CHAPTER ONE

GOD

Proof of God's existence

1.   I am an atheist who wants his difficulties answered without being accused of moral depravity.

I believe, in the ultimate analysis, with Pascal, that there are two classes of men, those who are afraid to find God, and those who are afraid to lose God. But, to spare you, I will admit that your fear that there might be a God may be perhaps unconscious. Of those who say that they are atheists some are merely unintelligent and do not think; others do think, but merely reject false ideas of God, without knowing how to replace them with the right idea. Since you are not unintelligent I rank you amongst the latter class. Will I accuse you of being morally evil? Of course, I maintain that atheism cannot exist without sin of some kind. If you do not deny God in order to be free from moral restraints, I would have to accuse you at least of a guilty neglect to examine the question as you should. That God exists is certain for everyone with a right conscience.

2.   I have been told that the universe itself is proof of God, on the score that it must have had a Creator.

That is a sound argument, for as no individual thing in this universe is self-sufficient, the whole collection of individual things cannot be self-sufficient. If each separate atom is unable to explain itself, all together will be as inexplicable as each. Multiplication does not change the nature of things.

3.   Is it not possible that matter itself is eternal?

I admit that it would be possible for an Eternal Cause to produce eternally some basic created reality. We know from revelation that God did not create from eternity. But it would have been possible for Him to do so. However, you must note this. The appeal to the eternity of matter, which cannot be proved, does not exclude the necessity of an outside Cause. The mere duration of a thing does not explain its existence. You cannot explain a running train by saying innocently, "Why it was always running." In the universe we see a succession of causal mutations, each succeeding stage being caused by a preceding stage, and in turn causing a subsequent stage. Every element is dependent, and no one element can explain itself independently of the rest. And if each link in a chain is dependent, the whole chain is dependent. An eternal series of dependent and caused things can be reasonably explained only by One who is independent and uncaused, who exists with a complete self-sufficiency not to be found in finite things.

In passing, let me call your attention to the problem of life. Even if matter be eternal, there was certainly a time when life did not exist on this earth, and certainly a time when it began to exist. Any belief that it began spontaneously, and without the creative power of God, is credulity, and unworthy of a reasonable man.

4.   Were you to request God to put in an appearance, or manifest His presence beyond doubt to the satisfaction of experimental science, the result would be nil.

Such a request would be absurd. God, as He is in Himself, is immaterial, and experimental science deals with material things. You might as well offer to believe in the Archangel Gabriel provided I dig up his bones. Experimental science does not cover the whole field of reality. It abstracts from the spiritual field altogether, save indirectly at most.

5.   People may believe that there is a God, but they cannot know it.

By the use of their reason they can attain to a certain knowledge that God exists. The Vatican Council rightly defined as a dogma of Catholic Faith that natural human reason can know with certainty from the things which He has made that God exists.

6.   Unlike intrinsic evidence, extrinsic evidence is not conclusive.

Extrinsic evidence is certainly conclusive. I have no intrinsic evidence that Napoleon ever lived. I have the extrinsic evidence of a multitude of documents, and I am historically certain that he did live. Again, if I see the last car of a train disappearing into a tunnel, I have only extrinsic evidence of the existence of an engine at the other end of the train. Meantime, it is intrinsically evident that a tiling which does not contain the ultimate reason of its existence within itself, has that ultimate reason in an outside being. That principle is self-evident, and cannot be refuted. On that principle, a being which obviously is not self-caused is evidence of a cause outside itself, and gives sound and certain knowledge of the fact.

7.   The variety of philosophies now extant shows that your conclusion as to the existence of God is not beyond all argument.

That is true, but it is not to the point. I maintain that the conclusion is beyond all valid and reasonable argument, a very different thing. There is not a single argument against the existence of God which cannot be proved fallacious.

God's nature

8.   Is not nature itself divine?

Nature is the effect of a divine creative activity, but it is not itself divine. The word "nature" comes from the Latin "nasci," to be born. It is applied, therefore, to the original character or constitution of some object—a constitution which is the radical principle of all that it is and of all that it does. Thus, by its very "nature" a horse is not a human being. It is not natural to a horse to compose music. That is "natural" which is in accordance with some particular being's nature or constitution. Now we speak of the whole created universe as "Nature" itself. But since it is created—and we speak of it as "Creation"—it cannot be divine in its essential character and constitution.

9.   You insist, then, that God is distinct from nature?

Yes. The natural world is full of contradictions, and there can be no contradictions in God. The true and the false, good and evil, all manner of imperfections, ignorance, and knowledge, the conscious and the unconscious, constant movement and change—all these cannot possibly be synthesized into one Being called God. We know how different men desire different things and will different things. Men are obviously distinct from one another. They cannot, therefore, be identical with one and the same God. So if you are God, I am not. If I am God, you are not. And it is impossible to say that all is God. Yet if all is not God, all nature is not divine. The whole of creation may be the effect of divine activity, but the effect certainly is distinct from God.

10.   If God is present everywhere in the world, is not creation so inseparable from God as to be part of Him?

God does exist everywhere. He, therefore, co-exists with all created beings. Yet He cannot be identified with created beings. He is in a totally different order of existence. The concept is not difficult. Thought and matter are in different orders of being, yet both co-exist in the same head. A man's material brains could be weighed on a pair of scales; but that would not be weighing the thoughts produced by his soul with the help of those brains. So, too, a current of electricity occupies the same space as solid copper wire; but that mutual presence does not make the copper wire part of the electricity. God's presence everywhere does not make created things part of God. As a matter of fact, God is a purely spiritual Being who cannot have parts. Also, created things are finite or limited, and God is infinite. The finite cannot be part of the infinite. Whilst the universe has its very being "in" God because God is everywhere, God infinitely transcends the universe, differing from it in substance, nature, power, and perfection, and constituting a world of mysterious reality in Himself.

11.   What definition accurately conveys to the human mind an idea of the Deity?

Many human words convey accurately as far as they go, but not adequately, a notion of some aspect of God's perfections. But for a definition, not of an aspect of God, but simply of God, the most accurate of all human expressions, though still inadequate, is "The Self-existent Being." Thus, God described Himself to Moses in the words, "I am who am." Exod. III., 14. There is an immense depth of meaning in those few words.

God alone exists in His own right. Nothing else "is" of itself and apart from God's causality. All else is but a reflection—a shadow of being; and God is the Author of it. God alone "is"; all else "is dependent."

"I am He who is. Do not seek anywhere else," He may be interpreted to say, "to find the cause of My existence. By this I differ from everything else. This Name is proper to Myself, and I cannot give My glory to another."

God, then, is essential Being. And since every perfection must "be" in order to be a perfection, the plenitude of His Being is the plenitude of perfection. He is. He does not become, progressing from less to greater perfection. Eternal, He never ceases to be what He was, nor does He change to what He was not. He alone is undivided, infinite, identical, essential, and eternal Being; uncaused, yet causing all else to receive being and such degrees of perfection as He chooses to bestow.

God, then, is perfection of Being. He is Truth, for truth is that which is. He is Justice, for justice is the conformity of the will to truth. He is omnipotent, for all else is by Him; good, for evil is the destruction of the true; love, giving benefits to others. He has nothing to fear from any greater than Himself; nothing to envy in any better than Himself. He is Beauty, for beauty is but the splendor of Being, and Truth, and Goodness. All this, and much more, is contained in the simple expression, "I am He who is" as distinguishing God from every other being.

Supreme control over all things and the problem of suffering and evil

12.   You insist on the existence of God. Do you believe that He is a benevolent God, and that His providence extends to all things?

Yes, though I admit that you now introduce a problem which has baffled the keenest intelligences of all the centuries, and one the solution of which goes beyond the limits attainable by limited human reason. However, if reason cannot attain to a full and comprehensive explanation of this problem, it can go a certain distance towards a solution, and it can certainly refute objections against God proposed by human reason in view of the evils in this world.

13. Is everything that happens to man God's will?

From the negative point of view we can certainly say that those things which happen to men would not happen did God will that they should not happen. But, from the positive point of view, the question arises, '"Though nothing can happen against God's will, does God positively will all that does happen?" The answer is—not necessarily.

14.   When a person dies, is it God's will that he should do so?

In some cases a death, and all its circumstances, are God's positive will. In other cases, it may be merely God's permissive will. There is a difference between God's positive and God's permissive will. For example, if an employer orders a representative to go from London to Colombo, when the latter goes, he fulfills the positive will of his employer. On the other hand, the employer might express a preference that the representative should go via Capetown rather than via Suez, yet add, "I leave it to yourself to go via Suez if you prefer." If the representative goes via Suez, it is not against the will of his employer. It is at least with the permissive will of that employer, though not a formal command of his positive will. This is merely to show that there is a difference between a positive will and a permissive will; and it is an example which must be kept in mind when dealing with the question of moral and physical evil.

15.   If a man is murdered, is it God's will that he should die in that manner?

Since God forbids murder, it cannot be God's positive will that anyone should commit murder. At the same time, whilst people are morally obliged by the commandment, "Thou shalt not kill," they are no more physically compelled to keep that commandment than any other. For God has positively willed that man should be capable of a free choice between good and evil. And God's positive will that man should be free to choose the good must carry with it His permissive will of the evil should man abuse his liberty. If, then, a man commits murder, somebody will be murdered, and that also must be included in God's permissive will. So at least we must say that it was God's permissive will that the murdered man should die in that manner. But I could conceive a case where it would even be God's positive will. If a man were bent on murdering somebody despite God's prohibition, God could positively will that his victim should be one man rather than another. Then it would not be His positive will that the murderer should violate the law, yet it would be His positive will that the victim should meet with such a manner of death rather than another.

16.   In the latter case the murderer would be merely the instrument of God's will. How could he be held responsible?

The murderer is responsible because he is doing what God forbids, and what he is not in any way compelled to do. Granted that he insists on his guilty action, God will not prevent it because He cannot do so without depriving him of that free will which God will not take back. But he is not the instrument of God's positive will in his violation of the moral law. From the moral point of view he violates God's positive will, and he is responsible for it. On the other hand, whilst there is moral guilt in committing murder, there is no moral guilt in being murdered against one's will. That is why, if God sees a man bent on committing murder, He could positively will that this man rather than that should be the victim. I have personal knowledge of a case in which the wrong man was certainly chosen by a murderer whose vengeance was as ill directed as it was unlawful. And of all the men I have ever met personally, few would be as well prepared to meet God as the innocent victim, and few as quick to express complete forgiveness of his assailant. He immediately accepted it as God's will that he should die then, and that he should die in such a way. But that did not exempt the murderer from guilt.

17.   Why did God put us in a world whose natural disasters, such as earth-quakes, can destroy us?

St. Paul replied to this difficulty simply by saying, "Shall the thing formed say to Him that formed it, why hast Thou made me thus?" He stressed the supreme dominion of the Creator, and the limited rights of the creature.

Reason tells us that every created thing by virtue of being created must fall short of infinite perfection. It is bound to be a mixture of perfection and lack of perfection. This world has good features, and bad. We should thank God for the good, and leave to God, without any complaints, the fact that imperfection exists. That is better than forgetting the good, and spending one's life complaining that we do not possess still greater immunity from trials and difficulties.

18.   The sight of the evils in this world makes me doubt the existence of God.

Such a doubt is not reasonable. It is because you concentrate on some particular evils, failing to advert to the good, and above all failing to grasp the universal aspect of all creation. The positive evidence for God's existence and of His goodness is certain and solid. If we fail to understand all God's ways, that is evidence, not that God does not exist, but that our human intelligence is finite and limited. To say that we must fully comprehend all God's ways or deny that there is a God is to hold that the human mind is the infinite, ultimate, and infallible criterion of all truth. That is not reasonable.

19.   I cannot believe in a God who creates human beings only to know all kinds of physical pain and suffering.

You are not expected to believe in such a God. God did not create men for such a purpose. Two things are certain. There is a God. Pain and suffering are realities. It is foolish to abandon belief in either of these things because we have difficulty in reconciling them. If we find ourselves baffled, the only thing to do is to go on serving God. content to leave the final solution of the problem to Him.

20.   I get so indignant when I see suffering that I agree with the axiom, "The only excuse for God is that He does not exist."

Firstly, if there be no God, indignation is absurd. For then suffering is a necessary result of blind material forces. You might just as well get indignant with the sun for rising later in wintertime.

Secondly, the absurdity of the axiom you quote should be evident from the fact that any excusing supposes someone at fault; and if God is at fault, He exists. But let me add that, if He does exist, He cannot be at fault.

Meantime, the only explanation of evil is that God does exist. Evil cannot exist apart from positive beings to experience it. God did not create evil, but He did create all positive beings, permitting them to lack normal perfection at times.

Again, if you say that there is evil, therefore, there is no God; I reply, "There is good, therefore, there is a God." And my reason is stronger than yours, because the good certainly outweighs the evil in this world. And the good cannot be explained without God, whilst the evil can be explained with God. He permitted it only because He was good and powerful enough to draw from it a benefit greater than any harm it can effect.

21.   The sight of war, so utterly evil, would make any man indignant, I myself have fallen back on reason, and have become an atheist.

If there be no God, as you now maintain, there would be no men to be at war. And even if there were men, the result of a purely mechanical and necessary evolution, it would not be wrong for them to be at war. If a cog in a machine gets out of place, you are not morally indignant with that cog for its behavior. If there be no God, blind force produced men and produces their conduct. It is as foolish to blame them as to blame an oak tree for not growing straight.

As for the use of reason, take this principle. We must neither belittle nor exaggerate the powers of reason. Reason is powerful enough to prove that there is a God; but it is not powerful enough to understand all God's ways. That reason is not capable of understanding all God's ways does not mean that it is incapable of proving His existence. We cannot argue that, because we neither like nor understand what a fellow human being does, he does not, therefore, exist. You discredit reason even whilst professing to be guided by it.

22.   Christian Science tells us that you are trying to solve a problem which does not exist, for pain and suffering are not realities at all.

Both the existence of a good God and of pain and suffering are facts. And since both are facts they are not incompatible. That their complete reconciliation is not possible to the human mind I admit. We, therefore, speak of the mystery of suffering. But it is to behave like a school child to take an answer that pleases one, and then go back and tamper with the facts, adjusting them to fit one's conclusion.

Some people set out with the principle that human reason must be capable of understanding all things. They accept this principle despite the fact that history shows the almost infinite capacity of the human mind to go astray. Working on this unjustified principle they say, "We don't see how to reconcile a good God and suffering." So they go off into two camps, one section with the enthusiastic credulity of atheism, denying that any good God exists, the other section with equally enthusiastic credulity, denying that suffering exists.

The sensible man refuses to deny God or to deny suffering. He has the humility which admits the limitations of human reason, and the faith and trust which continue to serve God in the midst of adversity without tearful protests and moans of despair.

23.   If pain and suffering are real, God created them; if they are unreal, they are illusory.

God did not create evil, for evil is the negation of the good. Privations of perfection are not the objective of creative activity. God did create a free will in man capable of failing to do the good dictated by conscience, and positive sense-faculties capable of experiencing pain. Yet pain and moral evil are actual phenomena in this world, and not merely illusions. We do experience an absence of normal health in our bodies, and of moral rectitude in our will. And neither experience is pleasant.

24.   Does it not seem strange that God, knowing that would happen, should create man free to please or offend Him? If He could not foresee the future it could be more easily understood.

If God could not foresee the future, instead of being more easily understood, things would be absolutely inexplicable. It is precisely because He foresaw the future, and the greater good He will draw out of these present evils, that He has permitted them.

But, apart from this, why did God, knowing what would happen, create men free to please Him or offend Him?

Firstly, because His foreknowledge in no way makes anyone offend Him. Knowledge does not cause things to happen. Things which happen give rise to the knowledge of them.

Secondly, God gave us free will so that we might have the nobler dignity of being masters of our own destiny, not having to serve Him necessarily and blindly as do trees and inanimate planets and stars. God did not want a forced love from beings capable of an intelligent appreciation of the good. But once God makes man free, man is free either to love God or to reject God; to serve Him, or to rebel against Him. That is, physically. No man is morally free to reject God. God, therefore, forbids that, warning us of its disastrous results.

At any rate, there is a God, and we are free. If we cannot see a satisfactory explanation of the difficulties that occur to us, then we trust God in such matters. Many speculative questions which human curiosity would like to have solved have been left mysteries, either because our minds could not grasp the solution even if they were explained, or simply because God does not choose to justify Himself to His own creatures yet.

CHAPTER TWO

MAN

Destiny of man

25.   I would like to ask some questions about man's nature and origin, matters over which I have often pondered.

They are important questions, though more important still is the question of man's ultimate destiny. However, it is important that man should know himself. Many people want to know what everything else is, yet have little knowledge of themselves, despite their being so much more important than the lesser things provided for their use and benefit.

26.   Even if you prove that the soul is different in origin and nature from the body, what is the gain to humanity?

Immense. Firstly, men would have a right idea of themselves and of a future life awaiting them. Secondly, men would be moved to take the appropriate means to provide for that future. You see, not belonging to the material order, the soul does not follow the course of material things. It does not return to nature and to reabsorption in the universe, but to the great Principle from which it derived its existence by creation. It returns to God, and to a destiny transcending space and time. That eternal destiny will be either good or evil, according to the moral state of the soul when it goes from this world. That surely is an important consideration, and right ideas on the subject cannot but be a gain to humanity.

Death

27.   Is it inevitable that the body should die?

Yes, unless a special miracle were to be wrought in some individual case by Almighty God.

28.   Surely science in the end will conquer even death.

Science will never free man from the necessity of having to die. Death is as natural to man as it is to all other living things on the face of the earth, whether they be plants or animals. Death is the condition of the continuity of life in this world. The death of preceding generations is the condition for the existence of succeeding generations and in every individual the law of death prevails. Every part of man's bodily organism has its own definite term of vitality. Old cells die and new cells are formed continually. Every movement, and every use of energy means death to a certain amount of tissue. And in the end, should man escape disease or accident, the day must come when the worn-out organism will fail to produce new cells required for continued existence. The entire organism will then die.

29.   Even now life is prolonged by scientific means.

Illness may be temporarily arrested, but that does not mean that science can preserve people from ultimate death. To render man immortal in this life science would have to exclude every possible type of disease, all risk of accident, and the whole process of natural decay in every individual human being. Such a thing will never be.

30.   Would you regard a scientifically produced immortality us a challenge to God?

There will never be a scientifically produced immortality of the body. By scientific means men may do their best to prolong life against the ravages of disease, but they will never succeed in prolonging it indefinitely. But, whilst a scientifically produced immortality will never be a fact, the man who asserts that science will eliminate the necessity of having to die does issue a challenge to God. For God has told us that "it is appointed unto man once to die, and after that the judgment." Heb. IX., 27. We cannot, therefore, maintain that man will escape death by any natural means and secure an immortal life on earth.

Immortality of man's soul

31.   Are you sure that, though the body must die, the soul will live on?

Yes, quite sure.

32.   If only the fear that death might end all could be replaced by a firm conviction of a future life, many people would be made happy.

That is true. But it is also true that many would be rendered unhappy. There are two classes of people. Some fear that death might be the end of all. Some fear that it might not. Man cannot get away from his moral consciousness. Evil carries with it a sense of impending retribution, and those given to evil are rendered uneasy, not by the thought that death ends all, but by the thought that it might not. They have no desire to meet a just and omnipotent God.

33.   What proof is there that the soul will live on?

We have the certainty of God's revelation. Christ said very definitely, "I go to prepare a place for you, that where I am you also may be." Jn. XIV., 3. That you have a prospect of eternal happiness means that you will survive. Again, Christ tells us that He will judge all mankind. Souls will have to be present for that judgment.

34.   If a man believed in God, but did not believe in revelation, would not the question of immortality be unaffected?

Even apart from revelation such a man would have to admit immortality.

God is wise. He made man the highest form of creation in this world, and endowed him with reason. Man alone can know his Maker. And as love follows the knowledge of what is good, man can love his Maker. It would be an insult to the wisdom of God to suggest that He made such a being to live but a few years and then to end like a tree or a dog. And God is not only wise; He is just. If there is no future life, what of justice? Good and evil are not balanced in this life. Good people often suffer; the evil often do well. In fact, if there is no future life, there is no true morality, for there is no sufficient sanction. Rob, lie, murder—only be careful! If there be immortality, we can understand God reserving the full manifestation of justice for the next life. But if there be no immortality, then there is no God at all. For the dreadful doctrine that there is no immortality, the proofs should be pretty strong. But what proofs are there? There are none. Moreover, God is good. If you could save the life of a good man you would be glad to do it. Will you admit a God who allows good people to die for justice despite His ability to save them from death? The martyrs went to their death blessing and loving God. Would He let them do that knowing that He had nothing in store for them save the death of dogs? Believe me, the human soul is immortal.

35.   How will the soul know anything when separated from the body? When unconscious through an injury to the brain, man knows nothing.

The soul does not depend upon the body for its existence. But for the operation of thought it does need the use of that bodily organ we call the brain, so long as it exists in our present composite state. By the body the soul is linked with this material world. And at present, material impressions drawn from physical experience provide the foundation for thought. Strictly speaking, thought is independent of the brain. There is no real proportion between thought-activity and brain-activity. Whilst the soul remains united to the body, an affectation of the brain can cripple the thought-activities of the soul; even as a broken instrument can hinder the operations of an expert worker. But, when separated from the body, the soul will be in totally different conditions—conditions adapted entirely to its spiritual character, and independent of material limitations.

36.   Psychologically, what will be the nature of a separated soul's experiences?

They will consist in the intellectual vision of purely spiritual realities, and a power to appreciate them. The soul does not see these realities now, because it is immersed in the body, and hindered from seeing in another light. Its proper spiritual light fades before sensitive experience. The light of the sun does not help us to see the stars. It obscures them. Yet the light of the sun is really dim compared with that of the stars. It is merely the nearest light. So death will be but a "revealing night." It will give spiritual freedom to the soul, emancipating it from the chains of mere matter. Then the soul will be immediately conscious of itself and of other beings invisible to us now. It will enter into its own world. It will be conscious of all other spiritual beings, and above all, of God. Here below, we gain fragmentary ideas of God by the study of His work in the whole of creation. After death has released the soul from the body, the soul will come into immediate contact with God as He is in Himself, provided it has deserved to do so. At any rate, God is meant to be the terminus of the soul's journey, so that life will carry us back to the Source of all life. Serious and unrepented sin can alone hinder its doing so, the result then being the disastrous wreckage in hell of all hopes and aspirations.

Pre-existence denied

37.   Granted that human souls are immortal, and endowed with intelligence and freewill, do they exist in eternity before their advent to this world?

The soul is created by God at the moment of conception. Prior to its creation it is simply non-existent. Some of the ancient Greek philosophers taught that the human soul had an existence before its union with the body, and that it is imprisoned in the body as a punishment for sins committed in its previous life. Aristotle refuted these opinions, pointing out the absurdity of an intelligent soul continuing its existence, yet having absolutely no memory of its previous doings, discoveries, and aspirations. Again, if we turn to the idea of punishment, it is irrational to have souls punished for unknown crimes in such a way that they can neither correct their faults nor acknowledge the justice of the penalty. Finally, if the soul pre-existed, it would do so as a complete entity in its own right. When united with the body, it could not form one composite personality such as we know man to be. Its presence in the body would be a kind of violent possession by an alien spirit. Such an idea is quite opposed to the naturalness of the union between soul and body—a union whose dissolution awakens so much mental apprehension and anxiety. It is certain, then, that human souls do not pre-exist.

The human free will

38.   You suggest that our eternal fate depends upon ourselves?

Yes. It is certain that man has freewill, and can choose what his eternal fate will be. If a man is in a state of serious sin and dies in such a state he will go to hell. But he need not have remained in such a state until death look him. At any moment he could have turned to God, repented of his sins, got forgiveness and chosen a line of conduct which would result in the salvation of his soul.

39.   Some people deny freewill.

That is to deny a fact of which we are all quite conscious. I know quite well that, if I am answering these questions for you, it is because I have freely chosen to do so. Had I wished, I could have thrown your letter aside, and simply ignored it. At any moment whilst answering, I am free to cease, and turn to the next letter. To tell me that I haven't freewill would be about as intelligible as telling me that I don't exist. The denial of freewill is absurd, and any position which can be reduced to absurdity collapses by the very fact.

40.   Do you not say that God is omnipotent, and that His providence extends to all things? In such a case we have to do as He has planned.

Therefore, since He has planned that we should act in many things according to our free choice, we have no option but to admit the existence of freewill.

41.   Then all we do is according to His will?

That we are free is according to His positive will; if we exercise that freedom in an evil direction, it is in accordance with His permissive will. I do not mean that He gives us permission in the moral sense to do evil, for He forbids that. But He permits us to be physically free in the sense that He will not compel us to be good in spite of ourselves.

42.   Does not that make God responsible for the evil we do?

No. For example, God wills that I should not commit murder. But He has also willed that I should possess freewill, and be master of my own destiny. That necessarily carries with it the possibility of either obeying God's law, or of rebelling against it. And by the very gift of freedom, God must will to permit my defection from duty, even though He forbids it. In His very omnipotence He does not use His omnipotence to prevent my crime. I see many things done which I feel that I would certainly prevent if I had only half God's power. I feel sure that I wouldn't be strong enough to restrain myself. To be able to do it, yet not to do it, would be too much for me. But if I were God, and absolutely omnipotent, and had His wisdom, then just what God does and permits, I would do and permit. All that happens therefore is in accordance with God's will insofar as that will includes all circumstances, and conditions, and interdependent secondary agents, and the many influences which provide a problem ever bewildering to man.

43.   Since God willed both the death of Christ and its attendant circum-stances, where was the freedom of Judas in betraying Christ?

In the passion and death of Christ many things were due to God's positive will, but many, on the other hand, were due to God's permissive will. That God merely permitted Judas to indulge an evil will, and did not positively inspire his action, is evident from the Gospel itself. Had Judas been compelled to act as he did against his own will, he would not have been morally responsible. Yet the very Gospels which tell us of the fact that he did betray Christ, tell us also that he was morally guilty in doing so. Therefore he was free not to do so. Thus Christ reproached him, "Judas, dost thou betray the Son of Man with a kiss?" Our Lord did not say, "Judas, you have to do this, so I can scarcely blame you." So, too, in Acts I., 25, we are told that "Judas hath by transgression fallen." It is obvious, therefore, from Scripture, that Judas was responsible for his action.

A difficulty might arise in your mind from the fact that God had predicted through the prophets that Judas would betray Christ. But that does not prove compulsion. It was not predicted that Judas "must" betray Christ.  The prediction was based on the fact that he "would" do so by his own free choice. Judas did not do so because it had been predicted. More expressly we are certain that God's will was not impelling Judas because we are clearly told by God's word that "Satan entered into Judas," and that he then went to the chief priests. Lk. XXII., 3-4.  Now the will of Satan is radically opposed to the will of God. But this leads to a second possible difficulty. If not compelled by the will of God, was Judas compelled by the will of Satan? It is obvious that he was not, since the Gospels hold him to be personally responsible. If Judas did the will of Satan it was because he freely consented to do so. There was no need for him to do so; and if he obeyed the suggestions of Satan, he did so voluntarily. We know, too, of our Lord's own efforts to win him to better dispositions prior to the crime.

44.   God makes man, and also the will of man. Man did not make his awn will any more than he gave himself his intelligence.

You are confusing man's will as a radical power of choice with its exercise in a given direction. The two things are not the same. God made man's will, but He did not "make it up" for man, so that it was determined independently of man in a given direction. Man makes the choice his will enables him to make, though he need not make that choice. If man exercises his power in a wrong way, it is not the power that causes him to do so; it is man's own soul and personality which uses its will wrongly. The murderer does not make his own hand; but he makes that hand throttle his victim. There is a difference between the possession of a power and the use of that power.

Determinism absurd

45.   Leaving God out of it, I still do not believe in freewill. I believe in psychological determinism.

There are no facts of psychology which justify the denial of freewill.

46.   Medical men say that a man is, for good or evil, what his brain cells make him.

Not all medical men say that. Those who do may know their physiology, but they betray lamentable ignorance of psychology and philosophy. Brain cells are still brain cells, whether they are living or dead. If they are dead, they cannot make a man anything. If they are living, they owe it to a principle of life distinct from themselves. That principle of life is the rational soul of man. Brain cells do not produce thought. The intelligent soul produces thought, using the data provided by the brain as the central exchange recording sense-experiences in the various terminal faculties.

It is quite true that the soul is "conditioned by" the body and by the brain, just as any worker by the quality of his instruments. And in this sense, inherited bodily characteristics or defective bodily qualities can affect a man's character to a great extent. But that does not justify the statement that brain cells make a man good or evil, as if there were no other principles at work in him. Then, too, men equally endowed with well-formed brain cells can employ their capacity in totally different directions, one devoting to a criminal career faculties which would have carried him to the top of the ladder in some honest profession; another devoting intellectual powers to good purposes despite the fact that he could have employed them in criminal pursuits. It is not always a question of heredity. Nor does heredity obey invariable laws.

47.   Of course we like to think that we act according to our own deliberate choosing.

There are those who are tainted by an out-of-date materialistic philosophy who like to think that we do not act according to our own deliberate choosing. And they ignore the facts, whilst the normal judgment of the human race is in full accordance with the facts. The most advanced scientists and physicists today are coming back to common sense. In his book, "The Mysteries of the Atom," 1934, Professor Wilson says that in the materialistic conception of the universe prevailing in the nineteenth century, freewill was thought to be impossible, but that the new physics have upset that materialistic conception. "The course of events," he writes, "is not determined by the laws of nature; these merely enable the probability of each possible event to be calculated." What, then, controls the conduct of a human being if natural laws do not? Professor Wilson replies, "The only answer to this question is that we do not know—unless the brain is controlled by spiritual forces not usually included in the physicist's scheme." And he points out that, on the new wave-particle theory of physics, there is always a choice of many possible events for a human being, and that such freedom of will involves no violation of natural law according to the new scientific conception of the universe.

48.   If we know beforehand a person's psychological make-up, we know what he will do or say.

We do not know the psychological make-up of other people to any great extent. They do not know it themselves. Man is ever a mystery, even to himself. And such faint indications of psychological make-up as we do possess do not enable us to know in advance what our friends will do or say. We have at best a more or less probable conjecture, and our friends are liable at any moment to do the most unexpected things.

49.   We know the number of murders that will be committed next year. How could we know that, if criminals are free?

We do not "know" the number of murders that will be committed next year. From statistics we can form a probable conjecture. But the conjecture as to what will happen is no proof whatever that it must happen, or that individuals who will commit murder will do so by psychological compulsion. If I know that a man has been working for the last four or five years at a given office, I can form a fairly good idea that he will travel there as usual tomorrow morning. But that does not prove that he cannot choose not to go there tomorrow morning. Nor does a conjecture as to the average number of crimes that will take place next year throw any light on the question of freedom of will, unless one can say which individuals will necessarily commit those crimes—and that cannot be done by any manner of means.

50.   Criminals are products of heredity and environment.

That is a sweeping and very unscientific assertion. That heredity and environment have an effect upon people to some extent no sensible person will deny. That they necessarily produce a certain type of character is against the facts. Man's reason enables him to perceive the evil character of certain instinctive tendencies, and to conjure up other ideas of his own dignity, personal worth, social standards, and moral values, which neutralize the force of original influences. And man's will enables him to make a free choice of an evil course of conduct, or of a good course of conduct. If heredity and environment determined one's conduct, children of the same family and brought up in the same environment should equally follow the same line of conduct. But they do not. From the most favorable heredity and environment criminals have developed, whilst people have risen above the most unfavorable heredity and environment to become splendid types, through encouragement to take themselves in hand, practice self-control, and to choose deliberately against inherited tendencies. I have met men of the utmost integrity whose brothers have been criminals; deeply religious people from thoroughly irreligious families; children of the same stock and circumstances who have chosen vastly different careers in life, and opposite standards of conduct. It is against the facts to say that heredity and environment determine character by sheer necessity.

51.   The determinist tries to cure criminals where the believer in freewill merely punishes them.

You take for granted the very thing you must prove. The real difficulty for the determinist who attempts to cure a criminal who necessarily acts in a way. You may urge that we can alter the factors that determine his conduct that he is determined by such factors supposes the thing you have to prove has no freewill. Granted freewill, attempts to cure the criminal are not excluded can try to alter the factors which influence without determining his conduct, and try to induce a change of will on his own part. And a cure is much more likely on our principles than on the determinist hypothesis.

52.   Naturally in extreme cases, like that of a homicidal maniac, the terminist would probably fail to effect a cure.

He would fail in a good many other cases, too. Moreover, with his denial of personal responsibility, were his doctrine inculcated in children from their earliest years, he would find that the growing number of criminals would give him more than enough to do. It is significant that, with the driftage from Christian principles, there is becoming more and more evident an increase in crime. A merely secular education which rejoices the materialist far from preventing crime seems but to give it an impetus. In his report on juvenile delinquency to a select government Committee in London last year, 1939, the appointed expert said, "I consider that a return to the old-fashioned type of religious instruction is essential, I am not a Roman Catholic, but I do honor them for making religious instruction a prime feature in the education of the children of their adherents. A good moral foundation predisposes a young person to eschew evil ways in later life. I would cut out all the fancy stuff in schools, expressionism, pseudo-psychological experimenting, and other foolish 'isms' and 'ologies,' which have no rightful place in a properly educational establishment." One of the "isms" which should he excluded from any influence in education is psychological determinism.

53.   The correct method of stamping out crime is to attack their cause

I agree. But what are the causes? A mechanical deterministic philosophy" will never reveal them. It would produce the greatest cause of all—a lack of sense of personal responsibility and of capability of self-management.

54.   You would punish a criminal because you believe his wickedness to solely his own fault.

That is not true. I have never suggested that a criminal's evil conduct is solely his own fault in every case. Believers in freewill make due allowance for factors as do diminish personal guilt. We certainly say that criminals do deserve punishment insofar as it is their own fault that they have committed crime.  That is sensible. But to adopt the attitude of the determinist who denies freewill, declares that no man is ever morally guilty of any evil he does, violates commen sense and the sound principles of reason and observation.

55.   Do you imagine that, if everybody believed in determinism, men commit crimes with impunity?

No. I do not hold that the community would appoint no penalties for I agree with Professor Joad's verdict that, if determinism is true, morality must lose its meaning. But, on their own principles, determinists would be determined to act as if determinism was not true, and as if morality was significant, just as they have to be regarded as determined to think their determinism true when it isn't.  That would be the only explanation of their moral indignation with wicked poeple who, if their theory were right, have no choice but to be wicked. But, if criminals could not escape with impunity, a deterministic philosophy, if adopted, would certainly tend to their multiplication. One is much more likely to develop reliable characters by teaching conscious and deliberate self-control with a sense of moral responsibility than by teaching that people are but the playthings of uncontrollable forces and inclinations. In his book, "The Threshold of Ethics," Dr. Kirk rightly says, "The habit of looking for automatisms, necessities, and compulsions, in our estimates of character, which is generated by the theory of determinism, is a habit which leads wholly in a non-moral direction. The more I treat myself as a plaything of irresistible forces, the more I shall tend to neglect self-criticism and self-discipline; and the less I shall resist the seductive temptations of self-pity, self-excuse, and self-justification."

56. We cannot escape heredity. You cannot produce a thoroughbred racehorse from a pair of broken-down hacks.

If man be no more than a beast, your analogy might apply. But if man is no more than a beast, you must not be surprised if he behaves as a beast. However, man is not a mere animal. Nor is character merely a matter of bodily characteristics only. Some of the finest types of men have arisen from the most unimpressive parentage; and from the best stock defective types have resulted. Freewill is a fact, and a psychological factor in the development of character which cannot be ignored. And upon the use of man's freewill his eternal destiny will depend.

CHAPTER THREE

Religion

Necessity of religion

57.   What can religion do for God?

It enables us to render to Him the acknowledgment due to Him, and inspires us to obey His laws. We can thus respond in some way to His own great love for us.

58.   He can need it very little.

He does not need it at all. But He must needs demand that we do what it is right for us to do. We are unjust if we do not return love for love, and gratitude for gifts received. And not God's future well-being, but our future well-being, is inextricably bound up with our fulfillment of religious duties.

59.   Service to our fellow men can do a great deal, and they need it badly.

I agree. But religion does not mean the service of God at the expense of our neighbors. The greater one's love of God, the greater and truer will be his love of his neighbors.

60.   Reason is enough to tell me what to know and to do.

Reason, when it is right, is good enough as far as it goes. But it is very liable to error, and when right, does not go far enough. We need the additional truth revealed by God and taught us by the Christian religion. Reason cannot refute the claims of Christ, and in fact disposes us to accept them. Certainly reason cannot replace religion. It gives inadequate knowledge only, and cannot give any vital impulse to observe its own moral precepts.

61.   Why cannot a man live a good life without religion?

He can do some good things without religion. He can refrain from drunkenness, and pay his debts to his fellow men. But he cannot live a really good life unless he does the main thing for which he was made. And the main thing is that he knows, loves, and serves God, and regulates his conduct towards his fellow men by motives of love for God.

62.   I have sound ideas of goodness and morality, and can live up to them without religion.

Your very ideas of what is good and moral are drawn from the general Christian culture of the civilization in which you live. To want your moral standards without the religion which gave rise to them is like wanting rain without wanting the ocean from which it is drawn. Renan admitted that to abolish Christianity, yet to wish to retain its ethics, is merely to inhale a perfume from an empty bottle. Men cannot live on perfumes; and even if they could, the emptiness of the bottle will soon mean the end of the perfume. Again, if the Christian religion is true, as it is, then it is necessary for goodness and morality. For its very acceptance will be part of morality, involving the discharging of our debt to God. Religion is as necessary to good morals as the right course is necessary to good navigation.

63.   On the whole, I think religion good for women.

It is. Religion gives them their character and happiness. It gives to that sex which has ever been regarded as frail the nobility of angels, of virtue, of sweetness and devotedness. Such are our mothers. But this does not imply that religion is not good also for men. When you say that religion is good for women, do you mean that religion is false? Evidently not, because then it would not be good for anyone. Do you mean that women alone have souls to save? Ancient pagans denied that women had any rights in the field of religion on the score that they had no souls. But no one doubted that men had souls. Do you mean that men belong to earth only, and that heaven is reserved for women? A man needs religion every bit as much as a woman. And it is his duty to be religious, rendering to God the acknowledgment and service due to Him from all intelligent creatures.

64.   I have led a happy and contented life, the crux of all human endeavor. Why is religion necessary if this can be attained without religion?

Firstly, the crux of all human endeavor ought not to be the securing of a happy and contented life in this world. Man's main duty is the religious service of God. If you are able to be happy, you owe it to God that you exist, and that those things exist which give you happiness. You, therefore, owe to God the acknowledgment of your debt to Him by religious worship, offering Him your praise and gratitude. To take all, and enjoy it without the slightest manifestation of gratitude to God, is both unjust and most ill-mannered.

Again, if you seek happiness, seek it properly whilst you are at it. This world is not all. Your soul is immortal, and eternity awaits you. If the sole source of your happiness lies in the things of this world, then you are living in a fool's paradise. No man can escape death, and every cause of happiness for you will be taken from you whether you like it or not. You brought nothing into this world with you, and you will take nothing of it with you when you die. Where then will you find happiness? Religion is our bond with God who made us, and the earnest and fervent practice of religion keeps us in touch with the God whom we are to meet some day, and with whom we are to be forever, if we are to know happiness hereafter. Your own happiness, therefore, is bound up with your religious duties to God, and you owe Him the acknowledgment which you can render Him only by discharging the debt of religion. Neglect that duty, and you are guilty of a great injustice, and you will make wreckage of your eternity. On your deathbed you may say that you "have had" many happinesses during life. But you won't have them then. They came—only to go; and the memory of them will be no compensation for the miseries you will encounter, and which will never go. Be reasonably happy in this life, if you wish. But take up your duties of religion, make sure of your eternal happiness in the next life, and at all costs save your soul.

Salvation of the soul

65.   What precisely do you mean by the saving of one's soul?

The meaning of that requires a brief analysis of man. Man consists of body and soul. The body is material and perishable; the soul is spiritual and imperishable. But the soul is the real you. It is the soul which knows and loves, is happy or miserable. Now as the soul is immortal, it enters at death into an eternal state, whether it be one of supreme happiness, or of direst misery. By "saving one's soul" I mean going from this world in the grace and friendship of God, so that one avoids eternal misery, and secures eternal happiness.

66.   What are the conditions of salvation?

That we serve God in this life, doing what He commands, and avoiding what He forbids. That surely is evident. If men have not always done what God commands, or have not always avoided what He forbids, they must at least be sincerely repentant of their sins before they go from this life to meet their eternal Judge.

Voice of science

67.   Religion seems to me to be based on superstition and fear.

Religion as such is certainly not based on superstition, despite the folly into which some people have fallen where religion is concerned. As regards fear, which is by no means the same thing as superstition, nor necessarily supposes it, all genuine religion is based on a reverential and proper fear of Cod. For the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. Craven fear has no place in genuine religion. If any people have adopted religion through motives of craven fear, their conduct would be wrong, and their dispositions would have to be condemned. Their duty would be to rise to higher motives, and seek a proper spirit of religion.

68.   Don't you think that where science advances, religion is rejected?

No. In some people pretended science can destroy religion either because of their limited mental powers, or because of their pride and self-conceit. Others do not so much love science as hate religion owing to its conflict with their vices. And their continued talk of a love for science (of which they know little or nothing) is a kind of alibi by which they try to conceal their dislike of religion and pretend to impartiality. The really scientific find no tendency to abandon religion on the score of any conflicting evidence. Science has dethroned the sun-god, Jupiter, stone-gods, and other false deities. It has demolished sorcery, incantations, oracles, and other superstitions to some extent. But true religion remains; and the really scientific mind admits willingly that life is a bigger thing than this earth, and that science itself can never satisfy the needs of human nature.

69.   Does not over-concentration on religion tend to insanity?

To overdo anything is a mistake, and this applies even to religion. A well-balanced man avoids extremes in all departments of life, whether by excess, or by defect. And just as one can damage his health by eating too much, or by not eating at all, so one can injure his mind and soul by religious over-indulgence or by neglect of religion. Over-concentration on any particular subject can lead to extraordinary ideas. Thus over-concentration on gangster stories can give a highly impressionable youth the fixed idea that he must go out and distribute gratuitous bullets. I admit that over-concentration in religious directions is likely to be more dangerous than in other matters. For religion is so much a part of man's very being, and of his complete nature, gripping mind and heart and will, and embracing man's imaginative and emotional tendencies, and reaching deep down into the subconscious recesses of the soul. People disposed to insanity therefore, are ever likely to break out into some form of religious mania. That is why religion needs a rational and common-sense approach as few things else. Yet common sense does not go to the other extreme, and neglect religious obligations altogether. There may be religious cranks. But not every religious man is a crank; and to be without any religion is as much a violation of reason and common sense by defect as it is to fall into excess.

Religious racketeers

70.   It's my opinion that religion is a racket, designed to provide a living for those who propagate it.

Do you know anything at all about Christ? Can you find anything in the four Gospels to hint that He designed His religion to provide a living in this world only? When He called His apostles to leave their ordinary means of a livelihood, He did not offer them an easier and more lucrative profession. Religion, of course, like anything else is liable to abuse. Some people undoubtedly have made a money-spinning racket out of religion. And they cannot be too strongly condemned. But that does not justify your sweeping assertion that religion is designed for that purpose. If being provided with a living were the motive, I can assure you that it would never have inspired me to become a Catholic Priest. Nor could it inspire me to remain one. Life could offer me much more elsewhere.

71.   If money were completely left out of consideration, there would not be so many advocates of religion.

There might be more, from one point of view. For a great many people talk religion, but forget about it once there is any mention of self-sacrifice on behalf of religion. Genuine religion requires the fitting worship of God by man both in his social and individual capacity. Public worship requires Churches, and men set apart to devote their lives to the cause of religion. Genuine religion also requires the proper education of children in their duties to God, to themselves, and to mankind; and this requires schools. Genuine religion also demands works of charity to the destitute and to the sick; and this requires orphanages, hospitals and other institutions. All these things require money. And those who subscribe to these things do so from a sense of religion. Meantime, those who lack the same generosity, sneer at the commercialism of religion.

72.   I have all I need, without the aid of any religion.

Do you mean that you have no religion because you don't see what you would get out of it? If it were profitable, would you adopt it? Your judgment of others really reflects your own attitude in the matter. And your boasting of your possessions is like that of one who boasts of his luxuries and of the fact that he has never paid for them. You are indebted to God for all you have, but leave that debt unpaid, rendering no acknowledgment to Him. There are thousands of people who would never tolerate from their own children the indifference and contempt they expect God to tolerate from them.

73.   Without any formal religion, people should be left to their own quiet thoughts about the Almighty.

I agree that they would not find that very expensive. It should therefore appeal to all people who are devoid of any spirit of self-sacrifice. But I would suggest that thoughts of the Almighty would be very few and far between in people lacking any education in matters of religion. The substitute you propose in place of religion is very flimsy, unsubstantial, and vague. Quiet thoughts about the Almighty do not constitute religion. Religion requires much more than that.

Divine revelation

74.   You claim that not only is religion necessary to man, but that he needs a revealed religion?

Yes. The world of mysterious reality proper to God is supernatural and inaccessible to us by our own unaided natural powers—a vast ocean of being, as Fr. Sertillanges well remarks, for which we have no boat, and in which all created reality is a kind of lost island on which we live. Revelation by God is necessary if we are to know truths belonging to that mysterious supernatural order of being.

75.   The only source of all our knowledge is the visible and tangible universe about us.

The universe is the natural source of natural knowledge. But it is not the source of all knowledge. God Himself, who is distinct from all the natural things He has created, and supernatural in comparison with them, can make known to man in a supernatural way certain information about Himself and His relationships with men which could not be naturally acquired. In short, whilst the created universe is the source of natural knowledge, God Himself is the source of supernatural knowledge. He has stepped in, as it were, and given men information they could never have attained had He not so acted.

76.   Even revelation could come only through man's natural powers.

That is true. But we must not confuse the means by which information comes to us, and the nature and source of that information. I could transmit information to you by telephone. But the information given, as the person giving it, would be in a totally different and higher order of being than the merely material and mechanical instrument used to convey it.

77.   It would have to be a spiritual experience coming to us through our senses.

That would be necessary were I on your own level and in the same order of being as yourself, revealing something to you. I would have to speak, and you would have to hear. For all our normal communications of knowledge are through the senses. But God could communicate to the soul, not as united to the body and the senses, but as an intelligence, whatever ideas He may please. He could do this by immediate interior inspiration, without the senses intervening at all. Of course, in reflecting upon these ideas the soul would use the brain, and try to formulate them in words however inadequately, drawing analogies from sense-data. Any knowledge of supernatural reality thus infused by God, whilst infallibly true, would necessarily remain mysterious to us.

Revealed mysteries

78.   The appeal to the mysterious is an appeal to the absurd.

Mysteries revealed by God are truths above the capacity of human reason, but they are not absurd. They are not against reason; they are above reason. If words cannot convey their full sense, no one can prove them to be nonsense. Whatever reason can urge against their truth, reason itself can refute. But reason cannot positively explain their full significance. As a matter of fact, far from being absurd, mysteries are the opposite. The absurd is evidence of the false. But mysteries revealed by God are merely the grandeur of truth itself. They simply bring out the fact that truth is a much greater thing than the small particles of it which the human mind is able to grasp.

79.   Does not this mean the abdication of reason?

No. It presupposes the exercise of reason. It is reasonable to believe what God Himself says of Himself and of His purposes. It is quite reasonable, where we can't see clearly, to accept the authority of God who sees all.

80.   If we are given the truth about God, I don't see why there should be all this obscurity.

God Himself is not obscure. The trouble lies in our own limitations and in our lack of capacity to understand Him completely. But that does not say that we cannot know that He exists, and that we cannot know quite a lot about Him. Reason, if developed, admits an infinity of things beyond it. If it hasn't got that far it has scarcely commenced work.

81.   Would it not have been possible to reveal a clear religion, easy for all to believe?

Granted a revelation of supernatural truth, there is bound to be some obscurity for us. I say for us, because these truths are not obscure in themselves. God sees their full significance as clearly as you see the noonday sun. But the human mind lacks the capacity to see their full significance just as the human eye cannot see infrared or ultra-violet light rays. By other means we are sure of the reality of these rays. And whilst human reason cannot see for itself that the Trinity, for example, is a fact, by knowledge of God's revelation we are sure that it is a fact.

Existence of miracles

82.   One who accepts revealed religion is expected to believe in miracles.

Revelation includes the fact that miracles have occurred.

83.   What is a miracle?

A miracle is an extraordinary event beyond the powers and outside the scope of any created agency, and therefore produced by God Himself. No natural forces could account for it.

84.   When you say that nature cannot account for a miracle, what do you mean by nature?

Nature can refer to the whole created universe, with all its proper forces and powers; or it can refer to each individual thing in the universe, as when we say that the nature of a man differs from the nature of a beast. But, whether taken in reference to each created thing, or to all created things, nature embraces all that these things can be or do according to the constitution and powers given them by their Creator. And we maintain that the miraculous transcends completely all these powers.

85.   Most people would be very surprised to hear that miracles take place.

As an extraordinary event not due to natural causes, every miracle is calculated to surprise us to some extent. Of its very nature it is a surprising thing. But, from another point of view, we are not surprised that God should at times work miracles. He is not bound by the secondary laws He Himself appointed as the normal causes of events in this universe.

86.   I am afraid I could never believe in miracles. They are much too strange for me.

We are naturally inclined to be astonished by the unusual, but we are not justified in denying the truth of an event merely because it is unusual. '"The government of the whole universe is a much more wonderful thing than the multiplication of five loaves of bread," says St. Augustine, "but men are not astonished by the former because they are used to it, whilst they are astonished by the latter because it is rare." Granted an omnipotent God, it is absurd to say that miracles cannot happen. Belief in a miracle depends entirely upon the available evidence as to whether it did happen. As a matter of fact, miracles seem strange only to minds which make no allowance for God. He who lives in the presence of God is not surprised to see God act. It is as easy for God to restore life to a dead man as to preserve the life of a living man.

87.   Miracles seem so arbitrary, and so destructive of scientific certainly.

The God who arbitrarily created all things, and who arbitrarily established the ordinary laws of nature, is not bound to restrict Himself to those ordinary laws. He may arbitrarily intervene and act independently of ordinary natural laws should He wish. Nor are miracles destructive of scientific certainty. After all, no scientist can be certain of what you yourself will choose to do tomorrow. And if that does not destroy scientific certainty, why should it be destroyed by uncertainty as to what God will do? Scientific certainty can be had concerning natural facts. When a supernatural fact occurs, science can testify to the historical occurrence of the event, and then declare that the nature of the event is not within the boundaries of ordinary science. Thus, of a sudden and miraculous cure, science can say, "That person had a broken leg five minutes ago, and now he has not a broken leg. Negatively I can say that no merely natural power can account for the phenomenon." And there natural science stops.

88.   Would your faith be greatly disturbed if the miracles recorded in the Bible never really happened at all?

It would not only be disturbed. It would be shattered. If any man could prove that the miracles recorded in the Bible did not happen, or that miracles could not happen. I would abandon Christanity altogether. But to disprove miracles you must prove one of three things: You must prove either that there is no God; that God cannot operate independently of the laws of nature He Himself established or that the Bible is a lying forgery and not authentic history. No man can prove any of these things.

89.   Since people do not believe in miracles today, why should they believe in miracles that happened 2000 years ago?

Some people believe that miracles happen in our own day; others do not certainly believe that they can happen; and are prepared to believe that any given event is a miracle provided satisfactory evidence can be produced that it did occur and that it surpasses the capability of any natural law.

Yet even if miracles did not happen in our own times, that would not be proof that they did not happen 2000 years ago. Events of 2000 years ago must be judged on the evidence of what happened then: not on the evidence of what does not happen now. In other words, the historical evidence for past miracles must be examined on its own merits. It would not be disproved by an absence of miracles now. Otherwise you could prove that women never wore hoop skirts by the fact that the modern woman does not happen to do so.

90.   If miracles have ceased to take place, why have they ceased?

Miracles have not ceased to occur. There are three classes of miracles: intellectual, moral, and physical. Prophecy is an intellectual miracle, for it is the prediction with certainty of future events, often dependent upon human liberty. God alone can know with certainty what a given human being will do, say in ten years' time; or what future generations of men will decide to do. A moral miracle is one which does not surpass the inherent capacity of created powers, but which does surpass the ordinary laws regulating them. Thus the unity of some 400 millions of people in the Catholic Faith—people of different nationalities and varying degrees of intelligence; people who probably disagree on almost every other matter, is a moral miracle. God alone can be responsible for their allegiance to the Catholic Church. Physical miracles are sudden external and astonishing events beyond all created powers—an obvious work of God quite outside God's ordinary providence; such as the sudden cure of a broken leg or the instant restoration to perfect health of one suffering from consumption or cancer in an advanced stage. Miracles of all three classes have occurred right through the ages from the time of Christ until our own days. An exhaustive study of the records at Lourdes, or of the lives of the Saints in every century, or of the Archives of the Congregation of Rites, where the most scientific evidence of modern miracles is collected, would convince you of this.

CHAPTER FOUR

The Religion of the Bible

Gospels historical

91.   You regard the Gospel authors as historians?

I insist on the historical value of the Gospels.

92.   Critics maintain that the Gospels are not historical in the proper sense of the word.

Similar comments can be found in quite orthodox and excellent Catholic works. For example, in his book, "Christ and the Critics," Felder says that the Evangelists certainly intended to write history, and were subjectively qualified to report correctly the words and deeds of Jesus. But he adds that they had not "a high, scientific education, nor critical precision. But these they did not need. It was not a matter of solving deep problems, or of extracting the truth from old bundles of documents and examining it critically. They merely had to write down perfectly concrete deeds which had been enacted for the most part in public, and were of the utmost simplicity. They were not compiling an account of past centuries; nor did they even pay attention to the chronological sequence of events or the requirements of scientific arrangement. For this reason the Gospels are not historical works in the strictest sense of the term. But, although the Evangelists were not historians in the sense of Thucydides, the father of critical historical composition, they did write down the facts of the Gospel in accordance with the truth."

93.   Are not the Gospels entirely set in a theological context to serve theological purposes?

It would be a gross exaggeration to say that. A remarkable feature of the Gospels is their adherence to a bare delineation of facts. Even where we should expect them to make capital out of what they write, they don't. Miraculous events are given without any expressions of astonishment or triumph. Ill-treatment of their Master is recorded without a word of indignation. If the writers were bent on supporting a thesis, having little regard for historical truth, they would have been fools to invent "hard sayings" which could only alienate people; to record that Christ's own relatives thought Him mad; that He was weak enough to pray that the cup of suffering might pass from Him; to paint a picture of a humiliated, mocked, and crucified criminal whom they wanted men to worship; and to insist that His own people rejected Him. If His own rejected Him, why on earth should others accept Him? No. They record what happened as if their only interest were that of observers and narrators. I admit that the idea of theological purpose is not without application to the Fourth Gospel. But that does not hinder the truth of the facts given.

94.  The Old Testament penetration of the Gospels is not usually recognized.

All Scripture scholars have recognized the Old Testament penetration of the Gospels. That would naturally be there in books written by Jews educated by the reading and study of the Old Testament, and dealing with One who came to fulfill the religion of the Old Testament. But this has no bearing on the historical value of the Gospels. It is your approach to this question which is at fault. Liberal criticism, in its search for the historical Jesus, does not begin with history and thus try to build up the real Christ. It begins with its own modern views about Christ, and because these do not fit in with the historical records, it does not reach the conclusion that its own views are unhistorical—it argues that the really historical accounts of Christ must be legendary. Critics who do proceed historically recognize more and more the sterling value of the Gospels. Only insofar as they depart from the strictly historical method of research does the legendary theory gain in importance. It is a violation of science to destroy a purely historic question in favor of a philosophic principle. And even were their philosophy not false, the procedure of modern liberal critics would be unscientific. Liberal criticism is guilty of the very error it wants to shift off onto the Gospels. It wants to tamper with history in order to adjust it to a modern agnostic outlook.

95.   Critics are unable to say with any confidence who wrote the various books.

That is too sweeping a statement, and already uncritical itself. For, whilst some critics feel that they are unable to do so, other critics are most confident in ascribing the works to very definite authors. Those who profess to be doubtful are themselves to blame for their doubts. For they give too much prominence to purely interna! considerations, neglecting outside factors drawn from independent patristic and early ecclesiastical writers. At any rate, it is quite misleading to ascribe any opinion to "the critics" as though there were no diversity of opinion amongst men versed in Biblical criticism.

Missing Books of the Bible

96.   How can the Bible be worthy of credence when it quotes books that are missing, such as the Book of the Wars of the Lord, Book of Jashur, the Acts of Solomon, the Book of Gad the Seer, etc.?

If certain inspired books were missing, that would not be proof that such books as have remained are not inspired and trustworthy. But, secondly, the books you mention were most probably not inspired books at all. The sacred authors could be inspired to quote non-inspired books known to the people of their time, in support of the facts they narrated. If the quoted books have perished, so that we cannot consult them as those could do who were recommended to do so, that does not give us the right to reject the authority of the Old Testament books handed on to us. In fact, we find force in the confidence of a writer who did not hesitate to refer the readers of his own time to outside sources which were then available.

97.   Are the Christian Fathers Irenaeus, Chrysostom, Clement of Alexandria, and Theodoret correct when they say that all the Books were burned in the Babylonian captivity?

This opinion which occurs in some of the writings of the Fathers is not correct. They relied upon a passage in the Fourth Book of Esdras, XIV., 18-47. But this book is an apocryphal book written in the First Century A.D. by an unknown Palestinian Jew, five centuries after the time of Esdras. This author gives no authority save his own personal and subjective visions. In the Books of the Old Testament written near the actual time of the real Esdras, or well before the time of Christ, no mention is made of the destruction of the Books by fire. In II Machabees 11, 13, we are told that Nehemias, a contemporary of Esdras, made a collection of the Sacred Books, but we are told nothing about a fire. Neither Josephus nor the Talmud make any mention of it.

98.   I wish to suggest that the Books of the Old Testament came into existence for the first time when reputedly found in the Temple.

I realize that; but the references you give fail completely to support your assumption.

99.   Is it not implied in II Kings XXII., 8; and Chronicles, 2nd Book, XXXIV., 14, that the Jews did not know of the existence of the Books of Moses prior to 628 B.C.?

Most certainly not. Hilkiah, the high priest, immediately recognized the definite Book of the Law, as known in previous times. The king himself did not doubt for a moment that these were the ancient Books which "our fathers" should have heard and obeyed. The people did not for a moment believe that these were new Books, of whose previous existence they had known nothing.

100.   Was Irenaeus correct when he said that the Books of the Old Testament werc fabricated seventy years after the Babylonian captivity by Esdras?

I deny that Irenaeus ever said that. In his Adversus Haereses, Bk. III., c. 21, he says that Esdras collected the words of preceding prophets, and restored to the people the Mosaic law in its original order, just as it was given by Moses. There is no hint of '"fabrication" in this classic passage.

101.   James Bruce, in 1774, discovered Ethiopian manuscripts of the lost Book of Enoch, which was in current use in the time of Christ, and from which Christ Himself quoted. Yet that Book is missing from the Old Testament.

The original Book of Enoch was the work of various Jewish authors who wrote between the years 170 B.C. and 64 B.C. It was originally written in Hebrew. But the Ethiopian translations of the Book were derived from a Greek translation of the Hebrew. The Ethiopian manuscripts found by Bruce were, therefore, post-Christian documents, and there is no doubt that many expressions in them which are identical with the words of our Lord are simply interpolations. Many of the sentences do not fit in with the Ethiopian context at all. In other words, instead of Jesus quoting the Book of Enoch, the Ethiopian translations have incorporated His words borrowed from the Gospels. This, however, does not alter the fact that the original Book of Enoch did influence the New Testament writers. The Book was well known at the time, and both our Lord and St. Paul could have made use of its familiar ideas.

102.   It is incredible that Christ should have used the Book of Enoch yet that it should be missing from the Old Testament.

There is no particular reason why that should be incredible. Every Book contained in our Canon of the Bible is inspired. That is certain. It is certain, also, that the Church has not included the Book of Enoch in the Canon of the Old Testament. Two questions can here arise. Was the original Book of Enoch inspired? If so, ought it to have been included in our Bible? To the first question we can but say that the original Enoch may or may not have been inspired. The divine inspiration of the Bible would not be affected by its containing quotations from non-inspired sources. To the second question we say that, even were the Book of Enoch inspired, its omission from the Canon of inspired Books affords no difficulty. We are obliged to believe that every Book included in the Canon is inspired. But we have not to believe that every Book that has ever been inspired by God is in the Bible. The preservation of every such Book is not necessary for the preservation of God's revealed religion. God could preserve the substance of revealed truth by means of the Church, permitting inspired Books or parts of them to be lost.

103.   St. Jude quotes the Book of Enoch as inspired.

St. Jude does not quote the Book of Enoch as inspired. The quotation from St. Jude is as follows: "Now of these Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied, saying: Behold the Lord cometh with thousands of His saints to execute judgment," Jude, I, 14. The Book of Enoch was obviously not written by Enoch, the seventh from Adam, who is mentioned in Genesis, V., 18-24. It was written, as I have said by Jewish authors between 170 and 64 B.C., who chose the name of Enoch as it's title. The prophecy of Enoch, the seventh from Adam, was known by tradition.

104.   Why does not the Church restore to the Old Testament this extremely valuable Ethiopian Enoch?

Firstly, the Ethiopian Enoch is not the original Book of Enoch. It is a Ethiopian translation of a Greek translation; and its integrity cannot be accepted

Secondly, even did we discover an exact copy of the original Book of Enoch we cannot speak of "restoring" it to the Canon of our Bible, since it has never had a place in the Catholic Canon.

Thirdly, and again provided we discovered an exact copy of the original Book it would be for the Church to decide this question, and the very Spirit which assisted the Church when she drew up the Canon of the Bible in the first place would guide her in the same way today.

Of one thing you can be certain. Even were the original Enoch inspired, then would be found nothing in it which is not contained substantially in the Canonical Books of our present Bible, and in the traditions and teachings of the Catholic Church

The Bible inspired

105.   Why should we believe what is written in the Bible at all?

Because it contains the inspired Word of God who can neither fall into error nor fail in veracity. That leads on, of course, to the question as to how we know the Bible to be the inspired Word of God. The Catholic has no difficulty here, because he accepts the infallible teaching of the Catholic Church that it is indeed inspired.  Further discussion from that point of view would lead to a study of the credentials of the Catholic Church as a divinely guaranteed teacher of religious truth. One who does not acknowledge the Catholic Church must fall back on the fact and fulfillment of Biblical prophecies, the extraordinary unity of theme running through so many books by different writers, the supernatural character of the doctrines set forth, and the moral power exercised by the Bible over so many millions of souls who have really studied it and entered into its spirit.

106.   We have only the word of Moses for it that he received the ten commandments from God.

That is not true. We have the Word of Christ who personally approved and quoted the teachings of Moses as indeed a prophet of God. Prior to the advent of Christ the Jews had, not only the signs given by God as a guarantee of the mission of Moses, and the actual acceptance of the Law by a people who were reluctant to submit to it, but they also had the continuous history of their people described by many writers—a history recording the divine intervention again and again on their behalf, and ever insisting on the observance of the Mosaic Law. In addition to all this, of course, a Catholic has the authentic and infallible teaching of the Catholic Church as to the divine inspiration of Sacred Scripture. And therefore a Catholic could never say that we have only the word of Moses for it. We Catholics have much more than that.

107.  I read recently the statement of a Protestant Bishop that the proof of inspiration rests solely on the power of moral and spiritual appeal in the Bible.

Such a subjective standard alone cannot be accepted. It affords no hope whatever of defending the Bible against modernism and unbelief. One who accepts such a standard would have to reject as uninspired all passages which had no moral or spiritual appeal for him. And an absurd position would arise if others discovered a moral and spiritual appeal in the passages he rejected. Are they to be inspired for them? In that case the passages would be uninspired and inspired simultaneously! They would be the Word of God and not the Word of God at one and the same time.

108.   This Bishop said that Christians are not obliged to believe in the verbal inspiration and literal infallibility of the Bible.

The Catholic Church, of course, cannot accept a Protestant Bishop as an authority as to what Christians are bound to believe. How the Catholic Church would view this particular utterance depends upon what he meant by "verbal inspiration" and "literal infallibility." If, by verbal inspiration, the Bishop intended a dictation of the very words to the writers by God, as one dictates to a stenographer, Catholics are not obliged to believe in verbal inspiration. But we are obliged to believe that every single word as it left the hands of the original writers was written under the inspiration of God, and infallibly expressed the truth intended by God. God's influence respected the psychological characteristics of the various human instruments He used; and this accounts for differences in method and style. But it is certain that the original authors wrote exactly the things willed by God, so that God is truly the principal Author of the Bible as it left the hands of the original writers, those writers being but the human instruments used by God. Not a word, nor a sentence, belonging to the original writings, could be excluded from the divine influence of God's inspiration.

Secondly, we must ask what the Bishop meant by "literal infallibility." If he meant that not all the Bible is infallible, and that we may distinguish between religious parts and non-religious parts, then no Catholic could agree with him. We Catholics are obliged to believe as infallibly true every single sentence as it left the hands of the original writers. The whole of the Bible is for us the Word of God. We cannot regard the Bible as a mixture of God's Word and merely human thoughts or opinions. The Catholic Church has condemned the doctrine that personal interpolations by the original writers crept into their accounts, interpolations which did not fall under the inspiring influence of God.

109.   The Bishop said that critics too often assume that Christians are committed to verbal inspiration and literal infallibility.

Catholics are committed to the explanations I have given. And we are prepared to defend the Bible on that understanding, even if others are not. For us, the Bible is wholly and entirely the Word of God, in all its parts. Others may collapse when they see a critic, but the Catholic Church will stand her ground and fight for the truth of the Bible as God's Word throughout. And when the critic is dead and forgotten, the Catholic Church will still be there, and the Bible will still be intact.

110.   He said that it would greatly clarify religious discussions if only the critics would bear these things in mind.

Certainly a discussion between critics and Protestants would be clarified, if the Protestants marked off all those sections of the Bible which they are prepared to jettison. The critics could then confine their attention to the remainder. But when the critics thought themselves to have settled the Protestant position, they would find themselves still confronted by the Catholic Church with the battle to be fought over every inch of the ground.

111.   Then you cling to the fundamentalist idea that the Bible is infallibly true?

I must warn you against any idea, if you entertain such an idea, that the term "fundamentalist" is sufficient to discredit the orthodox position. There are fundamental principles in every branch of knowledge—in art, literature, mathematics, and in all other forms of science. Yet no one sneers at those who cling to such fundamental principles as a basis of thought in their respective fields of knowledge. In the field of religion, also, there are fundamental principles; and they are not destroyed by cheap ridicule. If they can be really disproved, well and good. But no one yet has succeeded in disproving the infallible truth of the Bible. Of course, I do not mean that every interpretation individual readers choose to impose upon the Bible is infallibly true. The Bible is true in the sense in which God intended what is said in its pages; not in any alien sense in which mistaken people understand it.

112.   We cannot be expected to regard the Bible as an infallible encyclopedia of general knowledge.

No one could expect you to do so. The Bible is infallible in what it intends to teach, not in what it does not intend to teach.

113.   The whole conception of the author of Genesis concerning the physical universe was that current in his time. It cannot be regarded as final or unrevisable in the light of later science.

That is true; but it has no bearing on the question of the infallibility of the Bible. The Bible is not, and does not profess to be a scientific manual. Progress in science, and our further knowledge of the nature and the structure of the universe, may mean the revision of our own views of the universe from time to time. But it does not mean a revision of Biblical teaching. If some people thought that the Bible intended to teach such matters, that was their mistake. It is absurd to suggest that the Bible is mistaken, and therefore not infallible, because it does not teach a scientific view which it never intended to teach, and with which it does not profess to deal.

114.   I do not mind the Bible omitting to tell the scientific truth. But I do object to positively wrong statements.

To that, I can but ask you to point out a single positively wrong statement. One thing, however, I will ask you to note. There is a difference between a true statement of the universe as it appears to the eye, and a true statement of it as explained by science. Even today it is a perfectly true statement to say in the popular fashion that the sun rose at 6 a. m. But the scientific statement explaining that phenomenon will fall back on the rotation of the earth. The scientist himself will say, "There's a half-moon tonight," and refuse to admit that he is gravely in error because some meticulous lunatic argues that the whole moon is still there, and that nobody has cut it in two. The Biblical writers correctly gave that aspect of the universe which was apparent to their senses, and no later scientific explanations can prove them to have written falsehoods.

115.   If the Bible is the Word of God, it should be perfect.

If the Bible were miraculously produced by God without the use of human instruments, that is so. But since God made use of human instruments, it will be but relatively perfect. The human writers were living psychological instruments whose personal characteristics God respected, and whose traits are reflected in their writings. The ordinary writing of the same person will vary according to his use of a fine pen or of a broad pen. An imperfect instrument means secondary imperfections. The Bible is relatively perfect insofar as it gives us the revelation of God in accordance with the limitations of human ideas and language, and in as good a way as the various individual human instruments were able to arrange their ideas and express them.

116.   Is that how you account for the errors and contradictions in the Bible?

I deny that there are any errors and contradictions in the Bible. If you meet with what is apparently an error or a contradiction, then your translation may be at fault, or you have not correctly grasped the sense intended by the writer, or the writer is correctly quoting the errors of others as being errors. But in none of these cases is it the Bible which is at fault.

117.   If the Bible is the work of God, it should be free from errors from cover to cover.

It is. But it is a fallacy to speak of the Bible as the work of God, abstracting from the human authorship also. The Bible is the joint work of both God and the human instrumental authors He inspired. The work is wholly from God as principal Author; and wholly from the individual writers as instrumental causes. Thus every word in this book comes from myself as principal cause, and from my pen as instrumental cause. Each cause, in its own order, is a complete cause.

118.   If it is the work of man, errors would be easy to understand.

It is again a fallacy to speak of the Bible as the work of man as if God had nothing to do with it. It is the joint work of both God and man.

119.   Could it be proved to be untrue by showing it to be self-contradictory?

Yes, for contradictories cannot be simultaneously true. But there are no real contradictions in the Bible.

Biblical account of creation

120.   Truth cannot contradict truth. Yet the account of creation in Genesis certainly contradicts the truth as known by science.

It does not. It abstracts from science, and deals with the subject from another aspect altogether.

121.   Do you maintain that Genesis gives an authentic account of creation?

Yes. It gives an authentic account, but not a scientific account.

122.   It is based on a conception of the world as divided into three tiers like a three-storied house, with God on the top floor.

Since that was the popular notion of the universe around them, Moses could not have done better than use it in speaking to the people on their own level. Two authentic facts would be conveyed in such a conception, namely, that there is a God, and that He is supreme. The conveying of those truths in a setting familiar in current ideas was wisdom itself. If you object to that, you should object to the expression still current despite all our science that the sun rises, on the score that it unscientifically implies the movement of the sun around the earth.

123.   Does not science completely discredit the Genesis story?

No. It does not affect it. Those people who have talked of the problem of reconciling Genesis with the findings of science have talked of a problem which really does not exist.

124.   Genesis says that, after making the earth, God made two great lights; a greater light to rule the day, and a lesser light to rule the night.

That is not really true. After speaking of the formation of the earth, Moses speaks of the formation of the sun and moon—which we know to have been formed earlier than the earth. Moses was not giving the chronological order of creation, but merely allotting to the fourth section of his descriptive scheme the creation of the sun and moon.

125.   To say that Moses did not record the story of creation in its proper order is to belittle Genesis as a divine revelation.

That is not true. The order in which facts are described has nothing to do with the truth of the facts. The "proper order" can be proper to the sequence of events in themselves, or proper to the scope and purpose of the literary narrative. I could write the biography of a man either according to the time sequence, or according to his accomplishments, dividing the chapters according to his work as a politician, a philanthropist, a litterateur, and so on, despite the fact that the order of years would have to be forsaken. And in both cases the facts would be equally true. Divine inspiration is compatible with any literary style. And the deliberate character of the Mosaic narrative is evident enough to any really intelligent man, indicating clearly that there was no intention of giving the chronological order. Thus eight works are divided into six sections called days. In the first triduum we have the distinction of unmovable things; in the second, their ornamentation. The last day of each triduum contains two works; and each "day" contains a command, its fulfillment, and approbation of the result. This was a literary device by systematic arrangement to arrest the attention, and put the facts more strikingly before hearers. And there is nothing in this arrangement of the narrative to belittle the account as divinely inspired.

126.   Do you hold that the world was made in six days of twenty-four hours each?

No. Moses described as occurring in six days processes which took long periods. Neither the time nor the order was meant to correspond with the objective reality of the creative process itself.

127.   So you interpret the Hebrew word for day as a period?

I do not. The Hebrew word "YOM," used absolutely as in the Mosaic account, and in the singular, means a day of twenty-four hours, and nothing else. However long the progressive work of the formation of all things took in itself—and it occupied a very long period—Moses divided his account of the whole process into six sections, allotting each section to a separate "chapter" of his narrative metaphorically called a "day." Vast periods, therefore, were compressed into each chapter. It is one thing to say that a long period was required for the events allotted to each section of an account called for special reasons a "day"; it is quite another to say that the author intended the word day as a long period. The author intended the word "day" as men understood that word; i. e., as consisting of twenty-four hours. The works took a long period in themselves. But the author wished the various sections of his narrative to represent ordinary days of the week.

128.      Why did Moses choose such an artificial classification and literary arrangement ?

That should be evident from the religious lesson he desired to teach. The imagery he employed of six working days for creation was to exemplify the six days of the week on which the Jews should work; and the seventh day was to exemplify the Sabbath, or day of rest and of religious worship.

129.   Are we to believe that God rested?

No. God is eternal activity. He did not, and does not rest. For the purposes of the narrative God inspired Moses to omit any reference to His works on the seventh day, that men might learn to make that day a day of rest for themselves. In accordance with his literary scheme Moses could say, "Under the inspiration of God, I have narrated in six sections called "days" His various works. I have reserved none for the seventh day. And God wishes you to work on six days only, dedicating every seventh day to rest and worship as though He Himself had rested on that day."

130.   Exodus XXXI., 17, says that Cod rested on the seventh duy, and "was refreshed."

Speaking in a human way for men Moses had depicted God as resting because of the religious scope of his narrative. But Moses knew quite well that God needed neither rest nor refreshment. Men do, and for them those expressions were used. That the Jews realized that the account was for them, and based on their needs, and not meant to indicate fatigue in God Himself, is evident from the words of Isaiah, XL, 28, saying that God "fainteth not, nor is He weary."

131.   So many of the things recorded are incredible on the face of it. Who could call the account of our first parents historical?

The account of our first parents, given in the Book of Genesis, truly records the historical fact?. The first chapters of Genesis, just as the other chapters of that Book, obviously intend to give history; and the account is quoted throughout the rest of Scripture as historical. But whilst the account is true history, in the sense of excluding fable, legend, and a purely allegorical fantasy, it is a popular, and not a scientific account. This, however, is merely a question of method and style, not of fact. What is described is true, but it is not described according to strict chronology, nor in modern scientific terminology. Many metaphorical and popular expressions occur, adapted to the understanding of the people living at the time the account was written. But the way in which a fact is described does not destroy the historical value of the fact. Most certainly we have to accept as fact a Garden of Eden in which our first parents were placed, and in which they disobeyed God with evil consequences to themselves and to their posterity, the whole human race.

New Testament problems

132.   Turning to the New Testament, I would like to suggest that the writers of those books were not relating historical facts, but used the Old Testament to interpret the whole story.

It is true that the New Testament writers used and quoted the Old Testament. But in no way does this suggest that they forsook historical facts for unhistorical interpretations to suit themselves.

133.   How is it that St. Luke relates two consecutive miracles in exactly the same sequence as Napthali VI.? Is that pure accident?

No. But St. Luke did not borrow from Napthali VI. Any borrowing was the other way round. Napthali VI. is not part of the Old Testament, but part of an uncanonical hook called '"The Testimony of the Twelve Patriarchs," and written in the second century B. C. The writings in this book were altered and amplified at various times, and finally in the Christian era were added to by some unknown Christian writer. Scholars, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, admit the later insertion of interpolations into Napthali VI., borrowed from the Gospels. It is significant that many who are unwilling to accept the text of the Gospels are most ready to drop all the rules of criticism concerning other documents which they hope to find help-iful in their destructive campaign. At least, if you want to check the Gospels by other documents, apply the same rigid rules of criticism to those other documents, and make sure of their value before using them as a standard of reference.

134. Is not the writer of the 2nd Gospel patently laboring under the in-I fluence of the 22nd Psalm, in recording the. mockery, etc., of the man of sorrows? Is that pure accident?

I It was not pure accident. It was due to the fact that the same Holy Spirit was the principal Author of both accounts, despite His making use of two different human instruments; also to the fact that, in both cases, the same events were being described, either as future or as fulfilled.

135.   Is there not a parallelism between I Pet., 21-25, describing the suffering servant of Isaianic prophecy, and Isaiah Llll?

Of course there is. There must necessarily be a parallelism between the fulfillment of a prophecy and the prophecy itself. If there were no parallelism you would say that the prophecy was not fulfilled. If there is a parallelism, you deny the event, and accuse St. Peter of concocting a story borrowed from Isaiah!

136.   Is not the parallelism so close that in any other form of literature it would be called plagiarism?

Yes, if St. Peter were not obviously describing what he himself had witnessed, and for which there is abundant other evidence. But granted the fact foreseen by the prophet as he set down its description in anticipation, it is not plagiarism for St. Peter to make use of the same expressions in his portrayal of the same reality. It was not only lawful for him to do so. It would be rather surprising if he did not. And above all when we consider the unity of the prophetic spirit throughout the Old and New Testaments. The same Holy Ghost inspired both Isaiah and St. Peter. One and the same principal Author is responsible for both accounts. And from this point of view there can be no charge of plagiarism at all.

137.   May we not assume that St. Luke and St. Matthew had no knowledge of the divine origin of Jesus Christ?

Not unless we wish to ignore evidence, and credulously believe a thing merely because we wish to believe it. St. Luke records the words of the angel to Mary, "The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee. And therefore also the Holy which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God." Lk. I., 35. St. Matthew I., 20, records the words of the angel to St. Joseph, "Joseph, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost." Both St. Luke and St. Matthew, therefore, had clear knowledge of the divine origin of Christ.

138.   Both give genealogies of Christ in which the names are all different.

Your difficulty arises from the idea that we have to reconcile the two sets of names given by St. Matthew and St. Luke. But that very idea is wrong. The names are meant to be different, and the Evangelists had no intention of giving the same genealogies. One gives the juridical succession through which Davidic rights descended to Joseph and his legal son—Christ. The other abstracts from this legal or juridical succession, and follows the real genealogy according to consanguinity. They therefore approach the question from different viewpoints, and it is a mistake to think that they have to be reconciled. I could deal with the lineage of the Pope either juridically in the papal succession, or really in his own family line; and if a man objected that the lists of names differed, I would merely reply that they were meant to differ.

139.   If Joseph was not the father of Jesus, why trouble to give his genealogy at all?

Simply because of the Jewish custom of recording genealogies in the male line. It is certain that Joseph and Mary were relatives in the same line, and fundamentally the lineage of Joseph was that of Mary also. In St. Luke I., 32, the angel told Mary that she would conceive under the direct influence of the Holy Ghost, and that the child born of her would inherit the throne of David his father. That is evidence enough that Mary herself by her own right was in the Davidic line.

If Joseph's blood did not flow in the veins of Jesus, would not the pedigree of Pontius Pilate have been equally relevant?

No. Firstly, Pontius Pilate was not the legal father of Jesus. Secondly, since the whole point is to prove Davidic descent, the genealogy of the non-Davidic Pontius Pilate would be senseless. Thirdly, Pontius Pilate was not in any way related to Mary.

140.   If Joseph's blood did not flow in the veins of Jesus, would not the pedigree of Pontius Pilate have been equally relevant?

No. Firstly, Pontius Pilate was not the legal father of Jesus. Secondly, since the whole point is to prove Davidic descent, the genealogy of the non-Davidic Pontius Pilate would be senseless. Thirdly, Pontius Pilate was not in any way related to Mary.

141.   The nativity stories are certainly unhistorical. St. Luke speaks of the angels and shepherds, but knows nothing of the star and the wise men.

You mean that he does not mention the star and the wise men. But that is not proof that he knew nothing of them. Each Evangelist wrote a brief account of Christ. The scope of the work forbade treatment of each and every detail of His life. Therefore each author selected what he thought fit to record. I have a copy of Ran-some's "History of England." In it he mentions the acquisition of Australia, but makes no mention that Captain Cook landed on its shores. Would you argue that he knew nothing of Captain Cook's arrival in Australia? Or would you reasonably infer that he omitted this point in favor of space for other matters he preferred to record?

142.   St. Luke says that after His birth Jesus was taken to Nazareth and lived there, going with His parents every year to Jerusalem. He knew nothing of the flight into Egypt and the killing of the innocents.

Omission to record certain events is no argument that an author does not know of them. You would be right, of course, if St. Luke said explicitly, "There was no flight into Egypt, and no killing of any innocents, as my friend Matthew inaccurately asserts." St. Luke nowhere says that. Meantime, there is no conflict. The sequence of events would be the taking of the child to Jerusalem after His birth, the flight into Egypt, the slaughter of the innocents, the return to Nazareth, and thenceforth the visiting of Jerusalem every year. Abbreviation is not proof that omitted items are unknown.

143.   St. Luke says also that Cyrinus was governor at this period, yet as a matter of fact he was not appointed to that position until after the death of Herod.

St. Luke does say that Cyrinus was governor of Syria at the time of Christ's birth. And, of course, Herod was then living. It is also certain that Cyrinus was not appointed to full legatine control until after the death of Herod, according to reliable historical documents. But St. Luke is not referring to any act of Cyrinus during his term of supreme legatine control. He is referring to actions of Cyrinus in a previous mission before his supreme appointment. According to the Greek text St. Luke refers explicitly to the "first" enrolling made by Cyrinus. You will object that St. Luke expressly calls him "governor of Syria." But in the Greek the word he uses is not the equivalent of Legate at all. It rather indicates an associate procurator. Now are there any grounds to believe that Cyrinus was in Syria in an associate official capacity before he was appointed full legatine administrator? There are. In 1854 Zumpt proved from profane documents and inscriptions only that Cyrinus was employed in Syria between the governorships of Varus and Lollius, which included the year of our Lord's birth. Mommsen says that undoubtedly Cyrinus twice fulfilled public offices in Syria. The evidence is all in support of St. Luke. St. Luke was a highly educated man. He was not entirely a fool. He declares in the beginning of his Gospel that he engaged in extensive inquiry concerning the facts he is going to give. Both in his Gospel and in the Acts of the Apostles he shows a remarkable acquaintance with Graeco-Roman matters. Do you think that, after professing his exact research, he would purposely, or through unpardonable carelessness, commit so gross an error, one so easy to avoid, and one so easily refuted by his first readers? Such a thought puts altogether too great a strain upon one's imagination.

Supposed contradictions in Sacred Scripture

144.   In Matt. XL, 14, Jesus says of John the Baptist, "He is Elias." But, according to Jn. I., 21, John said, "1 am not." Which are we to believe?

Both, according to the sense intended in each case. St. John the Baptist was not Elias in person, and knowing that his questioners wanted to know whether he was Elias in person, he answered no. On the other hand, Jesus did not intend to say that John was Elias in person. Therefore He said: "If you will receive it, he is Elias that is to come." Matt. XL, 14. In modern English He meant, "If you care to believe it, you may regard him as a sign of Elias whom God, according to the prophet Malachy, has promised to send before the day of the Lord." For our Lord knew that, just as He will come at the end of the world to judge mankind, being then preceded by Elias in person, so now He was ushering in the end of the Jewish dispensation, being preceded by John the Baptist. St. John the Baptist was, therefore, a sign that the end was coming for the Jews as God's chosen people just as Elias will be a sign that the end is coming for the human race. There is, therefore, no contradiction between the two statements. John denied that he was Elias in person. Christ asserted that the future mission of Elias was exemplified before their eyes by the present mission of St. John the Baptist.

145.   Jesus said that no man has seen God at any time (Jn. I., 18), yet we are told that the "Lord spake to Moses face to face as a man speaketh to his friend." Exodus, XXXIII., 11.

It is quite certain that no human being, whilst still subject to the conditions of this earthly life, has ever seen God immediately and as He is in His own proper nature. The reference in Exodus is a purely metaphorical way of saying that God communicated knowledge to Moses without any other intermediary. Moses did not have any vision of God as God really is in Himself; and the attributing of a voice to God is but a human way of describing the impressions caused by God and experienced by Moses.

146.   St. Matthew says that Jesus rode into Jerusalem on an ass and a colt.

St. Matthew does not say that. He says that "they brought the ass and the colt, and laid their garments upon them, and made Him sit thereon." Matt. XXL, 7. St. Matthew means simply that Jesus sat on the garments which they had placed on one of the animals, namely, the colt.

147.   Zachary IX., 9, predicts, "Thy king will come . . . riding upon an ass and upon a colt, the foal of an ass." Does that mean that he will ride into the city upon two animals?

No.

148.   Is not the duplication due to parallelism in Semitic poetry?

Yes. Zachary, therefore, merely predicts that Jesus will enter Jerusalem seated on a colt, the foal of an ass, as a symbol of meekness and humility. He does not predict the presence of two animals. But you will notice that St. Matthew (XXL, 5) quotes Zachary, and then, in verse 7, deliberately changes the wording of his own text. If he introduces the mother of the colt, it is not because of the prophecy of Zachary who did not foresee her presence, but because as a matter of fact the mother was brought along with the colt. St. Matthew merely mentioned the mother as being present. And it is quite natural that she should have been brought along to ensure the docility of the colt. Nor did her presence in any way conflict with the prophecy that Jesus would ride into Jerusalem on a colt, the foal of an ass.

149. The authors of the 2nd. and 3rd. Gospels are more wary; they mention an ass only. But the author of the 4lh. Gospel tries to trim the story in accordance with the prophecy by employing a colt only.

Rather than suspect yourself of being wrong, you would accuse St. Matthew of falling into error, and the authors of the other Gospels you would charge with a wariness which amounts to conscious fraud. But there are a few things to be noticed. The authors of the other Gospels would not have been wary if, knowing what St. Matthew had recorded, they deliberately contradicted him. After all, he was an Evangelist out for the good of the same religion as themselves. Were they thinking of being wary, they would have stood to him at all costs. Again, if the authors of the other Gospels were shrewd tricksters, warily bent on trimming their story to suit their purpose, they may as well have done it right through their accounts, eliminating every awkward, humiliating, and unattractive feature of their description of themselves and of Christ. But no. They were patently honest throughout. The charge of trickery is absurd. You will say that, if they were not stepping warily, they were mistaken, for they contradict one another and St. Matthew. But here it is you yourself who would be mistaken. They do not contradict one another. For whilst St. John speaks of a colt, as you say, St. Mark and St. Luke merely use an alternative Greek word for the same thing. Do they, then, contradict St. Matthew by mentioning one animal only where he mentions two? No. Omission is not denial. They give the essential fact that Jesus rode into Jerusalem on a colt. St. Matthew states the same thing, giving the additional detail that the mother of the colt was brought along with it. There is no contradiction in that. Sec also It. R., Vol. I, Nos. 85-166.

CHAPTER FIVE

The Christian Faith

Source of Christian teaching

150.   Granting the necessity of accepting the religion of the Bible, are not Judaism and Christianity fundamentally the same?

Both religions insist, of course, on the necessity of a religion revealed by God, and of a good moral life. Also both reject idolatry, and urge fidelity to one and the same true God. But, besides these fundamental similarities, there are several fundamental differences. I will mention three. Firstly, religions cannot be fundamentally the same, one of which declares that God Himself came into this world to redeem mankind, whilst the other absolutely denies it. I am speaking, of course, in this latter case of the interpretation modern Judaism imposes upon the Old Testament, not of the real doctrine of the Old Testament. Secondly, Judaism is essentially a national religion. It is true that, theoretically, Israel was meant by God to gather all mankind into one flock, and therefore be a universalist religion. But, in practice, modern Judaism is identical with the Jewish nation. Its national character is more and more emphasized, and the missionary desire to convert non-Jews is almost entirely absent. Christianity, on the other hand, when rightly understood, rises above all merely national considerations, and insists that it is intended for every human soul. Thirdly, the Jewish and Christian outlooks on life are very different. The former is material and temporal, whilst the latter is spiritual and eternal. Neither, of course, is exclusively so. But the difference is certainly fundamental. These points are sufficient to show that the ideals of Judaism and of Christianity cannot be regarded as fundamentally the same.

151.   Is not Christianity a reconciliation of Greek philosophy with Judaism?

No. That explanation is the refuge of those who begin by rejecting the divine and supernatural origin of Christianity, and who therefore have to find a natural explanation of its appearance in this world. Christianity originated with Christ, and nowhere is there the faintest trace of indication that Christ devoted Himself to the reconciliation of Greek philosophy with Judaism. Nor could Christ possibly have drawn His doctrines from Greek philosophers, who knew absolutely nothing of the great dogmas of Christianity, such as the Trinity, the Incarnation of the Son of God, Redemption by the death of that Son on the Cross, the Resurrection of Christ, and the whole system of supernatural grace. So new and strange to the Greeks was the Christian doctrine that to them it seemed foolishness. When St. Paul preached it to the Athenians, some mocked, whilst others said, "We shall hear you again concerning this." Acts XVII., 32. But it was certainly altogether new to them. The only possible explanation of the doctrine and teaching of Jesus is that given by Himself: "My doctrine is not mine, but His that sent me." Jn. VII., 16. He declared that He had descended from heaven, and was telling men of what He had seen there. And He added, "If I have spoken to you earthly things, and you believe not, how will you believe if I speak to you heavenly things?" Jn. III., 12. It is certain that no one has ever been less of His time than Jesus. No one was less affected by His environment, and by current teachings and prejudices. And it is impossible to find a merely human source for His doctrines, or to argue from them to any natural preparation or human course of study and reading.

Jewish rejection of Christ

152.   Christianity spread because it contained phases of Judaism which commended themselves to the pagan world.

It would be difficult to indicate those particular phases. However, if there is one thing certain, it is that Christianity had no appeal for the pagan world, which greeted the new religion with centuries of violent hatred and persecution. It was war to the death, and either Christianity or the pagan world had to go under. Christianity wounded the pride of cultured pagans by asking them to worship a crucified Jew. It attacked pagan morals, demanding of men that they should hate what they had previously loved, and love those things against which nature rebelled. The obstacles were immense, and the means at the disposal of Christianity ludicrously inadequate from a human point of view. The only force which can account for this expansion is that correctly given in the Acts of the Apostles. It was the power of the Holy Spirit, promised and sent by Christ. It was the Holy Spirit who strengthened the Apostles, and who enlightened the minds of multiludes who heard them, besides moving their obstinate wills to embrace the lofty doctrines and moral obligations binding upon Christians.

153.   You have said that Christianity is the continuation and fulfillment of the Jewish religion.

That is so. The Christian religion really rests on a co-ordinated series of facts from Adam to Pope Pius XII, or to any Pope who may succeed him in the future. This series of facts is spread, therefore, over thousands of years, and embraces events, words, declarations of principles, doctrines, and precepts, whether in Jewish or Christian times. The Jewish religion was really preparatory Christianity, its whole genius being a looking forward to the coining of Christ. Christianity is but Judaism fulfilled.

154.   Why, then, is there opposition between the Jewish and the Christian religions?

From the historical point of view there is opposition insofar as Judaism denies that the real Messiah has come, whilst the Christian religion affirms that he has come in the person of Christ. As a preparatory religion, Judaism was the true religion of God until such time as the Messiah should come. But it was abrogated when all that it foreshadowed was realized. The shadow gave way to the substance. And a religion which still claims to be awaiting the Redeemer of the human race after that Redeemer has come is obviously wrong, and could not retain God's sanction. But apart from the question of time and fulfillment, there is an opposition between the preparatory Jewish religion and Christianity. Literal Judaism was imperfect, and embodied much that was temporal and fleshly, whilst the religion of Christ is perfect, and elevated to the spiritual and eternal plane. Of course, even under the old regime, the true Jew was not one who merely submitted to external rites, but he who loved God, and was united in spirit with the Savior to come. But many of the Jews had fallen short of this to a very great extent, and were absorbed by worldly and merely human considerations.

155.   Was not Jesus Himself a product of Judaism?

By birth He was of the Jews. But Judaism could never have produced His character. The character of Christ, as depicted by the Gospels, not only differs from every type of moral perfection which the Jewish mind could conceive. It expressly opposes those types. We have in the writings of the Jews ample material to construct the model Jewish teacher. We have the sayings and actions of Hillel, Gamaliel, Rabbi Samuel, and others—all possessing the impress of national ideas; and descriptions of them are based on ideas most widely apart from the personality and teachings of Christ. Christ was a complete departure from the national type, and from those features which custom, education, patriotism, religion, and nature alike, had consecrated as being the Jewish ideal. In this sense, Jesus Christ was not the product of Judaism. Christ came, not to receive from the Jews, but to give to them that which He gave to the Gentiles, and to such Jews as did accept Him.

156.   Jesus was guided by Jewish principles throughout His life.

It was the conflict between the principles of Christ and the guiding principles of the Jewish teachers at that time which ended in the crucifixion of Christ. The Jews wanted a temporal king, whilst Christ came as a spiritual Messiah. The High Priests opposed the teaching and conduct of Christ on every possible occasion.

157.   Jesus merely put greater emphasis on the individual and the next life.

He rejected the idea of the absorption of the individual in a nation-religion, taking a universal view which included every individual soul. Likewise. He rejected material and temporal ideals in favor of spiritual and eternal values.

158.   If Christ proved His claims so clearly, why did the Jews reject Him?

Not all of them did. Great numbers of Jews were converted in the first years of Christianity. Still, the religious leaders of the Jews, and most of the Jews were not. The first reason for this was the general corruption of moral standards amongst them. Josephus tells us of the prevailing spirit of dishonesty and depravity amongst them. The pride of the Pharisee was not much impressed by the doctrine of meekness and humility preached by Jesus. Nor did the prevailing sensuality respond to a teaching requiring mortification and self-denial. A second reason lies in the distorted idea of the Messiah to be expected. The promise of a spiritual Redeemer had been transformed into an expectation of some mighty temporal prince who would liberate the Jews from Caesar. They did not want a ''kingdom not of this world." The chief priests had personal motives also because Jesus denounced their vices and hypocrisy. It is certain that the Jews did not reject Christ for want of evidence. Evidence alone accounts for those who were converted to Him. Those who rejected Him did so for personal reasons based upon their own evil dispositions.

159.   It is strange that His claims were so unacceptable to men of light and learning at the time.

It is not strange when one realizes that acceptance of Christ required supernatural faith. Jesus demanded faith in Himself as God. He said to His disciples, "Whom do men say that I am?" They replied, "Some, John the Baptist: others, Elias; others, Jeremias or one of the prophets." But when He asked, '"Whom do you say that I am?" Peter replied, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." And Jesus replied, "Blessed art thou, for flesh and blood hath not revealed this to thee, but My Father in heaven." On another occasion Christ said, "No man can come to Me unless the Father draw him." Matt. XVI., 13-17. Faith in Christ and salvation through Him cannot be made to depend upon natural gifts of education and learning. The intelligent and the educated are not going to have a better chance of salvation than those less fortunate. We can't fill heaven with the intellectuals, and hell with the dull-witted. The men of light and learning who refused to accept Christ may have had some degrees of natural light, but they shut their minds against supernatural light. They may have had natural learning, but they had not spiritual wisdom and insight. If you ask why they lacked such supernatural gifts, I must reply that they rejected such graces as were offered to them through lack of good will and through hardened obstinacy. It was their own fault.

160.   For example Caiaphas was a man of great learning, and also at least something of a man of God.

We cannot presume that Caiaphas was a man of deep learning. The office of High Priest had been sadly degraded. Josephus complains that some who were chosen were too ignorant to know the dignity of their position; whilst the Mishna had to include the rubric: "If the High Priest cannot read, let someone read to him." Again, since the High Priests were closely associated with, and at times drawn from the Sadducees, such learning as they did possess was gravely infected by rationalism and materialism. Nor was Caiaphas a man of God save by external profession. The High Priesthood had become subject to Roman political authority. Annas had been deposed by the Roman Governor Valerius Gratus in the year 15 A. D. He was succeeded by Eleazar, and again, after a year's break, by Caiaphas, who was a political time-server, who had a longer run of office than most High Priests, and was determined to keep it. That required, of course, the retaining of Roman patron-age.

161.   Caiaphas was of the Jews to whom a Messiah had been promised.

That is true. But his religious convictions had been subordinated to political expediency. Richelieu was a Catholic Cardinal who professed that the Catholic Church was the true religion; yet we know how politics dominated him. The case of Caiaphas is no more mysterious.

162.   Since the Messiah was then due Jesus did not make such an absurd claim.

The Jews knew that the time of the Messiah was at hand. They had built up quite wrong ideas as to the true character and work of the Messiah, however, and entertained the notion that somehow or other He would be a temporal deliverer of their nation. Even that idea was not welcome to the politically-minded Caiaphas. And when Christ claimed, not only to be the Messiah, but to be God Himself, Caiaphas was overjoyed. He could get rid of one who might disturb his peaceful relations with Rome, and satisfy the religious susceptibilities of the Jews by the charge of blasphemy. The mere claim to Messiahship would not have seemed absurd or blasphemous to the Jews. But they were not prepared to accept a claim to absolute equality with God. Caiaphas knew this, and traded on it. He worked to one end, to get Christ to say that He was God. And seeing Jesus silent under the various accusations, he at last cried, "I adjure thee by the living God that thou tell us if thou be the Christ, the Son of God." Matt. XXVI., 63. The last words were uppermost in his mind. No one was ignorant of the fact that Jesus had spoken and acted as if He were more than a mere man, and as if He were in a unique sense the Son of God. Caiaphas intended his question in this sense. And Christ replied, "Thou hast said it." Then, with pretended horror, but really in triumph, Caiaphas cried blasphemy, and got the verdict he wanted.

Christianity a new religion

163.   Did Jesus Himself have any notion of establishing a new religion distinct from the Jewish religion as such?

Yes, insofar as He came to give us that more perfect religion which the Jewish religion had foreshadowed.

164.   The Acts of the Apostles tell us that the Apostles still frequented the Synagogues after the ascension of Christ. That is not like the action of men charged to found a new Church.

Acts III., 1, would tell you that Peter and John went to the Temple at the ninth hour of prayer. But why? To tell the Jews, whom they knew to be gathered there, that they had denied the Holy One, and killed the Author of Life; but that He had risen from the dead, and that they must accept the new religion of Christ. Whereupon Peter and John were arrested and thrown into prison. That would scarcely have occurred had they gone there merely to share in the ordinary Jewish worship as of old. Again, Acts V., '12, tell us that "every day they ceased not, in the Temple and from house to house, to teach and preach Jesus Christ." They were certainly devoting themselves to the founding of a new Church.

165.   Which Gentile nation first officially adopted the Christian Faith?

In the beginning, of course, the spread of Christianity was due to the conversion of individuals drawn from various nations in the East. Thus, in Acts II., 9-10, we have a catalog of various types, "Parthians and Medes, and Elamites, and inhabitants of Mesopotamia, Judea, and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome. Jews, also, and proselytes, Cretes and Arabians." But whilst the Church absorbed units from the various Gentile peoples, the first nation which officially adopted the Christian religion was that of the Romans. And this occurred after the Edict of the Emperor Constantine in 313 A. D., granting tolerance to Christians, and putting an end to the pagan persecutions.

Rational foundation for belief

166.   I have heard you say that faith is necessary before one can accept Christian beliefs.

Faith is not necessary to arrive at the conviction that God has actually given a revelation to mankind, and that Christianity is that revelation. But, whilst reason can prove the fact of this revelation, faith is necessary for the full acceptance of the contents of that revelation. Quite apart from religion, this holds good in the merely natural order. There is a natural faith with which you yourself could not quarrel, and which you would not dream of branding as unreasonable. For example, reason tells me that there are very good grounds for accepting Professor Haldane as an expert in his own particular branch of natural science. Now he tells me that there are no chromosomes in the simplest living cells. I accept that as a fact by faith in the knowledge and veracity of Professor Haldane in this particular matter. If you asked me to prove that there are no chromosomes in the simplest living cells, I could but show you where Professor Haldane states this to be a definite and certain conclusion of biological science, and advance reasons for the acceptance of Haldane as a competent authority. If you refused to have faith in Haldane in this matter, you would reject his teaching; but the refusal of faith in him in this matter would be unreasonable. So, too, reason can justify the claims of the Christian religion to be the revelation of God. But the teachings of that religion deal with truths of the supernatural order much more above the experience of ordinary human knowledge than Haldane's chromosomes are above the average man's scientific experience. We, therefore, accept Christian teachings by faith; but that act of faith is reasonable in virtue of the reasonable grounds for the Christian religion as the revelation of God.

167.   If such proof exists, no reasonable man in the world would remain a non-Christian!

That does not follow. There are reasonable men who have never seriously studied the evidences for Christianity. There are others who have bestowed some attention upon them, but who, although reasonable in other matters, have approached this study with a prejudice which has prevented their appreciating the force of the proofs. Others, again, will admit the force of the proofs, but are not willing to accept by faith the teachings of the Christian religion. Instead of accepting them by faith, they seem to think that an independent proof should be offered for every single doctrine to their satisfaction; and declare that they will accept no religious truth on authority. Yet others are as convinced as I am of the truth of the Christian religion, and of all its teachings; but they will not accept that religion nor those teachings because they are not prepared to fulfill the practical consequences of them. They dismiss all thought of the matter as far as possible—and remain non-Christians.

168.   Would it not have been better for God to have waited until this present time to reveal Himself in the Incarnation?

"You can be quite sure that, despite all human speculations, what God actually chose to do was the better thing.

169.   With the radio and the press and other means of publicity Jesus would have been able to make a greater impression.

Your suggestion of greater natural means at His disposal would have had little appeal for Christ. Although He could have had them, He deliberately deprived Himself of them even to the extent in which they were available in His own time. And He did this precisely to show that His work was of God. Natural human wisdom would have suggested the entry of the Son of God into this world as a magnificent personage, with striking splendor, and vast resources of earthly wealth. But instead of being born in a palace, He was born in a stable; instead of honor and renown, He was born in obscurity and humiliation; instead of choosing wealth, He chose poverty. To human prudence it seems the road to failure. Had you a desire to establish a world-wide religion, and had the choice of means, you would have chosen just the opposite path as being likely to lead to success. But the more ill advised you declare the means adopted by Jesus, the greater the tribute you pay to His work.

170.   Why did God choose such an apparently unpropitious time?

The time of Christ was no more unpropitious than today. No time could be more propitious than another on the score that natural means are more readily and abundantly at hand. We are dealing with a supernatural, not a natural religion. Faith in the teachings of Christ cannot be arrived at by any man's unaided efforts. The grace of God is required, giving a supernatural and spiritual enlightenment to the mind. So Jesus Himself said, when the Jews refused to believe in Him, "No man can come to Me unless the Father draw him." Jn. VI., 44. And St. Paul rightly says, "The sensual man perceiveth not these things that are of the Spirit of God." 1 Cor. II., 14. If men could see the works that Jesus did, and hear the words that He said, yet not believe, I do not see how other men would be any better off if they heard a description of His works by radio as they occurred, or heard His words from loud-speakers in their homes. Radio and press publicity would not necessarily have improved matters. Meantime, the printed Gospels are within the reach of all. Of those who read them, some believe; some do not.

Causes of unbelief

171.   Do you think that religion is the one thing in which men deliberately set themselves against the truth?

Men deliberately set themselves against the truth in many things. But their opposition is certainly more in evidence where religion is concerned. For the more truth a given form of religion contains, the more opposed will that religion be to the corruption of human nature.

172.   Why should there be animosity against the Christian religion?

It is not because there is anything wrong with Christianity. It is because there ' is something wrong with the people who experience the animosity.

173. It seems to me that people are ready to believe almost anything these days, so why don't they lap up your religion?

Because Christianity does not cater for people ready to believe "almost any-thing." It demands that they believe a very definite something, to the exclusion of many things which human beings might find more comfortable and pleasant.

174.   If the Christian revelation were really credible, everyone would accept it.

That is not true. There is more than enough evidence to make acceptance of the fact that God has revealed the Christian religion reasonable. But men do not always behave reasonably. Yet even if a man admitted that the fact of revelation is credible, it does not follow that he would be willing to believe the contents of that revelation. For the contents of Christian revelation include supernatural mysteries which, though not in any way against human reason, are above it. And men, in their pride, can say, "We will not believe anything which is not within the reach of our full comprehension. We accept nothing on trust, no matter who says it." Above all, is this the case when the doctrines in question are not merely theoretical, but involve practical consequences distasteful to human nature.

175.   Surely mankind is anxious to be saved?

If we take salvation as the promise of eternal happiness, and leave out all other considerations, men would certainly be anxious to get it. But if we view, not the promise of future joy, but the implication that men "need" to be saved, it is a different matter altogether. For the implication is that men have fallen into a rotten and depraved state from which they are incapable of escaping without the help of a savior. Human pride rebels. Men do not like to admit even to themselves that they are evil. They cry out against the doctrine of original sin, and boast that, far from having fallen, the human race has steadily risen, and has a glorious future before it, to be attained by its own efforts. And not only do men banish the thought of original sin. They try to banish the thought of their actual and personal sins. So a man with no religion is full of his own virtues. "I have no religion," he will say, "but I am a better man than many who profess to be religious." Pride is a great force in the world, and God Himself has said that He "resists the proud and gives His grace to the humble." But men do not like humbling, themselves; and still less do they like being humbled. Despite their boasting, however, men have their vices and sins which they do not wish to abandon. And they are not prepared to sacrifice present tangible pleasures and interests for future invisible benefits. How many people are blind to future consequences of their actions, even in this life, when in the grip of a present and urgent temptation to alluring self-satisfaction! So mankind is not always anxious to be saved if we consider, not merely the future benefits of salvation, but present implications and the conditions required. See also R. R., Vol. I, Nos. 167-202.

CHAPTER SIX

A Definite Christian Faith

Divisions amongst Christians

176.   Does the word Christianity refer to religions in general?

It certainly does not refer to religions in general, for there are religions which in no way acknowledge the claims of Christ. You cannot have Christianity without Christ. In popular usage, the word is used in reference to all those forms of religion which profess belief in Christ. But that is a loose way of speaking which lacks all scientific precision, as is often the case with popular expressions. In reality, Christianity rightly signifies only the religion of Christ correctly and completely presented; it cannot signify a multitude of sects blending isolated truths of the Christian religion with various errors which form the basis of division amongst themselves.

177.   Why are there so many different religions in this world?

Diversity in religions is due either to the ignorance or to the perversity of men. Men are by nature religiously inclined; and those who lacked knowledge of the true religion invented religions for themselves—religions which differed even as the outlook differed of those who originated them.

178.   Why at least are not Christians united?

All who profess to be Christians, of course, ought to be united in one Church. That they are not is due to the world, the flesh, and the devil, besides the fact that human beings are very limited in intelligence, and are endowed with freewill.

The world has had its influence insofar as temporal and national considerations have led men to forsake original unity.

The flesh has taken its toll, men denying the faith they once professed because of its conflict with their passions.

The devil has had his share, sowing cockle amidst the wheat, and choking the good grain in thousands of souls.

That men have been able to yield to these influences is due to the fact that God will not take away the gift of freewill and personal responsibility from any man. As for good people who still adhere to mistaken forms of Christianity, we can account for that only by the limitations of the human mind which render it so liable to error, and so little able to comprehend things in all their aspects. They concentrate on some good element retained in their mistaken form of religion, and lose sight of the aspects wherein it fails.

Christ Himself foresaw and predicted such divisions. "There will arise false Christs," He said, "to deceive if possible even the elect." Matt. XXIV., 24. And St. Paul warned Timothy, "There shall be a time when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; and will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables."' 2 Tim. IV., 3-4.

Schisms unjustified

179.   In view of the different types of mind it seems that different Churches are inevitable.

One question here presents itself. As Christians, are we to believe what Christ taught, or is each man to believe whatever he likes, according to his type of mind? So long as each man arranges for himself what he will believe, making a great act of faith in his own powers of discernment, there will inevitably be different Churches.

But faith in one's own powers of discernment is not faith in Christ. Christ said, "I am the Truth." And we are told, "Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus." Phil. II., 5. If all had the mind of Christ, that would be the end of diversity. And it is clear that there is something very much wrong with a principle which inevitably leads to different Churches.

180.   Different flowers require different soil.

If that be true, it follows that flowers growing from soil other than that intended by Christ are not the flowers He wanted.

181.   Is there any likelihood of complete agreement among so many minds as diverse as there are men?

There is no likelihood that complete agreement among men on any religious, philosophical, or even political matter will ever be secured by any merely natural means. But God could certainly enlighten the minds of the most diverse types of men in such a way that they would be in complete agreement on certain given subjects. So, through all the centuries, the most diverse types of men drawn from different nations, men who have disagreed on almost everything else, have been in complete agreement as regards the essential doctrines of the Catholic Church. Today there are over 400 millions amongst various nations who are at one on the fact that Catholic doctrine is correct with the infallible authority of God Himself. The very doubt as to whether this could be done should make the fact that it is accomplished all the more impressive. Robert Hugh Benson, the son of a former Archbishop of Canterbury, became a Catholic. In his book, "Christ in the Church," he writes: "It is impossible to make men of one nation agree even on political matters. Yet the Catholic Church makes men of all nations agree on religious doctrines. When I was a student at Cambridge, I often used to find in one lecture hall. men of one nation and six religions. When I became a student in the University of Rome, I found in the one room, men of six nations and one religion. Is it conceivable that it is a merely human power that makes such a thing possible?"

Facing the problem

182.   Why are you always talking of divisions amongst Protestants?

It is not one of my regular topics. But when asked to discuss the relative merits of various positions, I point out simply that truth is consistent, and that Christ did insist that unity would be an outstanding characteristic of His Church. The unity of Catholicism is certainlv as striking as its absence from Protestantism.

183.   These divisions took place 400 years ago, and there is no need to harp upon them now.

The divisions in question have been occurring continuously throughout the 400 years since the Reformation. And the forces lending to division are exemplified in every new sect formed from year to year. But even if all the divisions in Protestantism did occur 400 years ago, surely the question is not one that concerns their remoteness. The question at issue concerns their justification. If divisions are wrong, they were not less wrong 400 years ago than they are now.

184.   All the Protestant sects are on the best of terms.

I am afraid that scarcely solves the difficulty, even were it entirely true. The problem concerns their differences in teachings claimed to be revealed by one and the same God. They cannot all be teaching the truth. This is a problem which every intelligent Protestant must face, and not simply dismiss it.

185.   Appalled by these divergencies, are not people tempted to reject all the Christian Churches?

Some may be: but to yield to such a temptation would be most unreasonable. If you stood by whilst Christ disputed with a member of the sect of the Pharisees, and another from the sect of the Sadducees, would you say, "I hate sectarianism; and since Christ rejects the Pharisees and Sadducees, whilst the Pharisees and Sadducees reject Christ, I will reject them all, and not submit even to Christ"? If those who were wrong thought Christ wrong, that did not make Christ wrong. In the same way, the Catholic Church rejects the various Protestant sects. They unite in rejecting the Catholic Church. But that does not justify you in rejecting them all, including the Catholic Church.

186.   How can we solve the problem as to which is the true religion of Christ?

There are many ways of approaching the problem. But the simplest way is the historical way. Christ founded a Church, said that the gates of hell or forces of evil would never prevail against it, and also said that He would be with it all days till the end of the world. His Church, therefore, must be still in this world, and it must have been in the world all days since His time. That rules out all other Churches except the Catholic Church; for all other Churches came into existence long after Christ, and have not been in the world all days since Christ. But we will see more on this subject later.

The wrong approach

187.   All the Christian Churches are parts forming between them the one great universal and Catholic Church.

If that be so, you credit Christ with having established a very peculiar kind of Church to teach in His name. For if every Church which professes to be Christian is part of the one true Church, then the Church of Christ teaches simultaneously that Baptism is necessary for salvation, and that it is not necessary; that infants must be baptized, and that they must not be baptized; that the Pope is antichrist, and yet he is the Vicar of Christ; that Confession is an obligation, and yet it is an abomination; that Christ is really present in the Eucharist, but at the same time really absent. It is impossible to believe that Christ, Truth itself, and infinite Wisdom, taught such contradictory doctrines and obligations.

188.   May we not regard the different forms of Christianity as so many different angles of the same truth? Do you deny that truth has different angles?

I admit that the truth can be viewed from different angles. But I deny that the truth can be different from itself. We cannot say that people who believe contradictory things are merely viewing the same truth from different angles. Of contradictories, if one is true, the other is false. For example, if a Protestant says that the Sacrifice of the Mass is blasphemy, whilst a Catholic declares it to be the highest act of worship proper to the Christian religion, would you regard those two as merely viewing the same truth from different angles? Reason itself rebels against such a supposition.

189.   Cannot we take a kindly view, and see how much the Churches are alike beneath the outward form?

In dealing with the problem of differences between Churches we do not concentrate on the things in which they are alike, but precisely on the things in which they differ. And if we do that, we find that the variations go much deeper than merely outward form. They are constitutional and essential differences which cannot be healed until the constitution and essential doctrines, worship, and discipline of the Catholic Church are accepted by all. No amount of shutting our eyes to this, and speaking kindly of each other will solve this problem. Keeping our kindly dispositions towards each other, we must see all the facts, and work for unity.

190.   There is only one religion in the world, and that is faith in God.

That cannot be admitted. Mahometanism, Judaism, and Christianity equally believe in God, yet they are three distinct religions.

191.   When asked where His Church would be found, Jesus answered, "Where two or three are gathered together in My name, there am I in the midst of them." Matt. XVIII., 20.

On the occasion of those words no one was asking Christ where His Church would be found. Our Lord was teaching His Apostles that He would be found in His Church—a very different thing. When the Church legislates, Christ Himself ratifies that legislation. Take the context. In Matt. XVIII., 17-20, our Lord vindicates the authority of His Church when He says, "And if he will not hear them, tell the Church. And if he will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as the heathen and the publican." In the next verse He insists that He invests His authority in the Apostles, saying, "Whatsoever you shall bind upon earth is bound also in heaven." Then He adds the reason for this by saying, "If two of you consent upon earth, it shall be done, for where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am in the midst of them." But even if you take the words as implying Christ's presence with all who meet in His name, you must remember that He laid down many other conditions as well. Those conditions concerning His Church demand unity in doctrine, worship, and discipline. And when He said, "If you love me, keep My commandments," Jn. XIV., 15, not a single one of His commandments can be excluded. Take as a test the commandment to hear and obey the Church. By what Church are you taught? What Church do you obey? The very consideration of those questions forces one to look round in order to find His Church as a preliminary condition.

192.   All are one who are guided by the same Holy Spirit. Jesus said, "I will ask the Father, and He shall give you another Paraclete, that He may abide with you forever." Jn. XIV., 16.

Christ there promises to send the Holy Spirit as an invisible source of light and strength upon His Church. Whilst that Holy Spirit will operate within the souls of the disciples of Christ, the very promise that He will abide "forever" shows that Christ is speaking of a gift to be granted to the Church collectively, and to remain with the Church till the end of time. As a matter of fact, when Christ spoke, the Holy Spirit was already dwelling in the souls of the Apostles as individuals. But He was not yet dwelling in them as a group, knitting them together in the Church they had to form. For this purpose the Holy Spirit was sent upon them collectively on Pentecost Sunday. It must be insisted upon that, whilst the Holy Spirit dwell.-within the souls of individual disciples of Christ, His teaching is never at variance with that of the Church. The same Holy Spirit works both in the Church and in individual souls. What the Church says to our ears the Spirit of Truth says in our hearts. The same wind which fills the sails of the ship provides for the breathing of the passengers. If a man says that the Holy Spirit within him tells him something quite opposed to the teaching of the Church, then such a man is mistaking his own vain fancies for the voice of God. That is why Christ said, "If a man will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as the heathen." Matt. XVIIL, 17.

193.   It is hard to believe that good Protestant ministers, devoting themselves to Christ's Gospel, are not members of Christ's true Church.

Their earnestness and devotedness are indeed admirable. But that makes it still sadder that they should be laboring in a mistaken way. They devote themselves to what they believe to be a furtherance of Christ's Gospel, but in reality they have inadequate and wrong notions of Christ's teachings. When they insist upon the love of God, a life of virtue, and devotion to the Person of Our Savior. I am heart and soul with them. But we must not lose sight of the nature of Christ's Church. That Church is one world-wide spiritual society in which all the members profess the same faith, unite in the same worship, and submit to the same Christ-given authority. A man is not a member of that Church unless he accepts the same teachings, participates in the same worship and Sacraments, and submits to the same authority as all other members of it.

Is one religion as good as another?

194.   So long as tee are one in spirit, I do not see that variations of form-matter very much.

That needs proof. Rev. Dr. Briggs, a Presbyterian scholar, says that, "whilst there can be a unity of the Christian spirit without unity of authority, there can be no Church unity without unity of authority." Yet, as Rev. Dr. Goudge, Regius Professor of Anglican theology at Oxford, has clearly shown, the New Testament absolutely requires Church unity. The various sects adopt isolated aspects of Christianity. But Dr. Goudge rightly remarks that "Christianity a la carte will not do. The religion of Christ must be accepted or rejected as a whole."

195.   The Protestant Churches tend to unity of action, even if they have not unity of organization.

We cannot make one Church merely by employing the influences of different Churches in the same direction. American troops fought beside British troops in France during the war of 1914-18. They worked together for the same end. But Britain and America were no nearer to forming one nation than before. There is no escaping from the fact of divided and conflicting Churches.

196.   Why worry about mere differences in doctrine?

Because truth requires consistency, and God has a right to be believed when He reveals a definite doctrine. No one who understands the New Testament could entertain loose ideas on this subject. St. Paul wrote to the Galatians, "Though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a Gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be accursed." Gal. I., 8. To Timothy he wrote, "I desired thee to remain at Ephesus that thou mightest charge some not to teach otherwise." I Tim. I., 3. "If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to that doctrine which is according to godliness, he is proud, knowing nothing." I Tim. VI., 3. It is quite evident from the New Testament that differences in doctrine do matter very much, and that compromise in such things is impossible.

197.   Although a Protestant, I think that there is room for all beliefs.

Since the Catholic religion denies that, you can scarcely think that there is room for the Catholic belief. However, let us take your general thought that all religions have a right to exist. Buddhism and Mahometanism are beliefs, yet does not Christianity exclude those? Or was Christ wrong in sending His Apostles to teach and to convert all nations, winning them from their previous beliefs to His doctrines? Christ would never have admitted that there is room for all beliefs. Again, your own remote ancestors were pagans. Had the early Christians accepted your principle that there is room for all beliefs, they would never have sent missionaries to your ancestors. They would have been left in their paganism, and you would have inherited their paganism only. Each link in the chain from them to you would have remained what he was born, and would have died such.

198.   All paths lead to God.

That is rather an extreme statement. You believe in the Christian religion, and the Christian religion excludes the idea that all paths lead to God. In fact, it teaches very definitely that some paths do not lead to God. Christ Himself distinguished between two roads, declaring the way leading to life to be narrow and restricted, whilst the way leading to destruction is broad and pleasant to those who are bent on self-satisfaction. St. Paul wrote to the Corinthians, "Know you not that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolators, nor adulterers, nor the effeminate, nor liers with mankind, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor railers, nor extortioners, shall possess the kingdom of God." 1 Cor. VI., 9-10. We cannot therefore say that all paths lead to God.

199.   Some climb the steps; others take the longer winding road; but the mountain top comes in view at last—to all of us.

We may hope that it will. We do not know that it will. When Christ put the question, "What does it profit a man to gain the whole world if he suffers the loss of his soul?" Matt. XVI., 26, He at least implied the possibility of not attaining to the mountain top. He warned the Pharisees that their salvation was highly improbable. And of Judas He said, "It were better for him, if that man had not been born." Mk. XIV., 21.

200.   I believe in the little saying, "Your truth is not my truth."

On what grounds do you accept that? Truth is neither yours nor mine. It is independent of either of us. We hold things because they are true. They are not true because we happen to believe them. Again, truth is consistent. If you have the truth on a given subject, and my ideas conflict with yours, then I do not possess the truth. And if I am right, you haven't got the truth. If you wanted to go to a certain town by rail, but got into the wrong train, would you ignore the station-master's advice, and say, "Your truth is not my truth?" You would not. Why is that axiom valid only when it is a question of the way to heaven?

Obligation of inquiry,

201.   Why can't each choose his own path to God?

Because it is for God to say by what path we will come to Him, and not for man to tell God to be content with whatever men choose to do. How far would you extend your principle? You are a professing Christian. Will you admit the right of every individual to reject Christ and choose his own path to God, even though it be opposed to that prescribed by the very Son of God? If not, then you abandon the principle that every individual has the right to choose his own path. And if you make any restrictions, you cannot object on principle to the restrictions made by the Catholic Church. All you can ask is why the Catholic Church should draw the line in a different place from that chosen by yourself.

202.   Every individual must be entitled to his own religious beliefs.

That is a half-truth, and a half-truth is nearly always most dangerous. If, as Christians believe, God has revealed a religion, people are obliged to accept that religion, and no other. They are no longer entitled to their own religious beliefs once God has dictated what they must believe. On the other hand, people are entitled to follow their own conscience, even though their ideas be defective or mistaken. In fact, they are obliged to live according to what they honestly deem to be true and right. Thus, for example, a Protestant, so long as he really thinks his Protestantism to be correct, is entitled and obliged to remain a Protestant. But should he discover the truth of Catholicism, he is certainly no longer entitled to remain a Protestant.

203.   Since we all aim at the one destination, it cannot matter by what road we travel.

It must matter, or Christ would not have taught a new and very definite religion. After all, the Jews were aiming at the same destination as ourselves, eternal salvation, and happiness with God. Yet Christ did not say that their road was good enough. Again, if God not only appoints the destination, but also the road by which we must travel, we cannot say that any other road is just as good. The Catholic Church declares hers to be the only right road. Other Churches dispute that, and maintain that any religion will do. It is evident that the Catholic claim, if true, is most important. Study the evidence for it.

204.   Provided we all strive for the one end, why worry as to who is right or wrong?

Do you really believe that Christ is the Son of God who came down from heaven to teach us the truth in the name of our Creator, and yet that it does not matter whether our ideas of that truth be right or wrong? Is it quite all right for a Church to claim to be that of Christ, yet to teach a whole lot of errors in His name? Do you seriously mean that there is no need to worry about that? And if it does not matter whether one is a Catholic or a Methodist because both Churches are striving for the one end—to serve God, does it matter whether one be a Christian or a Mahometan?

Mahometans also believe in the true God and try to serve Him in their own way. Now just as you would insist that one must strive in the Christian way rather than in the Mahometan way, so I insist that it must be in the Catholic way rather than in the Methodist or any other way. In other words, there is need to worry as to who is right and who is wrong.

Charity and tolerance

205.   All the Churches aim at leaching Christian principles.

We cannot concentrate on identity of aim only. The Catholic Church will never blame anyone for aiming at teaching Christian principles. But, besides considering the good intention, she also and very wisely considers the principles taught. And she says that, however good the aim or intention of other Churches, that does not alter the fact that they teach many wrong principles.

206. God is Love, and therefore must be tolerant and impartial.

Because God is Love, He must love the good and the true. And that excludes [the bad and the false. As a Christian, too, you cannot expect God to be tolerant of insults directed against His only-begotten Son. He must be partial to the doctrine taught by His own Son, and He cannot be indifferent to blasphemous denials of the veracity of Christ. Moreover, God must be partial to the exact and complete doctrine of Christ, and not to incomplete or distorted doctrines proposed by men who, with no right to do so, tampered with the teachings of Christ. If you admit this, you admit that God is partial to the Catholic Church, and that He is not pleased with the other Churches which cannot agree amongst themselves save in their opposition to the greatest Church of all—the Catholic Church.

207. Christ gave broad principles for all to follow.

He wants all to follow His principles. But if you think that His principles were vague and indefinite, allowing people to believe all kinds of contradictory lings, and to indulge in a kind of religious go-as-you-please race, you are very much in error. And you really insult Christ's wisdom as a Teacher.

208.   He taught us all to love one another.

If you believe it necessary to accept that teaching of Christ, do not forget that taught much else. And all else that He taught has the same authority.

209.   He did not say that if one is not a Roman Catholic he will not enter heaven.

He bade the Apostles teach all nations all things whatsoever He had com-ided them. In those words we see that He excepts nothing. He also said, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; he that believeth not shall be condemned." Mk. XVI., 16. Therefore once men have had the Gospel of Christ sufficiently put before them, they have to believe it absolutely and completely, under pain of eternal loss. In St. Matthew XVIII., 17, He says, "If a man will not hear the Church, let him be as the heathen." There is then a Church to which we must submit if we wish to belong to Christ. Which is that Church? It is the Church you yourself call the Roman Catholic Church. If you do not think so, you have a twofold duty. You must prove that that Church is not the one intended by Christ, and you must find the 'Church He did intend.

210.   So long as we worship Christ, we will be saved in the end.

Why make it necessary to worship Christ? If all are not obliged to adopt the Catholic faith, why should all be obliged to accept Christ? If, in order to escape becoming a Catholic, you argue that one religion is as good as another, you cut the ground from under your feet when it comes to a question of defending the Christian religion against all other forms of religion.

211.   Does it make any difference to people's sincerity, if they follow the Master in their own way?

It might, or it might not. If they know that it is merely their own way, and not His way, then they cannot be sincere if they say that they follow Christ as their Master. For then He would not be their Master. They would be their own masters. If, however, they really believed that the way in which they were trying to follow Christ is indeed the exact way Christ Himself has prescribed, then they could be sincere, even though mistaken.

212.   If a man is sincere, won't he attain to goodness, no matter what Church he attends?

It is true that people belonging to different Churches can be equally sincere in their efforts to be good. But that cannot alter the fact that the religions they profess are different. And a man who is seeking the truth will say, "Let me reflect, not on the point in which these good people do not differ, but on the points in which thev do differ." In other words, we must abstract from the persons professing the religions, and consider the religions they profess. For it is certain that God, the Supreme Truth, could not have revealed contradictory teachings. Take, for example, the infallibility of the Church. 1 believe that Christ meant His Church to be infallible. You do not. We cannot both be right. And as we both profess to believe in Christ, the burning problem is whether indeed Christ intended His Church to be infallible.    That problem must be solved.

213.   So long as a man tries to be good and to do good, does it really mattei what he believes or what religion he accepts?

Christ said, "Everyone therefore that shall confess Me before men, I will confess him before My Father who is in heaven; but he that shall deny Me before men I will also deny him before My Father who is in heaven." Matt. X., 10. Evi dently it does matter as to whether we profess faith in Christ or not. And that rule out the idea that any non-Christian religions are as good as the Christian religion Again, if Christ wants His followers to be Catholics and not Protestants, then it can not be just as good to be a Protestant as a Catholic.

CHAPTER SEVEN

The Protestant Reformation

Meaning of "Protestant"

214.   What is your attitude towards the Protestant Church?

As with Greek Orthodoxy, so with Protestantism—there is no such thing in reality as the Protestant Church. Protestantism is a generic name covering many different sects which agree in protesting against the claims of the Catholic Church.

215.   That Protestant means one who protests against Rome is a popularly accepted idea, but it is erroneous.

The Rev. Dr. Goudge, a Protestant, and Regius professor of Divinity at Oxford, writes, "The number of meanings given to the word Protestant is astonishing, as the great Oxford dictionary will show us. It suggests a person whose main interest is opposition to Rome, and possibly there may be such persons. The best use of the word today may be the Roman Catholic and the Eastern Orthodox use, in which a Protestant means a Western Christian who remains outside the Roman Church."

216.  Naturally we protest against the errors of Rome.

I deny that what Protestants think to be the erroneous doctrines of Rome are really erroneous, if indeed they be the teachings of the Catholic Church. I add that last condition because many doctrines are attributed to Rome which Rome has never taught. In this case, Protestants simply do not understand the religion they attack. It must be noted, too, that Protestants are anything but agreed amongst themselves as to what should be condemned in Catholic teaching. What one Protestant condemns, another Protestant will vehemently defend.

217.   But in reality the word Protestant is positive and means that one witnesses for the great ideals of the Gospel. The prefix "pro" means "for," whilst "testor" means "I witness."

That is a modern interpretation of the word which departs from the historical sense.

218.   In the Latin Vulgate translation of the Bible we find the words, "Quos protestantes illi audire nolebant," meaning, "They would not hear them when they protested." 2 Par. XXIV., 19.

Those words refer to the ill will of the Jews who would not listen to the prophets sent by God to protest against their evil practices. They have no reference to the meaning of the word Protestant as applied to the Reformation. It is a dreadful anachronism to connect a word used in a fourth century translation of the Old Test-ament with a Protestantism which arose only in the sixteenth century. No one could lay that St. Jerome had the Protestant Reformation in mind when he translated the )Id Testament into Latin so many centuries earlier.

219. Historically the word was derived from the celebrated "Protest" read by the German princes at the Diet of Spires.

That is correct. Here, of course, we approach the real problem. It is the historic meaning of the word according to the events of the period when it arose hat really counts, not possible meanings of the word in more remote ages.

220.    The German princes said, "We protest and declare that tve neither consent nor adhere in any manner whatsoever to the proposed Decree in anything contrary to God, to His holy Word, to our right conscience, and to the salvation of our souls."

So spoke the German princes. But what did the Decree demand? These princes had taken advantage of the religious revolt of Luther to secure the political independence of their States. Naturally, in turn, they supported Lutheranism as a great force amongst their people for the breaking of old ties; and they commenced the suppression of Catholic worship in their domains. Now the Decree of the Diet of Spires granted religious liberty to such as had already embraced Lutheranism in the States of the German princes, but demanded toleration for Catholics dwelling wTithin their boundaries. The Lutheran princes protested that they would not grant toleration to Catholics, and said that the religion of their people must be the same as that of their princes. "Cuius regio, illius religio," said these princes. "Whoever is the ruler, his must be the religion." In other words, the German princes demanded the right to impose whatever religion they might please upon their subjects. And their protest was against any obligation to tolerate Catholics. The word Protestant, therefore, according to its historical and religious meaning, was born of a denial of freedom of conscience; and those w7ho thus protested against liberty of worship for Catholics were termed Protestants.

Causes of the Reformation

221.    The power of Romanism was shattered by Martin Luther, of immortal memory.

Martin Luther is undoubtedly an outstanding figure in history. But the immortal memory of Luther will become less and less pleasant as the facts concerning him become known. Those who idealize Luther can do so only by ignoring an immense amount of inconvenient information. He was a priest of the Catholic Church, but one who was not faithful to his obligations even as a Christian. On his own admissions he was a victim of both immorality and drunkenness; and he was the most intolerant of men. Far from granting liberty of conscience, he refused to allow anyone to think differently from himself, and coolly said, "Whoever teaches otherwise than I teach is a child of hell."

222.    When  did  the Protestant Movement  begin?

In the sixteenth century. Luther, in Germany, broke away from the Catholic Church in 1517, and began to set up a new Church for himself. Henry VIII., in England, abandoned the Catholic Church in 1534, when he brought in the law of his own supremacy over the Church in his own realm. It would take too long to narrate how each of the first Protestants broke away. In various ways, each rebelled against the authority of the Church and was excommunicated by the Church. Luther denied her teaching by preaching heretical doctrines. Henry VIII defended her teachings, but violated the discipline of the Church.

223.    Did not Norway and Sweden adopt Protestantism?

Lutheranism was imposed on both peoples by their rulers. The princes wanted control of the Church independently of the Pope. In breaking with Rome, they took the nearest form of Protestantism at hand—Lutheranism. Frederic I. of Denmark imposed Lutheranism upon Norway. In Sweden, Gustavus Vasa led a revolt against Denmark, and was crowned king of Sweden. He himself was a Catholic, and the people were much attached to the Catholic faith. But Gustavus needed money for his new kingdom, and to get it he decided to confiscate the estates of the Church. Not from religious conviction, but solely through political expediency, he decided to impose Lutheranism also by civil authority.

224.  What made Scotland abandon the Catholic faith?

There were three chief causes: Firstly, most of the people were not instructed in their religion, and were greatly disaffected towards the Catholic Church by the scandalous laxity of the Scottish clergy of the time. The clergy made little pretense at a life in accordance with what they preached, and their dissatisfying lives left the people ready to back up any preacher who seemed sincere, whether he was right or wrong in matters of doctrine. Secondly, John Knox eventually came from Geneva to preach straight-out Calvinism with a zeal and energy which stood out in marked contrast with the apathy of the Catholic clergy in the cause of the old religion. Thirdly, John Knox had the armed support of the nobles who sought to possess themselves of Church property.

225.   So you blame the depravity of the clergy?

I give it as one of the reasons, and even as the main reason. In his book on the "Counter-Reformation in Scotland," Father Pollen says that the depravity and laxity of the clergy were unquestionably the main reasons why the faith of Catholics fell away so suddenly and so completely before the Protestant preachers. This is no argument against the Catholic Church; but it is a terrible indictment of the Catholic clergy in Scotland immediately prior to the advent of Protestantism. As Mr. Joseph Clayton has pointed out, no mass of people will ever be persuaded for long that priests and clerics can justly be exempted from the moral standards prescribed for the laity.

226.   This seems to be new history from Catholic lips. Do not most Catholic writers paint the Protestant Reformation in the blackest colors?

They have maintained, and still maintain, that the Protestant Reformation can never be justified. But I admit that most history books written in the past by Catholics have exhibited a good deal of bias against the Protestant Reformers, even as the history books written by Protestants have given a distorted view of the Catholic position—and to a far greater extent.

227.   History is history, and the record of truth.

You leave out the fact that historians do not always tell the truth. I admit that the writing of history is a very difficult thing. For, firstly, a man must get the facts, testing his sources rigidly at every stage. Secondly, since no one book can give all the facts, some must be left out. And here the mentality of the writer will decide the omissions. If he has any prejudices, the tendency will be to leave out the facts that tell against his theories. "What has the historian left out?" is one of the first questions to be put in estimating the worth of a textbook. Thirdly, if we consider such undisputed facts as he does give, the question arises as to the interpretation and significance of those facts. Now the textbooks of history in the English language have for the most part been written by men whole-heartedly Protestant, or by conviction anti-Catholic; or at least by those infected by the Protestant tradition, however impartial they may think themselves to be. If only unconsciously, bias and prejudice creep into their writings, and the real truth is not to be found in their works. Our complaint is not against history, but against the historians.

228. You will never undo memories of the past in Protestant minds.

We can correct those memories. We can point out that textbooks perpetuating false views of history do not give a genuine knowledge of the past, and persuade them i to cease pulling the bandage off old sores, giving them no chance to heal. In his-tories of the Protestant Reformation feeling and sentimental loyalties have again and I again got the better of dispassionate reason. And the education in history which they have provided has accounted for millions of professing Christians fearing and hating the Catholic Church, and that in a way which is simply baffling to Catholics.

229.   Have not Catholic writers distorted history also?

Undoubtedly many have done so. On both sides history has been written in a partisan spirit. Bias, of course, may be quite unconscious. Nevertheless it results in distorted and inadequate presentations of history, and I agree with Mr. Joseph Clayton's advice that, if there is to be any bias where history is concerned, it should be, in both writer and reader, to the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth— and that, both in the presentation of the facts, and in the interpretation of those facts. Of one thing I am certain: the Catholic Church has nothing whatever to fear from the results of such historical research. Truth cannot contradict truth; and the Catholic religion, being the truth, will never find itself in any way disturbed by any facts that history can reveal.

230.   Not many people, either Catholic or Protestant, will agree with these views.

Those in a position to give a reliable verdict do so. I have quoted Mr. Clayton, a Catholic writer. In support let me quote a Protestant, Rev. Dr. Goudge, Regius professor of Divinity at Oxford. In a plea for a better understanding between Protestants and Catholics, he begs us to drop the prejudices of the sixteenth century when the Reformation occurred. "The whole spirit of the controversies then," he writes, "was wrong. They were black with hatred and misrepresentation, and largely conducted in theological Billingsgate. If we base our statements upon sixteenth century sources, we generally base them upon poisoned sources. At best they leave out half the truth; and at worst, they are lying." Again he says, "Much of the history written then was not history, but controversy under a thin disguise. Even if the facts recorded are indeed facts—which is not always the case—they are so selected, and so presented, as to give a false idea of what took place. Here there has happily been a great change. The best Catholic and Protestant historians are not far today from agreement about the facts, though they do not regard them in the same way. No instructed Roman Catholic now denies the appalling condition of Western Christendom at the beginning of the sixteenth century, or the failure of the Conciliar and other reforming movements to deal successfully with it. No instructed Protestant now denies that political and personal motives bulked very large in the Protestant Reformation. It is the duty of the better-informed members of all Communions to correct the errors of the less-informed, especially when these errors lead them to misjudge those from whom they are separated." So speaks Dr. Goudge, and I agree with every one of his words in this matter.

231.   Don't you find it a mystery that so many millions should fall away from the Catholic Church during the Reformation?

No one with a knowledge of human psychology, and of the conditions of the period, would find it a mystery.

232.   Was not the fall of the Roman Catholic Church due to the vilest prac-tices ever recorded against any Church?

The Catholic Church did not fall. Many of her members had fallen from her standards of virtue, and this was made the excuse for their conduct by multitudes who fell from the faith into heresy. And the children of those who then fell away from Catholicism are today falling into indifference to all religion and almost complete unbelief, whilst the Catholic Church is the one great stronghold of Christianity in the world. Even in his own day Luther admitted that the more his teachings progressed, the worse the people became. "It is clear," he wrote, "how much more greedy, cruel, immodest, shameless, and wicked the people now are than they were under the Papacy."

233.   Do you deny that the Church was in a state of decay prior to the Reformation?

I deny that. I do not deny that there was a widespread laxity corrupting the lives of many of the clergy and laity alike. St. Thomas More knew the society of his day very well, and he put things pithily when he said, "The world is tired of the clergy, but the clergy are not tired of the world." Yet St. Thomas More did not make the mistake of blaming the Church of Christ for the lax members in it. He blamed the lax members. And it would be a mistake to think that there was nothing but laxity in the Church in the times immediately prior to the Reformation. There were Saints in those days side by side with the sinners. Read that marvellous little book, "The Imitation of Christ," by Thomas a Kempis; and try to realize that that treasure of spirituality was written by a Catholic monk during those very years of supposed universal corruption. That book represents the true ideals of the Catholic Church, and is a strong condemnation of the unchristian lives of those who were a disgrace to the Christian name.

234.   The Book of Revelations revealed that many of the hierarchy would fall into gross sins in the Middle Ages. History tells us that they did so.

It is a mistake to restrict the predictions of Revelations to any particular class, or to any particular age. St. John sees the forces of evil ever reviving and renewing their attack against Christ and His Church. Only with the end of the world itself will the influence of antichrist or the Beast come to an end. Through the ages surge upon surge of evil will attack the Church; now prevailing in a greater degree; now beaten back. But we need not go to the Book of Revelations for predictions of evil amongst members of the Church. Christ Himself predicted them. "It must needs be," He said, "that scandals come. But woe to that man by whom the scandal cometh." Matt. XVIII., 7. And He did not make any distinction between clergy and laity. In fact He seems almost to have permitted the fall of Judas, one of the Apostolic hierarchy, to warn us of the possibility of such things, and to preserve us from undue dismay.

235.   Pope Innocent III said that the Church of his day suffered from five evils, and that the first of all was the evil conduct of prelates.

Be it so. But notice that Pope Innocent III, whilst aware of the abuses on the part of prelates, did not sanction them. He spoke to condemn them as not in keeping with Catholic ideals. And the obvious cure was the reform of the prelates, and the stamping out of their abuses; not the dynamiting of the whole Church established by Christ, and the creation of new Churches by men who had no authority from God to do so. Certainly Pope Innocent himself never dreamed that such abuses could afford any excuse for leaving the Catholic Church, and setting up other Churches.

236.   Reform after reform was instituted by the Popes, only to fail because of strong vested interests.

Despite the exaggerated suggestion of current evils, the admission that reform after reform was attempted shows that the Catholic Church was definitely not evil in itself, but good; that she could not accept with equanimity the violation of her ideals; and that she never remained passive under the sufferings inflicted on her by her own subjects. As a matter of fact, the reforms instituted were not in vain, though in many I cases they failed owing to lack of goodwill in the subjects. Eventually the Church did i succeed in securing her own internal reformconsisting of human beings in so far as that is possible in a Church.

237.   Will you set out what you consider the main causes for the loss of such multitudes to the Church at the Reformation?

There was nothing whatever wrong with the Catholic religion in itself. But there were a good many things wrong with great numbers of Catholics, or the Reformation would have been impossible. No one simple cause can explain it. The conduct of those who left the Church must be attributed firstly to their infidelity to the grace of God in their own personal lives, and to their own pride and passions. But that so many should follow these leaders demands explanation. Mass defections from the Church were possible only in a given atmosphere. And unfortunately many factors were at hand to contribute to the disaster. Political causes had weakened the authority of the Pope. Their personal ambitions made the German princes of the various small States welcome a movement which would free them from their discordant relations with the Pope altogether—even religiously. The covetous and avaricious also saw the possibility of loot and plunder in the confiscation of Church property. So they supported the Protestant rebellion even by force of arms. In England the Tudor kings had immense power, and Henry VIII, when he could not get his divorce from the Pope, found it comparatively easy to impose his ideas on his subjects, robbing them of the Catholic inheritance. We must remember, too, that the Renaissance had brought the revival of the pagan Greek and Latin classics, and these had corrupted the minds and the hearts of the educated classes. Moreover, many of the bishops and priests, far removed from Rome, had been too subservient to secular authority, and had neglected to enforce the discipline of the Church, thus weakening their hold upon the people. Laxity amongst the clergy had given great disedification; and the delay in their reformation had paved the way for a wrong reformation by breaking away from the Church. Careless priests had left the faithful uninstructed, and incredibly ignorant of their religion; and, not knowing their own faith, great numbers of simple Catholics did not discern the real evil of the separatist movement. Not knowing the truth, they were swayed by the ideas of the Reformers, who denounced Rome without demanding any higher standard of virtue than that which had prevailed. And when the temporal rulers backed up the campaign with violence and oppression, the people simply found themselves Protestants. There were many other factors also, which a brief reply can scarcely describe. But I have said enough to show the possibility of a Reformation, with its disastrous division of Christendom amongst an ignorant, dissatisfied, and disedified laity, above all under pressure by ruling princes, and grasping dukes and earls.

Catholic reaction

238.   In view of all this, was not a Reformation necessary?

Undoubtedly. But there was no need for what is popularly called "The Reformation." Any abuses amongst the members of the Church will always cry out urgently for reform. But Protestantism was not a movement of real reform. It made prevalent abuses an excuse to abandon the Church altogether, instead of remaining with it, and trying to effect the conversion of its lax members to better ways. Moreover, Protestantism retained many of the very abuses, and merely sought to justify them by denying that they were wrong. That the Catholic Church will never do. She may have to admit sadly that her children sin; but she will never say that what is sin, is not sin, as did many of the Reformers.

239.   Would the Reformers have had any success had they been dealing with present-day Catholics?

Not with well-instructed and sincere Catholics who are genuinely trying to live up to their religion. Ignorant and careless Catholics would be quite likely to fall away, above all when a less-exacting religion was proposed to them, and if the civil power were employed on behalf of the would-be Reformers. Mexico, Germany, Russia, and Austria, are proof enough of that in recent times. Where good Catholics have made an heroic stand, and even died for their faith, careless Catholics have fallen away. History contains many useful lessons for all Catholics. The Catholic Church cannot fail. But its members can and do fail. And their greatest safeguards against doing so are a thorough knowledge of their religion, and a life of virtue in accordance with its teachings. Sound education, integrity of character, and a genuine effort to live a life of Christian holiness—and that on the part of both clergy and laity —-are necessary for the growth and well-being of the Catholic Church in whatever country it may be established. Catholics can look back with unwavering faith at past ages; but they would be very foolish if they did not profit by the vision of the nemesis that overtook Catholics in those past ages.

240.   Did not Martin Luther force the Catholic Church to reform herself?

The multitudes swept from the Catholic Church by Protestantism certainly brought home to her leaders the urgent need for real reform; and that real reform was effected by the Council of Trent. The severe legislation and disciplinary decrees of that Council eradicated the pronounced abuses which gave occasion to the Protestant landslide from the Church; and there has been no such movement since. Protestantism spent its force, so far as the Catholic Church is concerned, in the first years of revolt; and it has not been any real danger to the faith of Catholics since. The notable tendency today is for Protestants to become Catholics; not for Catholics to become Protestants.

241.   Surely, then, you owe some thanks to Martin Luther.

Luther we cannot respect. He had no right to leave the Catholic Church, and commence a Church of his own under the pretense of reform. He should have remained in the true Church and labored to reform lax Catholics within it. You wash a plate that needs cleansing; you do not smash it. As a matter of fact, in 1521, the worldly-minded Pope Leo X died, and was succeeded by the German Pope Adrian VI. Adrian was just such a Pope as Luther pretended to demand. He was austere and holy, and at once set to work to reform the members of the Church, beginning with the Cardinals themselves, and battling against Italian laxity. The brave old Pope would have been vastly aided by German support, and the closing of the Northern Schism. But Luther made no effort to help a true reformer set in the very See whence reform ought to have come. Instead of rushing to the aid of a compatriot who was just such a head of the Church as he had declared necessary, he continued to pour forth abuse against the Pope as if he were the devil. Blind passion, and not reason, was Luther's guide. Adrian VI died broken-hearted, and the real Counter-Reformation came with the Council of Trent nearly twenty years later. The widespread chaos compelled action then; but reform was due to the innate power of the living Catholic Church to renew her own vitality.

Reformers mistaken

242.   Despite the evils amongst her members, you still insist that the Catholic Church is the true Church?

Yes. Any moral evils which have ever crept in amongst the members of the Catholic Church are a proof, not that the Catholic Church is wrong, but only that her members are human beings ever liable to temptation, and to a lack of generosity in corresponding with the dictates of conscience and the inspirations of divine grace.

243.   Since Christ commanded men to carry on His work, were not men free to form new Churches if necessary?

The mere fact that men were ordered to carry on the work of Christ Himself shows that they were not free to form new Churches according to their own ideas. That would be their own work, not Christ's work. Delegates are free to act within the jurisdiction given them by their principals, not to go beyond it. St. Paul denied that he, Apostle though he was, had any right to form a new and different Church. "Though we," he wrote to the Galatians, "or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel differing from what you have received, let him be anathema." Gal. I., 8. And to the Corinthians he wrote, "Let there be no schisms amongst you." 1 Cor. XII., 25. If the Apostles themselves had no right to set up new and independent Churches, they could not possibly have transmitted such a right to others.

244.   You deny that the Reformers had any divine authority for their work?

Yes. They had no divine authority to commence their new forms of religion, and they did so in opposition to the clear teaching of the New Testament. A reform, not a repudiation of the Church, was needed. Our Lord said that His Church would be like a net holding good and bad fish. At the time of the Reformation there were altogether too many bad fish. But bad fish do not make a bad net. And instead of laboring to turn the bad fish into good ones, the Reformers began to make new nets. That was their mistake. Christ had made the original net, and had said that it would never fail. And it has not failed. The Catholic Church is as vital as ever. It is she today who defends the Bible against Protestant critics; who stands for all the fundamental Christian doctrines; who refuses all compromise where the moral law is in question. But the new nets or Churches made by the Reformers are rapidly going to pieces. The strands are all broken, and the fish are swimming off in any direction they please, losing their faith in Christianity altogether. Those who want the full Christian truth will find it only by returning to that Catholic Church their forefathers should never have left, and from which they themselves are separated through no fault of their own.

245.   Dry rot seems to have set in amongst Christians, and to my mind the Church is dying.

Many Protestants speak like that, having their own Churches only in mind. They would not do so, if they knew anything of the Catholic Church. Far from being subject to dry rot, that Church is very much alive. Her influence upon souls is exceedingly great. Her Churches are crowded with worshippers four and five times over in the cities, and as often as Mass can be celebrated in country centers. Her schools are crowded with children being taught their religious obligations; and tribute after tribute is paid to her spiritual vitality by people from whom such tributes might least be expected.

The Idealization of Protestantism

246.   Protestants claim to belong to the Apostolic Church.

The claim cannot be sustained. That Church alone can be truly Apostolic which reaches back to the Apostles by the historical, spiritual, and social bond of uninterrupted succession. Jesus chose and commissioned the Apostles, and they formed the authoritative body in the Church. And in the same Church today there must still be an authoritative body derived from them. This derivation must be historically and socially evident in a visible Church. The whole chain depends on the first link, for that links the Church to Christ.

247.   The Reformation was to restore the Apostolic Church.

So it is said. But Protestants do not claim an Apostolic character for their Churches in the right sense of the word. As a rule, they seek to attach themselves to Christ directly, without any intermediary society possessing historical continuity. They rather claim to have a religion "like" that of the Apostles, than one given them "by" the Apostles and their lawful successors. The true Christian and Catholic doctrine is that the Eternal Son of Cod became man in the Incarnation, thus commencing a life at once divine and human. And this life of Christ continues its activity by the Church, which is a kind of permanent social incarnation. As there is one continuous life of humanity by heredity, so the life of the Church is continuous by succession and tradition.

248.   We cling to the traditions of the Apostles.

You mean that you have the same doctrines as the Apostles. That is not really true. But even were it true, it would not be enough. To profess someone's doctrine on the grounds of one's own approval of them does not mean social continuity with him. The Church is a society, and its life is collective and organized under one authority. Protestantism has no central authority, and no priesthood properly so-called. It has not an apostolicity such as the true Christian Church requires.

249.   The Reformed Church has always acknowledged the Roman Catholic Church as an important branch of the Church Catholic; but that Christian judgment is not reciprocated.

Do all the Protestant Churches constitute the one "Reformed Church"? If so, would Methodists or Presbyterians admit that they are one with Judge Rutherford's Witnesses of Jehovah? After all, Judge Rutherford has as much, or as little right to set up his new Protestant sect as John Knox had to set up Presbyterianism. And it is not true, of course, that the Protestant Churches have always acknowledged the Roman Church as an important branch of the Church Catholic. The first Reformers rejected the Catholic Church as antichrist, and spoke of it with the utmost horror. Preaching in Edinburgh, in 1565, John Knox, the founder of Presbyterianism, declared that the Church is limited to those who profess the Lord Jesus, and have rejected papistry." The Catholic Church must be forgiven for refusing to admit relationship with Protestant Churches which originated with men who denounced her, and left her, and never returned to her. Is it reasonable to suppose that the new Churches set up by the Reformers are really in union with the Church they left? History and logic leave no room for the modern claim of Protestants to belong also to the Catholic Church.

250.   Whom do members of Protestant Churches acknowledge as head of their Church on earth?

They have various systems of government. In some, as the Congregationalists, the members of each congregation are a law to themselves. In others, as the Presbyterians, authority is vested by the members in elected office-bearers, different assemblies prevailing in various localities. In these cases there is no universal bond of unity in the strict sense of the word. In Churches which have bishops, as the Catholic, Orthodox Greek, and Episcopal or Anglican, power is vested in those bishops. In the Greek Church the power is ultimately traced back to one or other of almost a dozen different Patriarchs. There is no such thing as one united Greek Church. In the Anglican Church the final authority is traced back to the Crown of England. In the Catholic Church all authority on earth centers in one supreme bishop independent of any national rulers—the Bishop of Rome. Thus we have a genuine ecclesiastical unity side by side with the required universality of one and the same Church throughout the world.

251.   Do the Anglican, Presbyterian, and Methodist Churches exist in such foreign countries as Germany, Russia, France, Spain, Norway, etc.?

They may have what may be termed "agencies" in some of those countries to cater for English-speaking tourists of the different denominations. But, insofar as any nationals of these countries profess Protestantism, they usually profess a type of Protestantism peculiar to themselves. Where the Catholic Church unites men of different nationalities in one and the same Christian doctrine, Protestantism permits variations in doctrine to suit the national differences of outlook amongst men.

252.   You habitually speak of your own Church as the Catholic Church. What right have you to drop the prefix "Roman"?

Either ours is the Catholic Church, or there is no Catholic Church. The expression "Roman Catholic," though frequently used, is really meaningless. Grammatically it involves a contradiction in terms. For the word Catholic means universal or "not limited." To use the word "Roman" as a qualifying adjective of limitation or restriction is like speaking of the "limited unlimited." Again, geographically, the Catholic Church is that Church which exists in all the different countries of the world for members of those different countries. And our Church is alone truly Catholic in that sense of the word. The Church subject to the Bishop of Rome exists in every country precisely for the people of each different country. No other Church is universal in this sense of the word.

253.   I cannot accept your verdict of Protestantism. You seem quite blind to all the positive good it has accomplished.

I am not blind to the good to be found in Protestantism side by side with its errors. But I am concerned with the Reformation movement as such; and I say that it was not justified.

254.   When the Romish Church rose to power she abandoned the teachings of the Gospel until the people were fed up with the deal given by Rome.

The Catholic Church never abandoned the teachings of the Gospel. The laxity of many of her members in practice was made one of the excuses for the Protestant Reformation. But the Protestant defection from the Church was a great mistake.

255.   The people gladly accepted the teaching in which the Apostles gloried.

You would find it very difficult to set out clearly the teachings of the Protestant Reformers which you believe to harmonize with those of the Apostles. For the Reformers themselves were anything but agreed as to what should be believed. They fought against each other's teachings bitterly, indulging in violent mutual recriminations.

256.   Protestantism is a witness to the great truths that have stood the test of time.

It used to witness to some of them. But unfortunately it is allowing most of them nowadays to be denied without protest, and even by its official teachers and ministers.

257.   Protestants believe the Bible to be the standard of Christian truth, and the very Word of God.

Many of their leading exponents dispute that today. But even amongst those who still accept the Bible, there is little agreement as to what the Bible means. The Catholic Church defends the Bible as the very Word of God, and is alone capable of giving the authentic interpretation of the sense intended by God.

258.   The Bible gives spiritual freedom such as all Protestants enjoy.

The Bible nowhere gives freedom to believe as one pleases, or to worship as one pleases. It demands our submission to the truth that we may be free from error, and obedience to the Church that we may be free from false forms of religion.

259.   The Reformation limited the power of priests, and liberated the people from an autocratic hierarchy.

It abolished the priestly office, limiting the ministry to the preaching of the Word of God and the administration of some of the Sacraments.

260.   It meant a purifying of the ministerial office to an extent that makes it difficult to realise now the, evils to which it was subject.

It is true that there were many evils amongst the clergy at the time of the Reformation. 1 will go so far as to say that, had the Catholic clergy of the time been all they should have been, the disaster would not have occurred. At the same time, if many were not true to their obligations, many also were strictly faithful, and some were saints fit for canonization. Nor did any really holy priest dream of leaving the Church. I deny, of course, that the ministry was purified by abandoning the priesthood, abolishing its obligations, and adopting definitely lower standards. However, as I have admitted, if the Reformation did not itself purify the ministry, it did occasion a vast movement of reform strictly so-called within the Catholic Church; and the Council of Trent made the most stringent legislation for the better formation of future candidates for the priesthood, and the elimination of abuses. Whilst the Reformation, then, did not purify the ministerial office, it did challenge the Catholic Church to do so.

261.   Protestant Churches are founded on personal trust, and freedom as to how and where we shall meet our Lord in prayer.

The Catholic Church does not exclude personal trust in our Lord. She insists upon it. And Catholics are perfectly free to seek union with Him in prayer whenever they wish. But the Catholic Church rightly forbids Catholics to seek union with the assemblies of others who profess doctrines other than hers. Whatever charity we have for the persons of others, we cannot extend approval to their erroneous teachings and forms of religious worship. You may be my friend; but your religion is not my religion; and you should not expect me to behave as if it were.

262.   Protestantism at least has meant liberty.

It liberated people from the Catholic Church. But that was a liberation from the restraints of the truth revealed by Christ, and from His moral laws. In his excellent book on "Luther and His Work," Mr. Joseph Clayton, F.R.H.S. writes, "Whither has Luther led his followers? Into what promised land, after the years of wandering outside the Catholic unity, are now brought the Protestants who date their emancipation from Martin Luther? Four centuries of journeying since Luther started the exodus, and yet the promised land of the Lutheran evangel, so often emergent, fades from sight even as the mirage vanishes in the desert. It is the wasteland of doubt that Protestants have reached—a wasteland littered with abandoned hopes and discarded creeds."

263.   The Reformation meant the restoration of public prayer to its right place as the duty and privilege of every servant of God, and not the monopoly of a select class of monks and nuns called ironically the Religious.

Such a sneer at those who consecrated their lives to God in the Religious Orders is unworthy of a Christian. Meantime, whilst the suppression of the monasteries meant the suppression of the worship offered to God within them in the name of the whole Church, what have people made of the duty and privilege of public prayer? Protestant clergymen complain regularly of lost congregations, empty Churches, and the neglect of public worship. That scarcely sounds like the restoration of public prayer to its proper place as the right and duty of all the faithful. On the other hand, Catholic Churches are filled to overflowing.

264. The Reformation meant a purifying of family life.

In what way? The Catholic Church certainly cannot be blamed for the growth of loose ideas of marriage, easy divorce, the widespread plague of contraceptive birth control, and other acknowledged evils tending to break down family life.

265.   How can you escape the evident success of Protestantism?

I deny that its success is evident, at least from the genuinely Christian point of view. Genuine Christianity leads to supernatural rather than to merely natural ideals. Christ said that His kingdom was not of this world, and definitely bade us "love not the world." A spiritual and unworldly outlook is therefore the outstanding characteristic of the Catholic religion. I do not say that it is the outlook of all individual Catholics. But insofar as he has not a spiritual and unworldly outlook, a Catholic has drifted from Catholic ideals. On the other hand, Protestantism does not, of its very nature, lead to a spiritual and unworldly outlook. If some good Protestants are truly spiritual, it is in spite of their religion, not because of it. The contrast is evident in the fact that Catholicism will propose as one of her heroes a St. Francis of Assisi who utterly rejected worldly goods, sought poverty and holiness of life, and ended up as a canonized Saint. But the heroes of the Protestant tradition grow from penniless boys into millionaires, or travel from log cabin to White House.

The Catholic estimate

266.   Does exclusive Catholicism make full allowance for our Lord's reference to "other sheep"?

Yes. But you must keep in mind the full text. Christ did not merely say that He had other sheep. He said, "Other sheep I have that are not of this fold." And He added, "Them also I must bring, and they shall hear My voice, and there shall be one fold and one shepherd." Jn. X., 16. That one fold under one shepherd is the Catholic Church only.

267.   Would God give a grace converting a person to a sect which held but part of Divine Revelation?

No. God may give the grace of an interior and spiritual conversion to a non-Catholic; but not the impulse to join a non-Catholic Church. The joining of a non-Catholic Church is due to the inadequate knowledge of the person in question. Men can misunderstand the promptings of grace in this matter just as in others. God's ways are mysterious, and beyond our understanding. And it takes two to fulfill His plan—Himself and the individual soul. God patiently allows for the dispositions of each soul, and the realization of His plan is gradual, accordingly. But undoubtedly it is His will that those who seek Him should do so in the Catholic Church, and according to the faith, worship, and discipline prevailing in that Church.

268.   Would you approve of Protestant missions in places where their work does not immediately militate against the spread of Catholicism?

Since we cannot approve of Protestantism, we cannot approve of the fact that natives are taught this or that Protestant form of Christianity. But, granted that in certain localities the choice is between their being left in their paganism or converted to Protestantism, I have no hesitation in saying that it would be better for them to be converted to Protestantism. After all, Protestantism preaches the necessity of salvation, and Christ as the means of salvation. This element of truth may be mixed up with many errors. But the element of truth may mean the salvation of souls, whilst the errors are robbed to a great extent of their danger by the ignorance of their character on the part of those who hold them. And half a loaf is better than no bread.

269.   Would you admit that such missions do good, and rejoice in it?

There can be no doubt that Protestant missions have done much good. They have improved the morals of the natives, lifted them to higher aspirations, and in many cases inspired genuine virtue and holiness both as ideals and in practice. From Protestant missionaries natives have learned to believe in Christ, to love Him sincerely, and to serve Him most generously. For that, one could not but rejoice.

270.   You do not restrict your approval merely to benefits of civilization?

No. We are genuinely happy that native pagans are taught to know and love Christ, however inadequately it may be. As a matter of fact, to my mind, the so-called benefits of civilization are the least of the benefits a mission in the name of Christ can confer—if it can be called a benefit at all in some cases! The chief thing is to teach them of God, and how to love and serve God through Jesus Christ, and thus to save their souls. And it is precisely from this viewpoint that we rejoice at such good as Protestant missions accomplish. Undoubtedly we would prefer that the natives should receive the full Catholic truth. But we are discussing the case where natives will be taught Protestantism, or never hear of Christianity at all. To a Catholic, Protestantism includes heresy, and heresy is an evil. But paganism is a greater evil than unconscious heresy. So of two evils we prefer the lesser, and that natives should be Christians unconscious of the heretical elements in the doctrines taught them than that they should remain pagans.

271.   Do you not admit that Baptism administered by Protestants is valid?

If the right form is used with the normal Christian intention, Protestant baptisms are valid. But here a peculiar position arises. All the Sacraments, of course, were instituted by Christ, and belong to Christ. But He founded the Catholic Church, and committed His religion to her only. Therefore the Sacraments without exception belong to her. Not a single valid Sacrament is proper to any of the Protestant Churches. There is but one Lord, one faith, one baptism. If Protestants can administer baptism validly, it is because one need not be a priest, nor even a Christian, to administer that Sacrament validly, whereas confirmation, confession, the eucharist, extreme unction, and holy orders, require a valid priesthood. Meantime, if baptism administered by Protestants be valid, the subject, though baptized in the Protestant Church, is not baptized into the Protestant Church. Christ instituted baptism into the Catholic Church, not baptism into the Protestant Church. If a child is baptized in a Protestant Church, and the baptism is validly administered, the child is a Catholic, and remains a Catholic until it comes to the age of reason and adopts Protestantism for itself. If I receive an adult Protestant into the Catholic Church together with his infant son, and it is certain that both have been baptized validly, I have to make the father abjure heresy and formally profess his submission to the Catholic Church; but nothing is done as regards the infant son. It is simply (aught Catholic doctrine and brought up as a Catholic just as any other Catholic child. Its baptism, although administered in a Protestant Church, made it a member of the Catholic Church.

272.   Is marriage between two baptised Protestants a true Sacrament?

Yes. For here again, since those who make the contract are the real ministers of the Sacrament, no valid priesthood is required for its administration. The Catholic Church has the right to regulate the conditions governing this Sacrament; and she says that an authorized Catholic priest must be present as her official witness at the marriages of Catholics. But the priest does not administer the Sacrament. The contracting parties minister it mutually by their consent. Validly baptized Protestants therefore contract sacramental marriage amongst themselves as often as they enter into the matrimonial contract, whether it be in their own Church, or in a civil court. (I am speaking of first marriages, not of marriages subsequent to divorce, with the former wife still living.) Here again, as a valid Sacrament, such a marriage is subject to the legislative power of the Catholic Church. But because the parties are in good faith, and unaware of this fact, the Catholic Church exempts Protestants from her own prescriptions for Catholics. Yet they cannot be exempted from the essential prescriptions of Christ. That is why the Catholic Church insists that a valid sacramental marriage between two Protestants can be broken only by the death of one of the parties. Even for them, divorce does not break the bond of marriage and give the right to remarry, in the sight of God.

273.   Do you say that those who will not hear the Catholic Church are abandoned as the heathen, yet can administer two of her Sacraments?

Our Lord Himself said, "If a man will not hear the Church, let him be as the heathen." Matt. XVIII., 17. But that obviously applies to people who have realized the authority of the Church, yet have deliberately rejected it. Non-Catholics who have never been Catholics, nor have understood and acknowledged the claims of the Catholic Church, are not guilty of personal sin in their refusal of obedience. They cannot therefore be said to be abandoned as the heathen. In 1927 the late Pope Pius XI. spoke as follows on the Catholic attitude towards the separated Churches: "Catholics are sometimes lacking in a right appreciation of their separated brethren, and are even wanting in brotherly love, because they do not know enough about them. People do not realize how much faith, goodness, and Christianity there is in these bodies now detached from the age-long Catholic truth. But pieces broken from gold-bearing rock themselves bear gold." Those words of the Pope were followed by insistence on the duty of charity towards the separated Churches; which shows that we do not apply to them the words of Christ, "let him be to thee as the heathen."

274.   Despite such concessions, Catholics are forbidden to assist with Protestants in prayer and worship.

Yes, but here I must ask you to try to view things from the Catholic standpoint. If someone asked you to join in an important enterprise, and declared that he did so in the name of the State, you would want him to prove that he had the authority of the State, and that the enterprise was within the conditions laid down by the State. If he had no authority from the State, or did not comply with its conditions, you would deny that he was acting in the name of the State. Even though he mistakenly thought he was authorized by the State, he would not really be so authorized. Now a Catholic believes that Christ entrusted the care and administration of His religion to the Catholic Church. If we want to assemble for religious purposes in His name, it must be according to the sanction and direction of His Church, this being one of the conditions laid down by Him. People assembling in the name of other religions are not really assembled in the name of Christ however sincerely they may think it to be so. And a Catholic, granted Catholic principles, cannot sanction by his presence those religious functions organized independently of the authority of Christ, and of the conditions He imposed.

275.   You will never get Protestants to see that point of view.

It should not be so difficult. A good Protestant, convinced of the truth of Christianity as he perceives it, has principles which would prevent him from joining in pagan worship. I am not saying that as paganism is to Protestantism, so Protestantism is to Catholicism. I merely want to bring out that Protestants have similar principles to which they will adhere, and that they should make allowances for a Catholic acting on principles which forbid participation in any other forms of worship than those prescribed by the Catholic religion. Every man who has principles and adjusts his conduct to them is liable to be called narrow-minded by others who do not accept those same principles. A Protestant should say to a Catholic, "If you believe that Protestantism is a departure from the Christian religion as intended by Christ, then I cannot blame you for refusing to attend Protestant services. But let us discuss the question as to whether Protestantism is a departure from the precepts of Christ."

276.   Rome's laws overlook the higher command of Christ, "Love ye one another."

Love for people of other religions does not exclude acknowledgment of the authority of one's own Church and obedience to it. In fact the very love of Christ which bids us love others also bids us to love His own authority in the Catholic Church and to keep her laws. You, of course, do not see that the authority of the Catholic Church is that of Christ. But if you know that Catholics take that view, you should not blame them for fidelity to the laws of their Church. And you should not blame the Church for making laws to safeguard the religion of Christ, and her own subjects in its profession and practice.

277.   Our Protestant ministers do not forbid us to worship with fellow Christians. They trust us.

Catholic exclusiveness is not a matter of not trusting Catholics. It vindicates the right of Jesus Christ to be worshipped only in accordance with the rules of the Church He established.

278.   Protestants today at least are not responsible for the divisions brought about by their ancestors, and in which they have been educated.

I admit that the Protestants of today are merely the children of those who broke away from the Catholic Church four centuries ago. But still it is their duty to study the question, and to return to the Church the first Protestants should never have left.

Article 279 in the Book is Missing

CHAPTER EIGHT

The Truth of Catholicism

Meaning of the word "Church"

280.   When you speak of the Catholic Church, in what sense do you use the word "Church"?

I intend that organized religious society of all Catholics throughout the world under the Pope as their one visible head on earth.

281.   Is not the sense of the word simply "Congregation"?

Originally in Greek the word "ecclesia" meant an assembly of people brought together by a public crier. In Biblical Greek it has many meanings, one of them being that which I usually intend. Thus, in the Old Testament, the Greek word "ecclesia" is used, not to designate a mere assembly, but the whole theocratic society of the Jews as the chosen nation of God. In the New Testament, the word is used also in this same sense of a united and organized body, but transferred to the followers of Christ. It is in this sense that Jesus said, "I will build my Church." Matt. XVI., 18.

282.   St. Paul refers to the "ecclesias" in the plural, as when he says, "The Churches of Asia salute you."

That would be quite a correct use of the word. St. Paul uses the word in several senses, knowing that sensible people will be preserved from ambiguity by the context. Sometimes he uses the word to signify a Christian household, as in Col. IV., 15. At other times he uses it to signify all the Christians in a given city, as when he speaks of "the Church which is at Corinth." I Cor., 1, 2. Again he uses the word of the whole body of Christians in general as opposed to non-Christians. Thus he writes, "Be without offense to the Jews, and to the Gentiles, and to the Church of God." I Cor. X., 32. Finally he uses the word to signify the Church as a teaching authority in its divinely appointed officials. Thus he speaks of the "Church of the Living God" as "the pillar and ground of truth." I. Tim. III., 15.

Origin of the Church

283.   When did the Church begin?

When Jesus called the Apostles to follow Him. They were taught by Him, given various necessary powers to act in His name, and finally sent to all the world on Pentecost Sunday, after having received a special communication of the Holy Spirit.

284.   Modernists say that it cannot be proved that Christ ever referred to His Church as such, though He did have an idea of calling into being a community of faith.

Modernists dare not admit that Christ actually founded a visible and definite Church. If they did they would have no excuse for not submitting to the Catholic Church. Therefore, so long as they are bent on remaining non-Catholics, they must find some other solution. The concession that Jesus did intend to call into being a community of faith is a suggestion that Christ merely taught some nice moral principles, and that independently of Christ's will, later Christians were led by practical needs to adopt a discipline and establish a visible organization. So the origin of the Catholic Church can be explained by historical and natural evolution—and of course no one is obliged to accept that in the name of Christ!

285.   Jesus refers to the Church only in two texts of doubtful validity, and of course it is tempting to identify the kingdom with it, since the mind of Christ was constantly preoccupied with the kingdom.

The texts in which Jesus speaks of the Church are not of doubtful validity. It is a modernist trick to hint that troublesome texts are either spurious, or at least of doubtful validity. The texts in question are perfectly sound and authentic; and if modernists reject or doubt them, it is merely because they don't like them. And if modernists do find it tempting to identify the Church with the kingdom, the sooner they yield to that temptation the better, for then they may discover the true Church at last.

286.   If we accept the modernist conclusion, the community of faith is not necessarily identifiable with any present-day Church.

That is the modernist conclusion. But it is based on the false premise that Christ gave only some nice beliefs and moral teachings and did not establish a definite Church. The kingdom of Christ was not anarchy. He organized it, sending the Apostles as a corporate body to teach the nations and rule them in His name. The denial of this imputes to the early Bishops, trained by the very Apostles themselves, the gravest of sins—the deliberate distorting and perverting of the work of Christ. Those Bishops, most of whom died martyrs for the love of Christ, would have imposed upon the faithful a constitution invented by themselves, yet masquerading as the will of Christ, and to be accepted by an act of divine faith. Moreover, such a denial imputes to the faithful of those early times a bland indifference and a crass folly which would submit without a murmur to so fraudulent and lying an imposition. When St. Paul told the early Christians to obey their prelates, they would have asked what prelates! St. Paul knew that they knew and accepted the constitutional authority he preached. The kingdom of Christ is necessarily identifiable with the Catholic Church today.

The Catholic claim

287.   Where in the Bible can be found an unequivocal statement by Christ that He was establishing a Church corresponding in any particular to the Catholic Church of today?

He predicted the advent of His Church, saying, "I must preach the kingdom of Cod, for therefore am I sent." Lk. IV., 43. He called twelve Apostles, distinct from the rulers of the Synagogue, and appointed them as teachers and rulers in His Church. "Teach men to observe all things whatsoever I hae commanded you," He said, "and behold I am with you all days even to the end of the world." Matt. XXVIII., 20. He constituted Peter as head. "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven." Matt. XVI., 18. That kingdom was to be a visible kingdom—as a city set on a hill which cannot be hid. However Christ planted a seed which was to develop. The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed, the smallest of seeds, but which grows into a great tree. But it is enough to say that Christ established a Church, prescribed its essential constitution of teachers and taught, rulers and subjects. "Teach what I have taught you. Whatever you bind on earth is bound in heaven—make what further legislation you deem necessary. The gates of hell will not prevail against my Church—I will be with it all days till the end." Such is the message of Christ to the Apostles. Now the only Church which has been all days in the world since Christ is the Catholic Church, and if He did not establish that Church, He established none. If that Church failed, then the gates of hell have prevailed against Christ's Church, and He has not been with her all days since His time until now. The Catholic Church alone has the essential constitution prescribed by Christ, and alone behaves as if possessing the magisterial, sanctifying, and disciplinary authority He conferred upon His Church. There are external differences insofar as the grown tree differs from the seed, but the development is in full accordance with the nature and principles of the seed. And Christ knew that just such a tree as the Catholic Church is today would develop from the seed He planted.

288.   Christ converted the Apostles by showing them miracles. Let the Catholic Church show us some miracles if she wants us to accept her claims.

The Apostles were called to follow Christ, and they left all to follow Him prior to any sight of His miracles. And later on, not all who witnessed miracles were converted to Christ by any means. The Pharisees witnessed miracles, and when Christ asked them for which of His good works they desired to stone Him, they replied, "Not for thy good works, but because being a man thou makest thyself God." Jn. X., 33. And even when the Jews, who had hitherto followed Him, abandoned Him, Jesus said, "No man can come to me unless it be given him by my Father." Jn. VI., 66. Miracles do not convert people. Conversion supposes interior consent to an interior grace. Christ said to St. Peter, "Blessed art thou, because flesh and blood have not revealed it to thee, but My Father who is in heaven." Matt. XVI., 17. In any case, the Church herself is a simple fact confronting mankind, and demanding explanation from every thinking human being. The Catholic Church, though composed of poor humanity so liable to human frailty, is so striking in her establishment, her expansion, her unity, and fruitfulness in good works, that she cannot but be of God. No merely human organization could last for two thousand years under the same conditions, and spread through the whole world with the same results. Her preservation has been despite long and terrible persecutions, heresies, schisms, political enemies; frailties and crimes even of Catholics themselves, whether laity, Priests, or Bishops; barbarian invasions, the Reformation, various revolutions, attacks by rationalistic philosophers, and the forces of materialism. The forces of growth and progress in this living Catholic Church can only be from God. She is a divine fact in this world, and if a man does not find this enough, all conceivable miracles will be unable to convert him. Christ said once, "If they hear not Moses and the Prophets, neither will they believe if one rise from the dead." Lk. XVI., 31. And I say that one who is not impressed by the simple fact of the Catholic Church, staring him in the face wherever he goes in this world, would not be moved to take a practical interest in religion even did he see special and occasional miracles.

The Roman hierarchy

289.   Is not the constitution of your Church monarchial, instead of democratic?

The constitution of the Catholic Church is undoubtedly monarchial. And you are wrong in supposing that it ought to be democratic. The Pope rules the whole Church, and each Bishop is a supreme spiritual ruler in his own diocese. Of course even a democracy must have its officials. But the Catholic Church differs very greatly from any merely human society. It is a society which includes God, who really governs the Church through the Pope and the Bishops. For Christ, God the Son made man, appointed a hierarchy or sacred body of rulers to teach and to regulate the conduct of Christians in His name and with His authority. And the whole Church on earth was to be subject to the supreme authority of St. Peter and his successors. That constitution appointed by Christ cannot be changed by men.

290.   There is no room for a hierarchy with supreme governing powers.

That may be the logical position from the Protestant viewpoint. But it is not so in the Church as Christ intended it to be. The true Church is a living organism. In a living human body, next to the soul comes the central nervous system, not the distant cells. In the Catholic Church, Christ is the Head; the Holy Spirit is the soul; and next to the soul comes the Catholic hierarchy. Under the influence of the Holy Spirit, the Pope and the Bishops are the center of thought and discipline, regulating the activity of the multitude of living cells.

291.   Jesus said He would send us the Holy Spirit to teach us all things.

That is true. But He also sent the Apostles to teach all nations in His name. If we are going to accept one thing Jesus said, we must accept all. It is the Holy Spirit who teaches us through the Church, and always in accordance with the doctrines of the Church. God does not contradict Himself. He does not send the Holy Spirit to teach us one thing, and the Church to teach us another. If we find ourselves in opposition to the Catholic Church, we can be quite sure that the Holy Spirit is not responsible for our ideas. One thing is certain. The Holy Spirit could not possibly have inspired all the contradictory ideas people insist on attributing to Him.

292.   We read of Bishops ordaining priests; but who ordained the Apostles? There were no Bishops then.

The Apostles were ordained by Jesus Christ. He personally called them apart from other men to fulfill the sacred duties of the ministry He established. He endowed them with the priestly power to preach, to forgive sin in His name, to offer the Sacrifice of the Mass, and to rule His Church on earth. He also endowed them with the power to ordain other priests to continue the ministry of the Christian religion. They were to be "Bishops" or "Shepherds" of the Christian flock. The "Bishops" are simply those who have received by transmission from the Apostles and from Christ the plenitude of the Christian priesthood. Jesus Himself was the Great High Priest with an absolute plenitude of priestly power. In the First Epistle of St. Peter, II., 25, we find that great Apostle teaching us that Jesus Himself was indeed a Bishop. "Christ," he writes, "suffered for us . . . and you are now converted to the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls." Jesus Himself, therefore, the supreme Bishop of souls, ordained the Apostles and originated episcopal power in the first representatives of the Christian priesthood as we know it today. And the Apostles ordained others to continue the work of the Church. So St. Paul wrote to Titus, "For this cause I left thee in Crete, that thou shouldst ordain priests in every city as I also appointed thee." Titus, I., 5.

293.   The history of the Middle Ages in Europe will prevent men from putting themselves under the domination of priests any more.

Firstly, by becoming a Catholic, one does not put oneself under the domination of priests in any sense such as that you have in mind. Secondly, you are evidently laboring under the superstition that the middle ages were dark, dismal, and dominated by priestcraft. But educated people have long since grown out of that antiquated notion. Mr. Douglas Jerrold has recently written a book called "England." He may not be a Catholic, but he is not blind to the facts of history. "It is hard," he writes, "in this age of unsatisfied desires to recapture the atmosphere of a century of fulfillment. The faith of the thirteenth century was not our faith; the belief in God had not given place to the belief in man as the mainspring of human hopes. Its economy was not ours. The means of production were, as compared with today, ludicrously poor; but on the other hand, they were in the hands of the many, not of the few. Even its politics were different, for the taxpayer was still a free agent with an effective right to decide the limits of his contribution. In the thirteenth century were laid the intellectual foundations of most of what human wisdom has to tell us of the rights of man and the order of nature, and all that modern wisdom has forgotten of man's duty to God." Such is the estimate of Douglas Jerrold, a writer who does know his subject. And he has indicated the real reasons why people do not wish to become Catholics. It is not really, as you suggest, fear of putting themselves under the ''domination of priests." They are at least too sensible to believe in the fears that dread word enkindles in some timid souls. The real reasons are that belief in God has given way to belief in man as the mainspring of human hopes, and that man's duty to God has been forgotten by multitudes who, despite their profession of Christianity, are really indifferent to religion altogether.

294.   The historical ecclesiastic has much to live down.

A close examination of history will reveal that ecclesiastics are not the only ones with a skeleton in the cupboard. All groups, classes, and professions, have a past history which is not without blemish. But, confining ourselves to ecclesiastics, if indeed the historical ecclesiastic has much to live down, it is equally true that he has much more that redounds to his credit. The holy, gentle Christ-like priest appears much more frequently on the stage of this world than the one who has proved unworthy of his calling. But the good ecclesiastic is not "news." He is merely what he is expected to be. It is the occasional bad ecclesiastic who is "news" to a world which delights in the abnormal and unexpected. Moreover, evil men resent the goodness of others, if only for the reason that goodness wherever it appears is the condemnation of evil conduct. And as the evilly-disposed do not like being condemned, they watch the Church with malicious eyes, ready to pounce on anything to her discredit, exaggerate it out of bounds, and broadcast it to all who are willing to listen. It is an indictment of our poor human race that the scandalous can always get much more publicity than the edifying.

295.   Our poor diseased world has ever suffered from ecclesiaslicism.

It has not. An operation involving the complete removal of ecclesiasticism from its midst would not benefit the patient in the least. Its condition would become rapidly worse.

296.   If the Church were always ruled by angelic priests it would be ideal.

It would undoubtedly be to the great advantage to the Church were all priests saintly men, though even in that case there is no guarantee that all Catholics would be equally submissive to the directions of those angelic priests. Yet it would not really be ideal for the Church to have only angelic priests. We must face the realities of life, and the essential frailties of human nature. The only way in which all priests could be rendered angelic always would be for God to render them either absolutely immune from all temptations or incapable of yielding to temptation. But surely, even though one is a priest, he should have to meet his own temptations just as any other man, and should be capable of losing his soul as well as of saving it. It is not ideal that a man should have a through-ticket to heaven just because he has been ordained a priest. Priests are subject to the same laws of virtue as all other men. They have to fight for it, doing violence to themselves, and resisting the temptations life itself carries with it. And on the law of averages, it is to be expected that some will fail even whilst some fight their way to the heights of holiness. Others will remain fair average quality. But the Catholic Church remains ever the same, whatever be the variations in the personal holiness of her priests. We cannot say that the Catholic Church is right when we meet a saintly priest, and then say that the same Church is wrong when we meet a careless priest. An unworthy priest may not practice what he preaches; but at least he will not dare to preach what he practices, in those matters at least where he falls short of Christian virtue. And the Church must be judged by those who do live up to her teachings, not by those who do not.

The Pope

297.   As a Protestant I question your statements that it is necessary to have a Pope.

You are not alone in doing so. In fact, if you did no! do so. you would not still profess to be a Protestant.

298.   Why do we need one?

Because we need the Church Christ thought fit to establish, with just the very constitution He gave it. And since He arranged that we should have a Pope, we need a Pope.

299.   Is not Jesus Christ enough?

One does not accept Jesus Christ who refuses to accept the provision made by Jesus Christ for the guidance of His followers through the ages.

300.   How did the early Church progress without a Pope?

The Church was never without a Pope. From its very foundation St. Peter had been appointed Pope by Christ Himself when He uttered the words: "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church . . . and I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven." Matt. XVI., 18-19.

301.   In the Acts of the Apostles we read that "they added unto the Church daily such as should be saved." Acts XVI., 5.

Converts to Christ, therefore, submitted to the Church Christ had established. And that Church included its constitution under the primacy of St. Peter. All accepted that.

302.   See the manner of government in the early Church. In Acts VIII., 29, we are told that "the Spirit said unto Philip." The Holy Spirit was ruling the Church.

The Holy Spirit is given to the Church, and works in and through the Church, sometimes immediately, as in the case of Philip, sometimes through the channels of visible authorities, as when the Apostles declared of their legislation, "It has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us." Acts XV., 28. Never once, of course, could the Holy Spirit inspire any man to act against the lawful authority of the Church, which is the primary object of the Holy Spirit's guidance and influence. The Holy Spirit does not contradict Himself.

303.   Why should it be different today?

It is not different today. That is why Catholics accept the same conditions as those which prevailed in the early Church.

304.   Is man's moral character so far below the standard of the Apostles that he now needs the Spirit governing second-hand?

I hope you do not imagine that you are on the level of the Apostles! Had you lived in those days, and had you then been a Christian, you would have been as subject to the Apostles in matters of faith and conduct as we Catholics are subject to our Bishops. And when they gave the law, saying, "It has seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us," you would not have refused obedience on the plea that you would not be governed second-hand even by the Holy Spirit.

305.   If Christ gave the Holy Spirit care of the Church, then the Holy Spirit still works in that capacity.

Correct. But you suggest that, although the Holy Spirit was given care of the Church, He allowed the whole Church, Pope, Bishops, and all, to drift to error and deception until the Protestant reformers came along to put it right. If you say that He inspired the Protestant reformers, it is strange that He inspired them with so many different and conflicting ideas! The Holy Spirit knows His own mind. And because she is subject to the Holy Spirit, the Catholic Church knows her own mind. Elsewhere there is chaos.

306.   Would you suggest that St. Paul needed a Pope?

Yes; for he needed just that Church which Christ had established; and since that Church was entrusted to the care of a supreme head on earth, St. Paul needed a Pope.

307.   He wrote to Timothy that there is one mediator between God and man —Christ Jesus.

That is Catholic doctrine, but it does not obviate the necessity of a Pope. Because Christ is the one Mediator, we have to accept whatever method He appoints for the exercise of His mediation. He chose to dispense the benefits of His mediation through the Church He organized, and He decided that the Pope should be in supreme control of the Church in this world.

308.   Paul could go straight to God through Christ Jesus.

Of course he could. So can any Catholic. But we do this by accepting the teachings of the Catholic Church and fulfilling her precepts. That is why our Lord said of His Church, "He who hears you, hears Me." Lk. X., 16. If you think that no agents were ever appointed by Christ to dispense grace to men in His name, the very St. Paul you quote is against you. "Let a man account of us," he wrote to the Corinthians, "as of the ministers of Christ, and the dispensers of the mysteries of God." 1 Cor. IV., 1. Would you reply to him, "I acknowledge no dispenser of any mysteries of God save Christ alone? I go straight to Him, not to you. You can dispense nothing to me—there is one Mediator—Christ Jesus." St. Paul would say to you, "My dear child, I wrote those words, and I ought to know what they mean. They do not exclude His use of us as dispensers of His mediation to mankind. Our power and authority are His power and authority committed to us; and if you want to obey Him, you will account of us as dispensers in His name, and submit to His provision for you." As a matter of fact, St. Paul demanded absolute obedience to his commands. He forgave the sin of the incestuous Corinthian after his repentance, saying, "If I have pardoned anything, I have done it in the person of Christ." 2 Cor. II., 10. Your notion that the supreme mediation of Christ excludes secondary mediators acting in the name of Christ is quite opposed to St. Paul's own teachings.

309.   Do not Catholics believe that the Pope is the living Christ?

No. Every Catholic professes in the Apostles' Creed that Christ rose again from the dead, ascended into heaven, and that there He is at "the right hand of God the Father Almighty." No Catholic believes that Christ dwells in the Vatican, clad in the robes of the Pope. We do believe that Christ has delegated His authority to the Pope as supreme visible head of the visible Church in this world, but the Pope is certainly not the living Christ in person.

310.   Pope Pius X. made the blasphemous claim that he was "Jesus Christ hidden under the veil of the flesh. Does the Pope speak? It is Jesus Christ who speaks."

A Protestant paper, the "Church Review," in England, Oct. 3, 1895, charged Cardinal Sarto, Archbishop of Venice, with having uttered those words at Venice. Cardinal Sarto was elected Pope in 1903. But as soon as the charge was made in 1895 that Cardinal Sarto had said those words, inquiries were sent from England to Venice, and Cardinal Sarto produced the manuscript of his discourse. And this is what he actually did say: "The Pope represents Jesus Christ Himself, and therefore is a loving father. The life of the Pope is a holocaust of love for the human family. His word is love; love, his weapon; love, the answer he gives to all who hate him; love, his flag, i.e., the Cross, which signed the greatest triumph on earth and in heaven."

311.   Pope Nicholas I. said that the Pope, being God, is judged by no man.

Never did Pope Nicholas I. say that the Pope is God. What he does say is this: "Since those in higher authority are not judged by inferiors, it is evident that the Apostolic See, than which no earthly authority is higher, is judged by none." And that is perfectly sound reasoning. Even in civil law, the king is "above the law," and not subject to his own laws. Hence the legal axiom, "The king can do no wrong." Italy itself has acknowledged, the justice of the Pope's claim to be independent of all civil jurisdiction, and subject to no earthly authorities.

312.   In the "Extravagantes" of Pope John XXII., Roman Canon Law says that it is heresy to deny the power of "Our Lord God the Pope."

That remark is attributed, not to Pope John XXII., but to the Canonist Zen-zelinus, in his commentary on Title XIV of the "Extravagantes." But an examination of the original manuscript of Zenzelinus, preserved in the Vatican Library, failed to reveal the words attributed to him; and it has been definitely proved that the reference to God is an interpolation in later copies of his commentary.

313.   You say that the Pope is the lawful successor of St. Peter.

That is true.

314.   Do you maintain that St. Peter was the first Pope of Rome?

Yes. The word "Pope" simply means "Father," and it is certain that Christ appointed Peter to be the head or spiritual father of the whole Christian family. Also it is certain that he died in Rome.

315.   According to your doctrine Peter was appointed Vicar of Christ before he became Bishop of Rome. Why must his successors first become Bishops of Rome before they become Vicars of Christ?

They become simultaneously Vicars of Christ by becoming Bishops of Rome. Christ conferred the Primacy upon St. Peter in such a way that it would continue in his successors. His successors are those who succeed to the episcopal office he held at the time of his death. Now St. Peter presided over the Church at Rome, and died in that city. Therefore the Bishop of Rome succeeds simultaneously to the Episcopal See and the Primacy.

The Petrine text

316.   Where in the Bible does it say that Peter was the Vicar of God?

The three classical passages in which St. Peter's supremacy over the Church is clearly shown are as follows: In the Gospel of St. Matt. XVl., 18-19, we find Christ saying to Peter, "I say to thee that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church; and the gates of hell will not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, it shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall he loosed also in heaven." Christ there constituted Peter head of the Church in promise, declaring that the office would carry with it the power to act vicariously in the name of Cod. In St. Luke, XXII., 31-32, we have the words of Christ, "Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you, that he might sift you like wheat. But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not; and do thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren." St. John, XXL, 15-17, tells us how Christ, after His resurrection, commissioned St. Peter to feed His lambs, and to feed His sheep, i.e., to be shepherd over the whole flock.

317.   On the strength of the text, "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church," you accord Peter absolute sovereignty over the Church !

Christ alone has absolute sovereignty over the Church. St. Peter had merely a delegated authority from Christ, and it was subject to conditions imposed by Christ.

St. Peter could not change the faith taught by Christ, as he could do had he absolute authority. Had he that, he could have altered things as he pleased. But no. He had to teach what Christ taught. Therefore we do not accord St. Peter absolute authority. But we do say that the fullness of Christ's authority within the limits imposed by Christ was so given to him that all others in the Church were still more secondary in relation to Peter.

318.   Is it not dangerous to base a theory or a dogma upon an isolated proof-text, instead of considering the teaching of Jesus as a whole?

Do not confuse theories with dogmas. A dogma is a defined and certain teaching lifted far above the realm of mere theories. But now for your question. There would be nothing dangerous in basing a dogma even on one isolated proof-text, provided the meaning of that text was quite clear, and its interpretation in no way opposed to anything else in the teachings of Jesus recorded in the Gospel pages. The one text used, after all, would be as much the Word of God as any other texts. As a matter of fact, however, the doctrine of St. Peter's primacy is not based only on one text. It is borne out by other texts, and also by the teaching of Jesus as a whole.

319.   There are weighty reasons for regarding the words "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church" as a later addition to the text.

Even were this particular text not genuine, the primacy of St. Peter could be quite satisfactorily proved from many other places in Scripture. However, the text as given in St. Matthew's Gospel is quite authentic.

320.   I think the arguments against its authenticity outweigh those in its support.

The wish is the father to such a thought. And your anxiety to get rid of the text is a telling tribute to its value on behalf of Rome in your own unconscious estimate.

321.   It seems probable that the words were added in the interests of an ecclesiasticism anxious to discipline those who disputed its claims.

It is certain that the charge of their addition is made in the interests of those who desire to avoid submission to the authority of the Pope as successor of St. Peter. And they grasp at the flimsiest of excuses to secure their elimination. Your contention will deserve consideration only when you are prepared to say just when they were added and by whom.

322.   St. Matthew alone gives the words, though they occur in a passage taken from St. Mark (the earliest Gospel).

It is sheer guesswork that St. Mark's was the earliest Gospel or that St. Matthew made any use of it. The Aramaic genius of the wording in the Petrine text in St. Matthew's Gospel and the sequence of thought in the whole of the context forbid the idea that the text does not belong to the original Gospel. The words appear in all the very oldest Codices, and all editors of the Gospel text give them as certain and guaranteed by the rules of scientific criticism. As, for example, Tischendorfl, Westcott and Hort, Von Soden, Vogels, and others. Nor can any reasonable explanation of the general acceptance of the text throughout the whole Church be given by those who wish to evade its force by the back-door method of denying its authenticity. I might remark that, by the same method, one could wipe out every single text in Scripture which did not happen to fit in with one's own personal theories.

323.   If it was not a later addition, why did St. Mark omit the words?

The reasons should be obvious. St. Mark was St. Peter's companion, and wrote chiefly from St. Peter's own teachings. St. Peter had humility enough not to insist on his own prerogatives. Moreover, to the immediate readers of St. Mark the words were already well known both from the Gosple of St. Matthew, and from the oral teachings of the apostles.

324.   Granted that the text is genuine, the early Fathers differed from Rome's present interpretation. Most of them see in the "rock" not Peter, but Christ, or Peter's confession of faith.

You are an optimist in your appeal to "most" of the Fathers. I admit that quite a number of them give different explanations of this text. I have the list of all their various utterances, drawn up for the consideration of the Vatican Council at the time of the definition of papal infallibility. But the point to be noted about the Fathers is this: They were not bent on giving exegetical interpretations, but theological; and they covered the whole ground against early heresies. You would find in their writings their assertions that Peter is the head of the Church, subordinate only to Christ; that the confession or faith of Peter is the rock foundation of the Church insofar as the Church will ever be preserved in the truth through Peter. The Fathers declare also that all the Apostles are the foundation of the Church, but under the authority of Peter. If you have so great a respect for the Fathers, why do you not accept their general verdict, apart from their comments upon this particular text, that St. Peter was given the primacy by Christ over the whole Church?

325.   Peter, of course, does mean rock. But was not Christ's expression a mere play on words?

In the name of all the Apostles St. Peter had solemnly proclaimed that Jesus was indeed the Son of Almighty God, and in return received the not less solemn words, addressed to him in the singular, "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church." To say that the use of Peter's name was a mere play on words is folly. The text is undoubtedly a proof of the intentions of Christ, initial and persistent, concerning a regular and lasting constitution which He foresees.

326.   The rock cannot refer to Peter, for the original Latin gives "Petros" for Peter, and "Petra" for rock.

All reputable scholars today, both Catholic and Protestant, admit that no valid argument against the Catholic doctrine can be built up from the different genders of petros and petra. For our Lord spoke in Aramaic, and St. Matthew wrote originally in Aramaic, a Hebrew dialect in current use when Christ lived and spoke to tnen. From the Aramaic a Greek translation was made. Then from the Greek a Latin translation was made. The Latin has "Petrus" for Peter, not "Petros." "Petros" is not Latin, but Greek. Now in Latin the word for rock, petra, is a feminine noun. Naturally the word was given a masculine form, "Petrus," when applied to the man, Peter. But the external difference in the Latin or Greek forms of the word, due to considerations of gender, do not affect the question. For in the Aramaic language used by Christ there was no such difference. He said, "Thou art 'Kepha,' and upon this 'Kepha' I will build My Church." The word was exactly the same on each occasion. And it was because Christ used the word "Kepha" that we sometimes find Peter called "Cephas," a Greek transliteration of the Aramaic word itself. No argument from the forms employed in the Latin or Greek translations, therefore, can avail in this matter. See also R. R., Vol. I, Nos. 360-376.

327.   When Christ said, "Upon this rock I will build my Church," He was referring to Himself.

That cannot be accepted. Christ had deliberately changed Simon's name to Peter, which means a rock. And He certainly did not do that merely for the sake of calling him a rock. There was a more profound significance in it than that. Now take the present context. Christ said to His disciples, "Whom do men say that the Son of man is?" Simon Peter replied, "Thou art Christ, the Son of the Living God."

Then Christ said to him in the singular, "Thou art rock, and upon this rock I will build my Church." Even from the grammatical point of view "this" must refer to the nearest noun. If I said, "Paul is an Apostle, and this Apostle will go to the Gentiles," all would know that I was not suddenly changing the reference to myself. Protestant scholars themselves today admit that this is the only really grammatical interpretation, and that other interpretations have been due to theological prejudices.

328.   Christ is the rock. He is called the chief corner stone.

Dr. Plummer, the Protestant scholar, writes as follows in his commentary on St. Matthew: "The fact that Christ Himself elsewhere, by a different metaphor, is called the 'corner stone' (Eph. II., 20; 1 Pet. II., 4-8), must not lead us to deny that Peter is here the foundation rock or stone. In Eph. II., 20, the Apostles and Christian Prophets are the foundation, as Peter is said to be here. The first ten chapters of Acts show us in what sense Peter was the foundation on which the first stones of the Christian Israel were laid. He was the acknowledged Head of the Apostolic body, and he took the lead in admitting both Jews and Gentiles into the Christian Church. "All attempts to explain the 'rock' in any other way than as referring to Peter have ignominiously failed." (Briggs, North Amer. Rev., Feb., 1907, p. 348).

St. Peter's supremacy

329.   Could you imagine our Lord building His Church on a mere man, no matter how good he was?

There is no room for imagining what Christ would do, or would not do, when we know what He did do.

330.   Is it not more consistent with God's plan that His Church should be built on the rock of Peter's confession, and not on Peter?

That profession of faith by Peter was but a preliminary condition which occasioned the promise of Christ to Peter himself. The attributing to the confession of what should be attributed to Peter himself does violence to the text and context. The Protestant scholar Kuinoel says, "Many interpreters have wrongly understood Christ Himself to be the rock, or the profession of faith by Peter. They would not have taken refuge in these distorted interpretations if the Pope had not wrongly tried to vindicate for the successors of St. Peter a singular and divine authority based upon the words 'upon this rock.' "

331.   That necessary foundation, faith in Christ, is still firm and strong; but Peter is long since dead.

It is still a firm and strong principle that faith in Christ is necessary to the Christian religion. But many who profess to be Christians are not firm and strong in that faith. The faith cannot look after itself. It is necesary that authorized agents be appointed to teach and preserve the faith. That is the whole genius of the Catholic Church established by Christ, and founded by Him upon the Apostles, of whom the chief was Peter. Meantime, Peter is not long since dead. The office confided to him has persevered in the Church, and Peter still lives on in his successors—the Popes.

332.   If Peter was the rock, and had the supremacy, why the later argument as to which of the Apostles would be the greater?

Their dispute confirms the Catholic position. As they did not at first understand fully many other things that Christ had said to them, and some of them not until they had received the Holy Ghost on Pentecost Sunday, so they only imperfectly understood the sense of our Lord's words concerning the rock and the keys. Yet they knew that Simon's name only had been changed; that he had been called the rock by our Lord, and that he had been singled out for some pre-eminence. There is nothing more natural than that our Lord's apparently special treatment of some should have occasioned discussion amongst the twelve. And it is still more significant that our Lord, instead of telling them that all were equal, should have contented Himself with inculcating lessons of humility.

333.   It certainly needs Roman Catholic spectacles to see Peter as the rock.

You are mistaken. In his book, "The Mission and Message of Jesus," recently published, the Rev. Dr. T. W. Manson, a Protestant authority, declares that the "rock" is Peter himself, and says that verse 19 of Matt. XVI., read in the light of Isaiah XXII., 22, declares that Peter is the ruler of the Church, "God's vicegerent in all the affairs of the kingdom on earth." And he adds, "The authority of Peter is an authority to declare what is right and wrong for the Christian community. His decisions will be confirmed by God." But Dr. Manson adds that, although this is the meaning of the text, the verses afford no justification "for the exaggerated papal claims which have been built upon them." After those last words, no one could accuse Dr. Manson of wearing what you term "Roman Catholic spectacles." Yet he sees clearly that Peter was the rock upon which Christ would build His Church. To preserve his Protestant position, he merely tries to find a new explanation as to "how" Christ built the Church on Peter. But the fact he does not deny, much as it would suit his case to do so.

334.   You insist therefore that Matt. XVI., 18, confers a despotic, universal, unlimited power on Peter?

There is no need to bring in the words despotic and unlimited. His authority was universal insofar as it extended to the whole Church. But it was limited by the law of God and the will of Christ. In no sense was it despotic, for Christ never tired of insisting that authority in the Church must be accompanied by humility and saturated with charity. "The princes of the nations," He said, "lord it over them; but it shall not be so among you; but let him that is chief among you be the servant of all." Mk. X., 42-43. Those words condemn despotism, though we must not lose sight of the fact that, by legislating for him that is chief, it arranges for someone to be chief.

335.   A few verses after Peter is called the rock, Christ said to hint, "Get thee behind me, satan . . . thou savorest not the things of God, but those that be of man." Mk. VIII., 33.

Peter's love for Christ could not bear the thought that his Master should have to endure the things of which He then began to speak. Our Lord appreciated the sympathy which prompted Peter's protest, but insisted strongly that such things must be. In no way did He withdraw any official standing from Peter. If you think He did because these words are subsequent to the promise, then I must draw your attention to the words given by St. Luke XXII., 32, and certainly subsequent to the rebuke you quote, "I have prayed for thee, Simon, that thy faith fail not; and do thou, being converted, confirm thy brethren."

336.   If you take the promise literally, why not take it literally that Peter is satan?

The word satan must be taken literally, in its literal sense of adversary. In an appropriated sense it is applied to the devil as "the" adversary of God and man. In this appropriated sense it does not apply to Peter. His proposal, dictated by his love and affection for Christ, that Christ should not suffer, was adverse to the will of God. But it was not dictated by hatred of God. The dispositions of Peter were quite the opposite of those entertained by the devil.

337.   Later on Peter denied Christ.

After the denial Christ said to him. "Feed My lambs: feed My sheep." Jn. XXI.. 15-17. It is quite certain that Peter's denial did not affect the fulfillment of Christ's promise to him.

338.   Is Peter "a" or "the" foundation of the Church?

He is both, for he is one of the foundations, and the chief of them, upon which Christ built His Church.

339.   Then how do you account for Ephesians II., 19-20?

The verses are: "You are fellow citizens with the saints, and the domestics of God, built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief corner stone." "Corner stone" is, of course, a different metaphor from "foundation stone." Christ is at once the Builder of the Church and the "corner stone" holding it together. But He built it upon the Apostles and Prophets as foundation stones, Peter being the "foundation rock" upon which Christ based the whole of His building. That is the sense of the words, "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church." And such is the only interpretation sound scholarship will permit. The Protestant Dr. Plummer warns his readers not to be influenced in their interpretation of this text by the conclusion they wish to reach. He himself most decidedly rejects papal authority today. Yet he says of this Petrine text: "The Messiah is going to build His Church, a new Israel, for which Peter is to supply the foundation. It is quite clear that here Christ Himself is not the foundation rock or foundation stone. He is the builder of the edifice." Then he gives the words recorded in 328 above.

340.   Matt. XXVIII., 18-20, shows that all the Apostles were equal, and that no one was greater than any other.

The commission to the Apostles to go and to teach all nations, and the promise to be with them all days till the end of the world have no reference to the constitutional authority binding them together amongst themselves. Consequently, the passage you quote does not affect the interpretation of the Petrine texts.

341.   In Rev. XXI., 14, John says of the New Jerusalem that the wall had 12 foundations, and on them the names of the 12 Apostles.

That accords with the fact that Christ founded His Church upon the 12 Apostles collectively. But when we come to the relationship prevailing between the Apostles, we notice that whilst all were equal in the special privileges of the apostolate as such, the primacy amongst the Apostles was given as a unique privilege to St. Peter alone. St. Peter was equal with the others as an Apostle. They had no powers he did not possess. But as regards internal authority in the very constitution of the Church, the other Apostles were not equal to Peter, for he had a power they did not possess—that of the primacy over the whole Church.

342.   If Peter was head, why didn't he appoint Matthias straight out, instead of joining with the other Apostles in electing him?

If you read Acts I., 15-26, you will notice that St. Peter directed the proceedings. It was he who rose and said, "Scripture must be fulfilled, and one of these who have accompanied us must be made a witness of the resurrection with us." Under his directions the election took place by ballot. St. John Chrysostom, Patriarch of Constantinople in the fourth century, and one of the greatest authorities on Christian doctrine, wrote of this passage: "We see here the providential care of St. Peter for the flock. He has the chief authority in this election, since all were entrusted to him. But although he takes the initiative, he refrains from using his full authority. He alone could have appointed Matthias. But in a spirit of simple humility, and to avoid appearing high handed, he graciously permits all to participate."

343.   A Protestant clergyman told me that St. James, Bishop of Jerusalem, was the supreme Bishop in the early Church.

The desire to exalt St. James is born of the wish to depreciate St. Peter. But if St. James was the supreme Bishop in the early Church, who succeeded him in that office? We can point to the successors of St. Peter. Where is the rival lineage derived from St. James? It is intelligible that opponents of the Catholic Church should deny Peter's supremacy, and insist that all the Apostles were equal in all things. That would not be true, but I say that it would be intelligible. But to say that St. James was the superior of all the other Apostles is disastrous to the anti-papal position. For thus an office essential to the very constitution of the Church has lapsed!

344.   Why did St. James preside at the Council of Jerusalem recorded in Acts XV.?

He did not do so. St. Peter presided. Acts XV., 7, says, "After much disputing Peter rose up and said." He then decided the issue. Verse 12 tells us that after Peter had spoken all held their peace. James then expressed his assent to St. Peter's decision. St. James, as local Bishop of Jerusalem, would naturally have a prominent position at the meeting, since it took place in Jerusalem. But there can be no doubt about his deference to the oecumenical position of St. Peter as chief of the Apostles.

345.   If St. Peter was supreme, how could the Apostles send him on a mission?

They could not do so by any command based upon authority over him. Even you will admit that, for if you won't agree that the other Apostles were subject to Peter, you will not go to the other extreme of saying that he was subject to them. The expression is quite easily explained by common counsel and request, based on the general judgment that so important a matter warranted the attention of St. Peter precisely because of his pre-eminence. Much the same thing could occur in a modern Religious Order such as that of the Jesuits. One of the members is appointed in supreme control, and is known as the General. Now it could easily be that, in some important matter, all members would agree that the General himself should attend to it; and published reports would not be wrong in saying that the Jesuits sent their General himself to attend to the affair. And no one would interpret that collective reference as proof that the General was not head of the Order. In much the same way the faithful at Antioch sent Paul and Barnabas to consult the other Apostles at Jerusalem. (Acts XV., 2.) Yet they were subject to the authority of the ones they sent! No argument against the supremacy of St. Peter can be drawn from your suggested difficulty.

346.   Paul says, "Other foundation no man can lay than that which is laid, which is Christ Jesus."

If St. Paul believed that Christ was the one and only foundation, why did he write to the Ephesians, "You are built upon the foundation of the Apostles, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief corner stone"? If the place of Christ did not exclude the Apostles as secondary foundations, nor can it exclude the fact that St. Peter was chief of those secondary foundations.

347.   In Gal. II., 7, Paul says he had the charge of the Gentiles, whilst Peter was for the Jews. That does not look like universal supremacy for Peter.

The universal commission to St. Peter is evident from Christ's instructions to him to feed lambs and sheep—the whole flock. In the text you quote, St. Paul is speaking of the practical exercise of the Apostolate, with no particular reference to the authority inherent in it; also he intended it as a temporary measure only, and as a general, not as an exclusive commission. St. Paul preached again and again to the Jews, and St. Peter to the Gentiles. But there is no contradiction here of the fact that St. Peter was head of the Church.

St. Peter in Rome

348.   Is there any indication in Scripture that St. Peter was ever in Rome?

Yes. St. Peter ends his first Epistle with the words, "The Church which is in Babylon salutes you, and so doth my son Mark." Pagan Rome was called Babylon by the early Christians; and St. Peter was writing from that city. Also, St. Paul wrote his Epistle to the Romans in the year 58 A. D. In it he says that he does not want to preach the Gospel where Christ is already known, because he would not build on "another man's foundation." Yet in the Epistle to the Romans he writes to a Church already founded "whose faith was spoken of throughout the whole world." R. I., 8; declares that he himself had not yet visited Rome, R. I., 10-13; XV., 22-23; but that he hoped to do so when he later set out to visit Spain. R. XV., 24. Commenting on these words, the Protestant Dr. B. J. Kidd writes, "Rome, in short, was 'another man's foundation.' No allusion to the 'other man' by name is wanted. The Romans knew well enough whom he meant. Who, then, was the 'other man'? The evidence is early and threefold in favor of St. Peter." Hist. of Ch., p. 52. The Rev. G. Edmundson, in his "Church in Rome in the First Century," p. 28, writes: "There had been a founder of this great Church with whom St. Paul was well acquainted. Who was he? All tradition answers with one voice the name of St. Peter."

349.   Why did not Paul mention Peter in writing to the Romans, of all people?

No such mention was necessary, and it would have been positively inexpedient. The most ordinary prudence would make St. Paul avoid mentioning St. Peter as Bishop of Rome in written documents which might fall into the hands of the enemies of the Church. The Christians were most careful not to allow the movements and official acts of their Bishops to become known to the authorities of pagan society. Any hint that the head of the Church had taken up his abode in Rome, or was founding his See in the very heart of the Roman Empire would be disastrous if it came into the hands of enemies. St. Paul's remark that he was not going to build on "another man's foundation" was sufficient reference for those to whom he was writing.

350.   Can you prove that Peter was ever Bishop of Rome?

We have a host of early indications that he was, whilst not a single early writer can be quoted as expressing the least doubt on the subject. Heretics and schismatics, as well as Catholics themselves, acknowledged the Bishop of Rome as succeeding to the bishopric of St. Peter. Eusebius wrote as follows: "Peter the Apostle, the first Pontiff of the Christians, when he had first founded the Church at Antioch, proceeds to Rome where, preaching the Gospel, he continues for twenty-five years Bishop of that city." And he adds, "Linus was the first after Peter that obtained the Episcopate of the Church of the Romans." The Protestant Bishop Lightfoot says of Eusebius, "To Eusebius we are indebted for almost all that we know of the lost ecclesiastical literature of the second century ... in no instance that we can test, does Eusebius give a doubtful testimony. ... I do not join in the vulgar outcry against the dishonesty of Eusebius. Whenever I have been able to investigate this charge, I have found it baseless."

351.   Why should not Antioch, Peter's Sec, take priority over Rome, Paul's See?

Rome was never the See of St. Paul. St. Paul himself, by his later visit there, his preaching at Rome, and death in that city, earned the title of co-founder of the Mother-See of Christendom. But Rome was ever called the "Chair of Peter," never the "Chair of Paul"; and Eusebius rightly refers to Linus simply as "the first after Peter." The wonderful organization and faith of the Roman Church before St. Paul went there, and to which he alludes in his Epistle to the Romans, can be accounted for only by Apostolic foundation. And it was undoubtedly St. Peter who founded the Church at Rome, organizing the scattered elements, and placing the Church on a solid basis. Antioch would have had priority had St. Peter remained and died there. But he did not do so. He transferred to Rome, and his successor was naturally the Bishop of Rome, not the Bishop of Antioch.

Temporal power

352.   The Monarch Pope is head, not simply of a religious organisation, but also of a political State with temporal interests of its own.

So far as Catholics throughout the world are concerned, the Pope is the head of a purely religious society known as the Catholic Church. By his control of Vatican City he is politically independent of Italy. But no Catholic in the world, who does not reside in Vatican City, owes political allegiance to the Pope as a temporal ruler.

353.   Christ said that Satan was the prince of this world. Did he give the Pope temporal power, and the right to give away kingdoms?

You can be quite sure that Satan has never been responsible for any power given to the Pope. You cannot argue that Satan is the prince of this world, and, therefore, every prince of this world must be satanic. Satan inspires evil in this world, but all lawful temporal authority is from God, as the New Testament assures us. Any temporal powers possessed by the Pope in past ages belonged to him either in virtue of his office, or by the legitimate title of donation on the part of Catholic princes.

354.   In the eleventh century one Pope gave England to William of Normandy.

No Pope ever gave England to William of Normandy. William claimed the right to the English throne on the score that Edward the Confessor had designated him as his heir, and that Harold had sworn fealty to William as his liege lord according to the feudal system. The Pope, after having been appealed to, examined the evidence, and declared that William possessed the true right to the throne. In other words, upon request, Alexander II. merely decided a question of law.

355.   Could the Pope act like that today?

The eleventh century and the feudal system have gone, never to return. Conditions of those times are no indication of possibilities today under totally different conditions.

356.   Another Pope gave England to Spain.

That is not true. For political reasons, Philip of Spain determined to attack England. English pirates were plundering the merchant ships of Spain, and Elizabeth was stirring up the Turks in Spain to revolt against Spanish authority. She had also shown great hostility to the Catholic Faith, had murdered Mary, Queen of Scots, and was persecuting Catholics because of their religion. But, whilst Pope Sixtus V. knew that Elizabeth deserved any troubles she might bring upon herself, he told Philip that, if he was victorious, he must nominate some other ruler, who would restore the Catholic religion to England, and protect it in the form in which all Englishmen had acknowledged it prior to the Reformation.

357.   Another Pope gave America to Spain and the East to Portugal—all without regard to the feelings and wishes of the people.

You have got hold of a few facts without understanding them in the least, and with no idea of how to interpret them correctly. When Columbus discovered America, a hot dispute arose between Spain and Portugal as to the ownership of the new-found territory. Both nations appealed to the Pope to mediate between them in order to avert war. It was a wise move; and, evil as he may have been in his personal life, Pope Alexander VI. handled this matter with supreme justice and prudence. The German historian Pastor says, "This peaceful settlement of thorny questions is justly regarded as one of the great glories of the Papacy. Nothing but complete misunderstanding and blind party spirit could turn it into an accusation against Rome. • And it is simply absurd to speak of Alexander VI. as having given away what did not belong to him, taking no account of the liberties of the Americans." In all such negotiations, allowance was always made for the rights and consent of the peoples concerned.

358.   Why is the power of Rome declining on the Continent of Europe?

I deny that it is doing so. At various times in certain countries anti-religious minorities may secure political control, but that says nothing about the power of the Church over the hearts and souls of the majority. I have recently read a bitterly anti-Catholic Seventh Day Adventist publication, written by A. L. Baker, in which these words occur: "Today we find the Papacy with more power and prestige throughout the world than at any time since the Protestant Reformation. In Europe the World War turned the wheel of fortune in a most amazing way for the Pope. At the outbreak of the war, fourteen nations were accredited to the Vatican. Now more than thirty-five are represented there. The Papacy has greatly strengthened its position in Europe since the war." Mr. Baker then proceeds to say that her obvious increase in power proves her to be the Beast and the Dragon of Revelations. But you try to spoil it all by denying the very foundation of his argument, and by asserting that her power is declining! However, I suppose you would like it both ways. If the Catholic Church is strong, she must be false because Scripture speaks of the strength of the Beast. If she is not strong, she must be false because she cannot grip the hearts and loyalty of her people. So the enemies of the Catholic Church have spoken for centuries. But it makes little difference. She has been watching old enemies buried and new ones born for two thousand years. They come and go. But she goes on forever.

359.   Are anti-Church disturbances due to the improved education of the masses?

No. They have been due to the influence of minority groups of almost entirely irreligious men who have attained to power through the very unpreparedness of the majority. Emancipated from Christian scruples, these irreligious groups have an advantage over those who believe in principled conduct; and they devote much more time to political organizations than those to whom this world is not everything.

360.   You refuse to see signs of the diminishing power of Rome?

The history of the Church has varied from age to age, consisting of increases and decreases of influence, now in this country, now in that; but on the whole the Catholic Church throughout the world is ever growing and expanding and in no previous age has shown greater vitality than at present, save, of course, in her initial days when under the extraordinary control of the Holy Spirit, and accompanied by an altogether special dispensation of miraculous phenomena. But the reaction of the world to the Church in any given age has no real bearing on the question as to whether she is the true Church or not. For the solution of that question she must be studied for what she is in herself.

Infallibility

361.   What assurance did Christ give that His Church would be preserved from error?

When He said, "I will build my Church," He also said that "the gates of hell would never prevail against it." Matt. XVI., 18. But the forces of evil and of error would have prevailed against the Church had she not been rendered infallible. Again, He commanded men to hear the Church under pain of damnation. He sent the Church to teach in His name, and said, "He who hears you hears me." Lk. X., 16. And again, "He who believes and is baptized shall be saved; he who believes not, shall be condemned." Mk. XVI., 16. He could not order us to believe the Church, with our very salvation at stake, yet not guarantee His Church against the possibility of leading us into disastrous errors quite opposed to His teachings. Moreover, when He commissioned the Church to go and to teach all nations, He promised to be with her all days till the end of the world (Matt. XXVIII., 20), and He sent the Holy Spirit to keep her as the "pillar and ground of truth." All this forbids the possibility of a departure from the revealed truth; or, in other words, constitutes a pledge of perpetual infallibility.

362.   In Romans XI., 22, St. Paul wrote to the Church of Rome, telling her to "abide in goodness, otherwise thou also shall he cut off." That practically says, "You are not infallible. So beware."

St. Paul wrote those words to the ordinary members of the Church at Rome, with no reference to the infallibility of the Apostles and Bishops of the Church. To any and every Christian at Rome he said, "Soul, thou art not impeccable—so beware of pride. Take heed to thyself." Infallibility and impeccability are two very different things. Infallibility means that the Bishops as successors of the Apostles and official teachers of the Church are unable collectively to define erroneous doctrines as dogmas of the faith. Impeccability means that one could not commit sin and fall from grace. Christ was impeccable. But Christians are not impeccable, whether they be members of the laity or of the hierarchy of Bishops. Even the Pope is not impeccable. All can sin; and St. Paul is here particularly warning all against the sin of pride and of boasting against the Jews. He tells them that, as God rejected the Jews, so He will reject Christians also if they are not faithful.

363.   In the lifetime of St. John the Lord found it necessary to rebuke the seven Churches in Asia for error. Rev. cc. I-III.

If you study the chapters more closely you will find that there is no hint that the teaching-authority of the Church was guilty of error in doctrine. Infallibility means that the Church cannot officially teach erroneous doctrine. But her officials can err in their conduct, and grow lax and careless in their administration. Infallibility, of course, whilst belonging to the whole Church collectively, belongs specifically in its particular exercise to the "Church-teaching," consisting of the Bishops. Security belongs to the whole Church, including the "Church-taught." But there is no guarantee that all members of the Church will ever retain the humility and docility of true Christians. Individuals can abandon the truth, and fall into error, and into sin. Then it is the duty of the Bishops to correct the wayward subjects. Now you will notice that each of the seven letters are addressed to the "angels" of the Churches. That is, they are addressed to the Bishops in charge of them. And in not one case does the charge concern erroneous doctrine. Thus St. John writes to the angel of the Church at Ephesus, "I know thou canst not bear them that are evil . . . and thou hatest the Nicolaites, which I also hate." To the angel of the Church of Pergamus, "Thou holdest fast my name, and hast not denied my faith." To the angel of the Church of Thyatira, "I know thy works, and thy faith, and thy charity." To the angel at Philadelphia, "Thou hast kept my word, and hast not denied my faith." Nowhere is the orthodoxy of the Bishops denied. Any blame concerns conduct, and carelessness towards others who would introduce wrong doctrine or laxity. As a matter of fact, the letters admit that the Bishops are the custodians of sound doctrine, and should attend to the banishing of error and heresy.

364.   Truth only makes me ask you to consider these things.

Since you reject not only the infallibility of the Catholic Church, but also, I presume, your own infallibility as well, what guarantee have you that your own ideas are necessarily the truth? I have not the same problem; for, although I do not claim infallibility, I am subject to a Church which is infallible, and which gives me certainty of the truth. But you cannot claim certainty yourself, nor have you any certain guide. If ever a man had reason to pause, and seriously examine his own position, it is yourself.

365.   Should not every individual have the right at a reasonable age to re~ ject what does not appeal to him?

Certainly not. On that same principle one would have the right to reject what even Christ taught, if it did not happen to suit one's own ideas. How could any Christian consider himself free to challenge the knowledge or the veracity of Christ, or His right to exact obedience to His magisterial authority? The infallibility of Christ is just as much an obstacle to your principle as the infallibility of the Catholic Church. If, however, one never has the right to reject the teaching of Christ and of His Church, a Catholic may and should verify for himself the credentials of the Catholic Church to teach mankind in the name of, and with the authority of God. I would that every Catholic did so.

366.   The Roman Church seems like a schoolmaster who fears to admit that he is wrong lest he lose prestige.

The Catholic Church is conscious of an infallibility guaranteed by God—an infallibility of which no schoolmaster can be conscious. Christ taught as one having authority, saying, "My doctrine is not mine, but His that sent me." Jn. VII., 16. And the Catholic Church speaks in the same way. Where your schoolmaster knows that he is wrong and fears to admit it, the Catholic Church knows that she is not wrong. There is a world of difference between the two positions. Nor does the Church fear that she will lose her prestige. She dreads only lest any of her subjects should lose their souls.

367.   Has not the Church of Rome sometimes digressed from spiritual matters to matters which did not concern her, as in the Galileo case?

You have not chosen a good example. The Galileo affair, though directly a matter of science, did indirectly concern the Church and spiritual interests, owing both to the circumstances of the time, and Galileo's own indulgence in theological speculations. The political arena would have provided better examples. But even there the Church as a Church did not digress from spiritual matters. No accepted temporal powers of the Popes in past ages have ever affected the official teachings of the Church in matters of faith and morals.

368.   Did not an infallible Pope pronounce Galileo's theory of the revolu-tion of the earth round the sun to be a damnable heresy?

No. Your question implies more than can rightly be said. The Committee of Cardinals and theologians appointed by the Pope to inquire into the theories of Galileo gave the verdict that they were false and contrary to Holy Scripture, and that Galileo himself was "gravely suspect of heresy." After the decision was given the Pope sanctioned it. And the decision, of course, was wrong. But the conditions required for infallibility were not present in this case.

369.   Was the infallible Church right then—or now?

There are no grounds for that question, for the decree against the teaching of Galileo was never issued as an infallible decree. All who understand the conditions required for an infallible decision by the Catholic Church have long since given up the Galileo case as having any bearing on the question at all. Procter, a Protestant astronomer, says this: "It is absolutely certain that the decision in regard to Galileo's teaching, shown now to have been unsound, does not in the slightest degree affect the Catholic doctrine of infallibility whether of the Pope or of the Church." The Protestant historian Karl von Gebler writes, "The two Congregations of the Index, and the Inquisition, and the two Popes who sanctioned their decrees were in error. But no one has ever held that such decisions were infallible even when approved by the Pope, unless specially set forth according to all the conditions of an infallible utterance." Nor was the condemnation of Galileo unintelligible. Although his theory was right, no scientist today will admit that he advanced a single valid proof of the fact. So far as the evidence available was concerned, the old view was just as likely as the new one. Many scientists of the time were opposed to his teachings. And as a matter of fact, ten years before Galileo's condemnation, Kepler, a Protestant scientist, had been condemned for saying the same thing as Galileo by the Protestant theological faculty of Tubingen. The application of the theory to Sacred Scripture was also calculated to have a most disturbing religious effect upon people not prepared for the new knowledge, and from that point of view, efforts to prevent the popular diffusion of the theory were not imprudent. Apart from this judgment in the light of the times, however, the Galileo case has absolutely no bearing on the question of infallibility.

370.   Besides being condemned, was not Galileo brutally tortured by the Inquisition?

No. Refusal to obey the authorities who forbade him to propagate his doctrines brought on Galileo a sentence of imprisonment, a sentence which was commuted into detention on parole in the Palace of the Grand Duke of Tuscany near Rome. From there he was allowed before long to retire to Siena, where he became the honored guest of the Archbishop. We Catholics do not deny any of the facts in the Galileo case merely because we would prefer that they were not true. But, admitting all the facts of history, we are quite able to show that none of them really militates against the truth of the Catholic Church. If a man says that Galileo was condemned and imprisoned without making any exaggerated statements about his punishment or any allusion to infallibility, we are quite prepared to admit his accuracy.

371.   Does infallibility change to conform to times and circumstances?

No. Once an infallible decision has been given, it stands for all time. The Catholic Church is committed to that decision, and all Catholics are obliged to accept it as true.

372.   How could a wrong infallible decision be converted into a right one?

A wrong infallible decision could not occur. It would be absolutely impossible for one Pope to define a given doctrine and for a subsequent Pope to define a contradictory doctrine.

373.   You hold that not only the Catholic Church as a Church is infallible but that the Pope himself is personally so?

The Pope in his capacity as head of the Church is infallible.

374.   Is the Pope blasphemous enough to call himself infallible?

He has faith enough to know that the Holy Ghost, the infallible Spirit of Truth, will preserve him from error when defining truths of faith or morals for the guidance of the whole Church.

375.   Then he is bold enough to challenge the very Holy Spirit of God.

That is not true. He has humility enough to admit that his infallibility when he does exercise his supreme office as teacher of all the faithful is due, not to himself, but to that very Holy Spirit. You yourself are as sure of your own judgment as if you were infallible. Do you claim that the Holy Spirit is surely guiding you to the truth? If so, you are claiming just what the Pope claims, though the Pope claims it under much more limited conditions, and with much greater interests at stake.

376.   I admit that if one could swallow "holus bolus" the doctrine of the in' fallibility of the Pope, an infallible man elected by fallible men, the rest would be easy.

We are not asked to swallow anything, as if it did not matter whether it were reasonable or not. We are asked to believe the doctrine of the infallibility of the Pope in matters of faith and morals. And then, indeed, as you say, the rest follows. For if the Pope is infallible, then there is no doubt that men are obliged to join the Catholic Church to which alone the infallible Pope belongs. But that your difficulty against infallibility is based upon a wrong notion of the Catholic doctrine is evident from your words, "an infallible man elected by fallible men." Your idea is that fallible men cannot give what they themselves do not possess. But no Catholic suggests that they do. If a business manager said, ''I shall create the position of overseer, and grant the occupant special privileges, yet I will allow the men to elect their own choice," the man elected would derive his authority from the manager, not from those who elected him. Thus Christ instituted the office of head of the Church, and granted the prerogative of infallibility to the occupant of the position when acting in his official capacity in certain matters. The Pope may owe his election to his fellow men; but he owes his infallibility to the Holy Spirit in virtue of the promise of Christ.

377.   On what grounds do you hold that the Pope is infallible?

Because he is the lawful successor of St. Peter, and, therefore, inherits that privilege of St. Peter according to the will of Christ who declared that the Church would last till the end of the world with the constitutional powers He gave it.

378.   Where do the Gospels say that even St. Peter was to be infallible?

The doctrine of St. Peter's infallibility is implicitly included in the Petrine texts, given earlier under No. 316. Also, since the whole Catholic Church is infallible, the Pope, as head of the Church, and the last court of appeal, must himself be infallible.

379.   No one could accept the decision of any human being as infallible.

The infallibility of the Pope does not mean that we must accept as infallible the decision of a human being. You are leaving out the most important factor of all. If a criminal, after being sentenced to jail, cried out, "Why should I be sentenced by a mere fellow man?", the judge could reply, "For the purposes of this judgment I am not a mere fellow man. I am a man endowed with authority and jurisdiction by the State. In omitting reference to my official capacity, you are leaving out the most important factor of all." So with the Pope. We do not accept the decision of a human being as infallible; we accept the decision of a human being who has received authority from God to teach in His name, and whom God has promised to preserve from error when he teaches in his official capacity doctrines concerning faith or morals. Your question is due to an imperfect knowledge of what infallibility means, and the conditions governing its exercise.

380.   The issue narrows down to this, that the Pope is enabled by his in-fallibility to interpret exactly the Word of God.

The doctrine is better stated negatively. Infallibility means that God will not permit the Pope to define ex Cathedra, or officially, a doctrine not in accordance with the genuine teaching of Christ. Therefore, if the Pope does define a doctrine, that doctrine cannot be against the true intention of Holy Scripture.

381.   What does "Ex Cathedra" mean?

It means that the Pope must speak, where it is a question of exercising his infallibility, not as a private theologian, but in virtue of his office as supreme head I the whole Church on earth giving a decision for all the members of the Church on a matter of faith or morals.

382.   Does not the prerogative of infallibility suggest that impurity of morals should never have existed amongst the Popes?

The prerogative of infallibility, rightly understood, has no bearing on this matter at all. The exalted office of supreme head of the Church, quite apart from infallibility, certainly suggests that impurity of morals ought not to have existed amongst the Popes. Hence, the distress of good Catholics when they learn that a few of the Popes led unworthy lives. But not for a moment does infallibility suggest that a Pope could not sin did he choose to do so. Catholics do not maintain that the Pope is necessarily impeccable, or simply unable to sin. We must not confuse impeccability and infallibility. They are two totally different things.

383.   Surely a leader who failed in morals would forfeit his right to be the teacher of others!

That depends entirely upon the will of the one who appoints him to be the teacher. A bad man can give quite good advice to others. But your judgment is ruled out by our Lord Himself. Christ blamed the Pharisees for not living up to the moral principles appointed by God. He accused them of pride, vanity, injustice, and intolerance—worse sins than the less malicious frailties of the flesh. Yet He denied that they had forfeited the right to be teachers of others in the name of God. In Matt. XXIII., 2-3, He said to the people, "The Scribes and Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses. All things, therefore, they shall say to you, observe and do; but according to their works do ye not; for they say and do not." The few bad Popes said, and did not. And the Catholic Church absolutely forbids all Catholics to imitate in any way the wrong personal conduct of any bad Pope. But no bad Pope has ever defined a wrong doctrine, or pretended that his own wrong conduct was in accordance with Catholic moral principles.

384.   If the Pope is infallible, why doesn't he give some straight-out rulings on modern problems?

What do you intend by modern problems? If they are outside the sphere of faith and moral principles, you have gone beyond the scope of infallibility. And you cannot expect infallibility to operate in a way that the Catholic doctrine does not demand that it should operate. Meantime, the Pope has given many straight-out rulings on modern problems within his competence—as on social justice, marriage, education, birth control, and other aspects of morality.

385.   Is Pope Leo XIII.'s Encyclical on "Labor" an ex Cathedra utterance, and binding on Catholics under pain of sin should they doubt its teachings?

The Encyclical you mention is not an ex Cathedra utterance. But still Catholics are obliged in conscience to accept its teachings. For the authority of the Church is not limited to infallible definitions only. And quite apart from infallibility, Pope Leo XIII. certainly intended to give an authoritative statement of the moral principles of justice and charity in relation to the workers. Therefore, though we have not to make an act of divine faith in the truth of the Encyclical, we are obliged to accept it in a spirit of reverent obedience. Substantially, at least, we are obliged to take it for granted that the Pope's teaching in that Encyclical is not only not opposed to the doctrines of Christ, but is quite in harmony with them. If doubts come to us in this or that point of his teaching, we must make sure, firstly, that we have indeed understood its proper sense. If we are sure that we have not misunderstood his doctrine, then before allowing ourselves to doubt it, we should make a profound study of the whole subject so that we become competent to form a sound decision. If that study does not confirm our conviction that the Pope is right, then we can submit our difficulties to lawful ecclesiastical authorities, and ask a solution of them. To doubt, or rashly to deny the doctrine of the Encyclical on some given point, without taking these precautions, could become sin in any Catholic who is well instructed enough to know the significance of his conduct.

Unity of the Church

386.   You think unity in the faith is necessary, and that infallibility is the only way to secure such unity?

Undoubtedly. Truth is one, and consistent. Contradictory beliefs cannot be equally true. Moreover, Christ, who declared Himself to be the Truth, insisted on unity of doctrine. He gave definite teachings to His Apostles, and ordered them to preach those definite teachings. He declared that there must be one fold and one shepherd. And He prayed for unity, that all His followers might be one as He and His Father were one.

387.   One Church for people of all nations seems, in any case, to be rather a wild dream.

The fact remains that God has accomplished what you call a wild dream. And the Catholic Church is His masterpiece in this world. One cannot keep the Gospels and reject the Catholic Church. The attempt to do this has led to endless diversity amongst Protestants. They do not grasp the essential teaching of the Gospels. They do not see that the essential work of Christ was to give a system of protection, diffusion, and activity which He established for the service of all times, all peoples great and small, learned and ignorant. That is the marvel, and it is realized in the Catholic Church which embraces over 400 millions drawn from every conceivable nation on the face of the earth.

Holiness of the Church

388.   I agree that the Roman Catholic Church is remarkable for its unity. But should not the true Church of Christ also be holy?

It should be, and is. Catholics, therefore, are justified in their great act of faith, "I believe in the Holy Catholic Church."

389.   Your Church makes a claim that no other Church dare make.

That is true; and I am grateful for the admission. No other Church is really conscious of possessing any of the four great marks of the true Church of Christ, or of being one, holy, catholic, and apostolic.

390.   In what particular way is your Church remarkable for holiness?

She is holy in her Founder, Jesus Christ; in her teachings; in her sacramental system of grace; and in her members. There is no need to dwell on the first point. The Catholic Church alone was founded by Jesus Christ; and there can be do doubt about His holiness. On the other points I must ask you to be patient with a rather lengthy explanation. Take first the question of teaching. The Catholic Church has fought everywhere and at all times to spread and defend the full truth revealed by Christ. Where other professing Christian bodies have made outrageous concessions to rationalistic unbelief, she has remained adamant. And there is not a single dogmatic teaching of the Catholic Church which does not tend to confirm in us the will to sanctify our souls; whether it be the dogma of our origin from God by creation; or of our redemption by Christ, His Son and our Lord; or of our going back to God and to our judgment with one of three possibilities awaiting us—heaven, hell, or purgatory. Certainly, the dogma of hell has never yet induced a man to sin. The dogma of purgatory has inculcated the necessity of purifying our lives by Christian mortification and self-denial. The dogma of grace and of the supernatural rules out mere standards of outward respectability, and demands that one's daily life, personal, domestic, and civic, must be inspired by a deep love of God.

If we turn from the dogmatic teachings of the Catholic Church to her moral laws, we can challenge any man to keep them, and not be the better for it. So, too, we can challenge him to violate them, yet not degenerate. There is no Church on earth which so fights to lift man above the natural and the sensual, fighting for purity of morals, the holiness of marriage, and the rights of God in every department of life. So much so that no one joins the Catholic Church sincerely without desiring a loftier standard of living than was previously proposed to him; and no one leaves the Catholic Church save for a lower standard of conduct. If Catholics go, it is not because they have discovered their Church to be untrue, but because they themselves have not been true to their own conscientious obligations.

But the Catholic Church is not only holy in her teachings; she is also holy in her members. The Church certainly has the power to sanctify men in practice. But, naturally, this power will attain its object insofar as men allow themselves to be influenced by it. In general, ordinary holiness prevails amongst the vast majority of Catholics insofar as they usually keep in a state of grace and out of a state of mortal sin. They do try to keep God's laws conscientiously, often making great sacrifices to do so. They are remarkable for their fidelity to their religious duties to God; to their Sunday Mass; to the Sacraments; to prayer; to fasting and other forms of self-denial; to the obligations of alms-giving and charity. Often they are ridiculed as fools and as scrupulous for this fidelity to their religion by those who regard themselves as advocates of liberty. If they sin from time to time, they are never happy in that state, but are most uneasy until they recover God's grace. And always they will admit that sin is sin, acknowledging themselves to be sinners, rather than hypocritically trying to save their faces by pretending that sin is virtue, and that what is unlawful is really lawful.

Turning from "ordinary" holiness, which does allow for lapses through frailty, though the greater part of life is spent in God's grace, there are hosts of Catholics who go further. They not only consistently avoid mortal sin, but they labor earnestly to emancipate themselves from even venial sins. And yet others push on to the practice of heroic Christian virtue. Take the almost interminable list of canonized Saints produced by the Catholic Church. They are her living miracles through the ages, and her true pride and joy as well as the delight and inspiration of Catholics the world over.

That there are bad Catholics does not affect all that I have said. Christ predicted that there would be bad Catholics. The cockle will grow side by side with the wheat. But we can account for the bad Catholics. It is for the critics of the Church to account for the good ones, and above all, for the Saints who have flourished in every age of the Church.

391. Did not the Roman Church, by its corruption, forfeit its right to be the true Church, so that Christ had to establish the Protestant Churches in its place?

That cannot be said. Christ declared that His Church would be like a net holding good and bad fish. But any corruption amongst the members of the Catholic Church is not because of her teachings, but against them and in spite of them.

392.   What is meant in Scripture by "The Scarlet Woman"?

St. John says, in Rev. XVII., that he saw "a woman sitting on a scarlet colored beast full of names of blasphemy." This "woman" has been popularly called "The Scarlet Woman." Many fantastic explanations have been given as to her real character. Some people have said that the Scarlet Woman represents pagan Rome in the days when the Emperors persecuted the early Christians. But that certainly is not completely true, for the "woman and the beast" are described as outlasting pagan Rome. Others, under the influence of religious prejudice, have said that the Scarlet Woman represents Papal Rome. But that is certainly quite untrue. For Papal Rome has ever labored to forward the cause of Christ, whilst the "woman and the beast" are opposed to Christ and the cause of Christ. There is no absolute certainty as to the Scarlet Woman's full significance. Most probably, as the Church is the "Bride of Christ," so the woman represents the "Bride of Satan." I speak, of course in the mystical sense. The "Woman," therefore, stands for the "Antichristian Spirit." The "Beast" upon which the "Woman" is seated, and which she guides and controls, is the material force of this world. The "Woman and the Beast," therefore, signify an antichristian idealism employing the material forces of this world against the cause of Christ, and against all that is holy and spiritual and good. And always through history, in every age, and right to the end, we shall have manifestations of their evil campaign. The campaign is as violent today as ever it was. Officially Christ is banished from commercial, civil, and national life. We see today a wrong nationalism, coupled with a wrong internationalism, which will have none of one thing only—of God revealed in Christ as absolute over all rulers and nations. The unchristian idealism controlling national and international relations on a purely worldly, materialistic, and selfish basis is a re-crucifixion of Christ and of His cause; and it constitutes a manifestation of the "Woman and the Beast" in our own days.

393.   Why do some people presume that The Scarlet Woman means the Papacy?

Because they are very ignorant of the Catholic Church, hate it without understanding it, and are enabled by their peculiar mentality to believe whatever they would like to be true without further ado.

394.   The Catholic religion, if holy and true, should produce almost invariably a peculiarly excellent type of individual.

You commence with an idea which is only a half-truth. The Catholic religion is able to produce excellent types. If a man seriously wants to be good, the Catholic Church will enable him to be good as no other power on earth. But there cannot be any guarantee that she will invariably produce excellent individuals, because that makes no allowance for the variation in the dispositions of men. Men are not inanimate objects to be sanctified against their will. So Christ compared His religion to seed which falls, some upon good ground, some upon shallow soil, and some upon stone. The seed is always equally good; but its fruit is dependent upon the quality of soil which receives it.

395.   Is not Protestantism as well able to give the spiritual outlook as Catholicism?

That cannot be admitted. It is undeniable that Protestantism as such cannot preserve Christian truth intact, and dare not insist upon the fullness of Christian moral teaching. As a result of the Protestant Reformation we find articles of faith denied; fasting and other forms of mortification not taught; the sense of sin diminishing; the evangelical counsels of poverty, chastity, and obedience inspiring monastic life ignored; a clergy unable to rise to the ideals of celibacy, and as unable to give sound spiritual advice as the laity are unwilling to receive it; nationalism displacing the universal outlook of Christianity; materialism supplanting supernatu-ralism; whilst more and more philanthropy and humanitarianism tend to displace that Christian charity which is in the order of grace, and supposes a pure and disinterested love of God rather than merely of our fellow men.

396.   What regulated conduct of Catholics is the least that visible fellowship of the Church requires?

By "visible fellowship" I presume you mean public adherence to the Catholic Church on the part of the person concerned, and acknowledgment by the Catholic Church that he belongs to her fold. For that, the least required is that the person who professes to be a Catholic has not been excommunicated officially by the Church. The Church, of course, insists that all Catholics are obliged to regulate their conduct in accordance with the ten commandments and the precepts of the Church. Insofar as they do not, they sin; and if they sin publicly in serious degrees, they are forbidden the reception of the Sacraments until they sincerely repent and resolve to do their best to observe the laws of God once more. But whatever their sins, and even though interiorly they are not in God's love and friendship, they still retain external membership of the Church, or, as you call it, "visible fellowship." They are sinners, but they are still Catholics; and the Catholic Church, instead of abandoning them, simply pleads with them to abandon their sins. Conscious that part of her duty is to be a kind of hospital in a spiritually sick world, she does not throw the patients out of the window on the score that they are in grave need of spiritual care. So long as a Catholic continues to profess his faith, and has not so directly defied the authority of the Church as to merit excommunication, he is fulfilling at least the minimum required for continued visible fellowship, and will be publicly acknowledged by the Catholic Church as one of hers.

397.   What are some of the qualifications of a good Catholic?

A good Catholic is essentially a man of duty. Now we can classify our duties as being towards God, towards ourselves, and towards our fellow men. A good Catholic, therefore, is one who fulfills his duties in all three cases. He loyally accepts and lives up to the religion God has revealed, gladly professing the Catholic Faith, regularly fulfilling the duties of prayer, sacramental life and worship prescribed by the Catholic Church, and obeying the commandments of God and the laws of his religion in all things. In addition to this, he fulfills his duties to himself, controlling his lower passions, avoiding vice and cultivating personal virtue according to the dictates of reason and of conscience. As regards his fellow men, he regulates his relations towards them by the master virtues of justice and charity in all things. A man who fulfills all these duties is a really good Catholic. If he does not do so, then insofar as he professes the Catholic Faith he is a Catholic. But his goodness or badness as a Catholic must be measured by the degree in which he succeeds or fails in living up to the ideals I have given.

398.   How is the Roman Church superior to other Churches in the help it gives towards holiness of life?

I have already explained that to some extent under No. 390. But in addition to the ideals and standards of the Catholic Church by which a man knows clearly how to serve God, the worship of the Catholic Church is more helpful than any other Church can offer. The Sacrifice of the Mass, offered in supreme adoration to God, lifts men's souls to Him as nothing else can do. The Sacraments, too,—and all seven—have an immense influence on souls, Baptism conferring the spiritual life; Confirmation strengthening it; Confession destroying later sins which come between the soul and God; Holy Communion bringing Christ to each as the very Guest of the soul; Extreme Unction finally preparing the soul for its meeting with God. The Sacrament of Matrimony is specially ordained to sanctify the duties of the state of marriage, whilst Holy Orders gives a priesthood which has meant an incalculable stream of blessings to the faithful. In addition to those helps, the innumerable practices of piety, prayer, self-denial and abnegation inspired by the Catholic religion result in a greater spirituality and sanctification of men. Finally the discipline of the Catholic Church, based on obedience to the Will of God, has resulted in that general sense of order in the Church which is essential to spiritual progress. In necessarily brief replies I cannot do more than just touch upon the subject; but at least I have said enough to stimulate your own further thoughts.

399.   Whatever you may say, I wouldn't join any Church which has priests.

If you became convinced of the truth of the Catholic Church, you would have to join it whether you approved of the conduct of priests or not. It would be ridiculous to neglect your own salvation because all priests were not as holy as you thought they ought to be. You might as well refuse a legacy because all lawyers are not wealthy! However, if you had a right idea of priests and of the Catholic Church, you would not have your present prejudices. And you cannot say what you would do under happier circumstances.

400.   Ultimately, if we get down to fundamentals, the priests have been the cause of all the troubles in the Church and from persecutors.

That is not true. The vast majority of priests have been men of moderate and self-sacrificing lives.

401.   Is the ideal of chastity for the priests the same as for the nuns?

Yes. The vow of chastity made by both priests and nuns means that any sin against the virtue of purity of morals is also a sacrilege against the virtue of religion. And people who want to live immoral lives do not vow the opposite for the sheer joy of making themselves doubly guilty when they break their vow! It must be remembered too that the vow of chastity does not imply merely a negative obligation to abstain from sins against morality. It implies also that positive obligation of consecrating oneself to God, or of rendering oneself sacred to God, so that the heart and all its affections are reserved for Him alone. Cravings for the consolation of human affections have to be rigidly controlled, never manifested, and elevated by grace to the supernatural and spiritual plane which was characteristic of the love of humanity in the heart of Jesus Christ Himself. The vow of chastity, therefore, demands a very far-reaching and continued renunciation of the sensual in favor of the spiritual.

402.   Are you just saying that, or is it the official doctrine of your Church?

In December, 1935, Pope Pius XI. issued an Encyclical on the Catholic Priesthood. In that Encyclical he writes: "A priest should have a loftiness of spirit, a purity of heart, and a sanctity of life befitting the solemnity and holiness of the office he holds. Clerics, therefore, are bound by a grave obligation of chastity. So grave is the obligation in them of its perfect and total observance that a transgression involves the added guilt of sacrilege." Every student for the priesthood has this drilled into him during his years of study and preparation for his ordination; and that is not the way in which people are prepared for an immoral life.

403.   Of course, as a priest yourself, you would defend your fellow priests even at the expense of the Church.

I certainly would not. The interests of the Church come before the interests of any individual member of the Church. If the conduct of any priest were discreditable to the Church, I would certainly condemn it much more strongly than you would. I give that as a general statement. For in no individual case would I accept the uncorroborated verdict on the conduct of anybody from an anonymous critic.

404.   Are not the outbreaks against the Church in Spain, and Mexico, and other countries due to the selfish lives of priests?

No. I admit that laxity on the part of some priests may have been a contributing factor towards the discontent of some people. But the chief cause of their discontent lies in the very persons of the disaffected. The good man is saddened by the sight of any disedifying example. It is the evil man who rejoices in it, and makes it the excuse to do still more harm to the Church. Outbreaks against the Church are due to the efforts and propaganda of professed enemies of God and of all religion; and to the apathy or even the bitterness of ignorant and ill-disposed members of the Church, who are only too eager to abandon restraints of their religion.

405.   We have nothing to say against the nuns, who live good, useful, and self-denying lives. We are opposed only to priests.

Why, then, do the revolutionaries with whom you sympathize, make straight for convents, burn them to the ground, and subject the nuns to shocking ill-treatment?

406.   Even if Catholics knew that the conduct of a priest was not right, they would be afraid to say anything.

How do you know that? If you were to read the lives of St. Catherine of Siena, or of St. Bernard of Clairvaux, you would find some very straight talk even to Popes —yet both these have been canonized by the Church as Saints. Catholics are not in the least afraid to condemn what is to be condemned; and to report to the Bishop what they believe should be reported. But they do not believe in wholesale condemnations, nor in taking charges for granted without bothering to make sure of the truth. Likewise they know that the law of charity extends not only to calumny, but also to detraction; and they are naturally slow to usurp the right to judge others. But that is not a crime.

407.   Turning from the question of the personal morals of the clergy, is not the power of the Roman Church due to her immense wealth?

The Catholic Church does not owe her spiritual power to such temporal possessions as belong to her. Rather she owes such temporal possessions to the multitudes of Catholics who, after all, had to be converted to the Church through the ages before they could devote their contributions to the support of their religion. In other words, the Church has not influence because she has temporal possessions; she has temporal possessions because she has influence. Her power over men's souls comes first.

408.   Why is the city of Rome itself crowded with Churches in which are stored up most of the finest and valuable art treasures on earth?

The number of Churches is due to the fact that, during the last 1900 years many parish Churches, special Shrines, and Chapels to various colleges, Universities, and Central Houses of Religious Orders have been built in that great center of Christendom. Not most of the art treasures on earth are stored in them. One who could suggest that must have sedulously avoided the Museums and Art Galleries throughout the world. If those that do exist in Rome are amongst the finest in the world, that is due to the high level of culture and genius of artists drawn from the Italian people. Their preservation in the Churches is due to the fact that the artists had faith and piety enough to devote their genius to the fitting adornment of this Church or that; and that the death of the artists did not make the authorities feel free to sell these offerings in honor of God's House to wealthy tourists. As a result, travelers from all over the world are still able to see them and appreciate them.

409.    Are not Catholic Churches and institutions built on the best land and in the most expensive style even in our own country, for which the congregations must pay?

That is not a fact.    Such buildings have to be built somewhere;   and it is earn to term as the best whatever blocks of land they are built upon—after the event. I It is but wisdom, of course, to choose a site suitable and convenient to the uses of the institutions in question.    And if good and solid buildings are erected these are not the most expensive in the long run, but really the cheapest.    We must take long- I sighted views.    Finally, those members of the Catholic Church who can afford to to do so, and are willing to do so, will meet the expenses required in due course. Those so burdened with other expenses that they really cannot afford to give, ought not to give;   and those not willing to give, are not compelled to give.    In most cases the debt is spread out over years, and even over generations, many people giving a little regularly according to their means.

410.    Is not the confessional used to compel people to pay for Church purposes?

No. Nor has any priest the right to make use of the confessional to compel subscriptions towards Church enterprises over and above one's ordinary duty of normal contributions.    And even then, he can but point out one's duty when asked.

411.    Does not the Church compel people to go to Mass so that she can extract wealth from an assured congregation?

No. Firstly, the obligation to attend Mass is but an application of God's commandment, "Remember that thou keep holy the Sabbath day." Secondly, the Church insists upon the fulfillment of this obligation so that God may receive due acknowledgment from men, not that she may extract wealth from them. Thirdly, if the Church takes advantage of the presence of her people at Mass to appeal for the support of her various works, she appeals to the free generosity of those willing to give, and for works necessary for the good of souls, not from personal or selfish reasons.

412.    Ought not the Pope to go round amongst the poor as Christ did?

Christ established the Church, saying that it was then as the smallest of seeds. But He predicted that it would grow into a vast tree. The Pope imitates the virtue of Christ, but the administration of a vast Church of over 400 million subjects necessarily involves duties differing from those of Christ Himself. The Pope goes amongst the poor insofar as many of the poor come to the Vatican for an audience with him. Whenever they come at the time appointed for an audience he sees them, speaks with them, and blesses them and their families. But the Pope cannot leave his greater duties to spend his time wandering around the world from city to city, seeking out the poor. Consider his ordinary day's work. He rises at six; says Mass at seven; and is at his desk by eight. With the help of three secretaries he attends to his correspondence until nine.    Then he turns to the reports of Papal Nuntios and Apostolic Delegates throughout the world. At ten he interviews visiting Bishops or accredited diplomats from foreign governments. After that, audiences are granted to groups of visitors until about 2 p. m. After lunch, the Pope returns to similar work until his evening meal, taking one hour off for a walk in the open air within the Vatican gardens. He dines at eight, then says evening prayers with the staff, and after that studies until about 1 a. m. He gives five hours only to sleep. To speak of his going about to visit the poor in their own homes as if he were an ordinary parish priest shows no knowledge whatever of his duties and responsibilities.

413.   Why does he live in such luxury?

He does not live in luxury. What evidence have you for suggesting that he does? Is it because he dwells in the Vatican which has come down to us through the centuries, and which the Pope does not own? The Pope has to dwell somewhere. He has his room at the Vatican as others have their rooms in their own homes or in boarding houses. You may say that the Pope has a luxurious life inside the Vatican. He has not. He lives very simply, and works very hard. He has the usual Continental breakfast—a cup of coffee and a roll of bread. His dinner, at 2 p. m., consists of boiled meat and vegetables, rice, fruit, and coffee. At 8 p. m., for supper he has boiled eggs, bread and butter, and a cup of hot milk. That can scarcely be called luxury.

414.   Has your disappointment with the Catholics you have met ever made you regret becoming a Catholic?

I have not met only with disappointments. Some individual Catholics have proved a disappointment insofar as they have failed to live up to their religion. They make a very poor thing of their lives considering the graces at their disposal. On the other hand, I have been greatly edified by good Catholics who do live up to their religion, and who have manifested a holiness and a degree of spirituality in circumstances and places where one would scarcely expect to find a saint. But whatever my disappointment with some Catholics, never have I been disappointed with the Catholic Church. She is the true Church of Jesus Christ, and is rightly described by St. Paul as "a glorious Church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing." Eph. V., 27. Her only tendency is to produce saints. Insofar as her children allow her to do so, her one effort is to destroy in them all that could prevent their becoming saints. The Catholic Church is absolutely holy in herself, and she is relatively holy in those whom she influences to the degree in which they submit to her influence. As Catholics withdraw from the practical influence of their Church, less and less, of course, is to be expected of them. But amidst all faults of human frailty, the ideals of Catholics remain as long as they retain the faith. If they know that one who gives bad example is a Catholic, they are more horrified than they would be were he anything else. If a priest gives scandal, their misery and sorrow will scarcely bear description. And the more they love their religion the more broken hearted they are; for the more they realize how utterly repugnant to Catholic principles and ideals is any deliberate evil in one who shares in the very priesthood of Christ.

Catholicity of the Church

415. You claim that your Church is not only one united Church, and holy, but also that it is Catholic.

That is true.

416. Your Church has not been known as Catholic since its foundation; and it has never been universal as the word implies.

The word "Catholic" is derived from the Greek, and it means whole, complete, and universal. The word was first applied to the Church to which we Catholics belong by St. Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, who died in the year 107 A.D. He used the word to describe the universality of the Church founded by Christ and subject to the Bishop of Rome. And that Church was truly universal in character from the very beginning. She was commissioned by Christ to go to the ends of the earth and to teach all He had revealed to all nations. She was, therefore, Catholic in scope, though it naturally required time to spread to all localities and peoples in actual fact Again the Church which Christ established was Catholic in time, since it was to last, as one and the same Church, all days till the end of the world. And the Church to which we Catholics belong is the only Church which has been in the world since the time of Christ. She alone teaches all that Christ taught; she alone gives all the means of salvation and sanctification instituted by Christ; she alone draws her members from all nations without exception, and is alone adapted to the needs of all men independently of their racial and political differences. In a word, she alone is the one true Catholic Church.

417.   Which is the largest individual religion in the world today?

The 400 millions of Catholics subject to the Bishop of Rome, Pope Pius XII., constitute the largest religious body in the world. There are about 350 million Confucians and Taoists; 230 million Mahometans; 220 million Hindus; 200 million Buddhists; 200 million Protestants of all kinds; 130 million belonging to the various Greek Orthodox Churches; 16 million Jews; and many smaller forms of isolated pagan religions.

418.   Why do you describe your Church as the "Catholic Church," and not as the "Roman Catholic" Church?

Because "Catholic Church" is a sufficient and correct description of our Church. By that title the Church whose chief shepherd is the Bishop of Rome is sufficiently described and identified as distinct from all Protestant, Greek, Unitarian, Jewish, and other religions. The title "Roman Catholic" is an incorrect expression. I refuse to use it because it could confirm Protestants in the mistaken idea that there are other kinds of Catholics. Also it is a contradiction in terms to have a limiting adjective before a word meaning "universal." One cannot limit the unlimited, or localize the universal. To say "Roman Catholic Church" with any idea of restriction is to say "the not-universal universal Church." And that is absurd.

419.   You have not the right to drop the word "Roman."

We do not drop the word "Roman." We have never used that word officially as Protestants now want to use it; i. e., as an adjective qualifying "Catholic." Officially, we may say that our Church is the Catholic and Roman Church—Catholic, because it is universal, encircling the world; Roman, because its center is the Apostolic See of Rome. The universal Church must have a center somewhere. It happens to be at Rome, whose Bishop is the successor of St. Peter. In reality, it is for us to ask Protestants why they now want to call themselves "Catholics," qualifying us as "Roman" in order to suggest that we are not the only Catholics. At one time they absolutely repudiated the idea that they were Catholics. The mere suggestion that they might be Catholics would meet with an indignant denial.

420.   The word Catholic means universal.

Therefore, it abstracts from all national considerations.

421.   Would it not be more universal if the Pope were not always an Italian?

It would be less universal if national considerations had such weight that each nation in turn wanted to exert its influence. We see in the Pope simply the successor of St. Peter, and the Vicar of Christ.

422.   One could not imagine a Protestant Archbishop submitting to any foreign control.

Protestants themselves insist that Christ is the Head of the Church. What would they do did He return to earth in His human nature to assert His rights? For nationally He would be a foreigner to them. In His human nature He was a Palestinian Jew, who had not a drop of British blood in His veins, nor the privilege of belonging to the British Empire. The source of your difficulties is your national outlook. You use the word foreigner as opposed to allegiance to a nation in and of this world. But Christ said, "My kingdom is not of this world." He told His disciples, "You are in, but not of this world." He repudiated the blending of religion and nationalism amongst the Jews, and sent His Church to teach all nations. However diverse by nationality, all were to be one in the Church. As an Australian, I am a foreigner to Italians. Italians are foreigners from an Australian point of view. But as Catholics owing the same spiritual allegiance to Christ, there is no room for the word foreigner amongst members of the universal Church. We Catholics can say with St. Paul, "There is neither Jew nor Greek; there is neither bond nor free; there is neither male nor female; for we are all one in Christ Jesus." Gal. III., 28. These earthly differences do not count in the true religion of Christ. We are "Catholic."

423.   Is it not because the Catholic Church thinks it her mission to convert the world that she undertakes so many foreign missions?

That is so.

424.   A government officer of Papua recently said that unless the mission' aries there could give the natives work as well as civilization, it would be better to leave them alone to work out their own destiny.

The question of work and civilization does not really concern the missionaries. If political administrators and commercial exploiters wish to impose their own civic customs and modes of living upon the natives, then these people must see to it that the natives are provided with means of a livelihood in exchange for that abandoned by the natives. The primary duty of the missionaries is to wean the natives from paganism, and substitute the Christian faith, with its worship of the true God, and its loftier moral standards. And the Catholic missionaries are doing their part well. In his book, "Papua Today," Sir Hubert Murray, the Lieutenant-Governor of Papua, says, "The old so-called religion of the Papuan must inevitably go. It is mere self-deception to suppose that it can be kept alive, even if such a thing were desirable. Secondly, something must be put in its place, otherwise the religious development of the Papuan comes to an end. Thirdly, the only thing we have to put in its place is Christianity." Sir Hubert Murray adds that hostility to the missions is possibly merely the expression of an attitude of the "superior person" with a proper contempt of revealed religion, and that it rarely has relation to their considered opinion.

425.   He added that if we stop these people in their social progress, we will take away the whole of their life interest.

That does not concern the missionaries who certainly will not interfere with the social progress of the natives. The missionaries will give them the true religion of Christ, merely lifting them to an eternal life-interest without changing their life-interest so far as this world is concerned. Sir Hubert Murray writes on this subject: "It must be remembered that many native customs are cruel and revolting in the extreme, and certainly should not be preserved for a day. But, even taking the best of them, those which are deserving of encouragement, and which one would like to see maintained, it is quite certain that most of them, too, must go, as the result of European influence. It is quite useless to try to bolster them up." And he adds: "Unprejudiced opinions must admit the great benefits bestowed upon the natives of Papua by missions operating in the Territory. Both boys and girls are cleaner, healthier, better fed and better mannered at the Mission Stations than anywhere else in Papua."

426.   Christianity is not a sufficient exchange. If we are not going to disillusion those people we should leave them alone.

We have an obligation to free people from the illusions of paganism, giving them a knowledge of the true God, of their Savior Jesus Christ, and of their real destiny. This can be done whilst respecting most of their native customs, and is done by the Catholic Missions, as Sir Hubert Murray has repeatedly insisted. In any case, Christianity is more than sufficient compensation for any temporal disadvantages. The early Christian martyrs thought it sufficient compensation for loss of life itself. It may be that we should not impose our ideas of civic life and commerce upon the natives; but this would not exclude the hope of their exchanging paganism for Christianity.

427.   The white residents are not very favorable to the missions.

Sir William McGregor, the Administrator prior to the present Lieutenant-Governor, Sir Hubert Murray, wrote as follows: "The two finest and best institutions I left in New Guinea were the constabulary and native police, and the missions. To encourage mission work in every possible way was considered a sacred duty of the Government." Captain C. A. W. Moncton, in his book, "Some Experiences of a New Guinea Magistrate," writes, "I am a Churchman (i. e., Episcopalian) and a Churchman I'll die; but if all Roman Catholics were like the members of the Sacred Heart Mission, there soon wouldn't be any other Church in the world." Sir Hubert Murray, in his book, "Papua, or British New Guinea," says, "So far as one may judge from the ordinary conversation that one hears in Papua, the feeling of the general community is not favorable to missions, and I wish to say that I do not share this feeling. I think that the missions not only do good, but that they are absolutely necessary to the development of backward races. An uncivilized people who come into contact with Europeans will inevitably be led sooner or later to abandon their old beliefs; and when these are gone the native is lost, unless someone is there to put some form of religious teaching in their place. The Government cannot do this, and it is not likely that the majority of the settlers will." He adds that his opinion quite abstracts from the question as to whether Christianity is true or not. But he says, "Personally, I believe that it is; but I cannot help thinking that even if I did not believe it as I do, I should from a purely administrative point of view entertain exactly the same opinion as regards the necessity of some form of missionary teaching at the present stage of Papuan evolution."

Apostolicity of the Church

428.   You maintain that the true Church must be One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic; and that your Church alone complies with these requirements.

Correct. The Roman Church is not only One, Holy, and Catholic. She is also Apostolic.

429.   How do we know that even the Apostles were Catholics, and that their teaching was Catholic?

We know that the Apostles were Catholics because Christ not only taught them His doctrine, but told them to go and to teach all nations. The word Catholic means "all." The very commission Christ gave them was a Catholic commission. Again, working backwards, if we take the Catholic Church today, we find that she is the only legitimate successor of the Apostles, and that in virtue of Christ's promise that His Church would never fail, and that He would be with it till the end of the world, the Apostles must have taught then what the Catholic Church leaches now, even as the Catholic Church must teach now what the Apostles taught then. Furthermore, a comparison of the New Testament records of Apostolic teaching with that of the Catholic Church shows perfect conformity, whilst such a comparison with the teachings of other Churches shows departure after departure from the doctrine of the Apostles.

430.   I have been told that no Church came into existence until the fourth century!

That was not a correct statement. Christ personally established the Christian Church. He said clearly, "I will build my Church." He did not say, "I will see that my Church is established in the fourth century." In the first century St. Paul wrote to the Philippians blaming himself for having persecuted "the Church." How could he have done so, if the Church did not come into existence until three centuries later? Professor C. A. Briggs, a Presbyterian, in his book on "Church Unity," p. 205, writes, "I cannot undertake to give even a sketch of the history of the Papacy. We shall have to admit that the Christian Church from the earliest times recognized the primacy of the Roman Bishop, and that all other great Sees at times recognized the supreme jurisdiction of Rome in matters of doctrine, government, and discipline. . . . When the whole case has been carefully examined and all the evidence sifted, the statement of Irenaeus stands firm: We put to confusion all unauthorized assemblies by indicating the tradition derived from the Apostles of the great, ancient, and universally known Church founded at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles Peter and Paul . . . for it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church on account of its pre-eminent authority." St. Irenaeus wrote that in the second century; and you can be quite sure that the Presbyterian Dr. Briggs would not make the admission he has made in this paragraph unless compelled by the evidence to do so.

431.   How do you explain the Apostolic character of your Church?

Christ Himself was its Founder. He prepared the way for it by declaring the fulfillment of the Old Law, announcing His intention to establish a Church, explaining its nature, privileges, and duties, and calling the Apostles whom He appointed to be rulers of the Church, St. Peter being constituted supreme head of the Church on earth. On Pentecost Sunday, or the fiftieth day after His resurrection, He sent the Holy Spirit upon His newly-founded Church in the person of His Apostles, and they commenced their work officially that day of preaching the Gospel to all nations.

432.   The commission was to the Apostles; not to any Church.

That cannot stand. Christ established a Church, and the Apostles as the first representatives of that Church received the commission to teach the whole of mankind. It is impossible to restrict the commission to the Apostles only, when the commission was to teach all nations till the end of the world. The Apostles themselves could not go to all nations; nor could they live "all days till the end of the world." The authority was to be exercised in every age thenceforth. There must be some body in the world exercising it now. The commission to the Apostles has survived in the Catholic Church so carefully established and guaranteed by Christ.

433.   ft is difficult to believe in these Apostolic claims by your Church.

It is impossible to believe in Christ otherwise. If we believe in Christ at all. we must believe that He did establish a definite Church which would last all days from His time till the end of time. But, if you take any other Church except the Catholic Church, you will find that it has not been in the world all days since the time of Christ; and that it was established, not by Christ, but by some later and merely human individual. Yet where we can point to the moment it began in history, and to its originator's name, in the case of every non-Catholic Church, no man can say who founded the Catholic Church and when, if Christ Himself did not. That is why Cardinal Newman, at one time a Protestant clergyman, said, "If the Roman Catholic Church is not the Church of Christ, there never was a Church established by Him."

434.   If there was only one Apostolic religion, your own, when and by whom was a breakaway caused?

Breakaways have occurred right through history, beginning in Apostolic times. Simon Magus, mentioned in the New Testament, was really the forerunner of independent men who set up religions of their own. Christ Himself predicted that men would do this, saying, "There will arise false Christs and false prophets to seduce if possible even the elect." Mk. XIII., 22. But in spite of this, He promised to His true Church, "I will be with you all days even to the end of the world." In the first centuries there were heretical founders of rival Churches—men whose names are found only in textbooks of history—Montanus, Manichaeus, Arius, Donatus, etc. In later centuries we find the founders of the Greek Church, Photius and Michael Ceru-larius. And later still the founders of the various Protestant Churches—Luther, Henry VIII., John Knox, and a host of others. As the years go on, others will arise, linger for a time, and disappear. But the Catholic and Apostolic Church will go on with continued vitality till the end of time. Ever there will be in the world a Church able to trace itself back in an unbroken line to the Apostles; and that Church is the Catholic Church which is subject to the Pope as the successor of St. Peter, the chief of the Apostles.

Indefectibility of the Church

435.   You claim, then that your Church is indestructible?

Yes. She can never fail in existence, in doctrine, in continuity of worship, in her unity or in any other of her properties. She is indefectible and unconquerable.

436.   Do you imagine that your Church is unassailable?

She is not unassailable, for men do assail her. But no enemies will ever succeed in exterminating her. As the political cartoonist made the devil say to Bismarck, "Well, old man, if you do succeed in smashing the Catholic Church, you'll accomplish what I have failed to do despite my 2000 years' effort."

437.   The present state of the world scarcely justifies your confidence in the perseverance of your Church till the end of time.

The present state of the world has nothing to do with it. If not all the forces of hell, certainly not all the forces of this world will prevail against her. Our confidence is not based upon the fluctuating conditions of human society. It is based upon the promise of Christ that He will be with His Church all days till the end of the world. And since Christ is God, He can and will fulfill His promise.

438.   Are not all the Christian Churches decaying and dying?

For other Churches I do not speak. As for the Catholic Church, not only does she offer no signs of decay—she is full of life. Never has the position been more favorable and more full of hope for her. In 1874, but four years after the Pope was rendered a prisoner in the Vatican, and when the world might be expected to discount the prospects of the Catholic Church, Disraeli said in the British Parliament, "I cannot disguise the fact. The Catholic religion is a powerful organism; and, if I may say so, the most powerful today." Yet the position now is immensely stronger than when Disraeli spoke. All this, of course, is from the merely human point of view. From the aspect of her divine protection, the Catholic Church is never weak.

439.   What of the persecutions in Russia, Germany, Mexico, and elsewhere in the modern world?

What of them? Such things have come and gone all through history. The Church can scarcely have worse things to survive in the future than she has survived in the past. Her enemies die, but she goes on; they a memory, she a fact.

440.   I have heard even Catholics admit that things look bad for their Church.

They may say such things at times. Catholics can quite easily have depressing views even whilst they believe in the future of their Church. But I think such Catholics praise the past, forgetting its miseries; and despise the present, forgetting its greatness. It is a tribute, at least, to our ideals of what the Church should be.

441.   History is not in favor of your Church by the mere fact that it records so much opposition against her.

History is in favor of the Church, though "historians" have not always appreciated her. The Church is always suspect to someone. But history records what the Church has done, and faith tells us what she will do. She will last till the end of time, ever bringing forth fruits of holiness and virtue, and contributing as no other force towards the welfare of mankind. That men are and have been opposed to her is no fault of the Church. It is the fault of the prejudices and passions of men. Again, the Church differs in her outlook from the ordinary human viewpoint. She judges from the aspect of eternity; and to men she seems always behind the times, or else ahead of the times. There is bound to be opposition, until men can rise to her level.

442.   Is it any argument to say, "I am persecuted, therefore I am right?"

Not in itself. But it is, when the Church is persecuted because she vindicates right moral principles, imposes duties, and refuses to condone those vices in which men want to indulge. Once men develop a fever of anti-religion, their first thought is the suppression of the Catholic Church. But by shooting down Catholics for going to Mass, these men give one of the strongest arguments for Catholicism. These persecutors say, "Be quiet about the Catholic religion, or we will kill you." The martyr replies, "My death will be my strongest speech." If they say, "Then all of you will die, except that!" the martyr proudly replies, "Then I shall not die." One thing, however, is certain. Whatever persecutions may arise in this world, the Catholic Church will not die. Christ predicted, "As they persecute Me, they will persecute you." But He also said, "I will be with you all days till the end of the world." He will keep His promise.

443.   When you appeal to the past you forget that the very antiquity of your Church is only an additional reason against her being able to continue.

There you are wrong. The antiquity of the Catholic Church does not mean that she is antiquated. As a matter of fact, she is only just beginning. She perfected her constitution only yesterday. Her concentrated organization, the prelude to a vast expansion, is only now coming to maturity. Her recent territorial emancipation from Italy by the Concordat between Mussolini and Pope Pius XI. has but intensified in the eyes of the world her incomparable spiritual prestige. Spirituality and holiness within the Catholic Church are more ardent than ever. And her civilizing influence is so clear that political powers most opposed to her seek her help and use her methods. The future is most promising for the Catholic Church; and whatever her antiquity, she will never be old. Eternal beginnings is the law of that which does not die.

Obligation to be a Catholic

444.   Is it necessary for salvation to become a member of the Catholic Church?

Since God sent His only-begotten Son into this world, and that Son established the Catholic Church, sending it to teach all nations, it is certainly necessary to be taught by that Church if one desires to save his soul. Christ said, "If a man will not hear the Church, let him be as the heathen." Matt. XVIII., 17.

445.   Do you assert that all people not members of the Roman Church are heathens?

I would not make such an assertion without due qualifications. The Catholic Church, of course, stands foursquare for the teachings of the Gospel. She accepts absolutely all that Christ says. And consequently, she accepts the words of Christ recorded in Matt. XVIII., 17, "If a man will not hear the Church, let him be as the heathen." But to whom does the Church apply those words? She applies them only to those who clearly realize that the Catholic Church is the one true Church, yet who refuse submission and obedience to it. Therefore, she does not regard as heathens the vast majority of non-Catholics, for they have never clearly realized her truth. Full allowance is made for sincere yet mistaken people.

446.   Religiously I am just nothing, and have never bothered about religion. Do you say that I am obliged to become a Catholic?

God has declared the Catholic religion to be necessary. And one who becomes aware of that must become a Catholic if he wishes to save his soul. But you adopt a peculiar position. You say you have never bothered about religion. Then it is most necessary that you begin to give your attention to the question. For example, you went to the bother of learning to write. You have bothered to learn the use of various things which are necessary to your earthly welfare. You know what those things are for. But surely it is man's duty to know what he himself is for! And a man cannot know that unless he knows the fundamental truth concerning his origin, his nature, his destiny, and the moral law. The teachings of the true religion alone can provide the necessary knowledge, and a man is obliged to find that true religion. And you are robbed of excuse by the fact that a vast international Church like the Catholic Church is in this world, claiming to speak with the authority of God. Confronted with such a fact, every reasonable man would say, "Such claims are rather tremendous. At least, I'd better look into them and see whether there is any justification for them." One who would note the fact, and simply not bother about it, is violating reason, and has only himself to blame if he wrecks his eternal destiny.

447.   There is no need to join the Catholic Church in order to be saved. John III., 15, says, "Whosoever believeth in Him will not perish, but will have life everlasting."

That particular text does not say that non-Catholics will be saved. It might avail if Christ had never said anything else. But He said much else. And whosoever really believes in Christ must accept every single thing He taught, and try to fulfill all that He commanded. For example, He said, "Unless your justice abound more than that of the Scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven." Matt. V., 20. One could believe in Christ, yet make no effort to acquire the prescribed justice. That is why Christ said, "Not every one who cries: 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven." Matt. VII., 21. It is evident that you cannot attach an unconditional and universal sense to the text you have quoted. They will be saved who so believe in Christ that they are prepared to accept and to fulfill all the conditions prescribed by Him.

448.   There is nothing in those wonderful words of a privileged Church.

The same Christ who uttered those wonderful words also said, "If a man will not hear the Church, let him be as the heathen and the publican." It is necessary then that those who believe in Christ should hear and obey His Church. And you must ask yourself whether you hear and obey any Church as your teacher and ruler in religious matters. Also you must ask yourself what Church Christ had in mind when He spoke. If you say that it is not necessary to obey any Church, you do not believe Christ's word. And in that case you cannot be ranked amongst those included in the promise, "Whosoever believeth in Him shall not perish." The Church Christ had in mind was the Catholic Church; and once a man adverts to the fact, he must join her if he wishes to save his soul.

449.   Gal. III., 28, says, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female; for ye are all one in Christ Jesus."

St. Paul was speaking there of the Catholic Church in which national and earthly differences are no obstacle to membership. Insofar as we are members of the Catholic Church, all other Catholics are our brethren. In our mutual faith there is neither Gentile nor Jew, neither German nor Frenchman, nor Italian, nor Irishman, nor American. We Catholics are all one in Christ Jesus, belonging to His mystical body, the Catholic Church. But you, as a Protestant, do not belong to the same Church as Catholics. You should. The text you quote and which says that we should all be one cannot possibly justify our continued separation and your remaining outside the Catholic Church. In reality, it is Protestantism which says that there are Jews and Gentiles, Englishmen and Germans, Dutch and Norwegians, for it permits religion to differ according to nationality. Where Catholicism has one religion for all nations, Protestantism sanctions as many religions as there are nations, and even variations and divisions within the one nation. The text you quote is really suicidal for Protestantism, and proves the necessity of Catholicism.

450.   Would you presume to say that unless a man is a Catholic he is not serving Christ?

He is not serving Christ as Christ demands. But if he be ignorant of the full teaching of Christ through no fault of his own, he may be trying wholeheartedly to serve Christ, little realizing how mistaken are his ideas.

451.   Surely this is disheartening to many who lead good lives and believe in Christ, yet cannot conscientiously accept the dogmas of Rome.

Since the Catholic Church is the one true Church to which God wills men to belong, it is impossible to hold out equal hopes of salvation to those who reject that Church and deprive themselves of all the helps she can give. And if some of my statements dishearten those outside the Church sufficiently to make them take an interest, inquire, and discover the truth, leading eventually to their becoming Catholics, I have done them a very great service indeed.

CHAPTER NINE

The Church and the Bible

Catholic attitude towards the Bible

452.   Are not all the Christian Churches based on the Bible?

The Protestant Churches originally insisted that the Bible was the Word of God; but they were based on the various senses their founders read into the Bible and declared to be the meaning intended by God. But the Catholic Church, although she insists that the Bible is indeed the Word of God, does not base her position upon the Bible. She is not so foolish as to say, "Believe the Bible to be inspired because I tell you it is; and believe in me because the Bible, which speaks of me, is inspired." That would be a vicious circle. Of course, if a man already believes the Bible to be the inspired Word of God, the Catholic Church can begin from that in her discussions with him, and show that the very Word of God which he accepts justifies her claims. But if a man does not accept the inspiration of the Bible, then the Catholic Church does not appeal to it as inspired. She will justify herself on the grounds of history and reason alone. Only after the man has acknowledged the reasonable character of her claims, and with the help of God's grace has attained to faith in her as the Church of God, will he be prepared to accept her teaching that the Bible is the inspired Word of God. With such a man the Catholic approach differs radically from that of the Protestant Churches.

453.   If you agree that the Roman Catholic Church is not founded on the teachings of the Bible what becomes of her claim to infallibility?

You must not imagine that there could be anything in the Catholic doctrines opposed to the teachings of the Bible. We do not believe that the Catholic Church is founded on the Bible as if men were given the Bible, and then constructed the Catholic Church for themselves according to the ideas they thought the Bible to contain. We believe that the Catholic Church was founded personally by Christ, who built it upon the Apostles, sending them to preach His Gospel and propagate the Christian religion throughout the world. And it was Christ personally who guaranteed the infallibility of the Apostles and of their successors, so that the Church would be unable to err in her official teachings. Since the Church is infallible and the Bible is the inspired Word of God, there will never be a conflict between the two. You must keep in mind, of course, that the Bible is the inspired Word of God in the sense in which God intended all that is written in its pages; not in any false sense which some non-infallible reader desires to impose upon it.

Is Bible reading forbidden to Catholics?

454.   Despite the tributes you pay to the Bible, Rome is hostile to it, and does not want her people to read it.

That is not true. In fact the Catholic Church grants special spiritual favors to those who will read Holy Scripture daily.

455.   Pope Pius VII. in 1816 denounced Bible Societies as a crafty device by which the very foundations of religion are undermined.