What makes heterosexual relationships natural? What if natural is interpreted as what each person is naturally inclined too? What makes incest or bestiality wrong? What gives heterosexual relationships this special status? Is it possible to answer these questions without appealing to God or the Bible?
From a purely physiological standpoint, the human male and female sex organs are complementary and designed to function with each other, not with some other part of the human anatomy. They are not designed for use with other species and are genetically incompatible with them.
Incest is naturally problematic because it can result in abnormalities in offspring when the bloodlines are too close.
Heterosexual relationships alone express a complete continuity between the human body and its sexual expression. Attempts at sexual intercourse outside of the heterosexual model can be at best only an accommodation.
Incidentally, I never thought that I would have to defend heterosexuality as being natural. Never did I think that our culture would be so off balance.
— Fr. Vincent Serpa
My friend says apologetics isn’t important and we should just have the faith of a child like Jesus asked us to have. What should I say to her?
Jesus indeed calls us to have childlike faith, or a complete and total trust in God, but St. Paul warns us against having a childish faith: “Do not be children in your thinking; be babes in evil, but in thinking be mature” (1 Cor. 14:20). Rather than being a hindrance to faith, critical thinking in apologetics can be one of the best ways for someone to have a deep and profound faith in God.
It’s important to remember that the world presents many challenges to our faith, and Jesus, while wanting us to trust in him as a child trusts in his parents, wants us to face these challenges like an adult. He says, “Behold I send you out as sheep among wolves, so be as wise as serpents and as gentle as doves” (Matt. 10:16).
— Trent Horn
I once heard a Protestant say that since Jesus sits at the right hand of the Father, he wouldn’t come down in the form of bread and wine. He said no human being has the authority to call God down from heaven. How can I respond to this claim?
If you were to ask your Protestant friend whether or not he believed that Jesus is God, I’m sure he would say yes. Furthermore, if you were to ask him whether or not he believed that God is omnipotent—t hat is, almighty, all powerful, for whom nothing is impossible—I am pretty confident he would also answer in the affirmative. It stands to reason, therefore, that if Jesus is God, and if God is omnipotent, Jesus’ glorified body could remain in heaven and at the same time be present substantially in the eucharistic species at Catholic Masses throughout the world.
As far as his claim that no human being has the authority to call God down from heaven, this is not true. In the case of the Blessed Sacrament, it was Jesus himself who instituted the sacrifice of the Holy Mass in the upper room and commanded that this should be done in memory of his Passion (cf. Luke 22:19-20).
The apostle Paul likewise testifies to this command when he writes: “For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, ‘This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.’ In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.’ For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes” (1 Cor. 11:23-26).
Furthermore, the principle or primary offerer of Mass is the high priest Jesus Christ. The ordained priest is the minister who offers the same “once for all” sacrifice in the name of Jesus Christ to the eternal Father, invoking him to send forth the Holy Spirit to confect the sacrament. In this way, a human being—namely, a validly ordained priest—is given the authority to call God down from heaven. This does not violate God’s sovereignty or omnipotence, as your friend’s statement seems to suggest, but rather fulfills his perfect will.
— Hector Molina
During a recent class at my parish, the instructor said a Catholic can be pro-choice because there is no mention of abortion in the Nicene Creed. He said that while abortion is a horrible act, the hope is that someday the Church will be open to pro-choice considerations. We’ll be continuing the discussion next week, how do you suggest I respond?
I’d begin by pointing out what the Catholic Church has always taught that direct abortion is an intrinsically evil act that may never be performed for any reason.
The Church will never soften her position on the issue of abortion. Evangelium Vitae states that the Church’s teaching on abortion “is unchanged and unchangeable. Therefore, by the authority which Christ conferred upon Peter and his successors . . . I [John Paul II] declare that direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, always constitutes a grave moral disorder, since it is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being” (Evangelium Vitae 62).
The National Conference of Catholic Bishops Resolution on Abortion (1989) also makes it crystal clear that a Catholic cannot be both “pro-choice” and pro-life: “No Catholic can responsibly take a ‘pro-choice’ stand when the ‘choice’ in question involves the taking of innocent human life.”
The idea that one can be Catholic and pro-choice because there is no mention of this in the Nicene Creed is absurd. Not everything we believe as Catholics is outlined in the Nicene Creed. The Creed was formulated at the Councils of Nicaea (A.D. 325) and Constantinople (A.D. 381) in response to several heresies, the most prominent being Arianism, which denied the divinity of Christ.
When a Catholic professes the Nicene Creed at Mass and says, “I believe in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church,” he is proclaiming belief in all the doctrines of faith and morals as taught by the Catholic Church (e.g., the intrinsic evil of abortion). Catholics are not free to pick and choose what teachings on faith and morals to obey.
“A person must believe with divine and Catholic faith all those things contained in the word of God, written or handed on, that is, in the one deposit of faith entrusted to the Church, and at the same time proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn magisterium of the Church or by its ordinary and universal magisterium which is manifested by the common adherence of the Christian faithful under the leadership of the sacred magisterium; therefore all are bound to avoid any doctrines whatsoever contrary to them” (Code of Canon Law, can. 750 §1).
— Peggy Frye
How many sons does God have? Some Bible passages refer to angels and men as “sons of God” (Gen 6:2, Job 1:6, John 1:12) but John 3:18 says Jesus is God’s only begotten son.
A person can be a father in the sense of brining someone into existence and being their provider and caretaker. This is the sense that God is the “father” of angels and men (Romans 8:15 says humans are children of God by adoption). However, a person can also be a father by bringing forth offspring who share the same essence he possesses. Only Jesus shares the same divine nature as the Father and is therefore the eternally begotten Son of God. In this respect, Jesus is “God’s only son.”
— Trent Horn
My 35-year-old son called to inform us that he is marrying another man. My husband says he is going to attend the wedding because this is his son. I say I cannot because it would be a mockery of marriage. Is it wrong to attend a homosexual wedding that neither of us believes in?
If your husband does not “believe in” homosexual marriage, why is he attending this “wedding”? If his answer is that it is because “This is my son,” then does he also intend to collaborate in other sins your son chooses to commit, rather than challenge him to repent and repair his life?
That said, you cannot force your husband not to attend this event. All you can do is to make clear your own position and stand by your decision not to attend. I urge you both not to allow your son’s choices and actions to destroy the peace in your own marriage. Respect each other’s right to make his or her own choice, and seek to avoid any kind of unjust coercion—as distinguished from respectful persuasion—intended as a means of manipulating the other person’s conscience.
— Michelle Arnold
How is women not being allowed to be ordained priests any different from blacks not being allowed to eat at a lunch counter? It’s a social injustice that women are being excommunicated for being ordained, while the child-abusive priests are only defrocked. Not one has been excommunicated.
The blacks you mention had a civil right to be served at the counter. No one has a right to the sacramental priesthood. It is God who does the calling, not us. And it is pure gift; no one deserves it.
When St. Faustina was speaking to her confessor, who was also her spiritual director, he asked her if she was seeing Jesus at that moment, and she acknowledged that she was. He asked her to ask Jesus three questions. She did so but Jesus just smiled at her and said nothing. She relayed this to the priest, who became downcast.
Jesus then told her to give the priest some words of comfort. She relayed this, and he felt better. But the gift of seeing and speaking with Jesus was a gift that Jesus determined to give to her—not to the priest. God and God alone determines such things.
The purpose of excommunications is to publicly amplify the seriousness of the sinful act or acts for which the excommunication was made. (I think most people recognize the evil of child abuse.) But it is also to urge the person to repentance. When this is accomplished, the excommunication is lifted. It’s difficult to determine which priests have repented and which have not. They are not likely to call a press conference after they have gone to confession.
— Fr. Vincent Serpa
Is it wrong for a victim of rape to take the morning-after pill?
Only if there is a good chance that the victim has ovulated and such an act could prevent a newly conceived child from implanting in the womb. Just as the victim of rape deserves compassion and justice, the victim created through rape—the child—deserves the same justice and must not be directly killed. However, if ovulation has not occurred, then the use of emergency contraceptives that truly act in a contraceptive way is justified, because the intention is not to sterilize an act of mutual self-giving but to prevent a further effect of the rapist’s attack.
A directive from the U.S. bishops states, “A female who has been raped should be able to defend herself against a potential conception from the sexual assault. If, after appropriate testing, there is no evidence that conception has occurred already, she may be treated with medications that would prevent ovulation, sperm capacitation, or fertilization” (Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services, 36).
— Trent Horn
What is the history of the “devil’s advocate”? Has the role been done away with?
The term devil’s advocate (Latin, advocatus diaboli) is a popular title given to the person responsible for critically examining the life and miracles attributed to an individual proposed for beatification or canonization. The name arose from the fact that he is required to raise objections to and argue against a person’s alleged sanctity or reputation for having worked miracles. He is more properly known as the promoter of faith (Latin: promotor fidei).
According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, the first mention of such an officer is found in the canonization of St. Lawrence Justinian under Pope Leo X (1513-21). Pope Sixtus V formally established the office in 1587. Over time the process has been modified and improved with the introduction of new norms, the most recent being those promulgated by Pope John Paul II in his 1983 apostolic constitution Divinus Perfectionis Magister, which introduced a series of reforms aimed at simplifying the canonization process.
There are those who suggest that these new reforms did away the role of the devil’s advocate altogether. This would be an exaggeration. There is still one promoter of the faith assigned to every cause for canonization. What Pope John Paul II did was to reduce his power and alter his role in the process. The candidate for sainthood is still subject to a rigorous examination by officials and experts.
— Hector Molina
I recently heard a talk on generational healing, and the speaker said that the Church teaches that evil spirits often bind people through their ancestral lines. Is this true?
There is no Church teaching to support this belief. Quote by Fr. Peter Joseph (excerpted from Healing the Family Tree: New Age Under the Guise of Religion,” part one):
There is a book by an Italian theologian, Fr. Renzo Lavatori, on the demonology of the Fathers of the Church. In that thorough book, and in other learned tomes on the teachings of the Fathers, you will not find a single Father of the Church who taught anything about evil spirits following your ancestral line, or healing your family tree by identifying the ancestor who is holding you bound.
I would go further and say that no Father, no Doctor of the Church, no saint, no pope, or no council ever taught or even implied any such thing. It is a pure fiction without foundation in Sacred Scripture or Sacred Tradition. There is not a word on the subject in the 688 pages of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It is a mythical notion imported from sects outside the Church.
(Source: http://www.ad2000.com.au/articles/2003/feb2003p12_1239.html)
— Peggy Frye
I read in class that the Gospels are technically anonymous. Is this true?
It’s true that the names of the Gospel authors were added to the manuscripts later in accordance with Church tradition. For example, the second-century Church Father Papias wrote, “Mark, being the recorder of Peter, wrote accurately but not in order whatever he [Peter] remembered of the things either said or done by the Lord. . . . Matthew composed the logia [sayings] in Hebrew style; but each recorded them as he was able.”
Keep in mind that many documents of the ancient world that modern critics consider to be trustworthy are also technically anonymous. For example, the works of the ancient Roman historian Tacitus do not bear his name, but very few historians have ever questioned that Tacitus wrote the Annals. We know Tacitus is the author of that work simply because other ancient writers, such as the Church Father Tertullian, identify him as the author.
St. Augustine dealt with this argument against the Gospels in the fourth century. He convincingly argued that as the authorship of pagan works is confirmed by a long succession of testimony, the authorship of the New Testament could be confirmed in the same way (Contra Faustum, book XXXIII).
— Trent Horn
I don’t know how to forgive myself, so I can forgive others?
We can’t forgive ourselves. Only those who have been injured can forgive us—namely, God and neighbor. We must ask forgiveness of those persons we have hurt by our sin. With God, venial sin can be forgiven in a devout reception of the Eucharist (although sacramental confession is recommended by the Church), and mortal sin must be forgiven in sacramental confession.
Once forgiven by others by the means through which we are to seek forgiveness for the sin committed, our obligation is then to accept the gift of that forgiveness. To deliberately choose to refuse to seek forgiveness, or to reject forgiveness granted by God and neighbor, is to give in to a form of despair.
— Michelle Arnold
I refer to this recent question: “During a parish reconciliation service, the priest advised all present to limit their confession to no more than two mortal sins. He then advised the same penance for all and dismissed us to go to one of the ‘confessionals.’ Is it within a parish priest’s competence to limit full confession and still have a valid reconciliation?” The answer given by Fr. Serpa was that the priest has no authority to do this. That leaves unanswered the question of whether the penitents who confessed in good faith as instructed, and omitted one or mortal sins, are obliged to re-confess.
Even though the confessor does not have the authority to limit the number of sins confessed, this does not, in itself, invalidate the absolution. When we do not deliberately withhold mortal sins, either because we don’t remember them or because the priest has limited the number of sins one confesses, all our mortal and venial sins are absolved. Even though they have been absolved, we do have an obligation to mention such unconfessed sins at our next confession as an expression of sorrow and repentance. We simply tell the priest that such sins have been absolved but not confessed, and we are now confessing them as an act of repentance.
— Fr. Vincent Serpa
Should we use genealogies? There are many in the Bible (Matthew 1, Luke 3) but 1 Timothy 1:4 and Titus 3:9 say to avoid arguments about “endless genealogies.”
1 Timothy 1:4 and Titus 3:9 are probably condemning a Jewish practice of speculating endlessly on genealogies in order to derive a special social status based on one’s ancestors. Paul does not condemn the valid use of genealogies in order to understand one’s heritage or even one’s messianic status. For example, he cites Jesus as a “son of David according to the flesh” (Rom. 1:3).
— Trent Horn
An anti-Catholic coworker of mine showed me a picture of the pope sitting in a chair that had an engraving of an upside-down cross. He said this cross is a satanic symbol. I did not know how to respond.
The upside-down cross is an ancient symbol of St. Peter’s crucifixion. Tradition tells us that when Peter was martyred, he insisted he be crucified upside down, as he did not believe himself worthy to be crucified in the manner as his Lord Jesus. As a result, the Church has used the upside-down cross (without a corpus, so not a crucifix) to designate Peter, not Christ. The Pope, being the successor of Peter, employs the symbol of the upside-down cross as a symbol and reminder of St. Peter’s humility and heroic martyrdom. Unlike an upside down crucifix, which seeks to invert its meaning, there is nothing satanic about an upside-down cross.
— Hector Molina
Last Sunday, the priest announced that “gluten free” hosts were available for those who were gluten intolerant.
It sounds like the priest probably misspoke. He probably meant to say low-gluten hosts were available for those who are gluten intolerant. Gluten-free hosts are invalid matter for the celebration of the Eucharist. Low-gluten hosts are valid matter.
The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (July 24, 2003) in a circular letter to all presidents of the episcopal conferences said the following on the use of low-gluten altar breads:
1. Hosts that are completely gluten-free are invalid matter for the celebration of the Eucharist.
2. Low-gluten hosts (partially gluten-free) are valid matter, provided they contain a sufficient amount of gluten to obtain the confection of bread without the addition of foreign materials and without the use of procedures that would alter the nature of bread.
— Peggy Frye
Did the Catholic Church really oppose Columbus’ voyage to the New World because it thought he would sail off the edge of a flat Earth?
No. The idea that Columbus faced opposition to his voyage to the New World from clergy who denied the Earth is round comes from a fictional scene in Washington Irving’s A History of the Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus (1828), one of the first examples of American historical fiction.
In reality, the major conflict between Columbus and those who criticized his plan to sail to the New World concerned the length of the trip, not the shape of the Earth. Columbus grossly underestimated the circumference of the Earth but was fortunate to find the New World where he thought he would find Eastern Asia.
Science historians David Lindberg and Ronald Numbers conclude, “[T]here was scarcely a Christian scholar of the Middle Ages who did not acknowledge [the Earth’s] sphericity and even know its approximate circumference” (“Beyond War and Peace: A Reappraisal of the Encounter between Christianity and Science,” Church History 55 no. 3, 338–354).
— Trent Horn
I attended Mass on Saturday at 2 p.m. for my confirmation and I didn’t go on Sunday. I believed that Saturday’s Mass counted, but I had my doubts on Sunday. Then I found out for sure that it doesn’t count, but it was too late to go that day. What should I do?
I don’t know who told you that a Saturday afternoon Mass does not count for the Sunday obligation, but that person is incorrect. There is no fixed time on Saturday afternoon after which a Mass “counts” for Sunday. The only thing we can say for certain is that a Saturday morning Mass does not fulfill the Sunday obligation.
That said, if you had doubts as to whether you had fulfilled the obligation, you should have either satisfied your doubts as soon as you had them or gone to Mass to make certain of fulfilling the obligation while there was still time to do so. Letting it go until you were no longer able to fulfill the obligation could be a sin of omission. While not a mortal sin (because you did not deliberately intend to not fulfill the Sunday obligation), this is worth mentioning at your next confession.
— Michelle Arnold
A friend of mine uses the “ensoulment” argument to defend early abortion. She said St. Thomas Aquinas taught an unborn baby doesn’t receive a soul until forty days after conception and that the Church still teaches this. Does the Church say anything about when a person receives a soul?
While St. Thomas did subscribe to the Aristotelian 40/80-day “ensoulment” hypothesis that a spiritual soul was present 40 or 80 days after conception (40 days for boys and 80 days for girls), he never wavered in his belief that abortion was always gravely wrong.
Concerning the Church’s teaching on the issue of ensoulment, Pope St. John Paul’s encyclical Evangelium Vitae states:
Even if the presence of a spiritual soul cannot be ascertained by empirical data, the results themselves of scientific research on the human embryo provide a valuable indication for discerning by the use of reason a personal presence at the moment of the first appearance of a human life: How could a human individual not be a human person? (EV 60).
What is at stake is so important that, from the standpoint of moral obligation, the mere probability that a human person is involved would suffice to justify an absolutely clear prohibition of any intervention aimed at killing a human embryo. Precisely for this reason, over and above all scientific debates and those philosophical affirmations to which the magisterium has not expressly committed itself, the Church has always taught and continues to teach that the result of human procreation, from the first moment of its existence, must be guaranteed that unconditional respect that is morally due to the human being in his or her totality and unity as body and spirit:
The human being is to be respected and treated as a person from the moment of conception; and therefore from that same moment his rights as a person must be recognized, among which in the first place is the inviolable right of every innocent human being to life. (EV 60)
— Peggy Frye
Is it proper to say, “Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with you, blessed are you among women and blessed is the fruit of your womb, Jesus”? I feel it is not following the dictates of Liturgian Authenticam, since it asks us not to change the original wording. Am I correct?
The words thee, thou, and thy are antiquated English forms for you and your. While English-speaking individuals are free to use the antiquated forms if they choose, updating to a more modern English usage for the same words is not forbidden. Church cautions against changing the words to some other words that do not mean the same thing. It does not forbid using a modern form of a word that means the same as the original.
For example, a true change in the Hail Mary, a change that alters approved wording offered by the Church and therefore to be avoided—especially in public recitations of the rosary—might read something like this: “Hi, graced Mary! You and the Lord are together, and you’re so blessed! And so is your child, Jesus!”
— Michelle Arnold
Why can’t we seek out a priest at any time we feel desperate to confess and ask forgiveness? Why do we have to wait for Saturday only, and then at a particular time only? If a person should die before then, would God forgive him if he repented in his heart?
Look at it from the priest’s point of view: Without some parameters guiding the process, he would constantly be receiving calls from people feeling “desperate to confess and ask forgiveness.” He would likely burn out quickly and be of no use in the confessional to anyone.
That said, practically every parish allows Catholics to call and make an appointment for confession outside of the scheduled confession times. If the person is gravely ill or in immediate danger of death, a priest will visit him any time, day or night, for the last rites (which includes confession).
Finally, yes, a person who is impeded from confession through no fault of his own but dies repentant can be forgiven.
— Michelle Arnold