Apologetics

Although I am not an apologist of the faith of the same caliber as Mark Shea, Steve Ray, Scott Hahn, etc., I have had my share of encounters with people who had questions about the faith. So, in the style of the above-named luminaries, I will post some of the more frequently-asked questions, and my own responses to them, in the hope of promoting greater understanding of the Catholic faith.

(Photos by Monique Achtman, RC Diocese of Calgary)

What do you see as the qualifications for salvation?

Christ alone saves us, but I think that we all agree that He does not do so, without our cooperation. We all know that at some moment in our lives, we must make a conscious decision to put Christ first in our lives.

However, I do not think that that is the end of the story. I think that once we have done this, we have a number of other things that we need to do, in order to keep Christ first in our lives. These things require self-discipline, and often, we need a little help from our friends in order to stay on the straight and narrow path.

God (through the Church) has provided us with the Sacraments, in order to make it easier for us, since we are creatures of time and space.

The Catholic Church never declares anyone to be unsaved. God can save anyone: there is nothing and no one beyond His power to save.

That being said, the Church urges everyone to become a member of the Catholic Church, because members in good standing of the Catholic Church have access to the Sacraments, which allow us to know God in a more personal way.

Ann Lewis, a writer in New York City, has graciously given her permission for me to reprint an article that appeared on the Catholic Convert Message Board on March 30, 2002, on the subject of Assurance of Salvation. Please click the link to view the article.

The Bible is so simple that even a child can understand it. Why, therefore, does the Catholic Church place so many restrictions on Bible reading?

I am not aware of being restricted in any way in my Bible reading.

Of course, whenever I have questions about what I am reading, I am encouraged to go to my priest or my Bible Study teacher. And, it is important to me to be careful to interpret what I read in the Bible according to the teachings of the Church.

I recall that when I was Protestant, I did exactly the same thing: I relied on my minister and my Bible study teachers to tell me what various passages meant, and I tried to be careful to interpret it according to the mind of the Church of which I was a member. I think that there are very few people who read the Bible in a "pure" state, with no preconceptions or biases - all of us are influenced by our surrounding culture, by our personal experiences, by what others have told us, and by the footnotes, maps and commentaries contained in our Bibles, and all of these reflect particular traditions, whether this is admitted, or not. Even the Bible's own table of contents influences our thinking, and how many people stop to think of the fact that the table of contents is not an inspired writing?

I continue to read the Bible frequently, as I always did, and I am still continuing to be amazed at the depth and riches that I find in it. The more I read the Bible, the more Catholic I become, and this is not so surprising, since the Bible came from, and belongs to, the Catholic Church.

We are all supposed to be democratically equal in the sight of God, so where does the Pope get his "authority" from, and why should he boss people around and tell them what to believe?

The Pope, as Bishop of Rome, is the successor of Peter, who was the head of the Apostles, and the leader of the early Church.

The early Church was not a democratic institution, nor were all believers considered equal in authority. I Corinthians 12 reminds us that each member of the Church had his or her own role to play, and that the roles of leader and apostle were designated by Christ to specific individuals, and not to the whole assembly.

From Catholic Answers,

There is ample evidence in the New Testament that Peter was first in authority among the apostles. Whenever they were named, Peter headed the list (Matt. 10:1-4, Mark 3:16-19, Luke 6:14-16, Acts 1:13); sometimes the apostles were referred to as "Peter and those who were with him" (Luke 9:32). Peter was the one who generally spoke for the apostles (GATT. 18:21, Mark 8:29, Luke 12:41, John 6:68-69), and he figured in many of the most dramatic scenes (GATT. 14:28-32, GATT. 17:24-27, Mark 10:23-28). On Pentecost it was Peter who first preached to the crowds (Acts 2:14-40), and he worked the first healing in the Church age (Acts 3:6-7). It is Peter's faith that will strengthen his brethren (Luke 22:32) and Peter is given Christ's flock to shepherd (John 21:17). An angel was sent to announce the resurrection to Peter (Mark 16:7), and the risen Christ first appeared to Peter (Luke 24:34). He headed the meeting that elected Matthias to replace Judas (Acts 1:13-26), and he received the first converts (Acts 2:41). He inflicted the first punishment (Acts 5:1-11), and excommunicated the first heretic (Acts 8:18-23). He led the first council in Jerusalem (Acts 15), and announced the first dogmatic decision (Acts 15:7-11). It was to Peter that the revelation came that Gentiles were to be baptized and accepted as Christians (Acts 10:46-48).

We know from the earliest writings of the Church that the authority given to Peter was passed on to others - indeed, we find that by the time St. John the Divine was completing his Book of Revelations, around the year 90 AD, there had already been three Popes sitting in Peter's chair and wielding his authority over the Church.

And in addition, Michael O'Grady has generously give us this: To a Protestant: on the subject of Authority

Why are non-Catholics not permitted to take Holy Communion in the Catholic Church? Aren't we all "one in Christ"?

Would that we were, but we are not, and to signify that we are, through the sharing of Holy Communion, would be to enter into a fantasy world, and to deny the very real differences that divide us from one another.

Catholics have a number of reasons for becoming anxious when someone simply helps himself to the Holy Eucharist without preparation or adequate understanding of what the Eucharist is, or what it means to Catholics. The non-Catholic who does so sends quite a different message than he intends to, when he partakes of the Eucharist in a Catholic Church.

The best thing for a visitor at Mass to do is to refrain from taking Holy Communion, thus signifying his respect for Catholics and Catholic customs. He will be much better received as an ambassador for his own faith tradition, if he can show this kind of respect for himself, and for Catholic beliefs.

If you find that you are in agreement with Catholic teachings, and you wish to come into full Communion with the Church, you should begin by contacting a priest as soon as possible, so that he can instruct you in what you need to do in order to be received as a full member of the Church, and be able to receive Holy Communion in the Catholic Church.

I have been Christian all my life but never really studied the religion. It is believed that a priest can turn the Eucharist into the body and the blood of Jesus. Now, to what extent do you believe that? If you took it and looked at it through a microscope, what would it show? Bread and wine, or flesh and blood? (I KNOW I'm being ridiculous but I just HAD to ask... It's better than going around and wondering!)

You're not being ridiculous at all. This is one of the most important questions that you could have thought of to ask.

In John 6:53-58, it is recorded that Jesus commanded all of us to eat His flesh and blood. This seems like an impossible command, and many of His followers left Him at that point, but in Matthew 26:26-29, we see it written how Jesus intended us to keep this commandment of His - in the Mass, which He established, with His Apostles as the first priests. Why would Jesus want us to eat His flesh and blood?

Jesus told us that He is the "Lamb of God". What is "the Lamb of God"? This is the Passover Lamb of the Jews. When we take a look at the Passover Lamb (Exodus 12), the first thing we notice is that God required them to do two things: paint their door posts with the blood of the lamb, and eat the flesh of the lamb according to a prescribed ritual that was given to them by God. Anyone who did not do these two things would not be saved in the Exodus.

The Jews had to slaughter a new lamb at every Passover meal, but Jesus gives Himself to us at every Mass, under the appearance of bread and wine. Even though the substance of the bread and wine is gone, the accidents remain, including whatever you might see under a microscope. We know that it is Jesus by faith in His promise, just as the Jews knew they were saved from slavery when they ate the original lamb by faith in His promise: they didn't actually get out of Egypt until the next morning. Jesus would never give us a command without also providing a way for us to obey. Jesus commands us to eat His flesh and blood, and provides the means for us to do this in the Catholic Mass.

Why do Catholics call Mary the "Mother of God"?

This is in order to emphasize the divinity of Christ. By calling Mary the Mother of God, we affirm that Jesus is in fact God Incarnate, and not just a man who was favored by God, or who was godlike, nor that he was God in a man-suit or only pretending to be a man. By reiterating the fact that Mary was truly His mother, we emphasize both His divinity and His humanity.

What does Mary have to do with our salvation?

She had free will to say "no" when God came to her to ask her to become the Mother of Jesus Christ. Instead, in an act of great generosity toward the whole human race, she said "Yes." (See Luke 1:38)

Santos Marto put it extremely well when he recently said (in response to a question on the Catholics Online Forum),

Why do Catholics pray to the Saints? Isn't that a kind of idolatry?

There is a distinction between praying to someone and worshipping them. We do not worship the Saints. To pray to them simply means to talk to them. We can do this because they are alive in Christ, just as we are. Ordinarily, we just ask the Saints to pray for us. It is just like asking a friend to pray for you. We also sometimes praise them for the example that they have set for us, and for their accomplishments in their lives of service to God. There is nothing wrong with telling someone that you like them, or that you are inspired by their example.

Aren't there a lot of pedophile and sexually deviant priests in the Church?

I don't think so.

I have been fortunate never to have met a bad priest: all of the priests I have ever met are very kind, very holy men, and I believe that this is the norm. I have never felt safer than when alone with a priest. I suppose this is the reason that it is so shocking when a priest is found to be deviant - it is so unexpected.

It is important that you always trust your instincts, and always street-proof your children, no matter where you are, since any organization that has involvement with children is also attractive to those who prey on children.

I think, in fact, that under ordinary circumstances, a child is probably safer in the Catholic Church than anywhere else. This does not mean that we abandon our common sense or our street-proofing strategies, however. Danger can be anywhere.

Why must priests be celibate?

Because they are not married. :-)

Currently, in the Latin Rite, priests are chosen from among single, celibate men. Generally speaking, I think it is assumed that these men have chosen voluntarily to be celibate. No one is ever forced by the Church into celibacy: it is a choice that has been made by the man himself, before he ever knew for certain that he was going to be a priest.

There is no dogmatic requirement that priests must be chosen from among these men, however it is currently the practice in the Latin Rite to do so, for a variety of reasons, including the fact that celibate men find it easier to be single-minded about the Gospel, and they find it easier to move from place to place, should the need arise.

It should be noted that Eastern Rite priests (who are also Catholic, in full communion with the Holy See) are often chosen from among married men, and sometimes, married men who transfer in from denominations such as the Anglicans, or some types of Lutherans, may become married Latin Rite priests, if they had been priests in their former denominations. (Note that this is purely for pastoral reasons: there is no sacramental equivalency between Protestant priesthoods and the Catholic priesthood. They still have to be retrained and then ordained into the Catholic priesthood.)

If I have to call the priest "Father", then is it okay if I borrow money from him? :-)

He is not our physical father, but rather our spiritual father. We call him Father, for the same reason that Timothy called Paul "Father", and for the same reason that Mark called the Apostle Peter "Father" -because they provide us with spiritual food, godly teaching, and safe direction for our souls.

So, you can be sure that he will provide you with wonderful spiritual riches. :-)

Is it true that Catholics are not allowed to have abortions or use artificial birth control?

Yes, this is true. People who perform abortions or who promote the use of artificial birth control cannot be members of the Catholic Church. Members of the Church who have used artificial birth control or who have had abortions must confess these sins in the Confessional before they can be allowed to receive Holy Communion again, and they must promise never to do so again.

Rebecca A. Mohun has recently written an article on this subject for the Catholic Converts Bulletin Board.

To an Anglican, on Humanae Vitae - by Rebecca A. Mohun

Why a Male-Only Priesthood?

A. Gerard Nordskoven answered this question recently on the Catholic Converts Forum in the following way:

What is a priest? A priest is an ALTER CHRISTUS, another Christ. And he is an ALTER CHRISTUS, another Christ, as Christ was the "Second Adam." And Adam, the First Man, is the singular locus of the "Sin of Adam." It is not called the "Sin of Adam and Eve" for a reason. Adam bore the ultimate responsibility and total culpability for his betrayal of the trust vested in him alone by the Creator.

The European model of the priesthood is that of mini-royalty, with privileges and pomp, one who is served. The real priesthood acknowledges the priest is the ultimate servant, and is the ALTER CHRISTUS as the Good Shepherd who will lay down his life for his sheep.

It is not only a legal fiction to suggest that atonement must be made by women as priestesses for the "Sin of Adam," it is a profound insult to Woman, as that given by Adam in blaming the Woman for HIS failure to prosecute HIS office of steward who was to protect HER.

It is the same blaming of the victim seen in recent [court cases surrounding certain sex crimes]. The "Sin of Adam" is MAN'S problem, not the Woman's. Be honest, and get out from under this gutless blaming of Woman for man's failure to minister to and protect her and her seed in a selfless way. Flee this corrupting worldliness of he who was to be the lowest of the low, the priest, the servant of souls.

It is infantile and emotionally contracted to shove man's duties onto women. Man must do his job. Woman has hers, her and her seed, the victory over Lucifer and his minions.

What about the Spanish Inquisition? After all, if something like that could happen once, it could happen again, right?

Recent new scholarship is showing that, although there was an institution known as the Spanish Inquisition, the atrocities attributed to it may not have ever actually happened. Indeed, according to historian Thomas Madden, recent research at the Vatican has uncovered a very different picture.

He says, "Torture was rare and only about 1 percent of those brought before the Spanish Inquisition were actually executed." Furthermore, it was often the secular courts and Protestant courts that were burning people at the stake. Catholic courts often permitted the guilty to attend Confession, be absolved of their sins by the priest, and return to their lives, hopefully as better and wiser people. It also created a very strong investigative research department, dedicated to discovering the truth about each case, and thus, as Madden puts it, "During the 16th century, when the witch craze swept Europe, it was those areas with the best-developed inquisitions that stopped the hysteria in its tracks. In Spain and Italy, trained inquisitors investigated charges of witches' sabbaths and baby roasting and found them to be baseless. Elsewhere, particularly in Germany, secular or religious courts burned witches by the thousands."

Often, indeed, people who were having their trials heard in secular courts were known to blaspheme in open court, so that they could have their trials transferred to the court of the Inquisition.

Of course, notions of religious diversity such as we have today did not exist in those days. Heresy was considered a serious crime, just as bank robbery and murder are considered serious today. What a society considers a serious crime tells us about its values - what it considers important. In our society, money and physical life are important. In medieval times, religion was considered important. As historian Thomas Madden states, in the article I linked to above, "To understand the Inquisition we have to remember that the Middle Ages were, well, medieval. We should not expect people in the past to view the world and their place in it the way we do today. (You try living through the Black Death and see how it changes your attitude.) For people who lived during those times, religion was not something one did just at church. It was science, philosophy, politics, identity, and hope for salvation. It was not a personal preference but an abiding and universal truth. Heresy, then, struck at the heart of that truth. It doomed the heretic, endangered those near him, and tore apart the fabric of community." (Thomas Madden, The Real Inquisition: Investigating the Popular Myth)

Isn't' the Church's stand against condom use causing a lot of deaths from AIDS in Africa?

Condoms are not preventing the spread of AIDS any place else; what causes people to think that they will prevent the spread of AIDS in Africa?

Condoms don't actually work to prevent AIDS. Indeed, the false promises of "safe sex" with a condom may very well be one of the reasons AIDS is spreading so quickly, since men put them on and think that now, they can have sex with anyone, at any time. The man thinks the condom has made him "AIDS-proof." In reality, the condom is only 90% effective. 90% may be a passing grade in a biology class, but it is very poor odds in real life.

On the other hand, a monogamous couple (a married male and female who never have sex with anyone except each other, and assuming they were both virgins before they got married to each other) will never get AIDS from sexual contact, even if they never use a condom. Monogamy, not condoms, are the best possible prevention for AIDS, and this, the Church encourages. (Condoms will also never prevent AIDS from being acquired via dirty needles or an unsafe blood supply.)

Here's what puzzles me, though. The main causes of the spread of AIDS include multiple sex partners, and sex with members of an at-risk population, such as homosexuals and prostitutes. These practices all go against Church teaching, too. So, why would someone who routinely breaks Church law by having multiple partners, or engaging in homosexual behaviours, or hiring a prostitute, be worried about Church law with regard to condoms? No. It is not the Church who is causing AIDS to spread in Africa.

Brian St. Paul of Crisis Magazine sent me an article on this issue recently, so if you are interested in reading more, go HERE.

Questions from Converts

I have been investigating Catholicism over the last year and am excited to begin RCIA classes this fall. What sort of things should I look for in a RCIA class or in a new parish in general?

Step 1: As far as possible, try not to be a connoisseur, but rather, a student.

Step 2: Having become determined to be a student, realize that a student of the Catholic Faith has certain rights.

These rights include:

1. The right to be taught what the Church teaches, without too many incursions of the teacher's personal opinions.

2. The right to have your initial questions answered in a thorough and timely way.

3. The right to receive the Rites of Initiation in an orderly and focused manner; these include the Rite of Acceptance/Welcome at the beginning of RCIA Catechesis, the Rite of Election/Call to Full Communion at the beginning of the Period of Purification, and the First Sacraments on the Easter Vigil.

4. The right to a full and complete RCIA process, including all four Periods: Inquiry, Catechesis, Purification, and Mystagogia.

5. The right not to rush through the four periods of RCIA in six months or less, as though we were in a race of some kind. (The Vatican actually recommends that RCIA take at least two years, with at least one full year being focused on Catechesis.)

6. Going along with 5, the right to pace your formation in the Catholic faith according to your own ability to assimilate it into your life, and to conform your life to the expectations of a Catholic life style at your own pace.

7. You have the right to have a sponsor. Some parishes prefer that you find your own sponsor, while others prefer to assign someone to you. Ask about this.

Of course, RCIA leadership teams are made up of human beings, so you will not find a "perfect" RCIA anywhere (and your leaders are going to disappoint you from time to time: this I can guarantee. I also guarantee, though, that they aren't setting out to do that on purpose.) This leads us to

Step 3: Having found an RCIA that at least mostly respects your rights as a student of the faith, forgive your sponsor, teachers and priests for the crazy things they will sometimes say and do.

Step 4: Pay attention, have excellent attendance, and ask lots of good questions. Also do the assigned reading, and take lots of notes. Take the initiative in class - don't wait to be spoon-fed everything.

Step 5: Also keep a journal - this is a fantastic time in your life, and you will want to keep a journal of it to look back on, later in life.

Step 6: Also keep a scrapbook everything that has your name on it - bulletin inserts, name tags, etc., and the order of service from all of your special services, such as the Rite of Election/Call to Full Communion. If you can, get someone to take pictures of you with the Bishop at the Call to Full Communion, and also get them to take a picture of you and your sponsor with the priest who brings you into the Church on the Easter Vigil.

What is taught in RCIA?

The curriculum for the Catechesis period of RCIA is actually pretty flexible. There are only a few "musts." The candidates must learn how to say the Lord's Prayer (aka the "Our Father") and the Apostles' Creed.

They must also be willing to assent to "whatever the Church teaches me" as being true, with the assent of faith. This simply means that they don't have to have an intellectual understanding of all of the dogmas, but they do need to be willing to say that whatever the Church teaches on faith and morals is true, regardless of whether "I" understand it.

It's also important for them to be able to narrate at least an outline of the "Jesus Story" in a coherent manner. Aids to this could be the Rosary and the Stations of the Cross; however, it is not required to introduce the candidates to these devotions during RCIA, and other methods may seem to be more appropriate, depending on the background and readiness of the candidates. (Someone from an ardently anti-Catholic background, for example, needs more groundwork to be laid ahead of time than someone from a neutral background: it's easier to teach the Rosary to someone who has never heard of it before, than to someone who has heard a lot of negative things about it, so this is really something of a judgement call on the part of the teacher, whether to use it or not.)

Three Bible stories that they should be able to re-tell in their own words are the story of the Samaritan Woman at the Well (John 4:5-42), The Blind Man who Saw Jesus (John 9:1-41), and the Raising of Lazarus (John 11:1-45). Most RCIAs are much more in depth than that, of course!

There are at least a couple of models for the Catechesis period that I am aware of. The first, and also the most common one in North America, follows the pattern of the Apostles' Creed by focusing on each element in order - for example "I believe" is treated with a lesson on what faith is, and this would be Lesson 1; "in God, the Father Almighty" would be lesson 2, focusing on the person of God the Father as Creator, and then so on, through the whole Creed, taking about six months or so to complete the whole thing.

This is the model followed in the Ligouri RCIA pamphlet series, which I highly recommend to all RCIA members; they are excellent.

Another model follows the readings of the Sunday Lectionary for at least one full calendar year (52 Sundays) and focuses on the doctrine of the Church that is underlying those readings. This is the "year round" model, and has the flexibility lacking in the other model, to allow participants to enter at any point; as long as they do the full year from whatever point they enter, they will hear all of the most important teachings of the Church along the way.

There are also a wide range of variants in either of these models, depending on the location, and also depending on the capabilities of the RCIA volunteers and the resources of the parish. The majority of typical RCIAs will ensure that candidates have been exposed to teaching about the nature of God, the Trinity, the life of Jesus, the Saints, Mary, the Sacraments, Sacramentals and Devotions, various forms of prayer, and the Bible, together with the essentials mentioned above. RCIA candidates should also have an ongoing program of personal research into the Catholic Church, alongside what they are learning in RCIA. They should focus on whatever interests them most about the Church in this personal research.

They should also interact with their sponsors regularly and frequently.

In addition to the basic teachings of the Faith, RCIA candidates also undergo Sacramental Preparation for Baptism, First Holy Communion, Confirmation, and First Confession.

I was baptized a really long time ago, and I'm worried about my First Confession. When will I have to go? Will someone tell me what I am supposed to do? What happens if I can't remember all of my sins?

For participants who were previously baptized, First Confession will take place during the Enlightenment period. The facilitators of that period will assist you in making arrangements to meet with a priest for this. They may even set a date and time for you.

There is an Examination of Conscience in the back of your St. Joseph Missal: you should use this or another approved Examen as a guide to prepare yourself on the evening prior to your First Confession. Some people find it helpful to write their sins down, especially if there is quite a long list, as can happen at First Confession for a person who was previously baptized. (Remember to burn the list afterwards!) Also take an Act of Contrition with you (have one memorized, if possible): there are several suitable Acts of Contrition in the back of the St. Joseph Missal.

When you go into the Confessional or another place set aside for Confessions, you must tell the priest that you are a convert, that this is your first Confession, and how long it has been since you were baptized. Be sure to ask him to help you make a good Confession. He will take it from there. Be assured that as long as you make the best confession you can, and don't knowingly withhold anything, any sins that you have forgotten will also be forgiven in the Absolution.

Do not be worried too much about how to tell your sins, or whether or not you are making a good impression. Just be yourself, and use any method of telling your sins that makes sense to you; whether it is a narrative about what happened, or whether you simply list them off with very short or no explanation, or whatever. There is no "wrong" way to tell your sins, except not to tell them at all. As one priest advises: "Just say it."

The theology behind the Sacrament of Reconciliation (Confession) will be covered in depth during Catechesis.

I'm being baptized at the Easter Vigil. When should I go for my First Confession?

As soon as you have something to confess. Do a short Examination of Conscience before bed each evening, and it will soon become apparent when you need to go to Confession.

Although the Church requires only a minimum of once a year, frequent Confession is an excellent habit to get into. Many of the greatest Saints attended Confession weekly, and sometimes even daily.

Our Bishop recommends that members of the Diocese of Calgary go to Confession about once a month. This frequency allows you to have a very short and easy Confession each time, in which you only need to confess a few sins. This makes Confession more pleasant for both you and the priest, since you can focus on one or two recent events in your life, rather than trying to reach back and try to remember things that happened a long time ago.

Photos by Monique Achtman, RC Diocese of Calgary

CHRISTIAN BOOKMARKS

A BIT OF HUMOUR