Recently in Apologetics Category

Yesterday the Holy Father delivered an address on the grounds of what used to be the Auschwitz-Birkenau death camp in Poland. As an article from Reuters reported, the reception of the address was mixed.

Apparently some commentators applauded the pope for asking such questions as "Where was God?" and "God, why did you remain silent?" The Reuters guy described the asking of such questions on Benedict's part as a "bold decision." As if this is some new and unusual thing for committed and faithful Christians to ask the Lord questions. Course, Job did it. And um, Jesus did too. I don't think Benedict would say he was blazing some new trail. Still, it does create a connection and a sense of understanding with all the poor souls who lost faith in God as a result of the persecutions they and their loved ones suffered as a result of Nazi atrocities. That's always been a little-known strength of Benedict's, meeting people where they are.

Still, some critics just couldn't be satisfied with the Holy Father's words as long as he stopped short of incriminating himself, his Church, and in particular his predecessor Pius XII, who was the pope during World War II. Ever since the holocaust, Pius has been maligned for not speaking out with enough volume during the Axis' reign of terror. It is believed in some circles that His Holiness was indifferent or even complicit in the slaughter of six million Jews and millions of others during the war. People were upset because the pope did not so much as mention Pius or Pius' actions from that period.

One possible reason he would choose not to do so is because the accusations against Pius are utterly preposterous. Jimmy Akin has a nice article on this topic at Catholic Answers entitled "How Pius XII Protected Jews." I recommend the whole thing as it is lays to rest a lot of myths surrounding Pius XII's supposedly wimpish papacy. But here's my favorite passage which sums it up pretty well:

While the armchair quarterbacks of anti-Catholic circles may have wished the Pope to issue, in Axis territory and during wartime, ringing, propagandistic statements against the Nazis, the Pope realized that such was not an option if he were actually to save Jewish lives rather than simply mug for the cameras.

Looks like that armchair quarterbacking continues to this day. Some were dismayed that Pope Benedict wasn't strong enough in denouncing anti-Semitism specifically. From the Reuters piece:

Some faulted him for not clearly mentioning anti-Semitism, others for saying Germany was taken over by criminals in the 1930s, as if Adolf Hitler had not had any popular support.

First as to the matter of implying that Hitler had not had any popular support, Benedict never denied that he did have plenty of popular support. Benedict merely observed how he came to garner so much popular support--through "false promises." Not too much unlike today's "idelologies of evil" that John Paul II described in Memory and Identity. As Benedict put it:

[A] ring of criminals rose to power by false promises of future greatness and the recovery of the nation's honor, prominence and prosperity, but also through terror and intimidation, with the result that our people was used and abused as an instrument of their thirst for destruction and power.

And as to the matter of anti-Semitism, apparently these words of the Holy Father weren't quite explicit enough:

The rulers of the Third Reich wanted to crush the entire Jewish people, to cancel it from the register of the peoples of the earth. Thus the words of the Psalm: "We are being killed, accounted as sheep for the slaughter" were fulfilled in a terrifying way.

Deep down, those vicious criminals, by wiping out this people, wanted to kill the God who called Abraham.

What more does anybody want? The admission of historical fallacies about as well grounded as the Da Vinci Load? Next time I feel like I can't please anyone, I'll take comfort in remembering that a good man named Pope Benedict visited the site where so many people were killed to express solidarity with them and their sons and daughters, and his words weren't good enough for some.

I heard it asserted yesterday that the Catholic Church denies women the opportunity to make use of their spiritual gifts. At the risk of making myself appear chauvinist, I cannot endorse such a proposition, in fact, I'm inclined to think it absurd.

What other philosophies of woman exist in the world aside from the Catholic one? Well there's the Hefner and Flynt philosophy: A woman is a bunny, whose worth depends upon her ability to sexually excite men. One aspect of this philosophy includes limiting the value of the sexual act with the woman to the unitive aspect, that is, to saying there is no value to the woman's ability to actually bring new life into the world.

Then there's the chauvinist philosophy, which basically says woman is supposed to shut her mouth and do as she's told. This is where we get the "barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen" image. It is widely believed that the Catholic Church is to thank for this image, even though this image limits the value of a woman more or less to her ability to bear children.

Then there's the modern feminist view of woman, which is that a woman's value is ultimately predicated on her ability to climb the corporate ladder. There's the reproductive-rights view of women, which says that a woman's worth is predicated upon her ability to exercise power over her own reproductive system. I could go on and on.

The thing that all these philosophies share in common is that they all focus on one dimension of female existence and elevates it to the exclusion of all the other dimensions of the female identity. The word for this is "objectification," limiting the anthropology of women to one particular aspect. We see this everywhere in the world today--in magazines, in corporations, in schools. On the other hand, there is today one institution that is the definitive authority on all these dimensions of the female person and reveres them all equally. That institution is the Mystical Body of Christ that, some in the popular media and even some of our church leaders, would have us believe denies the spiritual gifts of women.

Does the Mystical Body in fact think that women are supposed to be quiet and clean the dishes? Is the woman's only place within the confines of the physical household? Well, according to the Catholic Encyclopedia's entry on women, written in 1912, such a philosophy is at best "imperfect."

the social position of woman is, from the Christian point of view, only imperfectly set forth in the expression "Woman belongs at home". On the contrary, her peculiar influence is to extend from the home over State and Church.

This was written in 1912, long before the modern notions of female "liberation" ever took hold of the West. The fact of the matter is that the Church, by recognizing the divine authorship of women, and applying the universal call to holiness to them as well, actually expects more of women than do any of these other incomplete ideologies, because the Church gives women more credit than anyone else does. The Church wants women to be on the frontlines, on the cutting edge of societal evolution. But because of long-standing and unalterable liturgical norms that offend modern culture, the Church is maligned as woman-suppressing.

Show me, I would implore these critics, one institution in the world that can claim as a daughter a woman like Mother Theresa. Or Catherine of Siena. Or Therese of Lisieux. Joan of Arc. To say nothing of a certain Blessed Virgin. We are talking about women who did enormous amounts of good in and for the world, and no it didn't advance an ideological agenda. All it advanced was the Kingdom of God. Which is greater?

Has the Church always been free of male chauvinist pigs? Of course not. But if that is the case then it is only because these men did not accept the authentic Catholic teaching on women. At any rate, I would implore critics to explain how a woman-suppressing Church could produce such a paragon of chivalry and gentlemanliness as John Paul II, whose works and writings constantly witnessed to nothing less than a Christ-like reverance and awe of women.

Ultimately, the objectification of women in all the aforementioned incomplete ideologies is tantamount to the historical suppression of women. Historical suppression and modern objectification both accomplish the same thing: the limitation and degradation of the female identity to something less than the full objective reality that is Woman. Have leaders in the Church participated sinfully in that limitation and degradation? Sure. But to point to those within the Mystical Body exclusively, mentioning neither any of the litany of other culprits nor the far greater scale on which they limit and degrade the daughters of God, rather misses the big picture.

The other day I was at a men's church organization meeting and I heard this one guy say that at the parish in his previous place of residence, there are "these old ladies who still keep their heads covered because they're orthodox and haven't accepted Vatican II."

I've learned to keep my mouth shut when people utter such malarkey. Still, I feel the need for my own sake to address the veritable Christmas list of myths and misconceptions contained in that statement.

First, just because someone wears a headdress doesn't make them orthodox. It might make them traditionalist in terms of liturgical dress, but that's not the same as orthodoxy. The term "orthodox" merely means that a person accepts and believes the teaching of the Church. It's possible to do that with or without headdresses, since Vatican II neither prohibits nor requires them.

A person is not orthodox if they haven't accepted the teachings of Vatican II. On the contrary, accepting the teachings of Vatican II is very important to maintain orthodoxy since Vatican II didn't change the traditional teachings of the Church. All it did was reaffirm long-standing teachings and adapt the appearance of the Church to meet the needs of the modern world. It didn't make orthodoxy a red herring.

I'm not a big fan of headdresses, but I respect the women who wear them because I know that they're doing so out of a continued reverence for the sacred mysteries. That's a reverence that many faithful in the Church would do well to adopt today even if they don't do it by covering their heads. And when people dismiss such practices saying that the women who do so are "orthodox," and "haven't accepted Vatican II," it kinda bothers me, not gonna lie.

Here's a good article published in the Pittsburgh Catholic last week that draws parallels between Thomas Jefferson and Dan Brown, the author of The Da Vinci Code. There's really not a whole lot new about Dan Brown, particularly in his approach to the question of who Jesus was (is). It's the old art of fence-straddling.

Jesus was just a nice guy you see. He wasn't really the LORD. He was just a really good teacher who made everybody feel good, went around raising everybody's self-esteem. It was that big bad evil Church that hijacked the image of Jesus and turned him into a deity and told people that they better not misbehave or Jesus would send em to aich-ee-double-hockey-sticks.

In the "Total Agony Love" entry, I mentioned that a romantic attraction proves untenable for an enamored man for one of three reasons:

Either a) she does not know we exist; b) she knows we exist but has no clue how we feel about her; or c) she knows how we feel but would rather maintain a level of comfortable distance (i.e. she "just wants to be friends").

I think what's going on with DVC is situation "c." The Da Vinci Code is Dan Brown's bend-over-backwards attempt to keep his distance from the God who loves him, as well as make it easy for other Christians who are unsettled by the message of Christ to do similarly.

And in the meantime it unsettles even committed but uninformed Christians, claiming that maybe our lover is not everything we thought he was. So we then are tempted to distance ourselves, at the fear of being let down. It's a psychological operation.

This comfortable distance allows for a beloved to enjoy the superficial qualities of the lover's affections without having to commit to the uncomfortable ordeal of really reciprocating. So the beloved benefits in all the ways that they would wish to, in the ways that would make them feel better about themselves. But the lover is undeniably short-changed. The more admirable thing to do in this situation would be to simply cut off the relationship, rather than attempt to straddle the fence.

Similarly, DVC attempts to reframe the relationship of humanity with Christ, inviting followers to predicate their previously unqualified belief on whether or not it offends our modern sensibilities. Again, there's nothing new here, except the package. As characters in the book are quick to point out, they mean no disrespect to Jesus himself. They just have it in for the big evil Church. In other words, they don't want to completely sever their relationship with Jesus. They like him and all. They just don't want to date exclusively.

But as Jesus said, "Whoever is not with me is against me." In other words, it's time to fish or cut bait.

One of my readers replied to "Benedict Year One" saying that the DaVinci Code is a good novel so long as one understands that it is fiction and none of the “facts” presented such as the nature of Opus Dei or the secret of Mary Magdalene are actually true. I can respect that. I’m sure the novel is very suspenseful and well-composed; otherwise it wouldn’t be all the rage today.

But my sisters and brothers, if you’re looking for some more well-composed, edge-of-your-seat mythology, check out the May issue of Glamour Magazine. Tell ya what, folks, this is great storytelling! For example, check out the article entitled “The new lies about women’s health.” (WARNING: This link contains a startling and borderline pornographic image of a woman's backside.) It’s a harrowing tale about how evil Christian pro-lifers seek to impose their morality on the rest of humanity by twisting the arms of politicians and distorting scientific research. So to the rescue come the noble “free spirits” at Glamour and Planned Parenthood etc to expose the lies. Will the Pro-Choice Freedom Fighters beat back the pathological Bible-thumping liars? You’ll just have to read and find out.

Here's one from allAfrica.com about entitled "Botswana: No Condoms, We're Catholic."

Father John Corrigan of the Roman Catholic Church in Gaborone reveals that St. Joseph's clinic is both a mission clinic and a government- aided clinic. He then states that it functions according to the Roman Catholic Holy Act, which does not treat sex lightly.

Father John says that during this era of HV/AIDS pandemic, the church encourages a new message to the youth - "practice safe sex".

"Sex is a secret and holy act that is meant to be a gift from God to husband and wife. However, with young people engaging in pre-marital sex, we encourage safe sex under two conditions. Don't get AIDS. Don't get pregnant," he says.

This story comes down from The Catholic News Service:

Bishop Edward K. Braxton of Belleville, Ill., speaking to Catholic educators in Atlanta April 18, cited four areas where a new apologetics is needed: to counter what he called "the new atheism"; to use during times of "human suffering and the search for meaning"; to understand "the rapid growth of Islam and the uniqueness of Christianity"; and to realize "the priority of Scripture and tradition."

Yesterday morning I had a dentist appointment. It was probably the most successful dentist appointment I have ever had. No cavities, strong gums, and minimal discomfort. But the lady who was cleaning my teeth, God bless her, it was the second time I've had her and we basically had the same conversation as last time. The topic: the possibility of married priests.

The Catholic religious group Opus Dei is suing the makers of the upcoming DaVinci Code movie to have a disclaimer included in the film saying that it is a work of fiction. Great idea, although it won't make me any more inclined to see the film. Now, if this was a two-hour film about how Opus Dei is a paragon of righteousness and the Church is the Pillar of Truth and Christ actually did die and rise and Mary Magdalene was a celibate saint, that movie I'd go see opening night.

And how about this: at the end of the above-described film we could have our own little disclaimer, maybe saying the following--

Everything you have just seen in this film is true. However some years ago, an anti-Catholic, self-important pseudo-historian wrote a catalogue of irrelevant binge seeking to malign everything just now shown here. It was recently made into a film which will soon be available in the drama section of your local video store, even though it would probably be better suited to the comedy section.

The Associated Press reported yesterday that a growing number of states are considering enacting laws which would require all hospitals to make the morning after pill, also known as "Plan B," available to rape victims. This obviously isn't going to sit too well with the Catholic Church, which has always said that morning after pill is for one thing contraception and therefore always wrong, and for another thing will rather often double as an abortifacient, which is murderously wrong.

Seven states already require all hospitals to give it out, and twelve more states are considering it. And if you want to talk about media bias, have a look at the description attributed to the Merger Watch Project, the activist group behind this legislation: "A New York-based group that fights religious restrictions on patient rights and health care."

Yet again, we have a mainstream news organization framing the debate, taking for granted that the morning-after pill is a "patient's right" that can be legitimately described as "health care." Meanwhile they leave it up to the specifically Catholic sources in the story to frame the debate from the other perspective, namely that this is an attack on Catholic institutions, particularly (although this was never stated explicitly in the story) on the Church's "freedom of conscience"--which is so integral to the practice of religion free of government intervention. I guess the First Amendment is a red herring when reproductive empowerment is involved.

The main objection to this not just from the activists but from many in the "conflicted middle" is: Yes, but we are not talking about reproductive empowerment. We are talking about relieving a young lady of the terrible burden of carrying a child who was conceived during an act to which she did not even give consent.

These situations are certainly tragic, but sanctioning abortions in these circumstances, be they medical abortions (as in the case of the morning after pill) or surgical (as in suction, saline, or partial-birth abortions), would imply that the deliberate killing of the most defenseless human beings among us could conceivably be the solution to a problem if the problem is bad enough. But the Church has always recognized the contrary: that abortion in whatever form it takes is not the solution to a problem, but quite a traumatic problem in itself. It is not that the Church cares nothing for the best interests of the victims of rape who come into hospitals. It is that the Church cares too much to make the woman a victim twice, first by rape, and then by abortion.

This issue actually gives me a good opportunity to address a question that was posed to me by a student of mine a few weeks ago. Not long ago, in an address to the Pontifical Academy for Life, the pope made rather plain (or strongly implied) that it is the Church's position that new human life begins at the moment of conception. The immediate context was explaining why the Church cannot endorse research procedures that destroy human embryos, even if those embryos are not implanted. The same argument applies to the morning after pill.

But this student was confused because she had heard on television (that wonderful source of timeless wisdom) that it says in Leviticus that "a thing is not living until it has blood running through its veins." Now, we all know today that it takes a good three weeks or so for a child to form a vascular structure and a beating heart. Well well well, this TV program mused, if it takes this length of time for those blood structures to form, and a thing is not living until it has blood running through its veins," then perhaps Moses wouldn't have such a big problem with Plan B?

My initial response was that i would have to see this verse, since I had never read it. But I also pointed out that the Bible is not a scientific treatise but a divine revelation, and that it cannot be read the same way a biology textbook is read. Even so, I was curious and went looking for this verse, but was unable to find it. Unfortunately, my student couldn't recall the exact citation or the program on which she had heard of this.

But lo, a few days ago I was putting together "New York Times violates pro-choice orthodoxy," and I came across a page on the Concern Women for America site that directly addressed what this student had told me about. It was an article entitled "Life is in the Blood" by CWA contributor Kelli Wait. She talks about a recent episode of the CBS crime drama CSI , in which one of the main characters presents his argument for the point at which life begins. He actually cites a passage from, that's right, Leviticus, chapter 17 verse 11: "The life of a living body is in its blood" (NAB).

But as Wait points out:

Scripture has to be taken in context. The full passage in Leviticus 17 reads, “For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement for the soul” (NKJ). This reading makes it obvious that the Biblical reference is about sacrifice and atonement, not about when life begins.

Leviticus 16 and 17 have been called The Laws of National Atonement. In these chapters, God tells His people how to atone for their sin. He emphasizes the necessity for sacrifice.

Nothing in the chapter has anything to do with when life begins, and it is erroneous for anyone to use the Leviticus passage as support for abortion. While it is true that blood enters the embryo on the 18th day, one cannot argue that Leviticus 17:11 supports a pro-abortion position.

Neither then can such pseudo-intellectual games be played by those who favor the morning-after pill. The temptation may be very great to try to reframe or redefine life, particularly in cases of rape, so as to provide an easy out.

Neither then can such pseudo-intellectual games be played by those who favor the morning-after pill. The temptation may be very great to try to reframe or redefine life, particularly in cases of rape, so as to provide an easy out.

But the Church's belief, and the fact of the matter, is that life is always a blessing, even when to the human mind it seems most burdensome and its circumstances the most tragic. And when some activists lobby to require the Church to supply abortifacient drugs to rape victims or anyone else, they are not merely asking the Church to change her practice, but thereby to ignore that fundamental attitude towards life: that it is not a liability, but a gift.

In anticipation of the release of the upcoming film adaptation of Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code, the Catholic Church in America has begun a campaign designed to address the myths and misrepresentations that apparently (I've never read it) abound in the novel. The website for the campaign is entitled "Jesus Decoded," and I haven't had much chance to surf through the whole thing, but it looks really good.

The Jesus Decoded campaign is part of the Catholic Communication Campaign. This is precisely the kind of thing I've been thinking the US Bishops have been needing to do for a long time, namely, to address all the hogwash that's spouted in the media and popular culture about the Church on a daily basis. This is certainly a step in the right direction. I'm excited to see what they come out with the future.

Carl Olson at the Ignatius Press blog "Insight Scoop" blogged about a radio interview experience he had this morning. The entry is entitled, "The Science of Catholic Bashing." It made me smile.