Not Reasons Not to be Catholic

I just read a post entitled “Why I’m Not Catholic: My Reasons for Not Joining the Catholic Church” by Zac Wassin. I respectfully disagree with his reasons.

He has five main points. (1) RCIA shouldn’t exist because it’s too long. (2) the Church’s stances on gay marriage and abortion are not correct (3) filioque is not correct (4) organized religion bothers him, and (5) the Church and ecclesial communities are not united.

(1) The idea that there is to be a waiting period before being received into the Church began before the Bible was canonized in the 300’s. From the very early oral tradition of the Church, within the first two centuries, a training manual called the Didache was written down. Way back then, many of the converts to Christianity were pagans. Converting to Christianity was (and is) a big deal. Often, families would throw the convert out of their house or worse. The training described in the Didache and acts surrounding it allowed the convert to really consider if they wanted to convert to the Way.

On to your next point, those being baptized by John were Jews. They all knew the law. That’s probably why they knew that they had to be washed clean from their sin and guilt. There was no practical reason to wait.

As far as Pentacost, Peter was in the presence of Israelites and “God fearers”, or converts to Judaism. The situation was the same as at the Jordan River: the children of Israel, who did not need to be converted to belief in the God of Jacob, were present.

The situation is different for most of us. We are not Jews, but Gentiles. We need the teachings and their consequences to be truly deep seated in our heart before we commit ourselves to the Way, just as the Gentiles did in the first centuries. (Although, today the Church requires Jews to go through RCIA, also. I suspect it’s to be consistent.)

(2) The church’s stance on gay marriage is rooted in Scripture and Tradition (see a post by me here). By definition, a marriage arrangement requires that the couple engage in sex. Therefore, since gay sex is immoral, so-called gay marriage is immoral. Of course, if the relationship were a platonic one, it would not be a marriage and would also be moral. However, if the living arrangement would tempt the couple into sin like all cohabitation arrangements do, they shouldn’t live together either.

Regarding abortion, please read my letter to Catholics for a Free Choice. No abortion is licit in any circumstances. It is never a moral choice. The action of abortion is intrinsically evil. (note Didache 2:2)

Further, there are pro-abortion people. Here are a few here and here.

Also, abortion is not even in the same moral league as smoking marijuana. Abortion is more comparable to murder by hit men. Murder by a hit man is illegal. It shouldn’t be made legal because people still have it done. It should still be illegal even if the hit man accidentally murders the solicitor.

The ultimate question is: is the entity that is formed by the union of human sperm and egg a human person? If the answer is no, then abortion is no different than scratching your skin. If the answer is yes, then no human person, whether zygote, fetus, baby, child, adult, or elderly, should ever be killed by any means. The only exception is if, in reality (clear and present danger), the mother and baby would die if the other one lives.

(3) The Latin inclusion filioque in the Nicene Creed is not currently a problem between the Eastern and Western Churches. See Catholic Answers here.

(4) Jesus created the Catholic Church as an organized religion. His first organizational act was to form the first Apostolic group (Paul and Matthias were grouped later). Second, without the organized Catholic Church, important creedal questions couldn’t be infallibly answered (example: identifying the Catholic cannon of scripture (the protestant one is different), pronouncing that circumcision is unnecessary, etc.). Without an organized religion, who is to say what is the revealed Truth, and who is there to authoritatively defend it?

Further, it was the Apostles who were the secondary founders of the Catholic Church to whom Christ promised the Holy Spirit that would lead them to all Truth.

Also, at least for me, I don’t go to Church to receive “communion and thus feel as though salvation is [my] right.” I go to be faithful to God through Christ. Jesus commanded the Christian community to share the Eucharist in communion with all the faithful in remembrance of Him. Only through presence with Him in the Eucharist can we receive a taste of eternal life. Eternal life was promised to us who believe in Him and receive Him. We receive Him figuratively and literally through Mother Church. Therefore, to be graced with eternal life, the Catholic Church must be His Bride, to be made holy and without blemish.

Finally, how can he be against organized religion when he doesn’t want to join the Catholic Church because all the Christian communities are not yet organized together?

(5) The Catholic Church is united under the Pope, the Bishop of Rome. The other ecclesial communities have the obligation to reunite with the Church that was truly founded by Christ.



The following is a copy of the post:
Name: Gutterball Master
Message:
I’m glad your searching for the Truth

However, I disagree with all of your conclusions in this posted article. You can find my full response at my blog Wondering Zygote Emeritus.

In general, a bit of research into the topics would clear up your misunderstandings and analyses. I go into some detail on my blog.

In terms of research, I suggest that you read (1) some or all of the straightforward articles at Catholic Answers, (2) some or all of the books on Scott Hahn’s bibliography page; he’s a great Catholic Biblical apologist and convert to Catholic Christianity), the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and (3) the posts and blog at First Things everyday (the Editor and Chief is also a convert to Catholic Christianity from MO Synod Lutheranism). If you would like, also read some of the Pope’s writings, especially the encyclicals.

God bless you.

Biblical Cleanliness Laws

I’ve been thinking about the laws of the Torah. Cleanliness is the motive for many of the laws. Is the focus on cleanliness something Moses learned about in Egypt with Pharaoh? Think about it. The Egyptians were around ruling a large empire for a long time. Could they have not done it with out cleanliness and the resulting lack of disease? Moses might have learned from them and modified his knowledge for the people that God would lead out of bondage (picture Carleton Heston, “Out of bondage”).

Another alternative is that, even before the modern understanding of germs and the necessity for cleanliness to diminish their numbers was made known, God used these previously unknown facts to keep the Israelites living in the desert when they were in close quarters. God was with them on their journey to the “promised land”.

Circumcision helped the people multiply to keep their population strong. Not eating pigs kept down disease. Making sure dairy and meat were eaten separately ensured that the cooks knew were the germs (or evil things) were. Stoning let people be killed without touching them and contacting whatever disease they had. Staying away from foreigners kept their diseases from infecting them (unlike the Native Americans interacting with the European colonists which almost wiped the former out due to new disease transmission with the latter).

Again, all this is just speculation, and since we’ll never be in the past empirical domain, we’ll never really know the answer with 100% certainty.

There is a caveat of the above thought pattern. Perhaps, in Jesus’ perfect fulfillment of the law, He is able to excuse us from following some of the Mosaic laws, including the cleanliness laws (just as Jesus said that Moses made up the divorce law “due to the harness of your hearts”, but God didn’t make it so). Perhaps Jesus knew that Moses inserted some of the cleanliness laws into the laws given by God found in the Torah. I don’t know, maybe I’m just way off base.

What do you think?

Hello, I’m a Cafeteria Republican

Why is it that for many people, they think that certain political ideas should go together by default? If one is pro-life, they must be for the Iraq war. If one is against the death penalty, they must be for (so-called) homosexual marriage. If one is pro-environment, they must be pro-choice. If someone is conservative politically, they are grouped with the conservative platform, and vice-versa. Shouldn’t we all know that this is not true?

Along the same lines recently, as far as I have noticed, Republicans (at least) have been toting the “united we stand” position. In other words, a Republican must be pro Iraq war, against any spending on health insurance, pro death penalty, pro-life, against environmental initiatives, for big business (especially the pharmaceuticals, big media, and auto manufactures), and against (so-called) homosexual marriage.

This is what is wrong with the American political party situation: one has to concede his or her personal position in order to meld into their respective party. I am not a cafeteria Catholic, but politics is too complex to blindly be led by all the fallible parties.

Why are Atheists Militant?

My wife’s cousin visited us today. I was telling her about my new blog and that I was hoping to have people challenge my positions and beliefs.

We got on the topic of Militant Atheists led by Dawkins and Chris Hitchens. I told her that I listened to the Hitchens-D’Souza debate (and others) and thought Dinesh D’Souza did the best of any of the other Christian debaters against any of the Atheists (including against Dawkins).

I said that one of the reasons the other debaters did so poorly was that Hitchens asked a plethora of questions that required more than a bumper sticker reply and that there was not enough time in the debate to answer all of them sufficiently. D’Souza took Hitchens overall points and hammered them (I’m not getting into the details; that’s for another post on this blog).

My wife’s cousin said that she heard of the Hitchens-D’Souza debate and the Militant Atheists. She wondered why the Militant Atheists want to convince everyone that they’re right. She thought that most people don’t try to change any one else’s belief.

I said that I didn’t know why Atheists in general would want to convince others that they were right: what would be the point since nothing really matters (including the other people besides themselves)? However, I said that I respect other people’s beliefs, or faith because no one can prove their position with 100% certainty: we all need faith since our basis for belief is found outside our empirical domain. In other words, say for Christians, they can’t know with 100% certainty, without a doubt that Christ was raised from the dead. For some Atheists (they all have different beliefs), they can’t know with 100% certainty that anything was not created by God and that everything either evolved or just is (like rocks, planets, and the stars). We all need faith and we should all respect each other’s faith. I’m not saying that we shouldn’t talk to others about our faith, but we shouldn’t ram it down their throats (i.e., evangelization versus proselytization).

I also said that I went on Dawkins’ extensive official website and noticed that most of the commenters were of an Atheists persuasion. In general, most sites have people of the same beliefs on them. Further, the Atheists consistently put down Christians, Theists/Deists, et al. I would love to see people of other views get a point-counterpoint going. (I will get there soon. Any other Christian/Theist/Deist want to join me at Dawkins’ site?)

I would love if people visiting Wondering Zygote Emeritus (this blog) could get a point-counterpoint going about anything on this blog so that we can learn about each other.

Links to Gutterball Master's Posts at Ales Rarus

I am a guest blogger at Ales Rarus. I think it's a good idea to link my past articles on this blog.

Here they are (there may be more, I just couldn't find them.):

About me page (non-article)
http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/about-the-guest-bloggers

http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/2429
"This Saying is Hard"

http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/2405
Reflections on a Homosexual Bible Study (Part I-IV)

http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/2602
Reflection on Gonzales v. Carhart (the recent Ruling on the Partial Birth Abortion Ban)

http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/2094
A Humble Example (added 23 February 2008 to this link list)

http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/2566
Chastity Lifestyle Education (added 15 April 2008 to this link list)

http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/1983
Electronic Leash For Children?

http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/1965
An Electronic Leash for Sex Offenders

http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/2031
Wicca Broadcasting

http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/1975
CBS Smites Joan

Open Letter to Catholics for a Free Choice

Hello,

Please read the following from "Evangelium Vitae" http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae_en.html: in which Pope John Paul II made a few ex cathedra statements:

"Therefore, by the authority which Christ conferred upon Peter and his Successors, and in communion with the Bishops of the Catholic Church, I confirm that the direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being is always gravely immoral. This doctrine, based upon that unwritten law which man, in the light of reason, finds in his own heart (cf. Rom 2:14-15), is reaffirmed by Sacred Scripture, transmitted by the Tradition of the Church and taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium.

"The deliberate decision to deprive an innocent human being of his life is always morally evil and can never be licit either as an end in itself or as a means to a good end. It is in fact a grave act of disobedience to the moral law, and indeed to God himself, the author and guarantor of that law; it contradicts the fundamental virtues of justice and charity. 'Nothing and no one can in any way permit the killing of an innocent human being, whether a fetus or an embryo, an infant or an adult, an old person, or one suffering from an incurable disease, or a person who is dying. Furthermore, no one is permitted to ask for this act of killing, either for himself or herself or for another person entrusted to his or her care, nor can he or she consent to it, either explicitly or implicitly. Nor can any authority legitimately recommend or permit such an action'."

and

"Given such unanimity in the doctrinal and disciplinary tradition of the Church, Paul VI was able to declare that this tradition is unchanged and unchangeable. Therefore, by the authority which Christ conferred upon Peter and his Successors, in communion with the Bishops-who on various occasions have condemned abortion and who in the aforementioned consultation, albeit dispersed throughout the world, have shown unanimous agreement concerning this doctrine-I 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. This doctrine is based upon the natural law and upon the written Word of God, is transmitted by the Church's Tradition and taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium.

"No circumstance, no purpose, no law whatsoever can ever make licit an act which is intrinsically illicit, since it is contrary to the Law of God which is written in every human heart, knowable by reason itself, and proclaimed by the Church."

Therefore, Catholics for a Free Choice are not Catholic since they contradict settled Catholic Tradition and teaching (Pope John Paul II made an ex cathedra statement).

Please disband your organization and discontinue the scandal that has been created by your organization.

May God bless you in the Truth,

GM

Baltimore, MD

Political Party Woes

Generally, I try not to debate politics because there is no party that can be guaranteed my support. Libertarians want no government so they can have all they can get. Communists want government that is the will of themselves at the top. Republicans want limited government so that rich people, including themselves, can be unrestrained in filling other rich peoples’ pockets. Democrats want more government so that they’ll have a right to steal everyone’s capital for themselves (they would really like to be Republicans). For the most part, the other parties not mentioned don’t have enough members to hear or talk about. I know my cursory analysis of the political parties above is probably an oversimplification of their platforms, but I don’t think I’m off target that much.

None of the parties have it right.

Nonetheless, there are three fundamental tenets that I think any political party should have. The first is to maintain solidarity within the citizenry. The Declaration of Independence is right when it says, “And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.” In other words, in this country, we are to live together and stand by each other in solidarity.

Second, a fundamental right to life is necessary. It’s a scientific fact that a uniquely individual human life is formed when one human egg from a human mother and one human sperm from a human father are joined. No matter where it is located, in, on, or at a fallopian tube, test tube, uterus, birth canal, table, floor, mother’s arms, high chair, kitchen chair, desk chair, President’s chair, etc… the created human has a fundamental right to life and is to be supported by the solidarity of this and every other country and its citizenry until its natural conclusion.

Third, the family must be supported to help it create an honorable citizenry. Any impediment to this end must be outlawed or discouraged. In my opinion, this includes defining marriage as being between a man and a woman in order to raise a happy and healthy child with both biological parents, restricting divorce so that children can be raised by both parents (when possible), outlawing prostitution and strip-clubs (etc.) so that parents are not further tempted to leave each other, etc.

This begs to question, with what party am I affiliated? I am a Republican who desperately wants to be a Democrat: Republican because the party is currently pro-life, Democrat because, before the secular feminist elitists came in, it was the party of the little guy (or gal) who was out to help the other little guy.

What do you think? What's the solution to my problem? Should a new party be formed? Am I off base with my political party analysis (any suggested changes)? What is your criteria for a good political party (excluding the boose)?

On Marriage and Consummation

One of the problems with marriage today is that one does not view the conception of marriage as taking place at consummation. Traditionally, premarital sex has been viewed to be premarital only in that natural intercourse takes place before a couple publicly commits to a life-long relationship in what I term a de jure marriage. However, I propose that the term “premarital sex” should be revised and be called “de facto marriage” that begins at natural consummation. I define natural consummation as involving a man and woman in a coital action that makes possible the creation of another human. (Homosexual sex does not make possible the consummation of marriage since natural coital action is not possible. Therefore, there is no such thing as homosexual marriage.)

From experience, it is empirically evident that a strong bond forms between couples that perform natural consummation. This natural bond, even if resisted or denied, connects the couple intimately for a lifetime like no other act.

Today, a consequence of creating multiple de facto marriages for one person through natural consummation is that de facto divorces take place a similar amount of times, assuming the de facto marital relationship ends. After a long string of de facto marriages and divorces that artificially break the strongest natural bond known to man, the desensitizing effect of multiple de facto divorces carries over to the de jure marriage. If one so chooses to have a de jure marriage, that is, a marriage in which a couple also publicly commits to a life-long relationship, it is much easier to break up the de jure marriage in divorce after a long line of desensitizing de facto marriages and divorces. Effectively, de jure marriage becomes the final de facto marriage in a long line of de facto marriages from which divorce is a habitual consequence.

The solution to this problem of seeing de facto marriage and divorce as “no big deal” is to return to traditional courting. Instead of creating a de facto marriage, the couple should get acquainted with each other in non-physical or limited physical terms first. Only after proving that the other is honorable and compatible in non-physical terms should a relationship go forward to engagement and de jure marriage. (A couple can together learn about physical relations later in de jure marriage.) Couples should not live together until de jure marriage so that they are not highly tempted to create a de facto marriage in case the relationship must end before the de jure marriage.