The Death Penalty

 Is the current Catholic teaching on the death penalty a true development of doctrine or a contradiction?

The teaching of the Church on the death penalty throughout the years. 

Year 1210

Waldensian Heretics 

Pope Innocent III declared the Waldensians heretics. In 1210 in order to re-establish ecclesial communion.  The Waldensians were required to acknowledge among other things the essential justice of the death penalty for grave crime.  Cf. Denzinger, #425—“Concerning secular power we declare that without mortal sin it is possible to exercise a judgment of blood as long as one proceeds to bring punishment not in hatred but in judgment, not incautiously but advisedly.”  

Year 1566

Catechism of Trent:

Execution Of Criminals

Another kind of lawful slaying belongs to the civil authorities, to whom is entrusted power of life and death, by the legal and judicious exercise of which they punish the guilty and protect the innocent. The just use of this power, far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this Commandment which prohibits murder. The end of the Commandment­ is the preservation and security of human life. Now the punishments inflicted by the civil authority, which is the legitimate avenger of crime, naturally tend to this end, since they give security to life by repressing outrage and violence. Hence these words of David: In the morning I put to death all the wicked of the land, that I might cut off all the workers of iniquity from the city of the Lord.

Year 1885

Baltimore Catechism:

Q. 1276. Under what circumstances may human life be lawfully taken?

A. Human life may be lawfully taken:

   1. In self-defense, when we are unjustly attacked and have no other means of saving our own lives;

   2. In a just war, when the safety or rights of the nation require it;

   3. By the lawful execution of a criminal, fairly tried and found guilty of a crime punishable by death when the preservation of law and order and the good of the community require such execution.

Year 1908

Catechism of Pope Pius X:

3 Q. Are there cases in which it is lawful to kill?

A. It is lawful to kill when fighting in a just war; when carrying out by order of the Supreme Authority a sentence of death in punishment of a crime; and, finally, in cases of necessary and lawful defence of one's own life against an unjust aggressor.

Year 1992

Catechism of Pope John Paul II:

2267. Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically nonexistent."68

Year 2018

The Catechism of Pope Francis:

In 2018, Pope Francis ordered a revision of the paragraph that dealt with the death penalty. This resulted in a new edition of the Catechism, published in 2018 with a blue cover. The blue cover Catechism is now the most current and up-to-date resource for all the beliefs of the Catholic Church.

2267. Recourse to the death penalty on the part of legitimate authority, following a fair trial, was long considered an appropriate response to the gravity of certain crimes and an acceptable, albeit extreme, means of safeguarding the common good.

Today, however, there is an increasing awareness that the dignity of the person is not lost even after the commission of very serious crimes. In addition, a new understanding has emerged of the significance of penal sanctions imposed by the state. Lastly, more effective systems of detention have been developed, which ensure the due protection of citizens but, at the same time, do not definitively deprive the guilty of the possibility of redemption.

Consequently, the Church teaches, in the light of the Gospel, that “the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person”,[1] and she works with determination for its abolition worldwide.

Year 2023

Credo: Compendium of the Catholic Faith By: Bishop Athanasius Schneider

514. When does society have the right to inflict the death penalty?

The lawfully constituted public authority may put proven criminals to death for the most serious crimes when this is necessary to maintain social order in repairing injustice, protecting the innocent, deterring further crime, and summoning the criminal to true repentance and atonement.

515. From whom do public authorities hold the right to execute criminals?

From God Himself, the sole master of life and death, whose justice the public authorities represent in society: “The authority does not bear the sword in vain” (Rom 13:4).

My Reflections On The Corona Virus Part 2

A Sign Of The Times

Our Churches our currently closed due to the Corona Virus Pandemic. One such church cordoned off the pews with police caution tape. It looked like a crime scene.

Let's start by looking at scripture:

Numbers 12

1 And Mary and Aaron spoke against Moses, because of his wife the Ethiopian, 2 And they said: Hath the Lord spoken by Moses only? Hath he not also spoken to us in like manner? And when the Lord heard this, 3 (For Moses was a man exceeding meek above all men that dwelt upon earth) 4 Immediately he spoke to him, and to Aaron and Mary: Come out you three only to the tabernacle of the covenant. And when they were come out, 5 The Lord came down in a pillar of the cloud, and stood in the entry of the tabernacle calling to Aaron and Mary. And when they were come, 6 He said to them: Hear my words: if there be among you a prophet of the Lord, I will appear to him in a vision, or I will speak to him in a dream. 7 But it is not so with my servant Moses who is most faithful in all my house: 8 For I speak to him mouth to mouth: and plainly, and not by riddles and figures doth he see the Lord. Why then were you not afraid to speak ill of my servant Moses? 9 And being angry with them he went away: 10 The cloud also that was over the tabernacle departed: and behold Mary appeared white as snow with a leprosy. And when Aaron had looked on her, and saw her all covered with leprosy, 11 He said to Moses: I beseech thee, my lord, lay not upon us this sin, which we have foolishly committed: 12 Let her not be as one dead, and as an abortive that is cast forth from the mother’s womb. Lo, now one half of her flesh is consumed with the leprosy. 13 And Moses cried to the Lord, saying O God, I beseech thee heal her. 14 And the Lord answered him: If her father had spitten upon her face, ought she not to have been ashamed for seven days at least? Let her be separated seven days without the camp, and afterwards she shall be called again. 15 Mary therefore was put out of the camp seven days: and the people moved not from that place until Mary was called again. 16 (13-1) And the people marched from Haseroth, and pitched their tents in the desert of Pharan.

Here are my musings about how I think  Numbers 12 is relevant to the current crisis today.

Miriam and Aaron committed a sin by disrespecting their brother, Moses. This angered God whereby he punished her by inflicting her with a disease. Is the Corona virus a punishment from God? Bishop Athanasius Schneider seems to think so.  He proposes that the Corona virus is a result of us disrespecting God. He mentions the Pachamama worship at the Vatican and Communion in the hand as examples. Now in Aaron's case he repented and asked Moses to  forgive them. Moses then asked God to heal his sister. God did so, but first required her to be quarantined for 7 days. We are currently under quarantine for our afflictions. This quarantine includes not having access to the Church and It's sacraments. 

This is serious and requires that we return to giving God our full respect due to Him.

From Bishop Schneider's interview about the Corona virus:

For more than fifty years, he observed, the Eucharistic presence of Jesus Christ has been “trivialized” and even “desecrated” through the practice of Communion in the hand and the introduction of “protestantizing elements” in the Roman liturgy. “Now,” he said, “the Lord has intervened and deprived almost all the faithful of assisting at Holy Mass and sacramentally receiving Holy Communion. The innocent and the guilty are enduring this tribulation together, since in the mystery of the Church all are mutually united as members.”

To make restitution to God, he said the Pope and bishops ought urgently to carry out a public act of reparation in Rome “for sins against the Holy Eucharist” once the coronavirus pandemic is brought under control. He also said the Pope should issue concrete norms inviting the entire Church to “turn toward the Lord” in the liturgy and “forbid the practice of Communion in the hand.”

“The Church,” he said, “cannot continue unpunished to treat the Holy of Holies in the little sacred Host in such a minimalistic and unsafe manner.”

My Reflections On The Corona Virus Part 1

There is a spiritual component to the current Corona virus crisis. Before the shutdown, I went downtown to pray with the 40 days for life participants. A priest, Fr. Jim, was there and led us in the rosary. I told him this virus is a chastisement from God for the Pachamama fiasco that occurred at the Vatican. He disagreed. I reminded him there are numerous examples in the Bible where God punished the Israelites (His chosen people) for worshiping false gods. Why would God not likewise act in this situation? I am not saying that God directly sent this virus to us but rather, He permitted it.  I believe that God has lifted his hedge of protection around us. We pray for His protection but still continue to offend Him at the same time. And we do the most abominable things: abortion, same sex marriage, gender fluidity, and so on. It doesn't work like that. I further said to Fr. Jim that everyone would like to see this scourge end, so we can get our lives back to normal. If normal consists of women seeking abortion while we pray on the sidewalk, I don't want a return to normal. Abortion should be illegal. What else is normal in today's society? How about this: 

* 20% of Catholics attend Mass on Sundays. 

* Many Catholics use birth control.

* Lukewarm clergy.

* Communion in the hand.

Those things need to change as well. We have gone too far off the track. This is a wake up call.  A quick resolution to this pandemic will mean that everyone goes back to the way they were before. I am wondering if this is just the beginning of more chastisements to come.
Continue reading part 2 to see how Communion in the hand is a factor.
https://redandbluecatholicism.blogspot.com/2020/04/my-reflections-on-corona-virus-part-2.html

Red and Blue Catholicism

There is a great political divide across our nation between conservatives and liberals. During the election the media graphically represented this by coloring the states on a map as either red or blue. Unfortunately, this division goes further than politics. It can also be seen in the Roman Catholic Church. It is tragic that such a distinction exists because as Catholics we are to be neither conservative nor liberal – just Catholic. Paul talked about this in his letter to the Corinthians:
    “I urge you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree in what you say, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and in the same purpose.” (1 Corinthians 1:10)

The name “Catholic” which means universal connotes that there is one set of beliefs that we hold in common. In contrast, the broader term of “Christian” can apply to more than 23,000 Protestant denominations of the world each holding differing doctrines. Christ’s Church is one just as He is one; one Lord, one faith, one baptism. And I would further elaborate that this necessitates a pope and one Church teaching. (magisterium) It would be impossible for the Church to remain one without these elements. We do not define for ourselves what it means to be Catholic. However, that doesn’t mean that we should assent to Church teachings in a purely legalistic manner. We should adhere to the tenets of our faith out of love. Love of God, love of His Church, love for one another. Consequently, we cannot claim to have love for God and disrespect him at the same time. Disrespect for God seems to abound in our society today. The evidence of this immorality is all around us. All one needs to do is look at the current fashions, TV shows, and advertisements that we are bombarded with every day.

What is missing today is a holy fear of God. Fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.(Proverbs 9:10) The Church teaches that fear of God is one of the gifts of the Holy Spirit. This should not be overlooked because it coincides with respect for God. Is there any doubt that we have lost our respect for God? Just look at all the atrocities committed in the name of scientific advancement such as: human cloning, embryonic stem cell research, creation of human/animal hybrid life forms. And that is the short list! Each one of these atrocities mentioned are deemed by the Catholic to be intrinsically evil. This is what happens when intellect and pride stand in the way of submitting to God’s laws and to the authority of His Church which is commissioned to make them known to us into perpetuity. Too often we take a relativistic approach to morality by tolorating evil so a purported good may come out of it.  

Those that recognize that God exists realize the need to have a relationship with Him. But so often we want this relationship on our own terms. We believe in God modeled after our own personal ideologies. This way of thinking creates God into our image and likeness instead of the other way around. It also separates God from His Church.

As Catholics at Easter Vigil Mass we make a profession of faith: “I believe all the teachings of the Catholic Church are revealed by God and He cannot deceive us nor can He be deceived.” This is a profound statement that touches the very core of what it means to be Catholic. Granted, as society evolves we are bound to alter our way of thinking about certain things. However, we are never to do this at the expense of immutable truth because God Himself is immutable truth. Today we see long held moral truths being replaced by moral relativism. In all audacity, society calls this “enlightenment”. Listen to the words of Jesus as He explains how important the truth is: “And you shall know the truth: and the truth shall make you free.” (John: 8:32) So, we need the truth in order to be free! We all want to be free but this freedom must be properly understood. True freedom is not the ability to do what you want to do - that is the definition of license. Freedom is when we have the ability to follow God’s will and His will is always for our good for God cannot do evil. We know that Jesus came here on earth to teach the truth. He commanded His apostles to go out into the world to teach it and they did, with authority. Then they in turn commissioned others through the laying on of hands. This is the very definition of apostolic succession and the way in which the truth is available to us today. It is one of the marks that identifies Christ’s Church. To believe that the truth taught by the apostles is somewhat lost today is to say that Jesus failed in his mission and remember, Jesus is God!

Here is what Pope John Paul II had to say on this subject addressing the Bishops in Los Angeles (1987):

    "It is sometimes reported that a large number of Catholics today do not adhere to the teaching of the Catholic Church on a number of questions, notably sexual and conjugal morality, divorce and remarriage. Some are reported as not accepting the clear position on abortion. It has to be noted that there is a tendency on the part of some Catholics to be selective in their adherence to the Church's moral teaching. It is sometimes claimed that dissent from the magisterium is totally compatible with being a "good Catholic," and poses no obstacle to the reception of the Sacraments. This is a grave error that challenges the teaching of the Bishops in the United States and elsewhere."

Now there are some people that may disagree. They say the Church is dynamic and will eventually change some of its teachings in the future. So if one were to dissent now, he is merely a “progressive thinker”. While these “progressive thinkers” may think they are “enlightened” they are actually in darkness. The ordinary teaching of the Church in matters of faith and morals as they have always been taught throughout history is called the “ordinary magisterium” and is infallible and therefore can never change. This immutability in teaching is one of the key attributes that provide proof that the Catholic Church today is the very Church founded by Christ. This is not to say that certain disciplines within the Church cannot change, such as abstaining from meat on Fridays. However, doctrines containing absolute truth can never change. Our understanding of the truth can only be expounded upon, never contradicted. Because God Himself is immutable so are His teachings. As time goes by The Church can come to a greater understanding in doctrines by the guidance of The Holy Spirit. This is not the same thing as changing the teachings as some would suggest. Fr. Gordon Knight C.S.SP. covered this topic when he wrote about “The narrow mindedness of the Church” in his excellent book; Rational Theology:

    “This inflexibility of the Church may seem narrow and intolerant, but only to those who do not stop to reflect that Christ promised that the Holy Ghost, the Spirit of truth, would guide His Church forever. This guidance is precisely what will cause his Church to forever adhere inflexibly to what it has always taught to be the true doctrine of Christ. Its very inflexibility is our security that what it teaches today is exactly what it taught in all past ages. What it teaches today is what it taught when the Protestants separated from it. It is what it taught when the Arians separated from it. It is what it taught when the Marcionites separated from it. It is what it taught before anyone separated from it. It is what it taught in the very beginning. How else could God expect his Church to act? There is no such thing as progress in religion. Change is only progress when it is in the right direction. If one already has the truth change is not progress. It is departure from-the truth. The Church began with the true version of religion. Christ Himself taught it. The Church has been teaching it ever since. Departure from its teaching constitutes departure from the truth. It constitutes a false version of religion. Christ Himself has told us what those things are that God expects of us. His version cannot be improved upon.
Those who think that the teaching of the Church should be modernized and brought "up to date" should reflect that God is still God, that human beings are still merely His creatures, and that religion is what God expects human beings to know. Circumstances may have changed but God has not. He still expects human beings to do what He tells them, and not merely to do it under certain circumstances. Those who sincerely intend to do whatever God expects of them do not complain that the Church still teaches what Christ sent it to teach. On the contrary they are glad it does. It makes it possible for them to be sure they are on the right road.”

As we know, Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church “the fullness of grace and truth.” (Catechism 819) The Catholic Church is the Bride of Christ and our priests being married to the Church have an awesome responsibility to Christ Himself to uphold His teachings and to hold them in its fullness without omission. For the teachings of the Church are Christ’s teachings. Jesus said to his apostles “He that heareth you heareth me: and he that despiseth you despiseth me: and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me.” (Lk: 10:16) Catholics that reject the Church’s teaching are essentially rejecting Christ! Our faith should be grounded in the Catholic Church, which we know is “the pillar and guardian of truth.” (1 Tm:3:15)

Jesus had many teachings that were hard. Even Peter was not always sure what he meant, but responded, "Where shall we go? You have the words of eternal life." That should be our response when find any teachings in the Catechism or the pope's words which are hard to understand or live by. Reverence for the law flows out of our reverence for God since it is He that gives us the law. What we may interpret to be restrictive is actually liberating. Once we look deeper into those more difficult teachings we will find an underlying beauty in the reasons we hold such beliefs. The arguments that present Catholicism as irrational are washed away when one confronts the serious rationality that grounds them. Christ came into the world so that we may have life and have it more abundantly. These teachings reveal God's plan for us and better prepare us for heaven. God, who created us, knows us better than anybody and only wants what is good for us. By following the teachings of His Church out of our love for God, we will be more fulfilled and have spirituality and life.

Bible Answer Car Repair

Car repair centers rely on customers trusting their knowledge and experience. Imagine the following scenario: You are having car trouble and describe the problem to three mechanics. Each one comes up with a different diagnosis leaving you confused. You then decide to take matters into your own hands by reading the manufacture’s repair manual yourself. The book is inspiring and upon reading it you have an epiphany. Armed with your newfound knowledge you head out to the dealership for repairs. Assured of your analysis you dictate to the service manager the specific repair to be performed. A problem arises when he disagrees with your solution and refuses to do work that he deems to be unnecessary. In response you plead your case by quoting passages from the official repair manual. He retorts that you misinterpreted those pages and offers an alternative explanation. You passionately disagree. After all, your level of education and reading comprehension is superior to his. He argues that his dealership is directly affiliated with the manufacturer of your vehicle and he received his training through them. Who knows your car better than the company that made it? Plus he has other publications such as technical service bulletins from the manufacturer that expound on information in the repair manual. So now what would you do? In this case you can’t both be correct. How do you decide which course of action to take? Who has the credentials and therefore a better chance of being correct?

            By now you probably figured out where I am headed with my analogy. Every time I hear non-Catholics counter Catholic teaching by quoting their interpretation of scripture, I have to wonder how this makes any sense.  The bible is a Catholic book. It came about from Catholic Tradition. The canon (table of contents) was decided by Church councils at: Hippo (A.D. 393), Carthage (A.D. 397), and finally deemed to be closed in Trent (A.D. 1545). It was the Catholic Church that preserved the scriptures down through the centuries by hand coping them long before the printing press came along. You could say Catholic Church owns the Bible in the sense that they had control over its content. In order to acknowledge that the Bible is the infallible word of God is to recognize the authority of the Catholic Church.

            The Church also has the credentials – apostolic succession. They have a documented connection tracing back through the centuries all the way to the apostles. No other church can make this claim.  Equally important is the fact that Church dogma has not changed over the years. I can’t stress this fact enough. It is the very idea that the immutable truth was known and held from the very beginning of the Church and is not lost today. Every other church has changed their dogma or was created as a result of change in dogma in the first place.

Telling the Catholic Church that their dogmas are incorrect based on your interpretation of scripture is akin to telling the manufacturer that made your car that they don’t understand how it works. So again I have to ask: How do you reconcile your differences?

-Mike Maley 

Are You Pro-Life?

-->

  

   It was a cold day in March when we went to pray at the abortion clinic. It would have been easy to stay home that day - nobody enjoys standing around in the cold. The handful of people gathered there were mostly senior citizens. So there we stood, on the sidewalk holding pro-life signs and praying the rosary. Since our city council passed an ordinance demanding a “buffer zone” around Planned Parenthood we did not stand in front of the clinic as one would expect. We stood beyond a white line painted on the sidewalk marking the boundary. Crossing that line could land you in jail. Remarkably, standing outside this line places you in front of a gay bar. It almost seems fitting that a gay bar would set up shop next door to an abortion clinic since in essence, both establishments are fundamentally anti-child.  

So, there we stood in the cold, a public witness and a voice for the unborn; who cannot speak. While it is a noble endeavor, there are many people that don’t see it that way and some aren’t shy about expressing their disapproval. One passerby made a point of informing our group that she was pro-abortion. But for the most part people just ignored us, as though we were invisible.  I gazed at the Planned Parenthood building. I noticed the video cameras that adorn the brick wall, as if those who gather outside to pray pose a threat when in reality, all the violence takes place inside that building.

    Then Brandy showed up. She is 22 years old and had a little boy with her that appeared to be about 4 years old. Brandy wasn’t there to pray. She came down for an abortion. She told us her boyfriend wants her to have an abortion and will not be supportive any other way. It really was not her choice. We asked her to join us in a prayer and she agreed. We prayed for her, the unborn child in her womb and also the child's father. We acknowledged that God has a plan for this child. We told her that we cared about her and offered to help. She looked distressed. I glanced at a man in our group who was holding a sign that read: “Abortion hurts women” and saw a connection to the reality of that moment.  I realized that a big part of the pro-life message is that we are pro-woman. My heart fell when Brandy walked through the doors of Planned Parenthood but only to be lifted up in joy when she came back out a short moment later. She had changed her mind for now. Someone in our group handed her a card along with literature and said "Keep in touch, we care about you." 

    This experience taught me that we should do more than just internally assent to pro-life values. We live in a culture that is lost and needs guidance. Trying to provide that guidance is not always easy. It may mean standing in the cold to pray or sometimes enduring ridicule. In the end it is always about love of neighbor and not about confrontation.

There are other ways that we can promote life as well. What about the opportunities that we have to dialog with others about our pro-life views? Particularly at election time we often have that opportunity. The question is: are we willing to talk about it? For example, I was conversing with a woman who happened to mention that she was a registered democrat. “I am too,” I replied and then added “But, I vote pro-life.”  She balked at my response. As a Catholic she purported to also be pro-life. But she didn’t think that her personal beliefs should be legislated to others that don’t hold similar beliefs. So I asked her, “Why are you, personally opposed to abortion?  Is it that you view the issue as murder?”

“Oh no, I wouldn’t call it murder,” She exclaimed. “I would say it is more like …..ah…..killing a human being. Oh… maybe I do think of it as murder after all.”

Then I inquired if these are purely religious beliefs or if she thought they could be supported by scientific evidence as well. She acknowledged that advancements in science (such as ultrasound) bolster the pro-life point of view.

 

Pope John Paul II has made this same point when he stated in The Gospel of Life no. 58, “The moral gravity of procured abortion is apparent in all its truth if we recognize that we are dealing with murder.”

Of course, sanctioning murder is not what is best for the common good of society. I think Mother Theresa reinforced this point succinctly in the following statements:

 “Any country that accepts abortion is not teaching its people to love but to use violence to get what they want. This is why the greatest destroyer of love and peace is abortion.” And also, “We must not be surprised when we hear of murders, of killings, of wars, of hatred. If a mother can kill her own child, what is left but for us to kill each other?”

Abortion is the foremost evil on our society and it should deservedly be the primary concern when we vote for our nation’s leaders.

While it is easy to get discouraged I have also learned from these experiences that there is hope. More younger people are becoming pro-life as evidenced by the annual March for Life rally in Washington D.C.. And certainly it was good that someone was there for Brandy when she showed up at Planned Parenthood on that cold day.  

Catholic vs. Public Education



One of the bigger decisions that parents make is deciding the type of education for their children. Of course we want what is best for our children and for Catholic parents this usually entails the prospect of choosing Catholic education over public education. This begs the question of whether Catholic parents are morally obligated to send their child to a Catholic School if it is within their means to do so.

Let’s see what the Church Itself has to say by starting with Canon law:


• Canon 793 § 1: Parents, and those who take their place, have both the obligation and the right to educate their children. Catholic parents have also the duty and the right to choose those means and institutes which, in their local circumstances, can best promote the Catholic education of their children.

• Canon 795: Education must pay regard to the formation of the whole person, so that all may attain their eternal destiny and at the same time promote the common good of society. Children and young persons are therefore to be cared for in such a way that their physical, moral and intellectual talents may develop in a harmonious manner, so that they may attain a greater sense of responsibility and a right use of freedom, and be formed to take an active part in social life.


I think Pope Pius XI addressed this topic best in his encyclical “With Burning Concern’” where he tackled this issue head on. Although he was addressing Nazi Germany in 1937 it eerily reads like he is talking to us today:

“39. We address Our special greetings to the Catholic parents. Their rights and duties as educators, conferred on them by God, are at present the stake of a campaign pregnant with consequences. The Church cannot wait to deplore the devastation of its altars, the destruction of its temples, if an education, hostile to Christ, is to profane the temple of the child's soul consecrated by baptism, and extinguish the eternal light of the faith in Christ for the sake of counterfeit light alien to the Cross. Then the violation of temples is nigh, and it will be every one's duty to sever his responsibility from the opposite camp, and free his conscience from guilty cooperation with such corruption. The more the enemies attempt to disguise their designs, the more a distrustful vigilance will be needed, in the light of bitter experience.”

Does anyone have any doubt as to whether “an education, hostile to Christ” is present in our public schools? The Supreme Court has banned prayer in the schools. The Planned Parenthood based "comprehensive sex education" curriculum does violence to the morality of our children and the controversial International Baccalaureate programs bolster support for liberal forms of social justice. 

Let’s look at another canon:

• Canon 797 Parents must have a real freedom in their choice of schools. For this reason Christ's faithful must be watchful that the civil society acknowledges this freedom of parents and in accordance with the requirement of distributive justice, even provides them with assistance

To comment on this canon I turn to the clear, prophetic words of Fr. Gordon Knight written in his book “Rational Theology – Apologetics” His writing best illustrates how this freedom to choose Catholic education will be taken away from parents and the real motive behind it. Astonishingly, he foresaw all this in the early 1950's:

“Furthermore, nothing could be easier than to persuade the majority of men that the government should provide free education for its citizens. This education would be at public expense, of course, but it would be free to those who made use of it. The majority seems to be under the impression that whatever the government provides for them, it provides free of cost to them. People do not seem to realize that an education that is provided by the government is paid for by themselves. Once the principle that education should be provided free of charge by the government has been accepted, it would be an easy task to persuade the majority that the education provided must be devoid of any religious instruction simply because the majority do not agree on what is the true version of religion. If a government were to provide an education free of charge but without religion, this would place parents who wish to provide their children with a religious education under the burden of having to pay twice for the education their children receive. They would first be taxed to maintain an irreligious system of schools which they do not wish to use, and then they would be required to maintain a separate educational establishment at their own expense.

If atheists could succeed in persuading the majority in any democratic form of government that this should be done (and what could be easier?), they would have struck such a blow at religious education as almost to guarantee the extinction of religion. For the majority, as atheists very well know, cannot afford to pay twice for the education of their children. They can scarcely afford to pay the taxes that are required to maintain a system of public schools in which religion is not taught. If, in addition to this, atheists could persuade the Christian majority that State-supported schools and colleges should have the best equipment that money can buy and the best teaching talent that money can hire, and that private schools in which religion is not taught should be subsidized by public funds, then the teaching of religion would be hampered to the utmost.

No matter how bitterly atheists may be opposed to the teaching of religion, it would be hopeless to try to persuade a Christian majority to forbid their children to receive a religious education. But it is by no means necessary that the teaching of religion be forbidden in order to prevent the majority of children from receiving such instruction. It is merely necessary to make it impossible to receive it. And it is impossible for the majority of children to receive a religious education once the principle has been accepted that parents are to be taxed to maintain an irreligious educational establishment and that if they wish their children to receive a religious education, they must maintain at their own expense an entirely separate and equivalent establishment. Once the principle that the State should provide an education devoid of any religious teaching has been accepted, then irreligion and atheism would be fostered by Christians at their own expense. An education devoid of religious teaching can be satisfactory only to atheists or to those who are opposed to the teaching of religion. It is practically a stroke of genius on the part of atheists to have induced a Christian majority to pay for that very system which deprives their children of the sort of education they wish them to receive.

Political atheism provides an ambitious and well-directed program for the extinction of religion. A person skilled in jujitsu need not be as strong as his opponent in order to overcome him. Such a person makes use of his opponent’s strength in order to defeat him. Atheists have taken a leaf out of the book of jujitsu. They make use of the pocket books of their opponents in order to overcome them. They take advantage of the confusion caused by the presence of many versions of religion to induce Christians themselves to pay for a system of education that will eventually eradicate belief in any version of religion. ....... Where atheists control the government, the teaching of religion is forbidden. Where they are not in control, they have persuaded the religious majority to provide themselves with an irreligious system of education.”

Fr. Knight is right and if atheists succeed in abolishing Catholic education then as a society we will be derelict.  So in light of this I will conclude by quoting two more canons concerning parental responsibilities to their children regarding education:


• Canon 798: Parents are to send their children to those schools which will provide for their Catholic education… If they cannot do this, they are bound to ensure the proper Catholic education of their children outside the school.

• Canon 800 § 2: Christ's faithful are to promote Catholic schools, doing everything possible to help in establishing and maintaining them.

The Hockey Culture

I took my family to a hockey game. It was held in a brand new fancy schmancy arena with all the latest high tech bells and whistles. It is truly an amazing place. Throughout the night many fights broke out on the ice from the players, or should I say combatants? And every time a fight would break out the crowd would go nuts with loud cheering rewarding such bad behavior and sportsmanship. Sure, the players are sent to the penalty box for their actions but then the crowd cheers them on even more as they make their way off the ice. This is the same mentality seen on the Jerry Springer show. What a bad example to expose to my 6 year old daughter who plays soccer at a nearby parochial school. Her coaches start each game with a prayer and foster true sportsmanship and discourage any unnecessary roughness. Why do these values get tossed out the window at hockey games? Isn't this also a  reflection on our society?

In Rome the pagans used their coliseums to persecute the Christians. They didn't have the big jumbo-tron screen, high tech lighting effects or megawatt sound systems. For as far advanced as we have become today we are not that much more civilized than ancient Rome.  We know from the catechism that the church will undergo a final persecution that will be worse than all previous persecutions. And this is stated by the Church as a sure fact. Sometimes I wonder how far off from this reality we are today.

Fr. Gordon Francis Knight C.S.SP, S.T.D.

Fr. Gordon Francis Knight

Fr. Gordon Francis Knight
Born: June 7 1899 East Orange New Jersey Died: Feb 3 1961 Vienna Va.
Born in East Orange, New Jersey, in 1899, Fr. Knight made his collegiate studies at City College, New York City; his philosophical studies at St Mary’s Seminary, Norwalk, Conn; and his theological studies in Rome, Italy, where he acquired a great admiration for Cardinal Louis Billot’s theology. He was ordained on July 28, 1929 and awarded the degree of Doctor of Sacred Theology in the following year at the Gregorian University.
Upon returning to the United States in 1930, Fr. Knight was assigned to the Holy Ghost Fathers’ St. Mary’s Seminary, where he taught for fourteen years. He was appointed to the faculty at Duquesne University in 1944. He taught Apologetics and many loved to hear him talk and adored his logic. Struck by cancer in 1960, he retired to prepare himself for death in Ferndale.
Like many scholars, he had trouble remembering names, even the names of people who lived with him in the same house. He tried to cover up his ignorance by addressing everyone as “Gents.” It quickly earned him the title as a nickname. His favored hobby was tinkering with all kinds of scientific equipment, so that his room resembled a repair shop and a study. He was buried in Ferndale.

How do you know that you are right?

I have a good friend and over the years we had many discussions on Catholic teachings. He believes the Catholic Church to be in error on many issues such as; baptism, the Eucharist, confession, praying to saints, purgatory, etc.. We have both learned much from these discussions. Sometimes the debate got a little heated, a danger when discussing religion. After awhile I grew weary of the circular nature of our conversations. So I decided to ask him a simple question. How do you know that you are right?

“In order for me to continue our discussions about Catholicism” I said to my friend, “Please tell me how do you know that you are right?” After a short pause he replied that he gets his guidance by reading the bible and praying to the Holy Spirit. “Well, all Protestants do that and yet they still disagree with each other so that can’t be right.” I countered. He said Protestants are in agreement on the major issues such as the Trinity so it is fine to have disagreements on the minor ones. “Is salvation a minor issue?” I inquired. For instance, some denominations agree with Catholics that baptism is necessary for salvation while others do not. He could not answer to my satisfaction so our discussion ended that day without any further debate.

“How do you know that you are right?” I asked a protestant coworker. He thought about it for a minute and then directed the question back at me. “How do you know that you are right?” This is a good question for all Catholics. How do we know that the Church is right? It is the same question that Pilate asked Jesus; “What is truth?” And truth was standing there right in front of him when he asked it. We know the truth is available. Jesus promised to send the Holy Spirit so that we will know all truth into perpetuity. "I will ask the Father and He shall give you another Paraclete that He may abide with you forever, the spirit of truth . . the Paraclete, the Holy Spirit, will teach you all things, and will bring all things to your mind whatsoever I shall have said to you." (John 14 :16)

Why do we say the fullness of  the truth subsists within the Catholic Church? The answer is not elusive - we have apostolic succession. We have a documented unbroken line of popes all the way back to Peter. But this alone wouldn't amount to much if it could be proven that our doctrines had changed over time. For objective truth is immutable and cannot change. Just as God is truth and cannot change. He is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. I can’t stress this point enough; 2000 years of church history wrought with many questions, heresies and opinions and yet there emerges a Church whose doctrines (when defined as binding) have remained the same. No doctrine declared as binding ever contradicted and rescinded an earlier one. This is an important fact and is known as the infallible magesterium of the Catholic Church. Only the Catholic Church claims to teach infallibly. Protestants don’t claim to teach infallibly. As a matter of fact, they have taught certain things in the past that were accepted as a sure norm only to be reversed at some later time. Examples of this are doctrines banning women ministers, divorce and remarriage, and contraception.  Also today we see a growing trend toward greater acceptance of homosexuality and abortion. Protestantism is a house built on shifting sand.

I asked a popular Christian writer to define a “Bible based” church. What criteria does one apply? While he had written much about his journey from atheism to Christianity he wrote nothing on process of discerning which Christian Church to attend. He told me that I asked a great question and that he would address this topic on his web site. He informed me that over time he had joined several different churches in the process of discernment and his experiences could help others. I have checked back over the years and he has never got around to putting that information on his web page. How could he? At the time I told him that he never will be able to write such a document without having an authoritative majesterium (teaching) to base it on such as exists only in the Catholic Church. Granted, with over 33,000 protestant denominations teaching different doctrines while claiming to be “bible based” how could he? The only area in which all Protestants agree is that the Catholic Church is wrong.

Instead of looking to see if a church is based on the bible one should look to see where the bible came from. The bible is a Catholic tradition that came out of the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church existed some 300 years before there was a bible. The canon (table of contents) of the bible was determined by Catholic Church councils and the scriptures were preserved over the centuries by the Catholic Church. The bible is a Catholic book and who is more qualified to interpret it?

I like to read about Catholic conversion stories and there are many to be found on the Internet. I've read testimonies from staunch Protestants that have found their way into the Catholic Church in spite of their initial extreme prejudice. Invariably they overcame their bias when their quest for truth pointed toward the Catholic Church. Also they never look back with disdain on they church they left. In contrast I have also searched the Internet looking for the opposite scenario - conversion stories of “strong” Catholics that left the Church for Protestantism in their search for truth. Inevitably they would cite a long list of reasons for their disdain of Catholicism but cite precious few reasons for their selection of which Protestant Church they feel is teaching the truth in its fullness. Sometimes their answer is simply any church—as long as it’s not Catholic.

My rhetorical question; “How do you know you're right?” is not about winning a religious debate. Rather, it is about finding truth because finding truth is finding God.

Contraception

“Forty years I loathed that generation; I said: "This people's heart goes astray; they do not know my ways.” Therefore I swore in my anger: "They shall never enter my rest."” – Psalm 95

    We have now reached forty years since Pope Paul VI issued his encyclical “Humanae Vitae” upholding the Church’s consistent teaching on the sinful nature of contraception. However, this encyclical has been largely ignored as surveys indicate that 80 percent of Catholics practice some form of contraception within their marriage.

    How did we arrive at this juncture where so many people dissent from Church teaching on this matter? You may be surprised when you consider that prior to 1930, contraception had been uniformly condemned by every Christian denomination in the world since the death of Christ. This fact is very important! This includes all Protestants. Keep in mind they hold to the belief that the Bible is the infallible word of God and the sole authority. They had historically validated that scripture condemns the act of contraception and therefore it is sinful and offensive to God. Again, this teaching was universally taught by every Christian denomination! Then a change that came about in 1930 that rocked the Christian world. The Anglicans decided at their conference in Lambeth England that contraception was not sinful if utilized within marriage and only under grave extenuating circumstances. Soon other denominations quickly followed suit in lifting the ban on contraception. Now today contraception is largely accepted as the norm without any stipulations required for its practice.

    Now where has this wrought us? In the aftermath of universally accepting contraception we now have greater acceptance of other evils such as: abortion, homosexuality, pornography, immodest dress, cohabitation, divorce, and remarriage. Has your church in any way accepted these things in part or in whole? 

    In his 1989 essay, “The Body’s Grace”, Dr Rowan Williams; Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury argued that the Church’s acceptance of contraception meant that it acknowledged the validity of non-procreative sex. He stated “This could be taken as a green light for gay sex.”

    Something to think about; couldn't homosexual sex be considered the ultimate form of contraception?

    What about abortion? The United States Supreme Court links contraception to Abortion. In Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the recent Supreme Court decision that confirmed Roe v. Wade, stated, "in some critical respects abortion is of the same character as the decision to use contraception . . . . for two decades of economic and social developments, people have organized intimate relationships and made choices that define their views of themselves and their places in society, in reliance on the availability of abortion in the event that contraception should fail."

   Would the ancient Christians recognize the modern church today since their long held beliefs do not align with modern thought? The ancient Romans were pagans and in the first 300 years of Church history they persecuted the Christians.  As pagans the Romans practiced homosexuality, abortion, contraception and polygamy - divorce and remarriage.  The Christians did not. These were big issues separating the two factions and the Christians were often martyred  for holding to these beliefs. More and more protestant churches today have abandoned early Christian dogmas and have accepted many of those pagan practices. Whether it be in part or in whole these practices were never reconcilable with Christianity.

    How bad is the practice of contraception on your marriage? Consider what Fr. Gordon Knight said in his book “Rational Theology: Marriage”:

    "One of the worst features about the use of contraceptive means of birth is that the one who is willing to use such means may be requiring his partner to cooperate in an act which is wrong. He may be leaving his partner only a choice between offending God or offending him. He may be leaving his partner no possibility of a happy marriage, for no one can be happily married who lives in fear of what he deserves from God or who lives in fear of estranging her partner by refusing to do as he requests. Marriage dose not make improper intercourse permissible, for nothing can make what is improper, proper. And improper intercourse is fatal to a happy marriage."

Marriage is a covenant and not a contract. It is a covenant formed between the spouses and God. God will provide us with His grace to help us throughout our marriages. If we think that we can make it on our own without His grace we are severely fooling ourselves. However, one cannot offend God within the marriage while asking  Him for marital blessings at the same time.

Do you know what the problem is for Catholics?

I went to a protestant church for a rummage sale and ended up having an interesting discussion with a dynamic senior pastor. His enthusiasm was augmented by the fact that his church was growing by leaps and bounds.  At this particular event he had church members distributing promotional DVDs to all the bargain hunters gathered there - including me. Later when I viewed my DVD I could see how this was an effective marketing tool for increasing church membership.  It was professionally made and highlighted their church in a very appealing manner. In the course of my conversation with the pastor he got around to inviting me to Sunday worship service. I told him I was Catholic. He replied, no problem, Catholics are welcome here. I asked him if he ever studied Catholicism and if he knows what the Catholic Church actually teaches. First he looked around to make sure that nobody else could hear what he was about to reveal, then he replied that he was once Catholic! He followed up by telling me that the teachings of the Catholic Church contradict the teachings found in the bible. It was this discovery (of contradictions) that led him out of the Catholic Church He also informed me that I can talk to a local Catholic priest who will confirm the existence of these contradictions.

       He wanted to continue our discussion from his office where he could show me certain documents to support his claim. I was curious to see what he was about to show me. Unfortunately, I didn’t have the time at that moment. From the little that I did talk to him I got the impression that he harbored contempt for the Catholic Church. So, in realizing this I knew that he was not predisposed to listen to anything that I might say. At one point I had to tell him that I was interested in having a dialog and not an argument. Then the  most fascinating part of our discussion occurred when he asked me this question; “Do you know what your problem is, as a Catholic?”

       I was taken aback by what he said next; “Your problem is that most of my congregation is made up of ex-Catholics!” It was a profound statement and it cut right to the bone. He made his point and I agree – this is a big problem for the Catholic Church. I replied that those ex-Catholics don’t actually know what they left behind. In other words, they weren't fully catechized Catholics making a fully informed decision to leave the Catholic Church. For instance, how many Catholic clergy can you think of that left the Church for Protestantism? In contrast I can think of many Protestant ministers that left their livelihoods to become Catholic.

       I enjoy reading conversion stories. There are many books available on this subject as well as Internet sites. When people have a conversion experience they are more than willing to share their experience as a way of helping others find the fulfillment that they have found. In my research of looking for these stories I have noticed that there are more Protestant to Catholic conversion stories available than the reverse. I particularly like reading about Protestant clergy that find their way into the Catholic Church. Their conversion usually hinges upon the study of early Church fathers. Often the study was  undertaken with the intent to improve their protestant services by incorporating some early Church practices. Becoming Catholic was the last thing on their minds when starting their endeavor! They found that the early Church looks more like the Roman Catholic Church of today. But as they say, all roads lead to Rome. It is also important to note that these pastors never look back on their protestant past with any disdain. Rather, they affectionately look at them as grace filled moments on their journey towards God.

      In contrast, you never read about Catholics studying Church history and then decide to become Protestant. Catholic convert John Henry Newman phrased it well; “To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant." I think Catholics who are well informed (such as priests) leave the Church when their own personal desires conflict with Church teachings. In the words of Cardinal Ratzinger "We are moving towards a dictatorship of relativism which does not recognize anything as for certain and which has as its highest goal one’s own ego and one’s own desires."

      As Catholics we can point to the Catechism as a sure norm for dogmas and doctrines.  Our biggest problem is that many Catholics aren’t familiar with the Catechism nor do they have one in their home. This lack of catecheses is a problem that now extends back several generations. In I Peter 3:15 we are exhorted to: “Always be ready to give an explanation to anyone who asks you for a reason for your hope, but do it with gentleness and reverence…” and many of us are not prepared.