct from each end. The cherubim shall have their wings spread out above, covering the propitiatory with them; they shall be turned toward each other, but with their faces looking toward the propitiatory'" (Exodus 25:18-20). {See also 1 Kings 6:2328}.

Purgatory, Religious Life (Nuns) & the Pope

WHAT THE ANTI-CATHOLIC HAS TO SAY - None of these things are supported in the Scriptures. It is a serious sin to add to the bible. Moving to the matter of the Pope, he is a man who takes upon himself the honor which belongs to God alone. People do not need the Pope to know the will of God. The testimony of Scripture is that the Holy Spirit guides each believer to all truth. All anyone needs is a bible and the Holy Spirit. The papacy has no special commission to teach; it is the pathetic attempt of the blind leading the blind. Disaster awaits them all. Catholics should abandon this man-made system which prevents them from personally knowing Jesus and being saved. Turning to Purgatory, it is purportedly a place where sins are purified after death. However, the bible says that Jesus does this. Our fate is sealed with death-- heaven or hell-- nothing more.

BIBLE CITATIONS OF AN ANTI-CATHOLIC - [Not to add to the bible] "Add nothing to his words, lest he reprove you, and you be exposed as a deceiver" (Proverbs 30:6). [Regarding the absence of the Catholic Purgatory] "Hence, now there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus" (Romans 8:1). "Just as it is appointed that human beings die once, and after this judgment, so also Christ, offered once to take away the sins of many, will appear as second time, not to take away sin but to bring salvation to those who eagerly await him" (Hebrews 9:27-28).

CATHOLIC RESPONSE - The citation of Proverbs contends that we must not add anything to God's revelation; taken in the strict sense of the fundamentalist, it would logically mean that everything written (even in Scripture?) after the fifth century B.C. (the date of this book's composition) is inauthentic. Not being very rational, even with their own principles, they will deny and run away from such a position. The Catholic Church adds nothing that alters the substantial message of salvation; indeed, she validates much that the anti-Catholic would steal from God's hands. While religious life is mentioned, nothing is said about it in the anti-Catholic information provided. Having spoken about the Pope on another page regarding his title as Holy Father, I will not add much here. The Scriptural and historical evidence is abundantly clear that the Papacy was an institution finding its roots in the significant mission given St. Peter by Jesus, himself. Even the Orthodox churches, who are not in union with the Holy See, view the Pope as the first among equals. As for Purgatory, I fail to see how the bible texts quoted say anything to challenge this doctrine of faith. The soul in Purgatory is destined for heaven. Jesus has indeed rescued him from the death of sin. However, since we believe that justification is not so much imputation as it is transformation, the soul must be perfected and purified before entry into heaven. The fire of God's love itself burns away the residue of selfishness to which we cling. Temporal punishment for sin is paid and the little sins which plagued us, as well as evil habits or vices, are eradicated and we are healed. Often Purgatory has been compared to a prison, but it might better be likened to a hospital. Indeed, if Purgatory is the hospital of the afterlife, then hell is the cemetery for dead souls, who have forfeited the divine life, clung to mortal sin, and hate both God and man. The Catholic citation of 2 Maccabees brings another issue to the forefront, the deletion of a book of the bible by Protestant reformers. Of course, it still shows the orthodox mindset of the Jews regarding prayer for the dead and what Jesus would have held as one who acknowledged by words and then by his own person, the resurrection.

BIBLE CITATIONS OF A CATHOLIC - [Expiation for the dead] Judas rallied his army and went to the city of Adullam. As the week was ending, they purified themselves according to custom and kept the sabbath there. On the following day, since the task had now become urgent, Judas and his men went to gather up the bodies of the slain and bury them with their kinsmen in their ancestral tombs. But under the tunic of each of the dead they found amulets sacred to the idols of Jamnia, which the law forbids the Jews to wear. So it was clear to all that this was why these men had been slain. They all therefore praised the ways of the Lord, the just judge who brings to life the things that are hidden. Turning to supplication, they prayed that the sinful deed might be fully blotted out. The noble Judas warned the soldiers to keep themselves free from sin, for they had seen with their own eyes what had happened because of the sin of those who had fallen. He then took up a collection among all his soldiers, amounting to two thousand silver drachmas, which he sent to Jerusalem to provide for an expiatory sacrifice. In doing this he acted in a very excellent and noble way, inasmuch as he had the resurrection of the dead in view; for if he were not expecting the fallen to rise again, it would have been useless and foolish to pray for them in death. But if he did this with a view to the splendid reward that awaits those who had gone to rest in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. Thus he made atonement for the dead that they might be freed from this sin" (2 Maccabees 12:38-46). [Clear implication that there is forgiveness of sins in the next life] "And whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in this world or in the world to come" (Matthew 12:32). [Must be made perfect before entering heaven] "The treasure and wealth of nations will be brought there, but nothing unclean will enter it, nor any[one] who does abominable things or tells lies. Only those will enter whose names are written in the Lamb's book of life" (Revelation 22:26-27).

Mary is Called the Mother of God

WHAT THE ANTI-CATHOLIC HAS TO SAY - Mary is only the mother of the mortal or human Jesus, not God. Jesus, as God, pre-exists, even before creation (note John 1:1). God has no beginning-- no mother. "He allowed himself "for a little while" to be "made 'lower than the angels,' that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone (Hebrews 2:9).

BIBLE CITATIONS OF AN ANTI-CATHOLIC - [If Mary was actually God's mother-- giving birth to God himself-- she would be God] "You are my witnesses, says the Lord, my servants whom I have chosen to know and believe in me and understand that it is I. Before me no god was formed, and after me there shall be none" (Isaiah 43:10). "Your throne stands firm from of old; you are from everlasting, Lord" (Psalm 93:2). "But you, Bethlehem-Ephrathah, too small to be among the clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel; whose origin is from of old, from ancient times" (Micah 5:1). "Who [Christ Jesus], though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God something to be grasped. Rather, he emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, coming in human likeness; and found human in appearance, ..." (Philippians 2:6-7).

CATHOLIC RESPONSE - The anti-Catholic who made this argument against the title Mother of God did not do his homework. He failed to properly define the title, he failed to appreciate the Catholic position regarding Christ as divine, and he fell into an ancient heresy against the identity of Christ himself. It is a perfect example of the old cleche, "Those who do not know the past are doomed to repeat it." A response is difficult, because it is hard to take such a stab at Catholic faith regarding Mary seriously. Catholic school children could see the holes here. The heresy esposed here is known as Nestorianism after Bishop Nestorius who rejected the term Theotokos or God-bearer (Mother of God) for Mary. He argued that she was only the bearer or mother of Christ's human nature. To his credit, Nestorius was concerned that the title was too similar to that which had belonged to goddesses, like Isis and Diana, called the mother of the gods. Ultimately, what was at stake was more than an honor for Mary. The real issue was, who is Jesus? Yes, he was God and yes, he was a man. However, the position of Nestorius tended to divide Jesus into two sons. The unity of Christ was endangered. Never did the title Mother of God imply that she was divine or a goddess. Mary was and always will be purely a human creature. This is the Catholic position. The title Mother of God does not have ontological properties regarding her identity. Christ is the pre-existent Logos, the Word, and author of life. This is the Catholic position, lost in the drivel of an ignorant anti-Catholic. According to Roman usage, the title Mother of God represents a particular form of speech known as communicatio idiomata-- the communication or exchange of idioms. Another example would be the expression that in Jesus, "God died on the cross." Obviously, as a perfect Spirit, God as God cannot die. However, because of the inseparable identity of Christ as the God-Man, his death by virtue of his human nature can be ascribed to him according to his ultimate identity-- the Son of God. Similarly, while the Lord only takes his human nature from Mary, she, like all mothers, is the mother of the whole identity of her child. The only difference is that her child happens to be God. The anti-Catholic posited a metaphysical meaning to the title Mother of God which the Catholic Church had never given it. This title protects the unity between the divine and human natures of Christ, one divine person.

BIBLE CITATIONS OF A CATHOLIC - [Elizabeth's greeting] "'And how have I deseved that the mother of my Lord should come to me?" (Luke 1:43). {See also John 2:1; 19:25; Matthew 13:55} [Unity in Christ] "For in him dwells the whole fullness of the deity bodily, ..." (Colossians 2:9).

Mary Remained a Perpetual Virgin

BIBLE CITATIONS OF AN ANTI-CATHOLIC - [Argues that Mary and Joseph indeed had children, the brothers and sisters of Jesus] "'Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary, and his brethren James and Joseph and Simon and Jude? And his sisters, are they not all with us? Then where did he get all this?'" (Matthew 13:55-56). "'Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, Joses, Jude, and Simon? And are not also his sisters here with us?' And they took offense at him" (Mark 6:3).

CATHOLIC RESPONSE - Mathew's quoted text itself intimates that the people speaking do not know what they are talking about. They cannot fathom where Jesus as received his special authority and wisdom; indeed, by designating him as "the carpenter's son," they are even in the dark about his virgin birth as the incarnate Son of God. If they can be wrong about St. Joseph being the father of Jesus, then a cursory reading of these Scriptures may lead us into a similar error regarding Mary and the other family members. Note that they are listed as kin to Christ, cousins perhaps, as nothing more can be certainly determined from the Oriental custom of calling all such, brothers and sisters. Not once is Mary called their mother. Actually, the phrasing is quite careful to separate Mary, as the mother of Jesus, from these other brethren. Another point of interest is that Jesus on the cross entrusts Mary to his apostle John, rather than to these kin. If they were actually half brothers and sisters, such would have been understood as a great insult to the family. It just was not done. Another point of correction is the presence of Mary as the beloved matriarch of the early Church. She was protected and cherished by the believing community. This same family of faith, who knew Mary so intimately, would transmit as part of our living tradition the truth that Mary remained a perpetual virgin. Also, such a virginity was befitting the dignity of Jesus Christ as the unique God-Man and Savior. Looking at the Scriptural citations, there are certain practical problems to the use of these bible passages in the anti-Catholic's arsenal. Look at the names of the brethren here; Mark 15:40 informs us that James the younger and Joses (Joseph) were the sons of another Mary who was related to the Virgin Mary. As for the others, they may have been cousins, or if a second century work entitled The Protevangelium of James is to be trusted, the children of Joseph from a previous marriage. The image of a widower would collaborate the tradition that Joseph was much older than Mary. Such a view was also supported by other ancient authorities: Origen, Eusebius, Gregory of Nyssa, and Epiphanius. St. Jerome, knowledgable in Latin, Greek, and Hebrew, argued that they were cousins. He argued that Mary (a sister to the Virgin Mary?), the wife of Clopas (also known as Alphaeus), was the actual mother of the brothers and sisters of Christ.

BIBLE CITATIONS OF A CATHOLIC - [Two of the brethren of Christ are listed as children of another Mary] "And some women were also there, looking on from a distance. Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James the Less and of Joses (Joseph), and Salome. They used to accompany him and minister to him when he was in Galilee -- besides many other women who had come with him to Jerusalem" (Mark 15:40-41). [Semitic usage of brother and sister applied also to nephews, nieces, cousins, and others] "He recovered all the possessions, besides bringing back his kinsman [BROTHER] Lot and his possessions, along with the women and the other captives" (Genesis 14:16). "Laban said to him: 'Should you serve me for nothing just because you are a relative [BROTHER] of mine?'" (Genesis 29:15). "Then Moses summoned Mishael and Elzaphan, the sons of Aaron's uncle Uzziel, with the order, "Come, remove your kinsmen [BROTHERS] from the sanctuary and carry them to a place outside the camp" (Leviticus 10:4).

Priests Forbidden to Marry

BIBLE CITATION FROM AN ANTI-CATHOLIC - [Contention that it is from the devil to prohibit the good of marriage] "Now the Spirit explicitly says that in the last times some will turn away from the faith by paying attention to deceitful spirits and demonic instructions, through the hypocrisy of liars with branded consciences. They forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected when received with thanksgiving, for it is made holy by the invocation of God in prayer" (1 Timothy 14:1-4).

CATHOLIC RESPONSE - These words refer to a false asceticism and not to the practices of Catholic Christianity. The early Church and well into the Patristic period, had to deal with cults and movements which made all sorts of exaggerated claims and required various austire practices. Some urged a return to Jewish dietary laws. Others wanted to go even further with fasting and abstinence, perpetually destroying joy in the goods of creation. There were even movements which urged strict celibacy upon all the members as the only way to enlightenment and salvation. The Catholic position is quite different. Our use of fasting and abstinence is not perpetual and it is not a rejection of certain foods as unclean or unworthy of man. Rather, their absence, to coin a cleche, is to make the heart grow fonder. It is precisely because something like meat is good that we might temporarily abstain. Jesus himself fasted and prayed in the desert and alluded to it in the future as something his followers would do. As for marriage, Catholics believe that Christ raised it up to a level of a sacrament, a special sacred sign of his relationship as the bridegroom to his bride, the Church. It is a mysterious means of encountering the Lord himself and receiving grace. Obviously, if such is the Catholic view, we would not be seeking to degrade it by our practice of celibacy. Priests and religious vow celibacy freely, not because marriage is bad, but because it is so good. Celibacy becomes a wonderful gift, freely embraced, as a sacrifice for God and his holy people. Jesus was celibate. St. Paul not only practiced it but encouraged it. The celibate priest becomes a sign of contradiction of the kingdom of Christ to a hedonistic world. It is not a rejection of love, but a selfless abandonment to divine love as manifested in service to God's people, the Church. It is not a calling for everyone, just as not everyone is called to priesthood or consecrated life. The majority of people seek holiness in marriage and family life.

BIBLE CITATION FROM AN ANTI-CATHOLIC - [Peter was married; an apostolic line through Peter?] "And when Jesus had come into Peter's house, he saw Peter's mother-in-law lying in bed, sick with a fever" (Matthew 8:14) "Now Simon's mother-in-law was keeping her bed sick with fever, and they immediately told him about her" (Mark 1:30). "But he rose from the synagogue and entered Simon's house. Now Simon's mother-in-law was suffering from a great fever, and they besought him for her" (Luke 4:38).

CATHOLIC RESPONSE - These references to Peter's mother-in-law do indicate that Peter was married; although her absence from these texts might lend one to think that she experienced some mishap and might have passed away. Be this as it may, the Catholic Church has never hidden the fact that Peter and other religious leaders of the Church were married. Indeed, the Catholic Church had a married clergy all the way up to the 12th century. The Fourth Lateran Council was quite decisive in mandating compulsory celibacy for any who would be priests of the Roman or Western Rite. The Eastern rites of the Catholic Church, to this very day (in Europe and the Far East) have an optional married clergy. These priests are in full union with Rome. Also, in our own nation many Protestant clergy, Lutheran and Episcopal, have entered into the Roman Catholic priesthood, even though they are married and have families. Those who are raised in the Western rite realize that celibacy is a special gift and a particular charism of our priestly experience. It is a sign of a wondrous single-hearted love. One of the fruits of this sacrifice is the availability that a priest can give to his prayers, study, and service. Any indication that Peter's married state would affect apostolic succession is a low blow. Those who followed Peter had a spiritual and not a physical affinity to the great apostle. While the Church has known nepotism, such is the exception and not the rule. No one forces a young man to become a priest or brother. There is no coercion for a woman to become a nun. They know that vows of poverty, obedience, and celibacy are part of the package. If God gives a person a vocation in the Catholic Church, we believe that he will give them the graces and gifts to follow this life. The majority of men who leave the priesthood to get married ultimately have failed marriages. Promises are made to be kept. The problem is not the Church or God; the dilemma are people who are unwilling to surrender their lives fully to Christ. Marriage is also a sacrifice, amidst the joys. However, if we trust God and walk with him, he will guide our path.

BIBLE CITATION FROM AN ANTI-CATHOLIC - [Paul was single but thought we should have the freedom to marry] "Do we not have the right to take along a Christian wife, as do the rest of the apostles, and brothers of the Lord, and Kephas?" (1 Corinthians 9:5).

CATHOLIC RESPONSE - The Catholic Church also recognizes the right of people to get married. However, the Church has a right of her own to regulate her ministries. Permanent deacons, Extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharist, Catechists, Lectors, Acolytes, and Lay Evangelists and Ministers all serve the Church a may be married. Would the anti-Catholic demand compulsory matrimony? I hope not. Those who opt for priesthood in the Roman Rite also freely embrace celibacy. This is no less than what St. Paul did. After listing all the various rights that a follower in Jesus possesses, he acknowledges that he has chosen not to use these rights for himself.

BIBLE CITATIONS OF A CATHOLIC - [After listing the right to marry among many other freedoms, St. Paul says] "Yet we have not used this right. On the contrary, we endure everything, so as not to place an obstacle to the Gospel of Christ. ... I have not used any of these rights, ..." (1 Corinthians 9:12,15). [After speaking about marriage] "This I say by way of concession, however, not as a command. Indeed, I wish everyone to be as I am, but each has a particular gift from God, one of one kind and one of another. Now to the unmarried and to widows, I say: It is a good thing for them to remain as they are, as I do, ..." (1 Corinthians 7:6-8). [Advice to Virgins and Widows] "Now in regard to virgins, I have no commandment from the Lord, but I give my opinion as one who by the Lord's mercy is trustworthy. So this is what I think best because of the present distress: that it is a good thing for a person to remain as he is. Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek a separation. Are you free of a wife? Then do not look for a wife. If you marry, however, you do not sin, nor does an unmarried woman sin if she marries; but such people will experience affliction in their earthly life, and I would like to spare you that. I tell you, brothers, the time is running out. From now on, let those having wives act as not having them, those weeping as not weeping, those rejoicing as not rejoicing, those buying as not owning, those using the world as not using it fully. For the world in its present form is passing away" (1 Corinthians 7:25-31). [More on virginity] "So then, the one who marries his virgin does well; the one who does not marry her will do better" (1 Corinthians 7:38). [About a widow] "She is more blessed, though, in my opinion, if she remains as she is, and I think that I too have the Spirit of God" (1 Corinthians 7:40). [Celibacy is a sign of the kingdom!] "His disciples said to him, 'If the case of a man with his wife is so, it is not expedient to marry.' And he said, 'Not all can accept this teaching; but those to whom it has been given. For there are eunichs who were born so from their mother's womb; and there are eunichs who were made so by men; and there are eunichs who have made themselves so for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let him accept it who can'" (Matthew 19:10-12).