Thoughts on the AIDS pandemic...

The popular stance surrounding the African AIDS pandemic is that the Catholic Church's stance on condoms is directly responsible for thwarting efforts to slow the spread of this dreaded disease. If only the Church would back health care efforts to make condoms readily available to the African people, the critics argue, the disease would be stopped in its tracks. The detractors continue by asking how the Church, which claims to protect and promote life, can disregard the entire suffering African continent in deference to its antiquated, hardline stance on contraception. The Church, they argue, is wrong about contraception, but must now lie in the bed they have made because they cannot or will not change their misguided stance.

That is the popular rhetoric. You will hear this view espoused by health officials, politicians, almost all non-Christians, most Protestants and even many average Catholics. Why won't the Church wake up? Why won't it realize that it is responsible for the deaths of so many people because of its silly stance on contraception? How is it loving to allow millions of people to die?

To fully understand the Church's position on AIDS in Africa, it is important to understand the Church's teachings on contraception. Because man is often unable to see the forest from the trees when it comes to moral questions, it is vital for the Church to be the moral guardrail on the great highway of life. When was the last time you heard someone complain that a stupid guardrail kept them from doing what they really wanted to do, which was drive their brand new car off of a cliff? Yet, people complain constantly about the moral boundaries that the Church erects to keep us alive, happy and holy. The Church does not make truth. The Church merely explains the truth that God reveals and helps man to apply that truth to his life.

Let us take a simple truth: In the absence of apparent consequences, man has little incentive to NOT do something. For instance, if I am wearing a thermally insulated suit, I am unconcerned about walking into a 500 degree oven. The lack of consequences make an otherwise risky action less risky and, therefore, more likely to occur. In fact, if you're lugging around a fire-proof suit, you might even seek out a 500 degree oven because, after all, that's why you've got the suit. Right?

That same concept applies to contraception. Very simply put, contraception promotes promiscuity. Since the popularization of contraception in the 1960's, our society has seen a boom in promiscuity. We see it in the divorce rate. We see it in our movies and on our TV sets. We hear it on our radios. We see it on the internet. We see it in the teen pregnancy rates. We see it in the sexual abuse and rape statistics. We see it in the drug abuse and eating disorder statistics (Studies have shown that drug abuse and eating disorders are both closely linked to low self-esteem, which often results from a feeling of objectification. Objectification arises when women, especially, feel that their only purpose is for sex. The root cause of that feeling among teenage girls is...you guessed it...the near-mandatory use of birth control by girls as young as 12).

It is not hard to connect the growth in popularity of birth control to the growth in all of these things. There are many more reasons why the Church stands where it does on contraception, but, for the purposes of this discussion, that line of thought is most appropriate.

Now, back to the question at hand. Why would the Church not allow some "breathing room" in its teaching on contraception to quell this epidemic in Africa? First and foremost, because it would lead to more promiscuity. Promiscuity leads to pain. Pain is bad. Second, it would be opening Pandora's Box to all of the evils listed above on a continent that already has more than its share of problems. Third, to truly stop an epidemic like that, there is far more required than a band-aid solution like condoms provide. What is required is a change of heart and a change in behavior. The change of heart and behavior can be affected by better education. Africans need to understand how the disease is transmitted. They need to know how to avoid getting it. They need to know how to change their behavior to protect themselves. It is a crime to tell them, "Just keep doing what you're doing, wear this piece of latex and you'll be fine." That is simply not the case.

So, if a change in behavior is necessary, why not allow the use of condoms "for awhile" until you get a change in behavior and get the epidemic under control? Because that strategy is fighting against itself, and a house divided cannot stand. First, you can never let people use condoms "for awhile". We are all humans. We understand how humans think. Do you honestly think that we could ever go back after opening up that loophole? And, ultimately, that leads to more pain and more death. More death? Yes. More death. In addition to the resultant evils detailed above, the popularization of birth control also has lead to a contraceptive mentality in which we believe that we are the final judge and jury on when life "gets" to begin. And, if contraception doesn't work, which it doesn't in at least 3% of the cases (functionally, more like 10%), what then? Look around and see what happens then. The day-after pill? Abortion? Partial-birth abortion? When does the pain and death end?

Second, if the behavior that needs to change is promiscuity, then why would we use a tactic that actually PROMOTES promiscuity? That's ludicrous, and ultimately it would serve to undermine the teaching. How could we teach one thing and then with a wink say, "But, if you ARE having sex, then use one of these..." It doesn't work. Doesn't anyone remember the parents in high school who said things like that? They were the BAD parents.

From a completely different angle, if people are so hell-bent on living a promiscuous lifestyle, which is an affront to Church teaching, why would they care what the Church teaches about birth control? It doesn't follow that Church teaching is what is preventing condoms from slowing this epidemic. The Church is simply a convenient scapegoat that is easy to bash. Ultimately, if someone is going to live their life in contrast to Church teaching by living promiscuously, then they probably should use condoms. There are plenty of Dave Matthews and Ben Afflecks out there to buy condoms for the whole continent. But, the Church refuses to take that cynical and hopeless view of man. Man is not a slave to sin. Sin can be overcome by grace. The Church has hope in the grace of Christ and the Church is the instrument to deliver that grace. What message would it send if the Church said this, "We don't believe that you can stop living promiscuously, so use one of these." That is a hopeless outlook...that is the outlook of the world.

If we now understand why the Church will not and cannot, in good conscience, promote the use of condoms, then what IS the Church doing to stop this pandemic? Catholic Relief Services, an outreach arm of the Church, operates about 100 HIV/AIDS projects in 30 countries. The projects focus on everything from care of AIDS orphans, life skills education, home-based care, and AIDS education. Facilities operated by the Church include orphanages for AIDS infected children and hospitals to treat patients at little or no cost. The Church is pouring money and human resources into Africa to fight this battle.

In the end, the Church refuses to use evil means to fight evil. The use of evil means always leads to more evil, because it creates a culture of evil...a culture of death. The Church chooses rather to use hope, to use education, to use compassion, and, most of all, to use love. These are the weapons the Church will use in this fight. And one day, with the help of the Holy Spirit, the battle will be won.

We are a sacramental people...

What is a sacrament? We often hear that the Catholic faith is a "sacramental faith". What does that mean? A sacrament is a visible sign of an invisible divine reality. In this way, Christ Himself is the perfect sacrament...the earthly manifestation of the invisible God. The Church also is a sacrament...a visible sign of Christ's faithfulness to us. However, when we think of the word "sacrament", we tend to think of the 7 sacraments of the Church: baptism, confirmation, eucharist, matrimony, reconciliation, ordination and the annointing of the sick. So, what exactly are these sacraments and why do we have them?

The sacraments are Jesus Christ functioning through the Church in a very visible way as evidence of something invisible that He is doing. Take, for instance, the sacrament of baptism. It is the priest who pours the water on an infant's head, but it is Christ Himself who cleanses the child of original sin. In matrimony, it is the priest who pronounces a couple "man and wife", but it is Christ Himself who seals the marriage. We humans need these outward signs to remind us of the imperceptible and invisible transformation that is occurring within us.

Our Protestant friends often balk at the idea of confession. On more than one occassion, I have heard, "I don't need a priest to forgive me, when I can go straight to Jesus." While it is certainly true that we can all "go straight to Jesus", a comment like that sort of misses the point. Every other important thing that goes on in an individual Christian's life, even among Protestants, has some communal aspect to it. Our children are baptized in a church. Our weddings are held in a church. Our funerals are held in a church. Our worship services are held in a church. There are priests and pastors that preside over all of these events. Why should our need for healing be any different? Why do we feel a need to be married in a church and not to receive reconciliation in a church?

I think the root of it is that we don't want to tell other people about our sins...a very human feeling. We prefer to just keep it between us and the Big Guy. However, that's not a very biblical view of things. First of all, Christianity is not a one-on-one operation...think of it more like a zone defense. In John 18, Jesus prayed to the Father, "that they may all be one, as you, Father, are in me and I in you." Whether we want to be or not...we are one body. That means that every sin we commit necessarily has a communal aspect to it, just like every marriage or every birth or every death has a communal aspect to it. Speaking specifically about confession, in Chapter 5 of the letter of St. James, he says, "Confess your offenses to one another, and pray for one another, that you may be healed."

We need each other, and the sacraments are a reminder of that. Confession is not "asking a priest for forgiveness." It is asking Jesus Christ for forgiveness in a sacramental way through a person who is ordained to act in His place. Jesus gave the disciples the power to forgive sins in John 20, when he said, "Whatever sins you forgive will be forgiven and whatever sins you retain will be retained." It is only Jesus who has the authority to forgive sins, but He allows man to share in that authority, as we see in the book of John. God is cool like that. He lets us share in something that only He can do, to make sure that we feel a part of it. It's like a Dad who allows his son to "push" the lawnmower, even though Dad is doing all the pushing. But, that feeling is important for man, and Jesus recognized that.

So, next time you hear somebody tell you that they don't need confession, you might ask them why they would bother to get married in a church. They don't need anyone to bless their marriage when Christ Himself can do it...right? Or, is there something more to it than that? Perhaps we want and need that visible public sign to reveal that something powerful and beautiful is happening inside of us. Perhaps we need to hear those words of absolution that comes from Christ through our priest and into our ears and hearts...

"God, the Father of mercies has reconciled the world to Himself through the death and resurrection of His Son, Jesus Christ and has poured forth the Holy Spirit for the forgiveness of sins. May He grant you pardon and peace through the ministry of the Church. I absolve you from your sins in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit."

Feels pretty good, doesn't it?

On Thanksgiving...

We are often tempted in life to forget all that we are thankful for. It is not so much that we are ungrateful, but often we just get distracted. We become overwhelmed with the trials, responsibilities and obligations of our lives and lose sight of our tremendous fortune. Thanksgiving is always a great time to step back and remember how blessed we truly are. First and foremost, we should be thankful for our lives. We should be thankful that God saw fit to call us forth out of nothingness for no reason other than that He might love us and we might love Him. It is love then for which we exist. It is God's love that holds us in existence...every moment of every day. If God ceased loving us for even a moment, we could not exist. We should be thankful that He looked down on us with mercy and love, knowing our faults and failings, to save us from ourselves. God looked down from His lofty throne and, in all His perfection, stooped to become a man. The entire history of man is a history of God lovingly calling His creation to Himself, and, sadly, of man rejecting that call. It began in the Garden. It continued in the lives of the patriarchs, prophets and kings. It reached perfection in Christ. God is always calling man to return home. Maybe on this Thanksgiving, we should remember that He is always calling us home, to a deeper and more perfect relationship with Him. He is calling us to Himself...to be possessed by His love for us...to be freed from ourselves...to be complete. We who have been given the gift of faith, a gift lovingly received through gratitude and acts of faith, are the fortunate ones. It is through no merit of our own that we have been called to faith...our only merit is in not rejecting the gift that we are incapable of receiving without His grace. God's grace surrounds us. It flows through us. It emanates from within us. It is our call, the faithful, to allow this grace to impel us...to perfect us. When our days are done on this earth, we will be left only with love...either a love accepted or rejected. May we all, in this season of Thanksgiving, be thankful for the grace that allows us to accept that love. May we be thankful for the boldness that it stirs within us. May we be thankful for the peace it creates in our souls amidst a world of turmoil and suffering. God is so good to us, friends. May we allow that goodness to consume us. May we always seek it in truth, in hope, in love. That is my prayer in this season. May God continue to bless you all, as He already has in innumerable ways.

Chapter 16: The First Commandment of God

1. What is the highest destiny of man? Why is any other reason for our creation unworthy of God?
2. What was the only new commandment God gave on Mount Sinai? How were the rest of the commandments previously known by man?
3. What form does idolatry typically take in our modern world? What “false gods” do people today worship?
4. Every commandment has both negative and positive aspects. What are the negative and positive aspects of the first commandment?
5. Why do we have faith in what God has revealed? How does that faith become perfected within us?
6. Why does God reveal certain truths to man, while allowing others to remain a mystery?
7. Why is the quest for truth so essential to the growth of our faith? How do groups like Fideles help our faith become mature? Is knowledge required for salvation?
8. What obligation do we have to express our faith outwardly?
9. What is the difference between a lax Catholic and an apostate? Can laxity lead to apostasy? How and why? What are other causes of apostasy?
10. What is heresy? How do we distinguish between material sin and formal sin? What is indifferentism?
11. What are acts of hope and how are they also acts of faith? How can our hope become a pathway to sin if not properly constrained?
12. How is despair a sin against hope? What form does the sin of despair take in our lives?
13. How is the virtue of charity more supernatural than it is natural? What are some common sins against charity?
14. To cherish and cultivate our faith means to live out our faith. How do we do this in a world that is often hostile to the very truths that we profess and cherish?
15. How is superstition a sin against faith? Is our reverence of the saints a form of superstition?

Why the ends cannot justify the means...

When confronted with difficult moral situations, our brains have a natural tendency to focus on the effects of the action. What will happen if I perform this action? We are tempted to use this moral calculus as a way to define what is good.

Taking an sticky example, think of the AIDS epidemic in Africa. Millions of people are infected with this awful disease that seems to be spreading at an unstoppable rate. We often hear outcries against the Church for her position on contraception in Africa. Why won't the Church allow the use of contraception to stop the spread of this disease? Aside from the obvious answer that a re-focus on abstinence is the only true way to stop the disease, there is another problem with this question. If the Church believes that artificial contraception is intrinsically evil (which it does), then to support such a course of action would be using an intrinsically evil means to effect a greater good. This line of thought presents terrible problems.

If circumstances can affect whether we perform an intrinsically evil act, then there is no such thing as an intrinsically evil act...it's all relative. This prevents us from ever saying that any action (murder, rape, incest, etc.) is ALWAYS wrong. If circumstances can change the moral definition of an intrinsically evil act, then there is no such thing as an objective moral order. Instead of relying on both the natural and revealed law, man is then relegated to his own reason to determine moral goodness. We are all familiar with the tricks and turns our minds can make when attempting to justify an act that we know is wrong. Imagine if that is all we had...it would lead directly to chaos.

The Church, since the beginning, has rejected the "ends justify the means" line of thought. We have to recognize that there are certain actions that always radically contradict the dignity of the human person. Slavery is never right. Rape is never right. Bombing civilian populations is never right. These acts, by their very nature, are incapable of being ordered towards God. That is what makes them intrinsically evil.

Our modern world believes that moral good is entirely relative. In some circumstances, the logic makes sense. However, we must take this logic to its natural end to see why it is so dangerous. If no act can ever be defined as intrinsically evil, then there can be no protection for anyone. The dignity of the human person would be swept away amidst a sea of circumstances. Murder would be okay, as long as the murderer was abused as a child. Rape would be okay, as long as the rapist was an orphan. Slaughtering civilians would be acceptable, as long as it lead to a decisive victory for the good guys. Hopefully, you can see the ugly end of this flawed logic.

As Christians, we must always take circumstances into account when we act. We must also take the expected consequences into account. However, these two elements are insufficient to determine the moral goodness of an action. There are certain lines that we are not permitted to cross, regardless of how difficult the circumstances may be. That is why the Church holds the line on intrinsic evil and refuses to allow the use of evil means to foster a greater good. The dignity of the human person demands that we recognize the boundaries of our moral freedom.

Chapter 15: The Two Great Commandments

1. What makes obedience such an integral part of faith?
2. Why has God set up His laws the way He has? Are they just arbitrary rules to make life hard?
3. How do the moral laws of the universe differ from the physical laws?
4. What is natural law? What is positive law? What is the difference between the two?
5. What are the two Great Commandments? How is the second contained in the first?
6. What is the point of Church laws? How do they correspond to the two Great Commandments?
7. Why is simply "avoiding sin" not enough in the Gospel concept of morality?
8. What are the corporal works of mercy? What are the three ways of practicing them?
9. What are the spiritual works of mercy? How do we practice them?
10. How can prudence be pushed to the point of cowardice in admonishing sinners?

Even when no one is looking...

In the gym tonight, I found myself leafing through a copy of US Weekly (I know, I know). I was struck by a quote from Hollywood star Paul Walker (everyone's favorite all-state quarterback, Lance Harbor). Speaking about having sex on the first date, Walker said, "If you do, it's probably not going anywhere. But, if you both realize that it's not going anywhere, then it's okay." Contrast with this quote by former U.S. Congressman J.C. Watts, "Character is doing the right thing when nobody's looking. There are too many people who think that the only thing that's right is to get by, and the only thing that's wrong is to get caught."

Oddly enough, Walker hits on a very important idea. The chances of a relationship going someplace good after having sex on the first date are astronomical. However, he makes a correspondingly attrocious point by stating that, if both people realize the relationship is going nowhere, sex on the first date is acceptable. As humans, we have an innate tendency to believe that anything is okay as long as we don't get caught. Cheating on a test. Cheating on a girlfriend or boyfriend. Stealing office supplies. Pick your vice...as long as you don't get caught, we tend to think it's okay. However, this is directly in contrast with the essence of the human person.

Humans are built to serve God. God, in case you forgot, is always watching. Therefore, we're never really alone. We always "get caught". I think the fallacy comes in the idea that we can truly get away with anything...we can't. God sees every sin we commit. To take that idea a step further, making it more practical, every sin we commit has an effect on us. Try having sex on multiple first dates and tell me how you feel about yourself. Tell me how you view true love. Tell me how you view commitment. Explain to me your views on the opposite sex. I guarantee they won't be the right answers.

See, sin has a way of corrupting us and inclining us towards more sin...it affects our outlook on the world, on ourselves and on others. Everytime we act against our conscience, we build up a disposition towards sin. Every time we act in accord with a well-formed conscience, we build up a disposition towards truth and good. The more times we fail, the harder it becomes to succeed. The more times we succeed, the easier the next time is. That's how the Holy Spirit works in our souls. The Holy Spirit is always ready to provide the grace to resist temptation, but we have to do our part too. We have to build up that disposition towards goodness by becoming docile to the Spirit's counsel and having the willpower to follow through. We receive grace in this process for the next time we are tempted.

So, next time that little voice in your head says, "It's cool as long as you don't get caught," remember that it's a lie. There's no such thing as "not getting caught." God knows what we did...and so do we.

Cremation Questions and Answers

One of the questions that came up in our meeting tonight was why the Catholic Church changed its stance on cremation. Below is a quick Q&A regarding Catholic burial rites and teachings...

Q: Is it against Catholic teaching to cremate a body?
A: No. Although, this was the teaching of the Church before 1963. As a part of Vatican II, the Church allowed cremation as an acceptable method of final disposition.

Q: Why did the Church previously prohibit cremation?
A: The body is the temple of the Holy Spirit and we believe that the body will be resurrected and united with the soul at the Final Judgment. Burial goes back to the earliest days of the Christian Church and serves to support the continued reverence of the human body. Cremation was long regarded as a pagan ritual and contrary to the Christian teaching of the Resurrection.

Q: Why did the Church change its position on cremation?
A: There are multiple reasons why the Church now allows cremation. First, it is far more economical to cremate a body rather than bury it...often only a quarter of the cost. For many families, burial expenses would be simply too expensive. This is especially true when the deceased dies far away from his/her place of final resting...the costs to ship a body can be exorbidant. Second, it is often more sanitary to cremate a body, especially in the case of an infectious disease. Third, some people prefer their bodies to be cremated rather than suffer decay through the ravages of time. Ultimately, the Church has recognized that it is often better, for various reasons, for the family to have the body cremated rather than having a traditional burial.

Q: Is cremation an equally acceptable method in relation to burial?
A: No. The Catholic Church still strongly prefers burial if possible. At the very least, the Church prefers that the funeral be performed with the body present, with the body being cremated after. In 1997, the Church lifted the restriction on performing a Catholic funeral for a previously cremated body. However, it is important to note that these are less desireable circumstances. The Church holds to its stance that burial is preferable, but recognizes that it is not always feasible.

Q: Are there circumstances where cremation would be against Catholic teaching?
A: Yes. If the body is being cremated for anti-Christian reasons, exhibiting a disbelief in the resurrection of the body, then the practice would be prohibited. It is left to the discretion of the bishop to determine whether cremation was chosen for "anti-Christian reasons."

Q: How are created remains to be treated?
A: Simply put, the remains are to be treated with the respect that a deceased human body deserves. The Church prohibits the spreading or dividing of ashes. The Church also prohibits keeping the remains in a home. The remains are to be buried in a grave or entombed in a mausoleum, just as a body would, and marked with a plaque or memorial stone. The reason for this is so that the family has a place to properly pay respect, pray for and reflect on the life of their deceased relative.

On Carrying the Cross...

I have noticed a prevailing attitude in our society that some folks simply win the lottery of life and others don’t. Some are born into great families. Some have money. Some are well-educated. Some are instructed in morality. Some are taught faith. Some make friends easily. Some have great jobs. Some have an easy time with the opposite sex. And, others simply don’t.

As I’ve reflected on that attitude in the context of Catholicism, I’ve realized that there is a fundamental flaw in that logic. If we are viewing life in a purely secular context, then that logic works. If the point of our lives is to be successful, well-liked and stress-free then the argument holds water. Some people undoubtedly start on third base rather than having to get a base hit. Other people have almost insurmountable odds stacked against them from the moment of their birth.

However, if the point of our life is to get to heaven, the logic fails. See, each person has their own particular set of gifts and challenges when it comes to this essential mission. In a worldly sense, being born rich is a good thing. However, when it comes to the life of grace, being rich is often a great challenge. This is what Jesus meant when he said, “Again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for one who is rich to enter the Kingdom of God.” (Matthew 19:24)

For people who rarely experience suffering, it is easy for them to forget that they need God. They often take what they have for granted. They struggle to find sympathy for those who have less. Their life is comfortable. This is a great challenge in living the life of grace. Their cross is their own comfort.

Others have far less in a worldly sense. These folks might struggle with jealousy and greed. They might focus so much on what they don’t have that it consumes them. They fight and fight to elevate their worldly lives to a higher plane so much that they forget their essential mission. Their cross is their lack of comfort. They allow their worldly suffering to consume them rather than uniting that suffering to the Cross.

In the end, we are all rich…and we are all poor. We are rich in the abundant grace of Christ if we choose to accept it. We are all poor in faith and in need of grace. Our richness or poorness in a worldly sense is really a mirage. If we allow either our worldly richness or poorness to consume us, then we lose. If we indulge in self-pity or self-aggrandizement, we lose. If we indulge in jealousy or greed, we lose. The only way to win is to acknowledge how little eternal value either worldly richness or poorness holds. We win when we acknowledge that all we have comes from God, that He has blessed us immensely simply by granting us existence and that we are thankful for His goodness.

The Christian life is essentially about uniting our personal cross with the Cross of Christ. A key element to carrying our cross is helping others bear their burden. We are simply stewards of the gifts God has given us…we don’t own them. They have been given to us by God and we are called to share them in such a way that it leads others and ourselves to the Kingdom. The rich share their money. The poor share their humility. The educated share their knowledge. The uneducated share their simplicity. The outgoing share their friendship. The shy share their inner peace.

We all have gifts and we all have challenges. It is important in the life of grace to take a step back and recognize your own gifts and challenges. Learning how to share your gifts and meet your challenges is a key element in the process of sanctification and spiritual maturity.

Chapter 14: The Resurrection and Life Everlasting

Discussion questions for Chapter 14: The Resurrection and Life Everlasting

1. What is the purpose of our life here on this side of eternity?
2. What happens at the moment the soul leaves the body?
3. What happens to our soul if we have persisted in mortal sin and chosen self over God?
4. What are the two types of pain the soul experiences in Hell?
5. In what state must our soul be in order to handle the vision of God?
6. What happens if we are not found to be in this state, yet are judged to be neither fit for Heaven nor deserving of Hell?
7. How is the pain of purgatory both similar and dissimilar to the pain experienced in Hell?
8. What is “millenarianism” and how does the Church view this theory?
9. Why does the Church teach the doctrine of the “resurrection of the body”? What are the details of this doctrine?
10. At what point will all of our questions about God and life itself be answered?
11. How do both those in Heaven and Hell glorify God in eternity?

Pope Benedict XVI: Sowing the Seeds of Renewal

“Dear brothers and sisters, after our great pope, John Paul II, the cardinals have elected me, a simple humble worker in God’s vineyard”

And, so, it began. The papacy of the former Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI was hailed with equal degrees of ferocity on all sides of the cultural spectrum. For conservative, traditional Catholics, the election of “God’s Rottweiler” was seen as a triumphant blow struck against the evils of relativism and heresy which threaten to consume the modern world. For liberal, progressive Catholics, Benedict’s election was greeted with foreboding and worry that this stubborn theological hardliner could not meet the needs of the modern Church.

Four months later, the picture of Benedict’s pontificate is beginning to grow clearer. For many who lauded the pontificate of Pope John Paul II, the first four months of Pope Benedict have been a welcome continuation of many of John Paul’s endeavors.
A major pillar of the Holy Father’s pontificate to date is ecumenism. Ecumenism is essentially religious unity or, at the very least, understanding. Pope John Paul II was equally hailed and derided for his efforts to reach out to groups outside the Catholic Church, most notably those of the Muslim faith. Benedict seems to have picked up that torch in his first four months. One of his first meetings as pope was with delegates from the Eastern Orthodox Churches and even some Muslims, whom he encouraged to come together in a dialogue of peace. He even visited a synagogue in Germany, rebuilt after destruction during World War II. Speaking about his visit, the pope said, “These meetings are important steps along the journey of dialogue and cooperation in our shared commitment to building a more just and fraternal future, a future which is truly more human.” Benedict has spoken on multiple occasions of the need for unity among Christians and a need for peaceful, productive dialogue among all people of faith, and ecumenism appears as if it will continue to be a major focus of the new pope’s agenda going forward.
The new pope has also continued John Paul’s theme of peaceful protest against the evils of war and oppression. Benedict has recently come out urging reconciliation in the war-torn country of Rwanda. Rwanda, over 10 years removed from a bloody civil war that claimed almost a million lives, is still ravaged by famine, strife and suffering. The pope called for renewed vigilance among all people to combat these evils and work for good. Speaking to a group of African bishops in Rwanda, the pope implored them to “work restlessly so that the Gospel can penetrate more and more deeply in the hearts and lives of the believers, inviting the faithful to take on their responsibilities in society, especially the fields of economy and politics.”

However, the new pope has also been controversial in his first few months. In a statement that is really unsurprising, the pope reiterated the Church’s objections to using contraceptives to fight the AIDS epidemic in Africa. Although unsurprising, the statement drew renewed opposition from groups hoping the new pope might support the use of contraceptives to halt the spread of this dread disease. In a region that might see as many as 90 million deaths from AIDS over the next 20 years, this position remains a flashpoint for disagreement, even among Catholics. Even some clergy support the use of contraceptives in Africa as “the lesser of two evils.” However, the pope made clear that the use of one evil even to combat a greater evil cannot be morally accepted. “The traditional teaching of the Church has proven to be the only fail-safe way to prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS,” said the pope to a group of African bishops at the Vatican in June.

Most recently, the new pope presided over his first World Youth Day in his home country of Cologne, Germany. This year’s edition of the festival instituted by his predecessor, John Paul II, drew almost a million young faithful to celebrate their new Papa and renew their commitment to living the Gospel message. Pulling a page from Christ’s book, the Holy Father greeted the faithful from a boat on the banks of the Rhine. After seeing such a remarkable outpouring of love and support from the young faithful, the pontiff replied, “The meeting of so many young people with the successor of Peter is a sign of the vitality of the Church.” Continuing his criticism of our modern culture, Benedict reminded the faithful that “religion constructed on a ‘do-it-yourself’ basis cannot ultimately help us.”

In his final address to the faithful at World Youth Day, the pope declared, “Freedom is not simply about enjoying life in total autonomy, but rather about living by the measure of truth and goodness so that we ourselves can become true and good.” In a nutshell, this seems to be the theme of the new pontificate of Benedict XVI. Benedict laid out the battle ahead of the new pope even before his election in his sermon to begin the conclave which ultimately elected him.

“Having a clear faith, based on the Creed of the Church, is often labeled today as a fundamentalism. Whereas, relativism, which is letting oneself be tossed and ‘swept along by every wind of teaching,’ looks like the only attitude [acceptable] to today's standards. We are moving towards a dictatorship of relativism which does not recognize anything as for certain and which has as its highest goal one's own ego and one's own desires”

As the new pope enters the fifth month of his pontificate, he has begun to establish the themes which he hopes will combat this dictatorship of relativism, lead to a new springtime of faith among believers and create a renewed dialogue of peace with non-believers.

In Defense of My Own Sanity...

In the course of conversations with friends and acquaintances about the state of the world today, I am often struck by a certain look in their eyes and tone to their responses. My examination of these curious reactions has yielded a surprising result: I am insane. Or, perhaps better said, they believe that I am insane. As even my antagonists would tell you, I am a reasonably intelligent individual, although intelligence is not what it once was. Despite this fact, I consistently hold views that are antiquated, implausible, impractical and, ultimately, bizarre. The answer to this conundrum, of course, is that I have lost my grip on sanity. My faculties have abandoned me. I am, for all intents and purposes, certifiable.

What sort of foolishness do I profess that brands me as a nut? Simply put, I profess sanity. Now, sanity (like intelligence) is not what it used to be. The world today holds an entirely different view of sanity than even the world once held. The world, as we know, has always been slightly insane. But, the difference today is that the world now defines sanity as insanity and vice versa. In fact, the only beliefs one can profess that are considered insane today are actually the only sane beliefs left.

Taking an example, let us start with the sanest of all ideas: Freedom. Freedom, as defined by our world today, is in fact the license to do anything that you please. As long as you don’t “hurt” someone else, our freedom today knows no bounds. We live in the golden age of freedom. We are free to be as miserable as we can allow ourselves to be. Now, that is a virtue worth fighting for, no?

Freedom, in its classical and, some would say, antiquated form actually meant the ability to pursue goodness. As that backwards nut Albert Einstein once said, “Everything that is really great and inspiring is created by the individual who can labor in freedom.” Note what the good doctor did not say: Freedom exists to allow people to be as miserable as possible.

The crux of my clash with modernity is this: Modern man sees freedom as a right to do what he pleases, while the truth is that freedom is the ability and responsibility to seek that which is good. As George Bernard Shaw said, “Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it.” Our world today is awash with freedom fighters that fight for no cause outside of themselves. They pursue freedom for freedom’s sake. In fact, more to the point, they pursue freedom to ensure that no one can tell them what is good and right.

Now, back to the point about sanity. If the truth is that freedom exists to allow us to pursue goodness, then freedom devoid of a definition of goodness leads to chaos. Just like anything else, freedom, if divorced from its natural partner, the pursuit of goodness, deviates towards emptiness…it is all fluff and no substance. The question then arises: Is a society with total freedom that lacks a definition of goodness truly free?

Let us take a wide sweeping view of the world today to see the effects of our so-called freedom. We live in a society that elevates pop singers and athletes to the level of gods. We live in a society that violently protects the rights of baby seals but not that of unborn children. We live in a society that has the highest divorce rate in human history. We have more children born out of wedlock than ever before. We glorify sexual deviancy, violence, and greed in our movies, television shows and music. We tell our teenagers that, unless they are having sex, they are either ugly, crazy or a fundamentalist (the other “F” word as Peter Kreeft calls it). Our society believes that homosexual relationships are just as natural and good for society as heterosexual marriages. The definition of a happy life in our society is to die without suffering surrounded by a pile of money with memories full of sexual triumphs and adversaries bested.

Now, surely that is the definition of a sane society. Or, is it? I would argue that the picture above is the definition of insanity. I would further argue that, perhaps, it is our very commitment to freedom at the expense of virtue that has led us where we are. And, where are we? It seems completely plausible to argue that we are in the middle of a cultural cannibalization. Our commitment to the virtue we hold highest, individual freedom at all costs, has allowed us to devour ourselves and spiral into a seemingly inescapable maze of misery, confusion and pain.

To clarify this idea, let us examine the idea of misery as it relates to suffering. Suffering, as we hear on the news daily, is the ultimate evil in our modern world. We want to die without suffering. “Well, at least he/she didn’t suffer.” This is the common eulogy for any deceased relative. The great monastic thinker Thomas Merton once said, “The truth that many people never understand, until it is too late, is that the more you try to avoid suffering the more you suffer because smaller and more insignificant things begin to torture you in proportion to your fear of being hurt.”

Suffering is not the ultimate evil in the world. Now you begin to understand my insanity. Rather, it is the subtle death of the soul that is the ultimate evil in the world. And, ironically enough, suffering in its proper context prevents the death of the soul. The Swiss poet Henri-Frederic Amiel once stated the point succinctly, “You desire to know the art of living, my friend? It is contained in one phrase: make use of suffering.” Suffering is not misery. Suffering is an intimate and essential part of the human condition. It is just as essential as joy or awe or breathing. It is so essential to the proper development of the soul, in fact, that when we seek to avoid suffering at all costs, we actually serve to amputate our own humanity.

Is the purpose of life to be free to do as we please? Modern man would not only tell you “yes” but also say that if you don’t agree you are insane. The insane man argues that the purpose of life is to be happy. Freedom, in its proper context, certainly allows man a greater capacity for happiness than otherwise. However, is our modern freedom held in its proper context? Or, perhaps, has it been allowed to grow outside of its proper context to become a cancer on society, pillaging and destroying everything in its path?

If we revisit the natural marriage of freedom with the pursuit of goodness, we find the true enemy in our modern world. We have lost our definition of goodness. We have become animalistic in our thinking. An animal seeks to satisfy his instincts without consideration of anything else. Certain breeds of dog will actually eat themselves to death. Now, I’m sure given the choice, these poor pups would not willfully kill themselves. However, they don’t have a choice…they are instinctual. Man is not a simple animal…he is a rational animal. Therefore, man has the capacity to choose against his instinctual drives because it is better for him. He has the ability to control his instincts.

While our friends in the condom industry would disagree, we all know from personal experience that man has the capacity to resist his animal instincts. Some, obviously, learn to do so better than others. We are presented with a question then: How do we define that which is better for us than acceding to our natural instincts? The answer is our definition of goodness.

The avoidance of suffering is an innately animal instinct. Animals will avoid situations that they instinctually know will cause suffering or death. However, as rational animals, we should understand that the avoidance of suffering is not inherently the highest good. For example, the man who dives into a rushing current to save a drowning child recognizes that there is something more important than his own potential for suffering or death. He is willing to control his desire to avoid suffering to pursue a higher good.

As responsible individuals, we have a duty to inform our consciences in such a way that allows us to discern goodness. Historically, people have used backwards devices such as faith and reason towards this end. However, faith and reason, along with sanity and intelligence, are not found in abundance today. Sadly, this has led our society to the precipice at which we now stand. What is good?

For millennia, man has sought to answer this question. In its simplest form, goodness is what makes man happy. Man is designed to pursue goodness. It is a rare individual who acts as he does because he wants to be miserable. We do what we think will make us happy. However, devoid of an understanding of true happiness, man falls back on his animal instincts to define happiness for him. Unfortunately, our animal instincts are not the key to true happiness. That is why we live in a society of people who have pursued happiness yet end up miserable.

True happiness is found in living a virtuous life. Compassion. Generosity. Faith. Love. Hope. Self-control. Wisdom. Fortitude. Patience. Piety. Understanding. These are the virtues to which man once aspired. These are the virtues that lead man to happiness. Modern man would tell you that these are noble, but impractical ideals. I would challenge modern man to expect more of himself than the world does. We are created with the capacity to not only strive for, but to attain these virtues. Show me a man that possesses these virtues and I will show you a happy man. Regardless of how much money he has, how many women he has slept with and how much power he wields, I would place a hefty wager that the virtuous man is a happy man.

So, why does modern man not seek that which will make him happy? To answer this question, we must return to freedom and suffering. Man, in his quest for total freedom, has proclaimed that to be bound to anything, even virtue, limits his freedom. Freedom, therefore, becomes the highest virtue, rather than a vehicle to pursue virtue. As man casts off the shackles of virtue, he finds himself cold and alone in a world that no longer makes any sense. He then becomes consumed with his own suffering. Suffering, he declares, has now become the ultimate enemy of freedom. If freedom is the highest virtue then suffering is consequently its great antagonist.

And so we gaze upon modern man. He is shivering…terrified and alone. His greatest fear is that he might suffer. His greatest hope is to be free. He is nothing. He sacrificed all that is good for an empty promise…freedom at all costs. Take pity on modern man. Have compassion for him, for he is further away from freedom now than he has ever been. And so he lashes out at the sanity around him. He hates sanity, for sanity tells him that he was misled. Sanity tells him that he must freely give up his freedom in exchange for happiness and he finds it too much to bear.

It's Just Hooking Up

Have you ever woken up in the morning and felt the pit in your stomach that yells loudly, “Uh oh…what did I do?” Your mind races to remember what pile of proverbial dog poop you stepped in last night. Suddenly, in the light of day, those 3 shots of tequila and 5 beers don’t seem like nearly as good of an idea as they did the night before. Your daytime self now is forced to set about undoing the mess your nighttime self has created…again.

Sound familiar? For many in our generation, this is a most regular occurrence. Now, how does the scene presented above have anything to do with chastity? Ah…I’m glad you asked. One of the most common side effects of a raucous night out on the town is what is referred to as “hooking up”. I first came across this term in high school and it was virtually ingrained in the culture of my college days. Essentially, hooking up is intended to be sexual activity without consequences…without the fear of getting hurt. You can hook up with someone and not worry about getting hurt because it’s just casual. There is no chance of rejection because you’re offering nothing to be rejected. This can be a comforting thought. We get what we want, sexual intimacy, without the nasty emotional entanglements that come with relationships. Sounds logical, right?

The problem is that sexual intimacy never comes without emotional entanglements…no matter how much we guard against them. Women typically seem to understand this more easily than men do. I constantly hear women talk about men who “only want sex” with a disparaging tone to their voice. We’ve all heard the stories of men getting dressed quickly and leaving after a sexual encounter, leaving their partner feeling abandoned and alone. We constantly hear about men with “commitment issues” who want the sex, but not the emotions. This should not be unfamiliar to you if you’re a woman. Sadly, most have experienced this in one form or another.

Why does this happen? To understand this, we have to think about how the human person is built. Everything that we do has both a physical (tangible) and spiritual (intangible) dimension to it, because we are both physical and spiritual creatures. We eat a juicy steak because it nourishes our bodies (tangible), but it also makes us feel good (intangible). It is multi-dimensional. Anytime we try to divorce a physical act from its spiritual side, things go haywire. For instance, when a person tries to get the intangible joy from eating without the physical effects by eating and then purging, we call it bulimia. We define this as an eating disorder…a disease.

Our sexuality works the same way. When we try to get the tangible pleasure of the sexual act without the corresponding intangible effects, we are left feeling empty and unfulfilled. Why? Because it’s impossible to separate the two. Sexual intimacy has a corresponding effect on our spiritual selves, whether we want it to or not. Human sexuality cannot exist in an emotionless vacuum. In its purest and best sense, human sexuality is an expression of deep emotions…the tangible is an expression of the intangible. So, since our sexuality is built that way, the human person feels like something is missing when the tangible exists without the intangible.

The problem is that our culture sells the idea that it is possible to have the physical pleasure without the emotions. Shockingly, people have bought it…hook, line and sinker. As is typical with the human psyche, we fail to think about the long-term effects that a disparity between the tangible and intangible has on us. Every time we endure the pain that comes with a sexual experience devoid of emotions, we are conditioning ourselves to expect that…we are building up scar tissue in our souls. It gets easier to do it over time because we build up a resistance to the pain. Therefore, it becomes harder for us to experience human sexuality as it was meant to be experienced. We systematically train ourselves to think that the physical part of sex and the emotions of a relationship can be separate. The human psyche has a tremendous adaptive capacity, and, eventually, it adapts to this expectation.

But, this adaptation is a disorder…just like bulimia. As we begin to get comfortable with the concept that sex can be separate from emotions, we build up walls to defend ourselves from being hurt emotionally. We become hardened and calloused inside. The sad part about this is that these walls don’t just drop when we eventually get married. We still believe that sex can be separated from emotions, which leads to all kinds of bad stuff. Addictions to porn, sex outside of marriage, and self-gratifying sexual behavior are natural consequences of the walls we erect between the physical and emotional parts of sex. “It was just sex. She doesn’t mean anything to me,” becomes a plausible statement. To the person who has built high walls between the physical and emotional aspects of sex, there actually can be a distinction between what we say with our bodies and what we feel in our hearts.

If we persist in this disordered state in our single lives, we are setting ourselves on a perilous course for our future lives in marriage. We will enter marriage with hardened hearts with our emotions locked away inside the vault we have erected between what we experience sexually and what we feel. That’s a bad deal.

So, if those are the consequences of our seemingly insignificant hook-ups, we should begin to take our sexuality a little more seriously. It does matter. There are consequences to our sexual behavior…both short and long-term. In the short-term, we feel empty and unfulfilled. In the long-term, we are creating an internal atmosphere where the things that destroy marriages can flourish. So, the next time your nighttime self tells you that it’s “just hooking up,” remember that it can never just be hooking up…no matter how much we want it to be. Try to think about all the emptiness and pain that follows naturally from sexual activity devoid of the emotions. Think about those things and remember that you’re better than that. You deserve much more than that and so does your future marriage.

Civil War on the Modern Moral Battle Ground

“Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war.”

Abraham Lincoln, Gettysburg Address, November 19, 1863

Recent events in the American political landscape have brought age-old questions regarding the design and intention of the American democratic experiment back to the forefront of popular discussion. What role should religion play in our American democracy? What duty does a statesman owe to his constituency? And, perhaps most importantly, upon what moral basis should our laws be founded?

The recently concluded elections of November 2004 became a flashpoint of heated debate as our nation deliberated its past, present and future in light of issues increasingly moral in nature. Stem-cell research. Abortion. Homosexual marriage. War. These were the issues that defined the elections of 2004. According to a CNN Gallup poll, over 60% of people rated either terrorism, war, moral values or health care as their most important issue in the presidential election. Terrorism and war, although not exclusively moral issues, do contain sizeable element of morality. As technology has advanced and new questions have arisen, morality has also become central to the debate over health care. Moreover, 22% of voters in the 2004 presidential elections rated moral values as their most important issue.

A comparison of the two presidential candidates is also revealing in regards to political morality. George W. Bush, the incumbent president, is among the most openly religious presidents in American history. He often speaks publicly of his daily bible reading, his commitment to his Christian religious principles and his reliance on divine strength to carry out his duties. Senator John F. Kerry, the Democratic challenger, sees his faith very differently as it relates to his public service. Quoting Senator Kerry, “I can't take my Catholic belief, my article of faith, and legislate it on a Protestant or a Jew or an atheist. We have separation of church and state in the United States of America.” This particular quote from Senator Kerry frames the question that we, as a nation, must endeavor to answer: What is truly meant by the “separation of church and faith” doctrine and what role should faith play in the actions and policies of our nation’s government?

American politics has always struggled to define the place faith in the public arena. Faith and the moral principles that are illumined by that faith were essential to the political consciousness of many of the founding fathers. In his farewell address to the nation, President George Washington said the following:

“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice ? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”

The next time somebody tells you that the “Separation of Church and State” doctrine, which ironically is never even mentioned in the Constitution, means that morality based in religious beliefs belongs in the sphere of “personal” belief and not legislation, remind them of old George’s words. The framers of our constitution and founders of our nation saw religious morality very differently than many today believe. We are putting words in their mouths…two hundred and twenty-five years after the fact. Instead, we should dig up what they actually said. We should reflect on them. We should use them as a guide.

The Left seems to believe that politicians who use their faith and moral compass as a guide towards being good statesmen are trying to found an American theocracy. However, the simple fact is that our founding fathers did the exact same thing. In fact, it is not difficult to argue that, without their faith, our country would not be what it is today.

We find ourselves now engaged in a great civil war for the future of our nation. Just as Abraham Lincoln did, we must hearken back to our past to understand our future. Lincoln looked at the words written by the founding fathers and was reminded of the unity and equality that they believed to be essential. He used that wisdom to set a course for the nation, against a great torrent of unrest, which ultimately saved the Union we all love so much.

Our civil war is not between bad people and good people. It is not between people who love America and people who hate America. It is not between people who are godless and people of faith. Our civil war is a war of ideas…of principles. How can a nation survive without an agreed upon set of moral principles? Is the best nation even possible without religion? Is good law possible without considering moral implications? George didn’t think so. Why should we? All good law is rooted in morality. We believe it is bad for society to have murderers running around (O.J. Simpson aside), so we have laws that prohibit it. That is a law rooted in a moral belief. Should we feel bad for “judging” people who would gladly murder if not for the law? Certainly not.

So, why do we feel bad when we say that homosexual “marriage” is bad for society? Why do we feel bad when we say that abortion is bad for society? We seem to have lost the ability to separate between judging others and setting society on its best course. We are so afraid of stepping on toes that we are willing to allow our society and our laws to become awash in gray.
The patriots on both sides of these issues need to be reminded sometimes that this is about building the best society. We should remember to look out into the future and see the consequences that today’s decisions will have on the America our kids inherit. Do we want millions of children raised in homes with homosexual parents? Do we want a society where millions of helpless babies are killed each year because they were inconvenient? Do we want a society where life becomes a plaything to be used and discarded in the name of scientific advancement? Do we?

I think that we have a lot of work to do. Our generation needs to start caring a little more about the course our nation is charting for the future. If we don’t start facing these issues now, then our commitment to not facing them will lead to our destruction. George Washington saw it. With our perspective of history, we should be able to see it too. So, in the immortal words of Colonel Nathan R. Jessup, it’s time to “pick up a weapon and stand a post” in the great civil war of our time.

Fideles 2005 Calendar

October 3 – Chapter 14: The Resurrection and Life Everlasting
October 17 – Chapter 15: The Two Great Commandments
November 7 – Chapter 16: The First Commandments of God
November 21 – Chapter 17: The Second and Third Commandments of God
December 5 – Chapter 18: The Fourth and Fifth Commandments of God
December 19 – Chapter 19: The Sixth and Ninth Commandments of God

Chapter 13: The Communion of Saints & Forgiveness of Sins

Discussion questions for Chapter 13: The Communion of Saints and The Forgiveness of Sins

1. Who is a saint, in the broadest sense of the word? What is the meaning of the word 'saint’?

2. What is the meaning of the term ‘Communion of Saints’?

3. What are the three branches of the Communion of Saints?

4. Who is included in the ‘Church Militant’ and why is it called that?

5. When we commit a mortal sin, do we cease to be members of the Communion of Saints?

6. Who is included in the ‘Church Suffering’? Why are they suffering?

7. Who is included in the ‘Church Triumphant’? How do these souls help both the Church Militant and the Church Suffering? Why do they do so?

8. Why do we honor and revere the saints?

9. How can we help the souls in purgatory?

10. How can we help each other as part of the Church Militant?

Chapter 12: The Marks and Attributes of the Church

Discussion questions for Chapter 12: The Marks and Attributes of the Church…

1. What are the four marks of the Church?

2. Why is it important that the Church have unity? Who is included in this unity?

3. How is the Church holy? What role does the Church play in our holiness?

4. What do we mean when we say the Church is “catholic” or “universal”?

5. How is the Church apostolic? Why is this aspect important?

6. What are the three elements of unity and how is it related to the modern climate of relativism?

7. What is the strongest argument against the holiness of the Catholic Church? What is the most effective argument for the holiness of the Catholic Church?

8. How is the Catholic Church “catholic”? What elements make it catholic?

9. What are the two ways that the power of reason may be abused? Why is pragmatism so dangerous and flawed?

10. What is meant by the “doctrine of infallibility”? How can we explain this concept to our non-Catholic friends?

11. Is the Catholic faith an abandonment of reason? Do we have blind faith?

12. What does the statement, “there is no salvation outside of the Church” mean?

Chapter 11: The Catholic Church

Discussion questions for Chapter 11: The Catholic Church…


1. What makes the sacraments of baptism and reconciliation so important if we can receive absolution without them through a perfect act of contrition?

2. Why did Jesus institute visible sacraments?

3. Aside from dispensing the sacraments, why else did Jesus establish a Church?

4. Why do we even need the Church? Isn’t faith in Christ enough?

5. Why does the Church have laws?

6. How does one remain a member of the Church?

7. What gives the Church her everlasting vitality and truth?

8. What gives the Church the authority to govern the Body of Christ?

9. What is the point of having a spiritual leader for the Church?

10. Why do we believe that the Church leaders today hold the same authority that the first apostles held?

11. What is a juridical body? Is the Church such a body? Is the Church more than that? Why?

12. Who is helped when we receive the sacraments or do good deeds?

13. Who are called to be apostles?

14. What are the three broad classifications of Church members? Who belongs to these various categories?

Chapter 10: The Virtues and Gifts of the Holy Spirit

Discussion questions for Chapter 10: The Virtues and Gifts of the Holy Spirit…


1. What is virtue?

2. How do we acquire virtue?

3. What are the so-called “theological” virtues? Are they natural or supernatural virtues? How are they acquired?

4. Can these theological virtues be lost?

5. What are some key differences between natural and supernatural virtues?

6. What is the difference between faith and understanding?

7. What is hope?

8. What is the difference between the virtue of hope and an act of hope?

9. Which of the three divine virtues lasts forever?

10. Is supernatural love necessarily emotional love?

11. What are the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit?

12. What are the twelve fruits of the Holy Spirit? What is the difference between a gift and a fruit (unless, of course, you are giving someone a fruit as a gift)?

13. What are moral virtues? How do they correspond to our temperament?

Chapter 9: The Holy Spirit and Grace

Discussion questions for Chapter 9: The Holy Spirit and Grace…


1. Why is the existence of the Holy Spirit not revealed in the Old Testament?

2. How do we understand the existence of the Holy Spirit in relation to the Father and the Son?

3. What is the “work” attributed to the Holy Spirit in comparison to the “works” of the Father and the Son?

4. What is the definition of “grace”? Are they natural or supernatural gifts from God? Are all supernatural gifts from God considered “graces”?

5. Is there a difference between being “undeserving” of grace and being “unworthy” of grace?

6. Why is sanctifying grace necessary for the human soul?

7. How does our degree of sanctifying grace change our happiness in Heaven? How can our degree of sanctifying grace increase?

8. How does the process of “actual grace” work? What are the steps in the process?

9. How do we recover sanctifying grace after we commit a mortal sin?

10. What is an “efficacious grace” in contrast to a “sufficient grace”?

11. What are the two sources of grace?

12. What is the difference between “vocal prayer” and “mental prayer” or meditation? Which helps us grow more in grace? What is contemplation?

13. Is it enough to “go through the motions” of the Catholic life without lifting your heart and mind to God? Have we “done our duty” if we simply go to Mass every Sunday?

14. What is merit? Do we receive merit for purely human actions? How can we explain the concept of merit to our Protestant friends? What rewards do we receive as a result of our meritous actions? Are merits lost by mortal sin gone forever?

Chapter 8: The Redemption

Discussion questions for Chapter 8: The Redemption…

1. Do you agree with Trese’s explanation that the majority of the Sanhedrin were “crooked politicians” who were oppressing the people and wanted Jesus crucified because he threatened their “cozy and profitable offices”? Is there more to the story than he gives us here?

2. Do you agree with his statement that the Sanhedrin had “several times” sent out lynching parties with the purpose of killing Jesus? Do the gospel stories he references jive with that explanation?

3. What is the explanation for Judas Iscariot’s necessity? Doesn’t it seem like they could have found and arrested Jesus without him? What was the point?

4. What was the actual charge against Jesus? Why was the trial such a mockery of justice?

5. What can we learn from Pontius Pilate’s role in the Passion?

6. What does “limbo” mean? (Aside from the fun party game)

7. In the Apostle’s Creed, we say that Jesus “descended into Hell”. Is this Hell as we understand it today?

8. Do you think it will be cool to move “at the speed of thought” after your own resurrection?

9. What are some reasons that Christ did not ascend immediately to Heaven after the Resurrection?

Chapter 7: The Incarnation

Discussion questions for Chapter 7: The Incarnation…


1. Why is it important that Jesus Christ was fully God and fully man? Why is it important that his divine nature and human nature were united in one single Person?

2. The story in this chapter about Mary’s perpetual vow of chastity does not appear in the bible. How do we know that it is true?

3. How do you explain Mary’s acclamation as the Co-Redemptrix? Is there not only one Redeemer?

4. How is “begotten” different from “created”?

5. How do Catholics respond to those who claim that Mary is the mother of Jesus, but not the mother of God?

6. Did God “change” his plan for salvation with the coming of Christ? Did He try the law first with His chosen people and, when that failed, move on to something else?

7. What do the “hidden years” of Jesus teach us about the devout life?

8. Was it Christ’s sacrifice on the cross that “bought back” our birthright? If not, what was the point of the crucifixion?

9. How do we, as Catholics, respond to people who wonder why God seems “indifferent” to the suffering in the world?

Discussion questions for Chapter 6: Actual Sin…


1. What does the term “sanctifying grace” mean? Why is it necessary? How do we receive it?

2. What is a mortal sin?

3. Does it seem unfair to you that we lose all of the supernatural merits or, as Christ says, “treasures in Heaven” by committing a mortal sin? Should doing one bad thing really ruin all the good we have done?

4. How do we prove our love for God? Why can the state of our soul not be changed after death?

5. What is Hell? Does God “send” souls to Hell?

6. What makes an action right or wrong?

7. What is the difference between a material sin and a formal sin?

8. We often hear that “the ends justify the means”. What is the Church’s stance on this line of thought?

9. How do we understand the idea of our “predominant passion” or “root sin”? How can this understanding help us grow in sanctity?

10. What are the seven “capital sins”? How can understanding them help us understand our own particular weaknesses or strengths?

Chapter 5: Creation and the Fall of Man

Discussion questions for Chapter 5: Creation and the Fall of Man…


1. What is the significance of man’s definition as a “rational animal”?

2. The body is truly an amazing thing. But, it also is the cause of many of our problems, right? How do we reconcile the idea that the body is a fitting complement to the soul, yet is responsible for so much pain, suffering and sinfulness?

3. Is the body simply a thing that contains the soul? Does the soul contain the body? Are the soul and the body separable?

4. Is the body immortal like the soul? Doesn’t the resurrection of the body suggest that the body is immortal?

5. What does the author mean when he says, “there is nothing about my soul that can be damaged or destroyed.” Is that accurate? Why or why not?

6. How is the soul “very especially a portrait of its maker”?

7. Does the theory of evolution undermine the Book of Genesis?

8. What is the difference between natural gifts, preternatural gifts and supernatural gifts? What are some examples of each that Adam and Eve possessed in the Garden?

9. Why was God’s commandment to Adam and Eve in the Garden necessary?

10. Why should we all suffer for something Adam did? It isn’t our fault that he sinned. Maybe if we were there, we wouldn’t have sinned, right? It seems unfair.

11. Based on our understanding of the infinite crime which our first parents committed, why was it necessary for the Redeemer to be both God and man?

12. If Jesus was so great, why is there still sin in the world?

13. What’s the deal with venial and mortal sin? What makes a mortal sin anyway? That means you have to kill somebody, right? And, on the other hand, venial sin isn’t a big deal, right?

Chapter 4: Creation and the Angels

Discussion questions for Chapter 4: Creation and the Angels…


1. Is creation possible for man? When we formulate thoughts in our minds, isn’t that creation of something totally unique out of nothingness?

2. If we agree that God created us, what is it that keeps us in existence? Is God like a watchmaker who sets the world in motion and then leaves it to run on its own?

3. We have discussed before the idea that the body is an integral part of the human person. That means that we are incomplete with a physical body. Is an angel an incomplete being because it does not have a physical body?

4. Do you actually believe in angels? Why or why not?

5. Why has God only revealed so little about the angels to man?

6. What is Hell?

7. If God is all-merciful, why did He not have mercy on the rebellious angels by offering them a Redeemer?

8. What does Satan hate man?


9. How powerful is Satan? Can he make us sin? Is he an excuse for our sinfulness (i.e. “The Devil made me do it.”)


10. Do you actually believe in Satan? Is he imaginary? Is he just a medieval superstition?


11. Does all temptation come from Satan? How do our actions contribute to our own temptation? How do we keep from doing this?


12. Does the concept of exorcism seem spooky and superstitious to you? It does to many people. Have you ever considered that Jesus Himself was the first exorcist and commanded His disciples to do the same?

Discussion questions for Chapter 3: The Unity and Trinity of God…


1. There are truths in the world that our intellects aren’t capable of grasping. Why is that?

2. Does it ever frustrate you that there are mysteries of faith? Does it bother you that we can’t always understand the “how” of the truth? Do you ever find it hard to just take some doctrines on faith?

3. How does Trese explain the existence of the Father?

4. How does he explain the existence of the Son? What is this “eternal thought” that he talks about?

5. How does he explain the existence of the Holy Spirit? Who is the Holy Spirit?

6. Have you ever thought that the Holy Spirit seems subordinate to the other two persons of the Trinity? Is that true?

7. What are the works attributed to the Father? To the Son? To the Holy Spirit?

Chapter 2: God and His Perfections

Discussion questions for Chapter 2: God and His Perfections…


1. How do we know that God exists?

2. What does it mean to say that God is “He who exists by His very nature”?

3. Why is it a contradiction to say that there could be more than one God?

4. How does a physical substance differ from a spiritual substance? What is God made of? What are we made of?

5. Is the soul dependent on the body? If so, how?

6. What does it mean to be infinite?

7. Everything that is good in the universe is a reflection of God. Why is this?

8. If God is so great, why is there so much evil in the world?

9. What does it mean to say that God is a knower rather than a causer of our future actions?

10. Why didn’t God just forgive our sins without Jesus coming?

Chapter 1: The Purpose of Man's Existence

Discussion questions for Chapter 1: The Purpose of Man’s Existence…


1. Ok, so why did God create us anyway?

2. What does it mean to say that doing something caring for another human without referring it to God is a less than perfect act?

3. Is God made more glorious because He created us? Why or why not?

4. What is the definition of perfect happiness? What, in contrast, is imperfect happiness and what makes it imperfect?

5. What makes Heaven so great?

6. Is our eternal destiny a choice that God makes or a choice that we make?

7. How do we love God? Can you relate this love to any other type of love you have experienced?

8. How does the experience of Heaven differ from one person to the next?

9. What tools did God give us to increase our capacity for happiness and prepare our hearts to receive His love in Heaven?

10. Why do we think the Bible is free from error? Do we believe in the Church because of the Bible or the Bible because of the Church?