Pat Arensberg: Introduction to God the Father

“Original sin is, above all, an attempt to abolish the fatherhood of God.”  -paraphrase of John Paul II in Crossing the Threshold of Hope

Ok, I know that the above phrase demands an explanation.  Unfortunately, it is an explanation I don’t have the space to offer in this blog.  Suffice it to say, that Adam and Eve were not tempted by a piece of fruit.  Fundamentally, they rejected that God was their loving father and believed the serpent who said God was trying to keep them down.  Want more about that?  Call my office to schedule a talk on the Theology of the Body of John Paul.

Now, we all know that God the Creator does not have a body.  But, when asked by his disciples for the best way to pray Jesus taught them and us to call the Creator, “Our Father.”  So, while he is certainly not male Jesus told us to relate to the Creator as our daddy.  We will discuss that concept in much more detail this week.  For now, let me offer a couple of simple thoughts.  

There are two ways for a toddler to ascend the stairs in their home.  One is to struggle one stair at time.  I have watched my own children do this.  The other way is for them to stop crawling, look to their daddy and put their arms in the air (asking with their actions to be carried).  My children have done this to me too.  As a human father, with all of my weakness and imperfection, I can’t resist it.  I pick them up and carry them close to my breast to the summit of the stairs.  Our heavenly daddy wants us to do the same.

Second, and now I address the fathers in particular, bring your “A” game!  Your children are learning from you what their heavenly Father is like.  You better be as loving and unselfish as possible with His children that are on loan to you.  He will ask you at the end of your life, “How well have you loved my children?”

About Pat Arensberg Patrick Arensberg is the Director of Religious Education for the Archdiocese of Mobile. Previously, he taught for 17 years at McGill-Toolen Catholic High School, where he served as Chairman of the Theology Department. He attended the Gregorian University in Rome and holds an M.A. in Theology from Notre Dame Seminary in New Orleans. He is married to Connie and they live in Mobile with their 5 children.

John Martignoni: Why don't Catholics have altar calls?

Q:     I’m a Born-Again Christian and I’ve been wondering why doesn't the Catholic Church do the altar call to have people accept the Lord Jesus as their Lord and Savior since it says that you must make this declaration to be Born Again?  I see my sister and her husband going to church Sunday after Sunday with no clue to this...and know that they will not go to Heaven unless they receive the Lord with the prayer and that they must repent from their sin. I have had my sister become saved but haven't been able to approach my brother in law as of yet.  Isn't this absence doing a dis-service to the people?   

A:    The Catholic Church does indeed, in a sense, make an altar call at every Mass. When people approach the altar to receive Communion, they are indeed accepting Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior, as they accept His body and blood into their bodies. Jesus says in John 6, verses 51 and following, that unless you eat His flesh and drink His blood, you have no life in you. If you eat His flesh and drink His blood, you will have eternal life He says, and He will raise you up at the last day.  He repeats Himself on this matter like He does nowhere else in Scripture. Catholics take Jesus' words literally...we believe what He says. That is why we believe we receive Him - His actual body and blood - during Communion (or the Lord's Supper as you might call it).
   
My question to you, however, is where does it say that someone must make a declaration in which they "accept the Lord Jesus as their Lord and Savior" in order to be Born Again? Nowhere does the Bible say that. In fact, the Bible says that one is born again by being baptized. John 3:3-5 says that unless one is born of water and the Spirit (baptism) one cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven, and it is through water and the Spirit that one is born again. All Catholics, by virtue of their baptism, are Born Again Christians. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that one shouldn't make a declaration of Jesus being their Lord and Savior, but the Bible does not say that one is "born again" by making a verbal declaration of acceptance of Jesus as their personal Lord and Savior. And, I assume you want to go by what the Bible says don't you?  
   
And, yes, people must repent of their sin to go to Heaven. Does your sister or her husband ever go to Confession? Have you asked them? Confession, or Reconciliation (being reconciled to God), is one of the 7 Sacraments of the Catholic Church. So, yes, it is necessary for your sister and her husband to confess and repent of their sins in order to be saved. But, it is also necessary for them to forgive others (Matthew 6); to do the Father's will (Matthew 7); to keep the Commandments (Matthew 19); to feed the hungry and clothe the naked (Matthew 25); to love others (1 John); to care for their family (1 Tim 5); to strive for holiness (Hebrews 12:14); to do good works (Romans 2); to eat the flesh and drink the blood of the Son of Man (John 6); to be baptized (John 3 and 1 Peter 1:20-21), and so on.
   
It is also vitally important to have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ for us as Catholics, but saying one little prayer does not necessarily establish such a relationship with Jesus. That's why we have the Sacraments, and all the other things that we have in the Catholic Faith - it's all about bringing us closer to Christ. It's all about preparing our bodies and souls so that Jesus can be formed within us (Galatians 4:19). And, there is no more personal relationship that one can have with Christ than to receive Him in the Eucharist (Communion). It is even more intimate and more personal than anything that occurs between husband and wife in a marriage.
   
So, there is no absence in the Catholic Church in regards to bringing people to Christ. Everything in the Church is about bringing people to Christ. Again, when your sister and brother-in-law receive Communion, they are accepting Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior, even if they have never said some sort of sinner's prayer.
   
Now, it is indeed possible that they are going to church every Sunday and not living lives that are pleasing to Christ.  In other words, they could be on the path to Hell, but that is not the Church's fault. Again, everything in the Church is designed to foster one's relationship with Christ and His Body, the Church. If one ignores what the Catholic Faith offers, it is their fault, not the Church's.
   
Finally, I would simply ask you to look into the Catholic Faith a little more deeply than you apparently have. You are making assumptions about the Catholic Church that are based on a lack of knowledge about the Church. There are a lot of misunderstandings out there about the Catholic Faith. I always tell people that if you want to disagree with what I believe - fine, you are certainly free to do so. But, please disagree with what I really believe, and not with some misperception, half truth, or even outright lie about the Catholic Church that someone has told you. All of us, as Christians, have a duty and responsibility to accurately represent differing faith traditions - even if, or maybe especially if, we disagree them.   

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.

Allen Hunt: Lesson from a No-Tell Motel

I think I just stayed in a No-tell Motel. I've been travelling this week, mostly in Chicago, and I am not very familiar with this area. So I booked an economical room online at a "hotel" that got good reviews.

When I arrived, they said I could not check in before 5:00 p.m. If I wanted to do so, it would be $15 per hour. Same hourly rate if I wanted to stay any later than 11:00 a.m. on check-out day too.

Upon entering the room, I noticed two things I usually do not see on business travel. Mirrors for three of the four walls. And an ocean-sized whirpool right in the middle of the room where usually there would be furniture. Also, the only refreshment offered at the "hotel" was wine by the bottle. Hourly rates, whirlpools for furniture, mega-mirrors, and wine by the bottle? Strange?

I made it safely through the evening (amen). But I learned yet again, that when you do not know where you're going, you can land yourself in some uncomfortable places. It's true geographically and it's true spiritually. Always best to have a destination in mind.

About Allen Hunt Allen Hunt is a former Senior Pastor of an evangelical mega-church. He became Catholic in 2008 and now partners with Matthew Kelly to serve as the Vice-President for Strategy and Content at the Dynamic Catholic Institute. Allen is a speaker, writer, and radio host on News Talk WSB in Atlanta. He is the author of Confessions of a Mega-Church Pastor: How I Discovered the Hidden Treasures of the Catholic Church.

John Martignoni: The Parable of the Talents (pt.3)

• Read part 1
• Read part 2

Q: I recently heard a new interpretation of the Parable of the Talents (Matthew 25:14-30) that basically says the master in the parable is greedy and cruel and is not representative of God.  According to this view, the master is part of an unjust economic system that preys on the poor and that the servants who received the 5 talents and the 2 talents and multiplied them were participating in this unjust system, but the one who buried the talent given to him and did nothing with it was the hero of the story for refusing to participate in such an unjust system.  In all honesty, I was shocked when I heard this.  Have you ever heard that version of the parable?  

A: (cont’d from last week…) Last week we were talking about how this new “twist” on the Parable of the Talents violated the rules of good Scriptural exegesis by not interpreting this passage within “the living Tradition of the whole Church,” (Catechism, #113).  And we looked at how this Scripture passage is used liturgically, and how it is used in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, in order to determine how it has traditionally been viewed by the Church.  In this week’s article, I want to look at how the Church Fathers have traditionally viewed this passage.

The author of the article from America Magazine, from which this new twist was drawn (to read the article: http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/tales/67114973/unmasking-greed), made the following points: 1) “Jesus did not live in a capitalist system in which it is thought that wealth can be increased by investment;” 2) “One who amassed large amounts for himself would be seen as greedy and wicked;” and 3) “The parable is not an exhortation for people to use their God-given talents to the full…it was not likely the way Jesus’ first hearers understood the parable, since ‘talenton’ [the Greek word used in the parable] does not have this metaphorical connotation in Greek.”  

The response to point #1: While Jesus may not have lived in a “capitalist system,” if it was not thought that people could increase wealth through investment, then why does Jesus have the two industrious servants increase wealth through investment?  The author even contradicts herself in the article by noting that, in the version of this parable in Luke (Luke 19:12-28), the master “instructs his slaves to invest the money.”  

The response to point #2: Simply not true.  In Jesus’ day, those with wealth were looked upon as being blessed by God.  That’s why, when Jesus tells His disciples that it is harder for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven than for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, they ask, in astonishment: “Who then can be saved?” (Matt 19:23-25).   If the rich were generally seen as “greedy and wicked,” why the astonishment at Jesus’ words?   

The response to point #3: Was the idea of the “talents,” or “talenton,” as representing people’s “God-given talents” unknown to the ancient audience?  Is that interpretation an invention of more modern audiences?  The testimony of the Church Fathers would run contrary to that claim.  St. John Chrysostom (4th century), “This parable is delivered against those who will not assist their neighbors with money, or words, or in any other way, but hide all that they have.”  St. Jerome (4th century), “In the five, two, and one talent, we recognize the diversity of gifts wherewith we have been entrusted.”  Origen (early 3rd century), “They to whom five talents were given, and they to whom two, and they to whom one, have diverse degrees of capacity, and one could not hold the measure of another.”

So, we see that the “talenton” were recognized, very early on in the Church, as being the talents, the abilities, the worldly goods, the totality of the gifts, given to us by God.  It seems that the assumptions that underlie the interpretation of the Parable of the Talents as being about an evil master and an unjust economic system are simply without merit.  

More from the Church Fathers on the Parable of the Talents: St. John Chrysostom, “Observe that not only he who robs others, or who works evil, is punished with extreme punishment, but he also who does not good works.”  The servant who buried his talent is not seen as the hero of the parable here.  St. Gregory of Nyssa (4th century), “Let him then who has understanding look that he hold not his peace; let him who has affluence not be dead to mercy; let him who has the art of guiding life communicate its use with his neighbor; and him who has the faculty of eloquence intercede with the rich for the poor.”  All of these things – understanding, affluence, the art of good counsel, and the faculty of eloquence – were all viewed as talents, talents that should be used on behalf of God to help one’s neighbor, but which were instead buried by the wicked and slothful servant.  

The Parable of the Talents, when you consider the context within which it is written, the culture within which it was written, how the Church views this passage, and how it was viewed early on by the Church Fathers, is about Christ giving each of us a particular set of abilities and gifts, and we had better use them on His behalf in His absence or, when He returns, we will have a lot to answer for.

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.

John Martignoni: The Parable of the Talents (pt.2)

• Read part 1 here

Q: I recently heard a new interpretation of the Parable of the Talents (Matthew 25:14-30) that basically says the master in the parable is greedy and cruel and is not representative of God.  According to this view, the master is part of an unjust economic system that preys on the poor and that the servants who received the 5 talents and the 2 talents and multiplied them were participating in this unjust system, but the one who buried the talent given to him and did nothing with it was the hero of the story for refusing to participate in such an unjust system.  In all honesty, I was shocked when I heard this.  Have you ever heard that version of the parable?  

A: (cont’d from last week…) As I mentioned in last week’s article, there are a number of principles of scriptural exegesis that the author of this “twist” on the Parable of the Talents apparently did not take into consideration when coming up with this particular interpretation.  First and foremost, as mentioned last week, is reading a passage in context.  Matthew 25 starts with a parable about the return of Christ and the reward of the righteous at the eternal wedding banquet in Heaven, and it ends with a description of the return of Christ and the rewarding of the righteous with Heaven.  So, the story that is sandwiched in between those two, which speaks of the “return” of the Master and the rewarding of the “good and faithful” servants by them entering into the “joy of [their] master,” is supposed to be – according to this new interpretation – about the return of an evil and unjust master and how an individual can help undermine an unjust economic system?  That interpretation simply does not fit the context – it isn’t even close.  That is bad scriptural exegesis.  That is inserting one’s own political and economic philosophy into the words of Scripture, and making Scripture say what we want it to say, rather than searching for the meaning God intended it to reveal (Catechism, #109).  

Another principle of scriptural exegesis that was violated here, is that we are supposed to read and interpret Scripture according to the heart of the Church, or within “the living Tradition of the whole Church” (Catechism, #113).  In other words, we need to pay attention to how the Church has traditionally seen this parable.  So, how do we know the heart of the Church in regard to a particular Scripture passage?  Well, there are a few ways.  First, how does the Church use this reading liturgically?  When this Gospel passage was read back in November (33rd Sunday in Ordinary Time), the first reading was from Proverbs, and it was about giving a worthy wife praise and reward for her good works.  There is generally a common thread running through the readings on any given Sunday, particularly between the Old Testament reading and the Gospel.  So, if in the Old Testament reading we find someone being rewarded for their good works, we would expect to find a similar theme in the Gospel reading.  

Also, that particular week, the 2nd reading was about the return of Christ on the “Day of the Lord.”  So, if the first reading speaks of rewarding someone for their good works, and the second reading speaks of the “Day of the Lord,” we would expect to find similar themes in the Gospel reading.  Which we do, if that reading is interpreted as being about Christ as the Master who returns after a long absence to reward those servants that He finds doing His work while He’s been away.  But, if we interpret the Parable of the Talents as being about the return of a wicked and greedy master and two equally greedy servants and an unjust economic system and the hero is the servant who did nothing with what his master had given him, then it is completely out of sync with the other readings.  There simply was nothing in either of those other readings about unjust economic systems and the return of a wicked and greedy master.  

Another way we can fairly easily determine the heart of the Church in regard to a particular passage of Scripture, is to see if that passage is referenced in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.  There is a 32-page scriptural index in the back of the Catechism that gives us every paragraph of the Catechism that cites a scriptural passage.  This index basically cross references Scripture with the Catechism and it helps the reader of Scripture to better understand and appreciate how Church teaching and Scripture go hand-in-hand with one another.  It is a wonderful tool for anyone who wishes to read and study Scripture and I highly recommend always having your Catechism around when reading Scripture.  

And how does the Catechism view the Parable of the Talents?  Well, we see in paragraphs #546, 1029, 1720, 1936, and 2683 that the Church sees the Parable of the Talents as being about Christ giving His servants different gifts before He goes off on a journey, the return of Christ, the servants being rewarded in accord with what they did with the gifts they had been given, and those servants who made a return on what they were given being rewarded with eternity in Heaven – the “joy of their Master.”  Nothing about the master being evil and greedy, or an unjust economic system, or any other such novelties.  

There is one more way that we can discern the heart of the Church when it comes to Scripture, and that is by looking at the writings of the Church Fathers.

Next week: What do the Church Fathers say…

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.

John Martignoni: The Parable of the Talents (pt.1)

Q: I recently heard a new interpretation of the Parable of the Talents (Matthew 25:14-30) that basically says the master in the parable is greedy and cruel and is not representative of God.  According to this view, the master is part of an unjust economic system that preys on the poor and that the servants who received the 5 talents and the 2 talents and multiplied them were participating in this unjust system, but the one who buried the talent given to him and did nothing with it was the hero of the story for refusing to participate in such an unjust system.  In all honesty, I was shocked when I heard this.  Have you ever heard that version of the parable?  

A: I have indeed heard that version, or interpretation, of the parable, but the first time I heard it was only a few months ago.  That parable was the gospel reading one Sunday this past November, and the day after it was read at Mass, I received several calls and emails from different parts of the country with people saying their priest had given a homily that Sunday that was basically that same version of the parable – the master was greedy and wicked, unjust economic system, the two servants were rewarded for being greedy like their master, and the third servant was the one who acted heroically in protest of the unjust economic conditions and was unjustly punished by the wicked master.

It didn’t require a great deal of thought to realize that if several different priests, from different parts of the country, all gave basically the same homily, on the same day, and all of those homilies had this new “twist” on the Parable of the Talents, then there must be some common source material that they all drew from.  So, I went online and pretty quickly identified the source – the November 7, 2011 edition of America magazine.  

There was an article in that edition of America magazine, written by a Professor of New Testament studies at Catholic Theological Union, that was entitled, “Unmasking Greed.” (Read  the article at: http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/tales/67114973/unmasking-greed.) This article was on the Parable of the Talents and put forth the following notions regarding that parable: 1) the parable offers an “image of how an individual can take measures to undermine a system that allows the rich to become richer while the poor become poorer;” 2) the master in the parable is greedy, cruel, and self-aggrandizing; 3) the third servant is the “honorable one – only he has refused to cooperate in the system by which his master continues to accrue huge amounts of money while others go wanting;” 4) what happened to the third servant is a sobering reminder of “what can happen to those who blow the whistle on the rich and powerful.”  

The author of the article may well be an outstanding Professor of New Testament studies, and is undoubtedly a very intelligent person, but in this particular circumstance, she completely missed the boat.  There are certain principles of scriptural interpretation that one must always keep in mind when interpreting, or exegeting, Sacred Scripture, in order to come up with a valid and sensible interpretation of any given passage, and the author of this article seems to have completely ignored most of these principles.

For example, one principle that you have to keep in mind when interpreting Scripture - or any type of literature, for that matter - is to be mindful of the context.  What is the context of this passage from Matthew 25?  Well, first we see that Matthew 25 starts with the phrase, “Then the Kingdom of Heaven shall be compared to…”  So, we should expect to find in this chapter information regarding the Kingdom of Heaven.  And, the first parable of the chapter does not disappoint.  It is the Parable of the Ten Bridesmaids.  Five of the bridesmaids carry extra oil with them, five do not.  When the bridegroom is late in coming, the five who didn’t bring extra oil have to go buy more and they end up being locked out of the wedding feast. In this parable, the bridegroom is Jesus and the bridegroom’s coming is pointing to the return of Christ at the end of time where the faithful will join Him for the eternal wedding feast of the Lamb in Heaven.  It signifies the prudence of those Christians who live with a view to the return of the Bridegroom.  

The last portion of Matthew 25 is a description of the Last Judgment.  And it starts off with, “When the Son of Man comes in His glory…”  In other words, it, too, is all about the return of Christ and, as we see, the eternal reward of the Kingdom of Heaven for those who have rightly conducted themselves.  Just like the opening parable of the chapter.

So, Matthew 25 begins with a parable about the Kingdom of Heaven and the return of Christ, and it ends with a description of the Kingdom of Heaven and the return of Christ, yet the author of “Unmasking Greed” wants us to believe that sandwiched in between those two is a parable that has nothing to do with the Kingdom of Heaven and that the master who goes away and then returns is not representative of Christ, but rather it is a parable about how an individual can undermine an unjust economic system?  Sorry, but that dog don’t hunt.  

Next week: More on the Parable of the Talents…

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.

Archbishop Thomas Rodi: It is not a coincidence that the first of the ten Bill of Rights was religious liberty.

Most Reverend Thomas Rodi, Archbishop of Mobile 

What a difference a year makes. At last year’s Chrism Mass, we were discussing the change from responding “And also with you” to “And with your spirit.” Such a discussion appears somewhat paltry when compared to the challenge to religious liberty now facing our Church and our country.

Religious liberty has been consistently respected in our country’s history. From the beginning of our nation, we have been a people of various faiths, religions, and beliefs. Mindful of this, we Americans have said to one another that I will not force you to act against what you believe and you will not force me to act against what I believe.

When the Constitution was written, ten amendments were quickly added to the document. These first ten amendments are the Bill of Rights. The Constitution established our government and the manner in which it was to operate. The Bill of Rights established the fundamental rights which this new government must respect. It is not a coincidence that the first of the ten rights enshrined in the Constitution was religious liberty. The writers of the Bill of Rights knew that any government which would seek to coerce its citizens to violate their religious consciences would not long maintain its other liberties. They knew this because of the experience in the European countries from which Americans had come. In several European countries a person could be arrested and even put to death for their religious beliefs. It is important to remember that many of the first European colonists left their homelands seeking religious liberty. The writers of the Bill of Rights knew that history well and wanted the United States to be a place where no one’s religious liberty would be violated.

This has been a core value in our nation’s history. For example, even at the most traumatic moments of our history when we have been at total war and have drafted every young man to fight, if a young man’s religion did not allow military service because of religious beliefs, that young man would be exempt from the military service that was required of every other young man. It is a testimony to our American respect for religious liberty that, when everyone’s son, brother, or father had to fight, we still exempted those who would not fight because of their religious beliefs.

But today is a troubling moment in our nation’s history. The recent mandate by the Department of Health and Human Services is a direct challenge to religious liberty. The mandate forces almost every employer to provide contraception, sterilization, and abortifacient drugs for employees. There is no exception provided in this new regulation for employers who are morally opposed to these drugs and medical procedures whether they be individuals or Church ministries. There is only the narrow exception for a church ministry which is primarily for the preaching of the faith and which primarily hires and serves only the members of its church.

The administration’s new mandate seeks to separate the members of churches from their church ministries. Listen attentively when someone is speaking about this issue. Be very careful when a person says that we have “freedom of worship” in our country. These are often “code words” used to assault religious liberty. The Constitution grants far more than the freedom to worship in churches, synagogues, mosques, and temples. The Constitution grants a far broader right, namely, the right to religious liberty. The difference is this: Americans not only have the right to gather to worship, we have the right to leave our places of worship and to publically live our faith.

That is what makes this new regulation so insidious. It tells us as believers that our ministries of schools, colleges, hospitals, nursing homes, fraternal organizations, media ministries, social service centers and other charities are separate from the Churches and their members.

We as followers of Jesus Christ believe that we must serve others. It is the Lord Himself who told us that the love of God and the love of neighbor are inseparable and integral to being His followers. We are compelled by the Love of Christ, not only to worship God, but then to live our faith by offering our Church ministries. The ministries of the Church cannot be separated from worship but flow from our desire, founded upon our faith, to fulfill the two great commandments of Christ. This is the crux of this issue.

The President’s Administration seeks to coerce me to speak against what I believe. This mandate forces me to say to our Church employees that I am offering drugs and medical procedures which we believe to be morally objectionable, but that I still will offer them to you. And then this mandate forces me to act against my faith by paying for these very things which are morally objectionable. The only way in which this can be avoided would be to ignore our Christian duty to reach out to all of God’s children and close our Church ministries, our hospitals, college, schools, charities, etc, to anyone who is not Catholic, or to keep our ministries open and pay for drugs which are immoral and abort human life.

We did not ask for this controversy and this controversy was not necessary. The Administration has forced it upon us. But this is the situation which now confronts us. The history of our Church is replete with times when the clergy, religious, and laity had to confront threats to their faith. In speaking to all of us, and especially to you, my brother priests who recommit ourselves today to priestly ministry, I am certain that we will be, with God’s help, as courageous as believers in other generations.

For the sake of our nation, for the sake of our Church, and for the sake of our immortal souls, we cannot fail to demand the religious liberty which is rightfully ours. The Declaration of Independence proclaimed that we are endowed by our Creator with unalienable rights. The right to religious liberty was not given to us by any government and no government has the right to deprive us of it.

May God be our wisdom and our strength.

John Martignoni: Mary, Cornelius & the Holy Spirit

Question:
Since Cornelius received the Holy Spirit before he was water baptized (Acts 10), Cornelius was already saved before he was water baptized. Therefore water baptism is not essential for salvation as Catholics believe.  Also only God is to be prayed to.  Mary is not to be prayed to.

Answer:
To address your issues, in reverse order: 1) Regarding prayer to Mary, you seem to have less than a full understanding of what Catholics mean when we say we "pray” to Mary.  We use the word “pray” here in the same sense the English do - as a request or a petition.  We do not pray to Mary as if she is somehow divine and can answer our prayers in and of her own power.  We ask Mary to pray for us, to Her Son, to God.  We ask her to bring our petitions before the  throne of her Son.

That what I’ve written is truly the way Catholics believe, and not just something I’m making up to gloss over what many believe to be “Mary worship,” can clearly be seen in the “Hail Mary,” which is the prayer you probably had in mind when writing your objection.  The Hail Mary begins, “Hail, Mary, full of grace…” (which is straight from Scripture, by the way) and then it ends with the line: “…pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death.”  Clearly, in that prayer, we are asking Mary to “pray for us.”  But, pray for us to whom?  

If we believed Mary to be a god in her own right, then she doesn’t need to pray to anyone for us.  She can answer our prayers by herself.  Yet, we ask her to pray for us.  This clearly indicates that we do not believe she is divine, as we are asking her to pray for us – to God.  If we believed Mary to be God, or to be a god, we would not ask her to pray to God for us.  

Now, before you say, "That isn't biblical," I will say that it is.  Does not Paul say that we are to pray for one another?  If I were to ask you to pray for me, would you do so?  If you said, "Yes, I will pray for you," does that mean that I have just prayed to you by asking you to pray for me?  Of course not.  But, that's exactly what we do in regard to Mary, we ask her to pray for us, just like I would ask you to pray for me.  Just as it is okay for us to ask members of the Body of Christ on earth to pray for us, it is okay for us to ask members of the Body of Christ in Heaven to pray for us.

2) Regarding Cornelius and the Holy Spirit.  Cornelius did indeed receive the Holy Spirit before he was baptized.  God can do whatever He wants.  God is not bound by the Sacraments, we, however, are.  The Bible says that Baptism saves us (1 Peter 3:20-21).  It cannot be any clearer than that.  The Bible also says that Baptism washes away sin (Acts 22:16) and that through Baptism one receives the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38) and that through Baptism one becomes a member of the Body of Christ (1 Cor 12:13).  Surely you do not deny that the Bible says all of these things, do you?  

Cornelius was an exception that God made to show the Jewish Christians that the Gentiles were to be included in His plan of salvation.  That's why He gave the Holy Spirit to Cornelius, to make this point to the Apostles.  But, what was the first thing that Peter ordered be done when he saw that Cornelius and the others had received the Holy Spirit?  He had them baptized.  Why? Because that's the way God set up the process of salvation.  One must be born of water and the Spirit in order to enter the Kingdom of Heaven, as it says, very clearly, in John, chapter 3, verses 3-5.  In other words, the Bible tells us that one must be baptized in order to enter the Kingdom of Heaven.  

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.

David O'Brien: When is the Time to Love the Most?

Some years ago I wrote about how the movies saved my Dad (www.mobilearchdiocese.org/catholicweek). With a mother who was paranoid schizophrenic and a father who committed suicide when my father was 3-years old, my Dad’s childhood offered little sunshine. If he ended up an alcoholic, depressed or abusive, no one could blame him.

Instead though, he is a shockingly good man, filled with optimism, joy and hope. Over the years, my sisters and I realized that the virtues and goodness my father found in the great movies of his formative years were the primary source of his moral and spiritual education.

One of his favorite movies was "A Raisin in the Sun". The story chronicles a down and out black family trapped in a Chicago ghetto and ironically begins with a bit of good fortune. The father of the family has died and left them a small insurance death benefi t which will allow them to move into a modest home in the suburbs.

The money is split between the mother, the daughter in her early 20’s, Beneatha, and her married older brother, Walter. The three live together in the slum apartment along with Walter’s wife and son.

Desperate to prove himself as a man and do something with his life, Walter partners with a friend who has a scheme to triple their money. Walter convinces his mother and sister to give him their shares of the insurance but predictably, the friend skips town and leaves the family high and dry.

Beneatha turns on Walter with rage and contempt, saying "that is not a man. That is a toothless rat." Her mother responds, "I thought I taught you to love him."

Beneatha: "Love him? There is nothing left to love."

Mama: "There is always something left to love. And if you ain’t learned that, you ain’t learned nothing. Have you cried for that boy today? I don’t mean for yourself or for the family ‘cause we lost the money. I mean for him: what he been through and what it done to him. Child, when do you think is the time to love somebody the most? When they done good and made things easy for everybody? Well then, you ain’t through learning-because that ain’t the time at all. It’s when he’s at his lowest and can’t believe hisself ‘cause the world done whipped him so!"

My youngest sister ran ripshod over my parents when she was a teenager. To say she was a tough adolescent would grossly understate the reality. She was a hellion. At 15-years old, two years before she received her license, she would simply take the car and go wherever she wanted, disregarding my parents.

In her first year at the University of Massachusetts, she brought home a 1.4 GPA. But, she had a proposition for my parents. She wanted to take a modeling class in Manhattan on Saturdays. Her plan was to commute by bus every weekend, doing her homework coming and going. The class cost $3,000.

My mother, offended by the nerve of this disrespectful and ungrateful child, lit into her. "How dare you? After the way you have treated us these past few years, you have no right to expect anything like this. We are already bending over backwards to send you to college where you are wasting your time and our money, failing with a 1.4. You have some nerve young lady! You haven’t shown us anything...."

Just then, my Dad grabbed my Mom and took her into the other room. He asked her: "Honey, when do you think is the time to love somebody the most? When they done something good? This is the moment. She needs us now, right now."

After regaining their composure, my parents returned to my sister and agreed to help her pursue modeling in New York City on the weekends.

My sister modeled for two years. She never earned less than a 3.8 GPA the rest of her college career. She is now a successful estate lawyer in Boston, happily married with two sons.

My father was right. That was the moment. And he quoted a movie. It was all he knew. It was how God had formed him.

We are entering Holy Week, a time saturated with the deepest truths of God’s devotion to us. The message is as simple as it is impossible to believe. We are loved at our worst, cherished even in our deepest sinfulness. Forgiven when we haven’t even realized how broken we are.

Can we open our hearts this week to this unfathomable love? Can we soak it in and bring some of it to those around us, especially those most in need of some undeserved mercy and goodness? Wouldn’t that make for a good movie and a great Easter?

About David O’Brien David O’Brien is the Associate Director of Religious Education for Lay Ministry for the Archdiocese of Mobile. His column, Everyday Faith, appears regularly in the archdiocesan newspaper, the Catholic Week. Email David at dobrien@mobilearchdiocese.org.

Pat Arensberg: Is Church teaching in the Bible?

Does the Catholic Church maintain beliefs and practices that are not in the Bible?

Well, let us recall from the beginning of this course that the Bible is not the sole rule of faith, nor is it the sole means of Divine Revelation.  As Catholics we believe that God reveals himself through Scripture and Tradition of the Church (see January 30th’s blog).  So, yes it is certainly possible that there are practices that are not in the Bible.  But, the same is true in every Church.  I mean, there were no electronic microphones mentioned in the Bible yet all Churches use them.

However, there is no practice in the Catholic Church that can contradict Scripture.  Truth cannot contradict truth.  God cannot reveal himself one way in Scripture and reveal something else through the Church.  As we have seen over the last few days, it is certainly possible that a practice or teaching of the Church seems to contradict Scripture.  I can tell you though, I have investigated so many of those and in each case it becomes clear that the Scripture is being misinterpreted or twisted, or the translation causes misunderstanding.

In fact, what I have found is that the Catholic Church seems to be the most Biblical Church around.  Read the Acts of the Apostles and Paul’s letters and you find a group of people celebrating the Lord’s Supper.  You find them laying hands and ordaining new clergy, anointing the sick and baptizing entire households.  You find priests and bishops in positions of authority.  If you look at some of the things Jesus said you find that the Catholic Church seems to be one of the only ones to remember them.  For example, he tells people that when he is taken away his followers will fast (see Mark 2).  How many Churches require fasting on Good Friday?  Jesus tells his followers that anyone who divorces his wife and marries another is committing adultery; a very unpopular teaching to be sure (see Matthew 19).  How many Churches hold to this unpopular teaching?  You get the point.

About Pat Arensberg Patrick Arensberg is the Director of Religious Education for the Archdiocese of Mobile. Previously, he taught for 17 years at McGill-Toolen Catholic High School, where he served as Chairman of the Theology Department. He attended the Gregorian University in Rome and holds an M.A. in Theology from Notre Dame Seminary in New Orleans. He is married to Connie and they live in Mobile with their 5 children.

Pat Arensberg: Must Scripture be taken literally?

“Since on the seventh day God was finished with the work he had been doing, he rested on the seventh day from all the work he had undertaken.”  -Genesis 2:2

People often ask, “Do I have to believe everything that is in the Bible?”  Well, sometimes before we can answer a question we have to clarify some things.  During the trial of Galileo a prominent Cardinal and theologian offered his opinion about the possibility that the earth moved and that the sun stood still.  Specifically, he was discussing how to interpret Scriptural passages that seem to contradict this.  St. Robert Bellarmine wrote, "then one would have to proceed with great care in explaining the Scriptures that appear contrary; and say rather that we do not understand them, than that what is demonstrated is false."

This remains a very good Catholic answer today.  Bellarmine is saying that Scripture must be accepted and valued, but that it is possible that we humans can in fact misunderstand the message that the Holy Spirit intended to communicate.  We discussed this a bit yesterday.  History is replete with examples of people not letting the Holy Spirit continue to work in the life of the Church.  Look, the Holy Spirit is the ultimate Author and therefore we must continue to rely on the Church which is vivified by that same Holy Spirit for authentic interpretation.  

Remember that we read Scripture on two levels, the literal and the spiritual.  We don’t have to take every detail as literal truth, but the words that God chooses to communicate with his people are significant.  Also, recall that some books are meant to be taken as literal or historical documents while other books are not.  The Gospels for example are documents that really do communicate what Jesus said and did while he walked on earth.

About Pat Arensberg Patrick Arensberg is the Director of Religious Education for the Archdiocese of Mobile. Previously, he taught for 17 years at McGill-Toolen Catholic High School, where he served as Chairman of the Theology Department. He attended the Gregorian University in Rome and holds an M.A. in Theology from Notre Dame Seminary in New Orleans. He is married to Connie and they live in Mobile with their 5 children.