Does the Catholic Church Allow Cremation?

The Catholic Church, deeply rooted in tradition and reverence for the sacredness of the human body, has historically advocated for the burial of the deceased. This preference is not merely ceremonial but deeply theological, reflecting the belief in the resurrection of the body, a fundamental tenet of Christian faith. The practice of burial, mirroring the burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ, serves as a powerful symbol of the Christian hope in eternal life and resurrection.

For centuries, cremation was prohibited within the Catholic Church. This prohibition was grounded in the Church's desire to distance Christian practice from non-Christian customs, particularly those that denied the resurrection of the body. The association of cremation with pagan practices and a denial of the Christian doctrine of resurrection contributed to the Church's longstanding opposition to the practice.

The Code of Canon Law of 1917 explicitly reflected this stance, underscoring the preference for burial as a manifestation of belief in the resurrection of the flesh. The Church's position was not only doctrinal but also pastoral, aiming to guide the faithful in practices that affirm their faith in the face of death.

While the 1983 Code of Canon Law and the instruction from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in 1963 marked a concession, allowing cremation under certain conditions, this should not be misconstrued as an endorsement of the practice. The permission granted for cremation comes with significant caveats, primarily that it must not be chosen for reasons contrary to Christian doctrine. The Church's allowance for cremation is a reluctant concession to changing societal circumstances, not a change in doctrinal understanding or an affirmation of the practice.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states, "The Church permits cremation, provided that it does not demonstrate a denial of faith in the resurrection of the body" (CCC, 2300). This statement, while acknowledging the allowance for cremation, implicitly reaffirms the Church's preference for burial. The conditional nature of this permission highlights the Church's ongoing concerns regarding the practice.

The 2016 instruction "Ad resurgendum cum Christo" further emphasizes the Church's cautious stance towards cremation, stipulating that ashes must be kept in a sacred place and not subjected to practices that could diminish their dignity or suggest a denial of Christian beliefs about the afterlife and resurrection. These guidelines reflect a broader concern for maintaining the sanctity and integrity of the faith in the context of funeral practices.

In advocating for burial over cremation, the Church upholds a practice that more clearly reflects and honors Christian beliefs about the body, death, and resurrection. Burial serves as a tangible expression of faith in the resurrection and the unity of the body and soul, destined for glorification in eternal life. While cremation is technically allowed, the Church's historical and doctrinal reservations about the practice underscore a clear preference for burial—a preference that honors the Christian understanding of the body as a temple of the Holy Spirit and a participant in the resurrection to come.

Friday the 13th, January 2023: What is the Significance from a Catholic Perspective?

I was doing some research on Friday the 13th to discover its significance and why it's considered an unlucky number. Here's what I found:

Friday the 13th is considered by some to be an unlucky day because of a combination of the superstitions surrounding the number 13 and the fact that it is a Friday. The fear of the number 13 is known as triskaidekaphobia and the fear of Fridays falling on the 13th day of the month is called paraskevidekatriaphobia.

The origins of the superstitions surrounding Friday the 13th are not entirely clear, but it is believed to have roots in ancient cultures and religions. In Christianity, Friday is associated with the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, which may have contributed to the belief that Fridays are unlucky. However, there is no direct connection between the two superstitions and Catholicism.

I also tried to find out why the number 13 itself is considered unlucky by some:

The origins of the superstition surrounding the number 13 are not entirely clear, but it is believed to have roots in ancient cultures and religions. One theory is that it is related to the number of guests present at the Last Supper, where Jesus and his 12 apostles were present, and the subsequent betrayal by one of the apostles, Judas. This event was considered unlucky and the number 13 became associated with bad luck.

Another theory is that the number 13 is associated with the number of full moons in a year and the 13th full moon was considered unlucky.

Additionally, In Norse mythology, the number 13 is associated with Loki, the god of chaos and mischief, which may have contributed to the belief that the number 13 is unlucky.

However, it's also worth noting that superstitions are often passed down through generations and therefore it's hard to trace their origin with certainty.

It seems to have uncertain origins from several possible sources but one that we seem to hear often is its association with the Last Supper (which occurred on a Thursday) and Friday on which Jesus Christ was crucified.

If you have any other information or theories, please post them in the comments!

I just want to mention that as Catholics we are not to place any value in superstitions and they are prohibited, even though they remain popular. Someone who adheres to them isn't necessarily committing evil, but we should be cognizant of them. Here's what I found about that:

The Catholic Church does not condone or promote superstitions. In fact, the Catholic Church teaches that superstitions are irrational and can lead to a lack of faith in God. The Church teaches that faith in God should be based on reason and revelation, rather than on superstitions or luck.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that "superstition is a deviation of religious feeling and of the practices this feeling imposes. It can even affect the worship we offer the true God, e.g., when one attributes an importance in some way magical to certain practices otherwise lawful or necessary. To attribute the efficacy of prayers or of sacramental signs to their mere external performance, apart from the interior dispositions that they demand, is to fall into superstition."

Additionally, the Catholic Church encourages Catholics to be guided by reason and faith, and to avoid relying on luck or superstition. The Church teaches that true faith in God is based on trust in God's love and providence, and that this trust should be reflected in a person's actions and attitudes.

In summary, the Catholic Church does not condone or promote superstitions, it teaches that faith in God should be based on reason and revelation and that superstitions are a deviation of religious feeling and practices.

I hope you found this article useful. Please let me know if you have any questions! 

The New Amsterdam's Lack of Catholic Understanding in Croaklahoma [S01:E15]

In something that seems all too common, TV shows seem unable to find a single expert on Catholicism. That is no different when it comes to a new Netflix program called "New Amsterdam". The show is pretty good as far as shows go, but there is of course many moral problems with it.

[Spoiler Alert!]

In one episode titled "Croaklahoma" (Season 1, Episode 15), there is a married couple whose child received a transplanted organ and is now having adverse side effects. The situation is that the medical insurance of the parents covered the necessary transplant but not the subsequent anti-rejection medication. The parents cannot afford the excessive cost of the drugs and therefore decided to give their child half the number of dosages so they would last longer. This caused the negative side effects.

Not sure what to do, the main character Dr. Max Goodwin brings up a controversial suggestion. Medicaid can be used to pay for drugs if a person's income is low enough. The bold suggestion of Max is for the couple to divorce, thus bringing at least one of them below the threshold for free medication.

This present the couple with a quandary. They declare they cannot divorce because they are Catholic and for them it would be a sin. After tearfully considering all their alternatives, the couple decides they would rather commit a sin to save their son's life than to avoid sin but put him at risk. A monkey wrench is thrown into the situation when the son runs off in the hospital and can't be found. He leaves a note saying "No Divorce".

Eventually the son is found and he tells his parents that he doesn't want them to go to Hell, which is what will happen if they divorce, as he doesn't want to go to Heaven without them. They look at each other as if they agree with him and think well that's okay we are willing to do whatever it takes to save his life.

This is a ridiculous premise to being with, but it gets worse. Stay tuned for that. But for now, I will explain what is wrong with this line of thinking. The Catholic Church does not say its members are not allowed to divorce. Rather, it says if a couple of validly married, then divorce is not an option, it's simply impossible. Christ established marriage as a permanent bond between two people which cannot be broken save by the death of one of the spouses.

The key is that the Church regards legal marriage by the state as a separate affair altogether. In other words, the Sacrament of Marriage is altogether distinct from the civil procedure known as marriage. When a couple of married in a Church wedding witnessed by a priest, the priest must also have the couple sign a state form separately. The priest is granted permission by the state to perform a wedding just like they permit other civil servants. I must stress that the Catholic Church sacrament called Marriage is completely separate from the state version of marriage, even though they occur concurrently.

What this means is that the Church actually allows couples to legally divorce in various contexts if it is for a greater good. For example, if a woman must be separated from her husband for her own safety and can only do so with a legal divorce, she would be permitted to do this. Of course, she would not be allowed to remarry as she would still be bonded to this man in marriage.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church explicitly states this:

The separation of the spouses while maintaining the marriage bond can be legitimate in certain cases provided for by canon law. If civil divorce remains the only possible way of ensuring certain legal rights, the care of the children, or the protection of inheritance, it can be tolerated and does not constitute a moral offense. – CCC 2383

Clearly in the case above, this civil divorce would be permitted for the care of children. It's very straightforward. Yet somehow, NBC couldn't get anyone who knew this? Maybe some people say perhaps they were just creating a plot and this is simply artistic license. Well I find that implausible. In every other instance, it seems they use real laws, possible scenarios, etc. The producers of the show do their research when it comes to various groups and facts. Yet, it seems they are unable to verify even straightforward information on Catholics. It only took me a few seconds to find the Catechism quote above.

So, how does the situation get even worse in the show? Well, as chance would have it, the pope's right-hand-man happened to be in the hospital as the pope was in town at the time and they had to maintain a presence in the hospital "just in case". After being helped by Dr. Max Goodwin, the Cardinal asks if there is anything he can do for him. So Max thinks for a second and then says to the Cardinal, actually there is.

The next scene shows the couple and their son speaking to the cardinal. Max introduces him as the pope's right-hand-man. The cardinal then says he spoke to the Holy Father about their situation he says ...pause.... "it's cool!"

Seriously? That's the best they could come up with? First of all, it's clear the cardinal never did speak to the pope about this situation at all. So he's lying right off the bat to the family. Then he tells them the pope says "it's cool", like it just some little do-dad, no biggie, whatevs! It's all good!

The Catholic Church doesn't work like that. Moral laws aren't just applied willy-nilly. Things aren't done on a case-by-case basis. Our entire moral code is based on the teachings of Christ. Christ said once two people are joined they become one flesh and that divorce is unlawful. The Church is simply upholding that. For the cardinal to simply brush off the situation like it was nothing would be like him disregarding the laws laid down by Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Another problem with this whole scenario is that it gives the impression the clergy, including cardinals and the pope, have some kind of absolute authority. As if they can just change any rule they want and that we as Catholics just do whatever they say because they said it. It's presented as though the Vatican and the clergy are some kind of absolute monarchs who make and change rules at their whim and we are just servants who dutifully do what they tell us.

In reality these laws do not change. The Church is our teacher which is why she is called Holy Mother Church. Not only we, but also the pope and cardinals must abide by and follow the teachings of the Church. Sometimes the magisterium (or teaching authority of the Church) will issue a clarification or address a particular issue. These represent developments in doctrines but never breaks from it. No moral law, doctrine or dogma can contradict another.

If there were an episode featuring basketball, they would probably have someone with knowledge of the game to inform the episode so that it made sense. Yet somehow, when it comes to Catholicism, no such care is taken. It's a pity and should be corrected.

What is the difference between Christians and Catholics?

As a Catholic, I really dislike this question. Unfortunately it's a very common one. I am assuming that 99% of people who ask this question are not doing so maliciously or with any ill-will whatsoever. It actually makes sense. When someone says they are "Christian" generally it means a non-Catholic / non-Orthodox Christian, especially if said by someone in the United States or Canada.

I remember one time when I and my now wife were in Europe doing a tour and someone asked me this very question. I have heard it in other instances in various different ways. But this isn't just a blog about why I dislike this question, I will also attempt to the best of my ability to actually answer it!

But first, why do I dislike it? As you can probably tell, I primarily dislike this question because of the question implied within it. If you ask the "difference" between two things, it automatically implies they are, in fact, different. If I said what is the difference between an apple and an orange, it would imply those are two separate entities. If, however, one entity subsumed the other within its definition, the question would seem odd at best.

Imagine for example asking "What is the difference between a Canadian and a person?" or "What is the difference between a cell phone and technology?"

Those would seem like strange, almost unanswerable questions. It reminds me of the court room question of "Do you still beat your wife?" If answered with either "yes" or "no", it would imply the person being questioned was at some point guilty. So, the question's baseline premise must be rejected. That's exactly what I am saying with the above question. I reject the initial premise upon which it is based.

A properly phrased question in this case would be "What is the difference between non-Catholic Christians and Catholic Christians?" I know that's a bit bulky, but it maintains an important point: that Catholics are Christians. This is something which must be emphasized. Catholics are 100% Christians. In fact, we would say we are the truest and most complete form of Christianity. It would make more sense to ask "What is the difference between a Christian and a Protestant?" Even though it would make more sense, I'm not saying it does make sense. Most Protestants, in my estimation, would meet the criteria for being called Christian.

So, having said that enormous pre-amble, let's get into what actually sets Catholics apart from others who call themselves Christians?

I cannot really offer a complete and exhaustive list of differences between the two, but I can offer some observations and some of my own personal knowledge on the subject. To list every single difference would take volumes. These are just some that I thought of. If there are others you think are important, please feel free to list them in the comments. Again, this isn't meant to be an exhaustive list. Also, I may not explain everything perfectly in precise theological language.

One thing I find great about the Catholic Church is that it is very open and transparent on its teachings. If you want to know what the Church believes, you just have to look it up. One of the best sources it the Catechism. There are different versions, and not everything has the same level of authority in its teaching, but it gives you a great idea. Many people accuse Catholics of believing certain things even when they don't. There doesn't need to be any confusion. What we teach is available and knowable by anyone.

Not everything I mention here will differentiate the Catholic Church from all other Christian communities in every way. With thousands of denominations, it would be hard to find a particular doctrine not shared by one or more of them.

Sacraments
The Catholic Church has seven sacraments.

The sacraments are “efficacious signs of grace, instituted by Christ and entrusted to the Church, by which divine life is dispensed to us” (CCC 1131). In other words, a sacrament is a sacred and visible sign that is instituted by Jesus to give us grace, an undeserved gift from God. (See also CCC 1084).

These seven sacraments are the following:

Sacraments of initiation

• Baptism
• Confirmation
• Eucharist

Sacraments of healing

• Penance
• Anointing of the Sick

Sacraments of service

• Holy Orders
• Matrimony 

In Catholic theology, these sacraments impart grace, which is a free gift from God. The efficacy of the sacraments do not depend on the disposition of the person receiving them. Some of the sacraments are necessary for salvation, such as baptism, and in the case of committing a mortal sin, penance. All of the sacraments bring us closer to God. These are not merely symbolic gesture or symbols, but truly bring God's grace to us.

In some Christian denominations, there are only 2 sacraments instead of 7, and they are not considered necessary for salvation. In some cases, they are seen as merely symbolic.

Priesthood
In order to have the sacraments, the Catholic Church must have a priesthood. Although all Christians, in a certain sense, are priests, prophets, and kings, there is also a special clergy designated by God to perform various sacraments, primarily the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Priests are seen as the spiritual helpers of bishops who are spiritual successors of the Apostles. In theory, each bishop can trace his lineage all the way back to one of the original 12 apostles.

Priests take a vow of celibacy which is a matter of discipline rather than doctrine. On top of this, they make a vow of obedience and in some cases (particularly with religious priests) a vow of poverty. By "religious" priest, I mean a priest belonging to a particular religious order, as opposed to a diocesan priest.

Other Christians do not have the priesthood, especially not a ministerial one. This is a huge difference. Although, for example, both Catholics and Protestants celebrate a form of service or liturgy, Protestants view what is happening in a completely different way. The primary purpose of the Mass is to consecrate the Eucharist, which is an unbloody re-presentation of the eternal sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross. It makes present his perfect atonement and allows us to do as he commanded when he said "do this in memory of me".

Most Protestant Christians do not believe in the Real Presence of Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament (the Eucharist) and therefore they may infrequently or never have a communion service which they see as symbolic. The primary purpose of a Protestant service is to pray and hear a sermon.

This is an important distinction. As mentioned, even though many families, both Protestant and Catholic, go to their respective churches on Sunday for a service, the intention and idea behind both is dramatically different. There are, however, commonalities, such as Bible readings and a sermon, although Protestant sermons, being the central aspect of a Sunday service, can be much longer than a Catholic homily which generally lasts between 5 to 15 minutes.

Scripture and Tradition
Another big differentiator between non-Catholic and Catholic Christians is their views on Scripture and Tradition. Within Catholicism, both are seen as equal sources of belief and doctrine. However, there is some misunderstanding which must be clarified.

When the Church speaks of "Tradition", it does not simply mean things that are traditional.

The catechism really says it best, so I will quote it here:

The Tradition here in question comes from the apostles and hands on what they received from Jesus' teaching and example and what they learned from the Holy Spirit. The first generation of Christians did not yet have a written New Testament, and the New Testament itself demonstrates the process of living Tradition.

Tradition is to be distinguished from the various theological, disciplinary, liturgical or devotional traditions, born in the local churches over time. These are the particular forms, adapted to different places and times, in which the great Tradition is expressed. In the light of Tradition, these traditions can be retained, modified or even abandoned under the guidance of the Church's Magisterium.

Of note, Tradition is not something that is just simply "made up", it comes from the apostles and is transmitted through time. As the catechism explains, the apostles didn't yet have the Bible as we know it today. That didn't come about until the mid-300s or so. There was much debate about which books were in the Bible and so on. Therefore, one could say the Bible came from the Church and not the other way around.

Of course, this is not the view of non-Catholic Christians. Most of them would describe themselves as Bible-alone Christians or Sola Scriptura. This belief, in my opinion, seems to stem from the idea that the Church is not a visible structure with a hierarchy, but rather more a collection of believers. Because of this, it would be impossible to identify the true "Tradition" or the handing down of doctrine and belief from a particular source. It is also a Protestant belief that each individual Christian has the ability to interpret Scripture on his or her own, there is no Magisterium, which is the teaching authority of the Church in Catholicism. The "Tradition" of Catholic teaching simply could not exist in Protestantism. 

Saints
Of course, all Christians believe in saints. Saints are quite simply those who are in heaven. The difference in belief comes from our approach to them. Catholics believe we can ask Saints in heaven to intercede for us, which means we ask them to pray for us. It's important to note, we always ask them to pray to God on our behalf. We are not praying to them as a substitution for God, as if we are deciding: Should I pray to God or to a saint today?

That's important to know. Many people ask why Catholics don't just "go straight to God"? Why have all these middlemen? First, I would say we often DO go straight to God and this is not discouraged in any way. Secondly, asking others to pray for us is something everyone does. We may ask a relative or friend to keep us in their prayers. This goes for Catholics and non-Catholics. The difference is Catholics will ask not only relatives and friends but also saints in heaven.

There are a couple of reasons for this. First of all, we believe in the communion of saints, meaning we are all kind of in this together. Saints are close to God and are virtuous, holy and filled with grace. They are currently experiencing the beatific vision. Their intercessory prayer is powerful. As Catholics, we believe that saints can hear our prayers and bring them to God.

Purgatory and Indulgences

Purgatory in Catholic theology is a place of purification which those who are saved must spend time in order to purge or cleanse vice or attachment to sin before entering Heaven. We are told that nothing impure can enter heaven. Purgatory are for those who die in a state of grace, meaning in friendship with God, but must first be purified before entering into the beatific vision.

To me, purgatory is congruent with God's mercy. Instead of saying a person must have absolutely no attachment to sin or any disordered desires, God says a person must be in friendship with him at the time of death and that he will cleanse them of any leftover vices before they can enter the Kingdom of Heaven.

Protestants do not explicitly believe in any form of purgatory for the most part. I did, however, discover that many Protestants believe in a sort of cleansing prior to entering Heaven, the difference is that it takes place instantaneously unlike in Catholic theology.

Because of our beliefs surrounding purgatory, we have other beliefs which correspond as well, such as indulgences. An indulgence is the remission of the temporal punishment due to sin. This is best explained with an example. If you steal $1000 from someone and then God forgives you for doing so, you must still, to the best of your ability, repay the amount to that person. You must make restitution. It would not be sufficient to say "well God has forgiven me, no further action necessary." This type of "repayment" cannot always take place. How could one repay gluttony, lust, sloth, etc. It's not always clear the exact "value" of these things. That's where indulgences come in. Indulgences can be granted for various actions such as prayers and fasting. Special indulgences are granted by the Church for various specific tasks such as praying at a cemetery during All Souls Day or participating in a Novena. These actions purify us and detach us from sin.

Indulgences get a little more complicated. There are some which are partial and others which are complete or plenary, meaning they either remit some or all of the temporal punishment due to sin (temporal indicating the effects of sin other than eternal consequences). One of the conditions to receive a plenary indulgence is detachment from sin, meaning we are not drawn to a particular sin. That's a big ask. If these cannot be achieved, and a person dies in God's favor, he may have to spend time in Purgatory.

🙏

There are dozens of other differences between Catholicism and non-Catholic Christianity. We could go on and on, but the above at least gives an idea. I did not provide proof, either Biblical or other, for the above, but they are certainly there. I just wanted to provide the differences, not necessarily prove them.

Hope this helps answer the question many people have asked over the years. If you have any further questions, do not hesitate to put them in the comments section.

Have a great day and God Bless You.

What does the Catholic Church mean by Unitive?

My friends and I were having our weekly catechism discussion and this past week concerned the 6th commandment against adultery. It was mentioned in our discussion that in order for a sexual act to be morally valid and licit, it would have to be three things:

• Procreative
• Unitive
• Marital

My friend would give examples of sexual expression and ask whether they met the three conditions listed above.

During this exercise, a question came up for me which was how does the Church define "unitive". I had assumed that unitive meant two married people uniting in the sacrament of marriage. Therefore, it would have to be open to life, non-contracepting, between a married couple.

It seems I was wrong.

I looked around and no one was really providing a good definition of what constituted "unitive". However, I eventually ran across an article written by theologian Ronald L. Conte Jr. In the article, he goes on to explain what constitutes unitive and basically answers objections to this line of reasoning.

I was surprised to find out that a sexual act can be unitive even if it involves contraception or even if it occurs outside of marriage. Of course, as mentioned, not one, but all three of the above conditions must be met in order for an act to be morally valid. However, just because some of the conditions are not met, does not automatically mean they aren't all met.

I guess logically this makes sense. If this were the case, there would not be three conditions, only one or two. In other words, unitive could just simply be an aspect of procreative if it was implied in the definition.

So what is the answer? Unitive simply means a sexual act involving a man and a woman. This could be between a married couple that is contracepting or between a man and a prostitute. To bolster this idea, Ronald L Conte Jr. quotes St. Paul in the Book of 1 Corinthians 6:15 when he says:

15 Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I therefore take the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? Never! 16 Do you not know that he who joins himself to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For, as it is written, “The two shall become one.”

St. Paul is saying that he who joins himself to a prostitute becomes on body with her, i.e. it is unitive. It doesn't make it right, but that one aspect is fulfilled.

In terms of married couples who contracept, this too would be considered unitive. To show how this is the case, Mr. Conte quotes from Humanae Vitae, which came after the Second Vatican Council, in 1968. I will also quote what Mr. Conte had to say about it:

The Vademecum for Confessors: “Special difficulties are presented by cases of cooperation in the sin of a spouse who voluntarily renders the unitive act infecund.” [n. 13]

Here the Holy See calls contracepted marital sex “the unitive act”. It could not be called by that term if contraception deprived sex of its unitive meaning.

Mr. Conte explains it well. It would be illogical to call an act unitive if it wasn't. It's quite simple. And the act they are referring to is a contracepted marital act. Therefore, the Church would consider such an act to remain unitive.

However, are all sexual acts unitive? Of course not. Unitive sexual acts must involve a man and a woman engaging in intercourse. Homosexual acts are not unitive, nor is self-pollution (masturbation). The latter is obvious since an act involving one person obviously cannot be unitive. The former is not unitive, however the exact reason why not I am not sure. It could simply be because the real definition of sex is sexual intercourse between a man and a woman. It's sufficient to say that homosexual acts fulfill none of the three criteria.

I hope this clarifies things for people. Please comment if you have any comments or questions.

Can you name an environmental group? How about the Vatican?

When you think environmental activism, the first group you think of is probably not the Vatican and the Catholic Church. However, the Pope and tbhe Vatican have been promoting environmental causes for quite some time. Most recently, the Vatican announced plans to build the world's largest solar plant. A solar plant is a large collection of solar panels to capture energy. This plant will produce enough energy for 40,000 homes. This is simply incredible. For years, the Vatican has been promoting our proper response to the environment. Our Catholic faith teaches us that we are stewards of the environment and that we must protect it.

Some people believe the Vatican is behind the times, but this once again proves the opposite. In promoting renewable energy, the Vatican is sending a message to the world. But why do so many people insist that the Vatican and the Catholic Church are outdated? The reason does not come from the evidence, but rather from peoples' desires to be free from any moral code. But this is shortsighted, because ultimately the Catholic Church, founded by Jesus Christ almost 2,000 years ago, is looking out for people's best interest.

Right from the start, the Church has told people to be good stewards of the Earth and to protect it. The Catechism of the Catholic Church says:

Respect for the integrity of creation 2415 The seventh commandment enjoins respect for the integrity of creation. Animals, like plants and inanimate beings, are by nature destined for the common good of past, present, and future humanity.195 Use of the mineral, vegetable, and animal resources of the universe cannot be divorced from respect for moral imperatives. Man's dominion over inanimate and other living beings granted by the Creator is not absolute; it is limited by concern for the quality of life of his neighbor, including generations to come; it requires a religious respect for the integrity of creation.196

2416 Animals are God's creatures. He surrounds them with his providential care. By their mere existence they bless him and give him glory.197 Thus men owe them kindness. We should recall the gentleness with which saints like St. Francis of Assisi or St. Philip Neri treated animals.

2417 God entrusted animals to the stewardship of those whom he created in his own image.198 Hence it is legitimate to use animals for food and clothing. They may be domesticated to help man in his work and leisure. Medical and scientific experimentation on animals is a morally acceptable practice if it remains within reasonable limits and contributes to caring for or saving human lives.

2418 It is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die needlessly. It is likewise unworthy to spend money on them that should as a priority go to the relief of human misery. One can love animals; one should not direct to them the affection due only to persons.

The Pope has spoken out against pollution, destruction of the environment, and more. Catholic groups such as Development and Peace have been at the forefront of ensuring that water companies do not exploit everyone's God-given rights to clean water.

As you see, protecting the environment is what we are called to do as Catholics.

Unusual Baptism Involving Lemon Cola (this is not an April Fool's Joke!)

In Norway, interesting news has emerged that a baby was baptized with lemon cola, instead of the obviously usual water. Apparently this was done because the water pipes had frozen and they could not get any water for the sacrament. I do not know what denomination this was, as the story does not indicate this. They only mention that there was a priest, named Paal Dale, who did the baptism.

It seems statistically probable that the priest is of the national Church of Norway, in which case he would not be Catholic. 83% of the population belong to the national church.

How does this action square with Catholic teaching on baptism? Well, surprisingly it could be valid given certain circumstances. First of all, no water could be available with which to perform the baptism. Secondly, the baby would have to be in some kind of proximate danger of death. A substance other than water in baptism should not be used if there is not a serious reason. Since I do not know the circumstances of this baptism, I cannot say if it followed to rules or not.

Another interesting piece of information is that although this was not done in a Catholic Church, if it was validly done and in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, then it would be considered valid, and if the child was to later become Catholic, he would not have to be baptized again. If, however lemon cola was used and it was not necessary, they may opt to do a conditional baptism, which basically says we are not 100% certain that the baby was baptized, but if not, we will now. If he was baptized already, this "new" baptism will not have an additional effect, but if he was not correctly baptized the first time, this will bring him into the Body of Christ. If a priest is not available, anyone can validly baptize a baby and, in fact, should.

To get more detail on the use of liquids other than water for baptism, I went to Catholic.com, and found a Question and Answer which referenced the Code of Canon Law. It states the following:

The code of canon law explains that "true, clean, and natural water" is necessary for baptism (canon 849). Liquids can be assessed in three categories: Those that are certainly valid, those that are doubtfully valid, and those that are certainly invalid.

Certainly valid liquids include water as found in rivers, oceans, lakes, hot springs, melted ice or snow, mineral water, dew, slightly muddy water (as long as the water predominates), and slightly brackish water.

Doubtfully valid liquids are those that are a mixture of water and some other substance, such as beer, soda, light tea, thin soup or broth, and artificially scented water such as rose water.The last category is of liquids which are certainly invalid. It includes oil, urine, grease, phlegm, shoe polish, and milk.

The rule of thumb is that, in emergency situations, you should always try to baptize with certainly valid liquids, beginning with plain, clean water. If plain water isn't available, baptize with a doubtfully valid liquid using the formula, "If this water is valid, I baptize you in the name of the Father. . ." If the danger of death passes, the person should later be conditionally baptized with certainly valid water. Never attempt to baptize anyone with a certainly invalid liquid.

The link to this Catholic Answers Q&A can be found here:
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1992/9211qq.asp

Here is the full Lemon Cola Baptism story from Reuters (on Yahoo):

Tue Mar 31, 2:22 PM

OSLO (Reuters) - A Norwegian church used lemon-flavored cola instead of water in a baptism ceremony after its taps were temporarily turned off because of freezing temperatures, daily Vaart Land said Tuesday.

Priest Paal Dale from the town of Stord, about 150 miles west of the capital Oslo, improvised during a recent cold-spell by dabbing the lemon fizzy water on a baby during a baptism ceremony, it said.

"It had gone flat," Dale was quoted as saying by the newspaper. "Only the lemon smell made this unusual."

Dale said the child's family were informed about the switch only after the ceremony because the priest "had a need to inform" them about the lingering lemon scent.

"They didn't say much, but I assumed they smelled the aroma as well," Dale told Vaart Land.
(Reporting by Wojciech Moskwa)

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/reuters/090331/odds/odd_us_baptism

The Seal Hunt and Catholic Thinking

Protests over animal rights have grown louder and louder in recent years. Many believe killing animals for any reason is immoral. Others believe using animals for fur goes too far. Some seem to be against only killing certain types of animals. Do any of these positions make sense, and should Catholics have any concern for animals, and to what degree?

Recently one of the main protests for animals has been over the seal hunt. The seal hunt takes place annually in Newfoundland and other parts of Canada. In Newfoundland there are around 500,000 people, but there are approximately 5.5 million seals. That means there are about 11 seals for every man, woman, and child in the province. Trying to imagine a herd of 5.5 million animals is very difficult. These seals are slaughtered, sometimes with gaffs, long sticks with a hook on them. According to DFO, this method kills the animals quickly and efficiently.

Why do people protest the seal hunt more than other animal killings? I believe there are several key reasons.

1) 99% of the world have nothing to do with seals. They are a foreign animal that have little relevance to people. Therefore, seeking to end the seal hunt will have no effect on most peoples' lives. Compare this to protests against eating chicken. Most people eat chicken, so people would then be forced to weigh their animal rights activism with their desired diet.

2) Seals can look very cute. "Baby" seals, who are basically balls of fluff which float around joyfully in the ocean create a very cute image. People personify these little pups and almost make them out to be human. People do not protest snakes being killed or manatees, but people find an affinity with seal pups. They are cute little muppet-like creatures. This of course is illogical. A seal is no more human than a rat, so to judge whether something ought to be killed or be protected based on looks is poor judgment.

3) The terms used evoke emotion. People have been saying "baby" seals so long, it has become common parlance. But think about it. How can we call any animal a "baby". A baby by definition is a human child. I believe it is wrong to call any animal a baby. This has been an effective way for animals rights activists to gain support for their cause. By personifying animals, they evoke clear emotions. You might not mind people culling sea-mammals, but you might well have a big problem with vicious blood-thirsty sealers "murdering defenseless baby seals".

We of course have a responsibility toward animals. God put us on this Earth to be guardians of it and its inhabitants. But we are also in charge of nature and it is here for our benefit. This is hard for many people to hear. I saw an episode of Kill of the Hill, and there was an environmentalist lady there who was praising environmental efforts, and she said it's almost as good as if humans had never existed. Although many people will not say this out loud, behind the scenes, this is what they are thinking. We cannot confuse our human love and compassion with the respect owed to animals. If we do, we do not value animals more, but rather we value humans less. From my own experience, some of the strongest animals rights activists are also very much for abortion. Ironic, isn't it.

Let's look at Catholic teaching on animals:

The Seventh Commandment, according to Catholic Tradition, is "Thou shall not steal". The Catechism puts our obligations towards animals in this category. It states the following:

2415 The seventh commandment enjoins respect for the integrity of creation. Animals, like plants and inanimate beings, are by nature destined for the common good of past, present, and future humanity.195 Use of the mineral, vegetable, and animal resources of the universe cannot be divorced from respect for moral imperatives. Man's dominion over inanimate and other living beings granted by the Creator is not absolute; it is limited by concern for the quality of life of his neighbor, including generations to come; it requires a religious respect for the integrity of creation.196

2416 Animals are God's creatures. He surrounds them with his providential care. By their mere existence they bless him and give him glory.197 Thus men owe them kindness. We should recall the gentleness with which saints like St. Francis of Assisi or St. Philip Neri treated animals.

2417 God entrusted animals to the stewardship of those whom he created in his own image.198 Hence it is legitimate to use animals for food and clothing. They may be domesticated to help man in his work and leisure. Medical and scientific experimentation on animals is a morally acceptable practice if it remains within reasonable limits and contributes to caring for or saving human lives.

2418 It is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die needlessly. It is likewise unworthy to spend money on them that should as a priority go to the relief of human misery. One can love animals; one should not direct to them the affection due only to persons.

Therefore, we ought to respect animals, but we should never value them more than humanity.

St. Thomas Aquinas felt the main problem with abusing animals was that it could carry over to our interactions with other people. Here he is rightly ordering our concerns for our fellow man vs. that of animals.

As long as the seal hunt is done in a way that minimizes animal suffering within reason, and is done sustainably, it should be continued for it provides clothing, food, and medicine to humanity.

Nancy Pelosi misrepresenting Catholic teaching on abortion

Nancy Pelosi, speaker of the house in the United States, 3rd in line for the presidency, if the president and vice-president died, misrepresented the Catholic Church a few days ago on the news. She claimed she is an ardent Catholic and that the Catholic Church has debated when life began over the centuries and haven't made a decision. She said only in the past 50 years or so has there been any real decision on these issues. However, this statement is completely wrong. The Church has never, in its 2000 year history been pro-choice. It has always been pro-life, and has defended the right to life to all persons from the moment of conception.

Even St. Thomas Aquinas, a Doctor of the Church, who believed life began several weeks after conception, still believed that abortion at any time, even right after conception was totally wrong and immoral. Now that we know more about science and when life began, we are even more emphatic. No Church Father has ever held a pro-choice stance, and no official document has ever supported it.

To back up my claim, I will quote several Church Fathers on the subject:

The Didache


"The second commandment of the teaching: You shall not murder. You shall not commit adultery. You shall not seduce boys. You shall not commit fornication. You shall not steal. You shall not practice magic. You shall not use potions. You shall not procure [an] abortion, nor destroy a newborn child" (Didache 2:1–2 [A.D. 70]).



The Letter of Barnabas


"The way of light, then, is as follows. If anyone desires to travel to the appointed place, he must be zealous in his works. The knowledge, therefore, which is given to us for the purpose of walking in this way, is the following. . . . Thou shalt not slay the child by procuring abortion; nor, again, shalt thou destroy it after it is born" (Letter of Barnabas 19 [A.D. 74]).



The Apocalypse of Peter


"And near that place I saw another strait place . . . and there sat women. . . . And over against them many children who were born to them out of due time sat crying. And there came forth from them rays of fire and smote the women in the eyes. And these were the accursed who conceived and caused abortion" (The Apocalypse of Peter 25 [A.D. 137]).



Athenagoras


"What man of sound mind, therefore, will affirm, while such is our character, that we are murderers?
. . . [W]hen we say that those women who use drugs to bring on abortion commit murder, and will have to give an account to God for the abortion, on what principle should we commit murder? For it does not belong to the same person to regard the very fetus in the womb as a created being, and therefore an object of God’s care, and when it has passed into life, to kill it; and not to expose an infant, because those who expose them are chargeable with child-murder, and on the other hand, when it has been reared to destroy it" (A Plea for the Christians 35 [A.D. 177]).



Tertullian


"In our case, a murder being once for all forbidden, we may not destroy even the fetus in the womb, while as yet the human being derives blood from the other parts of the body for its sustenance. To hinder a birth is merely a speedier man-killing; nor does it matter whether you take away a life that is born, or destroy one that is coming to birth. That is a man which is going to be one; you have the fruit already in its seed" (Apology 9:8 [A.D. 197]).

"Among surgeons’ tools there is a certain instrument, which is formed with a nicely-adjusted flexible frame for opening the uterus first of all and keeping it open; it is further furnished with an annular blade, by means of which the limbs [of the child] within the womb are dissected with anxious but unfaltering care; its last appendage being a blunted or covered hook, wherewith the entire fetus is extracted by a violent delivery.

"There is also [another instrument in the shape of] a copper needle or spike, by which the actual death is managed in this furtive robbery of life: They give it, from its infanticide function, the name of embruosphaktes, [meaning] "the slayer of the infant," which of course was alive. . . .

"[The doctors who performed abortions] all knew well enough that a living being had been conceived, and [they] pitied this most luckless infant state, which had first to be put to death, to escape being tortured alive" (The Soul 25 [A.D. 210]).

"Now we allow that life begins with conception because we contend that the soul also begins from conception; life taking its commencement at the same moment and place that the soul does" (ibid., 27).

"The law of Moses, indeed, punishes with due penalties the man who shall cause abortion [Ex. 21:22–24]" (ibid., 37).



Minucius Felix


"There are some [pagan] women who, by drinking medical preparations, extinguish the source of the future man in their very bowels and thus commit a parricide before they bring forth. And these things assuredly come down from the teaching of your [false] gods. . . . To us [Christians] it is not lawful either to see or hear of homicide" (Octavius 30 [A.D. 226]).



Hippolytus


"Women who were reputed to be believers began to take drugs to render themselves sterile, and to bind themselves tightly so as to expel what was being conceived, since they would not, on account of relatives and excess wealth, want to have a child by a slave or by any insignificant person. See, then, into what great impiety that lawless one has proceeded, by teaching adultery and murder at the same time!" (Refutation of All Heresies [A.D. 228]).



Council of Ancyra


"Concerning women who commit fornication, and destroy that which they have conceived, or who are employed in making drugs for abortion, a former decree excluded them until the hour of death, and to this some have assented. Nevertheless, being desirous to use somewhat greater lenity, we have ordained that they fulfill ten years [of penance], according to the prescribed degrees" (canon 21 [A.D. 314]).



Basil the Great


"Let her that procures abortion undergo ten years’ penance, whether the embryo were perfectly formed, or not" (First Canonical Letter, canon 2 [A.D. 374]).

"He that kills another with a sword, or hurls an axe at his own wife and kills her, is guilty of willful murder; not he who throws a stone at a dog, and unintentionally kills a man, or who corrects one with a rod, or scourge, in order to reform him, or who kills a man in his own defense, when he only designed to hurt him. But the man, or woman, is a murderer that gives a philtrum, if the man that takes it dies upon it; so are they who take medicines to procure abortion; and so are they who kill on the highway, and rapparees" (ibid., canon 8).



John Chrysostom


"Wherefore I beseech you, flee fornication. . . . Why sow where the ground makes it its care to destroy the fruit?—where there are many efforts at abortion?—where there is murder before the birth? For even the harlot you do not let continue a mere harlot, but make her a murderess also. You see how drunkenness leads to prostitution, prostitution to adultery, adultery to murder; or rather to a something even worse than murder. For I have no name to give it, since it does not take off the thing born, but prevents its being born. Why then do thou abuse the gift of God, and fight with his laws, and follow after what is a curse as if a blessing, and make the chamber of procreation a chamber for murder, and arm the woman that was given for childbearing unto slaughter? For with a view to drawing more money by being agreeable and an object of longing to her lovers, even this she is not backward to do, so heaping upon thy head a great pile of fire. For even if the daring deed be hers, yet the causing of it is thine" (Homilies on Romans 24 [A.D. 391]).



Jerome


"I cannot bring myself to speak of the many virgins who daily fall and are lost to the bosom of the Church, their mother. . . . Some go so far as to take potions, that they may insure barrenness, and thus murder human beings almost before their conception. Some, when they find themselves with child through their sin, use drugs to procure abortion, and when, as often happens, they die with their offspring, they enter the lower world laden with the guilt not only of adultery against Christ but also of suicide and child murder" (Letters 22:13 [A.D. 396]).



The Apostolic Constitutions


"Thou shalt not use magic. Thou shalt not use witchcraft; for he says, ‘You shall not suffer a witch to live’ [Ex. 22:18]. Thou shall not slay thy child by causing abortion, nor kill that which is begotten. . . . [I]f it be slain, [it] shall be avenged, as being unjustly destroyed" (Apostolic Constitutions 7:3 [A.D. 400]).

Priest is attacked verbally on the air by so-called "Catholic"

Recently the president of Human Life International, Fr. Thomas Euteneuer, appeared on Fox television on the Colmes-Hannity show to speak with Hannity who openly expressed his beliefs about contraception which are contrary to Catholic belief. Fr. Euteneur was invited onto the show to speak with Hannity. Hannity showed absolutely no respect to this priest, and went on a tirade against him. Euteneur, however, remained calm. This article, taken from the Human Life International (the largest pro-life organization in the world), explains the situation, in the words of Fr. Euteneur himself:

“For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings, and will turn away from listening to the truth.” (2 Tim 4:3-4)

Many Spirit and Life readers may know that after last Friday’s column (“Sean Hannity’s Gospel”) I was invited to defend my position on the Hannity and Colmes show that very night. It’s nice to know that my emails are being read in the hallowed halls of Fox News! I suspected, however, that Hannity wanted to defend his “devout Catholic” credentials, and I was not disabused of this notion when I went on the show. What the show did, above all, was to show not that the Church was wrong or incoherent, but that Hannity, like so many other cultural Catholics, is really a liberal when it comes to certain aspects of sexual morality.

The first point I have to straighten out is for those who were concerned that this was not handled first in private. Well, in fact, I did attempt to handle this matter in private with Mr. Hannity in 2004, but I never received a response to my letter asking him for a meeting. [See side bar item, “Fr. Euteneuer asks to meet with Hannity about birth control.”] As far as I am concerned, I did my due diligence before I went public with my complaint about his hypocrisy; but even if I had not, it was Mr. Hannity’s schedulers who called me to make an issue of it, not I who demanded to appear on his show! In this age of culpable clerical silence on many serious issues affecting people’s souls, do we now want a priest to keep silent about something so important? We can’t have it both ways.

Second, concerning the actual debate, what some are calling Sean’s “disrespect” for me as a member of the clergy was not of concern to me. In that sense, Sean is typical of his generation that has been taught that nobody has any special consecration (even if they technically do) and that everyone has to prove his mettle in the realm of public debate. No problem. I am a holder of this office, and I did not feel that his callous disregard for the priesthood did anything to diminish the sanctity of it, but I can see how it was an extra element of scandal for those who value the priestly office highly. Nor did I really care that he cut me off time and time again in the debate; he’s a known quantity—did you expect anything else from Hannity?

Just for the record, Sean Hannity really is a dissenting Catholic and a public scandal to the Faith. He should be rebuked by his pastor or bishop, not by me, but since that has not been forthcoming in his decade or so of public dissent on radio and TV, somebody in authority had to say something. Hannity, as we know, is shameless on birth control, and judging from the interview, he hasn’t even the vocabulary to rationally defend his position in the face of his Church’s clear teaching. Hannity is also clearly pro-choice on abortion in cases of rape, incest and life of the mother, and he is really cozy with the likes of Rudy Giuliani whose love for abortion and everything gay is hardly a secret. It has even been revealed that Hannity’s website, Hannity.com has a gay dating service that Sean knows about and apparently “has no problem with;” no different from his attitude in regard to birth control. So much for the “devout Catholic” Hannity. If that is devout, then Hugh Heffner is reverent.

The interview on Friday night was enlightening in many senses but mostly because it showed Hannity’s true liberal side. The “Judge not lest ye be judged” comment I have heard only and exclusively in debates with liberals and others with guilty consciences. It is the whine of the person who is doing something that he knows in his heart is wrong but can’t stand anyone pointing out. Hannity’s “judge not” rant can be summarized in one phrase which, if it were put this way, would have been much more identifiable as liberal claptrap: “How dare you question my choice!” Face it: Hannity is a liberal when it comes to sex. In his position next to Colmes, Hannity wears the conservative mantle, but when he comes face to face with the truth of his Church, which I as a priest am obliged to uphold faithfully, he is no more than a liberal relativist.

And in that matter, how different is his position on birth control from that of Planned Parenthood? They have “no problem” with birth control either. In fact it’s much more than a personal matter for them. It fuels their business. Yes, about 60% of women going into abortion clinics are doing it because of failed birth control and no amount of feigned pragmatism about stopping abortions with birth control is going to change the fact that birth control teaches people to be selfish and leads them down the garden path to the killing centers of this nation—or any nation for that matter. And by the way, for those who wanted me to object to both abortion and birth control as a solution to any problem, please go back and listen carefully to the clip—I did object to both! The Catholic Church’s teaching on sexual morality is the only coherent dissenting viewpoint from PP’s gospel of free sex and baby killing, and sadly, Hannity, the “devout Catholic,” just aids and abets those criminals.

Most surprising of all, however, was Hannity’s use of what I call the “argument from pedophilia;” namely, the tendency to fall back on the Church sex abuse scandal when you’re losing an argument with a priest and have to grab for something. I have had people do this to me in front of abortion clinics, at Da Vinci Code protests and in private conversations about Catholicism for the past several years. Let’s just say I didn’t expect it from Hannity! Was it me or did Sean just disconnect from reality at that moment? Where in the world did that come from? Well, it’s because Hannity’s really a closet liberal when pushed to the wall. True colors come out in the wash, and the birth control issue just has a greater tendency to touch the sensitive areas of people’s philosophies of life.

Hannity’s worldview is full of holes. He may have gone to seminary but, if that is the case, his seminary background and knowledge of Latin (!) gives him a greater responsibility to get it right when he wants to spout off about Church teaching in the public forum.

For your reading interest you can click on the side bar items to see some of the incredible feedback that we got on both sides of the debate. Of particular interest is the recent statement of Cardinal Bertone, Vatican Secretary of State, who has said that “dissident Catholics are more worrying than atheists.” Whew—words of warning for Hannity and O’Reilly and company. In the end, we all have to undergo our own “Judgment Day,” and it is the Church’s job to let people know ahead of time that God is not a moral relativist on the issue of birth control.

Sincerely Yours in Christ,
Rev. Thomas J. Euteneuer
President, Human Life International

The Death Penalty and the Catholic Church

If one is unaware of Catholic teaching in its fullness, there may seem to be a contradiction when it comes to the death penalty. On one hand, the pope, especially the previous one, was very much against the death penalty, in fact, often writing to lawmakers and judges to have execution sentences commuted, in places such as the United States and other developed nations. The previous pope even said that in today's day and age, death sentences should almost never take place. This may seem to contradict the official teaching of the Church that the death penalty is not morally wrong in all cases. To understand the seeming disparity between these statements, it is important to understand the extent to which the death penalty is morally possible.

In his encyclical "Evangelium Vitae" (The Gospel of Life) issued March 25, 1995 after four years of consultations with the world's Roman Catholic bishops, John Paul II wrote that execution is only appropriate "in cases of absolute necessity, in other words, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society. Today, however, as a result of steady immprovement [sic] in the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare, if not practically nonexistent." (From PBS.org)

In other words, the death penalty should only be used in the case that if it wasn't, society would be at a serious risk, for instance of someone murdering many innocent people. This is very rarely the circumstance in developed nations such as here in Canada, or in the United States. It is possible that in our fallen human nature, we may at times wish to have someone pay the ultimate price, but we must look not at what we want, but what God wants, and ultimately God wants us to forgive those who hate us, and that all people no matter what their sins, seek forgiveness and attain salvation.

Anti-Catholicism on the Internet

The Internet is a great place of collaboration, where people from all walks of life, social status, or country, can come together to speak on various issues. The Internet connects the world like never before, and a lot of information is available. But not all information is accurate, and may even be deceitful. One of the worse problems on the Internet is that of Anti-Catholicism. In this short essay, I will explore this issue, and ways to view the problem.

The Internet does not know who is using it. You could be a Gandhi or Mother Teresa, or you could be a full-blown member of the Ku Klux Klan. The thing about the internet though, is that you do not get a biography of the person who made the website you are visiting. And even if you do, the person himself made it, so it could very possibly be skewed. Do not take anyone's word for things on the Internet unless you completely trust that person.

Anti-Catholicism is rampant on the Internet, and there are even communities which revolve around spreading lies about the Catholic Faith. The problem is that when one person distorts the truth, especially if they do it in a very grevious way, others quickly use the information to spread propaganda. Some spread these lies unwittingly, because they actually believe them.

Some sites are set up to look like they are somehow helping Catholics... they claim they want to "rescue" Catholics, or show Catholics the "correct path". They like to use the Bible to show Catholics why what they believe is wrong. Do they not realize that the Bible is a book written by and for Catholics, preserved through the centuries by Catholics who believe it in its entirety? Even Martin Luther, the pre-eminent anti-Catholic admitted to this fact.

My advice for people who encounter anti-Catholic information is to do your homework. Do not accept these people's claims at face value, find out the real information yourself. All the doctrines, dogmas, and disciplines of the Catholic religion are freely available at the library or the Internet. Catholics are not shy about what they believe, nor do they ever try to hide it. It's out in the open for everyone to see. Like Bishop Fulton J. Sheen once said, not a hundred people disagree with the Catholic Church, but millions disagree with what they wrongly believe to be the Catholics Church. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which was promulgated by the Pope, is a sure way of knowing what Catholics believe. Think about if you were having a debate with someone on, say, being vegetarian. You were against being vegetarian, and the other was debating for being vegetarian. Would it make sense if your opponent who was debating for vegetarianism was a staunch anti-vegetarian? Or would it make more sense to debate an actual vegetarian? Obviously, it makes more sense to debate the actual vegetarian. This is the same as with Catholicism.

Another question is, who do you ask? I admit that you cannot necessarily ask any regular Catholic what they Catholic Church believes. They may or may not know, and if you ask in a confrontational way, they may not know how to respond to your questions. The best thing to do is to go straight to the source. Go to the Vatican.va website, or Catholic.com, or check out the Catechism. These are the best ways to get information.

Finally, be careful of people who seem like they could be Catholic, but in actually are not. I am speaking mostly of schismatics and heretics. Some like to say they are Catholic, but in actuality are not. The best way to know if someone is truly Catholic is to find out their relationship with Pope Benedict XVI. If they say they are in full union with the Bishop of Rome, and submit to his authority, then you have a safe bet that you can trust their information. But be careful. Some schismatic groups may claim they listen to the Pope, but find out the name of "their" Pope. There is only one. Some schismatic groups claim another man, besides Benedict XVI, as their Pope, but this man is a mockery to the real Papacy established by Christ.

As you use these tips, I pray that, with the grace of God, you can navigate away from lies and toward the Truth of the Catholic Faith.

War in Iraq in light of Catholic Teaching

There is a concept in Catholic theology, developed by Saint Thomas Aquinas among others, called Just War Theory, stating that there are certain circumstances in which a country can justifiably take part in a war. Throughout the centuries, the Church has refined its definition of what constitutes a just war. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that there are criteria for the use of military action:

The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:

• the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
  
• all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
  
• there must be serious prospects of success;
  
• the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the "just war" doctrine. The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.

There are many reasons for which this definition will preclude going to war. These reasons include going to war to build up wealth, to simply conquer a nation, or anything like this. Also, the threat must be real and serious. Therefore, there must be a real threat. If a nation says it will fire canons that may do limited damage to a building, this would probably not justify going to war.

Another very important aspect which the Catechism addresses is that all other means must be exhausted. This means using peaceful means such as the UN, or other international bodies, sanctions, and various other techniques. Until all of these peaceful techniques are used, war can never be justified.

A third condition is that the war cannot cause even greater destruction than if there had been no response to aggresive action. As a quick example, if a group took up torches and formed a riot, involving dozens of people, it would not be justified to send in tanks and destroy buildings, and kill hundreds of people.

The Catechism also states that those in the correct position, ie in the government, must make these decisions. This would normally preclude vigilante justice.

Finally, wars must conform to certain standards, even if it is found to be justifiable to go to war. War is always regrettable, but this should be minimized.

In light of this information, we must ask ourselves if the war in Iraq is justifiable. To many, including the former Pope, it is not. There is, however, no doctrine or official pronouncement made on this particular war. Therefore, Catholics are free to make their own decision regarding the legitimacy of this war.

There is however, overwhelming support for not being at war with Iraq from Catholic leaders in Rome, and all over the world. The Pope, who was Cardinal Ratzinger at the time, said the following, as reported by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops:

Asked by reporters if U.S. military action against Iraq could be justified morally, he answered, "Certainly not in this situation."

"The United Nations exists. It must make the decisive choice," he said. "It is necessary that the community of peoples and not an individual power make the decision.

"And the fact that the United Nations is trying to avoid war seems to me to demonstrate with sufficient evidence that the damage which would result would be greater than the values trying to be saved," Avvenire reported the cardinal said.

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops prayed for Peace, in their speech issued in 2002. (The following is from their website):

We pray for President Bush and other world leaders that they will find the will and the ways to step back from the brink of war with Iraq and work for a peace that is just and enduring. We urge them to work with others to fashion an effective global response to Iraq's threats that recognizes legitimate self defense and conforms to traditional moral limits on the use of military force.

The war in Iraq does not seem, for many, to be justifiable given the conditions outlined above. In situations where war is a possibility, all efforts must be made in order to prevent it, and to bring peace instead.