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.

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.

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.

John Martignoni: Response to letter to editor of Birmingham News re. HHS mandate (part 3)

This week continues with my commentary on a Letter to the Editor that was in the Birmingham News a few weeks ago regarding the HHS Contraception Mandate.  The letter can be found in its entirety at:
http://blog.al.com/birmingham-news-commentary/2012/02/our_views_disagreeing_with_bis.html

Read: part one | part two

Letter:  “The current position of the bishops appears to be an attempt to claim the power to impose their moral judgments not only on the many non-Catholics who serve or are served by institutions affiliated with the Catholic Church, but on us faithful Catholics as well. We reject the implication that our disagreement with the bishops disqualifies us as faithful Catholics. We are the church, even more so than are the bishops, and we will not abandon, nor be driven from, the beloved community that is the home of our spiritual lives.”

Response: So far we have shown that the arguments of the letter writers with regard to the teachings of Vatican II, the moral standing of individuals vis-à-vis the Bishops in regard to who speaks for the Church, and the understanding of the formation and workings of conscience are fundamentally flawed and without merit.  This week we will show, once again by using the documents of Vatican II, that their understanding of the Church’s hierarchy, and of the Church itself, is equally so.

According to Vatican II, “Episcopal consecration confers, together with the office of sanctifying, also the office of teaching and ruling…In fact…by the imposition of hands and through the words of the consecration, the grace of the Holy Spirit is given…in such wise that bishops, in an eminent and visible manner, take the place of Christ Himself, teacher, shepherd, and priest, and act as His representative,” (Lumen Gentium, #21).

So the statement, “We are the church, even moreso than the bishops,” is one that does not, in fact cannot, come from the pen of anyone who has actually read the documents of Vatican II.  The Bishops, not the laity, are the successors of the Apostles.  So says Vatican II.  The Bishops, not the laity, have been given the authority of Jesus Christ, by virtue of their ordination, to uphold and defend the truth taught by the Church.  So says Vatican II.  

Since my return to the Church some 22 years ago, I have encountered a phenomenon on too many occasions to count, that absolutely boggles my mind each and every time I run across it.  Not too long after returning to the Church, I started encountering - in Bible studies, small group studies, in “Catholic” periodicals, and in one-on-one conversations - this idea that Vatican II had somehow changed the teachings of the Church.  I was told at various times that Vatican II had changed the Church’s teaching on the priesthood, on marriage, on contraception, on Confession, on the Eucharist, on sin, on the liturgy, on this, and on that.  

But, a funny thing happened.  After hearing all about the things that this Vatican II Council had changed, I decided to actually read the documents of Vatican II.  Imagine my surprise when I found out that this Vatican II thing, while it had indeed changed some Church disciplines and practices, never changed a single doctrine or dogma of the Church.  Not one!  

So, for the last 22 years, I’ve heard or read literally hundreds of people who claim Vatican II teaches things that it actually never taught. This particular letter being yet one more example of this phenomenon - what I find to be a profoundly sad phenomenon.  So, if you ever hear someone say something about Vatican II changing this or that teaching of the Church, I can guarantee you that you will not get a specific citation to back up the claim.  You won’t get it, because it doesn’t exist.  There is nothing in any document from Vatican II that changes Church doctrine or dogma...nothing.  

I find it a bit ironic, that the Bishops’ response to the government’s attempt to impose its will on the Church, is being characterized as an attempt by the Bishops to “impose their moral judgments” on others. That is completely backwards - the government is doing the imposing here, not the Bishops.  The Bishops are doing what they have been called by Christ to do, and people are reacting accordingly.

As St. Augustine said, “People hate the truth for the sake of whatever it is they love more than the truth. They love truth when it shines warmly on them, and hate it when it rebukes them.”  And what the Bishops of the Catholic Church do, is teach the truth.  They do not attempt to “impose their moral judgments” on anyone.  They teach the truth, and people quite often do not want to hear that truth.  They teach the truth that they have been entrusted by our Lord Jesus Christ to teach, as shepherds of the flock that our Lord Jesus Christ entrusted them to lead. 

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: Response to letter to editor of Birmingham News re. HHS mandate (part 2)

There was a “Letter to the Editor” in a recent edition of the Birmingham News written by three Catholic couples that used the issue of the Health and Human Services contraception mandate to basically say that one can dissent from Church teaching and yet still be a “faithful” Catholic.  I would like to take the next few weeks to answer several of the points made in that letter.  Each week I will quote a section from the letter and then give my response.  If you would like to read the letter in its entirety, you can do so by going to this website: http://blog.al.com/birmingham-news-commentary/2012/02/our_views_disagreeing_with_bis.html

Letter: “Non-Catholics should understand that the Catholic bishops' recent dispute with the federal government is less about birth control than it is about internal church disagreements over who speaks for the Catholic Church in dialogue with government on matters of faith and morals. Many of us practicing Catholics adhere to the teaching of the 1965 Vatican II Council that, while the bishops have teaching authority, so their views are entitled to great respect, they do not have exclusive authority to speak to the government for the church in matters of faith and morals. Rather, each member of the church has a duty to form beliefs, to make judgments about faith and morals by following her or his conscience in light of Gospel values and reasoned consideration of both present circumstances and Catholic tradition, and to speak to their lawfully elected government as Catholics.”

Response: There is a line from one of my favorite poems, An Essay on Criticism, by Alexander Pope, that came to mind when I read the paragraph above: “A little learning is a dangerous thing, drink deep or taste not the Pierian spring.”  It seems our letter writers did not drink deep enough in regard to the documents of Vatican II, because the claim that there is something in the documents of Vatican II that somehow gives each individual an authority equal to that of the bishops when speaking to the government (or anyone else for that matter) on matters of faith and morals is simply without merit.  

In the Vatican II document, Gaudium et Spes (Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World), paragraph #77 speaks to the relationship between the “political community” and the Church.  Here is some of what it has to say: “It is of supreme importance…to work out a proper vision of the relationship between the political community and the Church, and to distinguish clearly between the activities of Christians, acting individually or collectively in their own name as citizens guided by the dictates of a Christian conscience, and their activity acting along with their pastors in the name of the Church.”

Christians may indeed speak to their government individually or collectively, but the words and actions of these individual Christians acting on their own, are not to be confused with the words and actions of those Christians acting “along with their pastors in the name of the Church.”  In other words, individual Christians, acting on their own, have absolutely no authority to speak for the Church to the political community on matters of faith and morals.  They do not speak “in the name of the Church” as do the pastors (i.e., bishops) of the Church.  So, contrary to what was written in that letter, there are no “internal church disagreements over who speaks for the Catholic Church in dialogue with government on matters of faith and morals.”  It is the pastors who speak for the Church.  Every Catholic who understands and is faithful to the teachings of Vatican II would agree on this.

Furthermore, paragraph #77 states: “But at all times and in all places the Church should have true freedom to preach the faith, to proclaim its teaching about society, to carry out its task among men without hindrance, and to pass moral judgments even in matters relating to politics, whenever the fundamental rights of man or the salvation of souls requires it.”  

Vatican II speaks of the right of the Church to “pass moral judgments even in matters relating to politics.”  Note that nowhere does this paragraph, nor any part of this document, nor any Vatican II document, speak of the individual as having the same level of authority as the pastors of the Church “to pass moral judgments” in matters relating to politics.  In fact, as mentioned above, Vatican II makes it quite clear that while the individual does indeed have certain rights and freedoms with respect to activities vis-à-vis government, it is, nevertheless, of “supreme importance” to distinguish these activities from those of the Church.  Vatican II simply does not support the premise of the letter writers.

Now, I do not wish to ignore the role of the individual and their conscience, as each individual does indeed have it within their capacity to form moral judgments in accord with their conscience and to act on those moral judgments.  I will speak to that next week.

Next: The role of conscience…

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: Response to letter to editor of Birmingham News re. HHS mandate (part 1)

There was a “Letter to the Editor” in a recent edition of the Birmingham News written by three Catholic couples that used the issue of the Health and Human Services contraception mandate to basically say that one can dissent from Church teaching and yet still be a “faithful” Catholic.  I would like to take the next few weeks to answer several of the points made in that letter.  Each week I will quote a section from the letter and then give my response.  If you would like to read the letter in its entirety, you can do so by going to this website: http://blog.al.com/birmingham-news-commentary/2012/02/our_views_disagreeing_with_bis.html

Letter: “Non-Catholics should understand that the Catholic bishops' recent dispute with the federal government is less about birth control than it is about internal church disagreements over who speaks for the Catholic Church in dialogue with government on matters of faith and morals. Many of us practicing Catholics adhere to the teaching of the 1965 Vatican II Council that, while the bishops have teaching authority, so their views are entitled to great respect, they do not have exclusive authority to speak to the government for the church in matters of faith and morals. Rather, each member of the church has a duty to form beliefs, to make judgments about faith and morals by following her or his conscience in light of Gospel values and reasoned consideration of both present circumstances and Catholic tradition, and to speak to their lawfully elected government as Catholics.”

Response: There is a line from one of my favorite poems, An Essay on Criticism, by Alexander Pope, that came to mind when I read the paragraph above: “A little learning is a dangerous thing, drink deep or taste not the Pierian spring.”  It seems our letter writers did not drink deep enough in regard to the documents of Vatican II, because the claim that there is something in the documents of Vatican II that somehow gives each individual an authority equal to that of the bishops when speaking to the government (or anyone else for that matter) on matters of faith and morals is simply without merit.  

In the Vatican II document, Gaudium et Spes (Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World), paragraph #77 speaks to the relationship between the “political community” and the Church.  Here is some of what it has to say: “It is of supreme importance…to work out a proper vision of the relationship between the political community and the Church, and to distinguish clearly between the activities of Christians, acting individually or collectively in their own name as citizens guided by the dictates of a Christian conscience, and their activity acting along with their pastors in the name of the Church.”

Christians may indeed speak to their government individually or collectively, but the words and actions of these individual Christians acting on their own, are not to be confused with the words and actions of those Christians acting “along with their pastors in the name of the Church.”  In other words, individual Christians, acting on their own, have absolutely no authority to speak for the Church to the political community on matters of faith and morals.  They do not speak “in the name of the Church” as do the pastors (i.e., bishops) of the Church.  So, contrary to what was written in that letter, there are no “internal church disagreements over who speaks for the Catholic Church in dialogue with government on matters of faith and morals.”  It is the pastors who speak for the Church.  Every Catholic who understands and is faithful to the teachings of Vatican II would agree on this.

Furthermore, paragraph #77 states: “But at all times and in all places the Church should have true freedom to preach the faith, to proclaim its teaching about society, to carry out its task among men without hindrance, and to pass moral judgments even in matters relating to politics, whenever the fundamental rights of man or the salvation of souls requires it.”  

Vatican II speaks of the right of the Church to “pass moral judgments even in matters relating to politics.”  Note that nowhere does this paragraph, nor any part of this document, nor any Vatican II document, speak of the individual as having the same level of authority as the pastors of the Church “to pass moral judgments” in matters relating to politics.  In fact, as mentioned above, Vatican II makes it quite clear that while the individual does indeed have certain rights and freedoms with respect to activities vis-à-vis government, it is, nevertheless, of “supreme importance” to distinguish these activities from those of the Church.  Vatican II simply does not support the premise of the letter writers.

Now, I do not wish to ignore the role of the individual and their conscience, as each individual does indeed have it within their capacity to form moral judgments in accord with their conscience and to act on those moral judgments.  I will speak to that next week.

Next: The role of conscience…

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.

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.