The Divine Life

Why We Were Created
a blog by Eric Sammons

Archive for January, 2011

January 28, 2011

Catholics and the Bible

I recently had two articles published on the topic of Catholics and the Bible:

From Catholic Online: Catholics and the Bible: Is the Bible the Only  Source of Christian Beliefs? In which I discuss the problem of sola scriptura.

From OSV Newsweekly: A Catholic Approach to the Bible. In which I delve into Verbum Domini, the pope’s recent apostolic exhortation on the role of the Bible in the Church.

Check them out!

Update: OSV has graciously made my article available without a subscription; I have updated the link accordingly. But get a subscription to OSV Newsweekly anyway!

Scripture

January 27, 2011

Updated: Most Popular Catholic Blogs

Last June I created a program to rank the most popular Catholic blogs by Google subscribers. I made a number of disclaimers about my ranking system, but all in all it was a pretty accurate way to gauge a blog’s popularity compared to other Catholic blogs.

I decided to update the list, for a number of reasons:

First, I wanted to see the increase in subscribers for the most popular blogs. I was surprised at how many new subscribers some blogs received. For example, the #1 blog – Fr. Z’s What Does the Prayer Really Say? – went from 4,841 subscribers to 6,738 subscribers. That is a 40% increase in just over 6 months! It seems that Catholics are really taking to the New Media.

Second, I wanted to see if any blogs made a big jump (or fall) in the past six months. It actually stayed pretty close to the same – the only big leaps being made due to some changes in my program (see my next point).

Third, after running the program last time, a few people noted that there were some discrepancies between their Google subscriber number and what I posted. This happened in a few cases where Google’s “default” feed for a blog was different than the main feed for the blog. The most egregious case was The Curt Jester, who wasn’t even on the list last time (having only 14 subscribers in his “default” feed), but is #4 now (with over 4,800 subscribers). Mark Shea’s blog also was effected by this discrepancy. I tried very hard to find any of these “missing” feeds and incorporate them into the updated list, but it is possible I missed a few again.

Also, I’ll repeat the disclaimer from the last time:

Big red disclaimer: this list is based on Google Reader subscribers only. I imagine that this is a good indicator of a blog’s popularity compared to other blogs, but it does not measure actual traffic to the site or the total number of subscribers across different feed readers. Furthermore, it doesn’t gauge a blog’s current popularity as much as its popularity over the full history of the blog.

Without further ado, here is the updated list, with number of subscribers listed after the blog name:

Top 25 Most Popular Catholic Blogs by Google Reader Subscribers

(1) What Does the Prayer Really Say?: 6738
(2) Whispers in the Loggia: 6386
(3) Catholic and Enjoying It!: 5154
(4) The Curt Jester: 4858
(5) Charlotte Was Both: 4319
(6) Conversion Diary: 3195
(7) New Advent Blog: 2005
(8) Creative Minority Report: 1632
(9) Patrick Madrid: 1507
(10) Damian Thompson: 1486
(11) Standing on my Head: 1419
(12) The Hermeneutic of Continuity: 1345
(13) Rorate Caeli: 1125
(14) The New Liturgical Movement: 1093
(15) Ask Sister Mary Martha: 1043
(16) First Thoughts: 1035
(17) Mere Comments: 916
(18) Ignatius Insight Scoop: 915
(19) Catholic Cuisine: 836
(20) By Sun and Candlelight: 832
(21) Nadafarm: 828
(22) Testosterhome: 779
(23) The Crescat: 763
(24) Happy Catholic: 745
(25) La Bella Vita! Bella’s Beautiful Life: 740

The updated Top 200 can be found at my main website.

(I’m also happy to report that my own blog cracked the Top 200 this time, coming in at #184 – not bad for a blog only two years old. You can subscribe to this blog here).

Blog,Geekiness,Technology

January 26, 2011

Did Paul tell Timothy that a bishop must have a wife?

This past weekend I had a good friend from Ohio and his family stay at my place for the March for Life. He is Presbyterian, but they are committed pro-lifers and devout Christians. At one point we were talking about deacons in the Catholic Church and the difference between transitional deacons and permanent deacons. This then led to a discussion of the requirement of celibacy for priests and bishops (and transitional deacons) in the Catholic Church. Of course, this passage from 1 Timothy came up:

The saying is sure: If any one aspires to the office of bishop, he desires a noble task.

Now a bishop must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, sensible, dignified, hospitable, an apt teacher, no drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, and no lover of money. He must manage his own household well, keeping his children submissive and respectful in every way; for if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how can he care for God’s church? He must not be a recent convert, or he may be puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil; moreover he must be well thought of by outsiders, or he may fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

Deacons likewise must be serious, not double-tongued, not addicted to much wine, not greedy for gain; they must hold the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience. And let them also be tested first; then if they prove themselves blameless let them serve as deacons. The women likewise must be serious, no slanderers, but temperate, faithful in all things. Let deacons be the husband of one wife, and let them manage their children and their households well; for those who serve well as deacons gain a good standing for themselves and also great confidence in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.
(1 Timothy 3:1-13 emphasis added)

My Presbyterian friend interprets this passage to mean that a pastor or other person in church leadership must have a wife and children in order to be eligible for his position. Only when a man has proven to be able to “manage his own household” can he be trusted to manage church affairs. Of course, this interpretation clashes with the Roman Catholic practice of only ordaining unmarried men to the priesthood and episcopacy. So is the Church in violation of Scripture? I thought today, the feast of Sts. Timothy and Titus, would be a good time to address this issue.st_timothy

Before getting to the point at hand, note that Paul does not mention priests in this passage. Why is that? A background of the leadership structure of the 1st century Church is helpful. During Paul’s time, there were three categories of leaders in the Church – apostle, bishop (or “overseer”) and deacon.

The office of apostle was reserved only for those people who had seen the risen Lord directly and had a special mission to tell others about it. This office, by its very nature, could only exist temporarily in the Church, for once all those who had directly witnessed the Risen Christ had died, there was no pool of qualified applicants available. Paul, obviously, was an apostle.

Bishops were appointed by the apostles to lead local churches. Their primary job was to pass on the Faith handed on by the apostles and to be the head of the local church. When a bishop died, another was appointed to take his place (and was ordained by other nearby bishops).

Deacons were appointed by their local bishops to help serve their local church. These men would assist at Mass and would help the poor in the area.

Note that there are no priests in this structure. The simple reason for this is that there was no need for them yet. Local churches were small enough that one bishop could celebrate the Mass which everyone could attend. Basically a bishop was both a bishop and a pastor. Over time, the churches grew and grew and eventually (although no one knows exactly when), men were needed who were not bishops but could celebrate the Mass when a bishop was not available. Eventually these men would become vital parts of the hierarchy, although their requirement for celibacy would differ between East and West. I think everyone would agree, however, that Paul’s advice to Timothy would apply to priests as well as bishops and deacons.

But back to the point at hand. Did bishops (and deacons) have to be married, according to Paul?

First – and most important – Paul himself was not married. If a bishop was required to be married in order to be qualified for church leadership, how could an apostle like Paul – who was higher in the hierarchy than a bishop – be qualified as an unmarried man? Tradition also holds that John the apostle was unmarried (as well as many of the other apostles), so clearly being married was not a requirement for being a leader in the Church.

Secondly, very, very early in tradition (so early we don’t know when it started), bishops were assumed to be celibate. Although you find some married bishops in the 3rd and 4th centuries, most evidence suggests that they practiced complete continence after their episcopal consecration. If Paul demanded that all bishops be married, why did the Church so quickly require her bishops to be unmarried (or at least completely celibate)? We have no evidence that there was any serious debate about this issue at the time, so clearly no Christians believed Paul was making such an argument. Did they just all have a huge blind spot, or perhaps did Paul not mean that all bishops must be married?

Finally, there is the example of Jesus himself. If being married and having kids is so important to church leadership, why didn’t Jesus get married and have children? After all, he is the true head of the Church, and all church leaders are to imitate him in their ministry.

Ultimately what Paul is saying in this passage is that no one should be appointed to church leadership who has not led a publicly upstanding lifestyle up to this point. If a man being considered for the office of bishop is married, then he had better have a solid marriage and good children. If he is not married, then his life up to now must similarly be upstanding and virtuous. Picking someone who has not proven that he can manage his household – whether that household contains one member or ten – is a recipe for disaster. Let us pray that the Church continues to abide by Paul’s advice and only selects such men for the offices of bishop, priest and deacon.

Sts. Timothy and Titus, pray for us!

Apologetics,Scripture

January 25, 2011

YIM Catholic reviews “Who is Jesus Christ?”

Frank Weathers over at Why I Am Catholic just reviewed my book Who is Jesus Christ? Unlocking the Mystery in the Gospel of Matthew:

Yesterday I wrote about classic books in the packs and pockets of the saints and how reading them can help us too. For example, St. Francis de Sales (whose feast day is tomorrow) and his worn copy of Dom. Scupoli’s The Spiritual Combat. St. Teresa of Avila turned from reading trashy romance novels to reading books like Francisco de Osuna’s The Third Spiritual Alphabet.

Francisco himself constantly references the works of Jean Gerson, which were over 100 years old by the time he read them. I recommend Gerson to you as well.

When the saints above were picking up these volumes, however, they were written by their contemporaries. So just like them, I’m going to recommend a new book to you today: Who Is Jesus Christ? Unlocking the Mystery in the Gospel of Matthew by Eric Sammons.

Continue reading

Who is Jesus Christ?

Youth Rally & Mass

Yesterday I went to the March for Life, but before that, I attended the Youth Rally & Mass for Life at the Verizon Center (yes, I know I’m not a “youth”, but I brought my kids so they’d let me in!). The Rally & Mass are incredible, as 20,000 young Catholics (and their chaperons) enthusiastically stand for life and beseech the Lord to help us in our struggle to defend unborn lives. This event is unabashedly Catholic (the M.C. jokingly called any non-Catholics at the event “the bravest people on earth”), and it was wonderful to sing and pray with so many young people who love the Lord and love the Catholic Church.

One of the most impressive moments of the event is during the opening procession, when hundreds of deacons and priests, and dozens of bishops, process in. The procession alone takes 20 minutes and is quite impressive. Here is a picture taken with my phone camera (click to enlarge):

Mass

Pro-life

January 24, 2011

Why I march

I’m attending the March for Life today, so I thought I’d link to the post I wrote for last year’s March:

Why I march

Pro-life

January 21, 2011

Day of Penance

Reminder: tomorrow, January 22nd, is a day of penance in the United States for violations against the dignity of the human person. Please consider making some sacrifice, in union with our Lord’s ultimate sacrifice on the Cross, for the end of abortion, euthanasia and all sins against life.

Our Lady of Guadalupe, pray for us!

Pro-life

January 20, 2011

New trailer for “There Be Dragons” – and a release date!

A new trailer has been posted for the movie “There Be Dragons” and it emphasizes much more than previous trailers the central figure of St. Josemaría Escrivá:

Also, it looks like the release date has been set: May 6, 2011.

Saints

Gruesome Philly abortion clinic is the norm, not the exception

Most people by now have heard the tragic story of the abortionist in Philadelphia who has been arrested and charged with eight counts of murder – one for a pregnant women who allegedly died from an abortion at his hands and seven others for born children he allegedly killed by poking scissors in the back of their necks and severing their spinal cords. It appears that there have been complaints for years regarding this clinic, but government health officials did nothing to intervene:

Time and time again, authorities alerted to Kermit Gosnell’s filthy and macabre abortion clinic – and to the injured, diseased or dead women he left in his wake – failed to rattle the alarm bells loudly enough to shut his house of horrors, the district attorney’s grand-jury report found.

“The Department of State literally licensed Gosnell’s criminally dangerous behavior,” the report concluded, and the state Department of Health “gave its stamp of approval to his facility.”

The “callous killing of babies outside the womb” persisted “for years” because officials looked the other way, the report said.

The grand jury also found that people at the city’s Department of Public Health and city hospitals also learned of warning signals, but failed to act.

According to the grand jury’s report:

* The State Department, whose Board of Medicine licenses and oversees physicians, “could have stopped Gosnell single-handedly.” About a decade ago, a former Gosnell employee filed a complaint detailing the clinic’s unsterile conditions and unlicensed workers. But the department dismissed the complaint after an investigation, which did not include an inspection.

Shortly after, the department received a report of the death of Semika Shaw, 22, and closed the case without investigation, concluding that her death was an “inherent” risk that did not warrant suspending Gosnell’s license.

* As for the Pennsylvania Department of Health, the grand jury found it “deliberately” chose not to enforce laws that would have protected Gosnell’s patients.

After it approved the opening of Gosnell’s clinic in 1979, the department failed to conduct a site review until 10 years later, when violations were apparent.

Then, after 1993, the Health Department “abruptly decided, for political reasons, to stop inspecting abortion clinics at all,” the grand-jury report found, leaving “clinics to do as they pleased.” (Emphasis Added)

Note especially that last line: the Health Department has not inspected abortion clinics – where major surgeries are performed – for over 17 years. Yet consider this quote from the city’s health commissioner:

[Donald] Schwarz, the city’s health commissioner since 2008, said yesterday that his department would work better to report complaints to state officials. He stressed that the public should know that Gosnell’s clinic was “abnormal” and “not the norm for abortion care.”

How would Schwarz know this? They don’t inspect abortion clinics!

For those who have been involved in pro-life activism, Schwarz’s claim rings hollow. Time and time again abortion clinics have been found to be unsanitary, unsafe and medically dangerous (always for the child and usually for the mother as well). Yet because of pressure from the pro-abortion lobby, abortion clinics are completely unregulated.

Many people are familiar with Operation Rescue and know of the clinic blockades they organized in the late 1980′s/early 1990′s. However, with the advent of more draconian laws against such activities, Operation Rescue changed their tactics and they now work to shut down abortion clinics through legal means by exposing the health violations of these clinics. Troy Newman, the head of Operation Rescue, has stated that he has never encountered an abortion clinic that didn’t have significant violations – even by the pro-abortion standards of our health system. And this should not be shocking – anyone who decides to make a living killing innocent children is unlikely to be worried too much about the health of the mothers.

Pray for the conversion of all abortionists and abortion clinic workers. They are not beyond God’s grasp and He desperately wants them to come to a saving knowledge of His Son.


Pro-life

January 19, 2011

Will “dialogue” end abortion – or just the abortion debate?

I was recently reading an orthodox Catholic publication, and a writer (a pro-lifer) was advocating the need for more “dialogue” in the national abortion debate. dialoguesShe argued that the two sides had become calcified in their positions, but if they would just dialogue, then perhaps progress would be made. Although this argument is a common one made in many political debates today – immigration, the role of government, etc. – it is not exactly defined what this “dialogue” should entail. But the assumption seems to be that if people were not so rigid in their position, then compromise can occur and the problem will be solved.

Is this really the case with abortion? Should we “dialogue” with those who are pro-abortion? It depends on what you mean by dialogue.

  • If it means discussing the issue with those on the other side in a respectful manner, then absolutely. We believe every person is made in the image and likeness of God and therefore deserves respect. Although someone might be horribly wrong in their beliefs, we still must respect them as persons, even if we don’t respect their viewpoint.
  • If it means that we engage in vigorous debates with pro-abortion forces, then absolutely. We should never be afraid to confront evil and we should be willing to stand for truth in every situation.

However,

  • If it means that we compromise our beliefs in order to “end” the debate, then absolutely not. There are certain “non-negotiables” in the Catholic Faith, and the evil of every abortion is one of them.

For example, the common refrain we hear from pro-abortion advocates is that pro-lifers, if they are really against abortion, should support comprehensive sex education and contraceptive use. Not only is this contrary to the moral teachings of the Church, it has proven to be a disaster and to increase abortions. Such a “compromise” is essentially a capitulation.

The fact remains that our goal is to make all abortions prohibited by law and unaccepted by society. When the campaigns to stop cigarette smoking or drunk driving were in full swing, their advocates did not “dialogue” with those who opposed them. They relentlessly continued to march forward, knowing that success only comes to those who persevere.

As always, we should take Jesus as our model. He did not “dialogue” with those who adamantly opposed God’s will (see Matthew 23). But he did lovingly discuss the ways of God with those who were not living moral lives and were willing to see the light (see John 4). We should do likewise.

Pro-life

January 18, 2011

But can it answer “Who do you say that I am?”

This is both cool and slightly creepy:

Technology

January 14, 2011

Never give up

The most important virtue for building a life of prayer is perseverance. Remember that as you watch this video:

Miscellaneous

January 13, 2011

Sunday Night Live with Fr. Benedict Groeschel

As promised, here is my guest appearance on Fr. Benedict’s show:

Who is Jesus Christ?

January 12, 2011

Is my egg-head scrambled or sunny side up?

The past 20 years or so have seen an explosion of conversions from Protestantism to Catholicism. During that time, a certain common narrative seems to be associated with these conversions (including my own):

  • Protestant is a devout Christian who knows his faith and initially has no interest in the Catholic Church.
  • Some issue or event spurs the Protestant to investigate the claims of the Catholic Church.
  • This leads to more and more study of the Church’s teachings, in spite of internal and external resistance to the idea.
  • Through a long study of the Scriptures and early Church, Protestant begins to realize that Catholic Church is “The Church.”
  • Finally, after much prayer, Protestant decides to become Catholic.

On the other hand, there has also been an even greater exodus out of the Catholic Church over the past 40 years. Some of that is people leaving Christianity altogether, but much of it is Catholics becoming Evangelical. The narrative for that type of conversion is usually along the lines of:

  • Catholic grows up with little training in the Catholic faith.
  • Catholic barely, if at all, practices his faith as he gets older.
  • At some point, Catholic realizes that there is more to religion than felt banners and banal homilies.
  • Catholic is invited to an Evangelical Protestant service and meets devout, good people who are on fire for the Lord.
  • Catholic decides to become Evangelical.

Yes, I realize that there are generalizations in these narratives, but I think most of us recognize that in many cases they broadly represent reality. Norm Geisler, a prominent Evangelical, sums it up like this:

So, while we are losing a few intellectual egg-heads out the top of evangelicalism to Rome, we are gaining tens of thousands of converts out the bottom from Catholicism. The trade-off highly favors evangelicalism.

Source: Dr. Beckwith

Even aside from the derogatory “egg-head” comment, this is an interesting analysis from Mr. Geisler. He basically admits that converts to Catholicism are intellectual, thus acknowledging that they have studied their faith, while converts to Evangelicalism are basically “falling out” of the Catholic Church without any real knowledge of Catholicism (or Protestantism) before their conversion. Even though the raw numbers today favor Evangelicalism, is this movement really to the benefit of the Evangelical’s cause?

It seems to me that, long-term, I would prefer to have converts who deeply know (and love) both their previous faith and their new one. Converts who must agonize over their conversion, studying every angle of it, are usually those who most seriously embrace it after it is done. Those who convert for basically emotional reasons (I saw on-fire people and want that for myself) are much more likely to eventually drift away. But the “egg-head” convert, with the grace of God, is going to be much more likely to spread his new-found faith to others, understanding both what is good about their previous faith and why he left it.

All in all, I’ll take the egg-heads. Sunny side up (perhaps that should be “Son-ny side up”?), not scrambled.

Protestantism,The Church

January 11, 2011

What every Catholic can learn from Steve Jobs

Last week the Consumer Electronics Show was held in Las Vegas and the big buzz was for tablet computers. It seems every tech company is jumping on the craze created by Apple’s iPad. What I found fascinating was comparing the sales pitch for these new tablets with the one given by Apple CEO Steve Jobs last year when he announced the iPad.

  • When Jobs was talking about the iPad, he spoke about it being “magical” and how it is a great way to experience the Internet. He gave practical examples of using the iPad and emphasized its ease of use and how fun it is to use.
  • When the various CEOs this past week introduced their tablets, they talked about how they had dual-processors, included so many gigs of memory, and ran the latest Android OS. They reiterated the great tech specs their tablet had compared to the iPad and other tablet devices.

ipad-420x0Which do you think is the more effective sales technique? The non-Apple CEOs were selling toothpaste; Steve Jobs was selling white teeth. Instead of focusing on the details of his product, Jobs instead focuses on how his product will change people’s lives.

So why am I discussing selling tablets on this blog? Because I am, down-deep, a tech geek? Perhaps, but I think this topic tells us something about how to effectively evangelize. Although it can be crude to compare evangelization to sales, in both cases you are trying to influence the decision-making of another person.

If you look at the early Church, especially in New Testament times, you see that the first apostles took the “white teeth” approach to evangelization. They proclaimed that they had seen the risen Lord and that he had transformed their lives. Again and again St. Paul speaks of the transformation his experience with Christ had on his life – and that others can have the same transformation. He did not get into the details of exactly how Christ is God or things of that nature; he spoke of the power of Christ to change lives.

When evangelizing, eventually one will need to discuss the details of the Faith: exactly what the Church teaches and why. But that is not the “lead” in effective evangelization; instead we must proclaim that Christ has changed our lives and that he can change yours as well. Those who are in most need of Christ will be drawn to our experience and it will lead them to want to know more about this Jesus Christ and his Church that have so radically changed our lives.

Evangelization

kvindelige viagra