The Joy of the Truth » Worldviews

YouCat and the Church Fathers

Jeffrey S. Arrowood, MTS — Fri, 23 Sep 2011 01:15:57 +0000

The next objection to the YouCat that I wanted to explore is that it places greater weight on modern scientific speculation than on the Church Fathers’ unanimous interpretations of the first chapters of Genesis. Again, this objection is closely related to the others. But instead of rehashing what I’ve already said about the Church and evolution, I’d like to take this opportunity to explore the role of the Church Fathers.

Now, there is no denying that the early Church Fathers are an awesome and important source of knowledge of what is believed about Christ and the Church. Their importance is mostly due to their closeness to the apostles. The Church Fathers were directly discipled by the Apostles and, unlike the Apostles, they did a lot of writing to preserve the Tradition of the Church and pass it down to future generations.

However, one thing that is often misunderstood is the role the Church Fathers play in the development of infallible doctrine. A doctrine is determined to be divinely and infallibly inspired when the Holy Spirit guides the Church to “always and everywhere” believe something. Practically speaking, this means tracing a belief back to the Apostles. The writings of the Church Fathers are valuable gifts given to the Church to help us understand how a doctrine came to us from the Apostles. That does not mean that everything the Church Fathers taught is infallible. For example, Origen taught that at the Final Judgement everyone (including the fallen angels) would be redeemed and end up in heaven. On the other hand, Augustine believed that most of humanity would be damned but a few people were saved by God’s mercy to be in heaven. Which Church Father would have the infallible statement? Even more confusing, both of these beliefs have persisted through time.

That is why our sure guide to what is infallible Tradition and how to interpret the Sacred Scriptures is the Magisterium of the Church, not the Church Fathers themselves. The Church Fathers are instructional and a great gift to the Church. But they are part of a Tradition that needs to be interpreted through the Holy Spirit’s guidance of the Magisterium.

So the Church Fathers are not a special authority on the Old Testament. They do not enjoy a special infallibility. Furthermore, Darwinian evolution was not really an issue they dealt with. The question to ask of Tradition would be – has science and faith been seen as compatible or incompatible? The answer is definitely compatible. Myths to the contrary aside (Galileo is so misunderstood), the Church has always embraced science as a method of knowing God’s creation, especially of knowing how God works (while the Bible explains why). I guess another question to ask Tradition would be if Sacred Scripture has been seen as a source of scientific knowledge.

The main teaching in the YouCat in the area of evolution is that Scripture and Science deal with different realms of truth. This statement is in line with Tradition, judging from what the Church teaches about the nature of truth in Sacred Scripture.

OK, I’m not feeling that what I wrote here was quite as coherent as my previous posts. Give me your feedback! What do we need to discuss / debate / clarify?

YouCat and Progressive Creation

Jeffrey S. Arrowood, MTS — Sat, 17 Sep 2011 14:50:07 +0000

The next objection to the YouCat is that it “teaches that God made an incomplete world filled with defects and deformities.” Again, I am assuming a bit here in my interpretation of the objection, but I think I know where they’re coming from. By giving a nod to evolution, the YouCat seems to side with those theologians who say that the creation of the world was progressive. These theologians say that God created the world, but that he did so as a process, not immediately as it seems to happen in Genesis 1.

First of all, let’s take a look at what the YouCat says.

The creation account is not a scientific model for explaining the beginning of the world. “God created the world” is a theological statement that is concerned with the relation of the world to God. God willed the world; he sustains it and will perfect it. Being created is a lasting quality in things and an fundamental truth about them.

from article 41

The Church teaches that God’s actions are not limited to time. God Creates. The Church also teaches that human beings cooperate in the work of Creation to perfect it for human use (see Pope John Paul II’s document Laborem Exercens – on the Dignity of Human Work – as an example). So, to see Creation as a process the way evolution does just doesn’t seem contradictory to the faith. In fact, Saint Augustine wrote about the progressive nature of Creation. He uses the figure of a seed – God creates the seed, with everything in it that makes it a plant. But the plant comes into the fulness of being through a process of growth. This does not mean that God did not create the plant, or that he created the seed and then abandoned it to grow into a plant on its own. God’s act of creating the plant is continuous, but within time it takes place as a process (“The Literal Meaning of Genesis”).

Look, is the YouCat saying that a good Catholic should believe in the theory of evolution? Nowhere does it say that! What it’s saying is that the scientific theory of evolution as a way of explaining the history of the world’s genesis within time is not opposed to Catholic doctrine or theology, and neither does it disprove Catholic faith in God as the Creator.

So you may ask, why even go there? The Catechism of the Catholic Church doesn’t get enmeshed in this debate. It sticks with the theological meaning and leaves the whole evolution question alone. The fact is that are youth do go there. They are hit hard and often with the message that evolution is truth because it is science and that Genesis is myth. The distinction that the YouCat makes between the realm of science and the realm of theology is really important for young people to get. The recognition that science and faith don’t contradict each other when each is properly understood is a point that I often make with young people that I teach, and to great effect. I applaud the authors of the YouCat for recognizing the need for the Church to address evolution in a way even a science teacher can understand.

YouCat and Creation

Jeffrey S. Arrowood, MTS — Mon, 12 Sep 2011 18:01:39 +0000

The next objection to the YouCat forwarded by those who are asking for it to be recalled is that the YOUCAT alleges that Genesis does not give a true account of creation. This objection seems very related to the first. The YouCat states that there is no contradiction between Creation and the theory of evolution as a scientific theory. However, it also states that we must believe that God is the source of all creation and that Creation was not a matter of chance. It states that science and Scripture are different realms of knowledge – and that Evolutionism and Creationism both err in erasing the line between science and truth. I do wish that this section would have taken the next step in saying that all truth is from God, but I don’t think its teaching is unclear. Again – no real objection here.
3 hours ago · Like

YouCat and Biblical Inerrancy

Jeffrey S. Arrowood, MTS — Fri, 09 Sep 2011 16:33:31 +0000

The first objection to the YouCat is that the “YOUCAT insinuates that The Holy Bible contains errors.”
From what I can tell, this objection stems mainly from a concern about the YouCat’s treatment of the Creation story. The concern seems to be that the YouCat gives in to modernist concessions about Evolution. Further objections state that the YouCat places more trust in modern scientific claims than in Church Fathers and Doctors.

The YouCat states that the Bible is without error in its revelation of God, but contains historical and scientific error because it was written by human beings who were immersed in a specific time and culture. There is nothing wrong in the YouCat’s description. The objection seems to be seeking a more Creationist form of literalism – a word for word interpretation of the text. There is a blatant confusion in the objection about the inerrancy of the Bible.

The Church’s unchanging doctrine is that the Bible is inerrant in its revelation of who God is, our relationship with him, and what he expects of us (morals). The Church does not doctrinally teach that the Bible is without any and all error regarding (for example) history and science. This is why biblical study is so wonderfully complex, with the different senses of scripture and various legitimate schools of exegesis.

Do you agree? I think it’s important that the people of God discuss these things!

Is the YouCat Recall Legitimate?

Jeffrey S. Arrowood, MTS — Tue, 06 Sep 2011 16:04:26 +0000

I have been touting the YouCat as the next important tool for catechesis and evangelization. It puts the faith in simple, everyday terms that young people and adults alike will find more understandable and relevant than the more formal theological language of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. The purpose of the YouCat is to take advantage of the dialectic model of teaching used by other catechisms such as America’s Baltimore Catechism and the relatively recently released Compendium of the Catechism. I have said that I wish I had the YouCat when I taught in the Catholic high school.

However, not all of the news about the YouCat is good. There has been a movement to have the YouCat recalled due to doctrinal errors and ambiguities. In fact, the Italian translation was actually recalled and revised. So are there legitimate concerns about the English translation of the YouCat?

Here is what I have discovered so far. There are six major objections.

YOUCAT claims that the Bible contains errors.
YOUCAT alleges that Genesis does not give a true account of creation.
YOUCAT emphasizes modern scientific speculation over the Church Fathers’ unanimous interpretations of the first chapters of Genesis.
YOUCAT teaches that God made an incomplete world filled with defects and deformities.
YOUCAT gives confusing (some say ambiguous others say erroneous) catechesis on human sexuality and end of life issues.
YOUCAT can give the impression that modern Catholic and non-Catholic authors are more important for young people to read than the Fathers and Doctors of the Church.

These objections are lifted from http://www.dfwcatholic.org/petition-to-recall-youcat-for-doctrinal-errors14256/.html but are repeated on a number of websites in part or entire.

I’ll answer each objection in turn. But what do you think? Have you read the YouCat? Have you found anything to be ambiguous, misleading or contrary to the teachings of the Church? Let me know in the comments below!

Tell Congress to Defend DOMA

Jeffrey S. Arrowood, MTS — Mon, 21 Mar 2011 16:53:36 +0000

ISSUE: On February 24th, President Obama instructed the Justice Department not to defend sections of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in the current court cases where it is being challenged. The principal basis for the President’s decision is that he considers the law protecting marriage as a form of impermissible sexual orientation discrimination. This action by the Executive branch has put before the leadership of the House of Representatives the question of whether to fill the gap left by the Justice Department, and join the cases as a party to defend DOMA.

BACKGROUND: DOMA was passed in 1996 with bi-partisan support and by wide margins (342-67 in the House and 85-14 in the Senate) and was signed into law by President Clinton. It says that for purposes of acts of Congress or regulations “the word ‘marriage’ means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word ‘spouse’ refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.”

The existence of DOMA prohibits the federal government from recognizing same-sex “marriages” or from extending spousal benefits to same-sex couples. It also means that states cannot be compelled to recognize same-sex “marriages” from other states.

CHURCH TEACHING: In a September 9, 2003 statement (reaffirmed March 14, 2006) titled: PROMOTE, PRESERVE, PROTECT MARRIAGE, the Administrative Committee of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops said, “To promote, preserve, and protect marriage today requires, among other things, that we advocate for legislative and public policy initiatives that define and support marriage as a unique, essential relationship and institution. At a time when family life is under significant stress, the principled defense of marriage is an urgent necessity to ensure the flourishing of persons, the wellbeing of children, and the common good of society.”

ACTION: Speaker Boehner has been meeting with other members of the House leadership to explore ways to defend DOMA. Please contact your member of Congress and let her/him know that you support the House leadership in their efforts to intervene in the lawsuits challenging DOMA, to defend the law and protect marriage. See statements of Anthony Picarello, USCCB General Counsel and Archbishop Timothy Dolan, President of the USCCB on the USCCB Website (http://www.usccb.org/)

Contact your Representative by e-mail, phone, FAX letter or U.S. Mail:

* Call the U.S. Capitol switchboard at: 202-224-3121, or call your Members’ local offices.
* Additional contact info can be found on Members’ web sites at: http://www.house.gov/.
* Share this action alert with your social media networks.

WHEN: Please contact your Representative today. Thanks!

Visit to http://capwiz.com/catholicbishops/issues/alert/?alertid=33502501 to send an email directly to your elected officials and to sign up to receive additional alerts from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops

See related story: http://www.usccb.org/comm/archives/2011/11-043.shtml

Secretariat of Laity, Marriage, Family Life and Youth| US Conference of Catholic Bishops

3211 4th St. NE, Washington, DC 20017-1194

(202) 541-3040 | laity@usccb.org | www.usccb.org/laity

Eye for an Eye, a Condom for a Condom

Jeffrey S. Arrowood, MTS — Mon, 29 Nov 2010 19:28:07 +0000

The recent hubub about Pope Benedict XVI statement about condom usage and AIDS in his most recent book highlights just how important being educated in Catholic moral theology is for Catholics. Are you able to answer the confusion surrounding these statements? Here are some basic steps in understanding what the Holy Father actually meant.

Find out what the Holy Father actually said. Don’t get your knowledge of Catholic goings-on from the news. The news is an entertainment industry. They pull out one or two lines that will make people buy their stories, even if those lines distort the true meaning.
Don’t listen to Catholic “experts” who comment on quotes taken from the news. You’ll here everything from people decrying the pope as theologically ignorant (those who oppose condom use) to those praising his “modernization of Catholic doctrine” (those in favor of condom use). Both sides have missed the point.
Go to the source. Pope Benedict’s new book, Light of the World, is written in interview format (like The Ratzinger Report. Read the entire question-answer exchange to get the full context of the Holy Father’s comments.
Ditch the all-or-nothing, black and white thinking without going to the other extreme and hanging with the modernists. While Catholic morality teaches very clear divisions between good and evil (including inherently evil acts), the application of the moral law is not as rigid as you might think. Pope Benedict XVI has a firm understanding of how to apply the moral law. Listen to him and learn.

OK, that said, let’s tag a stab at understanding what the Holy Father actually means in his statement that condoms may sometimes be a sign of the moralization of sexuality.

First, he is not saying that condoms are a morally acceptable solution to AIDS. He make the explicit statement a number of times in his response that condoms cannot offer the solution the world is looking for.

Second, he is not saying that condom usage is morally good. Condoms destroy the unitive and procreative goods of sexuality, and remove sex from its proper context of family love.

What he did say was that in situations where the goods of sex are already destroyed (the example he used was a male prostitute), the use of a condom can indicate at least a drift toward the true moral meaning of the sexual act. The beauty and goodness of the sexual act is already destroyed. Starting from the point of disordered sexuality, the use of a condom may indicate a recognition that there should be something more – a concern for the other, a limit on what is permissible, etc.

A similar understanding is applicable to the Old Testament principle of “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.” Today people tend to see this principle of the “Old Law” as allowing or even requiring revenge – a law set by a mean, vengeful God (or a mean, vengeful people in God’s name). What they don’t understand is that “an eye for an eye” was actually a movement toward mercy. The common practice was “you kill my brother, I destroy your entire settlement.” Revenge was not justice – it was often attempted annihilation of the offending culture. God moved His people toward justice and mercy by placing a limit on their desire for revenge – the “punishment” or revenge must match the offense and go no further. The principle God laid down was not an approval of revenge. It was a baby step in the direction of mercy.

Do you see how this applies to the pope’s statement on condom usage? What have you heard about his statement? How do you understand it now? Please comment below!

Mel Gibson vs. Roman Polanski What’s the Difference?

Jeffrey S. Arrowood, MTS — Tue, 27 Jul 2010 14:00:47 +0000

Mel Gibson has made the news – in the form of a media feeding frenzy – yet again. This time he is accused of making racial slurs and of possibly physically abusing his girlfriend (the mother of his nine month old baby). There is little doubt that the accusations are true. Mel Gibson has slid once again in his lifelong struggle with alcoholism. However, especially as far as celebrities go, this news is “nothing new under the sun.” I say especially as far as celebrities go mainly because their domestic woes are typically public knowledge. Alcoholism, extra-marital sex and even (sadly) abuse of all kinds are all-too-common occurrences. In fact, one has to wonder why such a media feeding frenzy (including an audio clip that went viral on the Internet) exists at all.

Meanwhile, another celebrity has made the news as well, though much further down the media page. Switzerland refused to extradite movie director Roman Polanski, who was accused of drugging and raping a 13 year old girl. Unlike Gibson, Polanski was even defended by many in Hollywood. The ruling of the courts of Switzerland is considered a great victory for some people who claim that Polanski was just misunderstood, that the sex with the 13 year old was consensual, and that it all happened so long ago that we shouldn’t even bother.

So what’s the difference between Mel Gibson and Roman Polanski? Frankly, both cases of sin outrage and sadden me. Rape and abuse are both gross desecration of human dignity. At the same time, I am aware enough of my own sinfulness to be driven to prayer for both of these men. But I notice the difference in the way they are treated publicly, and I have to wonder.

To me, this is just another sign of the rampant presence of modernism in our society. As I have said before, modernists consider hypocrisy one of their few major sins. To the modernist-influenced media, Roman Polanski was just following his nature, and even though the girl was only 13, she did choose to be with him and to take drugs. However, Mel Gibson created the movie Passion of the Christ and claimed to be a faithful (and traditional) Catholic. Because he followed a religion that dares tell the world what is right and wrong, Gibson’s sinfulness is hypocritical.

The irony is that those who criticize Gibson and defend Polanski are themselves hypocritical. Abusive sexuality is apparently OK for some people but not for others. Unless, of course, the crime is not the abuse but instead the moral standards held by Gibson. Modernists aren’t really saying that abuse is evil, but that moral standards are.

What if Natural Were Not Natural?

Jeffrey S. Arrowood, MTS — Fri, 18 Jun 2010 14:00:43 +0000

The Spring 2003 edition of Wilson Quarterly ran an article called, “What is Natural?” The author, Andrew Stark, was exploring the standards used by insurance companies to decide what treatments to cover and which ones not to cover. One of the standards that he explores is the classic standard of a true medication or treatment returning the human body to natural functioning. Of course, like a true modernist, Stark then asks the question what exactly is natural? One example that he gives is the question of covering Viagra but not birth control pills. The idea of returning to the body to natural functioning would seem to indicate that Viagra should be covered since it returns the natural procreative functioning of the male, and that contraception should not be covered because it works against the natural procreative functioning of female. Then Stark pulls the standard modernist trick “what if.”

But suppose we view “natural” sexuality in recreational, not procreative, terms. Since “most Viagra users are men aged 50–75, hardly peak biological years for procreation,” a writer in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer pointed out a few years ago, “the specter of ‘recreational’ use is hard to ignore.” Viagra users are not fulfilling their natural functioning but thumbing their noses at it. After all, as Robert Scheer wrote in the Los Angeles Times, “Isn’t sexual impotence God’s gentle way of saying to a 75-year-old man, ‘You’ve had enough’?” Contraception, by contrast, enables a woman “to enjoy sex,” Paige Shipman of Wisconsin Planned Parenthood told me, precisely by “eliminating a direct threat to her natural functioning: the ravages on her body that would result from having to bear 12 to 15 children.”

So if sex is understood in procreative terms, Viagra promotes natural functioning and contraception thwarts it. If it’s understood in recreational terms, Viagra frequently mocks natural functioning and contraception protects it. [1. Stark, Andrew. "What's Natural?" Wilson Quarterly. Spring 2003. 55-56.]

This common modernist fallacy creates a false supposition on which to base an argument. The argument itself seems perfectly logical, but the very premise on which it is based is made up out of thin air. “Suppose we just change the rules.”

For what reason would we consider sexuality from a recreational viewpoint? It is obvious to human reason that the purpose of human sexuality is greater than pleasure alone. It is equally obvious that at least part of that purpose is procreative. While there are many things in human life that bring pleasure, there are very few for which pleasure is the ultimate purpose because pleasure is such a low good on the hierarchy of human needs.

Of course, once you start heading down a false trail of logic, it is easy to remain misled. Paige Shipman’s comment about contraception preserving a woman’s natural functioning from the ravages of her body that result from having 12 to 15 children is a completely spurious argument. First of all, chemical contraception ravages the body even more than natural pregnancy — artificially aging the cervix, making the body more susceptible to cancer, and causing infertility. On the other hand, the woman’s natural fertility functioning makes it unlikely that she will ever bear 12 to 15 children. The application of little human reasoning to her natural fertility cycling guarantees it. The woman can use natural family planning to limit the number of children she has without using chemicals that would further damage her body.

Modernists like the “what if” game. It allows them to create a logical-sounding argument that calls truth into question while at the same time it makes no real claim to truth itself. It’s a dangerous form of propaganda that can do real harm.

Pro-choice is the Death of Love

Jeffrey S. Arrowood, MTS — Wed, 16 Jun 2010 05:51:27 +0000

In a previous blog post, I pointed out that abortion advocates have problems even if they call themselves pro-choice. The overemphasis of the individual’s choice tends to isolate the mother from the support of the community. Our culture is pretty much telling unwed mothers, “It’s your choice, so it’s your problem.” Whether a mother decides to kill her baby or give her baby life, the pro-choice movement makes the decision and all its consequences hers and hers alone. Her right to choose removes society’s responsibility and compassion.

Wesley Smith, an outstanding opponent of Euthanasia, teaches that the same thing happens with the “right to die.” The individual’s choice to end his or her life in the face of suffering or despair removes our responsibility to reach out to them in love.

“But I know people and you know people who became suicidal,” he continued. “They might not be alive today if it had not been for the mental health professionals and friends and loved ones who stood in the gap and said, ‘No, we love you, there’s another way’.”

“We are disengaging from each other,” Smith said. “We are losing love for each other, and that is reflected in how we treat people who are in despair and darkness.” [1. Klein, Franz. "Wisconsin is a 'major target' for pro-euthanasia groups, speaker says" Catholic Times. October 1, 2009. 12.]

One interesting thing about Smith was that he said he did not understand why euthanasia is a progressive issue. Apparently Wisconsin is being targeted by pro-death advocates and Wisconsin is known as a blue state. I wonder if Wesley Smith falls into the same misunderstanding of modern liberalism as many Catholics. Liberalism is no longer founded on progressive ideals, but instead on philosophical Modernism, the belief that truth cannot be known except through personal experience. Modernism emphasizes personal choice as the most important value, since it sees truth as a personal thing (“What’s true for you may not be true for me”). Pro-euthanasia and pro-abortion advocates call themselves pro-choice because the personalized choice is what matters most to them. However, their over-emphasis of personal choice means a neglect of community responsibility and love.

The Joy of the Truth » Worldviews

YouCat and the Church Fathers

Related Links:

YouCat and Progressive Creation

Related Links:

YouCat and Creation

Related Links:

YouCat and Biblical Inerrancy

Related Links:

Is the YouCat Recall Legitimate?

Related Links:

Tell Congress to Defend DOMA

Related Links:

Eye for an Eye, a Condom for a Condom

Related Links:

Mel Gibson vs. Roman Polanski What’s the Difference?

Related Links:

What if Natural Were Not Natural?

Related Links:

Pro-choice is the Death of Love

Related Links: