Ask a Catholic

[jeepnut]

Originally Posted by Teuthida

I have a question about the bible itself. Who do Catholics believe wrote it? The two testaments are hundreds (thousands?) of years apart. Is it the word of god as written by prophets? Couldn't there have been a mistranslation? Especially the new testament which was first Greek...then Latin...then English? (Not looking any of this up myself so you can answer ) A lot of the rules seem like they're purely of their time (and if written by a whole bunch of people, they'd surely have their own views on things and include them). Why stick with them in the modern era? Is that why there's the whole picking and choosing thing going on, with some rules being followed strictly and others completely ignored? Who decides which rules to follow? The pope in your case?

Follow up question to that last bit: The pope is the word of God right? Or God is suppose to talk to him? But isn't the pope voted in? Doesn't it seem a bit silly that God would be like: "Oh this is the guy you want me to talk to? Well, ok. You did vote on it and all. " Or do I have that completely wrong and he's just there to govern the religious matters according to his own views on things?

Dunno if you ever saw this. Pretty interesting. Dude follows the bible to the tee for a full year.

Sorry it's taken me so long to respond. I have been researching this question to make sure I get it right, but I kept running out of time to actually type up a response. I don't have much time now, but I'm going to do my best.

The bible has many writers spanning thousands of years. It is a collection of books with no single writer. The Catholic Church assembled the bible from those works believed to be inspired by God. Through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, these writers recorded what was revealed to them by God. Therefore, God is the author of the bible. Each writing must be taken in context with the time it was written and our understanding of the person who wrote it, but each is divinely inspired.

Mistranslations are possible and do exist, although not to the degree you might imagine. There are several versions of the bible and some are better than others for different reasons. Some are more literal translations and some focus more on accurately transcribing the meaning into our modern languages. However, despite this, we are blessed to have many ancient manuscripts from the bible, some dating to just a few years after the books were originally written. Through these pieces of the bible, we can assure ourselves that our modern translations are accurate.

As far as the rules of the bible, there are a few things that must be understood. First, as mentioned above, everything in the bible must be understood in context both within the time/culture it was written and within context to the rest of the bible. Secondly, there are two main types of laws in the bible. There is the ceremonial law and there is the law of Christ. Jesus fulfilled the ceremonial law and therefore, it is no longer binding on Christians. I never has been. It was only binding on those upon whom it was delivered; the Jews. The ceremonial laws include such laws as many of the ones followed in the video you posted. Because of this, following everything in the bible literally is a pointless (although interesting) exercise. Christians are still bound however by the law of Christ which includes natural law. These include many of the requirements from the New Testament and some from the Old Testament. Most visible would probably be the ten commandments or Jesus's commandment to "Love the Lord your God with your whole heart and love your neighbor as yourself."

The Pope is the leader of the Church on earth and the successor to Saint Peter. The Cardinals choose the Pope, but are guided by the Holy Spirit. This does not mean that all Popes are perfect (they are human), but there election is guided by God. As Jesus said, (I'm not quoting this directly, but the gist is there), "And I say to you, you are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it." If we believe what Jesus is saying (protip: we do), then we can be assured that the Church is protected by God. This is why whenever a new Pope is selected, you should laugh at the media as they stupidly assume it to be like any other earthly election and ask if the Pope will change any of the Church's teachings. The Pope will not. His main purpose is to preserve the Church. Anyone who thinks the Pope will change the Church's teachings on women priests, homosexuality, contraception, etc. doesn't understand the Church and how it is not a human institution, but a divine one.

Sorry if any of that is unclear. I typed this up relatively quickly, so apologies if it is confusing or wrongly worded. I'll answer the other questions as soon as I can.

[Teuthida]

Thanks for the response. Makes sense. Although the whole notion of the Holy Spirit guiding so much seems to remove free will to an certain extent. I actually don't know the Church's stance on that. Free will? Yea or nay?

If the old testament rules are mostly void, then why follow so many of them? The whole anti-homosexual thing is from that portion correct?

Quick wikipedia search led me to:

Passages in the Old Testament book Leviticus that prohibit "lying with mankind as with womankind" and the story of Sodom and Gomorrah have historically been interpreted as condemning homosexual acts, as have several Pauline passages. Other interpreters, however, maintain that these passages do not condemn homosexuality, saying that historical context suggests other interpretations or that rare or unusual words in the passages may not be referring to homosexuality.

So yeah, what's the deal with being anti-gay?

Sorry I'm asking questions quicker than you can answer. I do find this stuff fascinating though.

[jeepnut]

Originally Posted by Teuthida

Thanks for the response. Makes sense. Although the whole notion of the Holy Spirit guiding so much seems to remove free will to an certain extent. I actually don't know the Church's stance on that. Free will? Yea or nay?

If the old testament rules are mostly void, then why follow so many of them? The whole anti-homosexual thing is from that portion correct?

Quick wikipedia search led me to:



So yeah, what's the deal with being anti-gay?

Sorry I'm asking questions quicker than you can answer. I do find this stuff fascinating though.

The Holy Spirit does offer a lot of guidance, but it's up to us whether we listen or not.

The church teaches that free will is necessary and essential. For instance, God desires that we love him. How can love be love however if it is not freely given? If love is not freely given, then it becomes obligation and loses all its meaning. In order to truly love God, we must be free to choose whether to do so or not.

First of all, the church is not anti-gay. I aware that this seems unusual to people considering the recent reaction to the Pope's statements on homosexuality, but the church is not anti-gay and futhermore has never been anti-gay.

The church has always been accepting of gay people. The issue is homosexual acts are sinful. In other words, having attraction to someone of the same sex is part of who you are and cannot be controlled. We are all tempted to sin. This manifests itself differently for all of us. However, to give into that temptation and engage in homosexual acts, that is where the trouble lies.

As far as what the bible says about this, no, the condemnation of homosexual acts is not confined to the old testament. The new testament makes several references as well. I will give two examples:

This quote comes from Jesus directly:

4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’[a] 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’[b]? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”. Matthew 19:4

Secondly, from Paul's letter to the Romans:

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.. Romans 1:26-27

There are many other areas where marriage is discused and homosexual acts are regarded as sinful, but I will limit it to these two.

As far as the laws of the bible, there are multiple types. The ceremonial law is the law that was fulfilled by Jesus. These laws mostly concerned ritual cleanliness and the like. (E.g. Don't eat pork, don't touch a woman who is menstrating, etc.). The natural law however remains. It is called the the natural law because it is naturally available to all without the revalation of God. An example of the natural law would include don't murder people. The condemnation of homosexual acts is considered a part of the natural law.

[The Germanator]

Originally Posted by jeepnut

The issue is homosexual acts are sinful. In other words, having attraction to someone of the same sex is part of who you are and cannot be controlled. We are all tempted to sin. This manifests itself differently for all of us. However, to give into that temptation and engage in homosexual acts, that is where the trouble lies.

This is the kind of thing I find offensive as a non-religious person. You're basically asking people to repress their natural feelings and live a lie because those feelings or acts would be "sinful." How that isn't construed as "anti-gay" is beyond me. "I'm not anti-you, per-se, but you're a sinner and you're going to Hell." Very accepting...

I feel like this point is always made the most clear when you ask yourself, as a straight person, "when did I decide to be straight?" There was no decision, it's just who you are, and you're not a sinner for it, so why should other people?

You'll never be able to convince me that the logic of that is anyway morally acceptable...but I guess you don't have to, I'll never be a Catholic.

[jeepnut]

Originally Posted by The Germanator

This is the kind of thing I find offensive as a non-religious person. You're basically asking people to repress their natural feelings and live a lie because those feelings or acts would be "sinful." How that isn't construed as "anti-gay" is beyond me. "I'm not anti-you, per-se, but you're a sinner and you're going to Hell." Very accepting...

I feel like this point is always made the most clear when you ask yourself, as a straight person, "when did I decide to be straight?" There was no decision, it's just who you are, and you're not a sinner for it, so why should other people?

You'll never be able to convince me that the logic of that is anyway morally acceptable...but I guess you don't have to, I'll never be a Catholic.

First, a clarification: i never said anyone was going to hell. You won't hear me say that and you won't hear the Catholic Church proclaim that anyone is going to hell. Only God knows our hearts and therefore, only God can know if our sins merit eternal damnation.

Secondly, I'm sorry you find my religious beliefs offensive. However, if you are a non-believer, i don't see why it should matter. If my God doesn't exist, then surely it won't matter if he considers homosexual acts to be sinful, right?

You seem to ask how we can say we are not against the person if we are against the act? There is an old saying: "Love the sinner, hate the sin." We all sin. Does that mean we are not desearving of love? No. You can love someone without approving of their actions.

If I understand your argument correctly, then you are saying that because people with homosexual attractions did not decide to be that way, their actions cannot be sinful. However, this is true for all sinners and all sin. Non of us chose to be predisposed to sin, but the actions are sinful regardless and we are still responsible for them.

Let me give a few examples. If it is in someone's nature to lie, they are still sinning by lying even though they may be tempted to do so more than another person. Another example would be that of a pedophile or someone who is incestuous. Not all of us have an attraction to underage individuals or to our relatives, does that mean it is any less of a sin for those that do? We are all given crosses to bear.

The only difference here is that society has decided that homosexual acts are no longer sinful. However, God doesn't change with the world. The Belief that homosexual acts are sinful stretches all the way to the Jews in the Old Testament and has been held continuously since. The Church's teaching on this will not change. If you don't believe it, that's up to you, but the teaching doesn't change.

Finally, I'd like to propose a question to you. You state quite clearly that you are not a believer. Would you mind elaborating as to why you are not? Keep in mind that I will of course want to challenge your beliefs, so if you don't want to respond for that reason, I understand. However, I believe it is good that we have our beliefs challenged once in a while. Thank you for challenging my beliefs.

[Vampyr]

What's the Catholic/Christian view on doubt? Do you need 100% faith in God and the Bible to go to Heaven? What if you're only 80% sure, but there's a nagging thought that you could be wrong?

I've always wondered how people of any religion, not just Christianity, could have 100% faith, given that you are probably Catholic just because of the geographical region in which you were born and what religion the rest of your family has.

[jeepnut]

Originally Posted by Vampyr

What's the Catholic/Christian view on doubt? Do you need 100% faith in God and the Bible to go to Heaven? What if you're only 80% sure, but there's a nagging thought that you could be wrong?

I've always wondered how people of any religion, not just Christianity, could have 100% faith, given that you are probably Catholic just because of the geographical region in which you were born and what religion the rest of your family has.

I would say that the percentage of faith is not important, just that you have faith enough to believe. We all have doubts, even the most faithful of us. That's part of being human and I would think it would be impossible not to have doubt when you are dealing with something as important as the afterlife. Doubt that is involuntary such as a hesitation in believing is not sinful. Doubt that is voluntary and is a willing denial of what God has revealed is a grave matter.

Faith is holding on to your beliefs despite these involuntary doubts. Our doubts arrise from changing moods. There are some days when faith is easy and there are other days when it is hard but when shouldn't change our beliefs every time our feelings fluctuate.

As to your second statement, I've wondered that myself. It has been especially relavent to my mind because I was adopted. I wonder sometimes what religion I would have been raised in if I was raised by my biological parents. Since I don't know them, I don't have the answer.

I'd like to think that I would have found Catholicism even if I wasn't raised in it. We all search for truth and I believe that the Catholic Church has the fullness of that truth. That's why I pprofess the faith I do. I have examined it and continue to do so on a daily basis and each day reaffirm my belief.

[Teuthida]

Originally Posted by jeepnut

However, if you are a non-believer, i don't see why it should matter. If my God doesn't exist, then surely it won't matter if he considers homosexual acts to be sinful, right?

Not to speak for Germy, but it matters to me because people like you believe such things are sinful.

The only difference here is that society has decided that homosexual acts are no longer sinful. However, God doesn't change with the world. The Belief that homosexual acts are sinful stretches all the way to the Jews in the Old Testament and has been held continuously since. The Church's teaching on this will not change. If you don't believe it, that's up to you, but the teaching doesn't change.

You probably just summed up most of the problems I have with religion. It doesn't change with the times. You're following rules from over a thousand years ago.

It's like believing in cooties when you're a kid. Then you grow up and mature and realize there's no such thing. You don't continue to avoid girls for fear of cooties because of the rules your five year old self followed.

[jeepnut]

Originally Posted by Teuthida

Not to speak for Germy, but it matters to me because people like you believe such things are sinful.

Why does it bother you? Is it that you believe that sin = hate? That has never been the teaching of the Church. We are all sinners and we are all created in the image and likeness of God. We have no more right to hate others for their sin than we do to hate ourselves for our own sin.

Furthermore, why this sin in particular? Does is bother you that any other acts are considered sins or just homosexual acts?

Originally Posted by Teuthida

You probably just summed up most of the problems I have with religion. It doesn't change with the times. You're following rules from over a thousand years ago.

It's like believing in cooties when you're a kid. Then you grow up and mature and realize there's no such thing. You don't continue to avoid girls for fear of cooties because of the rules your five year old self followed.

Do you still believe that you should look both ways before crossing the street? If something is true, it doesn't change with the times.

Or are you proposing a religion in which truth is relative and changes with the opinions of its believers? A religion whose God is shaped by those who believe in him? I would find such a religion to be very difficult to believe in.

[The Germanator]

Originally Posted by jeepnut

However, if you are a non-believer, i don't see why it should matter. If my God doesn't exist, then surely it won't matter if he considers homosexual acts to be sinful, right?

The only difference here is that society has decided that homosexual acts are no longer sinful. However, God doesn't change with the world. The Belief that homosexual acts are sinful stretches all the way to the Jews in the Old Testament and has been held continuously since. The Church's teaching on this will not change. If you don't believe it, that's up to you, but the teaching doesn't change.

Finally, I'd like to propose a question to you. You state quite clearly that you are not a believer. Would you mind elaborating as to why you are not? Keep in mind that I will of course want to challenge your beliefs, so if you don't want to respond for that reason, I understand. However, I believe it is good that we have our beliefs challenged once in a while. Thank you for challenging my beliefs.

As Teuthida said, it does matter and it still disturbs me that Catholic believers think that way... but as you said, you don't change with the times. I can "respect" your faith and belief in that regard I suppose, but it doesn't change the fact that I think it's morally and ethically backwards and discriminatory, but you probably think the same thing of me as a non-believer!

As for why I'm a non-believer...Well, I've never totally categorized myself that way. I'd describe myself as agnostic. Basically, with my expected 78 years on this planet, I don't think it's logical to spend time trying to prove or disprove something that we'll never have an answer to. It can be hard enough to get through the days sometimes, and I'd rather spend them being and caring for the physical humans (or animals) that I know in my life rather than worry about what happens when I cease to exist.

If the Golden rule came from Christianity (did it? I honestly have no idea), then that's an idea I can get behind, but everything else I can do without. I just think there's a common societal morality that I have, and I think I'm a pretty kind and decent person, but I don't think I need religion to tell me to be that way.

I think that's why selfish, horribly aggressive drivers maybe annoy me more than anything in the world...

Anyway, I could ramble for a while, but that's contrary to my point, because I find arguing about religion to be pointless in my case....unless it's helping shape the policies of my government...which is a whole other major problem.

[jeepnut]

Originally Posted by The Germanator

As Teuthida said, it does matter and it still disturbs me that Catholic believers think that way... but as you said, you don't change with the times. I can "respect" your faith and belief in that regard I suppose, but it doesn't change the fact that I think it's morally and ethically backwards and discriminatory, but you probably think the same thing of me as a non-believer!

As for why I'm a non-believer...Well, I've never totally categorized myself that way. I'd describe myself as agnostic. Basically, with my expected 78 years on this planet, I don't think it's logical to spend time trying to prove or disprove something that we'll never have an answer to. It can be hard enough to get through the days sometimes, and I'd rather spend them being and caring for the physical humans (or animals) that I know in my life rather than worry about what happens when I cease to exist.

If the Golden rule came from Christianity (did it? I honestly have no idea), then that's an idea I can get behind, but everything else I can do without. I just think there's a common societal morality that I have, and I think I'm a pretty kind and decent person, but I don't think I need religion to tell me to be that way.

I think that's why selfish, horribly aggressive drivers maybe annoy me more than anything in the world...

Anyway, I could ramble for a while, but that's contrary to my point, because I find arguing about religion to be pointless in my case....unless it's helping shape the policies of my government...which is a whole other major problem.

I don't think it's discriminatory to think an act is not sinful just as I don't think that calling an act sinful is discriminatory. The venerable Fulton Sheen said two things that apply well here:

The first: "Moral principles do not depend on a majority vote. Wrong is wrong, even if everybody is wrong. Right is right, even if nobody is right."

The second: “America, it is said, is suffering from intolerance-it is not. It is suffering from tolerance. Tolerance of right and wrong, truth and error, virtue and evil, Christ and chaos. Our country is not nearly so overrun with the bigoted as it is overrun with the broadminded.”

“Tolerance is an attitude of reasoned patience toward evil … a forbearance that restrains us from showing anger or inflicting punishment. Tolerance applies only to persons … never to truth. Tolerance applies to the erring, intolerance to the error … Architects are as intolerant about sand as foundations for skyscrapers as doctors are intolerant about germs in the laboratory.

Tolerance does not apply to truth or principles. About these things we must be intolerant, and for this kind of intolerance, so much needed to rouse us from sentimental gush, I make a plea. Intolerance of this kind is the foundation of all stability.”

In other words, opinions have nothing to do with moral principles and to hate the act of sinning does not say that the one who sins is also hated. If that were true, we would all be hated because we are all sinners!

So I will ask again the question that no one seems to be able to answer. Why is it in our society wrong to say that homosexual acts are sinful? Keep in mind, what a person does has nothing to do with who that person is.

Wow, that was a lot of words for a simple point, but I like those quotes.

As far as your beliefs, you say that it's not worth your time to worry about something we don't have the answer to. I would respond, you don't have to! We already know the answer which is God is real and God loves us!

Caring for your fellow man is great and is a central aspect of Christianity, but we teach that this life is but a shadow of the next. Is not etrnal life worth the effort in this one?

The Golden Rule did not come from Christianity. Jesus did preach something similar, but with a key difference. He said: "Love your neighbor as yourself" which he said is the second greatest commandment. The first is to love God. To love another is to desire the happiness of that individual. By happiness, I mean true happiness, not whatever makes that person temporarily happy, but that which fulfills that person and leads to true joy.