The two teachings that prove the Church is of God

To my mind, the best evidence of the Catholic Church's divine origins are these two facts:

1) The Church has never changed her teaching on masturbation

and

2) The Church has never definitively declared what happens to the souls of babies who die without baptism


Knowing what we know about human nature, there is simply no way at all that these two teachings would stand for twenty centuries, for two thousand years, if human beings were the ones making the rules and calling the shots.

Put on your thinking caps, and let's examine the facts.


     Masturbation

The Church has always taught that masturbation is intrinsically immoral. Sex is not meant to be a solitary act. Our sexual faculties and reproductive systems are, by design, all about complementary, total union with another. To use sex selfishly, to "have sex with oneself", so to speak, is beneath the dignity of a human being.

Yet, in a fallen world, masturbation is an incredibly common sin.

So here we have a Church headed by unmarried men for century after century after century after century after century. We have had a succession of 266 popes. Not one single male in the long stretch of 266 has changed the teaching of the Church on masturbation. Not one of those men has said, "You know what? Let's loosen up on that one! Let's make life a little easier for all of us. Heck, it would even make us popular, especially among the young! We'd bring 'em in by droves if we said that masturbating was good and holy!"

Knowing what we know about human nature, and thinking of probabilities, how on earth is the teaching about masturbation's sinfulness still in place?

The skeptic might chide me by saying, "But you said that the Church can't change the teachings, that's why!"

And I'd answer with, "Yes, that's true, she can't; the Church can't change her doctrinal teachings precisely because she's of God. However, dear skeptic, that's not what you believe. Your belief, your conviction, is that the Church is a merely human institution. And you firmly believe, as do most skeptics, dissenters, and non-believers, that the Church can and should change her teaching on a number of issues (and you believe she will -- you are just waiting for that 'someday'). So, from your perspective, how on earth is the teaching about masturbation still in place?"

In human terms, of course, the teaching on masturbation should have and would have been changed almost right out of the gate. Or at least later, by one of the depraved, lusty, sinful popes, or the power-hungry popes, or the popes who could be bought, or maybe the popes who were weak and wanted to please.

All it would have taken is one bad apple who jumped at the chance to allow masturbation for himself and everyone else, guilt- and consequence-free!

And yet it's never happened.

If we are honest, we know that there's not any earthly, human reason for this teaching to be standing. Human beings are too weak, fickle, and sinful for this to be anything other than divine protection of Church teaching.



     Babies who die without baptism

The second "proof" that the Church is not merely a human institution is the unanswered question of what happens to the souls of babies who die without baptism.

There are few things more heart wrenching than a mother who has lost her child. The agony of a mother or father after a child's death cannot be overstated. Throughout Christendom, from the first century until today, millions upon millions of anguished parents have appealed to the Church, asking the question, desperate for the assurance that their child is in Heaven. What human being with breath in his body and a beating heart in his chest would not want to do everything in his power to calm the mind and comfort the soul of a grieving parent?

If the Catholic Church operated on human desires alone, there would have been a rush to declare that all unbaptized children go straight to Heaven when they die. Imagine two thousand years' worth of popes witnessing countless instances of profound grief! Most, if not all, would be moved to make a definitive statement about the fate of the littlest souls. In a merely human institution, there would be nothing to stop them from making such a happy, welcome declaration.

And yet, the Church says today what she has said from the beginning: We just don't know definitively what happens to the souls of unbaptized babies. Theologians have debated the issue for centuries, have come up with constructs and theories such as "Limbo" (a place of perfect natural happiness, but minus the beatific vision), and have met and discussed this issue even recently at an international theological commission. But still, the teaching authority of the Church has not pronounced on it. Why? Because Jesus did not reveal it. The Deposit of Faith contains only that which has been revealed by Christ, and the Church has no power to go further than what she has received from God.

The very Church that loves providing answers to the world is being honest when she says that we just don't know. It is exactly because the popes have no power to change what Christ revealed that you will see nothing more definitive on this issue than what we read in the Catechism:

1261: As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: 'Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,' allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.

We humans want answers, and God doesn't always provide them. Many things are to remain a mystery to us this side of Heaven.

If you are frustrated by this, then imagine how frustrated a human pope is when he, as the head of the  Church on earth, is unable to provide an answer to his beloved and often greatly suffering flock!

What merely earthly, human reason would stand in the way of 266 popes giving the answer we all want to hear? I can't think of one.


From what we know of human nature, if these two teachings don't provide enough reason for us to believe that the Church is of divine origin, then dare I say that even a man rising from the dead would not convince us.

The Incredulity of Saint Thomas (Caravaggio)

Should Pope Francis "take on" birth control? A response

Hi folks, JoAnna here. I recently wrote the following post for Catholic Stand, 
and Leila asked if I'd mind running it on the Bubble as a guest post as well 
while she is on hiatus. 

+++++++

Robert McClory recently wrote an article for the National Catholic* Reporter, opining that Pope Francis should revisit the question of the morality of birth control. As per usual for the Reporter, this dissent from Church teaching contains many problems.

Problem #1: Terminology. This is a widespread problem, so I can't really fault McClory, but his terminology is problematic. The Church does not, in fact, teach that “birth control,” when used to refer to spacing pregnancies, is intrinsically immoral. In fact, the words “birth control” do not appear in the Catechism. The closest term is “regulation of births,” about which the CCC states, “The regulation of births represents one of the aspects of responsible fatherhood and motherhood. Legitimate intentions on the part of the spouses do not justify recourse to morally unacceptable means (for example, direct sterilization or contraception).”

In other words, it is not intrinsically immoral to use “birth control” to space pregnancies, provided that the method of birth control used is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality. The Church teaches that there are only two such methods: periodic abstinence or complete abstinence (see CCC 2370).

Contraception, however, is a form of birth control that is intrinsically immoral and is not permitted under any circumstances. As Humanae Vitae states, contraception is “every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible.”

McClory is specifically speaking about the Church’s teachings regarding the intrinsic evil of contraception when he refers to birth control. He also states that the Church “forbids any form of artificial contraception” (emphasis mine), implying that moral methods of birth regulation are some sort of natural contraception, which couldn’t be further from the truth.

Problem #2: Too Many of Them, Just Enough of Him. McClory begins his article citing Pope Francis’ general audience on June 5, in which the Holy Father laments the plight of children who are starving and encourages Catholics to do what they can to remedy that issue.

McClory’s solution is not to feed the children, or donate food, money, or other resources toward that end, or work toward reforming corrupt governments that hinder adequate food distribution. No, his solution is... wait for it… contraception!

Frankly speaking, this attitude is one of eugenics smothered with a thin veneer of false compassion. “We must think of the children!” is camouflage for this sentiment: “The hungry of the world are the poor, unfit, unwashed masses, so of course there should be less of them. We wouldn't those undesirables to breed, would we?”

If McClory did his research, he'd know that the World Food Programme – the world's largest humanitarian agency fighting hunger worldwide – states that “There is enough food in the world today for everyone to have the nourishment necessary for a healthy and productive life.“ The problem is access, and throwing contraception at people who'd much prefer to have nutritious food is not going to solve that issue. (Incidentally, a search for the term “contraception” on WFP's site yields no results; obviously, unlike McClory, they don't believe it's the magical panacea for solving world hunger.)

Problem #3: The Holy Spirit Got It Wrong. McClory claims that he's “not suggesting the pope announce he is rescinding the church's position as dictated by Pope Paul VI in his 1968 encyclical Humanae Vitae.” No, not at all! He just wants Pope Francis to re-examine Responsible Parenthood, which was issued by the Vatican's Pontifical Commission on Population, Family, and Birth in 1966. This document encouraged Paul VI to amend the Church's current position on contraception, arguing that the Pill should be an “exception” to the contraception ban since it didn't alter the physical aspects of the marital act (unlike condoms, which placed a barrier between man and wife).

Interestingly, it was Paul's VI intention that this document was for his eyes only, but unfortunately a copy was leaked to the press and its contents became available for public dissemination. The document caused many Catholics to believe that a change in teaching regarding contraception was imminent, as it was portrayed as the “majority opinion” of the Commission. The fact that, to quote Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, “Truth is not determined by majority vote” was a concept apparently lost to many Catholics at that time (and is a concept still lost to many Catholics today, including the entire staff of the National Catholic Reporter).

Paul VI, however, knew that the Commission was largely composed of pro-contraception advocates from its inception. According to Dr. Germain Grisez, emeritus Professor of Christian Ethics at Mount St. Mary’s University, “Paul VI was aware of the ideological leanings of those he had appointed to the Commission, and had composed the Commission in this way in order to give their argument a fair hearing.”

Their arguments did not convince Paul VI, however, and two years later he issued Humanae Vitae, restating the Church's constant, unchanging teaching on artificial birth control and making several dire predictions about the negative changes that would come to pass if contraception became accepted and widespread among the populace – predictions that have all come true.

You'd think that the fact that these predictions have come true is simply evidence that Paul VI was correct in his decision, and that his words and actions in continuing to uphold the Church's ban on contraception were inspired by the Holy Spirit, wouldn't you?

Not so, says McClory's article. He believes that the Commission was “ahead of its time,” and his implication is that Paul VI went against the "correct" teaching and instead taught error as doctrine. Moreover, using this logic, the Church has continued teaching error as doctrine – the ban on contraception is reiterated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (which is, according to Pope John Paul II, “a sure norm for teaching the faith and thus a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion“), and JPII also reaffirmed the evil of contraception in his encyclical Evengelium Vitae.

In short, McClory believes that the Holy Spirit got it wrong when He inspired the Church to reaffirm the ban against contraception, which means that the gates of Hell have prevailed against the Church and Jesus was a liar. Therefore, Catholicism is a false religion. Given this logic, why does McClory bother to remain in a Church that he firmly believes teaches error as doctrine and has proven itself, by his own reasoning, to be a false church? How can he trust any of the teachings of the Church if he knows that She has taught error on one important aspect of doctrine (and if he's in favor of women's ordination, as are most of the NCR staff, that's another crucial area of doctrine the Church has allegedly gotten wrong)?

Problem #4: Pope Francis is Going to Change Church Teaching. McClory “couldn't help noting how the language of the document [Responsible Parenthood] so resembled the calm, non-argumentative, pastoral style of the current pope.”

I can't think of a single papal document issued in the last forty years or so that could be described as angry, argumentative, or non-pastoral, but his implication is that Francis' style is markedly different than that of Paul VI or JPII or Benedict XVI – yet reading any of the documents issued by any of these popes shows that they were all (or are still, in Pope Benedict's case) thoughtful, reasonable, pastoral shepherds of our Church.

I think McClory is projecting his own feelings of anger and dissent on the writings of the popes with whom he disagrees, and he's hoping that Pope Francis, whom he sees as more "liberal," will change all that by also changing Church teaching – because to accept the recommendations of Responsible Parenthood would be to do just that.

So no, Mr. McClory, Pope Francis will not “take on birth control,” because the teaching that contraception is an intrinsic evil is a teaching of the magisterium and is part of the Deposit of Faith. Pope Francis has neither the authority nor the desire to change this doctrine, and his pontificate so far has only served to emphasize that fact.

Stop fantasizing about what you hope Pope Francis will say and start listening to what he has actually said, such as in Lumen Fidei:

As a service to the unity of faith and its integral transmission, the Lord gave his Church the gift of apostolic succession. Through this means, the continuity of the Church’s memory is ensured and certain access can be had to the wellspring from which faith flows. The assurance of continuity with the origins is thus given by living persons, in a way consonant with the living faith which the Church is called to transmit. She depends on the fidelity of witnesses chosen by the Lord for this task. For this reason, the magisterium always speaks in obedience to the prior word on which faith is based; it is reliable because of its trust in the word which it hears, preserves and expounds. In Saint Paul’s farewell discourse to the elders of Ephesus at Miletus, which Saint Luke recounts for us in the Acts of the Apostles, he testifies that he had carried out the task which the Lord had entrusted to him of "declaring the whole counsel of God" (Acts 20:27). Thanks to the Church’s magisterium, this counsel can come to us in its integrity, and with it the joy of being able to follow it fully.”

*While this publication still identifies itself as Catholic, they were requested to remove that identifier from their name as early as 1968 – and the current bishop, Robert W. Finn, has also identified them as a problematic media source when it comes to authentic Catholic reporting.

+++++++

The Pope is not as powerful as you think.

Many people believe that the pope wields a strong and potentially tyrannical power over his flock. The concept of an infallible teacher leads them to imagine a dictator (even if benevolent) who can force doctrines upon Catholics at whim, leaving the faithful either a) anxious and uncertain about what dogmatic changes will come next to disturb their lives, or b) ready to run like lemmings off whatever cliff the Supreme Pontiff decides to lead them. Sure, maybe the current pope is mentally and emotionally stable, but what of the next? And the next? Think of the havoc he could wreak! Who in his right mind would put his life under the pope's authority?

In reality, however, the pope is not quite as powerful as one might think.

For example:

They say: "The pope has forbidden Catholics to use contraception!"

The reality is: For twenty centuries, the Church has taught that contraception is wrong. No pope in any era has the authority or power to reverse a teaching of the Deposit of Faith.

They say: "The pope won't allow women to become priests!"

The reality is: For twenty centuries, the Church has never admitted women to the priesthood. No pope in any era has the authority or power to reverse a teaching of the Deposit of Faith.

They say: "The pope says women can't have abortions under any circumstances!"

The reality is: For twenty centuries, the Church has taught that any and all abortions are intrinsically evil (even when there's been debate over the issue of "ensoulment"). No pope in any era has the authority or power to reverse a teaching of the Deposit of Faith.

They say: "The pope won't approve pre-marital sex or homosexual activity!"

The reality is: For twenty centuries, the Church has taught that sexual activity outside of heterosexual marriage is gravely sinful. No pope in any era has the authority or power to reverse a teaching of the Deposit of Faith.

They say: "The pope won't let people defraud the poor!"

Wait... what? The Church-bashers don't take issue with that part of the Catholic Faith? Well then, they might be happy to hear this:

For twenty centuries, the Church has taught that defrauding the poor is evil. No pope in any era has the authority or power to reverse a teaching of the Deposit of Faith.

Are you seeing a pattern here?

The pope has no power to change the Deposit of Faith. None. Nada. Zip and zilch. He can't change the moral law. He can't change the tenets of the Creed. He can't touch the truths of faith and morals because he has no authority to do so. 

As my friend Kim relates in her conversion story (a must read!), infallibility doesn't give a pope carte blanche to invent any doctrine he wants to make up; instead, infallibility is actually a highly limiting doctrine. Jesus' teachings are preserved and protected, leaving them intact throughout the centuries.

And our dear pope, thank God, is powerless to change a single truth. 

Catholics, you must understand this!

Do you know the difference between a doctrine and a discipline?

If not, you need to!

I have found that until a Catholic understands the distinction, he will be at a great disadvantage when someone challenges him on Church teaching, or when his own doubts creep in.

Here we go....

Doctrine

A doctrine is an unchanging Truth, part of what we call The Deposit of Faith (a.k.a. Sacred Tradition). The Deposit of Faith is the body of truth (faith and morals) that Christ left to His Apostles. The Apostles' successors (Popes and bishops) have preserved and passed this body of truth down through the generations. When Jesus promised His Apostles that the Holy Spirit would come to "lead you to all Truth" (John 16:13), He was talking doctrine.

Doctrine can be better understood over time, and through the centuries the Church has fleshed out its richness (this is called development of doctrine), but its essence does not change. Indeed, the Deposit of Faith can never be contradicted, reversed, added to, or subtracted from. The Holy Spirit sees to that.

Some examples of doctrines: The Ten Commandments; the truth and meaning of human sexuality; the nature of Christ and the Trinity; the Marian doctrines; the basic elements and nature of the seven Sacraments; the male-only priesthood, the Cycle of Redemption.

Hint for thinking of "faith and morals": 
Faith = The Creed (what we believe)
Morals = The Ten Commandments (how we live)


Discipline

A discipline is a rule or regulation which can and often does change. This is the "binding and loosing" authority that the Church received when Jesus said to Peter and the Apostles, "Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in Heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in Heaven" (Matt. 16:19, Matt. 18:18). These rules/disciplines can be changed, but when they are in effect, the faithful are bound to them. Why do they exist? To help the faithful in each era become holy. Depending on times and cultures and circumstances, Popes and bishops will bind or loose the faithful according to the needs of the people of God at that time.

Some examples of disciplines: Canon Law; days of fasting and abstinence; Holy Days of Obligation; regulation of religious orders; priestly celibacy; liturgical rubrics (i.e., language of the liturgy, words/prayers/readings for liturgical celebrations, postures and gestures, etc.).

So, when someone says to you, "The Church is not the True Church because it changed its rules on eating meat on Fridays!" you say, "That's a discipline, and it can change!"

And when someone says, "The Church is going to change its teachings on contraception and homosexuality!" you say, "Those are doctrines, and they will never change!"

Any questions? I love questions!