How We Got the Bible.

What are the origins of the Bible? When was it written? Can we believe what it says?

Have you ever wondered how and when the Bible came to be? Of course, most of us know that the Bible didn’t drop down from heaven as a complete book, but many do not know how the Bible developed.

The Bible is made up of many books written by many authors.  How were the books that make up the Bible chosen?  And what were the criteria for including those books? 

The Old Testament

The Christian Bible is made up of two parts: the Old Testament and the New Testament. The Old Testament is the Sacred Scripture of the Jewish people and, because of this, it was the only Bible that Jesus, the Apostles, and the early Christians had.  Originally written in the Hebrew language, it included books of the history of Israel, the writings of the Prophets, and Wisdom literature (Psalms, Proverbs, Song of Solomon). 

The Jewish Diaspora began when the Assyrians conquered Israel in 722 BC, and the inhabitants were scattered across the Middle East.  Later, in 597 BC, Nebuchadnezzar deported many Judeans (people living in the southern part of Israel known as Judea), although some escaped to Egypt.  When the Jewish people were dispersed to other nations after these conquests, the Jews began to speak the languages of the people where they now lived.  Following the conquests of Alexander the Great people in the conquered areas learned to speak Greek.  Even the Jewish Scriptures were translated from Hebrew into Greek to be read in the synagogues, and this translation is known as the Septuagint.  It was the Septuagint translation that was the Scripture (Old Testament) used in the time of Jesus and the early Church.

The New Testament

The New Testament is made up of the four Gospels (Sts. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John), the Acts of the Apostles, the letters of St. Paul, St. Peter and St. John, St. James, the Revelation of St. John and a letter whose author is unknown (Letter to the Hebrews).  The Acts of the Apostles was written by St. Luke.  The letters (e.g. Romans, Ephesians, Galatians, I Peter) were circulated to be read in the churches of the Mediterranean area which at that time was part of the Roman Empire.

The canon of New Testament Scripture was set down by Iraneus, a bishop of Lyon, France at the end of the second century (between 100 and 199 AD).  He accepted the four Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) even though two of them had not been written by Apostles (Luke and Mark).  Luke was a physician who travelled with Paul. Mark was possibly a nephew of Peter.  As there were other letters and gospels circulating at the time, Iraneus’ criteria for the canon were that they were  “... the teachings of the churches in the earliest period, meaning whichever of these writings had actually remained in use since that time.”  Therefore, the books which today are recognized by Roman Catholics, Protestant, and the Orthodox Church as Scripture, were agreed upon well before the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD (the 4th century) when they were formally declared to be part of Scripture.

The Catholic Church was responsible for the canon of Scripture (which books should be included) and the preservation of Scripture.  Since it was the only Church until the 15th Century, without the Catholic Church, we would not have the Christian Bible as it exists today.

Textual Criticism

When scribes (usually monks) copied the manuscripts, errors inadvertently crept into the copies.  Textual Criticism is a science which tries to identify and remove errors in transcription in the texts of any ancient manuscript.  The objective is to produce a text which is as close as possible to the original.  Often, in the case of classical manuscripts, there may be only one or two manuscripts in existence.  If there are more than ten, there is a great advantage of knowing what was originally written.  In the case of the New Testament, however, there are nearly five thousand manuscripts in Greek in existence as well as quotations from the books in the writings of others!  Furthermore, the manuscripts of classical authors usually date only from the Middle Ages, but there are manuscripts of the New Testament Scriptures as far back as the end of the 2nd century.  That is, they were written only a century after the original manuscripts had been written.  This means we can trust the words of Scripture more than we can trust the words of classical writings.

What are the Gnostic Gospels?

The Gnostic gospels are 13 volumes that were discovered in 1945 near Nag Hammadi in Egypt.  All of these books were written in the Coptic language and are probably translations from Greek.  They were believed to have been written in the 2nd century (100-199 AD).

Most Biblical scholars agree that the canonical Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) were written before AD70, although some put Matthew at 75-80AD.  If this is the case, the Canonical Gospels would be more reliable accounts of the life of Jesus than the Gnostic gospels as they were written closer to the time that he lived.

Before AD70, there would have been witnesses still alive who could have protested any errors in them.  By the 2nd century (when the Gnostic gospels were written) anyone still living from the time of Jesus would have to be over 100 years old.

Inspiration of Scripture

The Catholic Church, as well as the Orthodox Church and Evangelical Protestant churches, believe that the writers of Scripture were inspired by the Holy Spirit: God is the Author of Sacred Scripture:  "The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit," CCC 105 and Dei Verbum 11.

"To compose the sacred books, God chose certain men who, all the while he employed them in this task, made full use of their own faculties and powers, that, though he acted in them and by them, it was as true authors that they consigned to writing whatever he wanted written, and no more," Dei Verbum V 11.

Scriptures in the Church

Before the invention of the printing press, the Scriptures were hand-copied.  The pages were often beautifully decorated as well.  Individuals did not own copies of the Bible and copies were often chained down in the Church, not to keep people from reading the Bible, but to ensure it would be available when someone did want to read it.  In other words, like our telephone books today, 'chaining them' prevented people stealing them.

By this time, Latin was the language used amongst the educated and was the language used in the universities across Europe.  Uneducated people could not read Latin and many could not read their own language, so books in English or German were not necessary in the early Middle Ages.  However, there are some instances of early translations into the vernacular (common) language of the people.  Two examples are: Bishop Ulfilas (318-380) who devised an alphabet for the Goths and translated the Old and New Testaments.  In the 9th Century, St. Cyril and St. Methodius invented an alphabet, the Cyrillic alphabet, for the Slavic peoples and translated a Bible for them.

Quotations About Scripture

St. Jerome (AD340-420) said, “Not to know the Scriptures is not to know Christ.” St. Jerome translated the Scriptures from Hebrew and Greek to Latin, the language in use at that time.

A document from the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) states, “Among other things that pertain to salvation of the Christian peoples, the food of the Word of God is above all necessary, because as the body is nourished by material food, so is the soul nourished by spiritual food, since, '...not by bread alone doth man live, but in every word that proceedeth from the mouth of God.'" (Matthew 4:4).

And finally, from the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1997): “In Sacred Scripture, the Church constantly finds her nourishment and her strength, for she welcomes it not as a human word, ‘but as what it really is, the word of God.” (103)

Sources:

Catechism of the Catholic Church. New York, London, Toronto: Doubleday. 1997.

Pope Paul VI. Dei Verbum: Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation. The Vatican:1965.

The Catholic Encyclopedia at New Advent website, accessed October 15, 2010.

The Jewish Virtual Library website, accessed October 15, 2010.

Book Review: How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization by Thomas E. Woods Jr., Ph.D.

Woods, Thomas E. Jr. Ph.D.  How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization.  Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing, Inc.  2005.   280 pp

"Philip Jenkins, a distinguished professor of history and religious studies at Pennsylvania State University, has called anti-Catholicism the one remaining acceptable prejudice in America.  His assessment is difficult to dispute. ... My own students, to the extent that they know anything at all about the Church, are typically familiar only with alleged Church "corruption," of which they heard ceaseless tales of varying credibility from their high school teachers.  The story of Catholicism, as far as they know, is one of ignorance, repression, and stagnation."  So Thomas E. Woods, himself a historian, economist, professor and noted author, begins his book on ‘How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization'. (page 1)
In contrast to these biases, Woods proceeds to demonstrate that in the areas of science, economics, education, art, philosophy, law and charity it is the Catholic Church that has been their most important source in the Western world.
Scientific Achievements
In the area of Science, Woods makes the claim that those who worship creation itself cannot investigate it in a scientific way.  This idea was put forth by Stanley Jaki, a Catholic priest who has doctorates in physics and theology, in his book, The Saviour of Science (2000).  For example, someone who worships a tree cannot look into what elements make up the tree, what causes it to grow etc.   The Jewish Scriptures, on the other hand, show creation to be rational and orderly and a reflection of God's wisdom, goodness and beauty. God has ordered all things by measure, number and weight (Wisdom 11:21).   Creation, not treated as something ‘divine' itself, can then be investigated. Jaki does not deny that other cultures made contributions to science but says that "sustained scientific inquiry" (quoted by Woods, p. 77) and the scientific method emerged from Catholic thought.
Woods dismantles the ‘Galileo case' as it has been misrepresented to the public demonstrating that science, itself, was not what the Church found problematic.  In fact, Jesuits were involved in the study of astronomy at that time and still are.  The misrepresentations are widespread: one of my former students in Grade 5 Catechism class had learned somewhere that Galileo was tortured to death by the Catholic Church.  He was surprised to hear from me that Galileo had only been put under house arrest, had all his needs cared for and died a natural death at the age of 77.
Triumphs in Education
Woods shows how Education is another area in which the Catholic Church has made a significant contribution.  The great universities of Europe began as Cathedral schools or gatherings of Masters and students under the patrimony of the Church.  It was during the Middle Ages that the universities of Bologna, Paris and Oxford were instituted and the papacy played an important role in their establishment. For example, Pope Innocent IV granted the privilege of awarding degrees to Oxford in 1254.
Charity and Hospitals
Woods also shows how charitable acts, although not unknown in early Greek and Roman cultures, were unique in Christianity.  He shows this by quotations from writers such as the Stoic philosophers, Seneca and others.  Even though the Stoics taught that man should do good to his fellow-man without expecting anything in return, they also taught that they were to remain indifferent to everything and everyone.
A problem in some of the teaching of some world religions is that illness and other misfortunes are the results of the individual's sin (in this life or in a previous one) and any help given to the individual interferes with his future reincarnations. If this is true, people reasoned, it is better not to give charity.
Other religions believe that individuals have no free-will and God is the only cause of everything.  He does not act with ‘reason' and no matter what happens, it is ‘God's will'.  Even that which we would ordinarily call ‘evil' is caused by God.  With this kind of ‘unreasonable' God, science and education do not advance but stagnate. Although Islam at first made some contributions in Mathematics and Medicine, the philosophy of 'whatever happens is the will of Allah' has more recently stifled research and scientific  progress in Islamic countries.
In Alexandria, in the third century, pagans were said to ‘thrust aside anyone who began to be sick, and kept aloof even from dearest friends', whereas Christians ‘visited the sick without thought of their own peril ... drawing upon themselves their neighbours' diseases' (page 175).  He demonstrates how hospitals were established in the major cities by the fourth century.  Fabiola, a Christian matron, established the first large, public hospital in Rome and St. Basil the Great established a hospital in Caesarea.  Also mentioned are the military Orders, established during the Crusades, such as the Knights of St. John.
International Law
It has become popular in recent years to show Christopher Columbus, and the Spanish who came with him, as invaders of  peaceful places who forced the native people to accept Christianity all the while mistreating them.  Although these stories may be exaggerated, Woods points out that reports of the mistreatment of peoples in the New World caused a ‘crisis of conscience' amongst Spanish theologians and philosophers at that time.  This, he says, is unusual in history and wonders if Attila the Hun had any moral qualms about his conquests.  Or did the human sacrifices of the Aztecs themselves cause any ‘philosophical reflection' on their part?  Woods says that the outcries of such Spaniards as Dominican friar, Antonio de Montesinos, and Father Francisco de Vitoria were the beginnings of international law.  In fact, Father de Vitoria is called the ‘father of international law' because of his contribtions but how many of us have ever heard of him?  Another Spaniard, a bishop, Bartolome de Las Casas, suggested that the natives "... be attracted gently, in accordance with Christ's doctrine" and said that Aristotle's views on slavery as being natural to some should be rejected because "... we have in our favour Christ's mandate: love your neighbour as yourself."  (quoted on page 143).
Legal Tradition of the Western World
Regarding Law, Woods shows that Rome introduced systemized law in their Empire and the so-called ‘barbarians' had laws of their own that dealt with ownership, dowries, rights and crime.  The laws of these ‘barbarians' sometimes based guilt and innocence on superstition, such as the ‘floating or sinking test' to prove the guilt of a crime.  It was Canon or Church Law that many of our best and fairest laws today have as their basis.  For example, the Church stated that marriage could take place only with the consent of both parties.  This is significant since people in earlier centuries did not consider that women should have a voice in important matters, even those that affected them greatly.  Some pre-Christian cultures approved of arranged marriages between infants and the will of the individuals was not considered, only that of their parents.  Many cultures today do not take into consideration the consent of women.  The Church will still annul a marriage if one or both parties of the couple did not give their free consent to the marriage.
Summary   
These are just a few examples of how Woods defends his thesis that the Catholic Church built Western civilization.  He cites numerous examples in economy, law, agriculture and in science (which is often the thought to be at odds with the Church) where Catholic philosophers, monks, priests, and Bishops as well as the laity,  have made important contributions to modern Western society. For those who think that he has not given enough credibility to other cultures (for example, the inventions of the Chinese and the mathematics of the Arabs), remember, that Woods has used ‘Western Civilization' in the title.
The book is easy and interesting to read and is not just a gathering of facts.  Woods tell the stories of the people who shaped our modern society, many of whom most of us have never heard.  He manages to do this with honesty, truth and good writing.  I have to admit it is my favourite non-fiction book and I recommend it with enthusiasm.

Book Review: The Catechism of Hockey by Alyssa Bormes

The Catechism of Hockey. Alyssa Bormes. The American Chesterton Society. 2013 by Lorraine Shelstad



Many catechists have asked themselves the questions; I know I did. Why do parents drive miles to take their children to a hockey game at 5:30 am on a Saturday but complain bitterly that they are expected to attend Mass on Sunday? Why do parents spend hundreds of dollars on hockey equipment but don’t like to spend anything on their child’s religious education? And why do children happily obey the rules and the decisions of the hockey ref but complain about the ‘rules’ of the Church? Well somebody who knows hockey much better than I do, wrote a book about it. Her favourite statement? “Ah, Catholicism is so much like hockey!” And you will be surprised at the comparisons she finds.
If you like hockey, if you play hockey or are a hockey Mom or Dad this book is for you. If your child plays any other game - like soccer, baseball or basketball - you should still read this book. It is especially written with passing the faith of Catholicism on to our children in mind and makes pretty good sense. We want our children to succeed in hockey and we want our children to succeed in life. So how do we accomplish these expectations?

Some things Bormes asks us to think about:
- If you play hockey you can't pick out the rules you like and will follow and those you won't. You have to take to the complete package. If you change the rules to something you like better, it ain't hockey!
- If you think hockey is fun but the Mass isn't, maybe it's because you understand hockey but not Mass. I don't understand hockey very well and I guess that is why I don't watch it. On the other hand, I love going to Mass.
- Can we get as excited about Catholicism as we do about hockey? I think we can.
- Maybe sometimes we need to say, if you don't like the rules of the game, play a different game.

The author, Alyssa Bormes, who is from Minnesota, claims that Minnesota is the hockey state. She may be right. My only complaint about the book is that although she mentions Bobby Orr, Wayne Gretzky, Maurice Richard and the Stanley Cup she never mentions that all of these are Canadian! I know Canada has only 35 billion people and they may not buy as many books as Americans but would it hurt to at least say that what she calls ‘the ultimate prize’ of hockey, the Stanley Cup, originated in Canada and was a gift from Lord Stanley, the Governor-General of Canada in 1893.
I know a Canadian team hasn’t won it lately (since 1993) but many of the players on American teams learned to skate on the quintessential outdoor rinks of their home country, Canada.

Don’t let that stop you from buying the book which has many words of wisdom about passing our Catholic faith on to our children.

Is the Resurrection True?

The Resurrection of Jesus is considered the cornerstone of belief of all mainstream orthodox Christians. St. Paul writes, “If Christ has not been raised, then empty is our preaching; empty, too, our faith.” (I Corinthians 15:14). In other words without the bodily resurrection of Jesus from the dead, Christianity has no valid message. The resurrection is the ‘good news'; Jesus has been victorious over sin and death. The Church defines resurrection as the rising from the dead and resumption of life and has always proclaimed its belief that three days after his death Jesus rose from the dead.
Let us examine, then, the events surrounding the resurrection, the arguments against it and the counter-arguments.
Jesus’ Death
The four Gospel writers (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) all give accounts of the death of Jesus by crucifixion, the discovery of his empty tomb and the appearances of a living Jesus after his death. The Catholic Church and other orthodox Christians believe in the historical reliability of this Scriptural account. Although the four accounts relate some different details they are basically the same and do not contradict each other.
While in the Garden of Gethsemane, Jesus was arrested and then brought before the Sanhedrin, the council of Jewish leaders. Although there were other charges against him, the main charge against Jesus was that of blasphemy. He had claimed to be the Messiah and the Son of God (Luke 22:70,71); a very serious matter in Jewish law. The Jewish leaders brought him before the Roman authorities as they had no authority to execute criminals in the Roman Empire. At first the Romans said it was not their problem. Pilate said he did not find that Jesus had done anything illegal according to Roman Law but in the end, at the insistence of the gathered crowd, he agreed to crucify Jesus, the Roman method of capital punishment at that time.
Reports of the Resurrection
After he was taken down from the cross, Jesus was buried in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea, a secret follower of Jesus, and the tomb was sealed by a huge stone at the entrance. The chief priests and Pharisees asked Pilate to place guards at the tomb because they were afraid his disciples would come to the grave, steal the body and then claim that Jesus had risen from the dead. Jesus had implied that he would rise from the dead saying, ‘Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up.’ (see John 2:19-22). He was referring to his body and not the literal temple. The disciples, however, did not understand Jesus’ meaning until after his resurrection.
In the morning, several guards hurried to the chief priests to report that during the night there had been an earthquake and an angel had rolled the stone away . The guards were struck with fear. The chief priests decided that they would pay the guards to say that the disciples had come and stolen the body while they were sleeping and promised them they would not be punished for the disappearance of the body. The guards must have been well-paid for they agreed to tell that version of the story even though it made them look very incompetent!
The disciples did not go to the tomb on Saturday which was the Jewish Sabbath and it was forbidden to travel. On the first day of the week (Sunday) some women followers of Jesus went with spices to embalm the body. When they arrived they found that the stone had been rolled away and the tomb was empty. A man in white clothing, actually an angel, asked them why they sought the living among the dead. He told them that Jesus was not there but had risen from the dead. The women hurried back to tell the disciples the news but they thought it was an idle tale - as usual the men thought that the women were imagining something! But Peter and John wanted to check the story out and ran to the tomb confirming that Jesus’ body was no longer there.
Jesus Appears to His Disciples
After this Jesus appeared to many of his disciples: Mary Magdalene, the twelve Apostles hiding in a locked room in Jerusalem, two believers on the road to Emmaus, two groups of ‘pious’ women and his disciples again on the shore of the Sea of Tiberius. St. Paul reports that Jesus also appeared to Cephas (Peter) and 500 believers, many of whom were still alive at the time St. Paul wrote the letter to the Church at Corinth (see I Corinthians 15:5-7).
The Church has always believed the accounts of the Gospel writers but there are several alternate theories of what could have happened.
The Stolen Body Theory
This, of course, was the first theory that was circulated by the Jewish authorities of the time: the disciples of Jesus came and stole the body. According to the Gospel accounts the guards were bribed to lie and say that this is what happened. But, if the disciples had come to steal the body, why didn’t the guards prevent the disciples from rolling away the stone? After all, that is the task they had been hired to do, they were armed and probably outnumbered any disciples who would have come. The guards claimed that they had fallen asleep but surely guards would have taken turns sleeping in order to prevent a theft. Would they have slept so soundly as to not have heard a group of men rolling away the stone? If they had fallen asleep and failed to prevent the theft of the body, they very likely would have been punished. In the end, the money, and the promise that they would not get into trouble for their incompetence, was enough compensation for them to tell the lie. If the disciples did indeed steal the body what did they do with it after? Anyone wanting to discredit them would just have to prove that the body of Jesus had been buried elsewhere.
The apostles spent the rest of their lives preaching that Jesus had risen from the dead. Would they do this for what they knew was a lie? What did they gain from it? Wouldn’t it have been better to keep a low profile and go back to what they had been doing before they met Jesus? Instead many of them died for their faith. Would not at least one of them chickened out and confessed rather than lose his life for something that was not true?
The Swoon Theory
This theory claims that Jesus did not die but was just unconscious when he was put in the tomb. When he revived, he came out of the tomb and was seen alive by his disciples.
Since Jesus had been whipped before his crucifixion and then spent agonizing hours hanging on a cross meant to kill him, it is unlikely that he survived. The Romans were very good at making certain a criminal did not live through crucifixion. Before taking Jesus’ body down from the cross a soldier thrust a sword into Jesus’ side and blood and water poured out. His body is placed in a tomb where there was little air and no food or water for three days. If Jesus was not dead and merely revived was he able to move the heavy stone at the entrance or did someone else move it? If this theory were true, Jesus would need a lot of care after leaving the tomb. If he did recover would he not eventually be seen and recognized by others? The Gospel accounts say that after his resurrection, Jesus only appeared to those who believed he was the Messiah. And if this theory is true, when did he die? One day there would be a dead Jesus and if someone discovered the body, the game would be up!
The Hallucination Theory
This theory proposes that the followers of Jesus so much wanted to believe that he was not dead and that he had risen, that they had visions of him after his death and burial. In their stressful mental state and knowing that Jesus said ‘he would return’ they were susceptible to having hallucinations. It is true that people have had this type of vision after the death of a family member or close friend, however, it is unusual for many people to have the same vision. As well, normally visions do not last as long as the appearances of Jesus did. And why did the visions end abruptly? Luke reports that Jesus ascended to heaven and after that no one saw him again.
The disciples had not really understood what Jesus had said about being ‘raised up in three days’ and only understood his meaning after they had seen the resurrected Jesus. The two men on the road to Emmaus had to have it explained to them by Jesus, whom they did not recognize at first.
The story of the disciple Thomas is interesting in the light of this theory. John writes that Thomas was not in the locked room when Jesus first appeared to the Apostles. When hearing what had happened during his absence, Thomas says he will not believe unless he sees the wounds with his own eyes. Jesus later appears to Thomas, shows him his wounds and even allows him to touch them. If the psychological vision theory were true it is unlikely that Thomas would have this kind of vision. And if the resurrection were not true for any other reason, it is unlikely that any gospel writer would include this story of a ‘doubting’ disciple who eventually believed that Jesus had risen from the dead.
The Modernist or Myth Theory
The most recent theory is one which says that Jesus’ body remained in the tomb and decomposed and the resurrection spoken of in Scripture is not a literal but a spiritual or supernatural ‘resurrection’. It is meant to portray Jesus’ spiritual victory over death or his immortality in a spiritual sense. Some would also claim that the resurrection crept into the Gospel accounts from ancient religions. However, the Greeks believed in the resurrection of the soul but not the body. Other religions (Hinduism and Buddhism, for example) believe in re-incarnation - the soul living on in another body but not a bodily resurrection. There was a tradition of resurrection of the body in Judaism amongst the Pharisees whereas the Sadducees did not believe in resurrection. St. Paul, a Pharisee, used this disagreement to his advantage when on trial, "For the Sadducees claim that there is neither resurrection, nor angels nor spirits, while the Pharisees acknowledge all these things." (see Acts 23:8)
The Modernist Theory gives rise to the same problem as those in the other theories. Why didn’t someone produce the body of Jesus? There would have been many who wanted to discredit the claim of the disciples. Why has the so-called myth persisted for 2000 years? Why has it been literally believed world-wide by people of many different cultures, education and backgrounds?
Conclusion
As mentioned, the simplest way to disprove the resurrection would have been to produce the body of Jesus. No one was able to do this, in spite of the fact that many would have wanted to show that the disciples had lied. Those who had bribed the guards would have loved to have found the body of Jesus in order to prove that they were right. For the remainder of their lives, the apostles put themselves in danger by preaching the death and bodily resurrection of Jesus. They were stoned to death (Stephen), put in jail (Peter, Paul), and crucified (Peter)or beheaded (Paul). Many later believers were also killed by the Romans. In fact, there are still people being killed worldwide for their faith in a Jesus they believe rose from the dead.
Christians believe that Jesus rose from the dead and that they, too, will be raised to everlasting life. "But Jesus said to her (Martha), "I am the resurrection and the life; whoever believes in me, even if he dies, will live." John 11:25

Sources
Berkhof, L. Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans. 1962.
Hahn, Dr. Scott. The Bodily Resurrection of Christ. CD Sycamore, Il: Lighthouse Catholic Media, NFP. 2011
Catholic Encyclopedia- New Advent website. Accessed July 8, 2012.
New American Bible. New York: Catholic Book Publishing Co. 1970.

Jacques Maritain: Philosopher of the 20th Century

Jacques Maritain helped to draft the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 and re-introduced Thomism for the modern world.

Maritain was one of the great thinkers of the twentieth century. He not only helped to draft the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 but influenced the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the preamble to the Constitution of the Fourth French Republic (1946). But perhaps his greatest contribution was to adapt the thought of St. Thomas Aquinas to the modern world.

Early Life, Education and Search for Truth
Jacques Maritain was born in Paris in November, 1882. His father was a lawyer who was neither hostile to religion nor attracted to it. His mother, Genevieve Favré, was brought up to believe that the supernatural had no right in the affairs of state. When Jacques was young his parents separated. He continued to have a great thirst for knowledge and read constantly.
While studying at the Sorbonne, Jacques met Raissa Oumansoff, the daughter of Russian Jewish immigrants. They were both involved in protests against the treatment of Russian socialist students at the Sorbonne. As their friendship grew they found joy in their companionship but were plagued about the absurdity of existence and both had many religious doubts. They married in 1906 and shortly after made a pact to commit suicide if their questions about life were not answered within a year. Then they happened to read a book by Leon Bloy, an intellectual who was a Christian and a Catholic. Jacques and Raissa made an appointment to meet him and eventually they became lifelong friends. The Maritains began to study Catholicism and after much soul-searching they were baptized and received into the Catholic Church in June, 1906. One thing that had bothered them was that some people who called themselves Christian did not live up to the teaching of Jesus. Even with these doubts, after their baptism they both experienced peace and joy that they had never known before.
Not surprisingly, Raissa’s parents viewed her conversion as a betrayal to her heritage and Jacques’ mother was immensely disappointed that he had not followed in his socialist grandfather’s footsteps. The Maritains moved to Heidelberg, Germany where Jacques continued his studies. Although Raissa was unwell she continued to read and study at home.
Introduction to Thomas Aquinas
When they moved back to Paris, a Dominican priest and friend, Father Humbert, recommended St. Thomas Aquinas’ Summa theologia to Raissa. She was enthralled by it and passed on her enthusiasm to her husband. They both found answers in Thomism’s rational logic and Jacques said that it was ‘common sense amongst the confusion that reigned in the world’. Both Jacques and Raissa strongly believed, as St. Thomas did, that faith and reason were compatible and not enemies. Scholars have said that Maritain’s most significant contribution in philosophy was to adapt Thomism to modern thought.

Post-War Life and Work
When the Nazis invaded France, Jacques was lecturing at the Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies in Toronto. He and Raissa decided not to return to Europe, especially since his wife’s Jewish background was well-known. After the war, Charles de Gaulle asked him to be France’s ambassador to the Holy See (1945-1948). He later taught at Princeton University in New Jersey (1941-1942) and Columbia (1942 -1944) and lectured at The University of Notre Dame and The University of Chicago.

Maritain wrote against anti-Semitism, describing it as a sin against God’s people and, because of these writings, had an influence on those who wrote Vatican II’s statement on the Jews.
Raissa died in 1960 and Jacques returned to France. He lived with a religious community, the Little Brothers of Jesus at Toulouse, until his death in 1973 at the age of ninety-one.

Some of Jacques Maritain’s Books
France, My Country through the Disaster. 1941
Art and Poetry. 1943
Education at the Crossroads. 1943
Christianity and Democracy. 1943
Reflections on America. 1958
Man and the State. 1952
Le paysan de la Garonne. 1967

Sources
Connor, Fr. Charles P. Classic Catholic Converts. San Francisco: Ignatius Press. 2001.
Myers, Rawley. Faith Experiences of Catholic Converts. Huntingdon, IN: Our Sunday
Visitor, Inc. 1992.
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy website accessed May 20, 2011.

The Facts About the Sexual Abuse Crisis in the Catholic Church Part I

As the sexual abuse scandal in the clergy of the Catholic Church came to light in the late 1980s, both Catholics and non-Catholics were shocked and horrified. How could men who had taken vows of obedience and chastity take advantage of young people who trusted them? How could anyone do such terrible things to innocent children and young teens, things that would haunt them forever and change their lives? The sex abuse scandals have done more damage to the children, their families, the priesthood and the Church than one can ever imagine. Those who abused children or tried to cover it up will have much to answer to God.
Many articles and books have been written about the sexual abuse scandal in the Catholic Church. Some articles are balanced and informed and yet there are blatantly false and misleading reports which continue to circulate as well. The UN report (February, 2014) damning the Church for inaction and ignoring the positive action that has been taken by the Church seems to have been written with extreme hatred of the Catholic Church. This blog-article will examine some of the official reports and studies that have been done and their findings. Of course, it is impossible to look at all studies but hopefully a wide range of ideas can be presented here and the truth can be investigated fairly.

Was the Abuse Pedophilia?
Pedophilia is defined as ‘a sustained interest in prepubescent children (before the age of puberty)’ but not all pedophiles act on their fantasies and not all child molesters are pedophiles. (The Encyclopedia of Mind Disorders). Most priests who were found guilty of sexual abuse were attracted to post-pubescent boys between the ages of 13 and 17 and so are technically not pedophiles. It is a moot point whether a boy who has been abused is seven or fourteen - he is still a minor and the abuser is still a criminal. (Friscolanti).
The majority of priests who abused children were actually self-declared homosexuals and were in a homosexual relationship at the time. This does not mean that all homosexuals are abusers of minors and there has been no evidence that this is the case. Both gay and straight people are disgusted at the thought of child abuse. (Coren, p. 18,19). One study says that in 3,000 cases of abuse reported to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith 60% involved homosexual activity. (Lifesite news) Coren suggests that priests guilty of abuse “... either used the priesthood as a cover for their sexual desires or gave in to temptations at some point during or after their time at the seminary.” (Coren, p. 19)
Friscolanti writes in a MacLean’s Magazine article that between 30-50% of priests are homosexuals, depending on the study. At that time,the Catholic Church did not stipulate that homosexuals could not be priests. They took a vow of celibacy just as heterosexual priests did and so their sexual orientation was not relevant. In recent years, however, because of the scandals, there has been a change using more caution when accepting known homosexuals for candidates as priests. Because of this change the Church is now criticized and called ‘homophobic’ so it seems no matter what the Church does it cannot win!
Celibacy (i.e. priests must not marry) is often blamed for the sex abuse by Catholic clergy. Is this the source of the problem and should the Church change its ‘ruling’ on married priests? There are some who think so. Others say that since the majority of the offenders in these cases were homosexuals these men would not marry in any case (at the time homosexual marriage was not legal in most countries). It is interesting that The Encyclopedia of Mind Disorders
reports that “about 50% of men arrested for pedophilia are married”.

When and Where Did the Abuse Happen?
The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops asked the John Jay College of Criminal Justice of the City University of New York, to study the sexual abuse of minors by their clergy. Karen Terry, John Jay’s principal investigator for this report, said that there was an increase in incidence of sexual abuse until the late 1970s and a sharp decline by 1985. The increased abuse in the 1960s and 1970s is consistent with increased deviance in society in general. An Australian priest, John Denham, was defrocked by Pope Benedict in 2011 but his abuse of boys occurred between 1968 and 1986. In Ireland abuse cases have surfaced that occurred from 1975 to 2004. In Italy a number of deaf men, from the Antonio Provolo Institute for the Deaf in Verona, have come forward reporting abuse when they were children during the 1950s and 1980s. In Germany abuse was reported that occurred in the 1970s to as late as 1987 and in Belgium both boys and girls reported abuse which occurred as late as 1983. In Canada there were reports of abuse in the 1960s and at the Mount Cashel Orphanage as early as 1974. A few cases are still coming to light but most of these are from the years before 1990.

Is Abuse More Prevalent in the Catholic Church?
In 1996, Sheldon Kennedy came forward with a complaint that he had suffered sexual abuse from his hockey coach, Graham James, between 1984 and 1995. Later Theo Fleury, retired NHL player, alleged that he, too, had been molested by James while in Junior Hockey. Other victims came forward and eventually (after a pardon!) James was finally sentenced to a mere two years in prison and put on a national (Canadian) sex offender registry with a lifetime ban on volunteering in a position of trust to children.
In 2011, a Penn State football coach for 32 years, Jerry Sandusky, was found guilty of 45 counts of sexual abuse of players that he coached. Sandusky was married at the time and had five adopted children.
Carol Shakeshaft, a Hofstra University scholar who prepared a report on abuse cases in the American Educational system, compared priest abuse data collected in a national survey for the American Association of University Women Education Foundation in the year 2000 with data in the public schools. From the figures she estimated that roughly 290,000 students experienced some sort of physical sexual abuse by a school employee from a single decade (1991-2000). The figures led her to say “... the physical sexual abuse of students in schools is likely more than 100 times the abuse by priests”. A draft report by the US Department of Education in 2002, found that between 6% and 10% of public school children in the US have been sexually abused or harassed by school employees and teachers. (Dougherty, Jon, 2004)
Cases of sexual abuse in the Boy Scouts of America and The Boy Scouts of Canada have been uncovered (The Fifth Estate, CBC, October, 2011). Although Richard Turley’s name was on a ‘perversion file’ the information was not passed on by the American group to the Canadian Boy Scouts and Turley was able to volunteer in the Boy Scouts in Canada even though he had been convicted of sexual abuse in California earlier.
In Haiti, Cambodia, West Africa and Kosovo between 2007 and 2010 alone, 75 UN peacekeepers were disciplined for sexual misconduct, but “... it is estimated that the problem is enormous and the action taken trivial.” (Coren, p. 23)
A 1984 a survey done in Protestant churches in the US showed that 38.6% of ministers reported some type of sexual contact with a member of the church (not necessarily with minors and not necessarily without mutual consent). Fuller Seminary, a respected Evangelical seminary in California, conducted a survey and concluded that 20% of ‘conservative’ pastors and 50% of ‘liberal’ church ministers admitted to a sexual relationship outside of marriage with a member of the church. Professor Philip Jenkins, a professor of the History and Religious Studies at Baylor University, estimates that between 2 and 3% of Protestant clergy have abused minors, but he puts the figure for Catholic priests at less than 2%. Jenkins is a former Catholic and now an Anglican and is ‘far from being a Roman Catholic apologist’ (Coren, p. 13). In 2002, the Christian Science Monitor, also not a supporter of the Catholic Church, reported that “...despite headlines focusing on the priest pedophile problem in the Roman Catholic Church, most American churches being hit with child sexual abuse allegations are Protestant, and most of the alleged abusers are not clergy or staff but church volunteers.” (Clayton, Mark. Christian Science Monitor, April, 2002).
Gregory Erlandson and Matthew Bunson, in their book, Pope Benedict XVI and the Sex Abuse Crisis’ consulted the Insurance Journals of the companies that insure Protestant Churches and discovered that there were more reports of sex abuse per year than there were in the Catholic Church (Lev, E.)
Rabbi Arthur Gross Schafer, professor of law and ethics at Loyola Marymount University, believes that sexual abuse among rabbis in organized Judaism is roughly the same as that within Protestant Churches. (quoted in Coren, p. 14). Cases of abuse by Buddhist priests surfaced in Thailand in early 2000. There is no data for other religions and it seems likely that children who were abused would not report the abuse or, if they did, would not be believed just as women who are rape victims are often not believed. This is much as it was early in the century in the Western world.
The John Jay College of Criminal Justice study (commissioned by American bishops) reported that between 1950 and 2002, 4,392 priests and deacons in the US (4%) were accused of child sexual abuse. There were a total of 10,667 victims and the allegations ranged from touching over clothing (52.6%) to penetration (22.4%). Friscolanti concludes that as horrifying as this may be it ‘does offer compelling proof that priests, on average, don’t seem to be any more dangerous than the people sitting in their pews’ (Friscolanti). He continues, “‘according to most reliable figures, 13% of men and 40% of women say they were sexually abused as children. The huge majority of those crimes occur inside the home - and the culprit is usually a relative, not the local priest.” (Friscolanti) Thomas Plante, PhD, a professor of psychology at Santa Clara University in California, says “We don’t know what the prevalence rate is for the general population, but it has to be at least double what it is for priests.” (Thomas G. Plante quoted by Friscolanti).
The Washington Post (not an ally of the Catholic Church) wrote that since 1965 less than 1.5% of the more than 60,000 priests working in the United States have ever been accused of any form of sexual abuse and The New York Times estimates that 1.8% of priests ordained between 1950 and 2001 have faced any abuse charges. (Coren, p.15). Note that this does not say ‘convicted’ and that some clergy have been accused of sexual crimes but were not found guilty. Coren goes on to say that it is undoubtedly true that some abusers have never been discovered and that some abuse has never been reported. (Coren, p. 17). Still one feels that an institution like the Catholic Church that claims to stand for moral integrity should have less abusers amongst its clergy than it does. However, in 2011 Michael Coren could write, “Today the Catholic Church is probably the safest place for a young boy or girl because of what the Church has done to make it so.” (Coren, p. 13).
What was the response of the Church and the bishops? Did the Church apologize? And what changes have been made to protect children? These questions will be examined in the next article to come (Part II).

Sources
Clayton, Mark. Sex Abuse Spans Spectrum of Churches. Christian Science Monitor, April 5, 2002
Coren, Michael. Why Catholics Are Right. Toronto: McLelland and Stewart Ltd. 2011.
Dougherty, Jon. E. Sex Abuse By Teachers Said Worse Than Catholic Church. Newsmax. http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/4/5/01552.shtml April 5, 2004.
Friscolanti, Michael. The Truth About Priests. MacLean’s Magazine. December, 2009.
Lev, Elizabeth. Abuse Facts- A Review of ‘Pope Benedict XVI and the Sex Abuse Crisis’ by Erlandson, G and Matthew Bunson. Zenit.org Sept 9, 2010.
Lifesite News Website. http://www.lifsitenews.com/news/archive//1dn/2010/mar/10033011
The Encyclopedia of Mind Disorders. Pedophilia. Mind Disorders website http://www.minddisorders.com
CBC-TV. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/scouts-failed-to-stop-sexual-predator-cbc-investigation-1.1043966

Why all the Fuss Over the Pope? Is the Pope Infallible?

The Catholic Church teaches that the Pope is infallible. Many people wonder why this is so and where this teaching originates. Doesn't it give too much power to one person? How can an ordinary 'human being' be infallible? Does it mean that the Catholic Church believes that the pope is not an ordinary human being?

What Does Infallibility Mean?
Part of the problem stems from the fact that the meaning of the words 'infallible' and 'infallibility' are often misunderstood. Infallibility does not mean 'without sin'. That is impeccability. The Pope is not impeccable as all human beings have inherited original sin (the Virgin Mary is a special case which deserves an article of its own). The Pope goes to confession just like any other Catholic.
Infallibility does not mean 'all knowing'; that is omniscience. The Pope does not know what the weather will be like tomorrow (unless he listens to the weather report which may be wrong) nor does he know who will win the World Cup, although he may cheer for his favourite team.

What is Infallibility and When Does It Apply?
Infallibility is defined in the dictionary as 'the inability to err'. Does this mean that the Pope is never wrong? Of course, the Pope can be wrong about some things but not when certain conditions are applied. So when does infallibility apply?
• Infallibility applies only in matters of faith and morals
• Infallibility applies only when the Pope is speaking 'ex cathedra', that is, from the 'chair of Peter', in other words, as the Bishop of the Church over all Bishops.
• The Pope cannot change established doctrine. For example, the Pope cannot change the Doctrine of the Virgin Birth.
• The Pope cannot deny a truth revealed in Scripture. For example, the Pope cannot say that Jesus did not die on the cross.
Why is the Pope Infallible?
As Jesus and His disciples were at Caesarea Philipi Jesus asked His disciples, "Who do you say that I am?" Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God." Jesus replied, "Simon, son of Jonah, you are a happy man because it was not flesh and blood that revealed this to you but my Father in heaven. So now I say unto you: You are Peter and on this Rock I will build my Church. And the gates of the underworld can never hold out against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven: whatsoever you bind on earth shall be considered bound in heaven, whatever you loose on earth shall be considered loosed in heaven." Matthew 16:18-19  In giving Peter (which means 'rock') the keys to the kingdom of heaven, Jesus was recalling the office of the Prime Minister which had existed in Israel during the time of King David and his words echo those of Isaiah 22:22 when a bad prime minister was let go and a new one was appointed by God: "In that day I will call my servant Eliakim, son of Hilkiah, and I will clothe him with your robe, ad will bind your girdle on hima, and will comit your authority to his hand, and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and the house of Judah. And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; he shall shut , and none shall open."  The role of the pope is that of the Albayit or Prime Minister who would be called 'father' or Papa (pope).
Jesus promised "But when the Spirit of truth comes, he will lead you into complete truth." (John 16:13) It stands to reason that if Jesus established his Church on earth, he would also provide a way to keep that Church true to his teachings.
The Pope is only 'infallible' because Jesus promised to keep the Church true to him by sending the Holy Spirit. Although it is true that the Holy Spirit can guide Christians individually, we see in the world today many different interpretations of Scripture and many different denominations have arisen because of these interpretations. They all claim to have the guidance of the Holy Spirit. They cannot all be true. For example, some denominations say that baptism is for adults who have ‘accepted Jesus as their Saviour’ only, others say that baptism is for babies as well as adults and is a sign of their entrance into the family of God. Which is true? And how do we know which is true? Both groups would claim that their doctrine is found in Scripture.

When Has Infallibility Been Claimed?
It may be surprising to many that ex cathedra statements by the Popes have been very rare. In the past one hundred and thirty –four years there have been only three infallible proclamations made (not counting canonization of saints):
1854 – Doctrine of Infallibility by Pius IX
1870 – Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception by Pius IX
1950 – Doctrine of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin by Pius XII
These dogmas were universally held by the Church centuries before and can be found in the writing of the Church Fathers. In these most recent times and because there was a questioning of the doctrine they were 'defined' by these proclamations and not 'invented' by them. For example, on the infallibility of the Pope, Cyprian of Carthage (256 AD) wrote: "Would heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?" (quoted in Keating, page 217)
Some point out that there have been bad popes - those who were openly sinful. It is true that there have been 'bad' Popes who often were appointed by kings or wealthy and powerful people. However, the Holy Spirit kept these Popes from writing error in the same way he has kept 'good' Popes from writing error. No bad pope ever changed doctrine - although, except for the restraint of the Holy Spirit, they could have. Perhaps they were too busy sinning to have time to write any papal bulls or encylclicals!
To summarize, infallibility means that the Holy Spirit prevents the Pope from officially teaching error in his official capacity as the Bishop of Rome ie Pope.

Sources
Catechism of the Catholic Church. New York: Doubleday. 1995
The Jerusalem Bible. New York: Doubleday and Company. 1968
Houghton –Mifflin Canadian Dictionary Markham, Toronto, ON: Houghton-Mifflin Canada Ltd. 1982
Keating, Karl. Catholicism and Fundamentalism. San Francisco: Ignatius Press. 1988

Why Does the Catholic Church Use Latin?

The Church of the Immaculate Conception in Israel - Latin inscription 'The Word became flesh and dwelt amongst us'.


The Catholic Church has been accused of using Latin in order to keep the gospel from the common people. In fact, just the opposite is true.
To trace the use of Latin in the Roman Catholic Church we must first discover the languages which were spoken at the beginning of Church History.
The Greek Empire
Alexander the Great (356-323 BC) established the Greek empire throughout the area of the Mediterranean and as far as Egypt and the borders of India. Greek culture and language became dominant in these areas.
By 146 BC the Roman Republic had conquered most of mainland Greece and for many this signified the end of the Hellenistic (Greek) period. Others claim that the date of the demise of the Greek Empire is 30 BC when Egypt was conquered by Rome. However, the influence of Greece in culture, art and language continued long into the Roman period.
The Roman Empire
During the time of Jesus and early Christianity, the Roman Empire extended throughout the Mediterranean; as far north as Britain and as far south as Northern Africa. The language of the Romans was Latin although most of the educated people spoke Greek as well. In the 3rd century BC there had been a movement by the cultured classes to introduce Greek elements into Latin and it was in this Latin that the orators, poets and historians wrote. It is now known as Classical Latin and two well-known examples are the works of Caesar and Cicero. The masses, however, continued to speak the ‘old’ Latin known as sermo vulgaris or Vulgar Latin. ‘Vulgar’ did not have the meaning it does today, rather, it meant, ‘common’.
The Language of Jesus and the Apostles
Aramaic was the language spoken in Israel during the second temple period (539 BC-70AD). It is not only the language of the Talmud but parts of the books of Daniel and Ezra are written in Aramaic as well. Jesus and the Apostles spoke Aramaic but the Scriptures they studied (what Christians call the Old Testament) was the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures (Septuagint). Priests in the temple and rabbis in the synagogue spoke Hebrew and most Jews had some understanding of it. In the final two centuries 'Before Christ', there were many Jews in Egypt, most of whom did not speak Hebrew. Some men (the legend is 70, hence Septuagint) undertook a Greek Translation of the Pentateuch, and later the remaining Hebrew Scriptures in the 3rd century BC.
Greek continued to be the language of education, trade and culture throughout the Roman Empire. Two of the Apostles (Andrew and Philip) had Greek names so they probably spoke Greek as well as Aramaic. Philip was approached by some Greeks who had come to worship at the Passover feast. These were not necessarily men from Greece but rather Gentile, Greek-speaking converts to Judaism (see John 12:20). This passage is an indication that Philip spoke Greek.
We do not know if any of the Gospels were written in Aramaic but it is usually assumed that they were first written in Greek. Some believe that Matthew wrote his Gospel in either Hebrew or Aramaic and it was later translated into Greek. Luke and Acts (written by St. Luke) were, of course, written in Greek as were the letters of St. Paul. In other words, the New Testament letters were written in Greek because that is what most people spoke and read. No one bought these 'books' and 'letters'. The letters of St. Paul were written to a church (e.g. Romans, Corinthians) and passed around to other churches to read as well. They were not sold but shared among Christian communities.
The Early Church
At first (until about 235 AD) the liturgy and the writings of the Church were in Greek. The Gospel was spread mostly by the spoken word (preaching) and ‘ecclesiastical’ or church Latin was developing. The language that the Church used would have to be understood and appeal, not only to the literary classes, but to the all people. St. Augustine said, “I often employ words that are not Latin and I do so that you may understand me. Better that I should incur the blame of the grammarians than not to be understood by the people.” (from Psal. cxxxviii,90)
When Latin became the more familiar speech for the majority of the faithful, it eventually replaced the use of Greek in the liturgy. Today the only remaining Greek used in the liturgy of the Western (Roman) Church is the Kyrie: Kyrie Elesion, Christe eleison, kyrie elesion (Lord have mercy, Christ have mercy, Lord have mercy).
St. Jerome’s Vulgate
St. Jerome (340-420) was convinced of the need of a new translation directly from Hebrew to Latin, the language most Christians spoke. He was very knowledgeable in both Hebrew and the places and customs of Palestine. From A.D. 390-405 he completed the protocanonical books of the Old Testament from Hebrew and the deuterocanonical books of Tobias and Judith from Aramaic. He then went on to complete the New Testament revising from the Old Latin. St. Jerome’s version is called ‘the Vulgate’ as it was written in Vulgar Latin, that is, the Latin used by the common people, as opposed to Classical Latin.
The Middle Ages
Although Greek was used in the Eastern Church, Latin continued to be used in the Western Church for the liturgy throughout the Middle Ages. At this time Latin was the language of education, law and literature. An Englishman could go to Bologna to study law, without learning another language, because he would already know Latin. In the same way, an Italian going to Mass in London or Cologne would hear the liturgy; the readings and the hymns in the Latin that was familiar to him. The common people, who did not speak Latin, may be thought to have been at a disadvantage. However, the Mass has a standard form and the same words were used in the prayers and the responses of the people. Presumably they would have learned what these meant. However, the ability to read the vernacular languages was uncommon in the early Middle Ages. Thomas More wrote of the situation in England, “...farre more than fowre partes of the whole divided into tenne could never reade englische yet...” (More, Thomas. Apology. 1523). That is, more than 40% of the people could not read English in the year 1523!

After 1500
In the Middle Ages, monks copied the Scriptures by hand. This meant that Bibles were rare and would be expensive to buy. This is the reason they were chained to the lectern in churches. Rather than to keep the people from reading the Bible it was to ensure that no one stole (or borrowed) it. Like telephone books in telephone booths they were 'chained' so that everyone would have use of it.
Johan Gutenberg (?1400-?1468), a German Catholic, was the inventor of the moveable type printing press which made the printing of books much easier and faster. The first book printed on it was the 'forty-two line Bible'. By 1480 printing presses had been established in the major cities of Europe. By 1500, ninety four Vulgate Bibles and thirty vernacular Bibles had been printed.
Although there had been portions of the Bible in English since the 10th century, the first complete Bible in English was translated by John Wyclif in c. 1381. The Catholic Church did not approve his translation and it is not used by any Christian group today. The first English version of the Bible approved by the Roman Catholic Church was the Douay-Rheims Bible (New Testament in 1582 and Old Testament in 1609). Some feel that the English Bible was produced later than in other countries because of the Church’s fear of Lollardy. The Lollards stood for some of Wyclif’s ideas but their protests against the Roman Church became linked with political unrest in the 15th century. Another possible cause of the lag of a Church- approved Bible translation in English was that the Norman conquest of England in 1066 had greatly modified English and brought about changes to the vocabulary. Since there were Bibles in French this was used by the nobility in England and the need for an English Bible did not seem to be urgent. Martin Luther nailed his thesis to the door at Wittenberg in 1517 and this eventually led to the Reformation. Because of the printing press, the Reformers’ ideas, translations and commentaries spread more rapidly than they could have a century earlier.

Official language of the Church
Latin remained the language of the liturgy (although some readings and the homily were in the vernacular) until the Council of Vatican II (1962 -1965). The Council established changes to encourage greater lay participation in the liturgy and in the 1960’s, permissions were granted to celebrate most of the Mass in the vernacular languages.
Latin is considered by some to be a ‘dead language’. However, Latin is the basis of the vocabularies of medicine, law and the sciences. The Romance (from Roman) Languages (Italian, Spanish, French, Portuguese and Romanian) all trace their origins to Latin. In English we have many borrowed words from these languages and directly from Latin.
Today although you will hear the vernacular languages in the Mass, Latin is the still the official language of the Church. Masses from St. Peter's in Rome will be essentially in Latin with the readings of Scripture done in various languages (e.g. Spanish, Italian, English, Mandarin, Hindi). The homily (or sermon) is in Italian. Since the Church is universal (worldwide) the use of Latin officially does not favour the language of any particular country or people; Latin is a neutral language. Latin can still be used in the celebration of the Mass in any country and there is often one parish in a diocese that offers the Tridentine or traditional Latin Mass.
It may surprise some to know that all documents from the Vatican are first written in Latin and then translated into other languages.

The Catholic Church and Science

. Most people know that Gregor Mendel, who undertook research in the field of heredity, was an Augustinian Friar. Mendel, who was born in Austria in 1822, is sometimes called, ‘The Father of Modern Genetics’. It is not widely known, however, that the scientist who proposed ‘the Big Bang Theory’ was a Catholic priest. Father Georges Lemaitre (1894-1966), a Belgian, was not only a priest but also a physicist and mathematician. He presented his theory of the origins of the universe in 1933 to a gathering of scientists in California. Einstein was present and was reported to declare, “This is the most beautiful and satisfactory explanation of creation to which I have ever listened.”

  Scientific Method and Religion
 The common understanding is that science and religion, especially, science and the Catholic Church, are enemies and that there is no common meeting point between them. Before looking in to the cause of this let us look at why Christianity is a good environment for the development of the scientific method. Stanley Jaki, a scientific historian, and a Catholic priest, points out that from Old Testament (Jewish Bible) times to the Middle Ages, God and His creation were believed to be orderly and rational. The seasons and other regular natural phenomena, show the goodness and beauty and order of God. The writer of the Book of Wisdom (Wisdom 11:21) declares. “You have disposed all things by measure, number and weight.” On the other hand, animism, the belief that the divine is in created things, resulted in the worship, and often fear, of trees, mountains, the sun etc. In some cases, people would sacrifice their children to appease volcanoes or offer gifts to the gods of mountains or rivers. This idea of the divine in creation itself made it impossible to investigate created things. Even though some cultures, for example, the Greeks, made some strides in scientific thought, ultimately they fell short.  Jaki argues, “... that it was up to the Scholastics of the Middle Ages to carry out the depersonalization of nature, so that, for instance, the explanation for falling stones was not said to be in their innate love for the center of the earth.” (quoted in Woods, Thomas E, 2005).  In other words, the belief that the universe itself is god and should be worshipped, is an impediment to scientific inquiry, for people dare not ‘investigate’ and ‘experiment on’ their gods.
Why then does the Catholic Church have a bad reputation when it comes to science? The main reason is, of course: Galileo. It is commonly thought that the Catholic Church unjustly persecuted Galileo for his theory that the sun, and not the earth, was the centre of the universe. But is this the true tale?
  Copernicus and Heliocentrism
 In the 16th century, the accepted view, not only of the Church but of all scientists, was that of Aristotle, that is, the earth was the centre of the universe (geocentric view).  Aristotle had claimed to refute the ancient idea that the earth travelled in an orbit around the sun (heliocentric view). Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1543) was a Polish astronomer, probably not a priest as often claimed, but a Canon and a third-order or Secular Dominican. In 1543, he published On the Revolution of the Celestial Orbs, in which he supported heliocentricity. Copernicus had asked Andreas Osiander, a Lutheran clergyman, to write a preface to the book, because he knew that it would be attacked by Protestants (which it was) for its opposition to Scripture. Osiander presented heliocentrism as only a theory that accounted for movement of the planets more simply than that of geocentrism. The Catholic Church gave no censure at this time to Copernicus and the book was well-received by Jesuit astronomers of the time.
  Galileo
 Later the Italian astronomer, Galileo Galilei (1564-1642), made some important observations with his telescope: he saw mountains on the moon, discovered four moons orbiting Jupiter and discovered the phases of the planet, Venus. Initially, his work was celebrated by Roman churchmen and when Galileo went to Rome in 1611, he was greeted with great enthusiasm. He enjoyed a long audience with Pope Paul V and the Jesuits of the Roman College. Those who were present included Father Grienberger, who had invented a telescope which rotated on an axis parallel to the Earth’s, and Father Clavius, one of the great mathematicians of the day who had helped to develop the Gregorian calendar. The Church had no objection to the use of the Copernican System as a theory whose truth was not yet established. Galileo, however, believed his model to be literally true even though he lacked adequate evidence to support his theory at the time. One problem with his theory was that the movement of tides was a proof of the earth’s motion, something which now modern scientists reject. Galileo refused to present his hypothesis as only a theory and insisted on writing about it as proven truth. In other words, he refused to compromise but also to follow the scientific method which gives evidence for something but does not 'prove' it.
On the surface, the heliocentric hypothesis did contradict certain Scripture passages but these were not insurmountable problems. The Jesuit Cardinal Roberto Bellarmine stated, “If there were a real proof that the sun is in the centre of the universe...and that the sun does not go round the earth but the earth around the sun, then we should have to proceed with great circumspection in explaining passages of Scripture which appear to teach the contrary, and rather admit that we did not understand them than declare an opinion to be false which is proved to be true. But as for myself, I shall not believe that there are such proofs until they are shown to me.” (Broderick, James, 1928 quoted in Woods, Thomas E., p. 72).
 In earlier times, St. Thomas Aquinas had wisely said, “First, the truth of Scripture must be held inviolable. Secondly, when there are different ways of explaining a Scriptural text, no particular explanation should be held so rigidly that, if convincing arguments show it to be false, anyone dare to insist that it still is the definitive sense of the text. Otherwise unbelievers will scorn Sacred Scripture, and the way to faith will be closed to them.” (quoted in Woods, Thomas E., p.73)
 In 1632, Galileo published Dialogue of the Great World System. In fact, it was written at the urging of the Pope, now Urban VIII. However, in the dialogue of the book, Galileo ignored the instruction to treat the heliocentric theory as a hypothesis rather than established truth. In 1633, Galileo was charged with heresy but went on to publish, Discourses Concerning Two New Sciences in 1635. In the book, Galileo placed an argument of the Pope’s in the mouth of a fictional character called, Simplicio, surely an unwise move on his part. He also alienated the Jesuits by verbally attacking one of their astronomers.
 Contrary to popular opinion, Galileo was not tortured nor did he endure harsh imprisonment. He was confined to his home (house-arrest), where he was provided a servant and every necessary convenience. Although he was denied the sacraments (ex-communication), he remained a Catholic for the rest of his life. His illegitimate daughter, Marie Celeste, a nun, who lived in a convent nearby, wrote letters to him and received answers from him regularly. She died of dysentery in 1634 at the age of 33. A book has been written around the letters which were found in her belongings after her death (Galileo’s Daughter by Dava Sobel). Galileo died a natural death after a fever and heart palpitations in 1642 at age 77.
 In retrospect, we know that Galileo’s theory was right but scientists talk about 'evidence' not 'proof' for their theories. Theories are just theories and newly discovered evidence often changes the conclusions that have been previously made.
  The Church and Science Today
Today the Church continues its involvement in scientific pursuits through the Pontifical Academy of Sciences. Its roots are in the Academy of the Lynxes which was founded in Rome in 1603. In 1847, Pope Pius IX re-established the Academy and in 1936 Pope Pius XI gave it its present name. It is international, multi-racial in composition and non-sectarian in membership. It is made up of six major disciplines: Fundamental Sciences, Science and Technology of Global Problems, Science for the Problems of the Developing World, Scientific Policy, Bioethics and Epistemology. The present President (2012) is a Swiss Protestant, Nobel-Laureate in physiology, Werner Arber. Pope Benedict XVI, (now Pope Emeritus) said at an assembly of the Academy that science is neither a panacea for all of man’s problems nor should it be feared. The task of science, “ ... was and remains a patient yet passionate search for the truth about the cosmos, about nature and about the constitution of the human being.” (Zenit ZE10102809, 2010-10-28)

  Suggested Reading
 Catechism of the Catholic Church. New York: Doubleday Publishing. 1995

Hannam, James. Genesis of Science. Washington, D.C.: Regnery Press. 2011

Jaki, Stanley L. The Savior of Science. Washington, D.C.: Regnery Gateway. 1988.

Schönborn, Christoph Cardinal. Chance or Purpose? San Francisco: Ignatius Press. 2007.

Sobel, Dava Galileo's Daughter. New York: Walker and Company. 1999.

Wiker, Benjamin. The Catholic Church and Science: Answering the Questions, Exposing the Myths. TAN Books. 2011

Woods, Thomas E. How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization. Washington,DC:Regnery Publishing, Inc. 2005.

  Sources
 Catholic Answers website accessed February 5, 2011.
 The New American Bible. New York:Catholic Book Publishing Co. 1991.
Sobel, Dava. Galileo's Daughter. New York: Walker and Company. 1999.
Woods, Thomas E. How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization. Washington,DC:Regnery Publishing, Inc. 2005.
Vatican Website accessed February 5, 2013
 Zenit News article ZE101102809 28 October, 2010.

Kateri Tekakwitha: A First Nation's Saint

On October 21, 2012, a Mohawk woman who lived in North America in the 17th century, Kateri Tekakwitha. was recognized as a Saint. Here is her story. 

Who is Kateri Tekakwitha?
Kateri Tekakwitha was born in 1656 in what is now New York State. Of course, at that time the territory was the Mohawk nation as the United States of America did not exist as a country. Kateri’s mother was a Christian Algonquin who had been captured by the Iroquois. Her husband saved her from the fate of a captive by marrying her.
When Kateri was only four years old (some sources say six), her parents died of smallpox and she, too, contracted the disease. As a result, her face was badly scarred and she was left partially blind.
In 1667 two Jesuit missionaries from Quebec came and stayed with Kateri’s uncle. It was from them that she first learned about Christianity and believed. She lived a life of virtue in a place where carnage and debauchery were common. Furthermore, she resisted all efforts to marriages arranged by her relatives.
When she was eighteen she was baptized by Father Jacques de Lamberville and afterwards faced great opposition to her faith in her village. Kateri was her baptismal name, a form of 'Caterina' and previously she had been known only as Tekakwitha. Finally, a Christian friend helped her to escape to Kahnawake on the St. Lawrence River in New France (now Quebec). There her life, which she dedicated to God, and her deeds impressed both the French and her own people.
Kateri worked at the Mission of St. Francis Xavier until her death at the young age of 24.
It is said that she scourged herself and sat on hot coals to endure the suffering that Christ had endured and that this caused her early death. Critics have commented on an 'evil institution' that would require such acts. The Catholic Church does not require these acts but she did learn about this from those around her at the Mission. It was common at this time to increase one's suffering in order to partake in Christ's suffering. One can read about these scourgings in books written at the time. In the movie, Black Robe, which tells of the Jesuits in early Quebec, a priest scourges himself after being tempted. In today's world, it is difficult to understand this practice. Whether or not it hastened her death cannot be known for certain; life in those times was difficult in any case.
People who were present said that the scars from smallpox disappeared from her face almost immediately after her death and her skin was once again beautiful. People began to call her ‘The Lily of the Mohawks’. Devotion to her by Native Americans began shortly after her death and her grave was visited by many pilgrims. In 1884 a monument was erected to her memory by Rev. Clarence Walworth.
On January 3, 1943, Kateri was declared venerable by Pope Pius XII, the first step towards sainthood. On June 22, 1980, she was beatified by Pope John Paul II, the second step towards sainthood and in October 2012 she was canonized by Pope Benedict XVI raising her to ‘sainthood’. This means that the Catholic Church recognizes her as a saint - the Church does not make her a saint.
What then is a saint?
St. Paul addresses all those who are Christians as saints, for example, “to the saints in Colossae, our faithful brothers and sisters in Christ.” (Colossians 1:2) and so all Christians are in this respect ‘saints’.
Early in the Christian Church, it was seen that some Christians lived lives of extraordinary virtue. These people were then venerated or honoured in their local church and eventually, the Catholic Church began a process called ‘canonization’ by which these people could be recognized in a special way by all.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that all Christians in any state or walk of life are called to the fullness of Christian life; all are called to holiness. (CCC 2013) i.e. we are all called to be saints. Saints are examples of holiness and show us the kind of life we can lead. Instead of looking to movie stars and sports heroes, who often fail us, we can look to the saints for examples of how we should live.
Saints are also ‘companions in prayer’. Just as we ask our friends to pray for us we can ask the saints to intercede for us. One of the requirements for being recognized as a saint is a healing or other miracle, scientifically unexplainable, attributed to the intercession of the candidate for sainthood.
One miracle is required for beatification and a second is required for canonization. In the case of Kateri Tekakwitha, there were reported healings after her death. One case was that of a Protestant child, Joseph Kellog, captured by Native Americans in the 18th century. After he contracted smallpox the Jesuits were asked to treat him. The Jesuits used relics from Kateri’s grave and he was reportedly healed. Another priest reported that he had been healed of deafness after prayer to Kateri and a Native woman was healed of pneumonia.
In 2006 a half-native child in Washington State, Jake Finkbonner, had necrotizing fasciitis commonly known as ‘flesh-eating disease’. It was not responding to treatment and his family had already called a priest for the sacrament of the sick (formerly known as ‘the last rites’) expecting that he would not live much longer. They also made arrangements to donate his organs after his death. Mortality rates for necrotizing fasciitis are reported to be very high.
A Catholic nun, also a Mohawk, Sister Kateri Mitchell, brought a relic (see Matt 9:20-22 and Acts 19:11-12 about relics).  The relic was a fragment of a bone of Kateri Tekakwitha, placed it on Jake’s body and prayed with his parents asking for Kateri's intercession for healing. The next day the infection stopped its progression. There is no clear scientific explanation for the abrupt change in Jake’s condition and Jake and his family believe that his healing was due to Blessed Kateri’s intercession. Miracles to be used in the 'cause of saints' are investigated by a panel of experts in their field - they are not necessarily Catholics. 

 Jake is now 12 and, except for scars from surgery, he is fully recovered and is an enthusiastic basketball player. Jake and his family and other members of the Lummi tribe attended the canonization ceremony in Rome.

A saint would be the last person to claim that a healing or other miracle was ‘performed’ by them. The miracle is always done by the power of God and not the saint. The saint only intercedes for us and leads us to Jesus, the real Healer. Neither do Catholics ‘worship’ saints; worshipping anyone or anything other than God is a sin. We have pictures of our family members in order to remember them but we do not worship the pictures. In the same way, a statue of a saint is only a representation of the saint; it is not an ‘idol’.
Link to Residential School Abuse?
The media and commentators on some media sites suggested at the time that the Catholic Church had conveniently proclaimed Kateri Tekakwitha a saint in order to ‘pacify’ First Nations people for the abuse at Residential Schools. However, Kateri was recognized as someone with extraordinary virtue shortly after her death; schools and churches have been named for her for many years. Her sainthood cause (investigation of her life in order to see if should be declared a saint) was opened in 1932, long before residential schools were called into question and she was declared venerable in 1943. 

The abuse in Residential Schools was not publicly known until 1990. It was in that year that Phil Fontaine published a book, A Knock on the Door, about the sexual abuse he and schoolmates endured from priests, Indian Agents and the Mounted Police. Fontaine later became the leader of the Association of Manitoba Chiefs and he called for those involved in Residential Schools to acknowledge the abuse. A year later the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples was convened by the Canadian government. The timing of Kateri's canonization indicates that it had nothing to do with the ‘abuse’ and would have gone ahead even if there had been no scandals regarding Residential Schools.
First Nations People and Hope
An estimated 2,000 Native people from North America attended the canonization ceremony in Rome. Several of them were interviewed by the journalists. They expressed joy that a fellow First Nation's woman was raised to such an honour and said that this gave them hope. They mentioned how their people had asked for Kateri’s prayers for many years. The fact that there are many devout Catholics amongst the First Nations people of Canada suggests that not all students of residential schools had bad experiences at the schools. This, of course, does not wipe out the wrong that was done: abusing innocent children and tearing them away from their families. However, it should caution us not to paint all who worked in the schools with the same brush.
Another Native woman of the Carrier Nation, Rose Prince, who lived in British Columbia, may also be on the road to sainthood. When her grave had to be moved for construction, her body was found incorrupt. Relics from the gravesite have been reported in several miracles. Rose attended a Residential School in LeJac, BC and when her schooling was completed she asked to stay on and work there as she did not want to return to her home. Her cause to sainthood is being investigated.