The Church is too hard to join. It's intimidating.

      Using our handy-dandy Bible, let’s look at what Jesus said. “For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light” (Matthew 11:30) Sounds like this church thing should be easy.  But we have to look at the context. Just before this quote, He is talking  about how when the cross you bear seems heavy, to basically trade with him. If you ask any Catholic Saint what they do with the burdens and bad things that happen to them during a day, they’d say they offer it up to God.  The give God their burden.  I know, personally, when I accepted God wanted me to go into seminary, it felt as if a huge weight was lifted off my shoulders.  But why would God need to do this if life in Him was easy?  He wouldn't.  Due to the fact that the path of Righteousness is difficult, God will help carry your burdens.  

      Another Bible verse to compliment that one, “Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the road is easy that leads to destruction, and there are many who take it.  For the gate is narrow and the road is hard that leads to life, and there are few who find it.” (Matthew 7:13-14)  Which sounds better: the easy, wide road that leads to destruction or the hard, narrow road that leads to life?  Straight and narrow!  I was in marching band, and I can tell you how hard it is to walk in a straight line, especially when your mind is distracted with other things and you aren't looking straight ahead.  The path of God is narrow, not many walk it.  Most walk a different path, or even in the opposite direction, and those pathways are wide and inviting.  It is clear to me that it is supposed to be difficult, but luckily, God is there to help us.  He wouldn't ask something of us and then not give us all we need to achieve it.  That’s just cruel, and God is all good.

You also claim the Church is intimidating. This, to me at least, seems comparable to a high school senior about to head off to college.  Back in KC, I had decided to further my education at KSU.  I could have gone to Johnson County Community College like my sister did. That was an easier path.  I could stay at home, eat my parents food, stay in a place I had known my whole life or I could go join a fraternity with guys I didn't really know, be responsible to ensure I am fed and get my school work done, move to a place 2 hours from all that I knew.  I know I made the right choice with KSU.  Going to a major college was intimidating, but worth it.  I knew a few guys from KSU who went to JCCC for 2 years first.  Both agreed that if they could do it again, they would go straight to KSU and skip this middle step.  Sure the Church may seem daunting, asking so much of a person to believe, but I can guarantee you that it is worth it.

 If you wish, you can choose the easy life.  But look at the holy people, like Mother Theresa.  People don’t do what she did, and live how she lived, if it wasn't worth it.  Now, I’m not asking you to move to Calcutta and care for the poor and dying (you can if that is what God wants you to do), because God doesn't call all his children to live such extreme lives; many of us couldn't do it, at least not in the state we are in now.  God has blessed those individuals’ lives with many graces, but those graces must be accepted and cooperated with.  Therefore, if you don’t start accepting and cooperating with God’s will now, you’re going to be worse off later down the road.  What it boils down to is a fairly well known phrase; if it’s easy, it probably isn't worth doing.

As far as actually joining goes, it’s a relatively simple process.  We have a program called the Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults, RCIA.  It’s based off of the ancient method of bringing people into the early Church, but with less pouring ashes over your head and more talking with knowledgeable Catholics.  You pick a sponsor, an already confirmed Catholic, who will walk with you on the journey down the straight and narrow path.  Ever read C.S. Lewis’ The Great Divorce?  In his “heaven”, there are giants that have already begun walking the path to God who come back to try to encourage those just arriving to come with them.  Your sponsor is like that. 

To become a Catholic, there are 3 Sacraments of Initiation: Baptism, Eucharist, and Confirmation.  Even if you are Protestant, if you have been baptized with water in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (all three names and only those three names), then you are one third the way there.  Hooray!  Celebrate, for that day is the day you are born into Christ and his Church.  There is some debate on the order of the next two, but both only further strengthen you for the journey.  After about a year of attending weekly classes, you’ll be brought fully into the Church on Easter.  At any point during that process, if you feel you need more time to discern if you really wish to join the Church, you may back out; you aren’t contractually obligated or anything.  God wills you have free will, and it is beyond the Church to deny you that God given right. But just like Lewis’ giants, we highly encourage you with all we are for you to join us down this straight and narrow.  Don’t be distracted by churches that go with the culture, in and out of style.  This is not the Church of the steadfast God, but the church of the world.  Come with us; join the Church built on a Rock, not on sand.

The Church isn't very accepting of opposing views; whether that be other church's or internal views.

This is an interesting question.  Not because I haven't thought about it before, but because it would seem as if the asker hasn't thought about what would happen if the opposite were true.  Let me elaborate.  What if the Church was very accepting of opposing views?  What would happen?  Well, for starters, the Church would often be at odds with itself.  One day it would be against abortion; the next, it would be OK with it.  One day, it holds that the Eucharist is Christ; the next, it thinks of it merely as a symbol.  Who could possibly participate in a religion that is constantly changing its beliefs?  No one.  We would start having all sorts of factions that have totally different beliefs, and then they would just become separate churches; not the ONE, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

Secondly, there would be no Truth. (That's right, relativists, I'm coming for you) Example time.  Way back in the day, like around the Council of Nicaea, 300-ish, there was a man named Arius.  Arius had done such in depth scriptural study that he had come to the conclusion that Jesus was not God, but was merely a man; a great, amazing man, but only that.  He had all sorts of scriptural references that backed him up.  He made such a strong case that about 90% of all Christians believed it.  We're talking hundreds of priests and bishops who were convinced Jesus was only a man.  Many thought that at Nicaea, the council would write that into doctrine.  Luckily, guided by the Holy Spirit, that 10% stood their ground well enough that because of the council, they'd written a creed.  Creed comes from the Latin credo meaning " I believe"The Nicene Creed to be precise.  And in that creed, they say over and over that Jesus is "God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten not made, con-substantial ( of the same substance) with the Father".  They put it 5 different ways so there would be no confusion over whether or not Jesus was God.  We, as Christians, hold this to be True.  Not true once upon a time, or true for them but not for me.  It IS.  So if someone in modern times approaches the Church and says, "Hey, so I was reading the bible that you put together back in the late 300's, and I've found several passages that make me think Jesus wasn't actually God, but just a man", the Church can say " I'm gonna stop you right there.  We figured it out; Jesus is divine."  Is this un-accepting of opposing views?  Well yeah, because we already figured it out.  There's no point to remake the wheel, when we've had it for millennia.  If you want to talk about how to make a better wheel, I'll listen, but once you say "so it's like the wheel, but square..." I'm gonna stop you and say "Hard pass."

I'm sure, however, that the asker didn't mean the Church should accept all opposing views, but rather, take them into consideration before just dismissing them, like a better wheel.  The reason the Church may seem obstinate and stuck in its ways is fairly easy to imagine.  If a 5 year old approaches a 40 year old man and says, "Hey, I got this great idea.  You should drive with your knees all the time so your hands are free to eat and text."  Do you think the 40 year old man is going to say "OK", and then try it out?  No.  The man, I'm sure, has driven with his knees at one point and knows it is indeed possible, but not the best way to drive a car.  He also knows that being distracted with food or texting while driving is not such a good idea. I know that the asker is about 20 years old and the Church has about 100 times more experience.  That's like the 5 year old asking a man who's 500 years old, whose experienced even more ways of driving than just with the hands or knees ( assuming he is still with it enough to respond, but I digress).  A different analogy for the wisdom of experience and tradition can be found in my post on condoms.

Let's put this in a mathematical situation ( I'm an engineer, remember?). One day, you hand in your homework.  You are certain you have the correct answers because you were told what the answers were by the teacher.  Teachers do this to ensure you are getting the method correct.  Easier for self checking and all (I've seen this done, so stop making that face).  The teacher calls you to her desk the next day to inquire about your homework.  #3 has the right answer (crushed it), but in the midst of your work, you have 2+2=5.  You explain that the only way you could get your method to work was if that equation were true, so since you knew the answer was right, and 2+2=5 got you there, your teacher should be accepting of your work and give you that A... How will your math teacher respond to that?  She'll say "No". (duh)  Is your teacher being un-accepting to opposing methods?  No, she just sees a fundamental issue with your method, so it won't work..  She knows there are several methods that do work, and that she has a preferred method she believes works best, but you did't use any of them.  The teacher has spent years learning the material, so you'll have to forgive her when she doesn't give your "2+2=5" a second look.

The Church isn't always just stuck in its ways, however.  Look at Vatican II.  The Church looked at the Mass it had perfected over the centuries and looked at the people attending.  Was/is that mass (Latin/Ad Orientum, etc.) the best sacrifice of the altar the Church provides?  In my opinion and, if I may say so, the opinion of the Church, the answer is a solid "YUP."  But is it what the majority of the people needed/needs? Probably not.  The Mass was soooooo full of meaning and purpose that those not being actively educated in its awesomeness were just completely checking out, for they didn't understand.  It's like me going to a museum.  I get that some of these paintings are masterpieces, but since I don't understand the intricacies of it, I get bored and want to go to that cool interactive science museum.  So in response, rather than just saying, well Starry Night is a masterpiece, whether you appreciate it or not, and sticking to their old ways, they've worked hard to make Starry Night more involving for the non-art majors.  They didn't degrade Starry Night, or get rid of it.  They just added a headphone jack so you can hear what makes it so special.

In summary, the Church is not of the world (or at least that is what Jesus said. John 15:19), but only a fool would say that the Church shouldn't be in it.  Jesus came into the world that would hate and crucify him, all for the world's salvation.  The Church, the bride of Christ, should be right there with Him in those trenches.  But the Church, simultaneously, needs to keep herself separate, set apart, holy (if you will accept the original meaning of holy to be set aside for God) from the rest of the world so that she doesn't become a fad, changing every century or decade as of late, but rather, solid thru all of time; built firmly on rock, not sand.

Last little note.  I'm sure the asker posed this objection because the Church didn't agree with them about one thing or another.  It is not wrong to question the Church; to say "why do we do this?  I don't see the point to that, what's its purpose?"  The Church wants you to ask these questions because that means you are actively participating.  Theology, the study of God, in the Catholic world has a Latin phrase as a motto, according to Anselm.  Fides Quaerens Intellectum.  "Faith Seeking Understanding".  The Church was given divine revelation and believes that God cannot be understood, but Him and His effects are reasonable.  Using logic and reasoning, the Church has many answers, not to everything, but you'd be surprised at the wealth of knowledge and wisdom the Church and her doctors and saints have accrued over the past 2 millenia.  All the Church asks in return is that you trust her wisdom.  When you doubt, don't just drop it until you have figured it out.  The Church believes she is doing what is best for your immortal soul, so if you just stop, your soul is in danger.  Unsure if the Eucharist is really Jesus?  It's OK.  Some priests have these doubts as well, but don't stop receiving.  Wondering why you have to confess your sins to a priest?  That is fine, but don't avoid the confessional for 5 years while you figure it out.  Mother Teresa of Calcutta had doubts as well, and they are well documented in her personal diary.  But even while she questioned the whole purpose of her ministry, or it God is even really there, she continued doing her mission, continued receiving the sacraments and continued praying to a God that (she thought) was potentially not there.  Want to get to heaven; want to be a Saint?  The Church has a method; not the only method, but it's a really good one.  It's worked for thousands.  You don't have to reinvent the wheel every day, but even more important to know is this.

You are not alone in this.

Even when you are questioning the point of your very existence, so are hundreds of others, and the Church is there to help guide you when you don't know where to go.  We all struggle to live a Christ-like life, but by no means give up.  Do all you can to imitate Christ as closely as possible.  For if there is no God, then nothing matters.  But, if there is a God, then nothing else matters.

Catholics pray to dead people to ask them to pray to God. No relationship will form if you don’t talk to God.

 My favorite thing about this objection is that both statements made are 100% true.  Which is why we as Catholics are more of a both/and rather than either/or kind of religion.  God is both infinitely merciful AND infinitely just.  Divine revelation is both in Scripture AND in Tradition (James 2:18).  We ask those we know are tight with Jesus for prayers AND have a personal relationship with our Lord.  In fact, it would be foolish to even bother talking to Saints if you weren't in a relationship with Jesus already.  That’s like asking your brother to talk to your dad for you, if you've never talked to him in your whole life.  That’s no way to get to know your father. 

On the idea of God/Jesus/Holy Spirit being your spiritual and heavenly Father, and all those faithfully departed being your brothers and sisters in Christ, we can draw a good analogy.  You have a family.  For this analogy, we’ll claim just a father and kid1 and kid2.  With this basis, let’s look at the combination of 2 positive/negative principles. Kid1 does/doesn’t talk to the father and kid1 does/doesn't ask kid2 to speak on kid1’s behalf (if kid1 does ask kid2 to intercede, this presupposes a healthy relationship between kid1 and kid2).  The chart would look like the following:

	Kid1 doesn't talk to father	Kid1 does talk to father
Kid1 doesn’t ask for kid2’s intercession	Kid1 will only ever possibly get to know kid2, never the father	Kid1 will get to know father, and possibly the kid2 as well
Kid1 does ask for kid2’s intercession	Father will hear kid2’s intercession for kid1, but won’t be able to properly respond without a pre-existing relationship with kid1	Father will hear kid2’s intercession for kid1, and be able to respond in kind due to relationship with kid1.  Kids1&2 also have a healthy relationship.

If you’ll look closely at the resultants of the combinations, the only negative ones are the 2 where kid1 doesn't talk with the father.  The two positive ones are in the kid1-talks-to-the-father column.  Therefore, like I started out with, a relationship between us and the Father is imperative. Now, looking at the 2 positives, both get to know the father, but one has a close brotherhood with someone who also knows and loves the father, while the other is very separate, secluded.  The New Testament is littered with occasions where the author refers to the Christian community he is talking to as “brothers and sisters.”  Surely they all don’t have the same mother, nor could they even mean the translation of kin (as in cousin), for they say it to everyone, Jew and Gentile alike.  Therefore, they must be brothers and sisters in Christ, for God is our Father.  We should act accordingly.  You aren't always nice to your siblings, but you love them and you would do a lot to them.  Don’t try and tell me you never talk to your siblings (assuming you have one).  The fact that you talk to your siblings doesn't mean you don’t know/love your mutual father.

But Dan, they’re dead.  I can understand talking to people still on earth and asking for their prayers, but the dead are dead.  Well, let’s look at how someone becomes a Saint, with a capitol S.  Lower case s saint means anyone who is in heaven.  Upper case S Saint is someone the Church has looked into, deeply.  They interview dozens of eye witnesses: parents, siblings, coworkers, fellow nuns/monks (if they are in an order).  After that, they pray about it and look for miracles.  If they find 2 that are legit (usually there’s several phonies), they are presented to the pope for canonization.  The pope doesn't make them Saints like Hollywood makes stars.  The pope declaring someone is a Saint is more like saying, “This person lived a holy life, and postmortem, has miracles attributed to them, therefore, we as the Church, can say with certainty, ‘they are in heaven’.”  There are many saints, but the only ones we know for sure are Saints.  Therefore, if a Saint is in heaven, they are in full communion with God.  The have seen God in His glory and sing his praises constantly.  Their will is in perfect sync with God’s will.  Therefore, what they will is also what God wills, thusly perfect.  Therefore, if they hear your petition, and they will it, then God must will it.  It’s kind of like asking your perfect sibling (yeah the doctor who has a beautiful wife and 3 kids and a nice house in the burbs…) if they’ll put in a good word for you to your dad.  If they do put in a good word, they do it because they think it is good for you.  And your perfect sibling knows exactly how to ask your parents too, he always seems to get his way.  This analogy, like all analogies, falls short of what is truth though.  The Father is actually perfect and He knows what is best for you.

As icons and images of saints go, you may think it is idolatry.  An understandable concern if you don't know what they are.  As far as images go, are you telling me you don't have any pictures in your house of your deceased grandmother.  Dan, that's not the same, she's family.  Yeah, well I'd like to think the saints are my family too.  But Dan, I don't pray to that image of my grandma, like you do when you pray with icons.  That may be true, but if your grandma is in heaven with God, would you not want her putting in a good word for you and praying for you?  Oh course you would.  Icons just help us to properly focus.

All in all, no man can call himself a Christian if he doesn't have a personal relationship with Jesus.  This relationship isn't something we can do, it is something we receive.  Our brothers and sisters in Christ are there to help us.  And one last note on prayer.  To pray, in English, means to beg, to ask, or to speak to God.  In Latin, the language of the Church, they have different words for different type of prayer.  There is a word for praying to the Trinity, and there are different words for praying to Mary, angles or saints.  By no means by praying to a Saint do we worship the saint, but rather, acknowledge how awesome they are and ask for their prayers to God, our Father.

Confession is too easy. Catholics can do whatever they want and just be forgiven for it.

I am going to respond to this first with a very practical question.  Have you ever gone to Confession? Have you ever sat for a long time, dwelling on your sins, only then to go and sit before someone else and bare your soul to him and God, followed by penance?  My guess if that you think confession is easy, you haven’t gone.  Ask most Catholics the last time they went to confession, and most will say a LONG TIME ago.  Why has it been so long? Because it is scary for many.  We all mess up, and mess up often. Is it inconvenient to spend 5 min to get all those sins wiped away?  Slightly, but if you do get forgiven for whatever you've done, I’d say it’s worth it, wouldn't you? 

 An example most people can relate to is visiting the dentist.

 Yes, I know that some people really love  going to the dentists, just as there are some Catholics that go to confession at least once a week, if not more often.  But for the majority, it is a daunting event.  You've gone before and you know that it doesn't really hurt, but for some reason, it’s not something we are excited to experience.  First, you are in a waiting room, waiting for the dentists to be ready for you.  You have recently spent a decent amount of time brushing your teeth hoping that this recent effort could save you from having bad hygiene, but we all know that doesn't work.  You get called in and sit in the chair.  The dentist/their-assistant ask you if you've been brushing and if you've flossed, and you try to make it sound better than it really is, but the dentist already knows, because they can see your teeth.  It’s not worth lying to your dentist.  They then proceed to clean your teeth/gums.  If you haven’t taken good care of your teeth, it may hurt a little.  But the dentist isn't hurting you for their sick pleasure, but rather for your betterment. They want to help you.  Any pain you feel is a healing pain, a ripping off of the dirtiness that clings to your teeth/gums.  If it’s really bad, your gums may even bleed, but you will heal, and it is good for you.  Once your teeth are clean, dentists usually give you some advice on keeping your teeth clean, and may even give you some toothpaste and a toothbrush to help you.  They then send you on your way where you can decide to follow their advice or not.  It’ll affect your next visit and the state of your teeth.  

Now, you've all been to the dentist, hopefully, so try to stick with me as I compare your experience that I've outlined above to what you experience in confession.  Keep in mind; I am not trying to clean my teeth in the confessional, but rather my soul. This Sacrament (Sacrament meaning a method, founded by Christ, of God’s grace formally acting in our lives) goes by three names: Confession, Reconciliation, Penance.  And all three are appropriate as you confess, you have a penance, and you are reconciled before God.  Each name calls out one of the major features of the Sacrament.  Let’s delve a little deeper into what actually goes on.  The dread of going to confession/the prep before-hand is the most uneasy part, I’d say.  Sitting in a pew and going thru an examination of conscience, as to properly reflect on what you have done to offend God, is always when those feelings of dread and nervousness creep into my brain.  This examination is important though, for it helps you to understand the gravity of your sin.  To covet they neighbor's wife doesn't need to be a physical act, but it can be one in the heart.  The examination helps break apart the 10 commandments and golden rule into practical, day-to-day situations.  Once actually in the confessional, I tell the priest how long it has been since my last confession and then proceed to tell him my sins.  Just like at the dentist, I am only hurting myself by lying.  God knows what’s up, so honesty in the confessional is important.  The priest then councils me.  Usually giving advice, spiritual or practical, on how to go forth and not do it again (which I am terrible at, they always seem to be the same things I confess.  And it’s not because of bad advice, I just usually never follow it… but I digress)  He then gives me the absolution, acting In Persona Christi, a fun Latin phrase meaning “in the person of Christ.”  After my soul has been forgiven my transgression, I am given a penance ( a task or prayer geared to help me either not sin again or repair the damage I did with my sin).  I go and do that penance and the Sacrament is complete.

Now if you’ll allow me to put some words in the asker's mouth, and make some assumptions, I believe this question was asked with a certain person in mind.  I can see a person who is viewed as a total jerk, who sins constantly, but is also catholic.  He goes to confession, says he’s sorry, is “forgiven”, and then continues to go about sinning.  I put forgiven in quotes, because for the confessor to be forgiven, he/she must be truly sorry for their sin AND have the intention not to sin again.  If both are true, then forgiveness can occur.  If one of those two is missing, forgiveness cannot be guaranteed by the Church.  There is a phrase you have heard that everyone preaches but very few actually follow: “Don’t judge others.”  Now, I am not admonishing the asker, and telling him to put this jerk’s soul out of his mind, lest he sin himself.  I only mean to point out the reason we shouldn't judge others; for we, unlike God, cannot see man’s true intention, what is on his heart, whether he is truly penitent.  The continuation of their sin points to the idea that the confessor wasn't penitent in the first place, but who of us hasn't wished to stop a habit of ours, and then failed after having decided to never do it again.  This jerk may have been truly sorry for their sins, and then failed again, as we all do.  The jerk may also have been under the false assumption that by saying he is sorry, without truly being sorry, they can be forgiven.  This is a fallacy and needs to be corrected. 

So asker, I say to you, if you are seeing a catholic frequent confession and yet, still is a big time sinner, keep these in mind: 1) he/she may truly be trying to change, but is finding it difficult, try helping them. 2)if he/she isn’t sorry for their sin or wish to not sin again, the Catholic Church doesn't guarantee their forgiveness, but maybe the all merciful Lord will take pity on them.  Who knows, we aren't God. 3) Everyone sins.  We all owe our forgiveness to the sacrifice of the Lord, Jesus Christ, on the cross. As we see in scripture, Jesus gave his apostles, and those with apostolic succession (also seen in scripture), the power to not only forgive sins (a very “Christian” thing to do), but also the power to retain them, to not forgive.  Well that doesn't seem very Christian.  We also see when Jesus sent out his disciples to the cities he would visit to prepare his way, they were to give their peace upon the house, but if it wasn't received, they were to take their peace back, and tell the house that they will be worse off on judgment day than Sodom.  So too with the priest in the confessional.  He, thru the power of Christ’s love, offers forgiveness, but only on those who are open to Jesus.  4)Poor catechesis (Christian education) happens; not all are properly trained on how to properly confess, or they forget after a while.  They may be under the assumption that what they are doing is right.  It may not be the nice thing, but the kind thing to do is to correct them, gently of course.  Let us go forth, together, preaching of the beautiful forgiveness for our sins that Christ offers.

Lastly, I ask the asker, “What is your better alternative?”  Rather than the Sacrament of Reconciliation, do you just speak to God in your mind/heart and say you’re sorry, and God then forgives you?  Is that not “easier” than what we as Catholics do?  I am confused, because I always thought Protestants had it easy with forgiveness compared to Catholics, with those that say “once saved, always saved” or “you just have to feel bad and your sins are forgiven.”  Please respond in the comments with how your church goes about forgiveness, so that I may be better educated.  Thank you.

P.S. I was once told by a priest that confession should be three things:  anonymous, brief, and dark.  The early church, like first 100 years, would do confession as a community.  A person would come before not only the priest, but the whole congregation and tell their sins.  The priest would absolve them, and the penance was given, usually to serve the community in some way (like if you were a mason, to build a new building for free while the community cared for your family).  As time marched on, it was realized that people would show up to confession not as part of community of support or to confess, but only to hear what others were doing.  Soon enough, confessions occurred only between the priest,  acting in the person of Christ, and the penitent.  As priests wish to forgive all the sins of their congregation while also trying not to judge them, the confessionals went behind screens, so as to hide the identity of the sinner, lest the priest fall into the sin of judging himself.  The priest can then just be a vessel for God's mercy.  Confession should be brief.  Cardinal Fulton Sheen once said that "... confessions sometimes were like being pelted with popcorn" nothing really substantial, but it just takes a while.  The priest who told me this urged that when I enter the confessional, have done a good examination of conscience of ready so that I can get in there and get forgiven.  Have a list, written out if you must.  Lastly, keep it dark.  Not in the ambiance, but in your words.  Don't try and rationalize your sins in the confessional with a long story, or try and make it seem not so bad, just confess.  We have all offended the Lord by our actions, words, and thoughts, don't beat around the bush.  I have found these words to be very affective when approaching this scary, yet satisfying Sacrament. 

The Church is opposed to condoms in all cases, even in Africa when it can help with the AIDS pandemic

      It   is said the Church is outdated, old-fashion, or stuck-in-our-ways.  What isn’t considered is the following analogy.  A man learns a few months into his new job that he will get fired if he is late one more time; so he shows up early every day.  He’s been working his job for 20 years now, and all though he probably won’t get fired if he shows up late, he tends to show up on time, if not early because it is 1) the right thing to do 2) good for the company  3) part of his job description.  In other words, it is 1) morally correct 2) of benefit for the community 3) his duty that comes with his liberties (liberty here being able to work at a job he likes, he can quit whenever, but he doesn’t because he likes his job).  Is this man stuck in his ways?  Is he old-fashioned?  Is he outdated?  I would hope that truths like the 3 listed above are not something that can fall in and out of truth or relevance.  Debated, sure.  But never dropped.  Could you imagine a society where there was no moral good (ie.  Killing people is cool), no one cared for or worked with their neighbor (ie. Everyone lived alone in shacks in the woods), and no one had any responsibilities with their rights (ie. make a kid and hope they can survive without your help).  That would be a mad house and tear itself apart within 1 generation.  The Church, over the past 2000 years, has spent some of its time uncovering and defining these God-made, natural truths that permeate all of humanity and civilization. 
So now, when someone, or something, goes against these truths, it is the Church’s duty to investigate their claims, take them under consideration, and then make a decision on whether this is one of God’s natural laws.  But if the same claim gets made again and again with no new evidence, should the Church have to arrive at the same answer again and again?  Do you really think contraception is a new thing?  Sure, back in the day it was unreliable but the morality behind it isn’t affected by its efficiency. (In fact, one could even make the claim that condoms do a GOOD job of a BAD thing) The Church has seen this before and has lent an ear to the cries from the 60’s, but has since made a decision.

So back in 1968, just 3 years after the close of Vatican II, Pope Paul VI wrote an encyclical (a papal letter to all bishops) called Humanae Vitae (translates to Human Life, go figure) in response to questions about a “new Church stance on modern issues” (such as birth control) a result of people contorting what Vatican II said to what they wanted it to.  The following is an excerpt from that encyclical, paragraph 17.  Be mindful as you read, this was written in 1968 (when the divorce rate was only 30%) and to the whole world (not just America). 

“Responsible men can become more deeply convinced of the truth of the doctrine laid down by the Church on this issue if they reflect on the consequences of methods and plans for artificial birth control. Let them first consider how easily this course of action could open wide the way for marital infidelity and a general lowering of moral standards. Not much experience is needed to be fully aware of human weakness and to understand that human beings—and especially the young, who are so exposed to temptation—need incentives to keep the moral law, and it is an evil thing to make it easy for them to break that law. Another effect that gives cause for alarm is that a man who grows accustomed to the use of contraceptive methods may forget the reverence due to a woman, and, disregarding her physical and emotional equilibrium, reduce her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires, no longer considering her as his partner whom he should surround with care and affection.Finally, careful consideration should be given to the danger of this power passing into the hands of those public authorities who care little for the precepts of the moral law. Who will blame a government which in its attempt to resolve the problems affecting an entire country resorts to the same measures as are regarded as lawful by married people in the solution of a particular family difficulty? Who will prevent public authorities from favoring those contraceptive methods which they consider more effective? Should they regard this as necessary, they may even impose their use on everyone. It could well happen, therefore, that when people, either individually or in family or social life, experience the inherent difficulties of the divine law and are determined to avoid them, they may give into the hands of public authorities the power to intervene in the most personal and intimate responsibility of husband and wife.”

Back in 1968, the Pope (a tired, old man who has “no place worrying about what goes on in your bedroom”) predicted a loosening of societal morals, and increase in infidelity, the objectification (to make less than human; only a tool or item to be possessed) of women, and the state-imposed contraception (including but not limited to: condoms, the pill, sterilization as seen in some other countries, and abortion).  And empirical data over the past 40 years has only vindicated his prediction.  Uncanny how some old man way over in Rome could so accurately describe what would happen in America over the next century if contraception became a social norm.  If people could predict the economy with this sort of accuracy, they’d be put in charge.  But people have biases against the Church.  I digress. This accuracy comes from the Church thinking long and hard on this matter, praying about it, and coming to a decision on what is truth, and sticking to it until sufficient cause is brought against it, but even then, the old truth isn’t just dropped.

This is because a truth cannot become untrue, for then it was never true to begin with.  But if sufficient cause is brought against a known truth, don’t lose the old truth, but rather try to properly understand the old truth to accept this new data.  You don’t drop Newton’s laws of gravity simply because it doesn’t work in the atomic or cosmic scales.  There is just more to gravity than is defined by Newton’s law.  Newton’s laws, therefore, aren’t wrong, but rather a simplification (due to its specific use in the normal realm of human experience) of a much grander law that we don’t understand…yet.  The excerpt I provided is just a taste.  Pope Paul VI provides his reasoning for his claims in his encyclical, so if you wish to read that, feel free.  If you want a better explanation without reading it, I’m sorry, but that is like asking an Electrical Engineer to explain how a Synchronous 3-phase Generator works.  I could tell you what it does, and technically how it does it, but you will only understand the what, and not the how nor how I got to the what.  But to attempt a short summary of the logic (I remind you again, unless you read the whole document, my argument will seem lacking, and that’s only because it is), I provide the following:  A married couple (not discussing what that entails this time round) has sex with two resulting effects.  The unification of the two souls (two become one) and procreation.  To deny either of those effects is to go against natural law.  We must be open to both.  Condoms and other birth control deny the second effect, ergo, against the natural law.  But Dan, does that mean a barren women shouldn’t have sex, for she cannot procreate?  No, for as seen in Scripture both elderly women and women considered barren are graced with children, so naturally, this could still be an effect.  Just as not all sex has to result in a child, it just must be open to it.

In reference to the African AIDS situation, I will explain the church’s view in an analogy.  If you concede that in normal conditions, birth control is morally, socially (for the good of a society), and personally wrong, then you can call it normally evil.  But Dan, the Church allows killing in self-defense if there is NO OTHER option.  That is an extreme case; is not Africa’s plea similar, an extreme? Valid, but the key there is NO OTHER option.  African’s have another option.  It’s called self-discipline. Let me illuminate my claim with 2 analogies: Chickenpox and fitness.

 Chickenpox.  If you've ever had a chickenpox, you could tell me if it is a good or bad idea to itch the bumps.  The answer is bad.  The absolute best thing you can do for chickenpox is let it sit.  There is no known cure for the chickenpox.  All treatment is aimed at treating symptoms, not the disease. All things that supposedly are treatments to the disease take a similar amount of time to take effect and tend to give you awful side-effects.  Even if you get over it in a week, you are permanently predisposed to have shingles so it has long lasting effects as well.  The worst part of chickenpox, however, is that you must not only wait it out, but you also shouldn’t scratch.  Scratching, if deep enough, can cause scarring.   It also opens up the rash to be more easily infected, which could lead to deeper health issues.  This is why you see little kids with oven mitts taped to their hands by their mothers, so they don’t scratch, for the young’s will is weak, as stated above in Humanae Vitae.

Dan, what does chickenpox have to do with AIDS in Africa?  Well, if you haven’t picked up on where this analogy is going yet, let me try and illustrate. AIDS is like an annoying rash: easy to transfer (most common from contact, but there are other ways), predisposes you to later health issues, no known cure, just treatment of symptoms.  The major differences are the contact must be sexual and AIDS is more deadly.  The idea behind condoms is the mother putting mittens on her child to keep the young one from causing lasting damage when he gives into the urge to scratch (giving into the urge for extra-marital sex).  Seems like a good enough idea, right.  Well if you conceded earlier that condoms, in the normal, are wrong, than I have a sad truth for you. One the church figured out a long time ago; you’ve probably heard it.  The ends NEVER justify the means. (I know only Siths deal in absolutes, but I mean, thats just a book/movie) Just because hitting the annoying kid in your class (bad) would shut him up and stop him from annoying you (good), doesn’t mean hitting him is a good thing to do.  And you conceded the means (birth control) is not good, therefore, no matter the end, it isn’t good.  Note: if you didn’t concede birth control as normally wrong (case made in first half of post), then there is no point in haggling over Africa because it is dependent on whether birth control is normally wrong, good, or neutral.

But what kind of person would I be if I just shot down others ideas without providing a suitable substitute.  Here is what the Church proposes, one of the OTHER options.  The same thing the Church expects for you!  How just that the Church treats their lives just as important as yours. The church just asks that you keep it in your pants till you’re married.  Don’t "scratch" until you are married. If you don’t scratch, you don’t need the mittens (condoms). How does that solve the problem?  Well, only those married couples where one or two members of the couple has/have AIDS will have the disease.  Couples without it will have AIDS free lives and children (assuming they still don’t have an extra-marital affair). Any extra-marital sexual contact will only potentially spread the disease to those still unaffected. The fact that AIDS spreads to the offspring of those affected is true whether or not condoms are used, so that point is null and void. If anything, condoms instill a false sense of invincibility that leads to unknowingly spreading the disease.  They should also refrain from the archaic and anti-science view that sex with virgins will rid you of AIDS.  10 bucks says an infected guy came up with that one. But shouldn’t the couples who have AIDS not have kids, so they don’t pass on the disease to the next generation?  Probably, but that’s up to the parents to decide.  If that is what they wish, then they can just not have sex.  Dan, you asking all these people to avoid sex is unreasonable and impractical. People will have extra-marital relations, that’s just a fact of life.  Is it?  Is that what fitness trainers tell the obese child who wants to lose weight?  “Sorry boy, but you are always going to overeat and not exercise, that’s just a fact of life”  No!  Why should we apply this self-discipline to our physical health, but not our sexual health.  That’s a double standard.  If you want to put physical health on the same scale of the proposed sexual health, the following needs to be true: greater availability of diet pills and other diuretics for the young and the poor, free shots of insulin in all school vending machines, more affordable access to Lap-band Surgery and Liposuction, Sensitivity training about the positive contributions of eating disorders, and give people the option to execute unwanted obese children.  These just seem absurd, and yet, when you look at the equivalent for sexual health, it’s what people/the government is providing/demanding of us.  Riddle me that.

Popes shouldn't resign. What’s up with that?

(As I said in my first post, I polled some men I know, and they responded with their problems with the Catholic Church they currently have.  The titles of these posts will be the problem or confusion, and the blog itself will be the answer)

Been a lot of buzz around this lately. I'll answer this first as it seems most pressing, even though as far as your salvation goes, the pope resigning is a very minor worry. Nonetheless, people are acting this is the first time we've ever had a new pope.  Granted, the pope doesn't resign every century, but it isn't like this hasn't happened before.  As I am sure you have heard, a pope hasn't resigned since 1415.  For some perspective, at that time, the New World hadn't been discovered yet, Protestantism didn't exist, and the Gutenberg Press hadn't been invited, therefore, no bible in every home.  The Church has been around for 2000 years, so there is nothing new under the sun.  Thus we have laws and protocol for these things. 

Sede Vacante translates to “the Seat being vacant”, in reference to the fact that no one is currently sitting on the Chair of St. Peter, the first pope.  There are 4 ways this can happen: 1. The pope dies (most common)   2. The pope resigns  3. The pope is declared ipso facto (beyond doubt) insane  4. The pope is ipso facto heretical, and/or preaching against the Church (like openly worshiped an idol, kinda like Solomon did).  These have all happened before (with the insane one being before there was good documentation, so that is a rumor, but as a rule, it is still smart.  Can’t have an insane leader). In total, the Church has reasonable record of 9 popes resigning.  In addition to the pope being able to resign, Canon 332 §2 says “If it happens that the Roman Pontiff [the Pope] resigns his office, it is required for validity that the resignation is made freely and properly manifested but not that it is accepted by anyone”.  So technically, if someone tries to push the pope out of his office, its invalid, so even if he agreed, it wouldn't matter.  Kind of a fail-safe to protect against the State interfering with Church affairs.   And you thought Separation of Church and State was to protect the State; well not originally at least.  It also says that he doesn't need anyone’s approval to do this.  He’s the Pope!  He does what he does.

Which leads me to my next point.  Being the leader of the Church has a lot of power with the title.  Some might call it too much for one man.  Men throughout history have tried to ascertain, thru unethical means, the papacy. That’s why we need all these rules.  There is a phrase I've seen around that I feel has a lot of truth to it. “Those who want the papacy don’t usually get it, and those who get the papacy don’t always want it”.  The pope has a lot on his shoulders.  He is accountable to God to get all the souls of the world, not just Catholic ones, into heaven.  Priests worry about the all souls in their church’s jurisdiction, the bishop has to worry about all the souls in their diocese (a collection of churches in one area), but the pope has the world.  That’s daunting.  Now, they won’t be able to get everyone to heaven, but they must do all they can.  Because of this fact, it has long been thought that some of the deeper pits in hell are laced with bad Bishops, who had a job to save souls, and dropped the ball.  Yes the pope has a lot of power, but to quote Uncle Ben “With great power comes great responsibility”.

Now why did Pope Benedict XVI resign?  Well, the man is 85.  He is the 4^th oldest pope, ever.  Or at least that is documented since 1295.  They didn't keep good notes back in the day.  Could you imagine your grandpa, at age 85, traveling the world every month to host talks and bless people, as well as have the mental ability to run the Church?  I can’t.  My grandma is 82 and she is out of it.  You can’t leave her alone, or else she’ll fall over and break all her bones, and talking to her is like talking to a very distracted preteen.  I am not bashing the pope in any way, but man has limits.   B16 has been keeping it together fairly well, and has conceded that even though God ordained him as Pope, he is no longer able to properly fulfill that position.  A very humble move, I think.  Now is a momentous time. Let us await the arrival of the next pope and all God has in store for His church thru him.

Welcome to Unapologetic Apologetics

This blog is to be a public outlet.  I have been Catholic my whole life, and having received rudimentary training for the first 18 years of my life, I started going deeper.  Upon going deeper, what I discovered was amazing.  The deeper you went, I had assumed, the more murky and reliant on unfounded faith it must be. But I was so wrong.  When you looked deeper, it supported the rudimentary training in a way I had only seen in one other subject that I enjoy thoroughly.  Math.  We were all taught as children that the circumference of a circle is 2*pi*radius, while the area is pi*radius squared.  Do you know why?  Well, its what your teacher told you. One day, I asked my teacher why, and though she didn't know, she knew it worked and that people had figured it out a long time ago.  Such child-like acceptance. I excelled in Math and I thought it interesting how it worked.  And then one day, in Calculus 3, we discussed how the integral of the circumference of a circle is its area. The two were related!  Using that circle, if you made a sphere, the volume of that sphere was the integral of the area.   Using the same principle for the easier to understand equation, they found something even cooler.  1D became 2D which became 3D.  Did I fully understand why?  Not really, not fully anyway.  But I began to discover in higher mathematics, that the basics we had learned could be explained.  But as children, our teacher couldn't explain to us integrals.  I was 19 before that made sense.  So is the Church.  As children, we are taught (half the time due to lack of properly trained teachers) things that the teachers themselves didn't fully understand.  But by looking throughout history, someone spent their life trying to figure this out.  It is just as foolish to throw away the principles given to us by thinkers like Aquinas and John of the Cross as it would be to ditch Eulers Method or Laplace Transforms.  Just because you, personally, may not fully understand why they work, that doesn't make them not true.

Having received a degree in Electrical Engineering, it is more understandable why I would love such a subject.  I will use math as an analogy of the Church often, for just as Math is the study and utilization of numbers, progressing and learning with great mathematicians thru history, the Church has 2000 years of study and trial and error and utilization of God's presence/will, progressing and learning with the help of great theologians.  I will try to explain math concepts that not everyone would understand, but there is no harm in learning something new.

In summary, this blog will be my attempt to assuage all those people who have learned the equation for the circumference of a circle, but don't know why it is what it is.  There is a great chance that I won't be able to fully satisfy some's hunger, but I will assuredly do my best.  I started by polling some friends of mine and I received from the 13 distinct topics.  Even though these 13 don't cover an iota of the vast realm of Catholicism, its a great place to start.  Let's journey and learn together.