|
L e t t e r s
Upholding Protestants As Examples Is Wrong
|
This Rock
Volume 15, Number 4
 April 2004 
|
|
|
This Rock is developing a disturbingly misguided political correctness with regard to Evangelical Protestantism.
Two recent issues claim that Catholics need to follow the example of Evangelical Protestants in Bible study ("What Catholics Can Learn From Evangelicals," November 2003 and "Catholics Need to Read Their Bibles," February 2004). I agree that many Catholics are lax about Bible study, but upholding Protestants as examples is not the right solution, for several reasons:
- Jesus founded the Catholic Church, so our Catholic heritage provides all the good example we need. Lax Catholics are in need of becoming more Catholic; their problem is that they are too secularized and too Protestant. Being more Catholic includes study of our rich heritage in Bible scholarship from Church Fathers, Doctors, saints, and orthodox theologians past and present.
- It is not valid to compare lax Catholics to active Evangelicals and conclude that Catholics in general come up short. The cream of the crop of Catholics does just as much Bible study as the Evangelical "cream."
- You could be duping unwary Catholics into trying Evangelical Bible studies. Protestant Ralph Mackenzie touted "cross-confessional" Bible study ("What Evangelical Protestants Can Learn from Catholics," November 2003). I know some ex-Catholics who were led astray by Evangelical sects; none of their disagreeing interpretations of the Bible holds a candle to or is fully compatible with Catholic interpretation.
- Protestant Evangelical emphasis on the written word is often excessive and impractical. Extensive Bible study requires a certain level of education, intelligence, bookish inclination, and leisure time for study. If these are lacking, the Gospel cannot be preached effectively. Jesus and his apostles saved many souls before the New Testament was written. Personal Bible study has never been the only way to obtain a good understanding of the Catholic faith.
- The ultimate point of the Gospel isliving it. A Catholic who does so without extensive personal Bible study is better off than an Evangelical who substitutes Bible study for charitable action.
Deloris Gross
Turtle Creek, Wisconsin
The Passion Was Not Necessary
Paul Thigpen’s article "Did Christ Have to Suffer?" (February 2004) overlooks one major aspect of the human condition: free will. Christ’s Passion was the result of other people’s evil actions. These people could have chosen to follow the path of God rather than the path of evil. If they had, the Passion would not have occurred. Nonetheless, the choice they made was theirs, not God’s. Jesus, by rising from the dead, defeated their evil.
We, as time-bound beings, cannot comprehend the fullness of the existence of God without some bridge. Jesus took on the fullness of human nature, and upon death he became the bridge. We enter through the human nature of Jesus to his divine nature in order to come into the full presence of God. This is why those who lived before the time of Jesus could not enter fully into the kingdom (presence) of God until Jesus died. It was necessary for Jesus to live the full life of a human being, but the Passion was not necessary for humanity to enter into the presence of God.
Joseph Butler
Atlanta, Georgia
The Meaning of Suffering
Paul Thigpen’s article ("Did Christ Have to Suffer?" February 2004) left unclarified one important aspect of the reason or "meaning" of Christ’s suffering. The apostle Paul tells us he "makes up in his own flesh what is lacking in the suffering of Christ for the sake of his body, the Church." Christ tells us that we must take up our cross and follow him, losing our lives to save them.
This gives us another reason for the Father willing our salvation by the suffering of Christ: Since the world’s subjection to futility (and death via suffering) was the effect of original sin, it is the suffering of Christ that transforms the meaninglessness and despair of suffering to a divine level.
Paul says our world was subjected to futility in hope, and that hope is greater than the futility and the reward greater than the penance: "Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer so to enter into his glory?" He shows as our teacher and model that our suffering is necessary for our eternal glory. That is why he set his face for Jerusalem, where he would be mocked, scourged, and killed: to show us how to set our faces to meet not only death but the subsequent glory of resurrection.
In his parable of the good Samaritan, Christ shows us that the suffering of our neighbor has the purpose of evoking compassion and love, thus bringing a level of good that could not exist without suffering in the world. Mother Teresa shows us our vocation toward all who suffer. Pope John Paul II, in his apostolic letter Salvifici Doloris ("The Christian Meaning of Human Suffering"), tells us that Christ’s Passion and the redemptive power of suffering to rebuild goodness is present to all who suffer. In other words, through Christ all suffering is redeemed.
In a prayer Padre Pio composed, he says, "O Lord, we ask for a boundless confidence and trust in your divine mercy and the courage to accept the crosses and sufferings that bring immense goodness to our souls and that of your Church . . . as we climb the mountain of holiness, carrying our cross that leads to heavenly glory."
Christ turned suffering from a penalty for sin into an opportunity for merit and a share in his own glory. May he open our eyes of faith to answer the "why" of his and our sufferings with the only reason: God’s great and unending love for us, calling us to sacrifice in love and thereby to enter into the glory of eternal love that is heaven.
John Otis
via the Internet
‘Brain Death’ Is a Tricky Concept
I noticed in your "Quick Questions" column way back in your May-June 2003 issue a question concerning organ transplants and whether it is moral. I agree with your answer that it is, but wonder if you realized that in order to do a heart or liver transplant, the donor’s heart must still be beating because those organs deteriorate so quickly.
Organ donation is a charitable act, but can we trust all doctors to be ethical?
About ten years ago we were at a Human Life International conference and one of the speakers was a doctor who spoke on the subject of transplants. He warned us that there are thirty-two different definitions of "brain death" in this country, and the attending physician can accept any one of these to declare someone brain dead. He said he saw people fully recover after being declared brain dead.
Brain death does not mean the person is dead; it simply means that brain activity has slowed or stopped. Their heart can still be beating. The danger is that when someone is declared brain dead, the doctor in charge can call for the organ removal team, and they can then harvest the organs.
This doctor said he talked to nurses who would no longer help with organ harvesting because sometimes when they were removing the heart of a patient and started cutting into the chest, the donor would grab the nurse’s arm tightly as if in pain. The doctor would say that that was only a reflex or something like that.
I was glad I knew about this six years ago. Our oldest son was in a bad accident that resulted in severe brain trauma, and one doctor gave him zero chance of survival. They wanted us to sign an organ donation sheet, but we declined, and instead told them in writing to do everything in their power to save him. We were afraid that if we signed the sheet, that would allow them to harvest his organs, and that they wouldn’t try as hard to revive him.
Our son did survive. He’s walking, talking, working, and driving, although with some disabilities. But he’s not a "vegetable," as some doctors said he would be.
Years ago everyone knew when someone was dead: There was no pulse, no breathing, etc. But with the new brain death definitions, we now have something quite dangerous and deliberate on our hands.
Marge Will
via the Internet
|
C A T H O L I C A N S W E R S :
[TOP]
of
