|
D r a g n e t
Cleaning his Klock
|
This Rock
Volume 6, Number 10
 October 1995 
|
|
|
IN an article first appearing in The Miami Herald, Joseph P. Klock, Sr., identified as "an author who lives in Key Largo, Florida," claimed that John Paul II is, as the headline put it, "leading the Church to functional obsolescence." We select out for your delectation a few representative and predictable sentences.
Klock says, "Although Christ is quoted as naming Peter the 'rock' upon which the church was to be built, the early apostles wrangled with Peter over doctrinal matters rather than submitting blindly to his dicta. The tradition of open dissension continued with St. Paul . . ."
Why is it that those who submit to papal teachings are always said to submit "blindly"? We have taken an informal survey of our staff and have discovered that everyone submits wholeheartedly to papal teaching- and with eyes fully open, in fact with ample warrant in logic, history, and Scripture.
Klock goes on: "In those days, and for many subsequent centuries, a democratic church recognized married clergy and steered clear of such personal matters as birth control and divorce." There are several problems here.
The Church never has been "democratic." It isn't today, and it wasn't in the first centuries. Come to think of it, families (and the Church is the family of God) are never democratic in structure. Besides, Klock is misapplying a term.
The adjective "democratic" is properly predicated of political situations, not of ecclesiastical government, not of family organization. So, it's wrong to say that in the early centuries the Church was "democratic." How could one say that, given the rulership of bishops and the entire absence of any kind of popular "voting"?
Did the Church recognize married clergy? Yes and no. In the early centuries it recognized a few of them, but recent research has demonstrated that, contrary to popular misconceptions fostered by anti-celibacy folks, nearly every cleric in the early Church was celibate. It was not the case that in the beginning married clergy were the norm, followed by the imposition of celibacy.
Later in the article Klock is so bold as to claim that celibacy "was first confirmed by the Lateran Council in 1139 and reaffirmed by the Council of Trent in 1563." He falls into a common fallacy. Let's grant, for the sake of argument, that the Lateran Council was the first to confirm celibacy. Klock concludes it therefore instituted the practice. Deeper thinking and wider knowledge of councils would have led him to a different judgment. Councils don't confirm or condemn practices or beliefs unless a problem has arisen.
It wasn't until the Lateran Council of 1215, for example, that the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist was confirmed. Are we to conclude that the doctrine wasn't believed until then? If we do that, we run afoul of easily-accessible facts going all the way back to the first century. No, what prompted the Council's action was the novelty, in the eleventh century, of a Christian, Berengarius of Tours, denying the Real Presence-the first time anyone had dared to do such a things, so far as we know. There wasn't any need for a council to reaffirm the Real Presence in, say, the tenth century, because no one was denying it. But the need started with Berengarius and became acute by 1215.
So it was with celibacy, which wasn't instituted in 1139, but was confirmed then. The practice itself went back to apostolic times, beginning with Paul and the other apostles. Yes, in the early years a few clerics were married, but very few as a proportion. By the Middle Ages, though, there was considerable clerical misconduct, and some priests were marrying, ignoring the rule of celibacy. It was against this abuse that the Council acted.
Did the Church steer clear of birth control and divorce? In a sense, yes, but not for the reason Klock supposes. In times when infant mortality was high and large families greatly prized, there was virtually no interest in birth control (nor, of course, any effective means). And divorce was unknown, so there was no reason for the Church to say much about it. There's no need to complain against something that isn't occurring.
Klock demonstrates his unfamiliarity with the issues when he writes that "the pope firmly opposes every method [of birth control] except abstinence and the 'rhythm' method of scheduled abstinence, irreverently referred to as 'Vatican Roulette.'<|>"
Where has Klock been? Proponents of natural family planning, a scientific method of determining fertile periods, have not taught or recommended the rhythm method since the 1960s, when NFP was discovered. In the last three decades, the only mentions of the rhythm method have been in publications opposed to the constant Christian teaching on married openness to new life. In every case that we remember, the rhythm method was not discussed in its own right; the term was used as a bogey to scare the reader away from a thoughtful consideration of the Church's teaching.
Flashpoint, the newsletter of Living Truth Ministries (Texe Marrs, President, Mrs. Marrs, Vice President), has been advertising an audio tape on "Hidden Messages in the New Catholic Catechism." "For over 50 years the Catholic Church used the old Baltimore Catechism," the reader is told, but now the Church has given its members "a most curious document, indeed." Marrs explains that "secreted within the 800 pages of the new Catechismis startling information proving that the Pope of Rome and his Vatican Curia are planning an incredible takeover of Christianity." If that's true, we want to know how to get in on it.
Forget Gorbachev. He wasn't the one. It turns out, according to Charles R. Taylor, who is described in Marrs's newsletter as "a noted teacher of Bible prophecy, that the real"Antichrist King" will be Juan Carlos, king of Spain.
We doubt it, and we have reason for doubting it: We have it on good authority that a prominent University of Notre Dame professor of philosophy, known widely as a writer of detective novels, is about to release a book that reveals the real answer. The title: "The Antichrist King: Fr. Dowling."
A message from convert Bruce Sullivan, regarding his former denomination: "If you live in the South, you probably know someone who is a member of the Church of Christ ('Campbellites'). Members of this sect are known for their tenacity in following what they consider to be the 'biblical pattern.' Like many Bible-only Christians, they are critical, if not hostile, toward the Catholic Church. Unfortunately, there has not been much fruitful dialogue between the Church of Christ and the Catholic Church, but that is about to change.
"If you know someone who is a member of the Church of Christ, you may want to send him a free copy of Bartimaeus, a newsletter designed to foster dialogue between the two faiths. The editorial team is composed of a nationally-known priest [Fr. Benjamin Luther] who converted from the Church of Christ and a layman [Sullivan] who once served as a Church of Christ minister. Please send names and addresses to Bartimaeus, Parish Community of St. John, 6705 Old Highway 45, Paducah, KY 42003-9257." The newsletter will appear about three times a year. There is no subscription fee, and Sullivan doesn't ask for donations, but we suggest you send a few dollars for each name you submit.
David Alexander uploaded this explanation to the Internet:
"Since joining the LDS church eight years ago, I have studied and learned a lot about Mormon beliefs, history, and practices, and, until recently, fully embraced Mormon ideology. This study and the questions I have asked are the reasons I am leaving the LDS church.
"My story begins when I moved across the U.S. to a new community which is pretty dense in its Mormon population, Mesa, Arizona. At the time I moved, I had undergone some major changes in my life (I had left a religious order in the Catholic Church after about a year) and had moved to an area where I knew practically no one and felt alienated, isolated, and confused. I felt as if my 'vocation' had been taken away from me, and I had absolutely no direction in life. I was a prime candidate for conversion to practically anything.
"In this emotionally and spiritually precarious situation, I decided to go to the Mesa LDS Temple Visitor's Center and take a tour. I had a classic 'golden contact' experience-highly emotional-and filled out a missionary referral card. After several months of wrangling, I decided to join.
"Funny thing, when I was going through the 'should I or shouldn't I' phase, I remember distinctly realizing that I was going to have to turn off my mind and listen to my emotions. They, of course, told me that I would find friends, a family, and acceptance.
"I was immediately extremely active and began to prepare for the Temple. When it was learned that I had studied to become a priest, I was asked to give firesides and willingly agreed. I loved the forum of telling people my experiences and 'bearing my testimony.' I knowingly used half-truths in convincing people that the LDS gospel was true, thinking that the end justified the means.
"Six months after joining the LDS church I met and married a wonderful wife. When I had been a member for a year, I went to the Temple and received my own endowments. I was excited about wearing garments, about wearing ceremonial robes, and converting my dead ancestors. I was very active for about six years. I had numerous callings, gave talks in stake conferences, and traveled to Utah from Arizona to give firesides where prominent church members were present, and I thought I had in made in the church.
"In 1993, at the prompting of my father, who was the Master of the local Masonic lodge, I petitioned and joined Masonry. My wife was hesitant, realizing that Masonry had suspicious similarities to the Mormon endowment, but nonetheless gave her consent.
"When I was 'raised to the sublime degree of Master Mason,' I saw with striking clarity that the 'similarities' between the Mormon endowment and the Masonic rituals are more than coincidence. When I read about Joseph Smith's introduction to and impressions of Masonry in Nauvoo, I realized that he adapted the Masonic rituals to his religious system and that, near the close of his life, had regrets about it.
"After this realization a series of personal events led me to enter therapy with a kind and compassionate therapist, who helped me see that one of the prime reasons I converted to Mormonism was that I came from a highly dysfunctional family and wanted the security of a community and familial atmosphere. Coming to this realization brought me full circle and helped me to see that I was a case of a classic conversion experience. As I grow older I see that the dichotomy between a Mormon's emotional life (his 'testimony experience') and his intellectual life can't be maintained forever."
A Mormon bishop, the equivalent of a parish priest, left a copy of his "conversion plan" on a copier at his secular workplace, and one of our subscribers passed the copy along to us. The document, in the form of a calendar, shows how dedicated Mormons are in their evangelization work.
Every day of the month has an activity designed to bring a particular family into the church. Here is what is planned during the first half of a typical month:
Day 1 (Sunday): "Tell investigator [prospective convert] a Church member will drop off a pamphlet about lesson material with scriptural reading suggestions.
Day 2 (Monday): "Sister Jones brings pamphlet by with a plate of cookies; chats briefly at door.
Day 3 (Tuesday): "Missionaries call to see if they received pamphlet or have any questions.
Day 4 (Wednesday): "Teacher who taught first discussion drops off a video (Heavenly Father's Plan); doesn't ask to come in.
Day 5 (Thursday): "Invite to church; explain someone will bring another pamphlet by.
Day 6 (Friday): "A brother from same age group quorum brings pamphlet by, offers to take them to church or lead the way while they drive their own car.
Day 7 (Saturday): "Bishop calls to invite investigator to church. He indicates the topic of the social meeting talk and lets them know he's anxious to meet them. Day 8 (Sunday): "All those who have had contact look to greet the investigator's family. They are introduced to any missionaries the family will be involved with.
Day 9 (Monday): "Sister Jones stops by or calls to see how they enjoyed church; another plate of cookies or bread.
Day 10 (Tuesday): "Discussion group.
Day 11 (Wednesday): "Sunday school teacher brings a video (How Rare a Possession) and invites them to a barbecue on Saturday with a couple of other families.
Day 12 (Thursday): "Discussion group. Day 13 (Friday): "Young men's or young women's leader invites teenagers to social event.
Day 14 (Saturday): "Barbecue with Sunday school teacher and other families. Day 15 (Sunday): "Planned meeting with bishop in his office 'to get to know one another.'
" So it goes through 30 days. The investigator is brought closer to Mormonism by being brought closer to Mormons. Later in the month, for instance, he is asked "to help neighbor, who is LDS member, load moving van." The family being moved and the others LDS members helping in the move use the opportunity to ingratiate themselves with the investigator. By the end of the month he is a new member and is hosting a barbecue at his own home for LDS members plus the family of another prospective convert.
At the bottom of the "conversion plan" is a five-step plan titled "commitment":
"1. Read and pray about Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon.
"2. Attend church even if not on Sunday.
"3. Take balance of discussions.
"4. Referrals.
"5. Baptize when they know that Joseph Smith was a Prophet and the Book of Mormon is the word of God.
" This is followed by a reminder that the investigator is to be asked to make a positive step toward becoming a Mormon: "Re-commit the Five after every discussion."
|
C A T H O L I C A N S W E R S :
[TOP]
of
