Martignoni: The Catholic Church killed millions? Is that true?

BY JOHN MARTIGNONI

Question:
My brother, who left the Church several years ago, has recently started accusing the Catholic Church of genocide because of what the Church did during the Inquisition.  He said the Church killed millions of people during the Inquisition.  Is that true?

Answer:
I have had people say to me that the Catholic Church killed as many as 63 million people during the Inquisition.  The problem is, the entire population of Europe at any given time during the 15th and 16th centuries, when the Inquisition was the most active, is estimated to have been around 30-35 million people.  So, did the Inquisition kill the entire population of Europe twice over?  I don’t think so.   

There are many myths about the Inquisition, particularly the Spanish Inquisition, that got started with some very good Protestant propaganda written in the late 16th century when things between Catholics and Protestants were not very pleasant, to say the least, and relations between Protestant England and Catholic Spain were rather hostile.  Unfortunately, those myths have been perpetuated for hundreds of years down to our day and age, so that the average person, including many Catholics, swallow them hook, line, and sinker.  

Now, I don’t want to whitewash what occurred during the Inquisition, since in any such endeavor that involves human beings there will be mistakes made, sins committed, and evils perpetrated, but I do want to set some of the facts straight so that the Inquisition can be properly judged within its historical context.

Not too long ago, I believe it was in the 90’s, the Vatican released literally thousands of records pertaining to Inquisition cases that had never before been studied by scholars.  Those historical documents have changed the view of many in regards to the Inquisition.  For example, when most people think of the Inquisition, they think of torture and executions.  The Vatican records, however, which are the actual records of the court cases that were made at the time, show that torture was very seldom used.  Compared with the frequency of torture in the civil courts of those centuries, the Inquisition courts were a few hundred years ahead of their time.  

Over the approximately 450 year history of the Inquisition, in several different countries, it is now estimated that somewhere around 5000 people who went through Inquisition courts wound up being executed by the civil authorities.  A much lower number than most people have in their minds when they think of the Inquisition, and certainly not 63 million.  One might say, “Fine, but 5000 people killed for heresy is 5000 too many.”  Indeed, but you need to take into account the times they were in.  Heresy was not just a religious crime, it was usually a crime against the state as well, and that was true throughout Europe – Catholic and Protestant Europe.  Just think of all the Catholic martyrs there were in England, for example.  Heresy and treason were pretty much considered one and the same crime.  

Also, the Inquisition courts were superior to the civil courts of the time in terms of the burden of proof that was required to convict and in terms of the legal representation that was given to the accused.  The prisons of the Inquisition were also far more humane than the prisons of the secular authorities.  Scholars have found instances of prisoners in secular criminal courts blaspheming in order to get into the Inquisition prison.  

Again, all of this is not to say that there were no wrongs done during the Inquisition, but rather to make sure the history of the Inquisition is accurate and is considered in its proper context.  Were people put to death for heresy in the Inquisition courts?  Yes.  But, in England at the time, you could be put to death for things such as damaging the shrubbery in a common garden.  In France you could be disemboweled for sheep stealing.  And, in all of those countries, and even in our country today, you could be put to death for treason which, as I’ve already mentioned, was what heresy was often viewed as.  

Also, it needs to be mentioned, that the Inquisition courts, in the Catholic countries where they operated, quite often prevented a number of “witches” from being burned at the stake.  There was no such restraint in the Protestant countries of the time.  

Finally, one needs to consider that over a period of 450 years, in medieval Europe, approximately 5000 people who were tried in Inquisition courts received the death penalty.  Over a period of 38 years, since the Roe v. Wade court case, in the modern day United States of America, approximately 50 million people, who were never given a trial, have received the death penalty.  Who should be judging whom?

About John Martignoni John Martignoni is the Director of Evangelization for the Diocese of Birmingham in Alabama and also the President of the Bible Christian Society. John's column, Apologetics 101, appears regularly in the diocesan newspaper, the One Voice.  If you have a question about the Catholic Faith, please send an email to: jmartignoni@bhmdiocese.org.  And check out John's free audio and written apologetics materials at: www.biblechristiansociety.com.

Why Latin? Part Two

BY JOHN MARTIGNONI

Question:
I have been attending a Catholic Church in the diocese in which the priest and congregation sing some of the parts in Latin.  I am curious as to why the Catholic Church is bringing this back and in some parishes even saying the mass entirely in Latin.  It appears that the Church is going back to traditionalism.  How does this (Latin) entice new people to the Catholic faith?  If I were looking for a Christian faith to join and visited a parish with Latin, I would take Catholicism off my list.  I, myself, have considered looking elsewhere for a new faith because of this.  Shouldn’t the church be looking forward and seeking out modern ways to entice newcomers?  To many outsiders, the Catholic Mass is already very dry and boring with all of its prayers through Mass, let alone adding in Latin.  Please advise and help me understand the Latin importance in this modern age.    

Part II (See Part I: Is the use of Latin in the Liturgy a Turnoff?)

Answer:

Having discussed last week why being upset over an increased use of Latin in the liturgy is not a good reason to look “elsewhere for a new faith,” I want to now turn my attention to the use of Latin in the liturgy.  There are two distinct, yet related, issues here: first, the use of Latin in the Novus Ordo (the new Mass), which is the Mass we are all familiar with; second, the more frequent use of the Latin Mass itself, also known as the Extraordinary Form of the Mass, and all of the recent commotion around it.

Okay, so why Latin?  Why are we seeing more parishes use Latin in parts of the Mass, the Agnus Dei (Lamb of God), for example?  Well, the biggest reason I can think of is: because the Church tells us to.  At the Second Vatican Council, the Church said, “The use of the Latin language...is to be preserved in the Latin rites,” (Sacrosanctum Concilium, #36).  Yet, contrary to the very clear words and intent of the Council Fathers, the Latin language was quite often abandoned wholesale in the years immediately following Vatican II.  

Commenting on that situation, Bishop Slattery of Tulsa had this to say,  “...it was not a wise decision to do away with Latin in the Mass.  How that happened, I don’t know; but the fathers of the Council never intended us to drop Latin. They wanted us to hold on to it and, at the same time, to make room for the vernacular...”

But, why does the Church tell us to hang on to Latin in the liturgy?  Well, one reason is because Latin is the official language of the Church.  All Church documents are promulgated first and foremost in Latin.  The papal encyclicals - first done in Latin.  The Catechism - first done in Latin.  All documents, liturgical or otherwise - first done in Latin.  Truth be told, it is a bit of a misnomer to call the old Mass the “Latin” Mass, because the Novus Ordo, the new Mass, was first promulgated in Latin.  Which is why we are soon to get a new Mass translation, because the current English translation was not as faithful to the Latin as it could have been.  So, both the old and the new Mass can rightly be called “Latin” masses.

Another reason the Church tells us to hang on to Latin in the liturgy, is because it connects us to the past, to our traditions.  For over a thousand years our forefathers in the faith worshipped in Latin.  To banish Latin to the outer darkness is like banishing grandpa to the outer darkness because he only speaks Italian, or Polish, or whatever. The Latin language is a part of our story, a part of who we are, a part of our heritage, as Catholics.  

I mentioned last week that I am not a “big fan” of the Latin language.  That does not mean, however, that I do not respect the language.  I simply prefer English to Latin.  That is the result of an American nativistic bias more than anything else, though.  I suppose if Latin were used in some prayers on a regular basis, not just once in a blue moon, and if our missalettes had the Latin version of some of the prayers, I could grow more accustomed to the language.  You know, as Christians, I think to harbor bias that is based more on a lack of familiarity with someone or something, rather than anything else, is not really becoming of us.  I think we should try to be more tolerant and open-minded with regard to such things.

Next week...The Resurrection of the Extraordinary Form of the Mass.

About John Martignoni John Martignoni is the Director of the Office of Evangelization for the Diocese of Birmingham in Alabama and also the President of the Bible Christian Society. John's column, Apologetics 101, appears regularly in the diocesan newspaper, the One Voice.  If you have a question about the Catholic Faith, please send an email to: jmartignoni@bhmdiocese.org.  And check out John's free audio and written apologetics materials at: www.biblechristiansociety.com.

Praying to the Saints - Can I do that?

BY JOHN MARTIGNONI

Question: What do I say to someone who criticizes the Catholic belief in praying to saints and who quotes 1 Timothy 2:5? It says that there is only one mediator (Christ Jesus) between God and the human race.

Answer: 1 Tim 2:5 reads as follows: “For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus...” “You see,” we Catholics are told, “there is only one mediator between God and men, Jesus Christ. Therefore, praying to the saints goes against the Bible because you are making them mediators between God and man, you are diminishing Jesus’ role as the sole mediator!”

How can we respond to this argument? Let’s look to the Bible and see. We see in Exodus 17, that Moses interceded on behalf of the Israelites in their battle with the Amalekites...that’s mediating between God and man. In Genesis, Abraham interceded on behalf of Sodom and Gomorrha (chapter 18).... that’s mediating between God and man. In the Book of Job, ch. 42, verses 7-10, we see that God is upset with Job’s friends and basically tells them He won’t accept their prayers. He says to them, “Let my servant Job pray for you, for his prayer I will accept.” It goes on to say, “And the Lord accepted the intercession of Job,”...that’s mediating between God and man. We know, from the New Testament, that it is okay to ask others here on earth to pray and intercede for us....that’s mediating between God and man.

So, I think, once again, we have a situation where a passage of the Bible is being misinterpreted and misunderstood. As Catholics, we agree that there is only one mediator between God and man, the man Jesus Christ. You can find that stated quite clearly in the Catechism. Only Jesus Christ is true God and true man. Not Mary, not any of the saints. We are saved only by the blood of Jesus Christ. Not by Mary’s blood, not by the blood of the saints.

Jesus Christ is the sole mediator between God and man. However, as members of the Body of Christ, on Earth or in Heaven, He allows us to share in His mediation - how else do we have the examples of intercession in the situations with Moses and Abraham and Job? And with our fellow Christians praying for us?

And in case you have any doubt, here are a couple of Scripture passages regarding the role of angels and saints as mediators. Matthew 18:10, “See that you do not despise one of these little ones; for I tell you that in Heaven their angels always behold the face of my Father who is in Heaven.” Jesus’ implication here is very apparent: don’t mess with these children, because their guardian angels, who always behold the face of the Father, will tell on you, and that won’t be a good thing. In other words, the angels are acting as mediators, as intercessors, between God and man.

In the Book of Revelation, Rev 5:8, it says, “And when He had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and with golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints...” The “saints” being the members of the church on earth. And, again, Rev 8:3-4, “And another angel came and stood at the altar with a golden censer; and he was given much incense to mingle with the prayers of all the saints upon the golden altar before the throne; and the smoke of the incense rose with the prayers of the saints from the hand of the angel before God.” So, who is holding the bowls filled with the prayers of the saints and presenting them before the throne of our Lord? The angels and the saints in Heaven. They are mediating between God and man.

Praying to the angels...to the saints...is not contrary to the Bible. It does not take away from the role of Jesus as mediator between God and man. The saints in Heaven are alive. They love us and pray for us just as they loved us and prayed for us while on earth, but even more so. They are members of the Body of Christ and, as such, they can and do - by the grace, authority, and power of Jesus Christ - share in His role as mediator between God and man.

About John Martignoni John Martignoni is the Director of the Office of Evangelization for the Diocese of Birmingham in Alabama and also the President of the Bible Christian Society. John's column, Apologetics 101, appears regularly in the diocesan newspaper, the One Voice.  If you have a question about the Catholic Faith, please send an email to: jmartignoni@bhmdiocese.org.  And check out John's free audio and written apologetics materials at: www.biblechristiansociety.com.

Multiplication of the Loaves - where's the miracle?

BY JOHN MARTIGNONI

Question: Not too long ago was the Gospel reading of the multiplication of the loaves and the fishes [Matthew 14:13-21]. We had a visiting priest that day, and in his homily, he said that the real “miracle” of the story was not some miraculous multiplication of the loaves and the fishes, but that Jesus was able to get the people who did have food, to share it with those who did not. Is that what really happened?

Answer: There is absolutely no reason to believe that anything other than a miraculous multiplication of the loaves and fishes is what really happened. According to the Church, “The miracles of the multiplication of the loaves, when the Lord says the blessing, breaks and distributes the loaves through His disciples to feed the multitude, prefigure the superabundance of this unique bread of His Eucharist,” (Catechism, #1335).

The Church calls the multiplication of the loaves and fishes a miracle. With all due respect, getting people to share with one another, is not a miracle, unless of course one has a very dim view of human nature. Furthermore, there is not one shred of evidence, either from the text itself, or from any early Christian writings, that even hints that what actually happened was Jesus got people to share, or that this story was in any way intended to convey a message of sharing. This story was so important, that it is one of the few that is mentioned in all four Gospels. It makes no sense that the Gospel writers put as much importance on Jesus getting people to share as they did on His Baptism, on the Eucharist, and on the Crucifixion. What has happened in the last several generations, beginning with some Lutheran theologians in Germany in the 19th century, is that the theological disciplines have been infected with a notion that there really is nothing miraculous in the Bible. The “miracles” of the Old Testament are just the explanations of a superstitious people for events they can’t explain and the “miracles” of the New Testament are simply stories told by the Matthean community or the Johannine community or such to help people better accept the message and teaching of Jesus, but they didn't really happen.

The seeds of this notion eventually were planted in the minds of a number of Catholic theologians as well, and this notion grew throughout the 20th century and came to full fruition in the 60's and 70's. That’s when we really start seeing Catholic theologians pushing ideas like the multiplication of the loaves and fishes was really Jesus getting people to share. Or, that Jesus didn't really walk on water, He was actually walking on a sand bar that apparently no one but He knew about. Or, that Jesus wasn't really resurrected, He was really buried in a shallow grave and His body was eaten by dogs, that’s why no one could find it. And, unfortunately, there was much more where that came from.

Such has been the unfortunate state of way too much of Catholic theology in the last 40 years or so, but the good news is that the tide is starting to turn and that notion of there being nothing of the miraculous in Scripture, which was planted back in the 19th century and saw its full flowering in the 70's, seems to be on its last legs.

About John Martignoni John Martignoni is the Director of the Office of Evangelization for the Diocese of Birmingham in Alabama and also the President of the Bible Christian Society. John's column, Apologetics 101, appears regularly in the diocesan newspaper, the One Voice.  If you have a question about the Catholic Faith, please send an email to: jmartignoni@bhmdiocese.org.  And check out John's free audio and written apologetics materials at: www.biblechristiansociety.com.

Are there rules for doing apologetics?

BY JOHN MARTIGNONI


Q: Are there any basic “rules” for doing apologetics?

A: 1 Ptr 3:15 says, “Always be prepared to make a defense...” Always be prepared Scripture tells us! How can we “always be prepared” to make a defense of our Faith?

Rule #1: Pray. Pray to the Holy Spirit that He give you the courage to share your Faith and the wisdom to choose your words carefully and profitably.

Rule #2: You don’t have to know everything right now. Learn a little bit more about your Faith each and every day. Read Scripture. Read the Catechism. Listen to apologetics tapes. Listen to Catholic Radio. Learn a little bit at a time.

Rule #3: Luke 5:10, “Do not be afraid, henceforth you will be catching men.” Jesus said this to Peter, and to us. Will you make mistakes and get into tight spots when you start sharing your Faith with others? Yes, you will, but Peter made mistakes and he got into tight spots. Yet, Jesus told Peter not to be afraid. Why? Because if we are sincere in our desire to share the truth with others...to share Jesus Christ with others...then Jesus will find a way to make good come from even our mistakes.

Rule #4: Always view a question about your Faith, or even an attack on your Faith, as an opportunity - an opportunity to share the truth.

Rule #5: Don’t get frustrated. Catholics often get frustrated by what I call the doctrinal dance...you get asked about Purgatory, Mary, the Pope, the Sacraments all in rapid fire succession. Before you can answer one question, you’re asked another, then another. Just keep bringing the discussion back to one topic until you’ve said all you want to say...then move on.

Rule #6: Most important! Never be afraid to say, “I don’t know,” when asked a question about your Faith. Don’t try to “wing it.” However, always follow, “I don’t know,” with, “But, I will find out and get back to you.” And make sure you do!

Rule #7 Ingrain this into your psyche - the Bible is a Catholic book! The Catholic Church gave it to the world. Which means that there is no teaching in the Bible that is contrary to anything in the Catholic Faith, and there is no teaching in the Catholic Faith that is contrary to anything in the Bible. This is important to remember because a lot of times folks will quote a passage from the Bible that supposedly “proves” the Catholic Church is wrong. Whenever someone quotes you a Bible verse that “proves” the Catholic Church is wrong on something, your response should be, “Amen, I believe what the Bible says! As a Catholic, I believe everything the Bible says! However, I don’t agree with your very fallible personal interpretation of that passage.”

And the reason you don’t agree with their personal interpretation is because 100% of the time you are presented with a verse that “proves” the Church wrong, that verse has either: a) been taken out of context, or b) simply does not say what they are trying to make it say - the words on the page do not match the words coming out of their mouth.

As Catholics, we need to reclaim the Bible - it’s our book. We need to read it, learn it, pray it, meditate on it, soak in it, and live it. “Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ,” St. Jerome said. And we need to be conversant in the Bible so that we can use it to plant seeds of truth with our separated brothers and sisters which will hopefully help dispel the myths and misconceptions they hold about the Church and build unity in the Body of Christ.

About John Martignoni John Martignoni is the Director of the Office of Evangelization for the Diocese of Birmingham in Alabama and also the President of the Bible Christian Society. John's column, Apologetics 101, appears regularly in the diocesan newspaper, the One Voice.  If you have a question about the Catholic Faith, please send an email to: jmartignoni@bhmdiocese.org.  And check out John's free audio and written apologetics materials at: www.biblechristiansociety.com.

What does the word "apologetics" mean?

BY JOHN MARTIGNONI

Q: What does the word “apologetics” mean?

A: The word “apologetics” is derived from an ancient Greek word, apologia, which means: an apology. Not an apology in the modern sense of the word, which is to say you’re sorry for something, but rather an apology in the ancient sense of the word, which is: to make a reasoned defense of something or someone. In ancient times, the word apology referred to the case a lawyer would make on behalf of his client.

So, apologetics, is about building the case for our Faith - learning how to explain and defend our Faith. Basically, there are three types of apologetics: natural apologetics, Christian apologetics, and Catholic apologetics. Natural apologetics builds the case for truths that we can know from the “natural” light of reason, truths that are able to be known without any divine intervention.

Truths such as the existence of God, the existence of the human soul, the objective reality of right and wrong - truths which the articles of our Faith rest upon and build upon. Christian apologetics, on the other hand, builds the case for divinely revealed truths - truths that cannot be known by reason apart from faith. Truths such as the reality of biblical miracles, the Incarnation, the divinity of Christ, and the Resurrection to name a few.

Catholic apologetics encompasses all of Christian apologetics - since Catholicism is the fullness of Christianity - but Catholic apologetics tends to focus on those truths of Christianity that are not generally believed by non-Catholic Christians. Truths such as: the Catholic Church being the one Church founded by Jesus Christ, apostolic succession, the sacraments, the papacy, Mary’s Assumption, and others.

Again, the three main types of apologetics are: natural apologetics, Christian apologetics, and Catholic apologetics. In these columns we focus mainly on Catholic apologetics - how to explain and defend the truths of our Catholic Faith.

About John Martignoni John Martignoni is the Director of the Office of Evangelization for the Diocese of Birmingham in Alabama and also the President of the Bible Christian Society. John's column, Apologetics 101, appears regularly in the diocesan newspaper, the One Voice.  If you have a question about the Catholic Faith, please send an email to: jmartignoni@bhmdiocese.org.  And check out John's free audio and written apologetics materials at: www.biblechristiansociety.com.

What Does the "Co" in Co-Redemptrix Mean?

BY JOHN MARTIGNONI

Q: “I was a little surprised that you decided to make a defense of the Co-Redemptrix Marian title this past week...For one, I think it isn’t theologically correct.  Secondly, even if it were, it’s not something the Church should promote.  

On the theological correctness issue, the prefix ‘co’ doesn’t necessarily mean subordinate as it is used in your example of a co-pilot.  A co-chair usually means two persons acting equally as chairmen of a board or organization.  Further, I also disagree that just because Mary cooperated with God to bear a son that it means she plays a unique role in our redemption.  Should Judas’ mother be titled as co-betrayer?  Or Hitler’s mother as co-mass murderer? Lastly, even if we use your preferred analogy of co-pilot, a co-pilot is fully capable of piloting the plane and landing it if the pilot is incapacitated or otherwise unavailable.  Is Mary fully capable of redeeming us if Jesus isn’t available?  If your answer is that she is somehow capable of redeeming us, then according to the Council of Trent, I’m afraid you might be anathema.  To put the co-pilot argument to bed, Mary requires and received Christ’s redemption, while the co-pilot does not require the pilot to fly the plane.

Besides the theological correctness or incorrectness, I also think we as Catholics need to take into consideration whether we should be developing theologies and teachings that don’t contribute to people’s better understanding of Christology.”

A: Okay, a few things to note here:

First, I was not defending the use of the title “Co-Redemptrix.”  I was merely explaining what it means so that the person who originally wrote in could make a reasonable response to his fallen-away brother on that issue.  I do not advocate for the use of the title, but neither do I oppose it.  However, the use of the title, as I explained it, is not outside the bounds of Church teaching, so it is indeed theologically correct in that regard.  And, if the Church should ever declare it to be dogmatically so, then I’m sure it will have sufficient reason and justification to do so and I would back the Church’s decision 100%, as I would hope all Catholics would.

Second, the prefix, “co,” does indeed mean “with,” and the title “Co-Redemptrix,” as used by those who advocate for that title, simply means that Mary cooperated with Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in a unique way to bring about the redemption of mankind.  Your disagreement on that point baffles me.  Did someone else bear the Christ child?  Can it be said of anyone else in human history that they are daughter of the Father, mother of the Son, and Spouse of the Spirit?  Was anyone else there at the moment of His birth, the beginning of His ministry, and the moment of His death?  Did someone else love Him and care for Him and nurture Him in His childhood?  It is a fact that she played a unique role in our redemption.

Also, your analogy about Mary and the mothers of Judas and Hitler misses the mark by a good bit.  God did not ask Judas’ mom nor Hitler’s mom if they wanted to bear a son who would be known as the “son of perdition” or an “evil monster,” respectively, and would be responsible for the death of God or the death of millions.  So, those mothers had no formal cooperation in what their sons did in that respect.  So, no, they cannot rightly be called “co-betrayer” or “co-mass murderer.”  Mary, however, was different.  God saw fit to ask her.  God asked for her cooperation in what He was about to do.  So, again, she did formally cooperate in the redemption of men in a way no one else ever will.

To be continued...

About John Martignoni John Martignoni is the Director of the Office of Evangelization for the Diocese of Birmingham in Alabama and also the President of the Bible Christian Society. John's column, Apologetics 101, appears regularly in the diocesan newspaper, the One Voice.  If you have a question about the Catholic Faith, please send an email to: jmartignoni@bhmdiocese.org.  And check out John's free audio and written apologetics materials at: www.biblechristiansociety.com.

Same Sex Marriage?

BY JOHN MARTIGNONI

Q: If two people are in love, and want to devote their entire lives to each other in the bonds of marriage, what does it matter if they are of the same sex, as long as they are faithful to one another?

A: Let me answer this question in two ways.  First, by looking at the question from a purely natural viewpoint...the viewpoint of nature.  One can, through simple observation and basic common sense, come to the undeniable conclusion that nature has designed a certain complementarity between male and female.  Simply put, nature has designed men and women to have physical relations with one another.  Nature did not design men to have physical relations with men nor women to have physical relations with women.  So, from a completely natural viewpoint, homosexual relations are inherently unnatural.  Which means same sex “marriage,” is inherently unnatural.

Second, we can look at this question from the viewpoint of nature’s God.  If homosexual relations are inherently unnatural from the viewpoint of nature, then they must be inherently unnatural from the viewpoint of nature’s God.  St. Paul tells us this is indeed so in Romans 1:26-28, “For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions.  Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error.”

Here in Romans, the Word of God tells us that homosexual relations are “unnatural.”  And, we see in a few other places in Scripture, strong condemnation of homosexual relations (e.g., Lev 18:22; 1 Cor 6:9; 1 Tim 1:10), not to mention the whole story of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrha in Genesis 19.  So, Scripture tells us that same sex marriage is not only unnatural, but it is ungodly.

The Church, continuing thousands of years of Judeo-Christian teaching, tells us that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered,” (CCC #2357).  If homosexual relations are inherently unnatural, ungodly, and intrinsically disordered, then to put a stamp of approval on such relations by allowing homosexual “marriage,” is not an act of love, or compassion, rather it is an act that is bereft of love and is actually hurtful to the individuals involved as well as society as a whole.  It is hurtful to all involved because you would be putting the stamp of approval on a lie...there is not now, nor will there ever be, any such thing as same sex “marriage,” regardless of what laws men may pass to say otherwise.  

God established marriage as the union of one man and one woman.  To put the stamp of approval on something that God has, through nature and through His Word, told us in unnatural, is gravely disordered and can do nothing but lead to misery.  

Now, please note, that everything the Church teaches, everything that Scripture speaks of in this regard, is focused on homosexual activity, it is not focused on homosexual inclinations.  To have a homosexual inclination is not, in and of itself, a sin.  To act on that inclination is a sin.  Someone who has homosexual inclinations has a disordered sexuality, but that does not mean they are inherently more wicked or more sinful than anyone else.  They are like the rest of us - all of us who have obstacles that we need to overcome in our daily struggle to discern God’s will for our lives and to follow that will.

The Church says that, “Homosexual persons are called to chastity.  By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom...by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection,” (CCC #2359).  

(John Martignoni is the Director of the Office of the New Evangelization and Stewardship.  To ask a question, send an email to John at: jmartignoni@bhmdiocese.org.  To receive John’s free apologetics materials on CD or mp3 download, go to: www.biblechristiansociety.com.)

About John Martignoni John Martignoni is the Director of the Office of Evangelization for the Diocese of Birmingham in Alabama and also the President of the Bible Christian Society. John's column, Apologetics 101, appears regularly in the diocesan newspaper, the One Voice.  If you have a question about the Catholic Faith, please send an email to: jmartignoni@bhmdiocese.org.  And check out John's free audio and written apologetics materials at: www.biblechristiansociety.com.