Readers' Comments
Let us know what you
think! E-mail
your comments or questions.
The webmaster reserves the
right to edit or refuse any comments which contain incorrect or
misleading information, obscene language, or personal attacks.
The webmaster also reserves the right to respond to any comments.
| My name is John. I am having an
e-mail discussion with a former catholic seminarian who
is now an atheist. He is very much caught up in
philosophy and especially logic. Can you help me to prove
to him the existence of God (as he has challenged me too)
using logic. I have read Aquinas and I am positive he has
too. I need an angle that might surprise him and force
him to think. He is quite intelligent and I am trying to
keep up with him. I am also a former seminarian with a
couple of years of college level philosophy, but I am not
his match. I am of course a loyal son of the Church. John Response: That's quite a challenge! Since you mentioned reading Aquinas, I am sure you have read Aquinas' five proofs for the existence of God, which he discusses in the Summa Theologica I, Q. 2, Art. 3. You might also read my six articles on the existence of God available on my webpage under the philosophy heading. Another saint you might look at is Anselm. Anselm discusses the existence of God in his Monologium and Proslogium. While Aquinas bases most of his philosophy on Aristotle, Anselm seems to be a platonist. One of my articles about the existence of God deals with Anselm's thoughts. Debating atheists is tricky because they tend to point to the lack of sensory evidence for God. Perhaps it is best to challenge the notion that sensory evidence alone is the sum total of our knowledge. Aristotle discusses senses, wisdom and other things in the first book of his Metaphysics. While he acknowledges that senses give us knowledge, they do not provide us with wisdom: "we do not consider any of the sensations to be wisdom, although these are the most authoritative in the knowledge of individuals; but they do not tell us the why of anything, as for example why fire is hot, but only the fact that it is hot" (Metaphysics, A 11-13). Atheists tend to acknowledge existence, but they do not look for the cause in any meaningful way. I have also been told that the 18th-century philosopher David Hume attempted to discredit Aquinas' theory of the uncaused cause by undermining the relationship between cause and effect. Such an attempt, to me, is not convincing, since we have a tendency to want to know causes and I cannot think of a single thing -- aside from God -- that has no cause, whether the cause be known or not. God bless, Good luck, and remember to keep your own faith in tact. Sometimes, that's hard to do. |
| I want to find out the valid
reasons for annulment of a Catholic marriage. Thank
you. Response: First, I would like to emphasize that the Catholic Church does not condone divorce and considers a marriage to be an indissoluble covenant formed by God between two people. However, the Church does recognize that there are occasions when two people enter into marriage "invalidly" (the word used in the Code of Canon Law). In those cases, an ordinary of the Church can declare the marriage to be annulled, meaning that "what appeared to be a valid marriage was defective in some way at the time the couple exchanged their vows" (Drummey Catholic Replies 325). Because of this definition, the reasons for annullment can be found in the Code of Canon Law, Canon 1095, which says that persons incapable of contracting a valid marriage include "those who lack the sufficient use of reason; who suffer from grave lack of discretion of judgment concerning essential matrimonial rights and duties which are to be mutually given and accepted; who are not capable of assuming the essential obligations of matrimony due to causes of a psychic nature" (Canon 1095 as quoted in Drummey). Clearly, these are somewhat vague guidelines and because of that, a priest or bishop ought to be consulted about individual cases. Some common, real-life examples of situations I've heard of include age, either spouse was deemed too young to understand the marriage commitment; pregnancy, where the couple entered into the marriage because of an unplanned pregnancy; when the marriage has not been consummated; and physical abuse. That is not to say that all of these situations result in an annullment, nor is this list all of the reasons for an annullment. They merely are a few examples I have heard. |
| I have somehow gotten
lost reading the last week or two of lessons. I
just can't seem to follow the train of thought from one
lesson to the next. Can you somehow give a brief
recap of what we have learned regarding the study of
scripture as a science to help me along? I know this is
probably a really hard thing to ask so I understand if
you won't be able to do this. As always, thanks for you
hard work and effort Chris Response: I revisited the subject of sacred doctrine as a science on July 5, 1999. Essentially, I believe Aquinas begins the Summa with this topic to emphasize a couple of things. First, sacred doctrine, meaning scripture, ought to be read and studied very deeply and carefully. Second, the study of God through sacred doctrine is something that can be done scientifically using revealed principles for their basis (this is what the Summa does). |
| I have just been looking
through your site for my moral issues project and would
like to ask you a few questions: What exactly is Natural
Family Planning? What rae your views on abortion? and How
exactly does mariage (in my opinion a piece of paper and
a ring) mean you can have sex when a very much in love
couple want to have sex but do not want ot get married
because of money issues or maybe they just don't have
there parents consent!? In my e-mail no offence was meant
to the cathoic religion. Kate Response: I will address your last question first. If you define marriage as a ring and a piece of paper, I cannot explain why you must wait to be married. However, defining marriage as such is fundamentally wrong and contrary to the teaching of the Catholic Church. Catholics believe marriage to be a sacrament performed by God, joining a man and woman together until death. The significance of marriage is emphasized during the Catholic marriage ceremony in the line: "What God has joined, let no man divide." It is NOT simply a ring and a piece of paper but a lifelong commitment. Entered into as such, marriage is a state very different than a non-married, but romantic, relationship between two individuals. By the way, I would suggest that you would find very few brides who on their wedding day consider marriage to be only a ring and a piece of paper. The Catechism of the Catholic Church could be a useful tool in your moral issues project. The Catechism covers the Church's teaching on marriage and the family in detail. Here's an important point: "In creating man and woman, God instituted the human family and endowed it with its fundamental constitution. Its members are persons equal in dignity. For the common good of its members and of society, the family necessarily has manifold responsibilities, rights, and duties" (2203). Natural Family Planning refers to methods of spacing children that are based on observing signs of the female's normal fertility cycle. NFP does not refer simply to the rhythm method, which has a high failure rate, but to numerous methods that take into account other signs of fertility including temperature and cervical mucous. My views on abortion are the same as the Catholic Church's, as stated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church sections 2270 - 2275. Quite simply, "direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law" (2270). |
| I know for a fact that the nuns
stationed in Kosovo were encouraged to take birth control
pills that were mailed to them by the Catholic
church.. The church, it seemed were rightly
concerned that the nuns would be raped and wind up
pregnant. Evidently, the Catholic church does
not want to have to support the child that would result
from a pregnancy. What disgusts me is that
the church denounced the distribution of the morning
after pill to rape victims of kosovo. I'd like to hear
your response to this. Response: First, I would be interested to know your source and how it is you know this to be "for a fact." Second, even if birth control pills were mailed to nuns in Kosovo, it is inaccurate to say that the "Catholic Church" was responsible for it. The Catholic Church does not condone the use of contraception. If one member of the Church, whoever it might be, goes against the Church's teaching, it changes nothing, nor does it mean that the Catholic Church has committed the sin. I am a Catholic, a Texan, and a parent. If I drink coffee in the afternoon, it would be inaccurate to proclaim that Catholics, Texans, and parents drink coffee in the afternoon. Third, the use of the "morning-after pill" is condemned by the Catholic Church because it is an abortifacient. It does not merely prevent pregnancy; it causes an abortion by preventing a fertilized egg to attach itself to the uterine wall. For information on rape and abortion, I suggest you read Fr. Frank Pavone's column on the subject. |
| Thank
you for your apostolic work. However, it is wrong
to say that that the existence of God can only be proved
to be "highly likely". St-Thomas didn't mean
that, and anyway, regardless of what St. Thomas said, the
existence of God is something that can be proved to be
absolutely certain. In fact, the Pope states this
truth in his latest encyclical, as the Church has done
since the beginning. We do not have to accept
anything on faith with regards to God's existence, it is
possible to resolve the questions based upon reality with
solid logic. Aristotle proved the existence of God well
before God founded the Church ... God bless you, Response: Let me clarify. Aquinas states that the existence of God is not self-evident since we cannot know His essence in this lifetime (ST I, Q. 2, Art. 1), and since it is not self-evident, it is a matter of faith rather than of science because Aquinas says that "science is derived from self-evident and therefore 'seen' principles" (ST II-II, Q. 1, Art. 5). This does not mean that God's existence cannot be proven by reason, but that we cannot know of His existence in the same manner that we can know the existence of a living person. We can see the living person, and thus faith is not required for us to know that the person exists. Since we cannot see God, His existence is not self-evident and must be demonstrated by reason and accepted on faith. I hope this clears it up. I have made a change to the lesson for the archives to make the point clearer. |
| I am not Catholic,
but probably should take Catholic Classes and consider
becoming Catholic since there is so much about the Church
that I appreciate. I even say the Holy Rosary, and
it gives me great peace when I do that. My question. You pointed out that Mary was a Virgin. Of course I knew that. But did she remain so beyond the birth of Jesus, even though she was a married woman? And did Jesus have siblings? (Human ones of course, by Mary and Joseph? That may seem like a silly question, but it is one I've never quite gotten straight. Thanks! Janet Response: If you are considering becoming Catholic, I would suggest that you read Rome Sweet Rome by Scott Hahn. Hahn was a Protestant minister who converted to Catholicism and is now a professor of Scripture and theology. Hahn has openly stated that the last major hurdle in his conversion to the Church was the Church's statements on Mary, including the "ever-virginity" of Mary. So, don't feel bad if this is a sticking point for you. It's a sticking point for a lot of people! As for your question on Mary, the Church teaches that Mary remained a virgin after Jesus' birth and for her remaining days here on earth. The one major objection to this is that the Bible mentions brothers and sisters of Jesus. Here is how the Catechism of the Catholic Church responds: "The Church has always understood these passages as not referring to other children of the Virgin Mary. In fact, James and Joseph, "brothers of Jesus," are the sons of another Mary, a disciple of Christ, whom St. Matthew significantly calls "the other Mary."" In Matthew 13:55, a reference is made to Jesus' brothers James and Joseph. In Matthew 27:56, the Gospel cites many women who witnessed the death of Jesus: "Among them were Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Joseph ...." If this was the same Mary, mother of Jesus, it would be extremely unusual for Matthew not to say "his mother" rather than "the mother of James and Joseph." The fact that these are two different Marys is made more clear in Matthew 28:1 when the Gospel refers to "the other Mary": "After the sabbath, as the first day of the week was dawning, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to see the tomb." I hope this helps. If you would like more on this, please see the Catechism citations on Mary (487-507). These are heavily cross-referenced with the Bible so that the individual passages may be read as well. |
| I read thru your
stuff, and I was a little bit angry. You said that
contraceptive is immoral. I think that is wrong. If all
the women in this world weren't on birth control, we
would have many more abortions, and unwanted babies, more
abused babies, and more babies killed by there own
parents. I am all for birth control. I have a 3-year-old
son. And I would like to wait a couple more years to have
another one. So please don’t say birth control is
immoral, if we didn’t have it there would be more
unwanted babies than we have right now. Response: My goal in Lux Veritatis is to explain the teachings of the Catholic Church. I'm sorry you disagree with the Church regarding contraception (see Catechism of the Catholic Church 2370). The Church (not just me) has determined that contraception is immoral for very good reasons. I have tried to make these reasons clear in the articles listed on my contraception index. I would suggest you read Pope Paul VI's encyclical Humanae Vitae, Pope Pius XI's encyclical Casti Connubbi, and Pope John Paul II's encyclical Evangelium Vitae (all can be accessed from the links page). There also are some good books that explain the Church's opposition to contraception: Humanae Vitae: A Generation Later by Janet Smith is very comprehensive. Smith also has an audiotape called Contraception: Why Not? I would also suggest you look into Natural Family Planning, a method of spacing children that is accepted by the Church. I challenge you to take a deep look at this issue and at the Church's teachings. I challenge you to pray about this issue. I believe once you thoroughly investigate the issue, you will see what a dangerous contradiction contraception is. Peace. |
| I agree with the
encyclical, Humanae Vitae, but I have a question
that contradicts its teaching. Natural Family Planning
can be used exactly with the same contraceptive mentality
as birth control. How does the church explain its
difference? Response: Very good question. The difference lies specifically with respect to the acceptance of nature with Natural Family Planning and with the introduction of something artificial in the use of contraception. Paul VI says, "These two situations are essentially different. In the first, the spouses legitimately use a faculty that is given by nature [reason by which one can calculate natural fertility cycles]; in the second case, the spouses impede the order of generation from completing its own natural processes" ( HV 16). With Natural Family Planning, a couple may not want to have a child, but they choose to use natural cycles. In this way, they remain open to life and "spouses recognize and value the true goods of life and the family and also … acquire the habit of complete mastery of themselves and their desires" (HV 21). Also, Janet Smith, a leading authority on this encyclical, explains the difference this way: "When couples are abstaining during the fertile period, they are not thwarting the act of sexual intercourse since they are not engaging in sexual intercourse. Whey they are engaging in sexual intercourse during the infertile period they are not withholding their fertility since they do not have it to give at that time. … In a word, use of NFP may involve non-procreative acts, but never, as with contraception, antiprocreative acts." (HV: A Challenge to Love Ch. 11) |
| What would your response
be to a young engaged couple who chose to stay chaste in
their relationship until they got engaged. Now that they
know they are going to get married, they decided not
"to wait." A brief, straightforward answer
would be helpful. God Bless You Response: Good question. I hope this answer is not too long. Personally, I would say engaged is better than having just first met, but not quite good enough. As concisely as possible, the Church teaches that sex is only morally acceptable within the bonds of marriage. Marriage is an irrevocable commitment between a man and woman; it is a bond forged not only by the two individuals, but by God as well. Engagement is merely stating your intention to become married, but there is no real, concrete bond. If I state my intention to take a nap this afternoon, clearly that is not the same as my taking a nap. Janet Smith, a philosophy professor at the University of Dallas, refers to sex between unmarried people as a lie. Quite simply, when a couple has sex before marriage, they are acting as if they are married even though they are not. This is true even if the couple is engaged. They are not married, but they act like they are. Sexual intercourse before marriage cheapens the marital act. Plus, if a couple has the will power to wait until they are engaged, surely they could find the will power to wait just a little longer. Planning a wedding should serve as a great distraction! |
| It has always
been my understanding that, while it is alright not to
begin extraordinary means (such as putting a terminal
lung cancer patient on a respirator), it is not alright
to stop such measures once in place. Am I mistaken
in this? Carla Response: The citation in the Catechism mentions "discontinuing," which would imply that a procedure had begun. It is my understanding that either not beginning or discontinuing an extraordinary treatment would be indirect euthanasia and would be legitimate. The alternative --direct euthanasia-- is taking an action that directly causes a death. Removing one from a respirator allows that person to die because the body cannot perform its normal and instinctive function of breathing, whereas shooting someone or injecting them with a lethal dose of drugs actually stops the body from performing its normal functions. The greater question here lies in what is extraordinary. A woman recently won a court ruling whereby she was able to remove a feeding tube from her husband. The local bishop ruled that the removal of the feeding tube was in line with the church, but I'm not so sure. Pope John Paul II and other church leaders have maintained that withholding food is not a legitimate practice. There are many cases in which an individual who is not in danger of dying cannot feed himself. Babies, for instance. My personal feeling is that "extraordinary" refers to functions that the body normally performs involuntarily and without any voluntary action needed on the part of the individual. Breathing, the beating of the heart, and the like. Feeding is not one of these, because we voluntarily feed ourselves. |
| I am a bit confused on your
arguement about the "calling" of males for
priesthood. Does it not say in The Acts of the
Apostles (10:44 - 48) the Holy Spirit came down on all
those who were listening to his message. . . . .
. "These people have received the Holy Spirit,
just as we also did. Can anyone, then, stop them
from being baptized with water?" If a female
is truly being called by God to minister - how can we
deny her that call? Lori and Tim Response: The Church teaches that we are all called to serve and that we are all called to be baptized. However, we are not all called to serve in the same manner. For instance, I, as a married man and father, am called by God to serve him in that vocation, but not in a priestly one. The calling of us all to serve and be baptized should not be confused with the call to the priesthood. This topic is covered more completely in the article Natural Law and the Ordination of Women. |
| Whoever supplied the
information for this page clearly wallows in
ignorance. It is not the individuals selfishness
that leads to suicide, but the selfishness of others who
fail to recognize that the individual requires
help. It is ironic that the Catholic Church would
talk of "good needing to be done and evil needing to
be avoided" when the Catholic Church has murdered so
many people throughout the ages in the name of God and
Catholicism. Here is another interesting fact. Most people who commit suicide are religious to some extent. It seems to me that maybe the church needs to take more responsibility for helping people to get past suicidal behavior rather than passing foolish judgment on the act itself. This web page is illogical in its ridiculous assumptions and assertions. Clearly the individual who supplied the content for this page has little to no actual experience in dealing with the topic of suicide. Greg Response: My assertion that suicide is a selfish act is derived from the Catechism: "[suicide] likewise offends love of neighbor because it unjustly breaks the ties of solidarity with family, nation, and other human societies to which we continue to have obligations" (2281). I simplified it by using the word "selfish." Surely, you cannot deny that the suicidal individual is more concerned with his/her own pain than with the pain caused to others by his act of self-destruction. As for suicidal people being religious to some extent, I would argue that the more relevant and common characteristic is that these individuals have lost their sense of hope. Religion, on the other hand, is about faith and hope. As for your vague attack against the Church, I would welcome you to the 20th Century and would emphasize that while men are sometimes weak in their actions, the Thomist philosophy, the basic premise of which is "good ought to be done and evil avoided," is sound. For more, see Regarding Suicide (August 16, 1998) and Suicide as Murder (October 25, 1998) |
| How
is St Thomas' teaching on usury in the treatise on
Justice in applicable today? His argument seems to be
premised on a view of money solely as medium of exchange.
Whereas, modern economics also views money as a store of
value. Is it possible to square St Thomas' teaching with
the modern banking system as we know it today? Many thanks. F Nyan Response: Good question! I'm not sure Aquinas would like viewing money for anything other than a medium of exchange. Even as a store of value, money is only worth something to the extent that it has the potential to be used for purchase. The question regarding usury was taken up in two Aquinas Lessons: Usury and the Banking Industry (September 17, 1998) and Usury Then and Now (September 16, 1998). |
| You
only need to read the Gospels with an open heart desiring
to know the truth God will reveal it to you. The
Bible will always point you to a living faith in Jesus
ALONE, there is no mention that there is salvation
through the Catholic Church. Test it for yourself. Anonymous reader Response: Salvation does not come from mere membership in the Catholic Church. Salvation, of course, comes from Jesus. But, Jesus did found the Catholic Church. Jesus commissioned Peter as the leader of his Church "And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." (Matthew 16: 18-20) The succession of Popes can be traced back from the current John Paul II to Peter. Peter is the rock on which the Catholic Church was built. If you accept Jesus Christ, you must accept his words: ALL OF THEM. No picking and choosing. Jesus was asked repeatedly in the Gospels how we are to achieve salvation. Over and over, he said to keep his commands and to follow him. In the Gospel of John, he reiterated to Peter his command of building the Church and of leading people, telling Peter to "tend my sheep" (John 21: 15-19). I have a living faith in Jesus. I strive to live my life in a charitable and genuinely good way, as Jesus called me to do. I show respect for my Church, because Jesus created it by commissioning Peter. |
| In your article
on married priests, you write at "To allow the
marriage of priests, the Catholic Church would have to
change the very nature of the sacrament of Holy Orders.
... the Church would have to go against her age-old
teaching of vocations (that being that we are all called
to a vocation: single, married, OR religious life)." This seems to imply that having married priests is fundamentally against the Catholic religion. Yet the Eastern Catholic churches have long allowed married people to become priests (though they do not allow priests to marry after they have been ordained). This is a counterexample to your claim (which I can't find in official Church teaching) that the vocations you mention above are necessarily mutually exclusive. (Note that there are still very good *reasons* for the Latin church's discipline that priests be unmarried-- and you mention or allude to a number of them-- but your implication that allowing married priests would violate the Church's understanding of Holy Orders and vocations appears to be misleading.) See paragraphs 1579 and 1580 of the Catechism for an official synopsis of the Church's policies on married priests in the Latin and Eastern branches of the Church. By the way, on the Masons, whether or not they're currently in any conspiracies (I'm rather skeptical about a lot of the current claims to this effect too) there's an even more basic reason why Masonry is incompatible with Catholicism, which is mentioned on a few other Catholic apologetics sites: it's that Masonic rites are in effect religious rites (with solemn oaths to God and implications that Masonic thought and practice is the highest aspiration of a human being), and are, by their nature, incompatible with Catholic teaching if taken seriously. (And if they're not taken seriously, then the invocation of God is in effect blasphemy. So either way, they're not appropriate for Catholics.) I've verified this myself by checking some of the books published by Masons on the rites. (Some are even on-line, being old enough to have fallen out of copyright.) The Vatican confirmed the incompatibility of Catholicism and Masonry in the 1980s; I've got links to the CDF's 1983 document confirming the prohibition, for instance, which you may be interested in linking to. John Mark Ockerbloom Response: Changes have been made to the article on Married Clergy to better reflect the author's argument. Information on the Eastern Church was added as well. Thank you also for your comments on the Masons. |