The only known child of a Doctor of the Church

From my research, I could only find one instance of one of the 36 Doctors of the Church who had a child. The Doctor is St. Augustine of Hippo, one of the 4 original doctors and he had a son named Adeodatus.

St. Augustine of Hippo, one of the most well-known and influential Church Fathers, had a son named Adeodatus, who was born to Augustine's partner before Augustine converted to Christianity. Adeodatus was born in 372 AD and died young, around the age of 17.

Augustine wrote about Adeodatus in his Confessions, which is an autobiography that covers Augustine's spiritual journey from his youth to his conversion to Christianity. In the book, Augustine talks about the love he had for his son and how he struggled to reconcile his love for Adeodatus with his desire to follow the celibate life of a Christian priest. He said that Adeodatus was a source of joy for him, and that his birth had been a sign of God's grace.

Adeodatus was highly intelligent and well-educated, and Augustine took great pains to provide him with the best education available. According to some accounts, Adeodatus may have been considered a prodigy, and Augustine mentions that his son was able to read and write at a very young age and was highly interested in philosophy.

Although Adeodatus died young, he made a lasting impression on Augustine, who wrote fondly of him in his Confessions, and considered him a reminder of the beauty of God's grace in his life.

Is anything known of Adeodatus's mother?

The identity of Adeodatus's mother is not entirely clear. Augustine never mentions her by name in his writings and what little is known about her comes from a few passing references in his works. According to his own writings in his Confessions, Augustine had a relationship with a woman, who is not named, before his conversion to Christianity and Adeodatus was born from this union. It is not clear whether the woman was a wife, a concubine or a partner in a informal union. But it is believed that she was not a Christian and Augustine did not live with her after his conversion.

Why aren't there more children of Doctors of the Church?

The title "Doctor of the Church" is a recognition given by the Catholic Church to certain saints who have made significant contributions to the development of theology and doctrine. Typically, these individuals have been priests, bishops, or monks who were actively involved in the Church and made important contributions to theology through their writings, teachings, or leadership.

There are 4 female doctors of the Church including St. Catherine of Siena, St. Teresa of Avila, St. Teresa of Lisieux, and St. Hildegard of Bingen. Obviously none of them were clergy. The two Teresas were nuns, St. Hildegard was an abbess, and St. Catherine was a lay person who was a member of the 3rd order Dominicans.

Other than the women, it seems all the Doctors of the Church have been clergy: priests, bishops, or popes.

This Just In 2000 Years Ago: Catholic Church cannot bless gay unions

In a stunning move unforeseen by everyone, the Vatican just issued a decree 2000 years ago stating that the Church cannot bless gay unions.

In the shocking move, Pope Francis reiterated what has been a constant teaching since the founding of the Catholic Church at Pentecost around 33AD.

Labeled as "Breaking News" by many outlets such as Associated Press and others, the Catholic Church will surprisingly not start doing something it has never done since its founding.

Many progressives were left wondering: what next? Will the Church declare there are only 7 sacraments or that Jesus Christ is the second person of the Trinity?

What prompted this to become "breaking" "headline news" now? Has anyone doubted this to be the case? It seems a little absurd to say the least, but apparently this question of blessing gay unions had to be addressed since there were apparently even churches doing such a thing. Despite being churches and/or priests, they were unaware of a point of doctrine that has always been the case and has never changed.

Some may draw a distinction between blessing a union and declaring it the equivalent of marriage, or something like that. However, nothing evil can be blessed. To the shock and dismay of many, the Church also cannot bless polygamous unions! Will this be the newest headline in the near future?

The Church makes clear that people with homosexual attraction are not in themselves evil, however homosexual activities are immoral and contrary to natural law, therefore the Church declares they are sinful, and always have been.

Fr. Casey Says Republicans Care Only About Abortion: Why I Disagree

I like a lot of what Fr. Casey Cole OFM has to say about the Catholic Faith. He recently put out a Twitter video saying he agrees with the dogmas and doctrines of the Church which is good.

I had an issue with a recent video of his where he speaks about abortion. He seems to basically be saying that people have their faith and politics mixed up, that they place politics above their faith. The example he gives is regarding abortion. Essentially he seems to be saying that because people are opposed to abortion, they side with the Republican party, but then they put that political party above their faith and use their faith as a sort of justification for doing that.

He says people will support the Republican party while overlooking the bad aspects of the party which are also threatening to life issues. 

Since there is no Catholic Party as such in Canada or the US which aligns perfectly with Catholic values, you probably will not find a party which fully supports the Church. However, I think the reasoning that he provides is faulty. It could come from the fact that in several studies, it showed that people who are left-leaning do not empathize with the viewpoints of those who are right-wing. When asked to explain the position of someone they oppose, conservatives were much better able to do so than liberals.

I'm not saying this to bash or mock anyone. But it's a fundamental mistake that I see often. Liberals assume that their position is the "right" one. It's not that there are other positions with which they disagree. There's is simply the right and good opinion and then all the others are bad ones. For instance, minimum wage. To liberals, you either support the minimum wage and workers or you don't. But if they were asked why a conservative may not support the minimum wage, they may say things like they don't think people deserve that much money, or that because conservatives are more racist, they don't want minorities to get ahead, etc.

I don't know if liberals think these things about conservatives, but that's how things come across. To be more specific to Fr. Casey Cole, he mentions a few examples in his video. He says people support the Republican party because of its opposition to abortion despite their bad economic and social policies.

He presupposes that Republican economic policies are bad for poor people and that anyone who supports the Republican party must be doing so while holding their noses about all the other issues. It's as if the Democratic platform is good for poor people and the Republican one is bad, and that there isn't even any disagreement on this. This, however, is untrue.

Often the people who support the Republican party on abortion, also support the basic economic policies of the party. The Democratic party tends to favor a large interventionist government that enacts many policies with good stated intentions.

The Republican party, on the other hand, favors individual efforts and less government intervention. The US began a "war on poverty" back with Lyndon B. Johnson and since then poverty, which had previously been decreasing, started going up. The policies with good intentions had the opposite effect.

Another example is minimum wage. To some, the minimum wage is a simple straight-forward question: Should people make $10 per hour or $15 per hour. Should people work and still not make enough money, or should we pass a law that people are compensated fairly?

Sounds simple. If there were no unintended consequences or negative side-effects, all people would be in favor of this. In fact, many would say the minimum wage should be higher in that case. Why not $40 per hour?

The difference is that right-wing people would say that the real minimum wage is $0, and if someone cannot get a job, that's how much they will receive. Minimum wage isn't designed to be peoples' full-time salary to support a family. It's meant to get people into the workforce and then they hopefully move into better positions. By removing the lower rungs of the economic ladder, you aren't helping people, you are preventing them from ever entering the job market. If someone's work is really only worth $12 per hour, no one will hire that person for $15 per hour. Are they really better off?

Taxing companies and wealthier people is another issue. To some it's simple. More taxes = better. The truth is though that higher tax doesn't have its economic impact after the money is earned but before. It comes into play when someone is deciding to start a business, invest, or carry out some other economic activity. If taxes are too high, the expected income from a venture is lower and thus the venture is riskier. All else being equal, if business startup is risky, then fewer will be started and fewer people will be hired and less money will be made.

Again, it's a complex issue. There is definitely room for debate. But to simply characterize one party's policies as "good" and the other's as "bad" and to say the bad one is only focused on abortion is incorrect. There are people with opinions on both sides of economic issues. The same thing goes for various other policies.

Another point is that many commentators seem to want to mix subjects all up together and create the appearance that they are equivalent. Abortion is the pre-eminent issue in our society at the moment because abortion involves killing thousands of innocent children. This simply cannot be compared to disagreements on economic policy.

Although I disagree with people who say economic issues are irrelevant, I do not think they are the very most important thing. The right to life trumps all other secular issues.

Overall, I think it's a huge leap to assume that Republicans care only about one thing. I would suggest asking them what they think and why. Let's be clear, I am NOT a Republican, I'm not even American. But the left must learn to listen to the right. As for Fr. Cole Casey, I think a lot of what he says is good. I commend him on his position of siding with the Church on matters of faith and morals. I simply felt this criticism was necessary. I am open to anyone's comments.

Happy Feast Day of one of my Favorite Saints - Thomas Aquinas!

St. Thomas Aquinas is definitely one of my favorite saints, if not my favorite. I don't like being too committal on something like that! Aquinas isn't just another saint (as if there is such a thing). He is a pre-eminent saint. He is a doctor of the Church but in my opinion, easily one of the top. His Summa Theologiae is definitely the most used extra-biblical source within Catholicism when it comes to issues of morality, theology, and various other Catholic topics.

I went to Mass today and the priest mentioned something about Aquinas which I think we sometimes forget. We know he had a towering intellect (I'll get into that more later), but he was also an extremely holy and devout mystic. Yes, a mystic. We rarely think of him in those terms. In fact, all too often we implicitly seem to categorize saints as either mystical or intellectual. Both of these characteristics are wonderful and important, but we shouldn't always make such black and white distinctions.

It's actually quite an amazing thing when one thinks about it. There isn't a dichotomy between faith and reason in any way. In fact, as we can see from the example of Thomas Aquinas, one only strengthens the other. A false dichotomy often put forth by secular society is between "spiritual" and "religious", implying that to be spiritual means to not be preoccupied by all the "rules". I explained in a previous blog why this is a false dichotomy. An example of this is the common expression among traditional Catholics of Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi, which essentially translates to the way we pray is the way we believe.

Perhaps it doesn't fit perfectly but I think that expression does tell us something. To know God is to love God. I think that's the point from which St. Thomas comes. He helps us to better understand God and his will so that we can love him ever more fully.

To me, this comes up when understanding various concepts within the faith. If we do not have a good grasp of these concepts, we can be easily led astray. For example, knowing what true humility or true patience entail will lead us to be holier and better people. If we operate under a false idea of what these terms mean, then we can be led into bad areas without even knowing it.

The same goes for the nature of God Himself. If we have an insufficient, incorrect, or outright heretical viewpoint of God and His Nature, we can easily fall into sin and error. Ultimately we cannot be happy in this state.

St. Thomas Aquinas lived from 1225 to 1274, around 800 years ago, yet his teachings have stood the test of time ever since then. This further bolsters the fact that his ideas are perennial, and not shifting as with the current moral relativism. Truth is truth and it doesn't change. Over all the centuries and through all the various peoples of the Earth, these truths speak to us. St. Thomas has stood the test of time and we can fully trust in what he is saying.

I mention this because I feel that we as fallible human beings can easily fall into error. Often this is not deliberate, it is just a sort of dulling of the sword. We inadvertently fall into sin through many small, poor decisions. Because of faulty philosophy and theology, people can be led astray. This is why we need teachers (or "doctors" in Latin) to guide us. We know that by listening to such men and women, we are listening to God through them and not to our own fallen desires.

On an intellectual level, I find St. Thomas to be an unparalleled resource. He speaks on so many different subjects, and yet there is consistency. This is impressive given the fact that his Magnus Opus, The Summa Theologiae (sometimes written as Summa Theologica) is 3x bigger than the entire Holy Bible! It would be difficult to write even a few pages without having some inconsistencies, but St. Thomas was able to achieve this in such a large tome - obviously with God's help.

I am not suggesting that St. Thomas was infallible in everything he said. He is probably the most complete theologian in the Church's history, but he did make some small errors. Only the Church is guaranteed the charism of infallibility by Our Lord Jesus Christ.

Despite the fact that Thomas had one of the greatest intellects of all time, he was one of the most humble men as well. There are many stories of his humility. I will attempt to recount one of them. As a child in school, he spoke so infrequently that people assumed he was dumb, both literally (unable to speak) and in the modern-day meaning of being stupid. His nickname, in fact, was the "Dumb Ox". The idea that he wasn't the best student was so widely believed, that his teacher St. Albert hired a tutor to help out this poor, dumb, child Thomas. Yet, soon after beginning to teach the young Thomas, the tutor, astounded by the boy's brilliance, did something spectacular: he asked, in his own humility, if St. Thomas would switch roles with him and become his tutor.

Later in life, St. Thomas (who is said to have never committed a mortal sin) was praying when he had a profound mystical experience which caused him to declare that all his magnificent writings were but straw. This is not to be misinterpreted to mean that his writings were false or unimportant. Rather, compared to a direct experience of union with God, his writings were infinitely less significant. This shows his holiness and humility.

I could go on and on in writing about this great saint. In this day and age of confusion and relativity, we need St. Thomas Aquinas all the more!

Shocking but True: The Catholic Church is not about Rules

There is a common misconception in my opinion that the Catholic Church is about rules, but I think that's false. Unfortunately this isn't just believed by outsiders, but by most insiders in the Church as well.

The best way I can put it is that rules exist as a necessary consequence of the deeper teachings of Jesus Christ. Looking at the Catholic Faith as a series of rules takes away from the totality of the faith and is a form of reductionism.

I could use countless analogies to illustrate this point. The goal is music is to express an idea in a beautiful and appealing way. Because of this, there are rules. For example, if one wishes to express a happy theme, they would play the music in a major key. In music theory, major keys follow a pattern. For example, the basic C scale has no sharps or flats. On a piano, you would only play the white keys. Along with the melody, there are rules in terms of making chords which sound good.

No one would describe playing the piano as "following the rules". No one would say they listen to a particular piece because the person playing it is "following the rules" better than others. No, the music is either beautiful or it is not. It is either emotive or it's not. Randomly mashing the keys will produce noise as opposed to music.

Even someone with no musical training or experience can tell if a particular piece has the intended effect. They can tell whether or not they enjoy listening to it  and whether or not it expresses what it is meant to.

You could say the same for countless other endeavors, such as cooking, engineering, carpentry, etc, etc. Yes, all of these professions have rules that must be followed, but the rules come as a natural consequence of the overall goal.

When it comes to the Catholic faith, I find all too many cradle Catholics just following the rules, but are not really interested in going any further. To me that's like trying to get 50% on your test to just barely pass. Does this really show a true love for what you are doing? By the way, I am not saying I am better than others or have achieved some high level of spirituality. I am just thinking about this concept, and am myself also pursuing this!

As one priest put it, God wants everyone to be saved, so therefore salvation should presumably be easy. In Catholic theology, in order to enter into heaven, one must be in the state of grace, that means not having any mortal sins that have not been absolved. Therefore, staying out of mortal sin is sufficient to enter heaven, even if it means having to spend some time in Purgatory.

However, the saints were never satisfied with doing the bare minimum. Something I have come to appreciate more and more about the Catholic faith is that it's based on a relationship with God. This might sound obvious. But our ultimate goal is to be united with the triune God, through his Grace. This is our ultimate end as human beings. Following the rules naturally flows from this endeavor.

A holy priest recently explained that there are three phases of the spiritual life: the purgative way, the illuminative way, and the unitive way.

According to the Catholic Encyclopedia,

The unitive way is the way of those who are in the state of the perfect, that is, those who have their minds so drawn away from all temporal things that they enjoy great peace, who are neither agitated by various desires nor moved by any great extent by passion, and who have their minds chiefly fixed on God and their attention turned, either always or very frequently, to Him.

This is what we should be seeking to attain.  That's the goal of our Catholic Faith and what the great saints were able to experience. I think this is how our faith should be explained and told to others. Many outsiders see the Catholic faith as a series of strict rules, rather than the attainment of a personal and deep relationship with God that is beyond words.

What happens when people don't realize this? Well again we go back to the rules. People ask about the minimum requirements. People ask questions all the time like "Are Catholics allowed to....." "Wait, are you saying Catholics can't......." Often these questions are related to forms of pleasure attained through sex or food. As Catholics, we should try to change the conversation. Instead of explaining in detail what we are allowed to do, we should explain the point of the Faith, which is union with God. Otherwise people think it's just some kind of strict regimen that we follow.

At the beginning of this essay, I gave several examples of endeavors wherein there is an obvious end and means. Because people understand the end, they are able to accept the means. That's why we should emphasize the end. Imagine if someone was hooking up the electricity to a house and said "I don't think it's important to follow all these rules created by people, I just do what I think feels right for me, I'm open-minded." If that person was incorrectly installing the wiring and creating fire hazards, no one would think they were doing something good. They would be shocked (quite literally). People would be concerned, not because they are sticklers but because they understand the ultimate end of what is being done. The electricity is being hooked up in a safe and regulated way to ensure heat and light to the house.

We have explained the ultimate end of our Faith - union with God. This must remain at the forefront of any discussion. It should be framed in the positive. Otherwise, it can end up sounding arbitrary. It's also important to explain why a particular rule will bring about a particular outcome. Again, this is important in how things are phrased.

One thing that prompted this essay is the common attitude I have observed from my fellow Catholics in which they have this mentality of just following the rules. Again, I am not advocating not following the rules. To the contrary, I am saying people need to go beyond the rules, to understand WHY they are doing them and what the ultimate purpose is for these rules.

For example, when we pray, we are connecting with God. The better we pray, the better we connect with our Creator. If we see prayer as some regimented perfunctory task, then we will not attempt to grow deeper in our connection to God through prayer.

Another example is the Mass. I often see people talk during Mass or just before when others are praying. Fr. Ripperger talks about how we have been indoctrinated as Catholics with the idea that the only form of prayer is verbal prayer and because of this people think that when there is any silence whatsoever, then nothing is "happening" and they can be free to whisper to the person next to them. I'm not coming at this from a place of judgment. Most people are not doing this maliciously. I have done it myself on many occasions. But to go back to the original point, these people may think of everything in terms of rules, and the rules state you must go to Mass. There isn't a specific rule saying not to whisper during Mass, but that would come from an overall attitude of reverence for the Mass. The attitude of reverence would come from knowing what the Mass is and its ultimate purpose.

The same goes for reverence towards the Eucharist. If people truly understand that they are partaking of the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ in order to attain a close union with him, they would not casually receive communion and think nothing of it. The latter attitude again comes from thinking in terms of the rules. The "rules" state that you must line up, receive communion and consume the Eucharist. That's it. Those are the rules. But the Eucharist is so much more than that.

Overall I think this is a huge problem in our Church, both inside and out. I don't wish to come across as some kind of expert. I am simply seeking to understand these issues. Please comment below if you have of your own input to add to this discussion.

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.

4 People Died in United States Capitol Protests + Catholic Perspective on Armed Resistance

I am keeping track of this story as it is still developing. 4 people have died in the 2021 United States Capitol Protests. Reports of this can be seen here.

As of right now, details are rather unclear. One of the deaths which was known yesterday was that of Trump supporter Ashli Babbitt. She was shot by law enforcement, although the exact details are not yet publicized. There was some question as to exactly where she was shot.

Ashli Babbitt, a California resident, served 4 tours of duty over a 14 year period and was born in 1985 making her around 35 years of age. It seems she was active on Twitter under the username CommonAshSense. She made some tweets concerning the protest.

Three other people associated with the protest have passed away, yet the cause of their deaths are unclear. All I could find were references to them dying following "medical emergencies". This is very broad, and wouldn't any death be the result of a medical emergency?

So what are the relevant points in the Catholic Faith we must consider when looking at this situation? Is an armed insurrection ever justifiable? I'm not saying that is what is happening in this case. But are there ever cases where large groups of people can forcibly take control of a government? In fact, this is addressed in the Catechism of the Catholic Church under the topic of armed resistance.

Armed resistance to oppression by political authority is not legitimate, unless all the following conditions are met:

1. there is certain, grave, and prolonged violation of fundamental rights;
2. all other means of redress have been exhausted;
3. such resistance will not provoke worse disorders;
4. there is well-founded hope of success; and
5. it is impossible reasonably to foresee any better solution.

Does the current situation meet the criteria above? I would say, at the very least, it would be an untenable position to say that the current American situation would meet the criteria allowing for armed resistance to a government.

Is there certain, grave, and prolonged violation of fundamental rights? I would say probably not. Yes, there are many grave injustices, such as abortion, occurring in the country. The problem is I cannot see that changing, especially by violent actions such as the ones being witnessed.

Therefore, criterion 4 is not met either of a well-founded hope of success. Criterion 3 is that such resistance will not provoke worse disorders. I cannot say that criterion would be met either as violent protests will certainly not improve the current situation and will probably make it worse.

Have all other means of redress been exhausted? I believe at this point, since the other criteria are not met, this is a moot point. But there are probably better, more effective means, that have not yet been exhausted.

Finally, #5, is it impossible to reasonably foresee any better solution? Since violent protests will probably achieve little if anything, obviously there are better solutions.

Therefore, I do not think violence is legitimate in this case. Having said that, I have not seen significant evidence of widespread violence from Trump supporters at this point. You could say that the act of breaking into the US Capitol building is itself an act of violence, but breaking into a building isn't the same as harming someone bodily. It's much less significant.

A young woman has been killed, but we do not know the circumstances in detail. We know she was probably shot by some law enforcement agency. Why was she shot? Was she threatening, assaulting, or committing battery against people? I am not sure. Perhaps her death was a tragic mistake.

As for the other three deaths, we do not have sufficient information to categorize what happened.

My point is, we cannot tell at this point how violent or non-violent the group of protesters is overall. Yes, they broke in, but are they, on a significant scale, using violence against innocent people? Are they shooting firearms at law enforcement officers? I do not see evidence of these things.

First and foremost we must pray for everyone involved in this situation. We must pray that people remain calm and things do not escalate further. We must pray that injustices are resolved in civilized ways. Let's try to love our enemies and pray for those who persecute us. I think we are living in a time where people are more polarized than ever. Many people are under lockdown and on social media things can often appear far more extreme which leads to further polarization.

I will keep you posted on any new developments and how they may apply to Catholic teaching.

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]).

"I'm personally against abortion, but I wouldn't enforce my beliefs on anyone else."

Have you ever heard this sentence? It is all too common. But its commonality does not give it veracity. If you ever hear someone say this, be thankful, because as a person of God, you can easily convert this person to the pro-life side. Here's why.

People who make this statement have often not considered its logical impossibility. Abortion is the only case where someone would make such a statement. For example, people do not say, I am against rape, but I would not enforce my belief on others. This is illogical.

The reason the assertion that someone is against abortion but will not tell others what to do is impossible is because there is a reason why someone is against abortion, namely because it is murder, and if you are against murder, you oppose it as a concept, the application of which you believe is universal.

People are not personally opposed to murder. Rather, they are opposed to anybody murdering anyone else. No one says, I wouldn't kill my grandmother, but if a thief broke into my home and murdered her, I would be ok with that. No one would even say they support a stranger's right to kill another stranger. When someone opposes murder, they oppose it in absolute and objective terms, not just for themselves personally.

If someone does not consider abortion murder, the question arises - why do they oppose it then? The only possibility is that they personally do not enjoy partaking in abortions themselves, in the same way as certain people dislike sushi. They do not like sushi, but they do not make a universal declaration that everyone must dislike it as well.

The question remains as to why they do not like partaking in abortions. Maybe they feel it's messy or they are afraid of blood. Perhaps they disagree with surgery in general. But if these were the case, these people would be against all surgery or operations. Rest assured, you could speak to a million people and not one person would be opposed to abortion for this reason.

The best way to get someone with this point of view to convert to a pro-life person is to ask them questions. Ask them what they specifically oppose. If they say they believe it's murder, tell them they must oppose it in general if they believe that. If they disagree, ask if it would be ok for someone to kill their neighbor without consequence. If they are being honest they would say no and they will realize their error.

Finally, they may say that abortionists do not consider abortion murder, even though they themselves do, and therefore, it is a matter of opinion. At this point suggest to them that Hitler did not consider the Jews to be human, therefore he was not committing murder in his opinion, therefore you would not consider what Hitler did to be wrong. In the same sense, if a psychopath considered all humans to be inferior to him and killing them to not be murder, then he should have the right to do this unabated.

No honest person would agree to this logic. Suggest they are using the same fallacy to justify their position, which hopefully they will see is completely untenable.

Abortion and the Catholic Church

As most people know, the Catholic Church is firmly against abortion. In fact, the Catholic Church is against killing any person, from the moment of conception to natural death. This includes abortion, mercy killing or euthanasia, suicide, murder, etc. In this short essay, I will discuss some of the major Catholic teachings surrounding these areas, and my personal feelings on the subject.

According to Catholic teaching, life begins at conception, the moment the sperm and egg join to form a single cell. At this point, the person receives a soul. It makes sense to say life begins at conception, because after that point the person does not come into existence, but rather grows and develops. However, he remains the same person. To say life doesn't being at conception, causes a contradiction for the entire definition of life. A person will start developing as a zygote, and continue to grow and develop until they reach full maturity. The points along the way are different stages of this development. A child is not fully developed at 3 months of age. They are still very dependent on their mother for nourishment and support. Yet no one would say these children are not alive, of course they are. Therefore, aborting a baby is killing a living being.

Abortion is also wrong because it takes away a person's right to have a life. Even if you do not believe that abortion is killing a living being, you cannot deny the fact that aborting a baby will remove its potential to live. You are removing its right to life. As an analogy for this, consider going to university and paying a large tuition fee. You are completing a 4-year program in order to become a nurse, which has been a life-long dream for you. However, 2 years into your program, a professor decides he doesn't like teaching anymore. You think this is no big deal, but then for some reason you get a letter stating that you are no longer allowed to continue your program and you've been kicked out of the university. You are assured that it had nothing to do with any of your actions and that your grades were fine. Panicked, you look around for another university that will help you complete your courses, but none will take you, and soon you learn no university will ever accept you. In fact, you learn, you will no longer be allowed to read any books. Even though nothing was taken away from you, you have lost the potential to earn a degree, and it was not due to anything you did. This example shows a great injustice. However, think about how much more unjust it is if it involves a life!

These are just two reasons to consider for being pro-life. Read the surveys on your own. They always show a huge proportion of women who have abortions not because of rape or incest, but because it wasn't "right" for them at the time. However, people fail to remember that you are placing your "convenience" above someone else's life. If you were walking down the road, to get to the store to buy candy, and on your way you noticed a man trapped beneath his car, would you say to yourself, I "would" rescue him, but it's not the right time in my life right now, I need to get some candy. No matter how embarrassing or inconvenient having a baby may be, it is not worth a life. Plus, there are many other options available, which do not consist of destroying a life.

I hope these few examples help you realize how important life is, and that our mission as Catholics, Christians, and indeed people of this Earth, is to help everyone have the right to life!

Priestly Celibacy - Allowing Priests to Marry

The topic of priestly celibacy is one which is on the topical radar of a lot of people when it comes to the Catholic Church. Some view this as an important issue, while others view it as less serious, and concern themselves more with following Church doctrines and disciplines. Some ask whether allowing priests to marry would eliminate or reduce child sexual abuse among clergy, while others think a celibate clergy may be unncessary or at odds with the rest of society. Some even wonder if there is a Biblical basis for the practice of remaining celibate and unmarried. In this essay, I will address these concerns and see where the facts lie on the issue of priestly celibacy.

Priestly celibacy is considered a discipline of the church, as opposed to a dogma or doctrine. This means that it is something the teaching authority within the church has said is beneficial within the Church. Disciplines can and have in the past changed, and are not essential to our understanding of Christianity. Other disciplines include the previous ban on eating flesh meat on Fridays, or the Tridentine Mass, which was celebrated in Latin. Both of these disciplines were reviewed and changed during the Second Vatican Council. Therefore, it is possible that the rule of priestly celibacy could change, and the Pope would be fully within his role and rights to declare that it will no longer be necessary or may make it optional. It is important to note that any such decision would not affect current priests, who have already taken a vow of lifelong celibacy.

Where does the practice of priestly celibacy originate and what is its basis? The practice of celibacy is mentioned in the Bible by Jesus and Paul, who both describe it in favourable terms. Paul endorses celibacy when he says, "To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I am. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion" (1 Corinthians 7:8-9). So basically Paul says that if you CANNOT remain celibate, it is better to get married, but if you can, it is better to remain celibate.

Paul also says, "Are you free from a wife? Do not seek marriage. . . those who marry will have worldly troubles, and I would spare you that. . . . The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided. And the unmarried woman or girl is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit; but the married woman is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please her husband" (1 Corinthians 7:27-34).

The most convincing argument for marriage is by Jesus himself. In Matthew chapter 19, verses 11 and 12, Jesus says: ""Not all can accept this word, but only those to whom it is granted. Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of God. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it". Jesus says that anyone who can accept celibacy ought to.

As we can see from the Bible, celibacy is not only acceptable, but quite desirable, according to Jesus and Paul. But would allowing priests do to reduce or eliminate child sexual abuse?

There is absolutely no evidence that celibacy has an effect on sexual abuse cases, or that getting rid of it would reduce abuses. The following information is from Post-Gazette.com, which quotes Philip Jenkins, Professor of History and Religious Studies at Penn State University:

"My research of cases over the past 20 years indicates no evidence whatever that Catholic or other celibate clergy are any more likely to be involved in misconduct or abuse than clergy of any other denomination -- or indeed, than nonclergy. However determined news media may be to see this affair as a crisis of celibacy, the charge is just unsupported."

I will discuss the issue of clergy sexual abuse in a later blog.

Priestly celibacy has formed part of the Christian lifestyle for thousands of years. It allows priests to devote themselves fully to their spiritual tasks and spiritual fatherhood to billions of people worldwide. The Catholic Church has no intention of changing this practice, which is a powerful way of devoting one's life to Christ.

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.

Titles and Ranks within the Catholic Church

To some, the Catholic Church's system of positions may be confusing for some. If understood in the proper context, we see that the positions used within the Church are necessary and Biblical.

There are a multitude of positions within the Catholic Church when it comes to religious (as opposed to lay people). There are deacons, priests, monsignors, bishops, archbishops, cardinals, and the Pope.

Although this number of titles may cause confusion, it is important to realize there are only 3 sacramental positions within the Church: deacon, priest, and bishop, and to some extent Pope. The other positions (including cardinal, monsignor, and archbishop) are offices occupied by members of the first group.

The three sacramental offices are found in the Bible. The word "bishop" comes from the Greek "episcopoi". This means overseer or supervisor, epi meaning over and skopos meaning sight. Bishops are in charge of appointing priests and they have authority to rule theologically over a given area. The bishop can perform all sacraments, including baptism, confession, consecrating the Eucharist, marriage, and annointing of the sick, confirmation, and ordination. Bishops can be found in the Bible in 1 Tim. 5:19–22, 2 Tim. 4:5 and Titus 1:5.

We get the English word "priest" from the Greek word "presbuteroi", which means elders, also known as presbyters. They can be seen in 1 Timothy 5:17 and James 5:14–15. Priests are consecrated by the Bishops to be their helpers. They are authorized to perform many sacrements, except confirmation and ordination.

The third sacramental position is that of deacon, from the Greek word diakonoi. Deacons help priests carry out their duties and also help in other liturgical duties. A reference to deacons can be found in Acts 6:1–6.

The other roles, including monsignor, cardinal, archbishop and pope, are all special designations for certain sacramental positions. A monsignor is a senior priest who has a certain level of authority within his diocese. An archbishop is of course a head bishop, arch meaning chief or main. He has a higher level of authority in certain areas than a normal bishop, however, they are all bishops. A cardinal is a bishop as well, who has a special role in electing the next pope should the current pope die or no longer remain pope for some reason. The Cardinals are sometimes called the Princes of the Church. They also sometimes hold high positions within the Church. Finally, the Pope is a bishop as well. He is the Bishop of Rome. Since Peter was selected as the chief apostle and Pope, by Jesus, we have had a continuous line of Popes throughout the centuries. They have primacy or final say over matters which affect the entire Church. This is due to their special office of Pope. Therefore, although the Pope is a bishop, he is a special bishop with the power to make universal decisions which are binding on all Catholics. Please read my previous article on the Papacy for further information on this.

With the system of religious designations in place in the Catholic Church, Unity and Truth are assured.

Added October 5, 2015:

For a great read about the priesthood, including the Biblical basis for it, and other theological insights, check out Scott Hahn's great book Many Are Called: Rediscovering the Glory of the Priesthood. Purchasing this book from Amazon will help my blog immensely!

Does Papal Infallibility mean Catholics Believe the Pope is Perfect?

The simple answer to this question is no. We believe the Pope is the same as any other man in terms of his sinful nature and need for salvation. But what about Papal Infallibility you ask? There are many misconceptions floating around concerning Papal Infallibility. I will try to address many of these issues.

It is important to note first of all, that Papal Infallibility applies not so much to the man who is pope, but more so to his office, and his role as pope. Papal infallibility means that the pope, when speaking on matters of faith and morals while making an official declaration to the universal church in a general way, is protected by the Holy Spirit from teaching error.

Now that I have a definition, I will go over some possible scenarios and describe whether they are instances of infallibility, in a true or false way:

1) The Pope cannot commit sin - FALSE - Popes can and have committed sins throughout history. Pope Benedict XVI and the former pope John Paul II, both went to confession weekly. This is much more often than most Catholics. This would certainly not be the behaviour of someone who felt they could not commit a sin. The fact that a pope sins does not in any way undermine papal infallibility.

2) A Pope is always right - FALSE - The pope may or may not be correct on most issues, just like anyone else. If the pope says who he thinks will win the World Cup, dont put all your money on it.

3) The Pope, due to his position, cannot have heterodox (unorthodox) opinions - FALSE - The Pope could potentially hold opinions which are not orthodox. Because of Papal infallibility, the Holy Spirit restricts the Pope from officially declaring a teaching which is not orthodox, or in line with Catholic belief.

There is Biblical evidence for the dogma of Papal infallibility. While speaking to Peter, Jesus said he is the Rock upon which he builds his Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it. Peter was the solid foundation upon which the church is built. This is evident when we read the Acts of the Apostles. Anytime there is a disagreement, it is brought to an apostle, and if resolution cannot be had, Peter ultimately weighs in and his decision is final. Jesus gave this authority to Peter so that when he was gone from Earth, Christians would have a guide. Christ wanted that all people would be united and have a source of authority, which is why he established this office, held by Peter. The gates of hell would prevail against the church if it taught error contrary to Truth. Therefore the Church cannot teach error, and since the Pope is the ultimate leader of the Church, the Holy Spirit, as the third person of the Trinity, fulfills God's promise and protects the Pontiff from teaching error.

The role of the Pope and his infallibility are beautiful and essential doctrines for the Church in order to maintain the unity which Christ spoke about in the Gospels.

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.